--> Absolutely MUST read !!!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: --> Absolutely MUS

What a great question: "Why"


Once one understands how the world really works. Read these words carefully.

Today the country is pretty well split down the middle. It's a fact that almost 50% of the people in this country are on the Gov't dole, in one form or another, the plunderers.

It's also a fact that I pay over 50% of my income in the form of taxes.

There IS a corrollation.




.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: --> Absolutely MUS

.
Important Update !!!

Re: David Szwak's discussion [above] regarding FCRA sunset.

Remember; we WANT to allow the FCRA to expire, so the states can jump in and pass their own (more consumer friendly) laws, rather than be "pre-empted" by the federal FCRA.



IN FOCUS: FCRA PASSES PANEL, SHORN OF AMENDMENTS

by Rob Blackwell

Jul 28, 2003 - American Banker - A vote by the House Financial Services Committee Thursday night overwhelmingly approving a bill to renew a key provision of the Fair Credit Reporting Act represented a victory for the financial services industry as much for what did not happen as for what did.

The centerpiece of the industry's agenda - permanently extending a provision that blocks states from enacting laws on a host of credit-related issues - survived easily in a 61-to-3 vote despite two separate Democratic attempts to remove or limit it.

Perhaps as noteworthy was that certain other proposals, which appeared to be gaining traction from key committee members during Thursday's marathon session, were watered down to little more than enhanced disclosures for credit reporting agencies and credit card companies.

More radical ideas - including plans to considerably restrict the use of Social Security numbers and strengthen consumers' rights to opt out of receiving unsolicited credit card applications - were withdrawn, dismissed, or relegated to studies.

Edward Yingling, an executive vice president at the American Bankers Association, said his group had been concerned about some of the amendments early in the day.

"When you go into a markup like that, particularly when all kinds of issues like lending to consumers can come into play, you always expect a few wild cards," Mr. Yingling said. "The good news in this case is that none of the wild cards passed."

The game is not over. The bill must still clear the House. It is expected to vote in the first weeks after Congress returns from its summer recess in September. After the decisive Financial Services panel vote, industry representatives said they are confident of approval by the full chamber.

"It is going to be a big vote," said Robert Davis, the managing director of government affairs with America's Community Bankers. "It will be in the 300s, I'm sure. You only had three Democrats voting against it" in committee, "and the top two ranking members on the Democratic side" - Rep. Barney Frank and Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski - "voted for it, and I think that will carry a lot of weight."

The situation in the Senate is not quite as clear.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Richard Shelby plans to hold his fifth and sixth hearings on the matter this week. He is not expected to introduce legislation until September, and it remains to be seen just what he will demand of the industry.

So far the Alabama Republican known for his populist streak has offered few hints about what he wants to do. His bill is expected to reauthorize the preemption provision, but it is uncertain whether he wants to make it permanent or merely extend it for a limited time. On consumer issues he said during a July 10 hearing that he was concerned about errors in credit reports but did not offer a proposed solution.

On Friday Sen. Shelby commended the House committee's work and said he continues to write his own bill.

"I believe the House has considered many of the important issues involved in the debate," he said in a statement responding to questions from American Banker. "It is my intention to continue building the record through our hearings in the Banking Committee. I look forward to developing legislation for the committee to consider in the coming weeks."

Financial services representatives said the bill did have elements that would benefit consumers, including protections against identity theft, such as letting them request a free copy of their credit report annually.

But consumer groups said Friday that they would continue opposing the preemption provision, which prevents states from interfering with federal rules on how businesses report, share, and use consumer credit histories for marketing and lending.

"It is inexcusable that the committee voted overwhelmingly to preempt forever, and rejected the very modest Kanjorski amendment to provide that the preemption sunset after nine years," said Edmund Mierzwinski, the consumer program director at U.S. Public Interest Research Group. "We intend to fight preemption on the House floor and in the Senate."

If the House committee vote is anything to judge by, Senate lawmakers could have their work cut out for them. The panel's consideration of the bill lasted more than 12 hours Thursday, delayed repeatedly by an unrelated battle on the House floor. More than 20 amendments were proposed to the credit bill: Eleven were accepted by voice vote, seven were defeated, and five were withdrawn.

The most dramatic vote was on an amendment from Rep. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., that would have blocked credit card companies from changing interest rates on accounts because of consumers' credit history unless they were delinquent on the account or 60 days past due on other debt. Despite support from Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., and initial passage on a voice vote, the measure was soundly defeated on a roll call vote, 44 to 22.

Instead, Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., successfully lobbied for an amendment that would make credit card companies provide more consumer disclosures and detail what circumstances could lead to a higher interest rate.

That pattern - a prohibition turned into an enhanced disclosure - was repeated more subtly on an amendment from Rep. Paul Gillmor.

In a subcommittee vote two weeks ago the Ohio Republican offered an amendment blocking credit reporting agencies from penalizing consumers for multiple inquiries on their history. He later withdrew it, and by Thursday the amendment simply required agencies to notify consumers when their credit score had been harmed by multiple inquiries. It was approved by voice vote.

An amendment from Rep. Barbara Lee, R-Calif., that would have gone beyond Rep. Gillmor's original proposal was defeated 48 to 14.

Other amendments that were accepted included several studies: a Federal Reserve Board investigation into consumers' ability to avoid receiving prescreened offers of credit and insurance; a General Accounting Office study on how well consumers understand credit reports and scores; and a Treasury Department look at the use of biometrics and other technology to crack down on identity theft.

Rep. Frank won approval of a provision to help consumers expunge inaccurate information from their credit reports. It would establish complaint procedures and require a study by the Federal Trade Commission every two years on the accuracy of reports.

Also approved was a provision that would block financial institutions from using a person's private medical information for credit decisions and one requiring that companies encode medical information to protect consumer privacy.

Copyright, Thomson Financial. All rights reserved.


In other words we're losing fast. We'll know for sure by Octobers' end, when our illustrious, crime fighting politicians return from recess, and have further examined the issues.


.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: --> Absolutely MUS

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
on
THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT
Before the
SENATE COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS

http://www.senate.gov/~banking/_files/muris.pdf

Washington, D.C.
July 10, 2003


Mister Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is Timothy J. Muris, and I am Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (â??Commissionâ? or â??FTCâ?). I am pleased to present the Commissionâ??s views on amending the Fair Credit Reporting Act (â??FCRAâ?). â?¦

â?¦
A. Making the FCRAâ??s uniform national standards permanent

The FCRA currently provides uniform standards and preempts state laws with respect to:

(1) the prescreening of consumer reports, (2) the time within which CRAs must investigate consumer disputes, (3) the adverse action duties of users of consumer reports, (4) the duties of furnishers, (5) the age of information allowed in consumer reports, (6) the exchange of information among affiliated companies, and (7) certain consumer disclosures. The impact of removing the uniform national standards might not be the same for each standard, and of course would depend on what actions individual states decided to take. Nonetheless, the entire package of national standards mandated by Congress in 1996 has proven effective. Accordingly, the Commission recommends that all of the standards be made permanent.

Because information reporting is voluntary, the entire system depends on cooperation.

The 1996 amendments established a balance â?? imposing important responsibilities on furnishers with respect to the information they provide, but not making those duties so onerous that furnishers report more selectively or stop entirely. Allowing the uniform national standards to expire would risk upsetting this balance.

.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: --> Absolutely MUS

Aug. 4, 2003, 8:23AM


It's a lingering demise for muddied credit report
By SHANNON BUGGS
Copyright 2003 Houston Chronicle

David Jokinen's 95-year-old mother died April 30, 2001.

Within 24 hours of her death, he called three banks to inform them of her passing and his intentions to honor her outstanding bills. He also asked to keep active the credit cards they had issued jointly to him and his mother.

But keeping those accounts alive proved to be a fatal mistake.

One of the banks, J.P. Morgan Chase, accidentally attached Jokinen's Social Security number to his mother's death notice. Then, it told the three major credit bureaus that he died.

Six months later, when Jokinen and his wife tried to refinance their Sugar Land home, a mortgage broker told them the deal could not be closed because two of the three giant credit repositories listed Jokinen as deceased.

Jokinen followed the guidelines spelled out in a Federal Trade Commission publication on how to correct inaccuracies.

He felt confident something would be done quickly to restore his status as a living person because in 1996, Congress passed a law requiring credit agencies to verify disputed information within 30 days of a consumer complaint.

But 27 months after the initial error, Jokinen still showed up in credit databases as deceased, even after he testified before a U.S. Senate panel.

"Someone at a credit bureau told me they didn't care if i was dead or alive, before hanging up on me, " Jokinen said in an interview. "They can be that callous because there's really no regulation of the industry."

Unfortunately, this story is not unusual. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are victims of inaccurate information on their credit report.

In fact, being declared dead is not nearly as disruptive as being declared bankrupt. When you're dead, a credit score can't be calculated for you because you can no longer make debt payments. When you're bankrupt, the lowest credit scores are assigned to you because bankruptcy is an admission that you can't pay off your debts without court-imposed supervision.

And that 1996 law, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, offers very little assistance to consumers who have been labeled incorrectly as dead or a deadbeat.

The Hartford Courant reported in May the results of a four-month investigation that found "the nation's credit reporting business is built on a system so flawed that costly errors are inevitable."

The U.S. Senate Banking Committee, which invited Jokinen to testify on July 10 about his credit trauma, is expected to issue a proposed reform bill in September.

The act is up for reauthorization this fall, and consumer advocates want the law strengthened so individuals can better control their private information. But most importantly, they want financial penalties added to the law that would put the fear of losing money on credit reporting agencies if they fail to correct reported errors quickly.

Industry and banking lobbyists want the law to stay the same, especially its ban on states passing laws that expand consumer credit protections. But that aspect of the act is to expire on Jan. 1, 2004, unless Congress reapproves it.

If legislators don't, the credit industry could face a hodgepodge of state restrictions. That would make it nearly impossible for each credit bureau to maintain a uniform approach to rate consumers' credit histories. And that could translate into increased costs in assessing credit risk, which would be passed on to consumers.

With so much at stake, it's time for the lenders and credit bureaus to step up and do the right thing. And if they don't, Congress needs to punish them with fines.

Credit reporting agencies should volunteer to do more than just verify disputed information within 30 days as required by law. Garbage in is garbage out, and quite often reinvestigations of questionable information are merely confirmations of the same mistakes originally submitted.

Instead, credit bureaus should agree to immediately stop reporting disputed information resulting from an alleged identity theft once the consumer submits a police report.

Identity theft has become so prevalent, property insurers now sell policies that cover the fees people incur as they work to restore their financial reputations. It's so bad, you might have to buy the protection for your children.

Now that most parents apply for a Social Security number for their newborns so the household can qualify for income tax credits, scam artists have been stealing infants' identities. They know that hardly anyone checks a child's credit report.

Death is another entry point for fraud. Banks have automated computer programs set up to flag records of deceased people and their estates that could be exploited by an identity thief.

That might explain what happened to David Jokinen.

Still, credit reporting agencies should commit to sweep clean credit histories they dirty up within 90 days after contacting consumers about their complaints.

It should never take two years for an error to be removed from a credit report.

J.P. Morgan Chase Bank obviously agrees.

Exactly 27 months after the day his mother died, David Jokinen received a sincere apology from the bank and its assurances the error has finally been corrected.

Of course, that all came after he contacted the Houston Chronicle with his complaints and stormed into a Chase bank branch with a Channel 11 TV news camera crew in tow.

"We pride ourselves in providing excellent service for our many customers, and we sincerely regret that Mr. Jokinen's experience did not meet those standards," bank spokesman Greg Hassell said. "We have worked closely with the credit bureaus to correct this error and to confirm that the issue has been resolved. We have extended our sincerest apology to Mr. Jokinen personally."

He doesn't accept it.

"I'm definitely suing," he said. Butch's Note: GOOD GAWD! One would think! lol


If you get to feelin down about your own situation, here's one you should read.

Full Senate Testimony:

http://www.senate.gov/~banking/_files/jokinen.pdf

.

 

WOW!

I just didn't connect the dots. lol


The Bennett testimony, upthread, which started this thread, referred to a case by the name of "Johnson v. MBNA".



Here's an excerpt:

"On January 21, 2003, I represented a consumer in a jury trial against a furnisher in a Richmond federal court. In Johnson v. MBNA, we obtained the first plaintiffâ??s verdict in the country under 15 U.S.C. Section 1681s-2(b)".


But then, on 2/13/04 Denise Richardson posted an article from the Washington Post, entitled;

Court Backs Full Checks On Credit Complaints


The name on the case? Johnson v. MBNA

Didn't realize it at the time but Johnson's victory, referred to by Bennett, was Appealed MBNA.


What Denise posted was the results of that appeal.

Bottom line: Linda Johnson not only kicked their butt's in court, but on appeal too.

GOOO Linda!



.

 

Found it;

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/4th/031235p.pdf

 

Remember this one?

: )