Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: California OC's validation Yeppers, Great point Sassy. Sassy and I have a legitimate disagreement on predicates for a lawsuit. BOTH positions have their respective pro's and con's, and are probably of equal value. Sassy believes, (and I hope I'm stating this correctly) that before you present a legal argument you should have genuine issues of illegal activity which are demonstrable in court. In other words a winnable case. Certainly not a thing wrong with that philosophy. In fact, adhering to this philosophy may even make you work harder to build a winnable case, and that's a good thing. I, on the other hand, do play poker. I believe all that is necessary to present a legal argument is, "a genuine issue of material fact in dispute". In other words a legitimate argument. In fact, just this one component will assend a case all the way up to an Appeals Court. It's the mailing of this final statement that triggers the time frame element. It doesn't start until that statement is mailed, yes? Although it's true that the FCBA applies only within 60 days from the "mailing" of the statement which contains the error, what happens if... "I never received this statement"? So some [hardball playing] consumers who wish to clean their reports may need to "think outta the box". True, all they have to do is insist that this statement was mailed to the last known address. But you CAN put them in the profoundly uncomfortable position of having to PROVE that they mailed it. And THAT'S the pain in the butt part they wish to avoid. They say: "We sent the statement"! You say: "Oh no you didn't"! You have a [potential] lawsuit. Granted, if it got to court you may very well lose. But only 3-4% of the cases filed ever get to the bench. That means, unless I miss my math, there's about a 96-97% chance you can get this resolved without actually going to court. I know you don't like bluffing Sassy, but I believe there's a definite place for it. Especially when it costs them a fortune and you almost nothing. Ergo: If I were to state my position it might be like this; "Although a legitimate argument, may not rise to the level of a winnable case, I believe if you have (or can create) the former, you have an excellent chance of getting your adversary to acquiesce, just to get rid of the nuisance value". (copyright Doc) To put it another way: Whether your right or not, your chances of being successful will rise proportionately to the size of the boil you can put on their ass. As for me, having [or creating] this legitimate argument component, or even just the "perception" of a legitimate argument, has been of utmost value in my own cleanup. Much like LizardKing, my average score is NOT 780 because I always played "softball". That's all I'm saying. .
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: California OC's validation Sure Butch, whatever you say! This must be one of those threads you and cinderella were referring to, where I follow you around looking for things to whine about. And, in the end, you were making it all up. Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: California OC's validation Ok Sassy. I tried. AGAIN! My fault {{{sassy}}} (and trust me dear, it's NOT "just" Butch and Cinderella) . .
