4 days to go for experian

hahahahaha the 64,000 dollar question. No really 30 days is 30 days...you may have to tell them how to do their job though. But I assume their supervisors already beat you to it, and unfortunately 30 days is up when they say it is up. It is up to you to prove otherwise or re-dispute.

-Peace, Dave

 

There is a 3rd option. I suppose that for the purpose of adding a bit of humor, I shall call it "the gulper."

In law, it is called civil Rico. Anybody ever hear of the Rico Act? There are both civil and criminal codes dealing with the Rico Act. So it isn't necessary to attempt to force a balky District Attorney to file criminal charges when making allegations of Rico Act violations. Rico Act violations can be filed against in civil court too. I'll bet most people think Rico was only for criminal acts involving securities fraud or drug related cases. Not necessarily so.

18 USC &#167 1962 of the Rico act and some of the pertinent case decisions pertaining to the civil side of Rico can be most enlightening. Of course, under Rico, one must be able to establish a pattern of such illegal activity. Hardly a difficult thing to do in this instance.

The Supreme Court's most recent attempt to define the "pattern" requirement was in H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., in which it ruled that proving a pattern requires showing that the racketeering acts "are related" and "amount to or pose the threat of continued criminal activity." Fn1291 The Court defined "related" acts as those "that have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events." fn1292

Since such a case is a civil action, not a criminal proceeding; the burden of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt; fn1331 and the plaintiff need not prove that the defendant is a "racketeer" in the everyday sense of that term or is associated with "organized crime."

The pertinent point here is that if one wishes to mudwrestle with pigs, one can gain a significant advantage if the pig is suddenly convinced or becomes deeply concerned that the mudpuddle just might be way over his head.

Under FCRA, the name of the particular mudpuddle that the pig in question is accustomed to, he is pretty confident that he can comfortably wallow in. If you can successfully convince him that there are other mudpuddles into which he might be dragged, he usually decides that it may not be to his liking, especially if the situation is not all that important to him anyway. So if one's demand for full and complete disclosure of all material facts including name, company address and company phone number of the person having verified the information is demanded in the original request for verification of the report and a suggestion that failure to provide such information as demanded might fall under the definitions of 18 USC &#167 1962 and you had a court decision listed in which the court ruled in a manner favorable to your argument, it just might cause the pig to gulp pretty hard before coming up with a bunch of folderal instead of complying for your demands for verification and release of all information.

He might also tend to find it a bit difficult to explain how he could refuse to re-investigate if he thought his refusal might get him hauled into a court of law where he would look pretty silly trying to claim an FCRA defense against a Rico Act complaint.

And it would not be all that wise to state that if he don't comply with your demands you will file a Rico Act case on him. Hints and suggestions work much better than actual threats. After all, if you made the mistake of actually threatening a lawsuit, he just might call your bluff and then you would have a problem you didn't want to hear about.

FCRA is the other man's game. Never play the other man's game. Make him play your game instead if you want to be the winner. Never make idle threats that you could not back up if necessary. The courts always impose a "least informed consumer" standard, so as a model "least informed consumer", you have a lot of latitude in what you can say or do, but it's best to always be prepared to go all the way to the wailing wall and back again if need be. That simply means that if you make threats of legal action then you had better either know the law yourself and be well prepared to go to court on a pro se basis or have competent legal counsel at your beck and call to do that for you.

When someone advises you to stay with simple little letters and tactics they are assuming that you don't know any more than they do and they are probably quite correct in making that assumption.

But it should be obvious that while simple statements of dispute or demands for validation do sometimes get results, they do run into brick walls pretty quickly and then something much stronger is needed. So it's much better to stand behind a solid brick wall than it is to run into one.