Help in dealing with SUTTELL & HAMMER, P.S.

Quote:

[SIZE=3]Even if you didn't get the first DV in within the 30-day window, all is not lost.

"The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer."
[COLOR=blue][/COLOR]
From: FDCPA, ?? 809: Validation of debts
15 USC 1692g(c)


[/SIZE]

Yes, I live in King County. and I called the King County Superior Clerk office, they tell me to respond to them, since it is not filed as of today.
I sent out the first DV letter on 06/22/2009 within 30 day of receiving information on my debt from them, then I sent out a second DV letter on 07/23/2009, both are through USPS with signature requirement of which both are signed, showing they did receive it, I have not received any information, until today

Which in short is In the Superior Court of the State of Washington
Plaintiff: Capitol One Bank
Defendent: Me

This part is all blank
No.
Summons

s/a 203515.001

The paper states that a lawsuit has been started against me, with their claim in the written compaint.
In order to defend against this lawsuit, I must respond to the complaint by stating my defense in writing, and serve a copy upon the undersigned attorneys for the plaintiff within 20 days after of this summons, this summon is dated December 4, 2009.

So if I respond to them, how do I respond, is there a format and what should I say?
Thank you for the response already.

you don't respond.go to NACA.NET and find a consumer attorney that will work on a contingency basis.once you do that let the attorney contact them.they willfully violated the FDCPA,and should sued for it.do that,and collect 1,000.00.

Quote:

there hasn't been a suit filed so find yourself an attorney,and have them respond.your court clerk said there wasn't a suit filed.if they file suit you will be served respond then.you sent proper validation,and they respond by violating the FDCPA.either get an attoney,and sue them or wait until suit is actually filed and respond that this place never validated the debt.use your receipts as proof,and demand validation during discovery.you will be served if they file suit not given a letter attempting to get you to pay on something that they more than likely don't have legal right to collect on.they didn't validate for a reason.btw if you respond i guarantee that they will hassell and threaten you to pay.again either keep up on it with your court clerk and respond when they file suit,or get a contingency lawyer,and sue them for breaking the law because that is what they did.

Suttell & Hammer (formerly Suttell & Assoc.) needs to be stopped from ramming people (illegally) through the court systems. I have gone through the same - no response to discovery requests. My summons had a number, however, but Suttell & Hammer is still not cooperating at all with demand for discovery (even when sent through the court system). I have an arbitration date through the court on 1/7/10 coming up this week. I have prepared my case (with help of friends who have the correct forms, etc. and who have won in court on the same) and will see what happens. Suttell & Hammer are a calculating, abusive and antagonistic law firm intent on intimidating and depriving defendants of due process of law. They take advantage of people not knowing the state and federal rules and laws and not knowing how to fight them in court. Another of their favorite tactics is to go straight for a Motion For Summary Judgment Award right after they have filed and served the summons, claiming that no material facts exist. This unlawful firm needs to have a class action suit filed against them. They and others like them need to be stopped!!! Enter Suttell & Associates and Suttell & Hammer into the search engines and see what you come up with. They are all over the web. People are complaining of their illegal tactics!

The same things happened to me just like you are experiencing-I just had court today (01142010) in Snohomish Co Superior Civil and lost my case. The Judge stated that he does not enforce consumer protection laws or Federal Laws. I stated that they are not Collection Agency compliant because they do not hold a current Collection Agency Licence thru the Department of Licensing. He said 'They act like layers in my court' I asked about Suttell and Associates not responding to my two seperate validation letters and he just ignored me. I asked why he ignored the SOL and he said 'the truth in lending agreement does not constitute a law. A credit card account is a written contract' I explained that I am completly unfamiliar with this account, he ignored me and He refused to respond to my allegations that Suttell and Associates violated consumer protection laws. I already had the proof of these violations recorded within the case file. Suttell and Associates (now known as Suttell and Hammer) did not serve me any calender notes. But apparently this is all acceptable?!?
My assumption - The consumer really does not have any rights!!!
I have already contacetd the Attorney Generals Office and filed a complaint, as well as the FTC, my Legislator, Senator and Governer...I am really contemplating going to the media as well. What happened today in court was just WRONG!!!!

Quote:

Quote:

well what was the case #?let me see.i also tried suttell in the plaintiff spot and also came up with nothing.who was the plaintiff?provide that please or know now that your post is under scrutiny.suttell has no jurisdiction in snohomish county.please provide info if this did happen it can be remedied,but even using suttell&hammer,suttel,suttel&associates yielded nothing on the courts site.

Quote:

I apologize again...the Plaintiffs name is:
ASSETT ACCEPTANCE LLC
[FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT]
And I have googled the Skagit case but can no longer find anything on it....which is really funny because it had made the local news....

Quote:

The case number is 08-2-09976-6
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]

I just found a link explaining what occurred to the woman that had been in Skagit County criminal court due to late payments to rent-a-center:
kirotv.com/money/21468870/detail.html

[QUOTE=Anonymous;517560]I apologize again...the Plaintiffs name is:
ASSETT ACCEPTANCE LLC
[FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT]
And I have googled the Skagit case but can no longer find anything on it....which is really funny because it had made the local news....[/QUOTE]

Give us a deactivated link please.

Thanks, we must have been posting at the same time.

Quote:

There was actually furniture involved in this case, not just a loan. But still, it makes no sense that a person could actually be arrested for being late on their bill? This is a small excerpt of what was and still is wrong with the U.S. Companies that extend credit are not very well regulated! This is an outrage, and totally ridiculous!

Quote:

Well, here's the thing--courts have court reporters, so that EVERY WORD is on record.

If this actually happened, and the judge actually said things like "I dont enforce consumer protection law in my court", you NEED to go to NACA.com IMMEDIATELY and find yourself a lawyer. You need to file an appeal on this case ASAP. If this really happened, that judge way overstepped his authority, because he is bound by the laws of the jurisdiction he represents. He doesnt get the right to say "well, I'm going to pretend that law doesnt exist". This was superior civil court and consumer protection law is a civil law. If this really happened, then you need to file an appeal ASAP and get this handled.

I actually stayed late in the court to request the transcripts as proof of what the judge said and to verify if what I heard was really what I heard. The Court clerk explained to me that they do not record in Civil court.
I will contact the agency you recommend.
Question regarding the judgement:
Should I go ahead and pay this? I do have the money to do this - but the way this case occurred was just wrong and I really do not feel that it us right that anyone (if they are represented by an attorney) can sue someone with false allegations and that they do not have to prove there case. This was just wrong.
Please wish me luck.
-JJTA800

I contacted an attorney and he was very helpful explaining what I did not see.

Apparently the debt validation letter is not prevalent when requested prior to the case being filed with the courts.
The debt validation letter needs to be requested after the suit has been filed and after the defendant has responded to the court and to the plaintiffs attorneys (you need to send these to both the plaintiff and to the court clerk - make sure that they are filed in your case file as soon as you can) and within whatever time frame the summons gives you.
Please note:
Whatever you do - DO NOT CALL THE PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEYS - GET EVERYTHING IN WRITING!!! and never admit to anything!!!!
I guess that here in Washington State the plaintiff has six years to file with the courts after they have originally served you the summons. This summons does not need a case number because it is all up to the plaintiff and when they decide to file the case.

The attorney does not need to be licensed with the washington state department of licensing with a collection agency license. There is a loop hole in washington state law that allows this.
Assett Acceptance is also not licensed as a collection agency (or for that matter - anything in Washington State) and I have an outstanding question with the washington state department of licensing asking if this is acceptable - but have not heard an answer back yet.
I have contacted the washington state attorney generals office and they cannot help if the case has already been completed (you have seen the judge and he said 'the plaintiff has proven there case and will be allowed the summary judgement...' or something to this affect). But they tried to reassure me that a complaint has been entered in my name and if there is ever any future litigation they will let me know about it.
The letter I sent to the governor was forwarded to the attorney generals office (and I can guess what will happen with that...)
I still have not heard back from my senator (Val Stevens) or my legislator (Dan Kristiansen) yeah - I will not be voting for either of these two again!!!
I have noticed after sitting in court for quite a few days - if you show up in court you can attempt to explain your case - but the judge will not give you legal answers - this is why you need to have an attorneys help.
Please do go to court so if they try the old - 'well the plaintiff is located in *whatever* state then can we please have the maximum interest and penalties that *whatever* state will allow?' You can explain that you have 'never been to that *whatever* state and you have no idea what there interest and penalties are. You have never left your state...' etc etc. (They can add on thousands with this little trick)
Give as much information on paperwork to the case file (file it with the court clerk and keep a copy for yourself) as you can so there are not any questions. Make sure that everything has been admitted to the courts at least a week prior to the hearing - if you are not able to do this then bring at least 4 working copies to the hearing and give one to the judge and to the plaintiff.
Suttell and Hammer (formerly known as Suttell and Associates) have a bad tendency to not let anyone know (and this is legal - amazing isn't it? *dripping in sarcasm*) when a hearing has been set. You can monitor your case on the courts.wa.gov website - http://www.courts.wa.gov/ this site is only for washington state.

Basically - the best advice as soon as you receive the original summons is to go to the NACA.net website, obtain an attorney closest to your location so together you can both go over the respective State laws and you can understand your rights.

I forgot to mention - most (if not all) of the attorneys on the NACA.net website work on a contigincy fee. This means that whatever you win on your case they get a percentage of it.
DO NOT BE AFRAID to contact them!!!
They are only to help and not to judge.
They will give you straight up answers and will rephrase it if you do not understand what they are saying.
And most importantly - they are consumer protection specialists!!!

The worst thing I did to myself was not to contact them first (NACA.net) - if I had contacted them I would have won my case....yeah - hindsight is beautiful isn't it (*heavy sarcasm*).

I just received my 2nd "Summons" from Suttell. I also received one back in August regarding another creditor. My attorney at Weisberg & Meyers (attorneys for comsumers)says they pull this trick all the time. Wait 90 days without responding to see If there is indeed a case number. Chances are, there is not. I was told all the cases regarding these summons will be litigated. The following is from an e-mail I received from Weisberg & Meyers:
Because we already have so many cases against Suttell on the same issue, we are not comfortable taking on another case that we will no doubt be forced to litigate extensively, knowing that if the first case of this kind fails then the rest of them will fail after. In other words, there is only so much work we can commit to doing in support of one fact pattern for which the law is uncertain.

if that attorney told you to "wait 90 days without responding to see if there is a case number" then I would run as far from that lawyer and as fast as I could.

suppose they really did sue you? If you wait three months and do nothing, they get a default judgment against you that you CANNOT, repeat, CANNOT get vacated. The one and only correct answer there is to check with the court clerk's office in the county where they are supposedly suing you and see if the summons is legit or not.

To the above poster, I smell a rat. I am not saying that you are doing this, but be warned--if we discover that you are an employee of a debt collection agency, YOU COULD BE HELD LIABLE FOR VIOLATING FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION LAW. If you do not work for one of these scammers, then you either have no clue yourself or someone gave you some VERY bad advice.

[QUOTE=Anonymous;519556]I contacted an attorney and he was very helpful explaining what I did not see.

Apparently the debt validation letter is not prevalent when requested prior to the case being filed with the courts.
The debt validation letter needs to be requested after the suit has been filed and after the defendant has responded to the court and to the plaintiffs attorneys (you need to send these to both the plaintiff and to the court clerk - make sure that they are filed in your case file as soon as you can) and within whatever time frame the summons gives you.
Please note:
Whatever you do - DO NOT CALL THE PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEYS - GET EVERYTHING IN WRITING!!! and never admit to anything!!!!
I guess that here in Washington State the plaintiff has six years to file with the courts after they have originally served you the summons. This summons does not need a case number because it is all up to the plaintiff and when they decide to file the case.

The attorney does not need to be licensed with the washington state department of licensing with a collection agency license. There is a loop hole in washington state law that allows this.
Assett Acceptance is also not licensed as a collection agency (or for that matter - anything in Washington State) and I have an outstanding question with the washington state department of licensing asking if this is acceptable - but have not heard an answer back yet.
I have contacted the washington state attorney generals office and they cannot help if the case has already been completed (you have seen the judge and he said 'the plaintiff has proven there case and will be allowed the summary judgement...' or something to this affect). But they tried to reassure me that a complaint has been entered in my name and if there is ever any future litigation they will let me know about it.
The letter I sent to the governor was forwarded to the attorney generals office (and I can guess what will happen with that...)
I still have not heard back from my senator (Val Stevens) or my legislator (Dan Kristiansen) yeah - I will not be voting for either of these two again!!!
I have noticed after sitting in court for quite a few days - if you show up in court you can attempt to explain your case - but the judge will not give you legal answers - this is why you need to have an attorneys help.
Please do go to court so if they try the old - 'well the plaintiff is located in *whatever* state then can we please have the maximum interest and penalties that *whatever* state will allow?' You can explain that you have 'never been to that *whatever* state and you have no idea what there interest and penalties are. You have never left your state...' etc etc. (They can add on thousands with this little trick)
Give as much information on paperwork to the case file (file it with the court clerk and keep a copy for yourself) as you can so there are not any questions. Make sure that everything has been admitted to the courts at least a week prior to the hearing - if you are not able to do this then bring at least 4 working copies to the hearing and give one to the judge and to the plaintiff.
Suttell and Hammer (formerly known as Suttell and Associates) have a bad tendency to not let anyone know (and this is legal - amazing isn't it? *dripping in sarcasm*) when a hearing has been set. You can monitor your case on the courts.wa.gov website - http://www.courts.wa.gov/ this site is only for washington state.

Basically - the best advice as soon as you receive the original summons is to go to the NACA.net website, obtain an attorney closest to your location so together you can both go over the respective State laws and you can understand your rights.[/QUOTE]

This flunks the sniff test. Massively.

Requesting validation after a suit has been filed is worse than useless. Ideally, you need to request validation of any alleged debt withing thirty days of the collector's first contact with you. This is founded in federal law (FDCPA), found at 15 USC 1692, et seq. As such, it supersedes Washington state law. After a suit has been filed, you can still ask for validation in discovery, but it's an unnecessary hassle. Requesting validation immediately upon first contact from a collector can prevent the case from ever reaching the courts, and give you a powerful defense if it does get that far.

A summons is issued by the court, after a case has been filed. If nothing's been filed, then there's nothing to summon you to.

I cannot help but wonder at this point whether you are confused, uninformed, or intentionally misleading. Perhaps you could clear this up for me?
-

duplicate post - sorry...

In Washington State Civil court (which is what Suttell & Hammer file in) the attorneys for the plaintiff send a summons to the defendant.
In criminal court the defendant receives the summons from the courts but we are discussing financials which are primarily heard in Civil court.
You can send a debt validation letter and you are right - this is SUPPOSED to be upheld under Federal law. Unfortunately, that did not occur during my trial. I did explain the federal law but the judge just smiled. The attorney explained to me (after the fact) that if I had made this request as a 'Discovery motion' during the trial (discovery is upheld under WASHINGTON STATE law) then the judge would have been obligated to uphold it.
However - obviously I listened to your crap advise and you were WRONG!!!
I was just trying to give advise to help other people that may be going thru this!
Going thru this C**P was bad enough - but to have to put up with your C**P is just wrong!!!

[QUOTE=Anonymous;651727]In Washington State Civil court (which is what Suttell & Hammer file in) the attorneys for the plaintiff send a summons to the defendant.
In criminal court the defendant receives the summons from the courts but we are discussing financials which are primarily heard in Civil court.
You can send a debt validation letter and you are right - this is SUPPOSED to be upheld under Federal law. Unfortunately, that did not occur during my trial. I did explain the federal law but the judge just smiled. The attorney explained to me (after the fact) that if I had made this request as a 'Discovery motion' during the trial (discovery is upheld under WASHINGTON STATE law) then the judge would have been obligated to uphold it.
However - obviously I listened to your crap advise and you were WRONG!!!
I was just trying to give advise to help other people that may be going thru this!
Going thru this C**P was bad enough - but to have to put up with your C**P is just wrong!!![/QUOTE]

Well, well. You certainly talk one hell of a fight. Nice try.

I will expect links to Washington State law (credible sources only, please) supporting your assertions. In particular, a link to the Washington statute that states how FDCPA doesn't apply.

Now, scroll back up to post #29, and look what I told you there:

[QUOTE=unclewulf]After a suit has been filed, you can still ask for validation in discovery, but it's an unnecessary hassle.[/QUOTE]

Please don't blame us for your lack of reading comprehension.

As I previously mentioned I emailed the Washington State Attorney Generals Office to ask why wasn't federal law upheld in my case and why Suttell & Hammer did not need a collection agency license (they specialize in collections and even give classes via the Washington State Bar Association [which they charge for - of course]).
I have heard back from the Washington States Attorney Generals Office & the DOL. The response from DOL is on there face book page. Below is the response(s) from the AG's office:
'Subject: Your letter to the Attorney General - CCTN 179491
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 14:03:30 -0800
From: [email]MichelleF@ATG.WA.GOV[/email]
To: jjta800@*******
CC: [email]govswebmail@iq.wa.gov[/email]

.ExternalClass p.ecxMsoNormal, .ExternalClass li.ecxMsoNormal, .ExternalClass div.ecxMsoNormal{margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman','serif';}.ExternalClass a:link, .ExternalClass span.ecxMsoHyperlink{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}.ExternalClass a:visited, .ExternalClass span.ecxMsoHyperlinkFollowed{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}.ExternalClass p.ecxMsoPlainText, .ExternalClass li.ecxMsoPlainText, .ExternalClass div.ecxMsoPlainText{margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Consolas;}.ExternalClass p{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman','serif';}.ExternalClass span.ecxPlainTextChar{font-family:Consolas;}.ExternalClass span.ecxEmailStyle20{font-family:'Eras Medium ITC','sans-serif';font-variant:normal !important;color:black;text-transform:none;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;}.ExternalClass span.ecxEmailStyle21{font-family:'Cambria','serif';color:#1F497D;}.ExternalClass span.ecxEmailStyle22{font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif';color:#1F497D;}.ExternalClass span.ecxEmailStyle23{font-family:'Cambria','serif';color:#1F497D;}.ExternalClass span.ecxEmailStyle24{font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif';color:#1F497D;}.ExternalClass span.ecxEmailStyle25{font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif';color:#1F497D;}.ExternalClass .ecxMsoChpDefault{font-size:10.0pt;}@page Section1{size:8.5in 11.0in;}.ExternalClass div.ecxSection1{page:Section1;}
Sent on behalf of Robert Lipson, Senior Counsel
[COLOR=#1f497d] [/COLOR]
Dear ************:

I am Bob Lipson, Senior Counsel in the Consumer Protection Division of the Washington Attorney General's Office. Your email of January 14, 2010, to the Governor’s Office was referred to the Attorney General’s Office and to me for a reply.

First, please understand this office does not and cannot by law represent you or give you legal advice. So nothing I say should be viewed as legal advice to you or relied upon by you to address any personal legal situation. By law, I can only represent the state and its agencies. For information about how you should deal with your specific situation, consult your own lawyer.

Second, I am not going to comment on any ruling made by Judge ***** in your case.

Our office can, however, provide the public with some general information regarding some aspect of the law and how it works, and it is within that limited context that I answer your email. As a general proposition, state courts apply and enforce state laws. Federal courts apply and enforce federal laws. As I am sure you are aware, federal courts are an entirely different judicial system and are distinct from state courts. Sometimes but not often (and I avoid a long lecture here on when this happens) one of the courts can apply the law of the other, but as a general rule this is not the case, and I suspect that may have been what happened with your experience.

For example, although you did not say your case was a debt collection case involving a collection agency, I believe that was inferred from your email. The state Collection Agency Act, RCW 19.16, does not have a validation requirement in it. Only the federal statute dealing with debt collection agencies, 15 USC 1692, has a validation requirement. So if you were asking the court to give you some relief based on the collection agency’s requirement to validate the debt upon a timely request by you, then you were relying solely on federal law. And if that was so, then it is not surprising that a state court would not hear your argument based on a law that it does not have jurisdiction over.

Your email also implies a larger question: “laws are laws and so why don’t all courts give effect to all laws, so that any court is a good as another to hear anything?” That actually is a fair question, and books have been written about the subject. In a nutshell, the answer all has to do with the way our two-government system (state and federal) was established originally and has been maintained ever since.

I hope this has been helpful at least to some extent.


Yours,

Bob Lipson
Senior Counsel
Washington State Attorney General's Office
800 5th Ave., Suite 2000
Seattle, Wa. 98104
206-389-2513
[COLOR=#1f497d]Emailed by:[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#009900]Michelle Ferazza [/COLOR][COLOR=#009900]|[/COLOR][COLOR=#009900] [/COLOR][COLOR=#009900]Legal Assistant[/COLOR][COLOR=#009900][FONT=Bodoni MT][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#595959]Washington State Attorney General's Office [/COLOR]
[COLOR=#595959]Consumer Protection Division[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#595959]800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 | Seattle, WA | 98104[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#595959]Phone: (206) 464-6491 | Fax: (206) 587-5636[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#595959]Email: [/COLOR][COLOR=#1f497d]michellef@atg.wa.gov[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#595959] [/COLOR]
[COLOR=#1f497d]NOTICE:[/COLOR][COLOR=#1f497d] This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you know or believe that you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#1f497d] [/COLOR]
[COLOR=#1f497d] [/COLOR]
From:[FONT=Tahoma] [email]govswebmail@iq.wa.gov[/email] (imailagent) [mailto:govoutbound@iq.wa.gov]
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 8:13 AM
To: ATG WWW Public Records Requests
Subject: 981202 - response (Intranet Quorum IMA00339394)[/FONT]



Generated from CSU Office of the Governor Created on 1/15/2010 8:10:20 AM
IQ - Intranet Quorum Mail Stop: 40002
WF#: 981202

Quote:

[QUOTE=Anonymous;659476]Wow Paul. I really hope you're not an attorney who is licensed to practice law in WA.

First, take a look at Washington Superior Court Rule 3 which states that a cause of action can be commenced either by service of process or by filing. "[A] civil action is commenced by service of a copy of a summons together with a copy of a complaint, as provided in rule 4 or by filing a complaint. CR 3(a) (emphasis added). The happening of either [service or filing] begins the time period within which a defendant must answer or be subject to default. Johnson v. Asotin County, 3 Wash.App. 659, 477 P.2d 207 (1970); see also CR 4(b)(2) which states, "If you fail to appear and defend, judgment will be rendered against you, according to the demand of the complaint, which has been or will be filed with the clerk of court (emphasis added).

Rule 12(a)(1) requires a defendant to serve an answer within 20 days after the summons and complaint have been served upon him. See CR 12(a)(1). Pursuant to Rule 55, a plaintiff may move the court for an entry of default judgment if the defendant has not complied with rule 12. See CR 12(a)(1).

If the defendant fails to appear or plead within the time required after an action has been commenced against him, the plaintiff may move the court for default judgment. See CR 55.

I appreciate that you are trying to help, but you should really leave the issuing of this type of procedural advice to attorneys who are competent in the matter.

Also, you have no evidence that this law firm even violated the FDCPA, let alone did so willfully as you claim in this post. Nothing indicates that the law firm continued to engage in collection activities after validation was requested.[/QUOTE]

oh really.filing suite after validation was requested isn't a violation?i'm talking about the OP.not the shill.the OP requested validation as soon as they got the collection letter.show me where it states that anybody can file suite after validation was requested.they did violate the FDCPA doing that.again i was referring to the OP,not the shill.check out the entire thread before casting stones.in fact thread closed......