White v. Rentdebt Automated Collections et al

MOTION for Summary Judgment

W.D. Ky.June 9, 2017

! I Ell : • I ~ ~ ; C ~ I: I~· ~! ~~ I I # • r 1 ~- _, r l f h t' ! ~· r ;: Jr~ ~ i '\!: ; Destry White, PlaintifJ!Consumer in Propria Persona 9016 Taylorsville rd. #121 17 JUN -9 PH f: 05 Louisville, Kentucky, 40299 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCK LOUISVILLE DIVISON Destry White, a man P laintiff(s) vs. RENTDEBT AUTO MA TED COLLECTIONS, LLC, Defendant (s) § § § § § § § § § § § ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~§ Case No.: 3:16-CV-647-CRS Brief in Support for Summary Judgment Brief in Support for Summary Judgment The plaintiff Destry White (natural person) in this controversy and at all times the consumer pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692a(3) and creditor pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692a(4), the defendant RENTDEBT AUTOMATED COLLECTIONS LLC (RDAC) by and through alleged attorney are a debt collector pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692a(6). Congress enacted the Consumer Protection Laws in 1977 and amended in 2010, Congressional findings and declaration of purpose 15 U .S.C. § 1692a/§802a abusive practices, in 1977 the debt collector attorney was exempt and was allowed to litigate because Congress expected the bar associations to adequately police the attorney violation (Pul. L. No. 95- 109, September 20,1977 - §803(6) (f), 91 Stat at 875), however, the bar associations did not adequately regulate the attorney violation therefore, Congress repealed the exemption Case 3:16-cv-00647-CRS Document 15 Filed 06/09/17 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 98 in 1986 (Pul. L. No.99-336, 100 Stat. 768, 1986) thus now applies to attorney engaged in litigation; therefore, Benjamin A. Bellamy (Benjamin) is bared from litigation of debt collection controversy pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692e(3)-807(3); and further, Benjamin is testifying for RDAC and Benjamin has not first-hand knowledge nor did he witness the plaintiff sign any of those remanufacture document filed as exhibits, thus the response and affidavit was compiled and designed to give the false belief that a creditor of such consumer is participating in the collection of or attempting to collect an alleged debt pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692j; therefore, Benjamin is a debt collector pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692a(6), (the term "debt collector " means any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts ... ) and should be fined and/or disbarred for practicing law without a license, also rule 11, a party or attorney may be sanction for submitting pleading for improper purpose or that contain frivolous arguments without evidentiary support. Benjamin has not presented any evidence in his pleading only attempting to coerce consumer to believe RDAC is authorized to use consumer's property without prior consent given directly from consumer pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692c(a); therefore Benjamin has engaged in identity theft pursuant to 16 CFR §603.2 and should not be granted summary judgment for invasion of a constitutional protection and a statuary protected right pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692c(b). I. It is undisputed that plaintiff sent request for verification directly to RDAC, and his FCRA claim therefore fails as a matter of law. This section is a good example why congress granted consumer a private right of action to protect consumer from unfair, deceptive debt collection practices by attorney and congress barred attorneys from ligating pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692e(3), Benjamin is making a frivolous arguments, this is a FDCP A claim the consumer only point out that FCRA is for creditors to report not debt collector; therefore RDCA is not a creditor pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692a(4) because it (RDCA) received an assignment or transfer of a debt in default ... or as Benjamin stated it was placed with Case 3:16-cv-00647-CRS Document 15 Filed 06/09/17 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 99 it, which the consumer believes this section is obscene or profane language which is to abuse the consumer pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692d(2). II. It is undisputed that plaintiff lacks privity of contract with RDAC, and his KCPA claim therefore fails as a matter of law. Again this section is a good example of Benjamin making frivolous arguments and obscene or profane language which is to abuse the consumer pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(2); and further, Benjamin or it (RDCA) was not given prior consent directly from the consumer or a express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692c(a) and 15 U.S.C. §1692c(b) to communicate with the consumer, which is the use of consumer intellectual property without authorize is identity theft pursuant to 16 CFR §603.2. III. It is undisputed that RDAC responded to plaintiff's request for verification with documents received form the original creditor, and plaintiff's FDCPA claim therefore fails as a matter of law. Again this section is a good example of Benjamin making frivolous arguments and obscene or profane language which is to abuse the consumer pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(2); and further, Benjamin or it (RDCA) was not given prior consent directly from the consumer or a express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692c(a) and 15 U.S.C. §1692c(b) to communicate with the consumer, which is the use of consumer intellectual property without authorize is identity theft pursuant to 16 CFR §603.2; and further, section I, II, III, was compiled and designed to create the false belief that a creditor is participating in the collection of or attempting to collect a debt that consumer allegedly owes, when in fact a creditor is not participating pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692j(a), and any person who violates this section 15 U.S.C. §1692j(a) is liable pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692k(l) for failure to comply with the provision pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692j(b). Case 3:16-cv-00647-CRS Document 15 Filed 06/09/17 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 100 IV. Conclusion This controversy is a FDCP A claim to grant it (RDCA) summary judgment when Benjamin is an alleged attorney making statement for it, attempting to litigate a debt collection controversy. Benjamin is a debt collector pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692a(6) practicing law without a license, attorney are barred from litigating debt collection controversy pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692e(3); therefore to grant summary judgment for it when it only has privileges would deny consumer constitutional protection against domestic violence Article IV section 4, bill of rights amendment 1, petition the Government for a redress of grievances and the consumer protection laws pursuant to public law 111-203, title X, 124 Stat. 2092 (2010). .. Destry White, Consumer Case 3:16-cv-00647-CRS Document 15 Filed 06/09/17 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 101 Destry White, PlaintijflConsumer in Propria Persona 9016 Taylorsville rd. #121 Louisville, Kentucky, 40299 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISON Destry White, a man P laintiff(s) vs. RENTDEBT AUTO MA TED COLLECTIONS, LLC, Defendant (s) } } } } } } } } } } } } } Case No.: 3:16-CV-647-CRS ORDER AND JUDGMENT ORDER AND JUDGMENT The court has before if Plaintiff verified claim and motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff verified claim, original and all attachments were served on Defendant on June 2, 2017 an Affidavit of said Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) has been filed with the court on May 11 , 2017. Case 3:16-cv-00647-CRS Document 15-1 Filed 06/09/17 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 102 The Clerk if the court for the United States Western District of Kentucky Louisville Davison declared that defendant-who is not an infant or incompetent person is in default for failure to comply with Consumer Protection Laws Public Law 111-203, title X, 124 Stat. 2092 (2010) or otherwise defend its conduct and behavior in this controversy. Plaintiff filed the motion for summary judgment on April 20, 2017, Plaintiff seeks (1 ) certain declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Public Law 111 -203, title X, 124 Stat. 2092 (2010), and order compelling defendant for compensation for 10,000.00 (value) in satisfaction of actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692k(l)-813(1) for violation of Consumer Protection Laws. The defendant has failed to respond to Affidavit filed on May 11 , 2017 and failed to obtain verification (a sworn statement attesting to the truth of the facts in a document) thus Plaintiff monition for summary judgment will be granted. Order, that Plaintiff monition for summary judgment is granted, it is Further ordered that the court declares defendant violated the Consumer Protection Laws enacted by Congress 15 U.S.C. §1692c(b)-805, 15 U.S.C. §1692c(c)-805, 15 U.S.C. §1692d(l), (2), (3)-806, 15 U.S.C. §1692e(l), (2, a, b), (3)-807, 15 U.S.C. §1692f(l)-808 and 15 U.S.C. §1692g-809 it is Further order that Plaintiff be compensated 8,000.00 (value) in actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692k(l) it is Further order that defendant is permanently enjoined from violating the consumer protection law, cease and desist communication, close the consumer asset account as defined 15 U.S.C. §1693a and not transfer/assign and/or sale consumer intellectual property it is Case 3:16-cv-00647-CRS Document 15-1 Filed 06/09/17 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 103 Further order that this court retains jurisdiction over any matters pertaining to this judgment; and it is Further order that this controversy is dismissed with prejudice, and the Clerk of Count shall remove it from the docket of the court, this is the final order; So order Date: June 1, 2017 /s/ ........ :-.............. : ..................................... . United States District Judge Case 3:16-cv-00647-CRS Document 15-1 Filed 06/09/17 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 104