CN's #1 fan {sarcasm noted}

Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by keepmine, Sep 15, 2003.

  1. SoParkDiva

    SoParkDiva Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: CN's #1 fan {sarcasm noted}

    Since when does jlynn speak for the majority on CNet?
     
  2. jlynn

    jlynn Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: CN's #1 fan {sarcasm noted}

    Oh good grief man, here's a brown paper bag to breathe in and out of for a few minutes :)

    Those letters DO work, and whether they have to answer EVERYTHING in them is up to a Court of Law. BUT! They do meet your needs, you dispute, and you request validation, that is your Federal Gov't given right!

    If a CA does throw them in the trash, as suggested, and they continue trying to collect from you, then they owe you money! Because whether you have asked for more or than you can have, you have asked for what you can have, and they have to give it to you.
     
  3. SoParkDiva

    SoParkDiva Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: CN's #1 fan {sarcasm noted}

    The letters will most likely be ignored so you haven't really experienced a setback. Just try to come up with a little more creativity in your attack on debt. I would call the OC or the CRA's (not CA) and establish a relationship with a rep and go from there.

    You'd be surprised how people respond to kind words. You catch more flys with sugar than with vinegar.
     
  4. jlynn

    jlynn Well-Known Member

    Really?
     
  5. Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: CN's #1 fan {sarcasm noted}


    Heck no. I watch him pretty closely.

    I'm thinkin about selling a course for $2,000 entitled "Why DueProcess doesn't work". LOL
    (jk)


    I have a HUGE thread ready for the next time he makes his marketing appearence. We now have some case law to show how preposterous his contentions are.

    What burns my bottom the most is now BB is over there teaching those nitwits how to do their jobs.

    Edit: Maybe that's not fair. As per Docs suggestion I'll go read the whole thing. Disregard.

    lol
     
  6. GEORGE

    GEORGE Well-Known Member

    YMMV

    Not 100% guaranteed...but many have had the account removed with just that route...THEY GET SCARRED...AND REMOVE THE ACCOUNT...it is not worth it for them to FIGHT with you...THEY WILL TRY SOME OTHER POOR FOOL THAT WILL BEND OVER BACKWARDS FOR THEM...
     
  7. cinderella

    cinderella Well-Known Member

    Yeah.

    His posts never bothered or offended me. He's not a troll nor a mean spirited person (unless his credibility/religious beliefs comes into play), just an overzealous poster who is unrelenting on his views.

    I don't agree with him using this site to promote his services, but I thought he kept himself in check, as well as other posters questioning him, including myself. At times he could be very encouraging and even informative. Overall, I think he wanted to **help** people, it just came out a little distorted.
     
  8. snakeman

    snakeman Well-Known Member

    LOL, Jlynn your a hoot!

    I thank you for clarifying that for me. I am a newb here and with time, I'll get the hang of things.

    My wife was wondering why I had charged 100$ to her credit card (for certified mail). So, I guess my panic was more of self preservation than worrying about screwing my credit repair up!

    All the CRA's and all the CA's in the world cannot possibly be more intimidating than the glare I got from my wife today!

    Not sleeping on the couch....yet,

    SnakeMan
     
  9. Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    "While you are at it why don't you learn how to spell and write good english..."


    I don't want nobody around me that don't talk so good.

    LOL

    I give up!

    :)

    .
     
  10. PsychDoc

    PsychDoc Well-Known Member

    That validation sequence (validation, estoppel, etc.) has worked for MANY people irrespective of my friend Bill's opinions. He knows we disagree about that, LOL. Don't forget that Bill has a financial incentive for running down the standard validation letter -- if it stinks as bad as he says it does then some gentle reader out there will need to turn somewhere else for help. That said, I've been a testimonial for Bill Bauer because I've seen first hand the good work that he does. So, even if Bill has some pretty effective tricks up his sleeve (and from what I've seen he does imho), that still doesn't mean the regular validation sequence doesn't work. So, if you ask Bill, he'll say it's terrible. However, if you ask the MANY people who have seen success with it, they'll disagree. That's my editorial. :)

    Doc

    P.S. Snakeman, there's something about the way you used a particular phrase that reminds me of Bill Bauer, LOL! You two wouldn't be related, would you? (He would love your posting, by the way, because it will surely sow some panic about that dreaded -- yet effective -- validation-estoppel sequence.)
     
  11. PsychDoc

    PsychDoc Well-Known Member

    Bill responded to my post here basically saying this:

    1) He disagreed with me that he has a financial incentive to run down the validation letter.

    2) He said his only concern is that the validation letter we use on Creditnet has extraneous material in it and that he likes to "keep it simple" for good legal reasons.

    3) He agrees that the validation letter here has proven to be effective. However he suggests that there are more effective and legally sound methods to use which are available via his consultation.

    In fairness to him, I thought I would post his positions since he cannot do it himself at this time.

    Doc
     
  12. snakeman

    snakeman Well-Known Member

    Thanks PsychDoc, you seem to know your stuff when it comes to helping people here comprehend different issues. I guess the one question that still plagues me is regarding Estoppel.

    In another site referred to earlier in this thread, the one concerning www.Collectionindustry.com, a well versed person made a strong argument in regards to Estoppel and how it is completely irrelevant to debt or its collection. While I don't pretend to know very much when it comes to things of this nature, I do see at least a shimmer of doubt arise in my own mind regarding Estoppel. Could you or anyone here with more knowledge of how Estoppel applies to our efforts please post a thread that gives people here a reason to believe that Estoppel is appropriate to our mission?

    Thanks in advance,

    SnakeMan
     
  13. PsychDoc

    PsychDoc Well-Known Member

    Well, Snakeman, you do sound just like Bill -- he has long stated that the estoppel letter is useless, using pretty much the same language you're using to phrase your question. Moreover, the level of your conversation is pretty darned advanced for a newcomer. :) (Cough, lol.) Anyway, there's been a lot of debate about this already on the board. Use Creditnet search here and put the word "estoppel" (without the quotes) in the left-hand "Search by Keyword" box and then put "bbauer" (again, without the quotes) in the right-hand "Search by Member" box and then press the "Perform Search" button. You'll see several threads where this is hashed out pretty well back and forth. Enjoy!

    Doc
     
  14. snakeman

    snakeman Well-Known Member

    Yeah Doc, thanks for the info. I said I was a newb at this type of thing, not an idiot in general! I get your meaning though, just poking fun.

    Thanks again,

    SnakeMan
     
  15. Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    Oh my â?? I didnâ??t mean to suggest I have a problem with our sequence. I do not. Sorry Doc. I agree with ya completely.
     
  16. Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    Maybe I can help.


    My problem is with some of the verbiage of the sample letters we use, especially Estoppel.

    As it turns out BBâ??s opinion and mine are almost EXACTLY the same and articulated here back in January:

    http://consumers.creditnet.com/stra...read.php?s=&threadid=41324&highlight=estoppel

    IMHO, this is a MUST Read for anyone contemplating the use of an Estoppel.


    BB Says:

    • And then there is the infamous "estoppel" letter which Gliha also authored. Another belly laugh if I ever saw one. It quotes a Western District of Missouri court case entitled "Gravens v. Englehart which was an estoppel case based on a promise by Gravens upon which Englehart relied to purchase a piece of property and his reliance later proved to his detriment
      when Gravens fenced off the only entrance to the property.

      That is what estoppel is all about. It can be likened to a 3 legged table in that 3 elements must be present to support an estoppel action. If you shepardize the case as I have done you will find that no attorney has ever referenced Englehart v. Gravens in any debt related case, and most certainly not in any FDCPA case.

      In order for that to happen you, the collector would have had to make some promise or statement to the debtor upon which he relied and which later proved to be to his detriment.


    NO - that is what promissory estoppel is all about.

    To catagorically state: â??That is what estoppel is all about.â? Is woefully incorrect however, because itâ??s only half right.

    The fact of the matter is there are numerous different kinds of Estoppel doctrine.

    • collateral estoppel
      n. the situation in which a judgment in one case prevents (estops) ...
      equitable estoppel
      n. where a court will not grant a judgment or other legal relief ...
      estoppel [By Silence]
      n. a bar or impediment (obstruction) which precludes a person ...
      promissory estoppel
      n. a false statement treated as a promise by a court when the ...

    • promissory estoppel
      n. a false statement treated as a promise by a court when the listener had relied on what was told to him/her to his/her disadvantage. In order to see that justice is done a judge will preclude the maker of the statement from denying it. Thus, the legal inability of the person who made the false statement to deny it makes it an enforceable promise called "promissory estoppel," or an "equitable estoppel." Example: Bernie Blowhard tells Arthur Artist that Blowhard has a contract to make a movie and wants Artist to paint the background scenery in return for a percentage of the profits. Artist paints, and Blowhard then admits he needed the scenery to try to get a movie deal which fell through and there are no profits to share. Artist sues and the judge finds that Blowhard cannot deny a contract with Artist and gives Artist judgment for the value of his work.


    The Gravens v. Englehart case is a â??Promisory Estoppelâ? case;

    In Gravens v. Englehart all 3 components of which BB speaks are present; a promise made, action performed based upon that promise, the promise turns out later to cause damage to the promissee, because the promissor broke his promise.

    This Estoppel would be appropriate for a case where, for example, CA promises to remove the TL if you pay. You pay based upon that promise. Later the CA breaks the promise. Good so far. Here it would be fine to quote Gravens v. Englehart.

    On the other hand, in most cases where Estoppel is sent regarding a CN situation we SHOULD be using Estoppel By Silence Doctrine. This applies when the CA simply ignores your orchastrations and â??says absolutely nothingâ?.

    • estoppel
      n. a bar or impediment (obstruction) which precludes a person from asserting a fact or a right or prevents one from denying a fact. Such a hindrance is due to a person's actions, conduct, statements, admissions, failure to act [often referred to as Estoppel By Silence] or judgment against the person in an identical legal case. Estoppel includes being barred by false representation or concealment (equitable estoppel), failure to take legal action until the other party is prejudiced by the delay (estoppel by laches), and a court ruling against the party on the same matter in a different case (collateral estoppel).

    To quote Gravens v. Englehart in this circumstance would indeed generate a tremendous â??belly laughâ? by anyone who knows what theyâ??re doing. So I even agree with him on that. Lol


    So BB is right, in that this particular Estoppel Doctrine is NOT applicable to most CN situations. He is incorrect however to state categorically that â??Estoppel has no implications in debt collectionâ?.

    BB is a very bright guy. Iâ??ve learned much from him. I just think itâ??s terribly unfortunate that we learn more from him on this ONE thread to our adversary than the sum total of ALL his CN posts. (Admittedly overstated for emphasis).


    But then BB says, regarding CN members and speaking directly to Collectors:

    • â??Let them know that you know how dumb and stupid they are but do it in a nice way.

      Tell them to get off Creditnet and quit paying attention to all that dumb advice because it don't cut no ice with you or anybody elseâ?.

    Well â?¦ I think that statement needs no reply from the likes of little ole me.

    :(

    .
     
  17. Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    RE: Snakeman.

    You, my dear friend, IMHO, have done too much too fast.

    Once we start getting a handle on this stuff I agree and understand our excitement and "lets get it done attitude" about fixing our situations.

    The more important thing tho, which must override our enthusiasm, is patience and study. I've seen a lot of people make irreversible mistakes in their haste.

    Take your time Snake. We all want you to be successful in your efforts, especially with all that you and your loved ones have been through.


    :)

    .
     
  18. Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    My opinion is exactly the same. The best way to approach a demand for Val. is to ... ahem ... demand it, period.

    The best letter is probably:

    "You think I owe you money, I don't. Prove it or take it off my report".

    Side Note: BTW notice I said I don't think I owe you money. I did not say I don't owe you money.

    lol


    But that's if you want them to validate, as BB seems to think we are trying to accomplish. Folks, get this part right. YOU DO NOT WANT THEM TO VALIDATE !!!

    :)


    Therefore; sending a letter with all kinds of legal sounding mumbo jumbo {MIGHT} [and I emphasize might] be just what the Doc, ordered.

    In the good ole "nutcase" tradition, if the letter intimidates, scares, (or whatever) them into just dropping the case and removing the TL, what more could we ask.

    I would say, in complete agreement with Doc, this letter has been phenomenally successful.

    To know which one to send and when, or which tactic to employ and when, is a matter ONLY you can decide. You're the only one who can determine whether or not your adversary would best respond to a nutcase attempt or an outright demand for val., (usually because you know they CAN'T).

    To say that one tactic is usable in credit correction and another isn't is, IMHO, wrong. ALL our tactics are usable, depending upon each individual circumstance.

    That's where the patience and study comes in.

    :)
     
  19. PsychDoc

    PsychDoc Well-Known Member

    I'm sure this thread will be read time and again because it has so many keywords in it that are searched the most. For that reason, I think it's appropriate to plug Butch's wonderful "What is Validation" thread here. You can also find that thread in the Creditnet "Hall of Fame" atop the board, and if any discussion deserved to be there, that one absolutely does.

    Also, in addition to Butch's work, I recommend that anyone who is interested in validation discussions at that high level use Creditnet Search this way -- put the word "validation" in the "Search by Keyword" box and "marie" in the "Search by User Name" box and then press "Perform Search." Marie's posts on the topic are amazingly good -- and fun to read too.

    Hopefully this will help some newcomer (or old timer, for that matter) one of these days.

    Doc
     
  20. Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    Thanx for the plug Doc. :)

    BTW - where is Marie? I miss her insight.

    She was sooo ready to help me when I thought I'd have to sue OSI. Thankfully, didn't have to.

    :)
     

Share This Page