Cajunbulldog validation letter clarification

Ok first off that letter is one I picked up here on the site. It is worded to push a ca to give up anything they have and to give you info that would be needed if going into court is necessary. Enclosed is a link to a topic here where validation is discussed in detail with myself and Law Student furnishing the case cites or ftc opinion letters.have a good read and let me know if anything else is needed.
http://www.debtconsolidationcare.com/collection-agencies/debt-validation.html

I just used your letter to help out a friend who was being harrassed my NRC....and he had no idea how to handle the situation(see Cajun...you taught me so much!)

Yes, there are various case laws regarding validation, but a CA just sending a boggus affidavit, or just your name and the amount owed doesn't work.

Lawstudent refers to a Chaundhry letter.The collections industry is making a grave error thinking that case supports this letter. I invite anyone to read the entire case and you will see it actually increases the level of evidence required to validate instead of lowering it. Just google the Name Chaundhry and you will find it for those with no access to case cites.

You're right cajun (as always). Chaundhry was very different, and only relevant to that case. It wasn't meant to be a clarification on validation. But, CAs know that most people won't know the difference, and use it as a scare tactic.

Chaundhry was very different in that he was requesting validation on fees which had not yet been incurred, attorneys fees among other things. Besides that, it is totally irrelevant to the types of validation we discuss on these forums. I read that many CAs started using this in their boggus affidavits because of one article from the American Collectors Assoc., written by a nonlawyer, and who was dealing with matters beyond his grasp. This alone should result in quite a number of law suits.

Lawstudent,you are correct that many ca's quote it out of context and by reading the entire decision,you could use their own cited case to destroy them. The reason judge did not budge on the second requested validation in that case was twofold. One,fees were ongoing & two they asked for info(documents) that would violate attorney/client privilege.