The provision of the FDCPA which regulates production of verified proof of liability is found in 15 U.S.C. 1692g, which states in pertinent part:
TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 41 > SUBCHAPTER V > § 1692g
§ 1692g. Validation of debts
(a) Notice of debt; contents
Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing—
(1) the amount of the debt;
(2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;
(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector;
(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and
(5) a statement that, upon the consumer’s written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.
(b) Disputed debts
If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) of this section that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.
(c) Admission of liability
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.
Admissible evidence is a verified assessment
And according to 15 U.S.C. §1692g(b) above requires that the alleged creditor must, within 30 days of a written request, supply verified evidence of the debt.
Legal Requirements Upon Burden of Proof
In any administrative proceeding such as debt collection, the moving party has the burden of proving his position using court-admissible evidence. This requirement is described in the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. §556(d) as follows:
TITLE 5 > PART I > CHAPTER 5 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 556
§ 556. Hearings; presiding debtors; powers and duties; burden of proof; evidence; record as basis of decision
(d) Except as otherwise provided by statute, the proponent of a rule or order has the burden of proof. Any oral or documentary evidence may be received, but the agency as a matter of policy shall provide for the exclusion of irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence. A sanction may not be imposed or rule or order issued except on consideration of the whole record or those parts thereof cited by a party and supported by and in accordance with the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. The agency may, to the extent consistent with the interests of justice and the policy of the underlying statutes administered by the agency, consider a violation of section 557 (d) of this title sufficient grounds for a decision adverse to a party who has knowingly committed such violation or knowingly caused such violation to occur. A party is entitled to present his case or defense by oral or documentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence, and to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts. In rule making or determining claims for money or benefits or applications for initial licenses an agency may, when a party will not be prejudiced thereby, adopt procedures for the submission of all or part of the evidence in written form.
Admissible Evidence of Claim
The Federal Rules of Evidence (Fed.Rul.Ev.) prescribes the rules to be applied towards evidence which the moving party presents to prove their claim. Most forms of evidence that might be presented are usually excludible under the Hearsay Rule.
Evidence must be authenticated with either a perjury statement or a testimonial oath. Evidence must come from someone who has personal knowledge of the facts in question. Evidence must be consistent and compatible with all of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
That an unrebutted affidavit stands as truth and a nihil dicit judgment against the party who received it. See Fed.Rule.Civ.Proc. 8(b)(6).
Do not satisfy any of the requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Are not verified by a signature under penalty of perjury or testimonial oath as required under the Hearsay Rule, Fed.Rul.Ev. 802.
Based on the foregoing, all information claims are simply “prima facie evidence” of a liability that can only be verified if they are accompanied by an affidavit signed under penalty of perjury by the alleged lender. Absent this type of verification, they cannot lawfully be used as a basis for instituting a claim against the subject of the report without their consent. Where these presumptions are challenged by the affected party, the moving party must sustain using admissible, verified evidence signed under penalty of perjury, the existence of a lawful liability.
Silence as a Weapon and a Defense in Legal Discovery
The catch is this, we emphasize in all interactions with corrupted or fraud-alleged lenders that the only way we can become UNEQUAL is by our own consent. Hence, if the alleged lenders claims it is OK to abuse or be ignorant of the law, this is no excuse. The alleged lenders filing knowingly false and fraudulent claims/collection of debt against an individual without their consent, then we claim to have the EQUAL right to acquire rights against any alleged lender by using the SAME TECHNIQUE against them.