You're doing a fine job, Dave. I think we are basically saying the same thing, leaving it up to the plantiff to prove his case, and us to use all of our documentation to win over the judge. That's where ambiguity is a good thing. If it were hard and fast, it would be easy for CA's to come up with documentation.
Wow, weird way my posting went in two places in this thread. But I digress. I agree with you, LizardKing. They have to prove their case. We have to disprove it.
I meant Staff opinion letter (but you knew that) ) .....Past cases such as the Spears/Brennan case above would be precident. Yes CQ, I think we are all saying the same thing. Anyway it all makes sense if you read it slowly and backwards -Peace, Dave
No I mean what if I sent a validation letter to the original creditor and I got a signed copy back from them as well..
No, I mean what if I sent a validation letter to the original creditor and I got a signed copy back from them as well.. Ender | 967 posts ========================== After selling homes for 29 years I have all kinds of applications and contracts signed by my customers. Do you think I can send them all a copy of the ones they signed and collect from them. lb59 ******************************** These issues are common sense. The courts did not dream them up. You have a valid right, per the FDCPA and court rulings, to demand a complete accounting of the debt and how they arrived at the figure that they are trying to collect on. Lizardking =================== You have this right with everyone not just CAs.!
Dear LizardKing, You Said: "OK, they sent you a copy of an application with a signature on it. Does that prove that you received the card? Does that prove that you activated it? Does that prove that you used the card? I would deny everything. If you want to respond to them, reply that you have no record of ever sending that application in and it looks like a bad forgery to you. Then demand immediate deletion of the items from your reports." Let's be reasonable. If the furnisher, such as a CA does provide all the necessary components to comply with your validation demand then they have validated, and thus complied with the FDCPA. The good news is they have a hard time doing that. But IF they do, it's at that point one should be prepared to concede defeat and start the negotiation process. Just try walkin into court under your deny, deny, deny theory and you may very well find a criminal referral to the justice department for committing fraud in court. Just a thought,
Dear LizardKing, Well let me ask you this way then. Suppose your the judge. What proof would YOU need (your honor) to satisfy you that the debt is in fact Mr. LizardKings? Or (according to your thoery) is it even possible to reach such a level of proof?
Butch | Dear LizardKing, Well let me ask you this way then. Suppose your the judge. What proof would YOU need (your honor) to satisfy you that the debt is in fact Mr. LizardKings? ======================= From what I have seen on here lately it doesn't take any proof for cases before a kangaroo court with a monkey for a judge!
Dear LizardKing, It would be helpfull to us all to point us to those legal sites. Thnax for the clarification.
Go Lizardking gooooooooooooooo! Use the search button, Butch, it is a resource that shouldn't be skipped. Sassy
In fact, Once the furnisher has supplied the signed contract, a complete accouting of all statement activity with interest, fees, etc. ect. and all the necessary items needed for validation then any court will have deemed it to have been vailidated and YOU WILL LOSE. That is my point.
Dear Lizardking, What a silly and childish comment. You just said: Butch, I hate to tell you this, but I am coming to the conclusion that you would likely be better suited on the Motley Fool credit board. I don't think you are ready for Creditnet. What started this conversation was this utterly ridiculous tactic of deny, deny, deny (never admit to anything, NO MATTER WHAT) will ALWAYS win the day in court, which is what you have been asserting. Moreover I, apparently mistakenly, assumed that those who were, at least occasionally, looked up to (such as yourself) on this board had sufficient integrity to concede defeat when solid proof of the liability DOES exist. The purpose of our entire legal system is to get to the truth not protect YOU from paying YOUR bills by asserting ID fraud even in the face of perfected evidence of the debts legitimacy. Any Lizard, (or other reptile for that matter) that walks into court and say's "DUH nopie, not my signature your honor, when in fact it IS, may very well end up in huge trouble. Should you chose to do battle with me after I've tried to be nice we can do that too, if I have time. Tell ya what, I'll even tie half my brain behind my back, just to make it fair. To the rest of you: Yep, 99% (I'd say 95%) of the CA's and creditors CANNOT comply with the rigorous demands of the law, of that there is no argument. And that certainly works in out favor. However, if they do properly validate may I respectfully submit for your consideration that it's time to "cut a deal" rather than claim ID fraud. Don't be stupid and don't follow stupid advice. This "never admit to anything
Try the quote button...it's the one between the "edit" and "reply". I always felt the purpose of our "legal" system was to make sure JUSTICE was served. And in this case justice is rightfully served when any person in America has the right to get what he or she deserves...a fair depiction of our credit...Which, unfortunately, sometimes has to be forcefully corrected by taking the CA's, CRA's, and OC's to court for them to obey the law as it was fairly written. They work every possible angle and so should we! Sorry...this comment is simply juvenile... Layoff the Rush Limbaugh for awhile...not original... Now...Can't we all just get along?
Dear Uhackthis, You said: "Any Lizard, (or other reptile for that matter) that walks into court and say's "DUH nopie, not my signature your honor, when in fact it IS, may very well end up in huge trouble. Sorry...this comment is simply juvenile..." You have a good point there my friend. Just got a little pi$$ed.
I agree that a signed contract is not validation, but I would *not ever* perjure myself in a court of law. L
Thank You Whyspers, I also was not referring to small claims court. Maybe you CAN act like a nitwit in small claims, I have no idea, for I've never wasted my time in small claims. The judges have the same capacity for reason as our illustrious Lizardking. Most of what I'm referring to has to do with integrity. We can't reason with an unarmed man. BTW - I do have the qualification to speak about these issues, though admittedly I have much to learn. I'll just drop the issue now and consider the source.
There are a lot of us who would stop short of telling a blatant untruth in court. I don't want to get into moralizing, because I hold to the theory that each person is entitled to make his/her own decision, and I would not want to be the one to judge another person. However, I would like to stand and walk over to take my position beside Butch. It would be interesting to hear the issue debated, without the personal barbs thrown in. Can anyone do that? Seems to me it's been tried, and so far no one has managed to do it.
A classic demonstartion of the basic lack of understanding: "Breeze, there is a HUGE difference between lying and denying." * Blacks law Dictionary defines FRAUD thusly: An intentional perversion of the truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it (the truth) to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right: a false representation of a matter of fact, whether by word or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he will act upon it to his own legal injury.
I haven't seen LizardKing advocate perjury, lying, or telling an untruth. I believe what he is saying is that if you do not admit to having the debt obligation, it puts the burden of proof on them to establish that you do. As long as you do not say the wrong thing, you can not be held for perjury. I can neither confirm, nor deny these beliefs though. -Peace, Dave "Bevis: Fire Fire Fire, heh heh heh, Fire Fire heh heh"
