Re: Re: Paid chargeoffs i have done just what TAc has suggested with one of my paid oc with bad lates... i disputed several time and there has been no notation on my credit report (still isan't ) I just had them served this week! TAC.... i refuse to contact them to discuss settlement, (after filing) preferring the default judgement if they fail to respond..... do you have any opinions on this?
Well, they are always trying to screw you aren't they? (LOL) Really never paid any attention to that but then I don't mess with the credit bureaus much so that is probably why. That does tend to get their attention. I like to prepare the suit and just send it to them (in a sense that is). Everything is there but it is obvious that they are only getting the 1st or 2nd page and that the suit is obviously much longer and much more involved than what they got. Obviously they are just getting a sneak preview but it is pretty obvious that they are potentially looking down the gun barrel of a 16 MM naval cannon all set to go off in their face and then see if they still want to play hard ball. I'm waiting on the results of one of those right now where they admitted in writing they violated cease & desist. Of course, they just didn't realize that's what they were doing at the time they wrote the admission. And of course, the suit is always set to go into US Federal court. I haven't had to go file one yet so I'd say that was a pretty fair success rate. Of course I'll probably have to actually go file one sooner or later. Well, not actually me, myself & I Inc. because that would put me in the untenable position of practicing law and I'm no lawyer. That may be a contemplatable idea for small claims where all one is looking for is a deletion. But if you are looking for a deletion of the debt as well as the listing then playing around in small claims is not an option and I would not want to go filing in Federal if I was not well prepared to stay the course. After all, if one is going to play with fire he had better count on the fact that he may just get his eyebrows singed a bit and maybe a whole lot worse than that. So before grabbing up an "estoppel letter" like that he had best have done his homework and have his ducks all in a row. Those federal boys don't play "ring around the rosy". If your potential case is weak or even frivolous then I'd sure agree with you there. However mine are never weak or frivolous. They are real and a solid trail of evidence against them has been carefully built each and every time. I maintain that if you don't have the bullets in the chamber and the hammer cocked, actually ready willing and able to pull the trigger then don't point the gun. I've never tried it with a paid charge off. I've never even thought of doing it with a paid chargeoff. To me that would seem to be pretty gutsy. There would be little or no substance to the potential case as far as I can see. One should never write the contract under any conditions. Make them write the settlement contract. I can't see that line of thinking either. First of all why pay criminals? As I see it there are some real serious flaws in your line of thinking there. First of all they commit their criminal acts then you pay them some loot then turn around and sue? Well, on second thought maybe that does make just a wee bit of sense from one standpoint but even so that still don't make complete sense to me at all. The violation itself does give standing to sue in and of itself. Pros and cons I suppose.
Bill, I couldn't agree more with you, you bring up some very valid points. As far as paying criminals goes here is my litigious explanation and in fact one attorney for Mongram Bank asked me this very same question.... Attorney..."Mr. Tac, why is it 2 month's earlier you contacted us for settlement and paid this account with us and now you are disputing the account and suing us?" My reply...."I knew I had owed your company some money for purchases I made using the account. I did not feel it was the moral or ethical or wise from a legal standpoint not to make good with your company and pay you. When your company failed to adhere to the FCRA after several notices I sent I was left with no other recourse but to file suit for your companies violations." That particular attorney settled for deletion and paid me $1000.00. 2 months earlier I had only paid them $700.00 to settle. Way I see it, now I have a negative account deleted and $300.00 in my pocket! Tac
Great! But you have inadvertantly presented pretty conclusive evidence of my thinking on why most of the LTU theories I rail against won't work in most instances. And in fact I discussed it in another thread somewhere. Your "proof" and my thinking may well puzzle some folks but be that as it may. I will admit in advance that the reasoning is a bit circular to say the least but the anology is there. What I spoke of is that one cannot complain that the tree is poison yet enjoy the fruits thereof. If one hopes to successfull complain that the tree is poison then he must first divest himself of it's fruits. That has been man's legal thinking almost since time immemorial. When you paid them off first then complained you evaded that issue. Those who complain that they have been defrauded basing their arguments on the theories of Modern Money Mechanics have not stopped to think of that nor have those who are currently espousing the "new" Notarial Protest argument. Modern Money Mechanics may well hold some interesting and pertinent questions which could only be addressed in a court of law and if properly raised could well end up before the Supremes for final determination but one who has not divested himself of the fruits of his poison tree will normally get nowhere fast. While there are people out there who will readily attest to the fact that it worked for them but never claim it worked for them before a court of law meaning that their opponent chickened out rather than fight which pretty well indicates that their success was only the result of the chance meeting of two fools. The major difference between your case and a meeting of two fools is that you didn't try to beat them in the process. You owed them and you knew it and you paid them and then you complained. Big difference.
Re: Re: Paid chargeoffs It seems that you do get more mileage with a ITS and a copy of the Plaintiff statement. If you hint to all of the violations that they have committed and with an arm twist you will get what you want eventually. That is how I got one off of my report. This last one is proving to be a real pain.
I believe that an argueable position exists for that. We all know that creditors get stuck quite often and I beleive that the same can be said of prostitutes. So by LTU logic it might be more easily proven then one might imagine.{LOL)
Re: Re: Paid chargeoffs Well put! Butch, this may have been discussed many times but never so well or succinctly. Part of the "magic" of some of the creditor-direct strategies we discuss here, including the Litigious Nutcase series and others, is that the recipients are left with that uneasy feeling that something needs to be done -- and fast! -- but that they can't quite figure out what that something is. Many creditors simply fold their cards for the sake of expedience in such situations or, as Butch said, perpetrate more FCRA and FDCPA violations (which, in turn, simply bolsters your subsequent argument)! Doc
Re: Re: Paid chargeoffs Hi Tac, The original post was started voodoo, Case 1. Basically, I have the same similar case: A collection account. Dispute with CRA, CA drop their reporting( after 1 1/2 year report: Paid/ Collection, bad tradelines) and the Acct. remain only OC on credit report with Paid/ charge off w. negative trade line notations, So OC verified their report( although wrong acct. number on EQ,wrong bal., charge off date on EX and TU: payment after charge off/collection). I sent nutcase letter to OC, they 've responded back with basic same old letter: Thank you for your inquiries, your acct. now paid in full in settlement, we now updated to 3 major credit bureau........... They didn't mention any thing about nutcase letter. I thought since CA collect my monies, if they could delete their report then they also should take care to delete the entire acct. and its still better than to dealt w. OC which is much more difficult. The letter that I try to accomplish here is to ask CA( United Recovery System) to delete the entire acct. then send UDF to CRA. I can fax this letter to them by using bbb local service, hopefully I can get quicker respond/result. After reading a lots of info., post here I got com fused . It seems that I need to do more disputes to CRA, OC to catch their errors then file sue. But I have a couple month ahead to refinance my house if I could clear this acct., it will help me lower interest. Please give me your input. Thanks.
