Originally posted by Butch (nothing of any importance or value) Pleeez don't attribute quotes to me that I never said. I'm asking nicely.
In a criminal hearing the defendant can ( sometimes required ) plead 'not guilty'. This does not mean he is claiming not to be guilty. He is requiring the prosecution to PROVE the charges. This is a matter of law, not my opinion. 'I do not recall' requires your opponent to prove their claim. Never assist your opponent in proving their burden in a court. Ever. Phillip McGraw, Ph.D., trial strategist, wrote: "The truth was on her side but make no mistake: The courtroom is no crucible of truth. Just as in life, if you walk into a court without a plan, a really good plan, you're kidding yourself." There is a vast chasm between perjury and an answer requiring your opponent to prove their claim without your assistance. Anyone who doesn't know this will have their ass handed to them in court.
Guy's; This discussion has already progressed to the point that the CA HAS met with ALL the eliments required to meet the burdon of proof. I made that clear long ago.
No Butch I don't think they have...I think things got confusing after you wrote this: 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. I think what happened is, that the conversation from there took the turn of the statements "made in court"...but refer back to your post where you said twice "IF" the proper validation evidence was produced....not that it HAD been produced...so far all that WAS produced was the original contract with a signature. (devil's advocate for hire) -Peace, Dave "Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire â?? conscience" -G. Washington
First off, a CA has NOT met validation requirements with a signed application. I would argue in court without lying or committing perjury that unless this signed application included the phrase "and/or assigns" that this was in fact not my debt. You don't the CA anything, so it isn't your debt. If the CA purchased the debt, obviously this is a whole different animal. This is where a complete accounting of the debt comes into play. How do you know that charges impermissable by law were not tacked on? There is enough wiggle room to maneuver with out admitting anything. It has nothing to do with perjury. Gib
============== Even if it did prove all of that it still would not prove that the debt had not been paid
even if I did fill out an application at some point in the past, which I do sometimes when in stores for a special 10% discount or other deal, that does not prove that I received the account, activated the account, used the account, etc." Lizardking ============== Even if it did prove all of that it still would not prove that the debt had not been paid. lb59
FYI on this board Lizardking is illustrious. Tearing this person down makes you look stupid and foolish.
I thought I'd posted this a little while ago, but apparently not, since it isn't here...lol. I would have no qualms about saying "I don't recall" or "I have no personal knowledge of that". While I would not perjure myself, I would try my best to be a better spin doctor than the other guy. Court is *not* a no spin zone, folks...lol. (Sorry Mr. O'Reilly) I agree with Butch in that perjury is both illegal and $%#$immoral$%#%$ (that word seems to be a dirty word here...lol), but I agree with Lizardking in that if you go into court and make their case for them, you just as well to have not even bothered...stopping short of committing perjury. L
<Sorry...not able to edit> TIP TO BUTCH: Using "keywords" to run a search negates the necessity of browsing through 2000 searches. L
Re: CA Sends Copy of Signed Applica Something I have obsevered in watching this board.....if a relative newcomer makes a valid point (or even just a good point), the old-timers get very defensive. While I enjoy the debate, I extremely dislike the childish replies that are made. I have witnessed this many times, but often too late to reply. Well I think I cought this one in time. Why cant we just say yeah I see what your saying but...? Why must a well thought jab be placed in there as well? I have obtained a wealth of information from this board (from other boards too), and I try to repay by helping others with some of the smaller problems when they come up, but if I say something that one of the old-timers does not like do I have to worry about being more suitable for Montley Fool's board? I say let's debate our hearts out and let the readers decide who bests suits their opinion, and let them go from there. scott
Re: CA Sends Copy of Signed Applica I think in the next few years, this debate will be less and less relavant as more and more defaults are taken directly to arbitration by the credit card company. If you think you can get screwed in court, you'll love arbitration. The securites industry started requiring arbitration in both customer agreements and, employee contracts in the early 80's. I'm not aware of a single instant where a court allowed someone to break the arbitration agreement. Essentially, the cc industry may have found a way to sidestep FCRA. You go to arbitration and when you win, you transfer the judgement to state court for enforcement.
Re: CA Sends Copy of Signed Applica keepmine, Some rights can't be signed away. State law, my state anyway, provides the same, declaring a waiver of rights unenforceable. Sassy Arbitration Clause That Violates Protections Provided by TILA Not Enforceable Description An appeals court held that a mandatory arbitration clause in a consumer finance contract covered by the Truth in Lending Act could not be enforced because the finance contract did not allow the statutory protections provided for the consumer by the Act. Topic Consumer Protection Key Words Truth in Lending; Arbitration Clause C A S E S U M M A R Y Facts Randolph bought a mobile home that was financed by Green Tree Financial. The finance agreement contained an arbitration clause. Randolph sued in federal court, contending that Green Tree's financing documents violate the Truth in Lending Act and that the Act precludes arbitration that arises under TILA. District court ordered arbitration; Randolph appealed. Decision Reversed. The arbitration clause in the finance agreement failed to provide the minimum guarantees required to ensure that a debtor could use the statutory rights provided by TILA and so the arbitration clause was unenforceable. When an arbitration clause has provisions that defeat the remedial purpose of a statute such as TILA, the clause is not enforceable. Citation Randolph v. Green Tree Financial Corp., 178 F.3d 1149 (11th Cir., 1999) Back to Consumer Protection Listings ©2000 West Legal Studies in Business, All Rights Reserved webmaster@swcollege.co
Re: CA Sends Copy of Signed Applica Butch, If you don't want to use the search button, suit yourself, the answers are there -- I stand by my posting that it's a great resource and shouldn't be skipped. In fact, the more posts there are on a subject is all the more reason you should read it. LizardKing didn't suggest perjury -- you made an assumption and missed the point which was PROOF especially in the case of identity theft where someone has stolen your information and used it to incur debt in your name. "Don't be stupid and don't follow stupid advice" -- be careful where you're pointing that assuming and judgmental finger of yours, you've made numerous opinionated posts in this thread that aren't factual, it may be pointing right back at you. Sassy
Re: CA Sends Copy of Signed Applica Thanks for the feedback. Even if LK and I must agree to disagree I do hope we can at least be friendlier about it.
In fact, Once the furnisher has supplied the signed contract, a complete accounting of all statement activity with interest, fees, etc., and all the necessary items needed for validation then any court will have deemed it to have been validated and YOU WILL LOSE. That is my point. Butch, Certified Financial Planner Butch | 71 =================================================== What if there are math errors and or incorrect entries in the accounting? Is it still validating?
