1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526

1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGONFOR THE COUNTY OF DESCHUTESSmall Claims Division 1164 NW BOND, BEND OR, 97701; 388-5300

QUICK COLLECT, INC (an Oregon Corporation)PO BOX 5547PORTLAND, OREGON 97238 Plaintiff

v.

FULL NAME HERE, American Citizen; and FULL NAME HERE, American Citizen,

Defendant(s).

Case No. ########

FIRST AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM

Defendant(s), appearing Sui Juris, for their reply to the Complaint of QUICK COLLECT, INC (hereafter known as, "QUICK COLLECT") states as follows: All Answers correspond to the numbered paragraphs of the Complaint. All allegations of the Complaint are denied unless expressly admitted herein.

ANSWERS

1. DENIED. In response to paragraph #1, the Defendant(s) disputes the alleged debt, as solicited and claimed by QUICK COLLECT in paragraph #1 of the complaint. Defendant(s) are at this time without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the alleged claim contained therein, and on that basis generally and specifically denies the alleged claim contained therein, and leaves the Plaintiff to provide lawful proof that binds and compels the defendant(s) and Plaintiff QUICK COLLECT which is defined as a creature of the state as defined by US Supreme Court Ruling Hale vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 74 (1906). Defendant(s) demand strict proof thereof.

DEFENSES 2. As and for a First Defense Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff's Complaint and each cause of action therein fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the Defendant for which relief can be granted.

3. As and for a Second Defense Plaintiff admits to purchasing the defaulted debt upon an open contract, allegedly owed by the Defendant(s), causing Plaintiff's injury to its own self, therefore Plaintiff is barred from seeking relief for damages.

4. As and for a Third Defense Plaintiff's Complaint violates ORS 41.580 statutes of Frauds as the purported contract or agreement falls within a class of contracts or agreements required to be in writing. The purported contract or agreement alleged in the Complaint is not in writing and signed by the Defendant(s) or by some other person authorized by the Defendant(s) and who was to answer for the alleged debt, default or miscarriage of another person.

5. As and for a Fourth Defense Defendant claims a Failure of Consideration as there has never been any exchange of any money or item of value between the plaintiff and the Defendant(s).

6. As and for a Fifth Defense Defendant claims Lack of Privity as Defendant(s) have never entered into any contractual or debtor/creditor arrangements with the Plaintiff.

7. As and for a Sixth Defense Defendant alleges that the Complaint includes references to alleged agreements made outside of the alleged written contract, violating the Parol Evidence Rule.

8. As and for an Seventh Defense Plaintiff's Complaint fails to allege a valid assignment and there are no averments as to the nature of the purported assignment or evidence of valuable consideration. 9. As and for an Eighth Defense Plaintiff's complaint fails to allege whether or not the purported assignment was partial or complete and there is no evidence that the purported assignment was bona fide.

10. As and for a Ninth Defense Plaintiff's Complaint fails to allege that the Assignor even has knowledge of this action or that the Assignor has conveyed all rights and control to the Plaintiff. The record does not disclose this information and it cannot be assumed without creating an unfair prejudice against the Defendant(s).

11. As and for an Tenth Defense The Plaintiff is not an Assignee for the purported agreement and no evidence appears in the record to support any related assumptions.

12. As and for a Eleventh Defense Defendant(s) claims Accord and Satisfaction as Defendant alleges that upon open contract, the original creditor accepted payment from a third party for the alleged debt, or a portion of the alleged debt, or that the original creditor received other compensation in the form of monies and/or credits.

13. As and for a Twelfth Defense Defendant(s) invokes the Doctrine of Unclean Hands as the Defendant(s) alleges that the Plaintiff or the person or entity that assigned the alleged claim to Plaintiff acted in a dishonest or fraudulent manner with respect to the dispute at issue in this case.

14. As and for a Thirteenth Defense Plaintiff is not authorized or licensed to advertise or solicit, either in print, by letter, in person or otherwise the right to collect or receive payment of a claim for another, nor to seek to make collection or obtain payment of a claim on behalf of another. The Complaint fails to allege any exception or exemption to these requirements. The Plaintiff is not any of the following: an attorney at law; a person regularly employed on a regular wage or salary in the capacity of credit men or a similar capacity, except as an independent contractor; a bank, including a trust department of a bank, a fiduciary or a financing and lending institution; a common carrier; a title insurer or abstract company while doing an escrow business; a licensed real estate broker; an employee of a licensee; nor a substation payment office employed by or serving as an independent contractor for public utilities.

15. As and for a Fourteenth Defense Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's Complaint, and each cause of action therein is barred by the Doctrine of Estoppel, specifically Estoppel in Pais.

16. As and for a Fifteenth Defense Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's actions are precluded, whereas Plaintiff's demands for interest are usurious and violate state and federal laws.

17. As and for a Sixteenth Defense Defendant alleges that Plaintiff or the person or entity that assigned the alleged claim to the Plaintiff is not entitled to reimbursement of attorneys' fees because the alleged contract did not include such a provision, and there is no law that otherwise allows them.

18. As and for an Seventeenth Defense Plaintiff failed to comply with normal and accepted business practices.

19. As and for a Eighteenth Defense Plaintiffs claim is in violation of federal statute(s).

20. As and for a Nineteenth Defense Defendant invokes the Doctrine of Laches as the Plaintiff or the person or entity that assigned the claim to the Plaintiff waited too long to file this lawsuit, making if difficult or impossible for the Defendant to find witnesses or evidence, or that evidence necessary to provide for Defendant's defense has been lost or destroyed.

21. As and for a Twentieth Defense Plaintiff has no Fiduciary Duty.

22. As and for a Twenty-first Defense Plaintiff's alleged damages are the result of acts or omissions committed by non-parties to this action over whom the Defendant has no responsibility or control.

23. As and for a Twenty-second Defense Plaintiff's alleged damages are the results of acts or omissions committed by the Plaintiff.

24. As and for a Twenty-third Defense Defendant(s) alleges that the granting of the Plaintiff's demand in the Complaint would result in Unjust Enrichment as the Plaintiff would receive more money than plaintiff is entitled to receive.

25. As and for a Twenty-fourth Defense Plaintiff's alleged damages are limited to real or actual damages only.

26. As and for a Twenty-fifth Defense Defendant(s) invokes the doctrines of Scienti et volenti non fit injuria and Damnum absque injuria.

27. As and for a Twenty-sixth Defense Defendant(s) reserves the right to amend and/or add additional Answers, Defenses and/or Counterclaims at a later date.

COUNTERCLAIMS

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Statement of Facts 28. May 14, 2012, Defendant(s) sent QUICK COLLECT, by way of Notary Presentment, certified mail and return signature receipt, request for validation of alleged debt, including a conditional acceptance upon QUICK COLLECT providing bona fide proof in good faith and without deceit that QUICK COLLECTs claim was lawful and valid, and a questionnaire about said debt and a request for documentation within 21 days of receipt of letter. This letter states that QUICK COLLECT was given 21 days to respond and that failure to respond, within 21 days, as stipulated, and rebut, with particularity, everything in the letter we sent them, with which QUICK COLLECT disagreed was their lawful, legal and binding agreement with and admission to the fact that everything in the letter is true, correct, legal, lawful and binding upon you, in any court, anywhere in The United States of America, without protest or objection or that of those who represent you. YOUR SILENCE IS YOUR ACQUIESCENCE. Up until the date of this filing 07-20-2012, no such information has been furnished by QUICK COLLECT to defendant(s) and we consider the filing of this claim to be an invalid form of reply to our letters demand(s). This conditional acceptance/debt validation letter was witnessed and notarized by Debra June Harrer, Notary Public Oregon, Commission #461490 and mailed via Notarys Certificate of Services by Maria Vanessa Yozamp, Notary Public Oregon, Commission #450401.

29. Up until the date of this filing, no attempt at validation was received from QUICK COLLECT, yet through their agent, Jason Garner, continued to claim the alleged debt via this complaint.

30. Up until the date of this filing, no attempt from QUICK COLLECT has been made to notify the credit agencies that the alleged debt is in dispute nor provide bona fide proof of lawful claim to the alleged debt to the credit agencies.

31. Up until the date of this filing, no attempt from QUICK COLLECT has been made to lawfully validate the alleged debt in question and cease collection of the alleged debt.

32. Up until the date of this filing, no attempt from QUICK COLLECT has been made to represent the status of QUICK COLLECTs lawful claim of the alleged debt to the defendant(s) and yet they have still pursued collection of the alleged debt through this claim.

Statement of Claim 33. In the entire course of its action, Plaintiff willfully and/or negligently violated provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (hereafter FDCPA), The Fair Credit Reporting Act (hereafter FCRA) and Precedential Federal Law in the following respects:

(a) by failing to cease collection of an alleged debt after the Defendant notified Plaintiff in writing that the alleged debt was disputed, therefore violating 15 USC 1692g(b). (b) Plaintiff, willfully and/or negligently reporting the Defendant(s) credit history inaccurately to the Credit Agencies Experian and Transunion, therefore violating US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, No. 00-15946, Nelson vs. Chase Manhattan.(c) by falsely representing the legal status of the alleged debt and therefore violating 15 USC 1692e(2)(A)(d) by QUICK COLLECT failing to report the claim it as disputed to the credit bureaus, therefor violating 15 USC 1692e 807(8)(e) by falsely reporting the alleged debt to the credit agencies without providing reasonable bona fide proof of claim, therefor violating 15U.S.C.1681s-2 (a)(1)(a).(f) by QUICK COLLECT claiming to be BOTH purchaser and 'assignee' upon open contract of alleged claim. It's can only be either one or the other, therefor it is violating the FDCP in relationship to Gearing v. Check Brokerage Corp 233 F.3d 469 (7th Cir. 2000).(g) By Misrepresentations by QUICK COLLECT about themselves or the alleged claim are actionable regardless of intent, therefor it is violating the FDCP in relationship to Gearing v. Check Brokerage Corp Cacace v. Lucas, 775 F. Supp. 502, 505 (D. Conn. 1990)(h) By QUICK COLLECT failing to validate Defendant(s) alleged debt yet continue to pursue collection activity via this claim, therefor in violation of 15 USC 1692g 809(b).(i) By QUICK COLLECT having not validated the alleged debt after lawful notice of dispute on June 14, 2012 and as of July 19, 2012 they still continue to report the alleged debt to the credit bureaus, therefor in violation of 15 USC 1692g 809(b) and FTC opinion letter Cass from LeFevre.(j) By QUICK COLLECT failing to live or retain a valid business license in the County of Deschutes, Oregon at the time this claim was made or failing to produce a valid signed contract between defendant(s) and Plaintiff in the county which defendant(s) live at the time of creation of the alleged debt/claim, therefor violating 15USC1692i 811 (a)(2)

NOW THEREFORE, DEFENDANT(s) PRAY FOR THE FOLLOWING RELIEF:

PRAYER FOR RELIEF:

34. A. For Defendants First Cause of Action 1) Statutory damages as specified in 15 USC 1692k in the amount of $10,000;

B. costs;

C. That any and all contracts having balances owed to the Plaintiff by the Defendant(s) be declared null and void.

FURTHER, sayeth naught.

Dated: July, 20th, 2012

Respectfully submitted,ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

FULL NAME HERE, American CitizenFULL ADDRESS HERE

FULL NAME HERE, American CitizenFULL ADDRESS HERE

TO: Attention: JASON GARNER, Authorized Representative QUICK COLLECT, INC P.C.5500 NE 107th Ave Vancouver, WA 98662

[CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE]

CASE NO. SC121604DEFENDANT(S) answer and counterclaim[CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE]

CASE NO. SC121604DEFENDANT(S) answer and counterclaim[CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE]