"Validation was requested. They basically sent him a letter saying, your information is similar to that in our database. Tell us what you don't agree with and we'll check on it." -YES, THIS CAN BE "Verification/validation"because it was "responsive to the consumers request." -NCLC FDCPA. A validation/verification request has to be VERY specific. If the account is TRULY not yours, BUT it is on your credit report or they are attempting to collect from you, a claim of "its not me" in a validation letter can be easily overcome by looking at the account info on the computer, seeing your name and info, and saying "yup, its you!" -BUT, if the account IS NOT YOURS, and you truly ARE NOT THE RIGHT person, then a validation/verification request should include not only "its not me", but WHY IT IS NOT YOURS. -A great timely example of this is cases of ID Theft. When you are victim of ID Theft, someone uses your info to open an account right? SO ALL THE INFO WOULD INDICATE IT IS YOUR ACCOUNT. So a request for validation/verification based on a "not mine" is easily overcome right? -BUT, a request for validation/verification of not mine BECAUSE (for example) "this is a fraudulent account, I never had this account (including #) with this creditor. I may have been a victim of ID Theft" will OVERCOME any "mere itemization of what the collector already has."- (Wollman FTC letter) "If I'm not mistaken, he did tell them - he did not recognize the account. They still did not send him anything to show what was owed and what it was for." -If the request/dispute was "not mine" and did not request amount etc, they would not have to "volunteer" this info. -It is a common miconception "validation/verification" is meant to prove the liability of a debt (ie as in a court of law) -THE PURPOSE of "Validation/verification" minimize the instances of mistaken identity of a debtor or mistakes over the amount or existence of the debt. IT IS AN INFORMAL METHOD OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION THAT CONSERVES TAX DOLLARS AND JUDICIAL RESOURCES"- NCLC FDCPA / Udell FTC letter / Senate Report #382 / 1987 -In other words, this is informal and not too techical method. If the consumer says its not their account, but the info on the collectors computer and account info from the creditor all match, its their account! (in the collectors mind) PROVING it would require court, and the "level of proof" would be FORMAL and WAY above "validation/verification." "What's up with this "Did you request validation within the 30 day timeframe" PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG AND SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD, but not requesting validation within the 30 day timeframe is not an admission that it is indeed your debt." -The "validation/verification" right of the consumer "...runs from the date of receipt of the notice of validation rights by consumer and is not extended by the collectors subsequent action." -NCLC FDCPA 5.7.3.1 / Woosley & Miller FTC letters -EVEN if the debt collector sends REPEATED validation notices, IT DOES NOT RESTART the validation period. -Woosley & Miller FTC opinion letter -In other words, the 30 day validation period BEGINS after the consumer receives the INITIAL contact with the collector in which the validation notice was contained, and runs for 30 days. THEN "*EXPIRES". (*a consumer can request validation at anytime, however, any "effective" protection of the validation right is UNAVAILABLE outside the validation period) -IF the consumer sends a request for "validation/verification" BEFORE or AFTER the "validation period", THE DEBT COLLECTOR IS NOT REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH FDCPA 809 (b)-(cease collection activity). -They do however, have to report the account as disputed to the reporting agency if they report it after reciept of ANY validaiton request, expired or not. This ALSO applies to ORAL DISPUTES- FDCPA 807 (8) http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/fdcpact.htm#807 -Liability of a debt is IRRELEVENT in relation to the FDCPA/FCRA. The courts have said the protection of the federal statutes are available to the consumer REGARDLESS OF THE LIABILITY OF THE DEBT. IT IS THE COLLECTION/REPORTING ACTIONS themselves which are governed. -An example I use to depict this is a consumer suing a collection agency for violations of the FDCPA. Lets just say it was numerous harrassing phone calls. In court the consumer can say "yup your honor, sure as a bear squats in the woods, THIS IS MY DEBT. I owe it, not doubt about it!" and still PREVAIL if the collection agency violated any of the consumer protection acts.(in this case harrassing phone calls) Making sure the statute of limitations has expired can prevent a countersuit. Although, a collection agency filing a countersuit AFTER LOSING a debt collection harrassment suit DOES NOT LOOK ALL THAT WELL FOR THEM "I am really trying to understand all this. I am on my last few negative TL's - the tough ones - and I want to make sure I have it all right" -I feel your pain What I post is not opinion (most the time anyway) and is based on current case law, statutes, and directly from the National Consumer Law Center publications. (which are concidered the "bible" for collection harrassment attornies). It is hard to accept a lot of what I post because it is new and has not really been posted before. -I would encourage everyone to research the info I post, and anyone else for that matter, and educate themselves
Empahasis on that Considering that in a lot of cases the first communication is a credit report which does not state the 809 notice, or in the case of a misidentified consumer the CA may have the phone number of the MC but the address of the true consumer, therefore the true consumer would receive the 809 notice the MC would not. Are you trying to say that the MC would not have any rights to demand validation as to whether or not they were misidentified because the TC received the validation notice?
Re: Re: A little more on validation "IF the consumer sends a request for "validation/verification" BEFORE or AFTER the "validation period", THE DEBT COLLECTOR IS NOT REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH FDCPA 809 (b)-(cease collection activity)." -The most quoted, but perhaps the least understood section of the FDCPA is section 809, "Validation of Debt" http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/fdcpact.htm#809 -In order to better understand this section, I will post and comment on each of the sections of 809. § 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g] "(a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt," -AFTER the INITIAL contacts with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, the debt collector must send the required "validation notice" to the consumer within 5 days of the INITIAL communication. -What is a validation notice? The validation notice is sections (1) - (5) of 809. BUT, it must be "provided effectively and that it must not be confusing"-Swanson v. Southern Oregon Credit Services -A simple photocopy of FDCPA 809 IS NOT AN effective notice "since the language of the statute was not written to be understandable to unsophisticated consumers."- Furth v. United Adjusters Inc , Rosenburg FTC Letter 1991 -BUT, the language must be "substnatually the same as the statute." "a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing --" -The validaiton notice CAN be provided orally. This is how some debt collectors can "avoid" the 30 day validaiton period beacuse the consumer isnt sent anything "reminding" them they ONLY have 30 days. " (1) the amount of the debt;" -This is a powerful section. Because many debt collectors "add" fees and "other" chrages which are not explained in detail, EVEN IF THE DEBT IS YOURS, you can still request validation/verification of the AMOUNT. This is where the "Mere itemization of what the debt collector already has does not accomplish this purpose" (-Wollman FTC letter) comes into play. http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/wollman.htm -A consumers request for validaiton/verification is satisfied by the collection agency by "providing information that is reposnsive to the consumers request." -NCLC FDCPA 5.7.3.2 -For example, if you send a validation/verification saying the debt is not yours, but the info on the creditors and collectors computer all indicates it IS your account, then a statement of the account MAY be sufficiant. -BUT, if the consumer sent a validation/verification request stating the account was not theirs BECAUSE, for example, "it is fraudulent, I was a victim of ID Theft, I never had acct# with this creditor, etc etc, THIS requires a more "in depth" validation/verification to "be responsive to the request of the consumer." " (2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;" -This isnt really substantial. This info is usually included in the initial communication and isnt something the collector "conceals". " (3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector;" -Assuming the debt is "valid" DOES NOT ESTABLISH the consumer is LIABLE for the debt. It only allows the debt collector to assume they can continue collection efforts on the debt. LIABILITY for a debt is determined by a trier of fact (ie judge or jury) And the purpose of the validation right is to AVOID court. " (4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and" -THIS MUST BE IN WRITING. IT ALSO HAS TO BE IN THE 30 days AFTER THE INITIAL COMMUNICATION FROM THE DEBT COLLECTOR IN CONNECTION WITH THE COLLECTION OF THE DEBT in which the validation notice was contained.- The act requires the request for validation to be in writing.- Fasten v. Zager. The 30 day period during which a consumer may request verification [validation] of a debt runs from the receipt of the notice of validation right by the consumer and is not extended by the collectors subsequent collection action."- NCLC FDCPA 7.7.3.1 -This included repeated notice of validation rights in subsequent collection letters. THIS IS WHERE CONSUMERS GET CONFUSED. Even if the collection agency sends a letter indicating your validation rights are still "30 days from receipt of this notice", IF IT IS NOT THE INITIAL LETTER, THE VALIDATION RIGHTS HAVE EXPIRED*. -*In reality, the validation rights DO NOT EXPIRE ever. A consumer can request validaiton at anytime. BUT, what does expire, is the collectors requirement to "cease collection activity". -REGARDLESS of then the collection agency receives the request for validation/verification, including before and after the validation period, the debt collector is required to report the debt as "disputed" if they report the debt after receipt of the validation/verification request. FDCPA 807 (8) http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/fdcpact.htm#807 " (5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor." -IF the creditor is the same as the current one, the collection agency doesnt really have to do much. "(b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing" -Again this is required to be in WRITING. "within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a)" that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed" -Ok, this is the part where consumers get confused. Section (b) refers SPECIFICALLY to "the thirty-day period described in subsection (a)". -The 30 day period described in section (a) is "..after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt."[/i] -IF congress wanted the validation period to be 30 days after ANY communicaiton with a consumer, WHY DIDNT they say it "that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector." -This is the "cease collection" part which a lot of us "believe" most collection agencies violate (and I do agree, a lot do). BUT, if the above time period is not met BY THE CONSUMER, this section DOES NOT APPLY and the collection agency can keep sending those annoying letters etc. "(c) The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer." -This is also a very powerful section. This answers the question about "DONT ADMIT IT IS YOUR DEBT!" issue presented by many who are "afraid" to avail themselves of the consumer protections of the federal statutes beacuse they are somehow admitting liability of the debt. -I hope this clears the validaiton/verification issue a little.
Re: Re: A little more on validation "Are you trying to say that the MC would not have any rights to demand validation as to whether or not they were misidentified because the TC received the validation notice? " -I am not saying that, the law is -Before you freak out at me, THINK of all the OTHER sections which provide MORE POWERFUL consumer remedies and place a HIGHER STANDARD than validaiton. -THIS scenerio is where Johnson v. MBNA would apply almost SPECIFICALLY. -Simple "validaiton/verification" would almost certainly NOT solve the problem about a misidentified consumer. -BUT, a "reasonable investigation" which is required by FCRA 623 (b), after the consumer notifies the REPORTING AGENCY, would require the debt collector AND the reporting agency to "prove" more than mere "validation/verification."
Re: Re: A little more on validation "I have Johnson v. MBNA all nicely stored on my hard drive and refer to it constantly." http://www.creditsuit.org/blog/archives/000362.html -Keep in mind though, that is a GREAT case for the FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT 623 (b). It addresses what "reasonable investigation" is and "Requires" the collection agency AND the reporting agency to conduct a "reasonable investigation" upon receipt of a DISPUTE per FCRA 611 & 623 (b) -Although it is not a FDCPA validation case, the process descibed by MBNA as their "investigation", CAN BE CONSTRUED as the standard of "validation/verification" -THIS IS JUST MY OPINION ON THIS POINT. -Either way, the process MBNA describes in the case IS what MOST collection agencies ACTUALLY DO upon receipt of a validation request. It shows just how UNLESS you are very specific in your verification request, it can EASILY be verified.
Re: Re: A little more on validation hiding90, thank you for your opinion about section 1692g. Even though Butch and others have long held that the Admission of Liability clause says you can still validate and hold the CA liable under section 1692g after the initial 30-day period, my reading of the statute agrees with yours. This looks pretty clear to me. The CA is only required to stop collecting if your dispute occurs within the first 30 days. If you dispute or ask them to verify at any time after the 30 days, the only thing you are entitled to is proof that you owe the debt (as powerful as this is), not that they will stop trying to collect. Think about it this way: Congress put the words "within the thirty-day period" in there for a reason. If you think the collectors are bound by 1692g after the 30 days have passed, I believe you are wrong.
Re: Re: A little more on validation I asked in another post if someone could show a statute or case that extends the 30 day period by 809 (c) or for any other reason. I see it as 30 days to request "validation". You secure certain rights for yourself when disputing in the 30 day period, and place certain duties on the collector. You can "dispute" the account any time later, but they would not be required to provide "validation" or cease collection activity. They may choose to send you relevant information as to why they think you owe the bill. 809 (c) only states that failure to dispute the validity of the debt does not make them liable in court. You are "innocent until proven guilty". It states nothing about extending the timeframe in 809 (b).
Re: Re: A little more on validation -To muddy the waters, the courts have said a validaiton request concisting of "I dispute this" was a sufficiant validation request. -But having said that, if you had to go to court to complain they didnt send you the proper validation, what would be proper in this case -Keep in mind, a debt collector BY DEFINITION, is collecting a debt owed or due another,. -So the statement "I do not have an account with (and have never even heard of) Sherman Aquisition Limited Partnership. Your letter implies that I owe them money, but I do not" is not really beneficial. Part of the purpose of the validaiton is to identify the original creditor, which it appears was sears. -The collection attorney sent "verification" of the original creditor who you "owe" (at least in their mind). If you read your letter, the "meat" of the validation request was you not knowing who the collector was and you feel you dont owe the collector money. -Now look at the response. It identifies WHO you "owe" the money to, which CAN be argued a response which was "responsive to the request", that being "who do I owe this to?" -I am not disagreeing with your letter, I personally dont like to use the form letters found on the net. BUT, the more you "ask" for in the validation request, the harder it is to be "responsive to the consumer's request." -Unfortunately at this point, your effective validation rights are expired, BUT, they have been notified of the dispute, and must report the account as such if they are reporting. FDCPA 807 (8). -A way to determine "what" they are reporting (or going to report) is to dispute the account with the reporting agency. MAKE SURE YOUR DISPUTE IS MORE DETAILED THEN YOUR VALIDATION LETTER lol -Also, HAS SEARS PULLED YOUR CREDIT REPORT AFTER IT WAS CLOSED/CHARGED OFF ?
Re: Re: A little more on validation Congress in one report stated "...compliance would be achieved by a debt collector if the debt collectorobtained from the creditor a statement which includes an itemization of the amount of the debt, and the name of the consumer, a statement that the debt has not been paid, and a statement that the creditor (to whom the debt was originally owed), in consideration of the consumer's debt, had either delivered a merchantable product or properly rendered a service." But, you have to dispute or request those items to get validation that responds to all of them. If you say the debt is not mine, they would not have to validate the amount. They would provide information as to why you are the debtor. The FTC stated in several opinions that validation depends on the type of debt and what was requested by the consumer. If you dispute the amount only, validation would be verification of the amount. The FTC never defined validation because there are too many different types of transactions and disputes.
Re: Re: A little more on validation Pale Rider is sneaky....that is right from the NCLC FDCPA lol House Report No 131, 1977
Re: Re: A little more on validation "In January I sent to CRA verification request on $4800 collection--this amount and debt is not mine and was argued as such." -what exactly did you say. You must know SOMETHING about it since you know its a tech school? "CA previously never contacted me (ever) but phoned on 2/3/04, left vm with no mini-miranda of who they were and what they are doing, just the name of their company and they were aware I filed dispute." -This would constitute "initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt" would it not ? -FDCPA 809 (a) -IF this was, then: "Within five days.....a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing -- -Did they send you the "validation" notice required by FDCPA 809 (a) (1)-(5), assuming it was NOT contained in the original phone call? "TU verified 2/17/04. CA did not call again. Tu verbally advised 'we verified your SSN and name'.: IF the dispute was simpy "aint mine" then this MAY be proper verification by a collection agency, BUT, the collection agency AND the reporting agency is required to conduct "reasonable investigtation" upon receipt of a dispute pursuant to FCRA 611 / 623 (b) -Johnson v. MBNA "I sent DV CRRR to CA 3/26. They received 3/29. I got green card back yesterday and filed online dispute with TU as 'not mine', 'no contract with them', 'did not apply for credit with them'." -As weird as it may sound, your validation rights have not "begun" because they never sent you the required "validaiton notice" FDCPA 809 (a) -BUT (before you flame), the validation request you did send, will require the collection agency to report the debt as disputed to the reporting agency- FDCPA 807 (8) (dont forget they are already in violation of FDCPA 809 (a) for not sending you the required notice) "I received letter from them today (no relation to dispute) with absolutely no correspondance, no mini-miranda, no stamp, only the envelope has a return PO box with no header, and just photocopies of 4 pages:: -This WOULD have been validation/verification. More then what most collectors send anyway -BUT, sending validation/verification BEFORE they send you the required validation notice, DOES NOT RELEAVE them of the required notice and DOES NOT take away the consumers right to a 30 day dispute period.(they are digging themselves further )-Xioa-Lin FTC letter "They ignored my questions separate from the debt questionaire form:" -Not sure WHERE these questions came from, but Id like to know!! lol AND remember your effective validation right havent begun at this point. "Evidence of your authorization to collect under FDCPA 15 USC 1692(e) and 15 USC 1692(f);" -These sections are FDCPA 807 and 808. They DO NOT "authorize" a debt collector to collect. -THEY DO however, protect a consumer from a collector collecting a debt it has no authorization or legal authority to do. In order to prove this, the debt collector has to be, for example, attempting to collect a debt which has been recalled by the creditor or one that has been paid etc. -By then sending the info they did, it pretty much shows they are authorized to collect the debt. "A copy of the agreement (if with a client) that grants you the authority to collect on this alleged debt;" -This is concidered "confidential" information or "business records" they DO NOT have to send this to a consumer. THEY DONT EVEN HAVE TO SEND THEM TO A COURT UNDER SUBPOENA. (a custodian of records can bring them and testify FROM them) "Any judgments been obtained by any creditor regarding this account" -This is redundant of the requirement of FDCPA 809 (b) "Original letter with proof of mailing date sent to alleged debtor notifying of the debt details;" -If they MAILED it to you, how can they send you the "original letter" ? (that was just sarcasim) "Complete disclosure of the purported debt, including all accounting statements, payment terms, etc.;" -YES YES YES!!!!!!! WHAT EVERY validation request should include!!!! THIS IS THE "specifics" I often mention. "Proof of Bonded, registration, and/or operation status of your business in the State of New Jersey, past and present, include all renewal dates;" -Not all states require a collector be licensed. BUT, including this in the validation request MAY "preempt" the collector from collecting if they are required to have a license and dont. "Explanation of your necessity to pull 3 consecutive hard inquiries in April 2002, a violation of permissible purpose" -How did you determine there was no permissible purpose? -IF they are collecting a debt, they HAVE PERMISSIBLE purpose. "What should I do now?" -They are already in violation of FDCPA 809 (a) by not sending you the required notice right? -If you are of the persuation to send an "intent to sue letter" (i hate that), this would be a good time. -I take it the purpose is to get a mortgage..A properly served, well worded summons and complaint might clear this all up You dont have to go through with it, when they call you, just ask for deletion. -EXPLAIN the FDCPA may only allow you to get $1000.00 for their validation notice violation, BUT THE COST OF THE "American Dream" (your mortgage) IS WORTH HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS -Wanna delete it now? LOL
Re: Re: A little more on validation Now, here's my question; After studying this discussion, how many of you plan to purchase the NCLC Manual(s) on FDCPA, and/or FCRA? ??? .
Re: Re: Re: A little more on validation Originally posted by Jpeg Jones hiding90, thank you for your opinion about section 1692g. Even though Butch and others have long held that the Admission of Liability clause says you can still validate and hold the CA liable under section 1692g after the initial 30-day period, my reading of the statute agrees with yours. Well, great point JJ. I don't believe I ever said that failure to provide the demanded validation, whether before or after the 30 days period expires, is a violation of anything. It is not positive law that they answer your DV if they receive it after the 30 days. They are [LEGALLY] required to address your dispute if they receive it BEFORE the 30 days expires. AND, it need ONLY be specific to your request. But certainly you CAN, and SHOULD demand validation ANYTIME. Now - here is what I've been (or at least trying to be) saying; Section (C) states that no court may construe your failure to DV as an admission of liability. Therefore, when dealing with a CA you adopt one of 2 positions. Either send me the appropriate validation I've demanded - OR - I shall sue your sorry butt until the cows come home. I shall take the entire situation before a COURT whereby failure to provide the val I requested cannot be contsrued as admission of liability. THEREFORE - YOU HAVE 2 CHOICES - NOT 3. Hypothetical: Hiding90 is a CA collection on a debt he alledges I owe. I demand val. after the 30 days, and he starts in with this business about that I can't do it because it's after 30 days. My Response: "OK A$$HOLE - SEE YOU IN COURT". CLICK!!! As Hiding has already pointed out the FDCPA is a consumer protection statute. It should be construed in favor of the debtor whenever ambiguity occurs. The purpose of your validation rights is to avoid court. Hypethetical: I get Hiding (the CA csr) before a Judge, and he says: "Your Honor, yes we have had "proper" validation all along, but FDCPA doesn't require us to send it to the consumer JUST BECAUSE HE ASK'S FOR IT". Judge: YOU MEAN TO TELL ME THE CONSUMER HAD TO FILE SUIT WHEN ALL ALONG YOU HAD PROOF BUT WOULDN'T SEND IT, AFTER HE REQUESTED IT?!?!?! I double guarantee you he will NOT like this. Now, all that said let me tell you where I WAS wrong. The most careful reading of 809 reveals to me that the one component which must cease, (if val. is received before the 30 days is up) is the collection attempts. So my interpretation does agree with you. If received after the 30 days the collection attempts may continue. THIS IS WHY I HAVE NEEDED TO MAKE SOME UPDATES TO THE VALIDATION THREAD. And have been trying to get around to it for awhile now. So sorry for my delay. So I'm glad Hiding is here with the NCLC Manual on FDCPA. We're ALL forced to think more sharply.
Re: Re: Re: Re: A little more on validation Since this is the case, a simple cease communication demand (leaving room for snail mail) should do the trick. No more phone calls at least. If you get a letter you can throw it in your sock drawer. There's [almost] ALWAYS a way to present your argument in such a way that a group of 12 REASONABLE people will agree with you. .
Re: Re: Re: Re: A little more on validation *report the debt as "disputed" if they report the debt after receipt of the validation/verification request. FDCPA 807 (8) H 90 ==================== -*What good does that do you?
*In reality, the validation rights DO NOT EXPIRE ever. A consumer can request validaiton at anytime. BUT, what does expire, is the collectors requirement to "cease collection activity". H 90 ============================= *Therefore the consumer is expected to pay without question and isn't entitled to any proof right? ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <>
more on validation Assuming the debt is "valid" DOES NOT ESTABLISH the consumer is LIABLE for the debt. It only allows the debt collector to assume they can continue collection efforts on the debt. LIABILITY for a debt is determined by a trier of fact (ie judge or jury) And *the purpose of the validation right is to AVOID court. hiding ===================== *How ever if the CA avoids validating can't such avoidance lead to court? ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <>
Re: Re: Re: Re: A little more on validation hiding90...who are you anyway? what do you do for a living? (sorry if you've already told us somewhere else) just curious.
