ecmc lawsuit filed july 10 2014 final submitted needs scans

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

_____________________________________________________X CASE NO.

MIRIAM SNYDER TABLE OF CONTENTS

PRO SE PLAINTIFF,

-V-

DANIEL FISHER GENERAL COUNSEL/ATTORNEY FOR EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT

CORPORATION, JANICE HINES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE

OFFICER OF EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, RICHARD BOYLE,

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS DIRECTOR OF EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

GROUP CEO, EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (ECMC) AND ELIZABETH

E. FRANKLIN INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CORPORATE COUNSEL PERFORMANT RECOVERY, INC

AND PERFORMANT RECOVERY, INC

DEFENDANTS/DEBT COLLECTORS/FICTITIOUS CREDITORS

_____________________________________________________________X

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. PROPOSED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

II. AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

III. VERIFIED COMPLAINT

IV. VERIFICATION

V. PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT ADDRESSES

VI. AFFIDAVIT OF SPECIFIC NEGATIVE AVERMENT

VII. RULE 34 REQUEST OF PLAINTIFF: PRODUCTION OF CERTIFIED DOCUMENTS

VIII. EXHIBITS

2



------------------------------------------------------------------X

CASE NO.

MIRIAM SNYDER PROPOSED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR

PRO SE PLAINTIFF, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER

-V-

DANIEL FISHER GENERAL COUNSEL/ATTORNEY FOR EDUCATIONAL CREDIT

MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, JANICE HINES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PRESIDENT AND

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,

RICHARD BOYLE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS DIRECTOR OF EDUCATIONAL CREDIT

MANAGEMENT CORPORATION GROUP CEO, EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT

CORPORATION (ECMC) AND ELIZABETH E. FRANKLIN INDIVIDUALLY AND AS

CORPORATE COUNSEL PERFORMANT RECOVERY, INC AND PERFORMANT RECOVERY,

INC


------------------------------------------------------------------X

Upon the affidavits of ___________________________, sworn to the _______day of _____ , and upon the

copy of the verified complaint hereto annexed, it is

ORDERED, that the above named ECMC defendants show cause before a motion term of

this Court, at Room ______, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City, County and State of

New York, on ________ ,______, __________ at ________o'clock in the ________ noon thereof, or as

soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, why an order should not be issued pursuant to Rule 65 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure enjoining the ECMC Defendants during the pendency of this action

from:

3

A. Seizing Plaintiff’s money via a lawless and no notice or due process garnishment while the ECMC

Defendants have no standing, no Defendant lien, warrant, judgment, or Defendant wage Order.

B. Further harassing and calling Plaintiff on her cell phone regarding the Defendants ,

Plaintiff seeks:

1. An immediate stay of all collection efforts by the Defendants due to their lack of standing, no notice,

no due process and because there is no substantial or valid evidence showing Plaintiff owes any

money to the defendants;

2. An Order compelling the Defendants to produce proof of standing, injury, real party in interest,

authority, contract between Plaintiff and Defendants, ECMC Defendants wage Order, and proof of

the existence of a debt owed by Plaintiff to any of the defendants.

ORDERED that, sufficient reason having been shown therefor, pending the

hearing of Plaintiff's application for a preliminary injunction, pursuant to Rule 65, Fed. R. Civ. P.,

the ECMC defendants are temporarily restrained and enjoined.

ORDERED that personal service of a copy of this order and annexed affidavit upon the

defendants or his counsel on or before ______ o'clock in the ______noon, ___________, _________

__________, __________, shall be deemed good and sufficient service thereof.

DATED: New York, New York

ISSUED: _______________

______________________________________________

United States District Judge

4



------------------------------------------------------------------X

MIRIAM SNYDER CASE NO.

PRO SE PLAINTIFF,

AFFIDAVIT MADE UNDER OATH IN SUPPORT OF THE

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

AND IN SUPPORT OF THE ATTACHED VERIFIED

COMPLAINT

-V-








INC


------------------------------------------------------------------X

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND IN SUPPORT

OF THE ATTACHED VERIFIED PETITION

1. Plaintiff Miriam Snyder hereby makes this Affidavit under oath, and state that she is competent and

qualified to make the statements herein and makes these statements upon personal knowledge and

respectfully request an order restraining the defendants from continuing to engage in the illegal debt

collection seizure and theft of the plaintiff’s money and harassment as documented in the attached

Verified Complaint and the Exhibits attached.

5

2. The plaintiff has served notice of her intent to sue against the actions undertaken by the defendants,

previously and several times seeking to settle this matter and spare judicial resources. Please see

exhibits ______. The defendants continued collections while having no standing or Defendant Court

Order and while defendants continue to make harassing phone calls, requires this law suit.

3. The defendants have stolen thousands of dollars from Plaintiff and a copy of the most recent theft

with no Notice or authority occurred on July 1, 2014. The Defendants have garnished her money with

no standing, no authority, no judgment, and no proof of claim,

4. January to March 2014 the Plaintiff filed several criminal complaints against the Defendants. In

response to the criminal reports filed, the theft of her money had stopped in March 2014.

5. June 28, 2014 the Defendants sent the Plaintiff a Notice of Privacy Policy that states: THIS NOTICE

IS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A DEBT. Please see exhibit _____. July 1, 2014 the ECMC

Defendants resurrected the theft of her money without Notice and authority. The Defendants again

engaged in criminal, abusive, deceptive, harassing and unfair practices. The NO Notice extortion with

the above ECMC June 28, 2014 letter was malicious, done to harass and humiliate.

6. I Miriam Snyder have no knowledge or evidence of any money owed to any of the defendants.

7. The ECMC defendants do not have the legal right to seize any money or continue to threaten to seize

money because they are not the real party in interest, they have no business relationship with

Plaintiff, no contract with the Plaintiff and they are not the alleged creditor or lender, despite their

false pretense allegations of being such.

8. The ECMC defendants are not the real party in interest of any instrument, note, or otherwise, that

would give them any type of authority to engage in or continue the criminal seizures/garnishments.

9. There is no adequate remedy at law or compensation that would be sufficient.

10. The plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief.

11. It is likely that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits of the Verified Complaint.

12. The defendants will not suffer harm, loss or injury.

13. The plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded.

14. Pecuniary compensation would not afford adequate relief.

15. It would be extremely difficult to ascertain the amount of compensation which would afford adequate

relief.

6

16. The restraint is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings.

17. The ECMC Defendants or its Agents, at the time of the occurrences were doing business in the State

of New York county of Bronx.

18. Plaintiff has exhausted administrative procedures and still no due process rights have been invoked

that will stop the criminal seizure of Plaintiff’s money while the ECMC defendants have no standing,

authority or any valid evidence. Plaintiff has never had any hearing regarding Defendant’s seizure of

her money despite requests for such.

19. Continuing to the present, the Defendants have wrongfully and unlawfully seized Plaintiff’s money

and rights. Defendants have no authority to steal, seize or garnish as the Defendants are not the real

party in interest or the holder in due course.

20. The ECMC defendants are stealing the Plaintiff’s money while Plaintiff does not have one signed

letter, much more affidavit by the Defendants or ECMC Defendant Court Order. The seizures are

criminal and imminent as they have been sporadically continuous and have inflicted undue hardship.

21. Since on or about July 2012 plaintiff has demanded that ECMC defendants refrain from committing

the Verified Complaint documented acts, but defendants have refused and have threatened to

continue such acts.

22. The Defendants’ multiple deceptive actions and harassment as detailed in the complaint have caused

plaintiff to suffer from induced severe emotional distress that has gone beyond embarrassment and

humiliation. The Defendants actions are outrageous and go beyond standards of social dignity.

23. As a further result of defendant's acts, if these acts are permitted to continue, plaintiff will be

irreparably damaged in an amount of at least $10,000.00 and an additional amount that will be

alleged when additional damages have been determined.

24. Plaintiff has requested authenticated copies showing the existence of a Defendant and Plaintiff

promissory note, lien, judgment, warrant, affidavit, summons, complaint, and contract between

Plaintiff and Defendants and loan documents bearing plaintiff’s signature, yet the defendants have

failed to provide such records. The defendants cannot sue to collect on or seize money for something it

does not own.

25. Plaintiff is entitled to have the criminal theft of her money stopped and her money returned.

26. There is no evidence of any loan owed to the Defendants and Plaintiff states under penalty of perjury

that she does not owe the Defendants any money.

7

27. The need for this injunction outweighs all of the deceit and abuse the Defendants have implemented,

stemming with their willful inability to provide proof of authority, ownership and claim.

28. The Defendants’ criminal seizure of Plaintiff’s money with no authority, coupled with the Defendants

implementation of fraud based presumptions and shift of burden scam, coupled with the Defendants

phone harassment, exemplify Defendant debt collection practices that are perverse, willful, wanton,

reckless, intentional, persistent and continuous. The Defendants’ deceit embedded in stealing

Plaintiff’s money while dodging the real party in interest, proof of authority and claim, were extreme,

intentional, and caused the Plaintiffs severe induced financial and emotional distress.

29. The Defendants’ violations of applicable sections of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)

15 U.S.C. § 1692, Violations of the 1st, 4th,, 5th, 9th and 14th Constitutional Amendments, their

Deprivation of Constitutional Rights and Privileges, 42 U. S . C. § 1983, Conspiracy to Depriving

Persons of Equal Protection of the Laws, 42 U. S. C. § 1985, Intentional Infliction of Emotional

Distress, Invasion of Privacy, willful, malicious, retaliatory, discriminatory, abusive and outrageous

debt collection practices, as well as violations of the New York General Business Laws section §349, et

seq, such violations inflict a criminal and negative effect on public interest and requires this law suit.

30. Continuation of Defendants’ criminal and deceitful debt collection practices and collusion will not

only harm the Plaintiff, but also the public. Constitutional rights will be violated, thus necessitating

an injunction in the public interest. No one’s money should be seized without prior notice, authority,

real party in interest, and proof of claim. These type of Defendant debt collection behaviors and

conduct are odious, perverse and outrageous.

31. I, Plaintiff Miriam Snyder am being harassed by the Defendants ongoing violations of the TCPA. The

Defendants have continued to call Plaintiff’s phone despite, denying Plaintiff a due process hearing,

not validating the debt and despite being noticed to keep all communications in writing and not call

the Plaintiff. The Defendants called Plaintiff to harass her on June 30, 2014 at 8:16 AM and did so

8

using phone number 866 892 4708. Please see exhibit _______. The next day, July 1, 2014, the

Defendants stole her money and did not send any notice as the garnishments had stopped since March

2014. The above noted Defendants debt collection practices are abusive and harassing.

32. Plaintiff demands judgment for a Permanent injunction enjoining defendants from stealing Plaintiff’s

money with no valid authority, no real party in interest, no lien, no warrant, no judgment, no

validation, no contract, no standing, and no capacity and to stop the harassment.

33. The Defendants have placed no facts on the record. No fact appears on record whether by

verification, deposition, admission, or by affidavit to support the claim of the Defendants. Documents

proffered by the Defendants are fraudulent, perjurous, scribbled on, not legible, unauthenticated, and

defective and lacked firsthand knowledge.

34. The record shows that Miriam Snyder has stated that material facts to which there are substantial

Defendant seizure of money with no real evidence errors, and such errors and issues need to be

addressed before any further collections and constitutional obstructions.

35. Miriam Snyder hereby questions, disputes and objects to the authenticity and accuracy, of ALL

dates and/or ALL signatures by ALL parties on ALL documents, including without limitations,

notarized documents, “contracts”, “deeds”, “titles”, affidavits, Promissory Notes, judgments, liens,

warrants, and/or the like, including without limitations the dates and/or signatures by notary publics,

officers, employees, and any and ALL parties attesting to any and ALL claims, facts, accounting,

transfers, recordings, publications, and/or the like, etc.

36. Miriam Snyder disavows any and ALL implied and/or conferred and/or inferred “understanding” of

“legalese” terms now and at the time of the “signing” of any and ALL of the documents pertaining to

this action.

37. Miriam Snyder disavows any and ALL presumptions made by this Court, the defendants and any and

ALL other parties when said presumption may be detrimental to her interest and/or case.

9

38. Miriam Snyder hereby demands ALL of her Rights be protected by this court, including without

limitations, State and Federal constitutionally protected Rights, God given Rights, Civil Rights,

Human Rights, Rights protected by Treaty(s), and/or ALL privileges and/or immunities, and/or the

like.

39. Miriam Snyder hereby demands that this Court refuse to commit, and act to prevent the Defendants

from committing, any and ALL further acts barratrous in nature.

40. Miriam Snyder hereby demands ALL applicable Rules of Court, Rules of Procedures, Laws, and/or

Statutes be adhered to without preference for any party.

41. Other factors that this Court must take into consideration, besides the unconstitutionality of the

purposefully ECMC Defendants no due process seizure of her money, and/or the cognovit contract

incognito; but also must consider contracts of adhesions which are procedurally and substantively

unconscionable contracts and contract foundations built upon mistakes, inadvertence, excusable

negligence, newly discovered information, fraudulent conveyance, misrepresentation and fraud in the

inducement in violation of Federal and New York State law.

42. The very existence of a contract is the very heart of our commercial system as both parties operate in

good faith and any “illegal provisions of the contract are “void,” and thus those provisions were never

part of a validly formed contract.” Three Valleys Mun. Water Dist. v. E.F. Hutton & Co., 925 F.2d

1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 1991), and “voidness” challenges go to the very existence of a contract provision,

and are not merely a defense to a legally formed contract.” Unconscionability is not merely a

defensive doctrine but rather it goes to the predicate of whether a contract was validly formed in the

first place.” California Grocers Ass’n, Inc. v. Bank of America, 22 Cal.App.4th 205, 217 1994): and

the “Doctrine of Unconscionability,” procedural and/or substantively are the tools to determine the

validity of any contract thus ignoring for now the four main elements of a contract.

10

43. Each of the Defendants used the unconscionability aspect of the presumed, unseen and alleged ECMC

Defendant contract or agreement. Unconscionable contracts or clauses are the substantive element of

unconscionability. They traditionally involve contract terms that are so one-sided as to ‘shock the

conscience’ or that impose harsh or oppressive terms.

44. Miriam Snyder objects to, appeals, disputes and hereby rebuts any and all unconscionable

contracting.

45. The terms "due process of law" and “natural rights” as used in the Federal Constitution and/or the

Declaration of Independence, have been repeatedly declared to be the exact equivalent of the phrase

"law of the land" as used in the Magna Charta. 16 Am. Jur. 2d 547; The Affiant Miriam Snyder

hereby incorporates paragraphs one (1) through thirty-nine (39) of the Magna Carta as if they are set

forth at length herein.

46. Due process is needed so everyone is clear on issues in this matter related to standing, jurisdiction,

fraud, illegally obtained, assessed and procedurally incorrect liabilities, Falsification of computer

records and Extortion under the color of law.

47. Please take Judicial Notice of the below relevant educational quote:

"An unconstitutional act is not a law [or a lawful act]; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it

affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had

never been passed [or executed]." [Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425 (1885)]

48. Again, for purposes of clarification, please note this is not a refusal to pay, Plaintiff needs the

standing documents, including the binding contract, US postal receipts, verified assessments, the

Defendant liens, warrants, order, judgment, and or any other computer crafted liabilities defendants

have created and are using for extortion and modernized slavery.

49. I, Miriam Snyder invoke my right to notice before any property interests deprivations.

50. If Defendants consider Plaintiff’s position in error, the Defendants Commercial Affidavit of Truth

which rebuts the Plaintiff’s Affidavit point-for-point, with the real Defendant judgment, warrant,

11

lien, the real party in interest, the real True Bill in Commerce, the real sworn Affidavits that would

make the Defendants claims on Plaintiff VALID, are welcomed.

51. Please note that an unrebutted Affidavit stands as THE TRUTH IN COMMERCE, Plaintiff prays

that these organized fraud crimes, induced poverty, modernized slavery, illusion of legality, and non-

authenticating financial crimes and terrorizations are stopped.

52. Miriam Snyder hereby claims the substantive and procedural Due Process right to have findings of

Fact and Conclusion of Law prior to any further lawless seizure of her money.

53. Plaintiff prays for an Order compelling defendants production of the below:

A. The FRCP 17 Ratification of Commencement,

B. Accurate identification of the parties to the instrument, contract, or dispute,

C. Nature and content of the allegations or claims set forth with particularity,

D. Ledgering-accounting of the remedy or relief sought as recompense or compensation for specific

wrongs or contractual violations of defaults,

E. Evidence of solvency- identification of the property pledged as the stakes over which the dispute

occurs, to be forfeit to the prevailing party to pay the alleged debt/damage,

F. Facts and law- specific laws violated and facts set in evidence by exhibit,

G. Certification- statement under Oath by party asserting an allegation or claim that

everything asserted is “true, correct, and complete”,

H. Witnesses, third party certification substantiating the legal authority of the party executing the

instrument,

54. Authentication or identification of evidence is required as a condition precedent to any seizure of

one’s property. The defendants’ ongoing failure to authenticate documents referred to in their

extortion claims and seizure of Plaintiff’s money renders the Defendants incompetent to testify as to

the matters referred to in this ECMC fraudulent claim and seizure.

12

55. The Defendants failed and refused to perform their duties required by commercial laws. The

defendants’ failed to tabulate services provided for their money demand. They failed to provide

Plaintiff with the alleged amounts in a bookkeeping ledger. The defendants’ failed to produce a True

Bill in Commerce and failed to produce a Commercial Affidavit, with someone taking responsibility.

The Defendants have no valid commercial claim. The defendants’ have failed to produce any

verification or affidavit to their claims as required by law. The affidavit remains the most

fundamental source of authority and power and functional reality in debt collection and the

defendants’ do not have one to solidify their extortion crimes. There is no Defendant affidavit

because Plaintiff owes no money and the Defendants are trying to use Plaintiff for their multifaceted

no ECMC receipt get rich scheme. The defendants’ particularly the ECMC defendants’ should be

sanctioned for their deliberate, malicious, and injurious acts that exceeded their legal authority.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff invokes her attached Verified Complaint Claims for Relief and PRAYS

that an order restraining the commission and continuance of the Defendants unconstitutional, oppressive,

harassing and abusive debt collection acts complained of above and in the attached Verified Complaint,

will be granted. Plaintiff Miriam Snyder seeks an immediate dismissal of the Defendants out of thin air

concocted and not supported by any evidence seizure of her money. Plaintiff seeks an end to the

Defendants frivolous conduct in commencing a money seizure without having the requisite proof needed

for a prima facie case.

I hereby and herein reserve the right to amend and make amends to this Affidavit as necessary in

order that the truth may be ascertained and proceedings justly determined. If the Defendants have any

information that will controvert and overcome this affidavit point for point, please advise the Plaintiff in

written affidavit form and provide the Defendant counter affidavit stating all requisite actual evidentiary

fact and not merely unsubstantiated statements.

The Defendants silence and failure to respond by TACIT PROCURATION will constitute

COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, AND ESTOPPEL BY ACQUIESCENCE that Defendants presumptions

are unfounded and that their burden of prove shifting has been reversed back to them based on their

premeditated coercion scam to defraud using fraud based presumptions and illusions of legality.

13

The Defendants are unable to produce any authority or proof of claim, unable to produce a Real Party in

Interest and the Defendants have not and cannot support their criminal seizure of Plaintiff’s money.

These Defendant debt collection acts exemplify an abuse, seizure of money with no authority that

is arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion and the Defendants default debt collection practices

are not supported by lawful evidence or law.

Plaintiff Miriam Snyder seeks to recover damages for the personal injuries inflicted due to the

Defendants criminal seizure of her money with no standing or authority and such is articulated in the

attached Plaintiff Verified Complaint.

AFFIRMATION

On the ____ day of July 2014, I, Miriam Snyder hereby affirm that the above statements in this Affidavit

in Support of the Order to Show Cause and Verified Complaint with Exhibits, are true, correct and

summarize the ECMC seizure of my money with no authority and or proof of claims. I hereby further

affirm that the basis of these statements is my own direct knowledge, experience, and historical facts

involved. This notarized affidavit with my signature verifies the truth in my sworn statements. All of my

statements are true and correct.

_______________________________________

Miriam Snyder

3230 Cruger Avenue 6B

Bronx, New York 10467

516 642 6007

Affirm before me _________, day of ___________, 2012

Notary Signature____________________________

Commission Expires: Seal

14



------------------------------------------------------------------X

MIRIAM SNYDER VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED

PRO SE PLAINTIFF,

CASE NO.

-V-








INC


------------------------------------------------------------------X

INTRODUCTION

1. This lawsuit is against the above noted Defendants for their gross violations of the Hobbs Act 18

USC 1951 et seq, Violations of TILA 15 USC § 1601 et seq, Violations of the Fair Debt Collection

Practices Act, hereinafter “FDCPA,” 15 U.S.C. §1692., et seq, Violations of the Securities Act of

1934 et seq, Violations of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Sec.

943, Disclosures, H. R. 4173, 2010, Sec. 744. Restitution remedies, Violations of the Telephone

Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2); Violations of

the New York General Business Law, Deceptive Practices Act § 349 et seq, Violations of Federal

15

Civil Procedure § 378, Statute of Frauds et seq., Violations of the 1st, 4th,, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th and 14th

Constitutional Amendments, Deprivation of Constitutional Rights and Privileges, 42 U. S . C. §

1983, Conspiracy to Depriving Persons of Equal Protection of the Laws, 42 U. S. C. §

1985, Violations of the Civil Rights Act et seq, Violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15

U.S.C. §1681 et seq., as well as the laws regarding principal and agent, and agency, Intentional

Infliction of Emotional Distress, Invasion of Privacy, Negligence, willful, malicious, retaliatory,

discriminatory, deceitful, abusive and outrageous debt collection actions against Plaintiff.

2. Plaintiff Miriam Snyder brings this action against the defendants for their willingness to violate

both state and federal laws regulating abusive, deceptive, harassing and unfair business practices,

by engaging in a variety of unconstitutional, and misrepresenting practices.

3. Plaintiff proceeds by way of an Order to Show Cause pursuant to Rule 65 (b)(1) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff seeks Preliminary Injunctive Relief, restraining the defendants

during the pendency of this action and permanently from siphoning her money out of her account

with: no due process, no real evidence, no authority, no proof of claim, no capacity to sue the

Plaintiff, no standing, no real party in interest and no receipt from the ECMC Defendants.

4. This Verified Complaint is in support of the attached application for a TRO and is submitted upon

the attached affidavit in Support of the Order to Show Cause of Miriam Snyder sworn to the ____

day of July 2014.

5. Additionally, Plaintiff has attached an Affidavit of Negative Averment pursuant to Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure Rule 9. Pleading Special Matters. Plaintiff raises an issue as to the legal

existence and authority of the Defendants to seize her money while not having any capacity to sue

and or legal authority and raises this issue via the attached Plaintiff specific negative averment

which includes supporting particulars as are peculiarly within the Plaintiff’s knowledge.

6. This action is brought to seek fair compensation for the catastrophic financial injury, humiliation,

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp


16

harassment, mental suffering and anguish inflicted upon Plaintiff as a result of the

unconstitutional, malicious and wrongful acts of Defendants. This action is also filed to ensure that

these defendants and other junk debt collectors are deterred from engaging in such

unconstitutional and egregious acts again.

7. The Defendant debt collectors have injured the Plaintiff’s credit worthiness by pulling her credit

report with no permissible purpose and the Defendants have stolen Plaintiff’s money using

constitutionally infirmed and deceptive debt collection practices which included: no notice, no due

process, no contract between Plaintiff and any of the defendants, lack of proof of assignment,

contract not seen or proven, alleged Default not seen or proven, account stated, not proven, and

the assignment has not been proven.

8. There is a requisite for Federal court intervention in stopping these debt collection obstructions,

violations of substantive due process rights, abuse of process, non-authentication filings,

harassment, induced oppression crimes and Defendants ongoing pattern of civil rights crimes.

Our legal system is defined by due process and the guarantee that Plaintiff will get the chance to

defend herself against the Defendant debt collectors’ continuous civil rights violations and lawless

lynching’s of her money.

9. The Federal courts have the right and obligation to deter fraudulent claims and unconstitutional

practices from proceeding. This is because Federal courts have often recognized and enforced the

principle that a party who has been guilty of fraud or misconduct in the prosecution or defense of

a civil proceeding should not be permitted to continue to employ the very institution it has

subverted to achieve its ends. The ECMC Defendants and conspirators have perpetrated a fraud

on the Plaintiff which permeated the entire proceedings, judgment against the defendants and the

dismantling of their entire scheme to defraud is sought and is proper on behalf of public policy.

10. Plaintiff invokes her 6th Amendment right to face the alleged accuser. Plaintiff demands that each

17

of the ECMC Defendants produce the “Injured Party” it is stealing Plaintiff’s money for. If the

defendants cannot produce the “injured party”, just like they cannot produce any valid or real

evidence, than Plaintiff demands judgment and penalties against the Defendants for lack of an

injured party and indisputable organized fraud.

11. The ECMC Defendants have no “jurisdiction” to garnish Plaintiff’s money and should be

sanctioned for misconduct, misrepresentations and deceit embedded in extortionist collection

practices. The ECMC Defendants predatory, deceptive, and unscrupulous business practices are

lawless, criminal and must be stopped. Plaintiff seeks Federal court regulation of ECMC to

repudiate ECMC’s unenforceable, invalid, and nonexistent claims.

12. Plaintiff found, after examination of her Equifax consumer credit report, that Defendant Performant

Recovery had obtained Plaintiff’s Equifax consumer credit report on April 17, 2013. Plaintiff

contacted the credit bureau and the Defendant Performant Recovery and notified each of the

impermissible and injurious inquiry in Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §1681,

Willful Non-Compliance.

13. Each of the Defendants have injured the Plaintiff maliciously and without cause. Their failure to

provide Full Disclosure is Fraud, predicated upon violation of Due Process of Law. Fraud is

gaining at the loss of another using trickery or deception. Fraud vitiates a Contract. The

Defendants impermissible inquiry on the Plaintiff’s credit report while not having any business

contract or relationship , coupled with the ECMC’s no real evidence seizure of Plaintiff’s money

without any Notice or Order exemplifies gross civil rights violations, theft, extortion and violations

of the §1692e and 1692f of the FDCPA.

14. Please take judicial Notice that there is no Power of Attorney filed anywhere, pursuant to any

Law, Rule, regulation or Ordinance which permits the above noted debt collector Defendants and

attorneys who do not have first-hand knowledge of the facts to testify, disguise real parties, or

make an Affirmation in this matter.

18

15. There is no admissible evidence anywhere showing that the Defendants in their impermissible

credit report inquiry or garnishing capacity, are real persons, entities, corporation or otherwise

legal fictions authorized to conduct business in the CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK, NY,

NYC, NYS or NEW YORK STATE.

16. There is no real party in interest and Plaintiff objects to these Defendant ambiguities and damages

rooted in the purported debt concocted while they are not the “real party in interest”. Plaintiff

adamantly objects to the entertaining of their lawless acts with no “real party in interest”

established and demands that the real party in interest be identified on the record.

17. There is no evidence anywhere of any Defendant billing statements that could show lawful

accounting, specifically showing how the nonexistent debt was created and who funded the alleged

debt of which the Defendants are claiming.

18. Plaintiff states for the record that she does not owe any money to any of the defendants and has

never had any contract or business dealings with any of them.

19. The defendants criminal unjust enrichment enforcement in this organized fraud extortion and

garnishment while having no admissible evidence and their ongoing lawless actions inflicted on

Plaintiff are so outrageous in character and extreme in degree, that these acts go beyond all

possible bounds of decency. The defendants’ acts are felonious, contemptuous, and can be

regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society.

20. Each of the defendant’s failure of proof in establishing chain of title on assignment of the alleged

debt, while injuring her credit and stealing Plaintiff’s money without any real evidence epitomize

treatment of organizations as if they had a title of nobility. The Defendants unregulated crimes

and the title of nobility treatment is in contravention to the contract clause in the United States

Constitution, Article I, Section 10, and Clause 1.

19

21. Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief against Defendants for administering deceptive acts,

under the disguise and illusion of law, with the intent and for the purpose of depriving Plaintiff of

rights secured under the Constitution and laws of the United States; retaliating against Plaintiff

for her exercise of constitutionally protected FDCPA demand for validation speech; and for

refusing or neglecting to prevent such Deprivations and denials to Plaintiff.

22. The ECMC Defendants have used multiple levels of inflicted confusion, deceit and omission to

smokescreen fraud, such as refusing to sign any of their extortion letters while stealing Plaintiff’s

money. Please see exhibit _____. The Defendants have extorted Plaintiff’s money without any

proof of contract, terms and conditions. The Defendants have enjoined third parties for the

purpose of deceptively identifying the Defendants as creditors while the defendants have never

extended credit to the Plaintiff and are not creditors in this matter.

23. Additionally, Defendants are being sued for deceitfully omitting, misrepresenting and denying

ECMC Defendants status as debt collectors. Please see exhibit __, ECMC’s letter deceitfully

denouncing its status as a debt collection agency in this matter. Plaintiff objects to any

presumption of ECMC being anything other than a bonafide junk debt collector.

24. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Evidence 201, please take judicial Notice of ECMC’s alleged

supervising board, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Supervisory Manual, Page ___,

which confirms that the ECMC Defendants while acquiring alleged default debt, are debt

collectors subject to the FDCPA.

25. Plaintiff seeks to end the Defendants abhorrent debt collection practices once and for all. Plaintiff

is entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, including disgorgement, declaratory

relief, and damages. These Orders are needed to help stop junk debt collectors from harassing,

legally abusing and treating consumers in any criminal manner they wish without any penalty.

26. Plaintiff seeks the return of all of her stolen money, restitution, damages and an end to Defendants

malicious credit reporting injuries and income lynching garnishment permanently.

20

27. Additionally, Plaintiff seeks a cease and desist order against the Defendants, for engaging in

willful conduct which is intended to harass, deceive, defraud and steal money not owed or due

them and because they have demonstrated a complete lack of good faith and fair dealings.

28. The Defendants criminal deceptive collection practices coupled with theft of money not owed them

has a “chilling effect upon the integrity of the litigation process” and is a gross abuse of discretion.

29. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Evidence 201, Plaintiff asks the court to take Judicial Notice of

the Defendants pattern and practice of sanctionable, abusive and terroristic debt collection

practices. The United States First Circuit Court of Appeals, The Honorable Norman H. Stahl

presiding, sanctioned ECMC for abusive, deceptive and aggressive collection tactics in 2012.

Please see exhibit _____ or the below link at: http://washingtonbankruptcy.com/now-time-

challenge-defaulted-federal-student-loan-debt/.

30. ECMC refuses to exercise the necessary care and diligence in their debt collection practices and

have a history of failing to comply with court or evidence requirements. Please see exhibits ____

and take Judicial Notice of the Defendants Junk Debt industry practices, sanctions and

complaints.

31. Judicial recourse against the ECMC Defendants procedural and substantive due process

violations, criminal debt collection practices is needed to provide consumers like Plaintiff with a

means to protect their money and legal interests.

32. In addition to the above noted Defendants debt collection deception, abuse, sanctions and

harassment practices, the Defendant ECMC though its agents, employees, officers, members,

directors, heirs, successors, assigns, principals, trustees, sureties, subrogees,

representatives, and insurers, furthered harassed the Plaintiff by repeatedly calling Plaintiff’s

cellular phone while notified to keep all ECMC communications in writing and to not call Plaintiff

regarding the Defendants concocted, nonexistent and no real evidence alleged debt and

http://washingtonbankruptcy.com/now-time-challenge-defaulted-federal-student-loan-debt/

http://washingtonbankruptcy.com/now-time-challenge-defaulted-federal-student-loan-debt/

21

particularly while the nonexistent debt is not validated.

33. The EMC Defendants are subject to, and required to abide by, the laws of the United States and

the State of New York, which include the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 47 U.S.C.

§227, et seq. ("TCPA") and its related regulations, including 47 C.F.R. §64.1200 ("TCPA

Regulations"), as well as the opinions, regulations and orders issued by the Federal

Communications Commission to implement and enforce the TCPA, the telemarketing regulations

issued by the Federal Trade Commission, 16 C.F.R. §310.4(d)(2). The ECMC Defendant’s failed

to abide by the TCPA laws and while violating such laws, harassed, terrorized and humiliate the

Plaintiff.

34. Up to June 30, 2014 the ECMC Defendants placed constant and continuous harassment calls to

Plaintiff’s cell phone despite being told previously to not call and keep all concerns in writing.

35. Defendants placed more than 10 calls to Plaintiff’s phone while refusing to validate their

concocted default debt. The Defendants placed these harassment calls to the Plaintiff after being

told to not call Plaintiff and to keep all communications in writing.

36. The ECMC Defendants placed harassment calls to Plaintiff’s cell phone number 516 642 6007 and

from telephone numbers 651 221-0037, 1866-892-4708 and other anonymous numbers. .

37. The Defendants are deliberately and criminally using the debt collection process to obstruct civil

rights protections, dismantle protections in the U.S. Constitutions, steal money, to further oppress

targeted populations, to obstruct procedural rules, for harassment, extortion and deceit. The

Defendants seizure of Plaintiff’s money without any real evidence and no proper notice is a legal

nullity and the stealing of Plaintiff’s money with not one of the ECMC Defendants Affidavit or

Affirmation under Penalty of Perjury undermines and obstructs every fiber of law embedded in

the F.R.E. and New York Rules of Evidence and Uniform Rules § 202.12-a(f) due to the lack of

any Fact Testimony under Oath while collecting much more siphoning money on an alleged

22

default debt. Again, the Defendants have refused to perform duties required by law.

38. Each of the Defendants conduct is shown to be motivated by an evil motive, with intent to cause

reckless and callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others, particularly to the

rights of low income, people of color, the elderly and disabled.

39. All conditions precedent to the filing of this case have been performed, have occurred, or have

been satisfied.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

40. This case arises under the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 10, Clause 1. which states

that: No state shall enter into law impairing the obligation of contracts, and 42 U.S.C Sections

1983 and 1988, as amended.

41. The declaratory and injunctive relief sought is authorized by 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201 and 2202

and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

42. Jurisdiction in this case is founded upon 15 U.S.C. 1692k (d), 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3); 47 C.F.R. §

64.1200(a)(2); New York GBS. Law § 349, and supplemental jurisdiction exists for claims

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331, 1343, 1337, and 1367.

43. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331,

because the case arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States; 28 U.S.C. §1343,

because this action seeks redress and damages for violations of U.S.C. §1983 and 1985 and in

particular , the due process and equal protection provisions of the United States Constitution,

including the rights protected in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments thereof and 12 U.S. Code

§ 5565 Relief available and 18 U.S. Code § 1345 - Injunctions against fraud. Complaint states a

claim upon which relief may be granted against Defendants.

44. Venue is proper in the Southern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391b (1), in that the

Plaintiff resides here, the Defendants transact business here, and the conduct complained of

23

occurred here.

III. PARTIES

45. The Plaintiff, Miriam Snyder, is an individual that resides in the County of Bronx, New York, and

is a consumer as the term is defined by FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3).

46. In this matter, Defendants ECMC and Performant Recovery Inc., refers to their agents,

employees, officers, members, directors, heirs, successors, assigns, principals, trustees, sureties,

subrogees, representatives, and insurers.

47. Educational Credit Management Corporation is one of the largest junk debt buyer and collection

agencies in the country. Its success is in large part founded on its willingness to violate both state

and federal laws regulating the conduct of debt collectors, by engaging in a variety of abusive and

deceptive practices. Foremost among the illegal acts in which ECMC engages is garnishment of

wages for nonexistent debts with no real evidence.

48. ECMC is a debt collection agency as that term is defined by 15 USC§1692a (6) and as it is defined

as a debt collection agency in the US Education loan supervising manual on page 24 posted here:

http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201212_cfpb_educationloanexamprocedures.pdf

and attached as exhibit ____, which states that: The debt collector definition has an exception that

frequently applies to loan servicing. Thus, a servicer that purchases the servicing rights for a

portfolio of loans will be a debt collector only for loans that were in “default” at the time of the

purchase.

49. Plaintiff relies on the Brannan Court Order, the above noted CFPB mandates defining ECMC as

a private debt collector agency pursuing alleged default debts. ECMC clearly falls under the

http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201212_cfpb_educationloanexamprocedures.pdf

24

definition of “debt collector” in this matter and Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment confirming

such.

50. The principal purpose of ECMC is the collection of debts using the mails and telephone, and

ECMC regularly attempts to collect debts alleged to be due another. The ECMC Defendants are

“debt collectors" as defined in the FDCPA. At all times described below, ECMC engaged in

conduct which constitutes "trade" and "commerce" as those terms are defined in the FDCPA.

51. ECMC is a corporation engaged in the business of collecting alleged default debts in this judicial

district and elsewhere in this state and the principal place of business for ECMC and all of the

ECMC Defendants is: 1 Imation Place Building 2, Oakdale, MN, 55128 in the United States.

Plaintiff did not find an Educational Credit Management Corporation listing or agent or in the

New York State Department of State files.

52. Defendant Daniel Fisher is the General Counsel for ECMC. He acts as a “debt collector” as that

term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a (6) and in the above mentioned definitions. As General

Counsel, he has a good faith duty to make sure ECMC and its agents respect and enforce

consumer protection laws. In this matter, the evidence shows no general counsel or supervision

over ECMC or its agent’s deceptive and abusive debt collection practices.

53. Attorney Fisher is being sued for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act sections 15

U.S.C. §§ 1692 to 1692p which requires that ECMC make certain disclosures and prohibits

ECMC from collecting on non-validated and no real evidence alleged debts and prohibits abusive

and deceptive behaviors as exemplified in the complaint and exhibits. Attorney Fisher is being

sued for not stopping threats to seize and seizures of Plaintiff’s property while the ECMC

Defendants are not the real parties in interest, had no real evidence or right to seize Plaintiff’s

money.

54. Defendant Hines is a corporate officer of ECMC and acts as a “debt collector” as that term is

defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) and in the above mentioned definitions. Defendant Hines is an

25

entity who at all relevant times was engaged, by use of the mails and telephone, in the business of

attempting to collect a “debt” from Plaintiff, as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(5).

55. Defendant Janice Hines is being sued individually and as president and chief executive officer of

ECMC because of her lack of due diligence, negligent supervision of ECMC’s defendant agents

who violated clearly established statutory and constitutional rights, of which a reasonable person

would have known.

56. Defendant Richard Boyle is or was an employee of Defendant ECMC. He is or was employed as a

“debt collector” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a (6). Plaintiff sent several letters to

him when he was acting as an ECMC official. These letters demanded validation and that he stop

the ECMC Defendants from engaging in civil rights violations as well as, abusive, deceptive, and

unfair practices.

57. Defendants Hines and Boyle are two ECMC persons who use the instrumentality of interstate

commerce or the mails in their business, the principal purpose of which is the collection of alleged

debts, and each one supervises the regular collection or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly,

debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a).

58. Pursuant to 15 U.S. Code § 1692a, the ECMC Corporation is a debt collection agency which

receives assignments or transfers of debt in alleged default solely for the purpose of facilitating

collection of such debt for another.

59. The Defendant, Elizabeth E. Franklin as indicated in exhibit ___ is corporate counsel for

Performant Recovery Inc. Defendant, Franklin is an entity who at all relevant times was engaged,

by use of the mails and telephone, in the business of attempting to collect a “debt” from Plaintiff,

as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(5) and 1692a(6).

60. Performant Recovery Inc. Is a California corporation engaged in the business of collecting debts

26

in this state is and at all relevant times was engaged, by use of the mails and telephone, in the

business of attempting to collect a nonexistent “debt” from Plaintiff, as defined by 15 U.S.C.

§1692a(5). The principal place of business for all the Performant Recovery Defendants is: 333 N

Canyons Parkway, #100, Livermore, California, 94551.

61. All defendants herein are all debt collectors as defined by the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. §1692a(6)

1V. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

US CONST. AMEND. 7. FED. R. CIV. PRO. 38.

V. FACTUAL AVERMENTS

80. Plaintiff(s) brings this action regarding the defendants and each of them, in their continued attempts

to collect a criminally concocted nonexistent debt defendants claim is owed them. However Plaintiff is

without knowledge of the alleged debt defendants’ claim is owed.

81. Plaintiff brings this law suit because there are genuine issues of constitutional due process violations

and commercial law material facts surrounding the Defendants malicious damage to her credit report

and the ECMC Defendants no real evidence garnishment of Plaintiff’s money. Over $2,500 has been

stolen from the Plaintiff by the ECMC Defendants while the Plaintiff has had no due process and

while the Defendants have no real evidence.

82. The alleged obligation arises from a transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services

27

that are the subject of the alleged transaction were incurred primarily for personal, family, or

household purposes and the alleged obligation is asserted to be owed or due to a creditor and not the

Defendants, as they are not creditors in this matter.

83. July 2012, in connection with the collection of an alleged debt, the ECMC Defendants sent initial

written undated and unsigned communication to Plaintiff. Please see exhibit ________. This ECMC

letter was supposed to meet the disclosure requirements pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692g(a)(4) and

1692g(a)(5) but did not. Instead this letter deceptively stated it was sent to the plaintiff to safeguard

her personal financial information. It further states that this notice is not an attempt to collect a debt.

It further directed Plaintiff to do nothing. This ECMC letter was deceptive, misleading and harassing.

It served no other purpose but to harass, confuse and deceive. Since receiving such letter, Plaintiff has

been harassed fervently and her financial privacy exploited by each of the Defendants and their

conspirators. Please see exhibits _____.

84. The ECMC Defendants failed to meaningfully convey the required disclosures, constituting an unfair

and deceptive act in connection with the collection of an alleged debt. (15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e(10),

1692g(a)(4), 1692g(a)(5)).

85. The ECMC Defendants alleged disclosure letter overshadowed and was inconsistent with the

disclosures required by 15 USC § 1692g(a) et seq.). (15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e(10), 1692g(b)). The ECMC

Defendants actions constitute unclean hands from the beginning of this debt collection scam.

86. Despite the deception in the ECMC Defendants’ defective disclosure letter, Plaintiff immediately

contacted ECMC and cited the FDCPA violations and requested validation and a reason for them

contacting her. Please see exhibit _____, Plaintiff’s July 17, 2012 letter to ECMC regarding their

deception.

87. The ECMC Defendants thereafter sent multiple harassing, deceptive, threatening, extortion and

fraud based 18 U.S.C. §1030(a)(4) letters to the Plaintiff weekly. In one month Plaintiff received

http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001030----000-.html

28

over 15 pages of extortion and threat letters from ECMC. Not one of the ECMC Defendant letters

validated their concocted non-existent debt and or attached the requested and required Plaintiff and

Defendant contract they were demanding payment for. Not one of their letters had a signature and

their letters were clear violations of the FDCPA. The ECMC deceptive, extortion, undated and

unsigned letters were harassing, particularly exhibit _____, because strangers were trying to

unconscionably and criminally create a customer association that did not exist and such was being

done to extort money from Plaintiff in violation to the first paragraph noted consumer protection

laws.

88. Additionally, each of the defendants unsigned extortion letters lacked standing, lacked proof of a

claim, the ECMC license to collect in NY was unfounded and each of the Defendants used falsified,

unauthenticated, created out of thin air, get rich quick computer printouts for alleged business

records.

89. The ECMC unsigned extortion letters included as exhibit ______ exemplified criminal elements

embedded in:

New York Penal - Article 190 - § 190.65 Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree

175.05 - Falsifying Business Records In The Second Degree.

175.10 - Falsifying Business Records In The First Degree.

175.30 - Offering A False Instrument For Filing In The Second Degree.

175.35 - Offering A False Instrument For Filing In The First Degree.

175.45 - Issuing a False Financial Statement.

18 USC 1341 Frauds and Swindles.

18 USC 1512 Engaging In Misleading Conduct.

18 USC 1503 Intimidate Witnesses.

185.05 Fraud Involving A Security Interest;

190.40 - Criminal usury in the second degree.

29

190.42 - Criminal usury in the first degree.

190.45 - Possession of usurious loan records.

190.50 - Unlawful collection practices.

190.55 - Making a false statement of credit terms.

190.60 - Scheme to defraud in the second degree.

190.65 - Scheme to defraud in the first degree.

90. The ECMC unsigned extortion letters included as exhibit ______ exemplified FDCPA violations

embedded in:

FDCPA § 1692 e(10) Any false representation or deceptive means to collect a debt or obtain

information about a consumer

The ECMC undated and unsigned letter violates FDCPA § 1692 f Any unfair or

unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect the alleged debt

The ECMC undated and unsigned letter violates FDCPA § 1692 d Any conduct the natural

consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person

§ 1692 g(B) Collector must cease collection efforts until debt is validated

91. Plaintiff was denied the right to dispute, denied the right to validation and was denied a due process

hearing despite multiple requests. The ECMC Defendants criminally garnished Plaintiff’s money in

retaliation to Plaintiff seeking validation and valid evidence of the alleged debt. Please see exhibit

_____, validation letters. Plaintiff contacted several criminal authorities. The garnishment had

stopped temporarily in January 2013.

92. April 2013 Plaintiff Miriam Snyder received a Harassment debt collection letter from Performant

Recovery Inc. on behalf of ECMC. After examination of the Performant Recovery extortion letter,

Plaintiff found that she had no business association whatsoever with ECMC’s hit men debt collectors

Performant Recovery and sent them a demand to validate the alleged debt and the alleged

30

commercial contract. Please see exhibit _____, Plaintiffs May 9, 2013 validation letter and the mail

receipt number.

93. Disregarding Plaintiffs valid FDCPA validation demand, May 2013 Performant Recovery sent

another abusive debt collection letter dated May 19, 2013 to Plaintiff while not validating the debt.

See exhibit _____. The Defendants May 19, 2013 letter is a prime example of Defendants obstruction

of FDCPA § 1692 c and d, Prohibited Communications Practices: After written notification that

consumer refuses to pay debt, or that consumer wants collector to cease communication. The purpose

of the Defendants letter was to harass as they disregarded Plaintiff’s demand for validation.

94. June 2013 Plaintiff obtained her consumer credit reports from the three credit reporting agencies

and found an impermissible inquiry by ECMC’s hit men Performant Recovery Debt Collectors on

her Equifax credit report. The ECMC Defendants Performant Recovery debt collector’s

impermissible inquiry was dated April 17, 2013.

95. At no time did the Plaintiff grant ECMC’s conspiracy debt collectors consent to obtain her credit

report from any credit reporting agency, nor does the Plaintiff have any kind of relationship with the

ECMC Defendants or their Performant Recovery Debt Collection Agency as defined under FCRA §

1681b(3)(A)-(E).

96. On June 9, 2013, Plaintiff sent a letter to the Defendants Performant Recovery via email and fax.

Please see exhibit______. Plaintiff requested a general or specific certification as to what permissible

purpose they may have had when they obtained the Plaintiff’s credit report, to prove and validate

ECMC’s standing and claims.

97. The Defendants Performant Debt Collection Agents refused to respond while their impermissible

inquiry continued to linger on Plaintiffs credit report and further damage her credit worthiness

status. Plaintiff was denied credit during the Performant Recovery impermissible inquiry credit

worthiness injury administration.

98. The defendants failed to provide the evidence that Plaintiff requested, so based on the evidence at

31

hand, Defendants did not have a lawful purpose for harassing Plaintiff on behalf of ECMC’s orders,

requesting, and obtaining, and using the Plaintiff’s consumer credit report from Equifax April 2013,

and did not have the Plaintiff’s “express written permission” to do such.

99. The Defendant’s Performant Recovery failure to comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)

when they obtained and used Plaintiff’s Equifax consumer credit report on April 17, 2013, was willful

and intentional as contemplated under 15 U.S.C. § 1681n.

100. In the alternative, the ECMC Defendants use of Performant Recovery to harass Plaintiff

regarding ECMC’s frivolous claims, and the Performant Recovery debt collectors failure to comply

with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) when they obtained and used Plaintiff’s Equifax

consumer credit report on April 17, 2013 was negligent, as contemplated under 15 U.S.C. § 1681o.

101. Discovery of the violations brought forth herein are within the statute of limitations as defined by

FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681p (1); FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692.

102. Plaintiff sent a second letter to the credit bureau and to the defendants Performant Recovery

conspirators seeking the Defendants to remove their impermissible inquiry. On June 24, 2013,

Plaintiff mailed a Notice of Pending Lawsuit to Performant Recovery Defendants via US Certified

Mail. Please see exhibit _____. This was another attempt to have the Performant Recovery

Defendants stop the harassment and remove their impermissible inquiry and to urge them to mitigate

damages and reach a settlement for their violations before taking civil action against the Performant

Recovery Defendants and conspirators and to spare judicial resources.

103. Plaintiff has suffered significant economic harm as a result of the erroneous credit reporting and

failure to verify and or validate the Defendants nonexistent debt although requested. The above-

detailed conduct by each of the Defendants has more to do with their deceptive and illegal acts in their

attempt to collect the alleged debt, as opposed to any legitimacy of their alleged debt.

104. The ECMC Defendants criminally enjoined the Performant Recovery debt collectors to criminally

injure Plaintiff’s credit score, to inquire on Plaintiff’s credit score with no permissible purpose, to

32

ensure harassment and oppression. The ECMC Defendants did such in violation of the FDCPA

Section 1692 d, any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any

person.

105. September 2013 Plaintiff received another dunning notice by Defendants ECMC’s new additional

harassment debt collector PIONEER CREDIT RECOVERY INC, P.O. BOX 92, ARCADE NY

14009-0092. See attached exhibits _____, the dunning notices. These ECMC Pioneer documents make

numerous deceptive claims by the ECMC defendants regarding an alleged debt.

106. Pioneer Credit Recovery Inc. sent Plaintiff exhibit _____, an extortion letter dated September 17,

2013 on behalf of ECMC. This letter is a clear obstruction of the FDCPA as it states that ECMC is the

creditor. ECMC has never extended any credit to Plaintiff. ECMC has no business relationship with

Plaintiff. This Defendant extortion letter exemplifies the criminal use of third parties to further

harass Plaintiff and false and misleading representations in communications including:

§ 1692 e Any other false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the debt

collection

§ 1692 e(2) Character, amount, or legal status of the alleged debt

107. ECMC’S Pioneer letter dated September 17, 2013 exemplifies BARRATRY by fraudulently filing

documents only a CREDTIOR and the Real Party in Interest may file, when in fact ECMC is not the

CREDTIOR and NOT the Real Party in Interest in this instant matter.

108. There is no evidence that ECMC is entitled to be named the CREDITOR or Beneficiary under

their concocted debt. According to ECMC’s very own extortion letters the alleged original

lender/creditor is a multiple personality fiction who drops in and out at the convenience of ECMC’s

33

fictional administration. There is no chain of title naming ECMC as the real party of interest or

holder.

109. September 28, 2013 Plaintiff served upon the ECMC Defendants via Pioneer Credit Recovery Inc

a another Notice for Validation of Debt pursuant to 15 USC§1692, FDCPA. Please see attached

Exhibit ____. The notice required the defendants ECMC’s Pioneer debt collectors to validate/verify

their alleged debt pursuant to 15 USC§1692g.

110. The ECMC Pioneer conspirators sent Plaintiff another extortion letter dated October 2, 2014. The

ECMC Pioneer extortionists disregarded the validation request and continued collections in violation

of § 1692 g(B) Collector must cease collection efforts until debt is validated, § 1692

111. Additionally, this Defendant letter violated § 1692 e (14) any name other than the true name of the

debt collector's business and § 1692 f Any unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to

collect the alleged debt.

112. ECMC used the Performant Recovery debt collection agency and Pioneer Credit Recovery Inc

for not validating the alleged debt, for misrepresenting the amount and character of an alleged debt

and for harassment and oppression purposes. ECMC Defendants violated the FDCPA again by hiring

debt collectors to further advance, implement and preserve abusive practices in the collection of

nonexistent debts, to obstruct fair debt collection, and to deny Plaintiff an avenue for disputing and

obtaining validation of debt information.

113. October 2013 Plaintiff received multiple ECMC extortion letters. One from ECMC dated

October 7, 2013 and the other dated October 2, 2013 from Pioneer Recovery. October 2013 Plaintiff

had to fight off two ECMC separate entity extortion plots at one time. Please see exhibits _____,

ECMC two October 2013 different agency letters seeking to extort money out of plaintiff while not

having any real evidence epitomizes the gross prioritization of FDCPA harassment and civil rights

violations, the malicious obstruction of one’s God given right to life, liberty, happiness and peace.

34

114. ECMC’s extortion letter dated October 7, 2013 is titled Notice of Default. This clearly shows that

the ECMC Defendants knew they were acting as debt collectors seeking to collect on their criminally

created alleged default debt as that term is defined by 15 USC§1692a(6).

115. The ECMC Defendants extortion letter dated October 7, 2013 clearly states the total pay off

amount is $0.00. While this amount is accurate, ECMC sent this notice maliciously and deceptively to

deter Plaintiff from filing a dispute or validation. If the Defendants believed the payoff amount was

zero they would have left the Plaintiff alone and stopped the abuse. The defendants sent their $0.00

amount due letter and thereafter criminally garnished the Plaintiff.

116. The ECMC defendants’ contradictory acts epitomize False or Misleading Representations in

Communications as follows:

§ 1692 e Any other false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the debt

collection § 1692 e (2) Character, amount, or legal status of the alleged debt.

117. On or about October 17, 2013 in response to defendants dunning letters, Plaintiff sent the

defendants a Notice for Validation of Debt pursuant to 15 USC§1692, FDCPA. See exhibit _____,

which is Plaintiff validation and dispute notice dated October 17, 2013. The notice required the

ECMC Defendants to validate/verify their alleged debt pursuant to 15 USC§1692g.

118. The ECMC Defendants sent Plaintiff another unsigned extortion letter dated October 22, 2013.

In this letter, the ECMC defendants refused to validate the alleged debt and lied in writing by stating

that ECMC is not subject to the FDCPA. This letter exemplifies ECMC’s willful malice, abuse, deceit,

and misrepresentation. This additional Defendant letter again administers False and Misleading

Representations in Communications.

119. The Defendants lies in their October 22, 2013 letter regarding not being subjected to the FDCPA

and the extortion tactics for their concocted no real evidence debt clearly offers prima facie evidence

35

of:

§ 1692 e false, deceptive, and misleading representation or means in connection with the debt

collection;

§ 1692 e(2) Character, amount, or legal status of the alleged debt;

Harassment and Abuse;

§ 1692 d Any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any

person;

120. Defendants’ letter dated October 22, 2013 attached as exhibit ____, misrepresents and lies about

ECMC’s status as a debt collection agency. These ECMC lies are in direct contravention to the

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Examination Procedures for Education Loans which

states that: Under the FDCPA, a “debt collector” is generally defined as any person who regularly

collects, or attempts to collect, consumer debts due another person or institution or uses some name

other than its own when collecting its own consumer debts, with certain exceptions. The definition

includes, for example, an institution that regularly collects debts for an unrelated institution. The debt

collector definition has an exception that frequently applies to loan servicing: an institution is not a

debt collector under the FDCPA when it collects debts that were not in default when they were

obtained by the servicer. THUS, A GUARANTOR THAT PURCHASES THE SERVICING RIGHTS

FOR A PORTFOLIO OF LOANS WILL BE A DEBT COLLECTOR ONLY FOR LOANS THAT

WERE IN “DEFAULT” AT THE TIME OF THE PURCHASE.

121. ECMC by definition of its supervising board (CFPB) is a debt collection agency. ECMC does not

have a contract with Plaintiff, is not the real party in interest, has no right to Plaintiff’s money and

for this reason the Defendants lied about their status as debt collectors.

122. The Defendants have failed to establish an independent basis for liability and for this reason they

have sent Plaintiff multiple false statements concealing, omitting and denying their status as default

debt collectors.

36

123. Plaintiff is without specific knowledge and evidence that supports defendant’s claims and

allegations.

124. In response to the Defendants misrepresentation letter dated October 22, 2013, Plaintiff sent

ECMC another FDCPA debt validation and request for a due process hearing letter dated October

28, 2013.

125. In retaliation to Plaintiff’s validation and dispute mandates, ECMC garnished/stole Plaintiff’s

money with no due process hearing and caused Plaintiff undue financial and emotional terrorism and

hardship.

126. Plaintiff filed criminal reports regarding ECMC’s debt collection deceit and theft of Plaintiff’s

money dated January 20, 2014, February 13, 2014 and March 12, 2014 and April 2014. Each

criminal report Plaintiff filed against the Defendants was filed with the US Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division and was filed to dismantle any and all presumptions and illusions of legality of

the Defendants life threatening criminal money lynching practices.

127. Please note after filing the criminal complaint and demand for sanctions against the defendants

dated March, 2014, the Defendants suspended collections and again without, reason, valid evidence or

notice ECMC with vengeance and malice began stealing Plaintiff’s money again July 1, 2014. Please

see exhibit ______.

128. Please note the record that June 30, 2014, ECMC also resurrected the phone harassment and had

one of their hit men harass Plaintiff at 8:16 am by phone while the ECMC Defendants had been told

repeatedly to not call Plaintiff and to keep all communications in writing. Please see exhibits _____,

Plaintiff’s do not call letters to the Defendants.

129. Plaintiff files this law suit for a permanent injunction against ECMC from continued harassment

and stopping them from stealing Plaintiff’s easy access money, at minimum until they can produce a

binding contract between Plaintiff and Defendants.

37

130. The above-detailed conduct by each of the Defendants has more to do with their deceptive and

illegal acts in their attempt and in their actual collection practices, as opposed to any legitimacy of

their alleged debt. The FDCPA, FRCA, the TCPA and NYS Deceptive Practices Laws relates to the

defendants even if they were collecting a legitimate debt. Plaintiff declares under penalty of perjury

for the record that the defendants are not owed any money, have no contract with Plaintiff, are not

creditors associated with Plaintiff and did not provide any credit or services to Plaintiff. Nonetheless,

each of the defendants are “debt collectors” pursuant to 15 USC §1692a (6).

131. In addition to the defendants stealing Plaintiff’s money with no proof of claim, administering

harassing and deceptive collection practices, the ECMC defendants called Plaintiff several times in

violation to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. 47 C.F.R. §

64.1200(a)(2). Please see exhibits _____, photo copies of the Defendants multiple malicious and

harassing phone calls to Plaintiff, after notifying ECMC not to call plaintiff and to keep all

communications in writing.

132. These claims stem from the telephonic and harassment collection efforts of the Defendants during

the time period beginning on or about July 2012 ongoing to July 2014.

133. During the subject time period, the Defendant used an automatic telephone dialing system that

has the capability to store and dial numbers to place multiple calls and some of the phone numbers

Defendants used to harass the Plaintiff were 651 221 0037, 916 526 7342, and 1866 892 4708.

Defendants called the Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number 516 642 6007 and Plaintiff’s mother’s

house at 718 406- _____. They called maliciously seeking to defame and harass while the Defendants

no real evidence alleged debt was not validated and disputed.

134. Each time Plaintiff answered the Defendants call she was met with “dead-air” until such time as

one of Defendant’s debt collection representatives picked up the line and asked to speak with Plaintiff.

Plaintiff informed the ECMC harasser that she sent a letter in writing mandating an end to the

telephonic harassment. Each time, over 10 times, Plaintiff asked the ECMC telephone harassers to

38

please stop calling.

135. Plaintiff maintains that Defendant’s repeated phone calls were unlawful as the Defendant did not

have Plaintiff’s “prior express consent” to call her cellular telephone using an auto-dialer.

136. The Defendants placed multiple calls to Plaintiff’s cell phone and her elderly mother’s home

repeatedly and invaded the privacy of the Plaintiff.

137. Plaintiff has no prior or present established relationship with the Defendants.

138. Plaintiff has never given the Defendant express permission to call Plaintiff’s cellular or mother’s

phone.

139. Despite familiarity with the TCPA, Defendants either willfully or knowingly violated the TCPA in

placing these calls to the Plaintiff’s cellular telephone.

140. The ECMC Defendant’s repeated phone calls to the plaintiffs’ phone caused severe and intense

emotional distress in both plaintiff and family members.

141. Plaintiff was terrorized by the ECMC defendants in that she feared an invasion of her home by

strangers. Plaintiff lost sleep and suffered severe humiliation by defendant’s unlawful tactics.

142. No legal action was ever commenced by defendants and no lawsuit was ever contemplated by

them. The Defendants were simply abusing the debt collection process and harassing Plaintiff.

143. On __________ 2014 Plaintiff mailed a Notice of Pending Lawsuit to Defendants via USPS, in an

effort to stop the Defendants harassment and to mitigate damages and spare judicial resources. The

Defendant failed to respond with any real evidence or permission that they may have had when they

called the Plaintiff’s cellular phone.

144. Discovery of the violations brought forth herein are within the statute of limitations as defined in

TCPA 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.

145. The Defendants called the Plaintiff many times without her consent during the last twelve months

which is a violation of the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act 1692.

39

146. Additionally, Plaintiff has no evidence of ECMC’s debt collection license number.

147. The NYC Department of Consumer Affairs shows no record of ECMC Debt Buyers and collectors

having a license to collect debt and Plaintiff objects to such.

148. The Defendants have refused to prove to the Plaintiff and now the court that it owns the alleged

debt, that their alleged debt exists or that it has any right to collect.

149. The Defendants do not have a valid contract or any contract that exemplifies that their securitized

alleged debt has been sold. Furthermore, Defendants have no proof that Plaintiff was notified of such

sale and cannot even allege that Plaintiff agreed to such, because she does not. Any such allegation of

any contract of sale is void and objected to under the doctrine of “Unconscionable Contracting”.

150. The Defendants are trying to create an unseen, nonexistent, and alleged loan agreement which

would violate the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution. The potential impairment to

contracting parties under such an interpretation would be substantial, and, notwithstanding the

laudable purpose of the legislation, such an interpretation would be neither reasonable nor necessary

to accomplish the legitimate public purpose at issue.

151. Plaintiff alleges for the record that the defendants are not creditors or NYS Guaranty agencies

and did not provide any credit or services to Plaintiff. Nonetheless, each of the defendants are “debt

collectors” pursuant to 15 USC §1692a (6). Plaintiff alleges the FDCPA states in part:

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, or who

regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be

owed or due another. Notwithstanding the exclusion provided by clause (F) of the last sentence of

this paragraph, the term includes any creditor who, in the process of collecting his own debts, uses

any name other than his own which would indicate that a third person is collecting or attempting

to collect such debts. For the purpose of section 808(6), such term also includes any person who

uses

40

any instrumentality of interstate commerce or he mails in any business the principal purpose of

which is the enforcement of security interests.

152. Plaintiff therefore seeks damages as a result of defendant’s criminal debt collection acts.

153. The actions of the Defendants in this matter were intentional and were consistent with a pattern of

unlawful and unconstitutional actions undertaken by the Defendants in previous cases. Please see

exhibit _____.

154. The Defendants unconstitutional seizure of Plaintiff’s money based on non-validated claims are

not supported by any substantial or admissible evidence, such as an affidavit or affirmation, or seal,

or certification or oath. The Defendants have not submitted any proof of claim and or any

certification as to the veracity of the allegations. The Defendants acts are not supported by substantial

evidence or Defendant court Order.

155. The Defendants have shown a pattern of no real evidence, bad faith, harassment and flagrant

unconstitutionality.

156. As a direct and proximate result of defendants deceptive actions, Plaintiff was deprived of her

liberty and property, was forced to incur legal fees and expenses in defense of the Defendants

malicious damage to her credit report and no real evidence seizure of her money in excess of

$50,000.00. Plaintiff has suffered great mental anguish and extreme emotional distress, and was

greatly humiliated.

FIRST CLAIM OF RELIEF

41

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983

AGAINST ALL ECMC DEFENDANTS

157. The foregoing allegations are incorporated as if re-alleged herein.

158. Plaintiff seeks a preliminary, temporary and permanent injunction of all ECMC Defendant

seizure and collection proceedings against her pursuant to the United States Constitution’s First

Amendment (free speech) and Fourteenth Amendment (due process, both substantive and

procedural ); pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, which provides equitable remedies for civil

rights violations.

159. Plaintiff has no plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs herein

alleged and which are ongoing in nature. Plaintiff is now suffering and will continue to suffer

irreparable injury from Defendants acts, policies, and practices unless Snyder is granted the

equitable relief prayed for herein.

160. The Defendant debt collectors ECMC are not above the United States Constitution and its

overarching separation of powers doctrine, which applies to the Defendants through the Fourteenth

Amendment.

161. The ECMC Defendants criminal seizure of the Plaintiffs money via a no real evidence

garnishment and no real party in interest invokes immediate and irreparable harm as the Plaintiff’s

survival money has been and will continue to be stolen if this injunction is not issued.

162. Moreover, the Defendants will repeat the wrongful conduct if the injunction is not issued and such

will effectuate further money damages that are difficult or impossible to calculate. The theft of

Plaintiff’s money and the ramifications of such cannot be cured by money damages and an injunction

is necessary. The likelihood of success on the merits is evidenced in the Defendants lack of standing,

lack of valid or admissible evidence, lack of an injured party, lack of a contract with

Plaintiff, lack of an affidavit, lack of direct receipts for their seizures, their historical sanctioned

background and their history of harassing and abusive debt collection practices. Continuation of the

42

Defendants extortion and seizure conduct is life threatening, particularly to targeted oppressed

populations who cannot defend themselves against junk debt collection due process obstructions,

deceit, abuse and harassment.

163. The Defendants are deliberately and criminally using the debt collection process to obstruct

civil rights due process and disclosure protections, dismantle protections in the U.S. Constitutions,

and steal money, to further oppress targeted populations, to obstruct procedural rules, for

harassment, extortion and deceit. The Defendants seizure of Plaintiff’s money without any real

evidence and no proper notice is a legal nullity and the stealing of Plaintiff’s money with not one of

the Defendants’ Affidavits or Affirmation under Penalty of Perjury undermines and obstructs

every fiber of law embedded in the F.R.E. and New York Rules of Evidence and Uniform Rules §

202.12-a(f) due to the lack of any Fact Testimony under Oath while collecting much more

siphoning money under the disguise of third party debt collection. Again, the Defendants have

refused to perform duties required by law.

164. This court is requested to enjoin all defendants from enforcing this criminally concocted

invalid debt.

165. The Plaintiff requests such other preliminary and permanent relief as this Court deems proper.

43

SECOND CLAIM OF RELIEF

VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1981, 1983, AND 1988

DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

BY ALL DEFENDANTS


167. The actions of the Defendants as alleged above deprived Plaintiff of the following rights under

the United States Constitution:

a. Freedom from capricious and malicious seizures and prosecution;

b. Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures,

c. Right to a fair and impartial trial;

d. Right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness;

168. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988 Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney fees.

169. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' violations Plaintiff has sustained actual damages

in an amount to be proved at trial and is also entitled to injunctive relief, statutory damages, costs and

litigation fees.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF FOR VIOLATIONS OF

CONSTITUTIONAL AND CIVIL RIGHTS PURSUANT TO THE CIVIL RIGHTS

ACT OF 1871, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988 VIOLATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT

SPEECH RIGHTS

BY ECMC DEFENDANTS


171. Plaintiff’s request for a due process hearing, FDCPA validation and dispute of alleged debts

are speech protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

172. At all times, Plaintiff’s speech about FDCPA validation, dispute rights, and request for a due

process hearing, are issues and matters of public concern.

173. Plaintiff’s free speech right to request an ECMC hearing, dispute and request validation of a

nonexistent default debt outweighed any interest of the Defendants in suppressing that speech.

44

174. The ECMC Defendants have criminally and maliciously stolen Plaintiff’s money in retaliation

to Plaintiff exercising her right to dispute an alleged and nonexistent debt. The ECMC Defendants

criminally seized Plaintiff’s money in direct retaliation to Plaintiff seeking proof of claim,

requesting a hearing and filing validation and verification notices. The Defendants ruthless

disregard of the FDCPA consumer protections and their timely financial injury retaliation against

Plaintiff for exercising her FDCPA free speech rights compels the filing of this law suit for

escalated aggravated and terroristic retaliation and harassment.

175. The defendants deprived the Plaintiff of her right to be free from unreasonable seizures as

guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Plaintiff’s money was

seized by defendants without plaintiffs consent, knowledge or authorization and while Plaintiff

was exercising her right to due process by requesting a hearing, requesting proof of claim, and

while disputing the validity and enforceability of the Defendants scheme to defraud claim.

176. The criminal and invasion of privacy financial seizure was enforced with no proof of claim, no

due process, and no validation and was done to traumatize, abuse , and terrorize Plaintiff.

177. The ECMC Defendants improper, harassing, and malicious activities caused plaintiff to

deplete financial and human resources. The Defendants punished plaintiff for exercising her free

speech rights to dispute and mandate validation of alleged default debts. The ECMC Defendants

further attacked the plaintiff for her criticism of ECMC noncompliance and non-existent

grievance procedures. The Defendants actions have deprived the plaintiff of her rights to free

expression and to petition for redress of grievances guaranteed by the First Amendment of the

United States Constitution.

178. This court is requested to enjoin all defendants from enforcing this criminally concocted no

standing invalid claim.

179. The Plaintiff requests such other preliminary and permanent relief as this Court deems proper

180. Please see the attached letters requesting a due process hearing, disputing the nonexistent

45

ECMC concocted debt, and demanding validation. Please see exhibits ____________. Not only

were the acts of the ECMC Defendants retaliatory and perverse, but they were willful, wanton,

reckless, intentional, persistent and continuous. The ECMC Defendants acts, specifically the

ECMC theft of Plaintiff’s money in the midst of Plaintiff exercising her free speech rights to seek

proof of ownership and claim, was extreme, intentional, and caused the Plaintiff severe induced

emotional distress and financial injury;

181. The ECMC Defendants wanton, reckless, and endless lawlessness embedded in discriminatory

and retaliatory practices, terroristic harassment, negligence, false billing, and crimina l debt

collection programming and practices, violate the state and Federal Constitution, and the FDCPA,

15 U.S.C. §§ 1692d, 1692e, 1692e (2)(A), 1692e (l0) and 1692 f by making false and misleading

representations, and engaging in unfair and abusive practices;

182. Defendants acted intentionally and with callous disregard for Plaintiff’s clearly established

constitutional rights.

183. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional

rights, Plaintiff has suffered severe and substantial damages.

184. These damages include stolen money, lost money, lost time, litigation expenses including

administrative fees, loss of reputation, humiliation, infinite and incalculable financial injury,

embarrassment, inconvenience, mental and emotional anguish and distress and other

compensatory damages, in an amount to be determined by a jury and the Court.

185. The Plaintiff requests such other preliminary and permanent relief as this Court deems proper

46

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

VIOLATIONS OF FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 ET SEQ

BY ALL DEFENDANTS

186. Plaintiff hereby restates, realleges, and incorporates by reference all foregoing paragraphs.

187. Plaintiff is a “consumer” as defined in 15 USC 1692a (3). Defendants are private “DEBT

COLLECTORS” as defined in 15 USC §1692a (6). Defendants were attempting to collect a debt for

“personal” purposes pursuant to 15 USC 1692a (5).

188. Congress enacted the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to stop "the use of abusive, deceptive and

unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors." 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a).

189. A debt collector may not "use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in

connection with the collection of any debt." 15 U.S.C. § 1692e. Such a prohibition includes the false

representation of “the character, amount, or legal status of any debt." 15 U.S.C. § I 692e (2) (A). Such

a prohibition also includes the "use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or

attempt to collect any debt." 15 U.S.C. § I692e (l0).

190. A debt collector may not "use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any

debt." 15 U.S.C. § 1692f.

191. Nor may a debt collector "engage in any conduct the natural consequence which is to harass,

oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt."15 U.S.C. § 1692d.

192. Defendants violated the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692d, 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(l 0) and 1692f by

making false and misleading representations, and engaging in unfair and abusive practices.

Defendants' violations include, but are not limited to:

a. Misrepresenting that Defendants are in possession of or could obtain documentation evidencing

that Plaintiff owed a debt to the defendants, when in fact they do not possess and cannot obtain valid

documentation.

b. Plaintiff served defendants with a Notice of Dispute in compliance with 15 USC§1692g. This same

47

law required Defendants to provide Plaintiff with verification of the alleged debt once received.

Furthermore, 15 USC 1692g (5) (b) requires defendants to cease all collection activity until the debt

collector obtains verification of the alleged debt. Defendants failed to provide one scintilla of proof of

ownership of their concocted alleged debt. However, defendants continued collection of the alleged

debt through erroneous garnishment.

193. Defendants violated the FDCPA, and caused damages to Plaintiff by their ongoing failure to

comply with the Act.

194. Defendants violated the FDCPA 15 USC§1692(e)(8) which requires debt collectors to

communicate the disputed status of a debt if the debt collector ‘knows or should know’ that the debt

is disputed, standard requires no notification by the consumer, written or oral, and instead, depends

solely on the debt collector's knowledge that a debt is disputed, regardless of how or when that

knowledge is “acquired. Specifically the ECMC defendants knew it was not entitled to collect on the

non-existent debt. Defendants were fully aware that each of them were/are unable to provide a

performance contract executed by Plaintiff that would even suggest Plaintiff is obligated to

defendants.

195. Defendants In demanding multiple sums and stealing over $2,100 the defendants violated 15

U.S.C.§1692e(2) in that it repeatedly falsely represented and seized money that is not owed.

196. The Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A), (5) and (10) by repeatedly misrepresenting the

imminent nature of legal action by Defendants.

197. The Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(6) and 15 U.S.C.§1692e (4) by taking non-judicial

seizure to effect dispossession and disablement of property where the Defendants did not have a right

to do so, where it was unlawful to take and was not permitted by any defendant, and was done for the

sole purpose of abuse, bullying, false phenomenon of supremacy above the law, traumatizing,

harassing and terrifying the Plaintiff.

198. The Defendants violated 15 U.S.C.§1692e by making statements to plaintiff in

48

Exhibit ____ indicating that the ECMC Defendants were not debt collectors, which statements were

untrue, false, deceptive and/or misleading and would be deceptive or misleading to the least

sophisticated consumer.

199. The Defendants violated 15 U.S.C.§1692e by making statements to Plaintiff in Exhibit ____

indicating that the ECMC Defendants were the creditors, which statements were untrue, false,

deceptive and/or misleading and would be deceptive or misleading to the least sophisticated

consumer.

200. Exhibit ______ is the ECMC Defendants Disclosure letter and it is misleading and deceptive in

which it states ECMC safe guards Plaintiff’s financial information, and that this notice is not an

attempt to collect a debt. This letter violates FDCPA § 1692 e Any other false, deceptive, or

misleading representation or means in connection with the debt collection and is an attempt to

unconscionably create ECMC customers and such unconscionable contracting is disputed and

objected to in full as this plaintiff is not an ECMC customer and has no business relationship with any

of the defendants.

201. This ECMC Defendant Notice of Privacy statement is not only deceptive, it exemplifies FDCPA

and TILA violations embedded in unfair and deceptive disclosure pursuant to § 1692 f Any unfair or

unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect the alleged debt.

202. The ECMC Defendant called the Plaintiff’s cell phone and her elderly mother’s home phone many

times to harass Plaintiff and made the calls without Plaintiff consent during the last twelve months

which is a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. These actions were not only in violation

of the TCPA but further violated Plaintiff’s rights pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692d and 1692d(5). See

15 U.S.C. § 1692b; Clark v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis, Co., L.P.A., 2010 WL 2803975, at *2 (S.D.

Fla. July 15, 2010) (stating that allegations which support a cause of action under the TCPA also

support a violation of the FDCPA).

203. In exhibit ____, Performant Recovery Defendants created an original lender as Chase Manhattan

49

Bank, a bank Plaintiff never had any business with prior to the Defendants credit injury scam of

2013. In exhibit _____, the Defendants identify ECMC as the creditor. These defendants’ multiple

creditor communications are deceptive and extortion practices that have been ongoing, unregulated

and are life threatening, harassing and do not belong in Plaintiff’s life.

204. ECMC Defendants failed to include the warning required by the FDCPA in all communications

made to collect the debt or to obtain information about Plaintiff. The FDCPA requires that each

such communication disclose that the ECMC Defendants were attempting to collect a debt and that

any information obtained would be used for that purpose. ECMC did not make this disclosure in

every communication with Plaintiff.

205. The defendants violated § 1692e of the FDCPA by misidentifying their alleged original creditor

in a series of collection letters sent to Plaintiff. The Defendants multiple identification names of the

alleged creditor ( ECMC, Chase, First Federal) is materially misleading, and violates § 1692e(2)

and (10). Plaintiff has a statutory right not to be the target of misleading debt collection

communications in a series of collection letters sent to her.

206. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' violations of the FDCPA, Plaintiff has sustained

actual damages in an amount to be proved at trial and is also entitled to statutory damages, costs

and litigation fees.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

50

(TCPA) 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.

BY DEFENDANTS ECMC

207. The Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Verified Complaint as

though fully stated herein.

208. The ECMC Defendants have demonstrated willful or knowing non-compliance with 47 U.S.C. §

227(b)(1)(A) (iii) by using an automatic telephone dialing system to call the Plaintiff’s number

which is assigned to a cellular telephone service and is not legally permitted under any provision

of the aforementioned statute.

209. The ECMC Defendants have committed over 10 separate violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).

210. The last 9 calls are subject to treble damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).

211. An unintentional call carries a damage amount of $500; an intentional call carries a damage

amount of $1,500 per violation.

212. The Plaintiff has never given the Defendants permission to call Plaintiff’s cell phone. Plaintiff is

entitled to damages of $1,500 per violation pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).

213. Plaintiff and Defendant do not have an established business relationship within the meaning of 47

U.S.C. § 227.

214. This court is requested to enjoin all defendants from enforcing this criminally concocted

invalid debt.

215. The Plaintiff requests such other preliminary and permanent relief as this Court deems

proper

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C.§1681i FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT

BY ALL DEFENDANTS

51

216. Plaintiff hereby restates, realleges, and incorporates by reference all foregoing paragraphs as though

fully set out herein.

217. Plaintiff is a “consumer” within the meaning of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C.§1681a(c).

218. Defendants are “credit furnishers” within the meaning of the 15 U.S.C.§1681a(c).

219. 15 USC§1681s-2(a) prohibits furnishers from reporting inaccurate or erroneous information about

consumers. As such, it placed an affirmative duty on furnishers to correct and update information which

they know, or reasonably should know, is inaccurate. The subsection requires furnishers to flag or

otherwise provide notice to credit reporting agencies of any “dispute” by a consumer related to his or her

credit information or history, FCRA, 15 USC§1681s-2(a)(1)-(3).

220. Plaintiff’s consumer credit report is a consumer report within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. §1681a (d).

221. The FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2(b) has Obligations regarding credit furnishers to investigate

consumers disputes. Subsection 1681s-2(b) specifies a second set of obligations on a furnisher. These

obligations are triggered once a credit reporting agency (CRA) notifies the furnisher that it has

received a “notice of dispute” from the consumer pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(2). After the

disputes are received by a CRA from a consumer, it, in turn, is required under § 1681i of the FCRA

to forward a consumer dispute verification (CDV) form to the furnisher, requiring it to verify the

credit information and investigate its accuracy. After receiving notice of such a dispute from a CRA, a

furnisher has 5 mandatory duties it must perform within 30 days: (1) to conduct “an investigation”

with respect to the disputed information; (2) to “review all relevant information” provided by the

credit reporting agency; (3) to “report the results of its investigation” back to the credit reporting

agency; (4) if the investigation finds the existing information is incomplete or inaccurate, to report

back those results to each of the consumer reporting agencies to whom the furnisher originally

communicated information about the consumer; and (5) to “modify, . . .delete. . or permanently

block” the reporting of any item of information found to be inaccurate, incomplete, or which cannot

52

be verified as accurate after a reinvestigation. 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1).

222. In §1681s-2(b) duties arise only after a furnisher receives notice of dispute from a CRA. Notice of

a dispute to a furnisher by a consumer directly does not trigger a furnisher’s duty to reinvestigate

under §1681s-2(b). The consumer must dispute to a CRA, which, in turn, forwards the dispute to the

furnisher. This indirect “filtering” mechanism must be followed by a consumer to give rise to a duty

of investigation under the FCRA to the furnisher. A furnisher need not honor a dispute received

directly from the consumer, whether oral or written, under the FCRA. Such a dispute, it should be

noted, likely does create a legal obligation under §1692g of the FDCPA which Plaintiff served upon

Performant Recovery defendant debt collectors.

223. Prior to notifying the Performant Recovery Defendants, Plaintiff disputed the Performant

impermissible inquiry with Equifax. Plaintiff notified Defendant Performant Recovery of its dispute

and defendant also received notice from the credit reporting agency Equifax. Defendant Performant

Recovery Inc., failed to delete information found to be inaccurate and erroneous, and failed to

properly investigate Plaintiff’s disputes.

224. Plaintiff alleges that at all relevant times Defendant Performant Recovery Inc. failed to maintain,

and failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of Plaintiff’s credit

report, concerning the accounts in question, violating 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b). Plaintiff alleges that

Defendants Performant Recovery failed to conduct a proper and lawful reinvestigation.

225. All actions taken by the Defendants Performant Recovery and Equifax were done with malice,

were done willfully, and were done with either the desire to harm Plaintiff and/or with the knowledge

that their actions would very likely harm Plaintiff and/or that their actions were taken in violation of

the FCRA and state law and/or that knew or should have known that their actions were in reckless

53

disregard of the FCRA and state law. Defendants and each of their acts constitutes multiple willful

non-compliance with FCRA.

226. All of the violations of the FCRA proximately caused the injuries and damages to Plaintiffs as set

forth in this Verified Complaint. The FCRA requires the following of Equifax;

(2) Prompt Notice of Dispute to Furnisher of Information (A) In general. Before the expiration of

the 5-business-day period beginning on the date on which a consumer reporting agency receives

notice of a dispute from any consumer or a reseller in accordance with paragraph (1), the agency

shall provide notification of the dispute to any person who provided any item of information in

dispute, at the address and in the manner established with the person. The notice shall include all

relevant information regarding the dispute that the agency has received from the consumer or

reseller.

227. Plaintiff discovered the Performant Discovery on her credit report and was shocked because

Performant Recovery defendants are strangers to Plaintiff. Plaintiff has no business relationship with

Performant Recovery. The Defendants have no reason whatsoever, much more NO permissible purpose

to be on her credit report and such was done as malice. Therefore the Performant Recovery defendants

are liable to Plaintiff for damages to her consumer credit report which resulted in higher auto insurance

premiums, higher interest rates, intentional infliction of emotional distress, insomnia, embarrassment,

loss of sleep, anxiety, and other related damages due to defendant’s acts.

228. Defendants are therefore liable unto Plaintiff including, consequential, and actual damages.

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

VIOLATIONS OF GBL § 349

AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

229. Plaintiff hereby restates, realleges, and incorporates by reference all foregoing paragraphs.

230. New York prohibits "deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or

54

in the furnishing of any service in this state...." N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349(a).

231. An individual "injured by reason of any violation of this section may bring an action in his own name

to enjoin such unlawful act or practice, an action to recover his actual damages or fifty dollars, whichever

is greater, or both such actions." N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349(h). The statute permits recovery of up to

three times the plaintiff’s damages.

232. As enumerated above, Defendants violated § 349 of the New York General Business Law by using

deceptive acts and practices in the conduct of their businesses.

233. Defendants conduct have a broad negative and ruthless impact on consumers at large.

234. Defendants committed the above-described acts willfully and/or knowingly as documented above and

in the exhibits.

235. Defendants' wrongful and deceptive acts have caused injury and damages to Plaintiff and unless

enjoined, will cause further irreparable injury.

236. Defendants' violations include, but are not limited to:

A. ECMC Defendants have a pattern of deceptive acts such as advertising that they are not debt collectors,

when their supervisory manual says they are debt collectors, collecting an alleged default debt as

fictitious creditor and using forms that misrepresent their status as creditors when they are not creditors,

garnishing payments while not having any standing or proof of claim to do so, and incorporating

extortionist collection and enforcement practices that specialize in fraud, misrepresentation, illegality,

unconscionability, lack of due service, and violations of law.

B. The Defendants have collected on a nonexistent debt by alleging breach of contract, yet having no

contract.

C. The causal connection between the timing of the ECMC Defendants theft of Plaintiff’s money indirect

retaliation to her dispute and request for validation and a hearing, epitomize deception, deceit, malicious

intent, bad faith, abuse, and retaliation. These malicious ECMC acts effectuated over $50,000.00 of

actual damages. Plaintiff was harmed due to the direct deception, deceptive practices and negligence of

55

ECMC.

D. ECMC Defendants have covertly harassed and deceptively denied Plaintiff her right to be heard, have a

hearing and dispute the existence and ownership of the alleged debt.

E. Misrepresenting that Defendants are in possession of or could obtain documentation evidencing that Plaintiff

owes the defendants a debt, when in fact they do not possess and cannot obtain valid documentation;

F. Using fraudulent, deceptive, and misleading collection and garnishment tactics that effectuated loss of

personal property, invasion of privacy, induced emotional distress, loss of money, loss of time, loss of credit

worthiness, and loss of the right to live in a financially safe and non-terroristic environment.

G. The New York State Guaranty agency is New York State Higher Education Services Corporation. NYS does

not have two Guaranty agencies. ECMC is not a Guaranty agency in this matter. ECMC has no usurpation

power, guaranty power or role in this matter. Please see ECMC’s jurisdictional limitations to Virginia and

not New York State posted here:

http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/Programs/EROD/org_list.cfm?category_ID=SGA

H. Furthermore, even if this case was in ECMC’s jurisdiction (Virginia) ECMC would be subject to the

FDCPA, pursuant to The Ninth Circuit ruling which states: that a guaranty agency is not exempt from

liability under the "Government Actor" exemption to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §

1692a(6)(C), Brannan v. United Student Aid Funds, 94 F.3d 1260 (9th Cir.1996).

I. ECMC is not the New York State Guaranty agency and is not a guaranty agency in this matter and any

presumption of such is disputed and objected. Plaintiff seeks an Order declaring ECMC’s status as a junk

debt collector as exemplified in this matter.

J. No Defendant motion for wage order was ever served upon the plaintiff. This conduct constituted a “legal

action” prohibited by 15 USC §1692i.

K. No ECMC Defendant receipt is given when the ECMC criminal garnishments are in effect. These

deliberate theft and concealment and evidence suppression tactics constitute a violation of § 1692 e false,

http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/Programs/EROD/org_list.cfm?category_ID=SGA

56

deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the debt collection.

Additionally, these criminal ECMC acts violate §1692d since their natural consequences are calculated to

harass, oppress and abuse the Plaintiff.

237. As a direct and proximate result of these ECMC violations of § 349 of the General Business Law,

Plaintiff has suffered compensable harm and is entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief,

and to recover actual and treble damages, costs and litigation fees.

NINTH CLAIM FOR RELEIEF

VIOLATION OF THE HOBBS ACT OF 1946

FEDERAL EXTORTION STATUTE

BY ALL DEFENDANTS

238. Plaintiff hereby restates, realleges, and incorporates by reference all foregoing paragraphs as

though fully set out herein.

239. What laypeople call extortion, lawyers call a violation of the Hobbs Act. The Hobbs Act states:

Whoever in anyway or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article

or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or

threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do

anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty

57

years, or both. As used in this section:

(1) The term “robbery” means the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person or

in the presence of another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of

injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or property in his custody or possession, or the

person or property of a relative or member of his family or of anyone in his company at the time of the

taking or obtaining.

(2) The term “extortion” means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by

wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.

(3) The term “commerce” means commerce within the District of Columbia, or any Territory or

Possession of the United States, all commerce between any point in a State, Territory, Possession, or the

District of Columbia and any point outside thereof, all commerce between points within the same State

through any place outside such State and all commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.

18 U.S.C. § 1951 (emphasis added).

240. In essence, the Hobbs Act elevates the ECMC defendants’ robbery and extortion to the level of

federal crimes. Every month, ECMC is robbing over $300.00 from Plaintiff’s retirement fund on her

electronic card. With this ECMC Defendant electronic extortion scam, the Plaintiff does not even get

a receipt from the ECMC defendants. The ECMC defendants set this extortion scam up where

another third party enjoinment gives a 18 U.S.C. §1030(a)(4): Falsification of computer records

receipt which also identifies the ECMC defendants as creditors, while they are not creditors. Please

see exhibit _____. The lack of a Defendant ECMC receipt, while they are stealing Plaintiff’s money is

the most gangster, visible, unregulated organized Fraud on the market and is a danger to consumers

at large. The defendant’s conspiratorial, extortionist, and unconstitutional seizure acts exemplify

SLAVERY- FORCED COMPLIANCE TO INVISIBLE CONTRACTS NOT HELD 18 USC 3571.

241. The evidence in this matter shows that ECMC administered purposeful fraud in attempting to

appear as CREDITOR when in fact Defendant ECMC is well aware it is not the CREDITOR and

therefore NOT the Real Party in interest. Examples of ECMC’s false representation and

misrepresentation as creditor for the purpose of extortion is attached as exhibits _____.

http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001030----000-.html

58

242. In this matter, ECMC is clearly not a creditor as the Defendants have not offered or extended any

credit to Plaintiff and Plaintiff owes them nothing other than a good law suit for the extortion crimes,

damages and injuries they have inflicted on her.

243. ECMC is an already court sanctioned private profiteering off of theft organization who lynches

and extorts consumers’ money through unregulated organized fraud and third party unjust

enrichment enjoinments as epitomized in this matter and others. Please see exhibits ____.

244. Under Article III of the United States Constitution, standing is the substantive due process

Principle of what a party must do in order to have the legal right. Without the protective concept of

standing, anyone could sue or steal from anyone at any time, ultimately causing legal anarchy. In this

matter, to fabricate standing, the ECMC defendants used multiple debt collectors to harass and send

extortion letters to the Plaintiff during the same time period. Please see exhibits _____.

245. In 2013 the Plaintiff was fighting off three ECMC extortionist debt collectors at the same time for

the same no real evidence concocted nonexistent debt. The defendants used misrepresentations, 18

U.S.C. §1030(a)(4): Falsification of computer records , unsigned and robo signed letters, and allowed

for perjured documents to be presented to the Plaintiff regarding a bank Plaintiff had never had an

account with before 2013. Please see exhibits ______.

246. In fact because the defendants damaged Plaintiff’s creditworthiness, Plaintiff was denied credit

relentlessly and restricted to one bank for credit. This same one bank who extended credit for the first

time in 2013 was the same bank the defendants concocted and created this back dated, alleged debt

with and this restricted bank credit offering was done for the sole purpose of easy access to Plaintiff’s

current signature for the defendants maliciously conspired and premeditated criminal magically

appearing endorsements. There is no other reason no other bank will currently offer the Plaintiff

credit except the Defendants bank noted in exhibit _____. These are the criminal lengths that the

defendants have gone through to subterfuge their no standing extortion and seizure scheme to

defraud.

59

247. The defendants have not produced a contract that reflects a possible agreement with the

Defendants and Plaintiff. The contract the Defendants are using for this extortion seizure is unseen,

invisible and not attached to any of their extortion claims. Hence, the defendants have failed to state a

cause of action, yet they are robbing Plaintiff’s money. Again, their claims are not supported by

substantial evidence.

248. Defendants’ failure to state a cause of action or claim upon which relief can be granted is

exemplified in the fact that there is no documentary link or other sufficient showing of standing. In

exhibit ____, Performant Recovery Defendants created an original lender as Chase Manhattan Bank,

a bank Plaintiff never had any business with prior to the Defendants credit injury scam of 2013. In

exhibit _____, the Defendants identify ECMC as the creditor. These deceptive and extortion practices

have been ongoing, unregulated and are life threatening, harassing and do not belong in Plaintiff’s

life.

249. The defendants could not demonstrate its status as the holder of any contract, a non-holder with

possession of the contract, or that the original contract was lost, as required under the Uniform

Commercial Code, so they targeted Plaintiff’s retirement fund, falsified documents, extorted and

seized the Plaintiff’s money, forcing this law suit.

250. Please note the record carefully, Plaintiff never contracted with any of the Defendants and

adamantly disavows, disputes and objects to any and all presumptions related to any unconscionable

contracting consent or authorization to any asset backed securities.

251. No Defendant motion for wage order was ever served upon the plaintiff. This conduct constituted

a “legal action” prohibited by 15 USC §1692i.

252. No ECMC Defendant receipt is given when the ECMC criminal garnishments are in effect. These

deliberate extortion acts coupled with concealment and evidence suppression tactics constitute a

60

violation of § 1692 e false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the

debt collection.

253. Additionally, these criminal ECMC acts violate §1692d since their natural consequences are

calculated to harass, oppress and abuse the Plaintiff.

254. The ECMC Defendants extorted Plaintiff’s hard earned money that was not due them and stole

the money under the false pretense of Creditor.

255. Therefore the Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for actual, punitive, consequential, compensatory

damages in an amount to be determined at trial, or by the court.

TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

18 USC 241 CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS

BY ALL DEFENDANTS

256. The Defendants conspired and acted in concert together for the sole purpose of injuring Plaintiff’s

creditworthiness, oppressing, and harassing, intimidating and extorting money from Plaintiff so they

could access Plaintiff’s easy accessible funds through their NO REAL Evidence and no receipt

electronic funds scheme to defraud. The Defendants each sought after free, no receipt, money. Their acts

were unlawful, willful, and malicious. The defendants have no contract with the Plaintiff and have no

legal right to her private information. The defendants criminally conspired to not only invade her

privacy but to injure her credit worthiness by inquiring on her credit report with no permissible

purpose.

257. Each of the Defendants conspired together and violated 20 U.S. Code § 1080a(c)3. The defendants’

conspired against the rights of Plaintiff for the malicious purpose of EXTORTING MONEY FROM

61

THE Plaintiff. Each Defendant used collection practices that are not fair and reasonable and that

involved harassment, malice, flagrant unconstitutionality, intimidation, false and misleading

representations, and each of the defendants lied concerning the existence and ownership of their

concocted profiteering alleged debt.

258. All the Defendants conspired together by falsely, deceptively and misleadingly stating or implying

that ECMC was the actual creditor, while it was not.

259. The ECMC defendants’ used third party enjoinments for tortious interference to disguise the

multiple advantageous business relationships.

260. Therefore the Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for actual, punitive, consequential, compensatory

damages in an amount to be determined at trial, or by the court.

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

NEGLIGENT, WANTON, AND/OR INTENTIONAL HIRING AND

SUPERVISION OF INCOMPETENT EMPLOYEES OR AGENTS, AND

BY ALL DEFENDANTS

261. Plaintiff hereby restates, realleges, and incorporates by reference all foregoing paragraphs as

though fully set out herein.

262. The defendants knew they were not entitled to collect on the non-existent debt. The Defendants

were fully aware that each of them were/are unable to provide a performance contract executed by

Plaintiff, whereby Plaintiff would be obligated to Defendants.

263. The Defendants were aware of their wrongful conduct in creating an alleged debt Plaintiff is not

obligated to.

264. Defendants knew and approved of their incompetent employees and agents, attorney debt

collectors, and debt collection agencies. The defendants encouraged the creation, buying, selling and

concocting of nonexistent junk debt, the sending of unsigned extortion letters, the inclusion of newly

62

created out of thin air bank accounts, invisible contracts, robo-signing, lawsuit abuse, litigation for

profit, seizing innocent people’s money with no due process, with no real proof of standing, liability,

or damages and stealing between ten and fifty times greater amounts than what defendants paid for

the junk.

265. The Defendants negligently, wantonly, and/or intentionally hired, trained, retained, or supervised

incompetent debt collectors in ECMC and Performant Recovery Inc., whom were allowed, or

encouraged to violate the law as was done to the Plaintiff.

266. The Defendants negligently, wantonly, and/or intentionally hired, trained, retained, or supervised

incompetent debt collectors in ECMC and Performant Recovery and engaged them in monetary

transactions derived from unlawful activity under 18 U.S.C. §1957 and used them to implement

tactics that obstructed the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act as a method of operation.

267. Defendant Boyle is being sued for the willful administration of fraud as exemplified in his many

violations of Section 1. Chapter 2 of Title 6 of the Rules of the City of New York as amended.

Defendant Boyle disregarded the many FDCPA validation letters sent to him seeking ECMC’s

standing, contract with Plaintiff and proof of claim. Please see exhibits _____,.

268. Defendant Boyle disregarded Plaintiff’s consumer protection rights and collected on the alleged

unenforceable debt without a real party in interest, without validation, without acknowledging

Plaintiff’s dispute, without proving standing and or right and while FDCPA disputes were pending.

He is being sued for using various criminal subterfuges to harass and steal money from the Plaintiff

under an illusion of legality.

269. Defendant Boyle’s willful refusal to produce any authentic standing and validation documents

63

required under law exemplifies Defendants repetitious obstructions and violations of the

Commissioner of the Department of Consumer Affairs, Section 20-104 (b) of Chapter 1, and Sections

20-493 (a) and 20-493.2 (b) of Chapter 2, Title 20 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York,

and refusal to meet the requirements of Section 1043 of the New York City Charter.

270. The Defendants are therefore responsible and liable to the Plaintiff for the wrongs committed

against her, and the substantial damages suffered by Plaintiff.

TWELTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

GROSS INVASION OF PRIVACY

BY ALL DEFENDANTS

271. Plaintiff hereby restates, realleges, and incorporates by reference all foregoing paragraphs as though fully

set out herein.

272. The ECMC Defendants in this matter are debt collectors and their conspirator debt collectors Performant

Recovery and Pioneer are all strangers to the Plaintiff.

273. The Defendants conspired together to extort money from the Plaintiff while none of the defendants had a

contract between Plaintiff and any of the defendants.

274. Plaintiff has no contractual relationship with the defendants and has never applied for credit or services

with the defendants or any of their third party conspirators.

275. On or about April 2013 the ECMC defendant conspirator Performant Recovery maliciously and illegally,

obtained Plaintiff’s consumer credit report. Please see exhibit ______. Defendants Performant Recovery Debt

Collectors, like the ECMC debt collectors are not creditors, therefore the illegal obtaining of Plaintiff’s

consumer credit report constitutes a Tort claim for Invasion of Privacy.

276. Plaintiffs right to privacy are also an enumerated Constitutional right, both in the State and Federal

Constitution. Plaintiff has been damaged in that her proprietary, confidential, most personal information was

unlawfully and illegally breached by the Defendants acts. Importantly Plaintiff is most concerned with the

64

fact that the Plaintiff “did not” provide her social security number(s) to the Performant Recovery Defendant

debt collectors. Plaintiff supports this assertion by the mere fact that no credit, application or services was

applied nor received from the defendants.

277. Plaintiff has a right to discovery, to determine where Defendants obtained her personal, private

information from. Specifically, Plaintiff will investigate through discovery where defendant obtained Plaintiffs

social security number from, and what additional proprietary information was obtained by the defendants

illegally and unlawfully, and how that information is being used. The Defendants may also be guilty of Tax

Offset fraud and tax exempt status of the trusts under state and federal law.

278. The ECMC Defendants defamed Plaintiff’s name by sharing their criminal concocted debt collection

scam against Plaintiff, with multiple third parties.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that judgment in a sum NOT less than $1,561,600.00

(One million five hundred sixty-one thousand six hundred dollars and zero cents) be entered against the Defendants for the following CLAIMS OF RELIEF:

ACCOUNTING AND BILLA VERA (TRUE BILL)

COMPUTED AS FOLLOWS

$250,000.00 Due to Miriam Snyder for Defendants enforcement of SLAVERY- FORCED

COMPLIANCE TO INVISIBLE CONTRACTS NOT HELD 18 USC 3571;

$250,000.00 Due to Miriam Snyder for Defendants DENIED RIGHT TO TRUTH IN

EVIDENCE 18 USC 3571;

$250,000.00 Due to Miriam Snyder for Defendants DENIED PROPER WARRANT, LIEN, and

or JUDGMENT 18 USC 3571;

$250,000.00 Due to Miriam Snyder for Defendants DENIED PROPER DEMANDED

DISCLOSURES 18 USC 3571;

$56,000.00 Due to MIRIAM SNYDER for Defendants HARASSMENT which is a violation of

NY GBL 349 et seq, (Treble Damages) and the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act §

806;

$10,000.00 Due to MIRIAM SNYDER for Defendants falsification of documents by ECMC,

Pioneer, and Performant Recovery, is a violation of the 18 USC 1001;

65

$10,000.00 Due to MIRIAM SNYDER for damages of Fraud by the Defendants on numerous

occasions, pursuant to, Federal Civil Procedure § 378, Statute of Frauds and fraud

18 USC 1001;

$23,000.00 Due to MIRIAM SNYDER as the Defendants failed to report this alleged debt as

disputed and conspired to damage Plaintiff’s credit worthiness by the impermissible

inquiry by the Performant Recovery Defendants pursuant to the FCRA Section 623

and USC 241;

$1,000.00 Due to MIRIAM SNYDER in Damages for Defendants failure to validate the

alleged debt, yet continue to pursue collection activity pursuant to FDCPA Section

809 (b);

$18,000.00 Due to MIRIAM SNYDER for damages of Defamation by ECMC Defendants reporting

inaccurate, misleading, non-validated and fraudulent claims to multiple third parties

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 52. Findings and Conclusions by the Court;

$1,000.00 Due to MIRIAM SNYDER in damages for misrepresentation of the alleged debt which is a

violation of the (Fair Debt Collection Practice Act § 807);

$15,000.00 Due to MIRIAM SNYDER in damages for the ECMC defendants’ telephonic harassment,

calling Plaintiff after being notified to keep all communications in writing and to not call

Plaintiff which is a violation of the (Telephone Consumer Protection Act);

$10,000 Due to MIRIAM SNYDER in damages for threat, duress and coercion by garnishing her

money of July 2014 with no prior notice and with NO STANDING, Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure Rule 52. Findings and Conclusions by the Court;

$7,500.00 Due to MIRIAM SNYDER for time spent Researching, Creating Documents, and Travel

expenses to and from Specific Locations in order to mount an effective defense, calculated

at $75.00 per hour at five (5) hours per day for twenty days. (75 x 5 x 20 = 7500);

$90,000.00 Due to Miriam Snyder pursuant to: N.Y. Judiciary Law § 487 inter alia provide that an

attorney is guilty of a misdemeanor and is liable for treble damages to the aggrieved party

if the attorney:". . . is guilty of any deceit or collusion, or consents to any deceit or

collusion, with the intent to deceive the court or any party." See McKinney's Judiciary Law

§ 487; see also Oakes v. Muka, 56 A.D.3d 1057, 868 N.Y.S.2d 796 (3d Dept. 2008). Due to

MIRIAM SNYDER for Attorneys and lawyers in this matter infesting deceit,

misrepresentation, collusion, omission, malicious and unconstitutional garnishment and an

impermissible inquiry and treble Damages, for harassment, infliction of emotional duress,

and damages for the Defendants ongoing and continued refusal to certify and authenticate

their FRIVILOUS AND NOT SUBSTANTIATED WITH ANY VALID EVIDENCE

CLAMS in the instant action;

$60,000 Due to MIRIAM SNYDER for damages of Impairment of FINANCES from July 2012 to

July 2014 to present, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 52. Findings and

Conclusions by the Court;





66

250,000 Due to MIRIAM SNYDER for denied provisions in the Constitution 18 USC 3571. The

Supreme Court of the United States said that one’s money is a property interest protected

by the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause and any seizure of such property

interest requires prior notice and a hearing. Permitting a garnishment without a hearing is,

therefore, unconstitutional. The Court said that oral or written notice of the charges

brought against a person must be given to the person who is being garnished for more than

a trivial period. If the charges are disputed, the person must be given a hearing;

$10,000 Due to Miriam Snyder for Defendants Collusion between Agent and Third Parties

collusion, deceit, misrepresentation, fraud 18 USC 1001;

$10,000 Due to Miriam Snyder for Defendants Conspiracy against Rights of Miriam Snyder under

18 USC 241;

$10,000 Due to Miriam Snyder for Defendants Falsification of Documents 18 USC 1001;

$5,000 Due to Miriam Snyder for Defendants Mail Threats 18 USC 876;

$5,000 Due to Miriam Snyder for Defendants EXTORTION 18 USC 872;

$500.00 Due to Miriam Snyder for Defendants Misprision of Felony 18 USC 4;

$350.00 Due to Miriam Snyder for the cost of postage mailing counter financial terrorism

documents to the Defendants;

SUM CERTAIN OF ACTUAL COST OF CLAIM $1,561,600.00

(One million five hundred sixty-one thousand six hundred dollars and zero cents)

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff invokes the attached Verification, Affidavit in Support and the Negative

Averment Affidavit in support of this Verified Complaint and respectfully prays that judgment in a sum

NOT less than $1,502,150.00 be entered against the Defendants for the documented CLAIMS OF

RELIEF including:

a. Actual damages;

b. Statutory damages

c. Punitive damages

d. For costs, interest, attorney’s fees;

e. For three times the actual damages

67

f. For an injunction against future conduct as enumerated herein

g. and such other relief that the court feels is just and proper.

Plaintiff reserves the right to amend and adjust the accounting and True Bill.

Respectfully submitted,

Miriam Snyder



------------------------------------------------------------------X


PRO SE PLAINTIFF, VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT

AND CERTIFICATION

-V-






CORPORATION (ECMC) AND ELIZABETH E. FRANKLIN INDIVIDUALY AND AS CORPORATE

COUNSEL PERFORMANT RECOVERY, INC AND PERFORMANT RECOVERY, INC

DEFENDANTS/FICTITIOUS PAYEES/CREDITORS

------------------------------------------------------------------X

VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT AND CERTIFICATION

STATE OF NEW YORK )

68

) ss

COUNTY OF ___________ )

Plaintiff, Miriam Snyder hereby declares that the foregoing is true and correct:

1. I am the Plaintiff in this civil proceeding.

2. I have written and read the attached Verified Complaint and all of the facts contained therein are true

to the best of my knowledge, information, belief and personal experience.

3. This civil Complaint is well grounded, cognizable in facts and warranted by existing law or by good

faith argument for the extension, modification or enforcement of existing law.

4. This civil Complaint is not interposed for any improper purpose.

5. I have filed this civil Complaint in good faith and solely for the purposes set forth in it.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746(2), I, Miriam Snyder, hereby declare that the complaint, exhibits and

affidavits attached are true and correct.

Dated: July ______, 2014

By:_________________________

Miriam Snyder



Fax: 866-244-9823

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

69

PLAINTIFF ADDRESS AND FAX

Miriam Snyder



Fax: 866-244-9823

[email protected]

DEFENDANT ADDRESSES

Daniel Fisher, General Counsel, Executive Vice President

Educational Credit Management Corporation

1 Imation Place

Building 2

Oakdale, MN 55128

Mr. Richard Boyle, OFFICER


1 Imation Place

Building 2

Oakdale, MN 55128

Janice Hines, President and CEO


1 Imation Place

Building 2


70

Oakdale, MN 55128


1 Imation Place

Building 2

Oakdale, MN 55128

ELIZABETH E. FRANKLIN, ATTORNEY

PERFORMANT RECOVERY, INC

333 N. Canyons Parkway, Suite 200

Livermore, CA 94551

Telephone: (925) 960-4764

Facsimile: (925) 960-4880

Email: [email protected]

.

PERFORMANT RECOVERY, INC

333 N. Canyons Parkway, Suite 200

Livermore, CA 94551

Telephone: (925) 960-4764

Facsimile: (925) 960-4880

Email: [email protected]



------------------------------------------------------------------X

MIRIAM SNYDER AFFIDAVIT OF SPECIFIC NEGATIVE AVERMENT

IN SUPPORT OF THE PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED

COMPLAINT

PRO SE PLAINTIFF,

CASE NO.

-V-








71




------------------------------------------------------------------X

AFFIDAVIT OF SPECIFIC NEGATIVE AVERMENT

INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 9 Pleading Special Matters and Rule 17.

Parties Plaintiff and Defendant; Capacity. Plaintiff raises several issues as to the Real Party in

Interest, Standing, legal existence and authority of the ECMC Defendants to seize her money while

not having any capacity to sue and or legal authority and raises this issue via the this Specific

Negative Averment which includes supporting particulars as are peculiarly within the Plaintiff’s

knowledge. I Miriam Snyder hereby claim to the best of my knowledge, information and belief

that:

1. I have no knowledge, belief, or record that the Plaintiff was notified of any agreement or Power of

Attorney, filed anywhere, pursuant to any Law, Rule, Regulation or Ordinance which permits the

defendants, who do not have firsthand knowledge of the facts to make an Affirmation much more

seize the Plaintiff’s money via garnishment.

2. I have no knowledge, belief, or record that the Defendants in this claim are real persons, entities,

corporation or otherwise legal fictions authorized to conduct business in the CITY OF NEW

YORK, NEW YORK, NY, NYC, NYS or NEW YORK STATE.

3. I have no knowledge, belief, or record that the Defendants follow Ordinandi Lex.

4. I have no knowledge, belief, or records showing that the ECMC defendants’ are the real parties in

interest and or are authorized to represent the real party in interest and I do not believe that such

valid records exist.

5. I have no knowledge, belief, record or reason to believe that the Defendants are not deliberately

administering fraud and malice with intent and knowledge of the fraud by:

a. claiming a nonexistent debt is owed to ECMC when no evidence suggests such,

b. claiming that the ECMC Defendants are the creditors while they have never extended credit

to Plaintiff,

c. sending ECMC extortion communications that said that the ECMC defendants were not

collecting debts when they were,


72

d. attempting to bully the Plaintiff into giving ECMC free money by enjoining two other gangster

type debt collectors to harass plaintiff and obstruct FDCPA consumer protections,

e. not signing any of the Defendant extortion letters except one from Performant Recovery,

f. not producing any valid judgment, lien, order or warrant,

g. not affirming any of their documents,

h. ECMC disguising the real party in interest,

i. Not Producing a FDCP Rule 17, Ratification of Commencement, See exhibits ______.

6. I have no knowledge, belief, or record that the Plaintiff or an authorized representative of the

Plaintiff did not send to representative of the defendants numerous letters requesting lawful

accounting, received by the Defendants on the dates: July 17, 2012, July 25, 2012, August 2012,

September 2012, October, 2012 and November 2012, January 2014 March 2014, and April 2014.

These notices were sent to: Educational Credit Management Corp, P.O Box 17708 , St. Paul, MN

55101, and 1 Imation Place, Building 2 Oakdale, MN 55128, and to Richard J. Boyle, CEO,

Education Credit Management Corp, Attn: Alleged Federal Offset , P.O. Box 1708 , St. Paul, MN

55101

7. I have no knowledge, belief or record of Educational Credit Management Corporation having a

registered business address or name, or having a registered agent or being properly identified in the

New York State Department of State. Please see exhibit _____.

8. I have no knowledge, belief, or record that the Plaintiff did not send correspondences requesting

lawful accounting documentation related to the alleged account created by ECMC, to the U.S.

Department of Education, Office of Management Privacy, Information and Records Management

73

Services, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, LBJ 2E321, Washington, DC 20202-4536, ATTN: FOIA Public

Liaison during the time period of July 2012 to March 2014.

9. I have no knowledge, belief, or record that ECMC is siphoning Plaintiff’s money based on any

United States Department of Education claims. I have no knowledge or belief that the United States

Department of Education has ever had any records or claims against Plaintiff.

10. I have no knowledge, belief, record or reason to believe that the ECMC defendants are the real

parties in interest in this matter.

11. I have no knowledge, belief, or record that Plaintiff did not express to the defendants that billing

statements do not show lawful accounting, specifically showing how the alleged debt was created and who

funded the alleged debt of which the Defendants or representative of the alleged Chase Bank, ECMC,

First Federal, are claiming.

12. I have no knowledge, belief, or record that any Defendant summons, complaint, affidavit, contract,

assignee, judgment, order and or anything that could authorize the defendants’ criminal seizure of

Plaintiff’s money exists and I believe no such documents exist.

13. I have no knowledge, belief, or record that any cause of action has accrued in favor of any of the

defendants.

14. I have no knowledge, belief, or record that FRCP 17, Ratification of Commencement has been produced

and Plaintiff objects to no Ratification of Commencement and to the ECMC Defendants continued

disguise as the Real Party in Interest when they are not.

15. I have no knowledge, belief, or record that the Plaintiff expressed in any way, shape, or form, that the she

refuses to pay this alleged debt/claim, provided that a lawful accounting, specifically showing how the

alleged debt was created, be served upon the Plaintiff.

16. I have no knowledge, belief, or record that the Defendants submitted a counter-affidavit rebutting point-

74

for-point, the Plaintiff’s many prior AFFIDAVITS OF TRUTH TO DISMISS DEFENDANTS

EXTORTION CLAIMS BASED ON LACK OF PERSONA AND SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION, therefore the Plaintiff’s unrebutted affidavit stands as a judgment in this matter.

17. I have no knowledge, belief, or record that the Plaintiff did not notify the Defendants via several certified

U.S postal mailings that no telephone communication should be made to her regarding the ECMC

Defendants nonexistent claim. The ECMC Defendants did in fact dishonor this request and used the

phone calls as a harassment tool. Please see exhibits _______.

18. I have no knowledge, belief, or record that the ECMC Defendants did not enjoin multiple other debt

collectors like Performant Recovery and Pioneer to harass, exploit Plaintiff’s privacy information,

damage Plaintiff’s credit worthiness, and to bully, intimidate and to attempt to extort money from

Plaintiff by using FRAUDULENT computer generated statements that caused shock, annoyance

and irritation. See Exhibits ____.

19. I have no knowledge, belief, or record that the Defendants did not violate (section 809 of the Fair

Debt Collection Practice Act) by failure to validate the alleged debt by directly NOT answering the

questions in Plaintiff’s many letters of validation request for accounting information in relation to

this alleged account/debt and continued with further collection attempts, in obstruction to consumer

protection laws.

20. I have no knowledge, belief, or record that the Defendants are exempt from the Fair Debt Collection

Practices Act § 807, False or misleading representations [15 USC 1962e]

21. I have no knowledge, belief, or record of any evidence in support of the creation of this alleged debt,

which was requested of the defendants in several request for validations. Please see exhibits ______.

22. I have no knowledge, belief, or record of any of the defendant’s ownership rights, and believe that no

such evidence exists.

75

23. I have no knowledge, belief, or record of any of the defendants not making false representations and

believe such false Defendant representations will continue in this matter if sanctions are not

rendered, against the ECMC defendants again. Please see previous ECMC debt collection court

sanctions in exhibit ______.

24. I have no knowledge, belief, or record of any proper authority to seize Plaintiff’s funds.

25. I have no knowledge, belief, or record that ECMC is authorized to represent the multiple banks

concocted.

26. I have no knowledge, belief, or record that ECMC has capacity as original lender/creator-of-credit

and “real party in interest, and object to the ECMC Defendants pretending to be creditors in this

matter.

RELIEF

WHEREFORE Plaintiff Miriam Snyder invokes each and every Claim for Relief cited in the

attached Order to Show Cause Application and Verified Complaint. I hereby and herein reserve the right

to amend and make amends to this Affidavit of Specific Negative Averment as necessary in order that the

truth may be ascertained and proceedings justly determined. If the defendants have any information that

will controvert and overcome this affidavit point for point, please advise the Plaintiff of this document in

written affidavit form within 10 days from receipt hereof and provide a Defendant counter affidavit

stating all requisite actual evidentiary fact and not merely unsubstantiated statements.

The Defendant’s silence and failure to respond by TACIT PROCURATION will constitute

COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, AND ESTOPPEL BY ACQUIESCENCE that the Defendants are unable

to validate the alleged debt or support their lawless, harassing, fraud based, seizures of Plaintiff’s money.

AFFIRMATION

On the ____ day of July 2014, I, Miriam Snyder hereby affirm that the above statements in this Affidavit

in Support of the Order to Show Cause and Verified Complaint with Exhibits, are true, correct and

summarize the ECMC seizure of my money with no standing, capacity, authority and or proof of claims. I

hereby further affirm that the basis of these statements is my own direct knowledge, experience, and

76

historical facts involved. This notarized affidavit with my signature verifies the truth in my sworn

statements. All of my statements are true and correct.

_______________________________________

Miriam Snyder



516 642 6007

Affirm before me _________, day of ___________, 2012

Notary Signature____________________________

Commission Expires: Seal

77



------------------------------------------------------------------X


PRO SE PLAINTIFF,

RULE 34 REQUEST OF PLAINTIFF FOR

PRODUCTION OF CERTIFIED

DOCUMENTS

-V-









------------------------------------------------------------------X

INTRODUCTION

The defendants have used the United States mail and have sent the Plaintiff several fictitious

extortion claims and have maliciously seized Plaintiff’s money with no notice or validation, which

Plaintiff deems to be in violation of the law, particularly while Plaintiff has no contractual relationship

with any of the Defendants. Furthermore, Plaintiff lacks sufficient information or knowledge regarding

Defendants insinuation into her private affairs on behalf of others with whom she has no contract. Hence,

Plaintiff demands that forthwith the defendants’ provide her the following documents:

1. Please produce the below Educational Credit Management Corporation and Performant Recovery

debt collection corporate records:

a. FR 2046 balance sheet,

b. 1099-OID report,

c. S-3/A registration statement,

d. 424-B5 prospectus and RC-S & RC-B Call Schedules

e. A certified copy of the delegation of authority

2. Please provide verification from the stated creditor that the defendants are authorized to act for

78

them.

3. Please produce the agreement that bears the signature of the Plaintiff wherein she agreed to pay

the original creditor.

4. Please furnish a copy of the original contract redacting Plaintiff’s social security number to

prevent identify theft and state under penalty of perjury that ECMC is the bona fide party in

interest of the contract and will produce the original contract for the court and Plaintiff’s

inspection.

5. Please verify under penalty of perjury that ECMC knows and understands that certain clauses in

a contract of adhesion, such as a so-called forum selection clause, are unenforceable unless the

party to whom the contract is extended could have rejected the clause without impunity.

6. Please produce a copy of ECMC’s s and Performant Recovery’s Department of State filing

information that authorizes each entity to collect debts in New York State, for out of state claims

as in this matter, as this will also verify if the defendants’ filings have expired or are valid.

7. Please produce the ECMC Defendants’ relative commercial instruments, including but not limited

to applications, assigns, agreements, and/or contracts, which contain exchange of benefit(s) or

consideration, and/or contain the verified signature of Plaintiff.

8. Please produce the ECMC Defendants’ verified copies of all assigns, negotiations, securities and/or

transfers of rights, title(s) and/or interest(s) and the like, sworn by wet-ink signature signed under

the penalty of perjury that the foregoing copies are true, correct, and not misleading which

unambiguously delineates that the ECMC Defendants are the current owner, assignee, holder,

holder in due course, and/or entitlement holder of the alleged debt including all supporting

documentary evidence as proof.

9. Please produce all of the ECMC relative commercial instruments and/or notices, declarations,

publications, which clearly and unambiguously delineate that the Plaintiff, was fully and

completely apprised of all rights, duties, obligations, liabilities, costs, fees, in advance or

subsequent to the alleged incurrence of alleged debt, and where there has been full disclosure of

all relevant terms and conditions.

10. Please produce all Defendants’ proofs by affidavit or declaration, sworn by wet-ink signature

signed under the penalty of perjury, the defendants’ did not engage in any conduct to harass,

oppress, or abuse Plaintiff including but not limited to placing telephone calls without disclosure

of the caller's identity, the use obscene or profane language, causing a telephone to ring with the

intent to annoy, abuse or harass Plaintiff.

11. Please produce the insurance claims that have been made by any creditor on the Alleged Account.

79

12. Please produce proof that ECMC is the Creditor of the Alleged Account and identify the source of

funds and produce all records, reports, ledgers and memoranda that prove beyond a reasonable

doubt that ECMC was the source and origin of the funds.

13. If ECMC changes its mind and says it’s not the creditor anymore, please provide the name and

address of the alleged Creditor and provide date of ECMC purchase, the purchase amount of

Alleged Account and the account number. Please provide the name of the entity ECMC purchased

the alleged junk debt from.

14. Please produce the certified records with the name and address of the owner and/or business of the

account that was debited when the Alleged Account was created. Also, please identify the account

number that was debited when the Alleged Account was created.

15. Please produce the records that show what rights, titles and interest were transferred to the ECMC

defendants’ resulting from the transaction. Please produce the terms of assignment of the Alleged

Account and any records in support of the terms and conditions of the assignment.

16. Please produce the US mail receipts and the verification of the alleged debt via sworn affidavit or

a hand signed invoice in accordance with the "Fair Debt Collection Practices Act that was

requested from the plaintiff. Please provide the date verification was provided to the Plaintiff.

17. Please produce the documents that show the ECMC defendants’ current status as it relates to the

alleged debt, eg: current owner, assignee, holder, holder in due course, and/or entitlement holder

of the alleged debt. Please provide the true, correct, complete and not misleading copies of proofs

and/or documentary or evidentiary records, sworn by wet-ink signature signed under the penalty

of perjury that the foregoing copies are true, correct, and not misleading.

18. Please produce any verifiable original agreement, instrument or contract between ECMC and the

Plaintiff, and verify under oath, affirmation or deposition under the pains and penalties of

perjury.

19. Please produce any verifiable original agreement, instrument or contract between Performant

Recovery and the Plaintiff, and verify under oath, affirmation or deposition under the pains and

penalties of perjury.

20. Please produce the charge-off records that have been made by any creditor or debt collector

regarding this alleged account

21. Please produce the tax deduction and/or tax-write off records made by any creditor or debt

collector regarding this alleged account.

22. Provide evidence that the statute of limitations has not expired on the alleged account.

23. Please produce all documents evidencing telephone messages, log books, or your other regularly

maintained records which contain information about communications between ECMC and

Plaintiff from 2012 to present in regards to telephone number 516 642 007.

80

24. Please produce all phone records between ECMC and Plaintiff from July 1, 2012 to July 1, 2014

with regards to telephone number 516 642 6007.

25. Please produce all policy manuals, procedure manuals, or other documents which address your

policies, practices, or procedures in the investigation or reinvestigation of violations of the TCP A,

FDCP A, and the FCRA.

Respectfully submitted,

____________________________

Miriam Snyder 3230 Cruger Avenue 6B


EXHIBIT 1

PLAINTIFF’S VALIDATION DEMAND LETTER DATED JULY 17, 2012 ADDRESSING THE

ECMC’S DECEPTIVE INTRODUCTION OF EXTORTION INTO HER LIFE. THE ECMC

DEFENDANTS ENTERED AND INITIATED CONTACT WITH UNCLEAN HANDS AND

DECEPTIVE COMMUNCATIONS.

EXIBIT 2

PLAINTIFF’S VALIDATION DEMAND LETTER DATED JULY 25, 2012 NOTICE TO ECMC

DEFENDANTS OF THE FDCPA AND OTHER HARASSMENT VIOLATIONS

EXHIBIT 3

MUTIPLE ECMC UNSIGNED, FRIVILOUS, DECEPTIVE, HARASSING AND FICTITIOUS

EXTORTION LETTERS: FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS, MAIL FRAUD AND EXTORTION: 18

USC 1001, 18 USC 876 AND 18 USC 872

81

EXHIBIT 4

ECMC ENJOINMENT OF PERFORMANT RECOVERY FOR MALICE, HARASSMENT, AND

EXTORTION. PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUE. 18 USC 241, FALSIFICATION OF

DOCUMENTS, MAIL FRAUD AND EXTORTION: 18 USC 1001, 18 USC 876 AND 18 USC 872,

ADVERTISING ECMC AS CREDITORS

EXHIBIT 5

ECMC ENJOINMENT OF PIONEER DEBT COLLECTORS TO HARASS AND EXTORT MONEY

FROM PLAINTIFF 18 USC 241 AND FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS ADVERTISING ECMC AS

CREDITORS FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS, MAIL FRAUD AND EXTORTION: 18 USC 1001,

18 USC 876 AND 18 USC 872

EXHIBIT 6

PLAINTIFF VALIDATION AND CEASE AND DESIST HARASSMENT LETTER DATED OCTOBER

17, 2013

EXHIBIT 7

THIS IS A CLEAR 18 USC 3571 AND 18 USC 1001 DENIED RIGHT TO TRUTH AND DENIED A DUE

PROCES HEARING BASED ON A DOCUMENTED LIE BY THE ECMC DEFENDNATS STATING

THEY WERE NOT GARNISHING PLAINTIFF’S MONEY OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER 2012 AND

THE SECOND PAGE SHOWS THE OCTOBER 2012 AND NOVEMBER 2012 ECMC

GARNISHMENT

EXHIBIT 8

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE RESPONSE LETTER, OTHER AUTHORITIES,

PLAINTIFF PLEAS TO STOP ECMC’S CRIMES AGAINST PLAINTIFF

EXHIBIT 9

ECMC HARASSMENT CALLS TO PLAINTIFF’S CELL PHONE AT 516 642 6007, PHONE

RECORDS FOR 10 ECMC UNAUTHORIZED AND HARASSMENT CALLS 18 USC 241 AND 18

USC 872

EXHIBIT 10

ECMC PAY OFF AMOUNT ZEROE, ECMC FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS, MAIL FRAUD

AND EXTORTION: 18 USC 1001, 18 USC 876 AND 18 USC 872

82

EXHIBIT 11

ECMC’S SUPERVISORY MANUAL SPECIFYING THAT ECMC IN ITS DEFAULT DEBT

COLLECTION CAPACITY IS A DEBT COLLECTOR S DEFAULT DEBTS MUST ABIDE BY THE

FCPA

EXHIBIT 12

ECMC’S MALICIOUS, HARASSING, AND DECEPTIVE UNSIGNED AND UNDATED

COMMUNICATIONS SENT JUNE 30, 2014 THE SAME DAY THE PHONE HARASSMENT WAS

INFLICTED AND THE DAY BEFORE ANOTHER CRIMINAL GARNISHMENT THAT BEGAN

JULY 1, 2014 AN NOT ONE AFFIDAVIT ANYWHERE TO SUBSTNTIATE THE THEFT OF

PLAINTIFF’S MONEY.

EXHIBIT 13

ECMC CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS, THIRD PARTY ENJOINMENT IN FRAUD, DECEPTIVE

BILLING, NO ECMC RECEIPT, PURE FRAUD, CRIMNAL ATTEMPT TO HIDE THAT MONEY IS

GOING TO ECMC, THIS IS ECMC’S SLAVERY ZONE: COMPLIANCE TO INVISBLE

CONTRACTS THROUGH THIRD PATIES 18 USC 3571, ADVERTISING ECMC AS CREDITORS,

FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS, MAIL FRAUD AND EXTORTION: 18 USC 1001, 18 USC 876

AND 18 USC 872

SOME NOT

ALL EXHIBTS

83

EXHIBIT

ECMC TELEPHONE HARASSMENT AFTER TELLING AND NOTIFYING

ECMC NOT TO CALL ME AND TO KEEP ALL COMMUNICATIONS IN

WRITING

10/14/2013 AND 10/15/2013

FROM: ECMC 651 221-0037

TO: MIRIAM SNYDER 516 642 6007

ECMC 651 221-0037

84



WRITING

FROM: ECMC 651 221-0037


8/30/12 AT 10:20 AM

8/30/12 AT 10:22 AM

9/6/2012 AT 11:03 AM

10/17/2012 AT 2:50 PM

85



WRITING

FROM: ECMC 651 221-0037


10/7/2013 AT 8:06 PM

10/7/2013 AT 5:01

10/7/2013 AT 3:50 PM

10/7/2013 AT 3:13 PM

86

10/7/2013 AT 2:50 PM



WRITING

FROM: ECMC 1866 892 4708


JUNE 30, 2014

87

SLIGHTLY LARGER PICTURE OF ECMC MALICIOUS AND DECPTIVE

COMMUNICATIONS

88

EXHBIT 14

THE NYS GUARANTY AGENCY IS NOT ECMC

State Guaranty Agency

89

Private, non-profit corporations designated to administer the Federal Family Education Loan Program (

A | C | D | F | G | H | I | K | L | M | N | O | P | R | S | T | U | V | W | Territories

New York

New York State Higher Education Services Corporation

99 Washington Avenue

Albany, NY 12255

Phone: (518) 473-7087

Toll-Free: (888) 697-4372

Fax: (518) 474-2839

TTY: (800) 445-5234

Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

Website: http://www.hesc.com/content.nsf/

Virginia

Educational Credit Management Corporation (Virginia)

Boulders VII

Suite 200

7325 Beaufont Springs Drive

Richmond, VA 23225

Phone: (804) 267-7100

Toll-Free: (888) 775-3262

Fax: (804) 267-7159

TTY: (804) 267-7104

Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

Website: http://www.ecmc.org/

http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/Programs/EROD/org_list.cfm?category_ID=SGA#A

http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/Programs/EROD/org_list.cfm?category_ID=SGA#C

http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/Programs/EROD/org_list.cfm?category_ID=SGA#D

http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/Programs/EROD/org_list.cfm?category_ID=SGA#F

http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/Programs/EROD/org_list.cfm?category_ID=SGA#G

http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/Programs/EROD/org_list.cfm?category_ID=SGA#H

http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/Programs/EROD/org_list.cfm?category_ID=SGA#I

http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/Programs/EROD/org_list.cfm?category_ID=SGA#K

http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/Programs/EROD/org_list.cfm?category_ID=SGA#L

http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/Programs/EROD/org_list.cfm?category_ID=SGA#M

http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/Programs/EROD/org_list.cfm?category_ID=SGA#N

http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/Programs/EROD/org_list.cfm?category_ID=SGA#O

http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/Programs/EROD/org_list.cfm?category_ID=SGA#P

http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/Programs/EROD/org_list.cfm?category_ID=SGA#R

http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/Programs/EROD/org_list.cfm?category_ID=SGA#S

http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/Programs/EROD/org_list.cfm?category_ID=SGA#T

http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/Programs/EROD/org_list.cfm?category_ID=SGA#U

http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/Programs/EROD/org_list.cfm?category_ID=SGA#V

http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/Programs/EROD/org_list.cfm?category_ID=SGA#W

http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/Programs/EROD/org_list.cfm?category_ID=SGA#Territories

http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/Programs/EROD/org_list.cfm?category_ID=SGA#top



http://www.hesc.com/content.nsf/

http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/Programs/EROD/org_list.cfm?category_ID=SGA#top



http://www.ecmc.org/

90

ECMC

HARASSMENT

ecmc lawsuit filed july 10 2014 final submitted needs scans

Documents

named ecmc defendants

request of plaintiff

defendant wage order

miriam snyder proposed

temporary restraining

united states courthouse

state of new york

janice hines