I. Hunt and Henriques sent me a letter dated XXXX/XXXX/XXXX stating 1 ) they had been retained by XXXX, 2 ) notice of opportunity to contact within 30 days to dispute the debt, and 3 ) a statement they are a debt collector. The letter was delivered uncertified. 

II. I responded on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. In that letter, I asked Hunt and Henriques to validate the date. The letter stated to respond to a specific Notary Public ( who would verify and validate receipt of said validation ) within 30 days. The letter was sent by certified mail and received by Hunt and Henriques on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. 

III. I also pulled down my credit report and saw that this debt had been charged off. 

IV. I was served with a lawsuit on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX by Hunt and Henriques regarding this matter. 


ISSUE : This firm stated they were retained by XXXX. That claim is patently false, since the debt was charged off. If Insert Original Lender was still pursuing this debt, it would not be at that status, so this firm has made a false statement regarding its disposition on this matter. Further, this firm has stated they are a debt collector further down in the letter. This indicates that they obtained this debt as third party debt collector. 

The statements made by Hunt and Henriques in the letter are fraudulent and misleading, and intended to intimidate. Further, Hunt and Henriques has extended this fraud into court. 
