Read an old post of yours that stated "Now then, instead of disputing, you only demand that they validate the report and never give them a reason why you want it validated. If they don't do it the way you told them to do it (special legal language used only) then you go back and tell them that they failed to validate and why they failed to validate and you then demand it's removal." I know we get the validation of collection accounts from the FDCPA, but where are you getting validation of CRAs from?
Good morning Liz Yep, I certainly have used the validation route with collection agencies. I used the free kielsky info. I guess I'm trying to figure out if there is a way to ask for a validation of sorts with the CRAs... since there's nothing in the laws except verification. I agree, it's a ridiculously weak standard to hold the CRAs to and since the CRAs don't even follow it, it's all a joke. Wondering if either common, statutory, or case law has anything about this. I have been looking. I searched Bill Bauer in the archives here and I now get what he's doing. He's refusing to state WHY he's disputing.. and when they demand it he states they violate his 5th ammendment rights not to self incriminate. Then he sues under Fed court. An interesting approach b/c it would be an area they're less familiar with and perhaps more apprehensive to try to defend. I'm just trying to get a "hook" on the bk item b/c I truly believe small claims court will work easily and efficiently if I can only get a real reason to dispute the bk. Hey, since you know what I'm working on, do you think it'd be worth my money to buy the same due process kit you got? I looked at it again last night but didn't get it yet.
Re: Good morning Liz Demanding validation of your indebtedness from a CRA instead of accepting their weak verification answers which leave you with nothing but a look of dispair on your face and a mouth full of teeth does work. So far, I have not actually had to sue them for anything because they are apparently so afraid of a possible civil rights violation charge that they don't even want to go there. That may change someday and they may actually call my bluff, and if that ever happens then I'll just have to cross that bridge when I come to it. But there is still a lot more than that to it. If you go at it right, and use the proper language, you simply never run out of very legal and logical "comebacks" to their refusal to do a decent and correct "verification" or "validation" or whatever term one chooses to put on the process. It always ends up the same, and that is that they did not do the job correctly so end up having to delete without having to keep on disputing and spamming them to death. The major "trick" is to be in a position of always having a "comeback" to their stupidities. In the end, they will almost invariable commit an error and end up losing the battle. You are wondering if there is some statutory or case law that will defeat them and change the standards to which they must adhere, and if you haven't found it, then it's simply because you have not looked in the right place(s) Everything I do or advocate is solidly based on the law and on the law alone. I don't ever go subscribe to someone's pet theories without investigating it thoroughly and completely and making sure it's solidly based in the law or at least has some chance of success based on the law. Bill Bauer
You Must Be Joking! Mr. Bauer: I donâ??t mean to be argumentative here, although your statements make no sense from a real-world perspective. FCRA allows a reporting agent to ignore frivolous challenges, irrespective use of â??proper language.â? Unless one is able to support an appeal for redress with credible evidence, all the â??proper languageâ? in the world wonâ??t make a hill of beans difference! Nonetheless as an agent of the court who happens to specialize in debt. Iâ??d be very interested in hearing about the case law on which you base your statements. Whereas repetitive (unmerited) challenges to CRA data, based on â??proper languageâ? alone, have yet to hold upâ?¦ At least by my investigations and I have access to the latest (case law) rulings. In short, when disputing CRA data one can use all the cleverly worded language to their hearts desire. But if it has little or no basis in reality, then the end product is a fantasy in and of itself. Therefore, please provide the good folks here some basis for your statements. Foundations clearly rooted in law? Keep The Faith, Anthony Villaseñor, CreditDefenses.com
Re: You Must Be Joking! Who is no longer a member, you or Billy Bauer? I would hope it is Bauer and not you Roni.
