Royal Management Convenient Loans allegedly violated U.S. Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, U.S. FCRA , and U.S. FDCPA.Demand for legal compliance San Antonio, Texas

Be it known that Royal Management while acting in the course of business has clearly crossed the line and comitted williful criminal and civil violations of the law in attempting to coerce payment of debts that they know are not legaly owed. This company has poor manageers and their customer services reps are abusive and employ threatning and often criminal behavior. This company has not only violated the FCRA and FDCPA but also the U.S. Organized Criminal Control Act of 1970. 

 I disputed a debt with them in 2006 to date they have not correctted their violations of the law. 

Below is my final complaint to them. You can follow me on my personal blog.

Re: Acct No: 114822
Convenient Loans
1120-11B South Air Depot
Midwest City, OK 73110

Statement of Fact
Be it know that I, Donald R. C, having pulled and reviewed my credit report dated on November 5, 2012 intends to seek further legal action for your systematic, willful, malicious[1],and corrupt business practices. After several previously filed complaints and after direct contact with your corporate magement firm (i.e. Royal Management) it has become apparent that your company has intentionally violated the U.S. Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA), U.S. Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), U.S. Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (RICO statute 8 U.S.C. 1961-1968) and the applicable Arkansas State Code governing such cases. Your company knew that (1) it illegally placed a negative entry on my credit report ,(2)  that this debt was legally non-binding,and (3) that your actions while consistent with your business model to coerce a consumer to pay a debt[2],where a clear violation of established statutory and applicable case law. 

Demand for Compliance
Pursuant to establish law it is demanded that your agency comply with the provisions of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) and The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Your entries on my credit report are unlawful and are a result of a systematic, willful, and malicious corrupt business practice designed to coerce a citizen and or consumer to pay a debt that is not legally owed. My initial complaint was received by your agency in the late fall of 2006. My complaint demanded that your agency send me written legal proof of the debts and to remove the entry from my credit report. To date you have failed to comply. 

I am a identify theft victim. Any future attempt by your agency to stall on this matter by requiring me to file an identity theft affidavit or sworn police report, or verify this by providing further records, will be construed as further evidence of your legal violations and will result in me swearing out a criminal complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice for your alleged violation of the U.S. Organized Crime Control Act of 1970[3] and your one count of mail fraud. Then I will seek further relief in civil court for damages. The burden of proof in this matter is not mine it is your burden to prove that you acted in goodfaith.[4]  You are hereby ordered to remove all entries and from my credit report immediately.

Also it should be pointed out that your agency has reported some accounts in good standing that were paid as agreed. These accounts were all opened fraudulently in my name and I further demand that they be removed. To be absolutely clear there should be no accounts listed on my credit reports either good or negative from your agency. For the purpose of construing reasonable time to comply it is understood that this request may take up to 30 days no longer than 60 days from receipt of this letter. 

Your agency shall not place an entry on my file that states verified-consumer disputes the debt or any other derivative as this will still have the same effect, hence unlawfully impacting credit scores and associated risk involved with carrying out interstate commerce[5], thereby violating the U.S. Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. Furthermore if you sell or transfer this file to a third party collections agency I will go forward with legal action and hold you accountable to the full extent of the law. Failure to omply with these demands will result in legal action to resolve this matter.

Conclusion
 I am a U.S. citizen who is an honorably discharged veteran; I have a legal background and law enrcement experience. I do not and will not tolerate willful violations of the law and have no respect for business that disgraces the spirit of the law to gain a quick buck nor am I one to push around. When your agency reported this debt by placing it on my credit file it knew that this debt was (1) not legally enforceable, (2) was fraudulent in nature and (3) that your actions were consistent with your business practice of  coercing a consumer into paying a debt that is not legally owed, as a general rule is that most consumers lack the legal expertise or resources to effectively defend themselves against this type of corrupt business practice, guaranteeing most will pay the debt and move on (Cxxxx, 2012)[6].

"Corporate America" does not run this country we the people do. I know the law, how to construe it, and most importantly how to effectively use it. I am not about money or get rich quick schemes I am a U.S. citizen who has refused to yield to your abusive violations of the law. Every allegation I have laid out here in this letter is all statement of fact. It would be wise for you to consult an attorney before your next course of action.

Sincerely,
Donald Cxxxx,

Pro se

Certificate of Service
I, Donald R. Cxxxx, certify under penalty of perjury that this document was mailed to Convenient Loans at 1120-11B South Air Depot, Midwest City, OK 73110, by certified U.S. mail, postage pre-paid, article no: 7012 0470 0002 0140 3258 , with a return receipt requested (green card) on the 15th day of November 2012.   

 END NOTES                                                                                                     

[1] The malicious reporting of negative information is a violation of the FCRA and reporting a debt without notifying the consumer and first verifying the legality of the said debt is in violation of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

[2] A general rule is that most consumers lack the legal expertise or resources to effectively defend themselves against this type of corrupt business practice, guaranteeing most will pay the debt and move on.

 [3] On October 15, 1970, the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 became law. Title IX of the Act  is the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Statute (18 U.S.C. 1961- 68),commonly referred to as the "RICO" statute. The purpose of the RICO statute is "the elimination of the infiltration of organized crime and racketeering into legitimate organizations operating in interstate commerce." S.Rep. No. 617, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. 76 (1969). However, the statute is sufficiently broad to encompass illegal activities relating to any enterprise affecting interstate or foreign commerce.

 [4] Good faith is also central to the Commercial Paper (checks, drafts, promissory notes, certificates of deposit) concept of a holder in due course. A holder is a person who takes an instrument, such as a check, subject to the reasonable belief that it will be paid and that there are no legal reasons why payment will not occur. If the holder has taken the check for value and in good faith believes the check to be good, she or he is a holder in due course, with sole right to recover payment. If, on the other hand, the holder accepts a check that has been dishonored (stamped with terms such as "insufficient funds," "account closed," and "payment stopped"), she or he has knowledge that something is wrong with the check and therefore cannot allege the check was accepted in the good faith belief that it was valid. (via http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com ).

[5] Interstate commerce (n.): commercial trade, business, movement of goods or money, or transportation from one state to another, regulated by the federal government according to powers spelled out in Article I of the U.S. Constitution. The federal government can also regulate commerce within a state when it may impact interstate movement of goods and services, and may strike down state actions which are barriers to such movement under Chief Justice John Marshall's decision in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824). Theoretically commerce is regulated by the Interstate Commerce Commission (I.C.C.) under authority granted by the Interstate Commerce Act, first enacted by Congress in 1887.

[6] On October 15, 1970, the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 became law. Title IX of the Act is the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Statute (18 U.S.C. 1961-1968), commonly referred to as the "RICO" statute. The purpose of the RICO statute is "the elimination of the infiltration of organized crime and racketeering into legitimate organizations operating in interstate commerce." S.Rep. No. 617, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. 76 (1969). However, the statute is sufficiently broad to encompass illegal activities relating to any enterprise affecting interstate or foreign commerce.