1*Essentially, you are making the point that because CAs and CRAs are nasty, dirty, underhanded businesses, a person can exercise any and all rights guaranteed them by law to fight the CAs and CRAs. 2*I also think you ignored the fact that people engaging in credit repair do sometimes try to modify their files so that truth is distorted. 3*Let me ask you this LB. How long do you think Congress will let that type of activity go on before they tighten the regs? Who do you think has more pull in the Legislative branch of this country.. us poor creditnetters? Or big companies with lots of money to spend on campaigns? 4*So here's the next logical step in the process. The CAs and CRAs go to Congress and beg for some relief. They'll claim the regs are being abused by people trying to remove legitimate derogatory entries. 5*My singular point, in case you missed it in one of my posts, is that by trying to use the regulations for purposes Congress didn't intend, we risk having those tools taken from us. 6*Your point it seems is that the CAs and CRAs are bad, so we can be bad too. 7*two wrongs don't make a right GaryL *************************=========== 1*No I am just saying that you are owed proof of a claim and I expect the claimant to abide by the law be they a CA CRA OC or anyone else. Their temperment has nothing to do with it. 2*Credit reports are anything but a refliction of truth with or without the consumers input. 3*And where do you think they got the money? 4*If they have the proof of the debt then how are they being abused? 5*Forcing them to prove the debt is legally binding is the intended purpose. 6*No it's about the fact no one has the legal right to collect money from me that they can't prove I owe. 7*Demanding legal proof of a debt isn't a wrong its a right. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ A note or two: <<QUOTE--Fact is, debtors abuse the privilege of dispute. Primarily because so many agencies, mine included, work volume accounts assigned electronically without written back-up. And rarely is the written back-up (media) available. Signed Collection Agent.--QUOTE >> ========================== What this agent is saying is collection agencies rarely if ever have any proof that any of the debts they are trying to collect on are valid. This being the truth of the matter is good reason to demand collection accounts be removed from ones reports as the CA is reporting inaccurate or false information to the CRAs. Also in light of this no one should ever pay a CA. L B 59 ************************* Based on this collection agents confession it is doubtful that Opie owes the $1900.oo. ----------------------------- <<QUOTE--Fact is, debtors abuse the privilege of dispute. Signed Collection Agent> ``````````````````````````````````` To me this agents statement about abuse is an admission that CA debts aren't valid debts.If they were legit.why not just show the proof and forget such a statement.
I was really hoping that no one who agreed with my original assertion would respond to lbrown59. It was blatantly obvious that he/she wanted to keep this debate alive for a whole week after it had essentially ended. That said, a lot of those who responded felt that Congress is not likely to act because of a few "Creditnetters." If you don't think Creditnetters have power, then why is everyone planning months in advance for the so-called CHOD onslaught? By the way, I am not criticizing CHOD efforts, I just know that there will be many among us (if not a majority) who will attempt to use the system to remove derogatory entries on their credit reports that rightfully and ethically should be there. If Creditnetters can develop a sound CHOD strategy that is successful, I guarantee that the ripples coming from CREDITNET.com are much bigger than any of us realize. As for you lbrown59, your desire to keep this debate alive is humorous. Either the attention you think you get from CREDITNET.com offers you personal comfort â??OR- your rhetoric allows you to feel better deep down inside about some of your own past indiscretions. Whatever the case, if Opie admits to owing a company money (and he in fact owes that company money), regardless of what the SOL is, he has a moral obligation to pay it. I donâ??t care if 25 years have passed, there was an obligation missed and a responsibility circumvented. I donâ??t think youâ??d be too happy if you loaned someone money and they didnâ??t pay you. I do NOT support credit collection firms and agencies that use illegal, immoral, unethical or just plain rude collection methods of their ownâ?¦but two wrongs do not make a right. If Opie wanted to listen to the music, he should be required to pay the piper (or the person the piper sold the debt to at a 40% to 60% loss). Hawg Hanner
Rightfully and ethically? According to whom? The system you refer to many using is the exact same system that enables the other side to report at all. It is not unethical to use it to your own advantage, if they follow the law there is nothing one can do to get ANYTHING removed. I still want to know who said forcing people to pay higher interest rate and fees for 7 years after an item is reported is ethical (or right). What if the item is legally being repoted correctly, but the item actually is the responsibility of the person's ex? Is that ethical or right? I want to know why it is ETHICAL OR RIGHT for a company to be able to jack up interest rates on someone already having a hard time simply because they pull a credit report and see that this person is approaching the upper levels of there limits. They never even have to actually be late on a payment. Who the hell are you to impose your version of ethics on anyone? You simply don't know everyone's story, and if you did, you still have no right to tell them they are immoral or unethical for using laws granted to them. It's called Civil Rights. Gib
It's funny how people like to talk about civil rights and laws in attempt to muddy the issue. The issue at hand is whether or not paying one's debt is ethical and morally correct. I find it distrubing that there are those who would argue that it is not necessarily ethical or moral to NOT pay someone who provided a service to you or money to you...especially if you gave that person or company your word that you agreed to pay them back. Now, I'm not saying that a person necessariliy is liable to pay back the entire sum someone says you owe. However, if a person agrees to take receipt of a good or service, I find it hard to believe that anyone would say that it's not wrong to fail to pay for that good or service (I'm not necessarily talking about administrative fees, interest, etc. here--although people who agree to those terms, if those terms are legal in the U.S., should also pay those too). The Ten Commandments state that "Thou shalt not steal." All other popular religions around the world also adhere to a similar belief. The dictionary calls stealing: "theft, taking and removing of something such as property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny." Federal and state U.S. laws dictate that if a consumer agrees to take receipt of goods or services and agrees to the terms of such sale either by writing or verbally, and then fails to pay for them, that is considered illegal. And if taking a good or service and not paying for that good or service is NOT stealing, what is it? Hawg Hanner
Hawg, OK, but if I owe you $5.00 payable on the first of next month, but then when the first gets here I don't have the $5.00 and ask you for an extension to repay, but instead you send someone over to "beat me up" because I did not pay you, then in my mind, I no longer owe you, as you have "taken it out of my hide". This is what the system does to consumers. If you fail to pay as agreed then they "take it out of your hide" by reporting on your credit which in turns "beats you up" with high interest rates, or no credit. If you are going to punish me for 7 years for not paying as agreed, then that becomes your payment, if you want to work out a fair deal then that is another story. In the latter scenario, I would be more than happy to pay my debt because you are not "beating me up" in the process of collecting. I am at the very least going to make you prove that you have legal right to collect the $5.00 before I give you a dime. Plus I am not going to pay you until you promise to quit "beating me up". (This is done in the credit world by removing or updating the negative tradeline.) This is a rational and logical strategy. Morals have little, if anything to do with it. I do not expect you to understand or agree with this philosophy, but nonetheless, it is a philosophy many consumers that have bean "beaten down" by the system share.
It's legal in the U.S. to request validation of one's debts. You are confusing the issue, I said nothing about not paying anyone's debt. I took issue with your tone about CHOD and people excersizing there legal rights granted to them. So by your own logic, if it's legal, it's ethical. Gib
You apparently do not understand CHOD. The conditions that allow CHOD are set up by holiday shopping, and creditors/CRAs having more employees than usual on vacation. The combination of these two things, plus the truncation that occurs because of the holidays (30 days to validate ends up becoming less than 30 days) gives a few people the opportunity to try to take advantage of the understaffing to slip some things by. Creditnetters do not have "the power" to create CHOD, any more than a surfer has the power to create a wave. The rest of your posts go on to repeat your old arguments, including a rather amusing attempt to bring religion into it (did you know that one of the largest religions in the world, Islam, forbids the lending of money for interest?). And someone else here made an excellent post pointing out the biblical origins of the 7 year rule.
Leaving religion and tepid analogys out of the CHOD discussion, allow me to postulate this. Imagine this scene.... After waiting months for an appointment with a Congressman, a lobbyist for the CA Association finally gets some face time. This lobbyist has been trying to make the case that a certain percentage of consumers are manipulating the FCRA and FDCPA for purposes not intended by Congress, and that the efforts of those consumers are costing jobs and money. The Congressman doesn't beleive it. He tells the lobbyist that even judges and lawyers are confused on the FDCPA and FCRA and that the obscurity of the statutes protect the CAs. The Congressman is incredulous that consumers could be organized and sophisticated enough to really make a difference in the CAs operations. Then the lobbyist throws out the CHOD data. It shows that for any 30 day period for the last year, requests for validations and verifications hold a statistically equal value... except for the period of Nov 25 to Dec 25, where requests are higher.... and then the lobbyist shows that a huge spike in validation requests occur in the 7 day period surrounding the date of Nov 25. After that, the lobbyist shows the Congressman excerpts from boards like this (this isn't the only credit repair board, my friends) which clearly demonstrate a vibrant, sophisticated, intelligent segment of the population dedicated to credit repair. As the coup de grace, the lobbyist shows the Congressman posts from people like LB who maintain that if the law allows an act, then people have every right to engage in that act regardless of the intent of the law. The Congressman is dumbfounded. And based on the information provided by the CAs' lobbyist, it does appear the regulations need some tweaking. He asks the lobbyist to make copies of the information so he can share them with the other Congressman on his committee. Months later, the "new and improved" regs are in effect, making it harder to repair credit files. Perhaps the CAs will be given 90 days to respond. Perhaps more proof will be required from the consumer. Perhaps they'll add a "fraud" clause to the rules making it a felony to knowingly alter a correct file entry. Who knows? But be certain that creditnet.com doesn't have any paid lobbyists in the Capitol advocating on our behalf. And I doubt many here contribute to PACs or get invited to 250 dollars a plate "meet the Congressman" events. Look people, the argument here isn't really a moral one, although there are moral issues involved in it. It isn't an ethical one, although one's ethics certainly come into play. Its a logical one. Using the tools for purposes not intended by Congress WILL get those tools taken away from you. We, as a group, are no different than any other group. If we pervert the spirit of the law by using the FCRA and FDCPA to get out of debt, to artificially alter credit files or get out of bona fide financial obligations, we will get attention. And attention is something we DON't want. Just because you can kick a gorilla in the balls, doesn't mean you should. Wichita aka GaryL
1*It was blatantly obvious that he/she wanted to keep this debate alive for a whole week after it had essentially ended. 2*I just know that there will be many among us (if not a majority) who will attempt to use the system to remove derogatory entries on their credit reports that rightfully and ethically should be there. 3*As for you LBrown59, your desire to keep this debate alive is humorous. Either the attention you think you get from CREDITNET.com offers you personal comfort â??OR- your rhetoric allows you to feel better deep down inside about some of your own past indiscretions. 4*Whatever the case, if Opie admits to owing a company money (and he in fact owes that company money), regardless of what the SOL is, he has a moral obligation to pay it. 5* I don't care if 25 years have passed, there was an obligation missed and a responsibility circumvented. 6*I don't think you'd be too happy if you loaned someone money and they didn't pay you. I do NOT support credit collection firms and agencies that use illegal, immoral, unethical or just plain rude collection methods of their ownâ?¦ 7*but two wrongs do not make a right. 8*If Opie wanted to listen to the music, he should be required to pay the piper (or the person the piper sold the debt to at a 40% to 60% loss). HawgHanner ======----------------- -------------------- 1*There is nothing to debate Legal and Moral don't always mix and can't be compared. 2*Entries true or false negative or positive designed to fleece consumers do not rightfully belong there and certainly is far removed from being ethical. 3*You could not be farther off on your analysis of my intentions. MY BACKGROUND And EXPERIENCE: 1*Assett Management 18Years 2*Financial Services 18 Years 3*Insurance 18 Years 4*Stock Market 18 Years 5*Business Owner-Housing Company. 29 Years Do you not agree this track record indicates one is well qualified to share learned information on topics discussed on this board? My only motive is to share what I know with others who may not have had the opportunity to learn certain things first hand as I have. 4*What legal proof has been presented to OPIE or the board that that he owes anything? Why should Opie forfeit his right to proof of the debt? He has this right and it is not contingent on if he owes anything or if he don't either legally or morally. 5*Incorrect there were two obligations and responsibilities circumvented. 6*Probably not, but if I didn't follow the law to collect I have nobody to blame but myself. 7*Neither do I so I don't pay them for doing it. How does requiring proof that I owe something translate into two wrongs making a right ? ? ? 8*On problem with this is how is paying the CA recovering the loss for the OC?? LB 59
I am joining this discussion late, but this is too interesting to pass up. Maybe this was brought up earlier, but if you think of all the people who commit real crimes rape, murder and battery and some repeat these awful crimes over and over. These people get a their day in court and are innocent until proven guilty. They even get to start over after they serve their time, in most cases much less than 7 years. If you are someone who has had some credit problems and have some hard times earlier in your life you are automatically labeled guilty by the OC and CA. You do not have your day in court (unless you know your rights, which too many people do not). If you have had credit problems the soonest you get to start over is 7 years later if the CA or OC does not re-age your account. Another sticky situation exists in that the CAs and OCs are good customers for the CRAs. These are the money maker for the CRAs. The CAs and OCs are the ones who get the attention of the CRAs. The consumer has no say what so ever. How is someone supposed to deal with the CRA, OC and CA if they do not use the existing law? If you are arrested by the police they tell you your rights and make sure understand them. They also tell you have a right to consult an attorney and if you can't afford one, one will be provided for you. Can anyone here say that they were extended the same courtesy when speking to a CA or CRA? The fact is that if CRAs OCs and CAs were willing to work with consumers who have made mistakes and are willing to take care their debt, without labeling them as deadbeats for 7 years their would be no need for this discussion.
Just how much extra activity do you think happens around CHOD? There are millions of people with negative information on their credit reports, with probably thousands of disputes going in a day. The CRAs do not share information with each other, or at least, aren't supposed to. So you have two problems with your scenario: first, it couldn't happen for lack of collective information; and second, the number of people who try to take advantage of CHOD is so small that I doubt it makes a statistically significant impact. There are several message boards like this one, probably with a lot of overlap among their members. Not all members need to do anything for CHOD, and of those who do, only some will actually try it. How many? Do you have hard numbers? Nope. You are making a wild and unjustified assumption that there are enough people filing claims on CHOD to make a difference. Absent some kind of proof, I don't believe it. Finally, I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Even if your poorly-contrived and thought out scenario were accurate, what are you trying to say? That people should not take advantage of CHOD because that opportunity might go away in the future if they do? That makes no sense, and flies in the face of human nature. It is also running away from the actual topic of all this nonsense, which is the morality of not paying old debts.
I did not maintain that. You're adding it to what I said. Would you please explain your view of the intent of validation.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ One of the big problems are LOBBYISTS, they only serve to further the interests of BIG BUSINESS! I am so sick of all this BACKDOOR CRAP,the majority of these congessmen don't give a DAMN about the people they supposedly represent, all they care about is the $$$$$$$ they receive from these corporate entities. It's a total disgrace, & what's even worse is they pass legislation without even reading it!!!!!!!! They are ANTI-CONSUMER, PRO BIG BIZ. Bk Bill is a good example here. We supposedly live in a DEMOCRACY, where the peoples voice counts, but the peoples voice is continually getting DROWNED OUT by BIG $$$ BIZ> It's time to TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY, and RECONSTITUTE the CONSTITUTION.!!!!!!!! And, if we don't do it soon the BIG $$$$ will get their way by "BUYING" their way in to LAW; The end result will be more liken to a Dictatorship, run by CORRUPT POLITICIANS and BIG $$$$$$ BIZ., DEBTORS PRISON will become a reality again in one form or another, as if it's not like that already for those with bad credit. The BACKBONE of the economy, the so called MIDDLE CLASS is rapidly dissapearing, the WEALTHY are getting wealthier, and the poor are getting poorer. Mark my words, it won't be terrorists that destroy this Country, it will be the "CORPORATE TERRORISTS". Eagle Saving Freedom
Wichita, Where is it written that a company must place every account with a CRA? Get real. A CRA is not a almighty power within this country. A person getting in trouble for knowingly altering a credit file? What a criminal. Let's throw them in jail and take away the key! Bottom line is that you and Hawg Hanner have a problem with people having rights protecting them from the OC's CA's and CRA's. Of course there are going to be people who abuse the system. There always has to be a bad apple. But as usual, the CA's and big credit card companies are manipulating data and statistics, placing large sums of cash in the "right' people's pockets, so that they can get laws passed that will increase their bottom line, and take away the rights of consumers. Ethical? Not!
oh finally, some college educated TROLLS. . . but TROLLS nevertheless. If not . . .Be smart, be quiet, lay low, and realize YOU DO NOT HAVE TO MAKE THE LAST ARGUMENT! For TROLLS with sound "moral" principals and some degree of intelligence, you two aren't too bright. LB may annoy some members of this community, but all of his points in this thread are valid and logical.
