Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry No, I would be responding to the judge that my interrogatories were not satisfied therefore judgement is mandatory. webster.com in case you dont know what an interrogatory is. I cite case law in all of my suits for extra merrit but of course I will not provide that info to you. You as the defendant will see my sites when your sitting opposite me (if your so unfortunate). You just better hope your agency is not one of the ones I am taking down, because they really won't even be able to pay your 6 bucks an hour requirement once they file for protection under the bankruptcy laws (the ones that protect you)...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry You may have never said it matter of factly, but you sure do imply it. I have in fact read what you post, and what others post. When it boils down to it, you are telling people that the efforts they have made are meaningless. You have blatantly inferred someone's lawyer to be incompetent, you have made reference that the laws: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/fdcpact.htm that were "written to help protect consumers", are not infact to protect the consumers but to protect the CRAs, CAs and OCs unless it comes down to a lawsuit in which case we wouldn't stand a chance anyway, because once again they don't need to provide us with anything that shows proof the debt is owed, the only need to provide proof in a court of law, hell they could provde false documents which we could make no argument against because we had never seen them. So once again, HIDING, please forward you name, mailing address, telephone number, ssn, and DOB. I'll bill you, ("mail" you the bill, and with mini-miranda of course), throw it on your CR, and once the 30 days have passed your screwed and part of your income is mine.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry "When it boils down to it, you are telling people that the efforts they have made are meaningless" -Not meaningless, sometimes MISGUIDED. "You have blatantly inferred someone's lawyer to be incompetent," -In the case of an attorney filing suit under FCRA 623 (a)(8), THEY WOULD BE TOTALLY INCOMPETENT! and should be disbarred! -In addition, I think it was you who has posted advice on checking with a chosen attorney to make sure they are well versed in the law "because not many attorneys are familiar with the FCRA/FDCPA." "that were "written to help protect consumers", are not infact to protect the consumers but to protect the CRAs, CAs and OC" -I have posted that the same laws the are designed to protect the consumers, CAN ALSO PROTECT THE OTHERS IF THEY ARE USED RECKLESSLY AND WITH IGNORANCE. "unless it comes down to a lawsuit in which case we wouldn't stand a chance anyway," -Well, I am about 20 for 20 in the lawsuit arena, AGAINST COLLECTION AGENCIES, REPORTING AGENCIES, AND CREDITORS. "because once again they don't need to provide us with anything that shows proof the debt is owed, the only need to provide proof in a court of law," -YES, this is true if the consumer sends a validation request outside the validation period -IN THAT CASE, ALL IS NOT LOST, THERE IS A WHOLE NOTHER SET OF LAWS, THE FCRA WHICH IS MUCH MUCH STRONGER IN THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE "FURNISHERS OF INFORMATION" AND THE REPORTING AGENCIES THAN THE "weak" VALIDATION RIGHTS OF THE FDCPA. -I do apologize if ever I gave the impression that there is NOTHING the consumer can do! "hell they could provde false documents which we could make no argument against because we had never seen them." -And if my aunt had balls she'd be my unlce. LOL These collection agencies are not even smart enought to imagine such a scheme
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry Where in here does it say "THE PURPOSE OF THE SECTION (c or any of them) is to elimintae the arguement IN COURT??? ___________________________________________ 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, 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 -- (1) the amount of the debt; (2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed; (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; (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 (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. (b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or 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. (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.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry NOW YOU ARE CATCHING ON! CHALLENGE ME WITH BOOK, CHAPTER, AND VERSE! Simply, IT DOES NOT IN THE STATUTE. HOWEVER, THE FTC, THE SENATE, and the "consumer law center" say it. I think I mentiond this before, but I DO NOT POST THEORY OR OPINION (UNLESS I STATE IT IS). I POST ALMOST VERBATIM FROM THE "Consumer Law Centers" publications (concidered the BIBLE FOR DEBT COLLECTION HARRASSMENT/CONSUMER LAW ATTORNIES) These publications cite statute, case law, FTC Opinion, and COURT Comments. Now to address the issue. THE SENATE stated the purpose of the validation right "is an informal method of dispute resolution that conserves tax dollars and judicial resources." -Senate Report "Tax dollars and Judicial resources", at least in my simple mind, IS COURT! So the purpose of the validation right is to keep people from HAVING TO GO TO COURT TO RESOLVE MATTERS OF DISPUTED DEBTS. In fact, Congress concidered validation a SIGNIFICANT FEATURE OF THE ACT so much it made the it a "strict liability" statute, meaning MERE VIOLATION IS ACTIONABLE. NO NEED TO EVEN SHOW DAMAGES. THEY VIOLATE IT, THEY PAY FOR IT. BUT, Congress COULD NOT MAKE THIS ONE SIDED, THAT WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL! SO, they LIMITED THE "POWER" of VALIDATION, making the consumer HAVE TO ACT WHITHIN A CERTAIN TIME IN ORDER TO TRIGGER THE PROTECTIONS OFFERED BY VALIDATION. IF THE CONSUMER DOESNT ACT IN TIME, THEN THEY "LIMIT" THEIR RIGHT UNDER VALIDATION. Now, if it was SO important to Congress for consumers to AVOID COURT, wouldnt it be reasonable to assume that maybe THERE IS A NEED for ANOTHER "ALLEY" IF THE PROBLEM ISNT RESOLVED THROUGH VALIDATION, or the consumer didnt act in time? THIS IS CALLED THE FCRA. THIS IS THE "GUTS" of the consumers toolbox against furnishers of info and the reporting agencies. (Keep in mind, the FDCPA, where the validation right is contained, ONLY APPLIES TO DEBT COLLECTORS.) The FCRA (I dont know why I cap some words by the way ) places a HUGE RESPONSIBILITY ON THE REPORTING AGENCIES AND FURNISHERS OF INFO, NOT JUST DEBT COLLECTORS! So, I ask, WHY would a consumer "cling" to the FDCPA-validation "like white on rice" when it is limited in its protections??? The FCRA requires a "reasonable investigation" to be completed by the reporting agency AND the furnisher of info. The FDCAP-validation ONLY requires the debt collector to "half ass" verify they have the "right" consumer and let the consumer know how much they owe! WHY LET THEM HAVE THIS ABILITY TO "HALF ASS" when you can make them "get the whole ass'??? LOL (made myself laugh at that one!) BUT, like most the statutes, they were written by overeducated "idiots" as my dad used to say. THE STATUES ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE INTERPRETED BY CONSUMERS. THIS IS NOT MY OPINION BY THE WAY, THE COURTS HAVE STATED THAT! SO, in order for a consumer to understand the laws, and make the courts understand that not all consumers are "tards", you have to study and study and cross reference and study some more to get a clear understanding of the law. Are you still with me ? SO, as an example, lets look at FCRA/FACT 623. Here is the link: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm#623 The title of this section is :§ 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2] On the face, THIS IS THE GOOD STUFF RIGHT? THIS IS WHERE I CAN SCREW THESE COLLECTION AGENCIES AND OTHERS FOR REPORTING BOGUS INFO ON MY REPORT RIGHT? Section (a) says: "(a) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information. (1) Prohibition. (A) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors. A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or consciously avoids knowing that the information is inaccurate." WOW! THIS IS WHERE THE PROBLEM IS, THESE MORONS ARE REPORTING INFO THAT IS NOT ACCURATE RIGHT? And (2) says: " (2) Duty to correct and update information. A person who (A) regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to one or more consumer reporting agencies about the person's transactions or experiences with any consumer; and (B) has furnished to a consumer reporting agency information that the person determines is not complete or accurate, shall promptly notify the consumer reporting agency of that determination and provide to the agency any corrections to that information, or any additional information, that is necessary to make the information provided by the person to the agency complete and accurate, and shall not thereafter furnish to the agency any of the information that remains not complete or accurate. (3) Duty to provide notice of dispute. If the completeness or accuracy of any information furnished by any person to any consumer reporting agency is disputed to such person by a consumer, the person may not furnish the information to any consumer reporting agency without notice that such information is disputed by the consumer." WELL BLOW ME DOWN! THIS IS EXACTLTY WHAT THE POOPIE HEADS ARE NOT[/] DOING! THEY ARE IN VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION BECAUSE YOU SENT THE FURNISHER OF INFO A DISPUTE RIGHT???? So now what.? SUE PERHAPS? MAYBE NOT READY FOR COURT,? SO INTENT TO SUE IN EXCHANGE FOR DELETION?? SOUNDS GOOD TO ME! SO YOU FILE SUIT, or just threaten to for their violations of FCRA 623 (a) RIGHT?? SOUNDS LOGICAL ENOUGH! HOLD UP THERE CHIEF! I FORGOT TO TELL YOU ABOUT FCRA 623 (c). ITS THAT LITTLE KNOW, EVEN LITTLER SIZED PARAGRAPH THAT BLOWS YOUR CASE RIGHT OUT OF THE WATER!! HERE IS THE WRENCH IN THE WORKS. THE "WHATS THE CATCH" if you will: "(c) Limitation on liability. Sections 616 and 617 [§§ 1681n and 1681o] do not apply to any failure to comply with subsection (a), except as provided in section 621(c)(1)(B) [§ 1681s]. (d) Limitation on enforcement. Subsection (a) shall be enforced exclusively under section 621 [§ 1681s] by the Federal agencies and officials and the State officials identified in that section." Sections 616 and 617 establish the "penalty" for violations. So, I am hoping everyone is still with me on this. SO, great you just lost all hope cause I burst your bubble right? lol ALLAS! ALL IS NOT LOST! WE FORGOT TO LOOK AT SECTION (b)!! (b) IS YOUR FRIEND! Lets look shall we: "(b) Duties of furnishers of information upon notice of dispute. (1) In general. After receiving notice pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i] of a dispute with regard to the completeness or accuracy of any information provided by a person to a consumer reporting agency, the person shall (A) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information; (B) review all relevant information provided by the consumer reporting agency pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i]; (C) report the results of the investigation to the consumer reporting agency; and (D) if the investigation finds that the information is incomplete or inaccurate, report those results to all other consumer reporting agencies to which the person furnished the information and that compile and maintain files on consumers on a nationwide basis. (2) Deadline. A person shall complete all investigations, reviews, and reports required under paragraph (1) regarding information provided by the person to a consumer reporting agency, before the expiration of the period under section 611(a)(1) [§ 1681i] within which the consumer reporting agency is required to complete actions required by that section regarding that information." THIS IS THE "POWER" THE CONSUMER HAS! Section (b), your friend, IS ACTIONABLE BY THE CONSUMER!! THE LIABILITY UNDER 616 and 617 ALL APPLY! BUT THERE IS ONE CAVIAT. THE DISPUTE HAS TO BE "pursuant to section 611(a)(2) " SO what is 611. It is the DISPUTE PROCESS for a consumer to dispute info on their credit report THROUGH THE REPORTING AGENCY! So whats this all mean? If you "missed" the validation period, you need to use the FCRA. BUT, in order to use it, you need to FOLLOW IT! This included NOT SENDING A DISPUTE TO THE FURNISHER OF INFO, BUT RATHER TO THE REPORTING AGENCY. The changes in the FCRA, now the FACT, DO NOT EFECT THIS SECTION AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Even though FUN, and others are being lead to beleive. YES, it does say "623 (a)(8) Ability of Consumer to Dispute Information Directly with Furnisher" BUT REMEMBER, SECTION (a) IS NOT ENFORCEABLE BY THE CONSUMER! SO you HAVE THE RIGHT to send it to the furnisher DIRECTLY, BUT YOU HAVE NO RECOURSE OF THEY DO NOT COMPLY! THAT IS THE POINT OF SOOOO MANY OF MY POSTS. YES THE CONSUMER HAS THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT, BUT A LOT OF THE TIME, THEY HAVE NO RECOURSE!!!! I REALLY REALLY HOPE EVERYONE CAN UNDERSTAND THIS. IT WILL HELP "CLEAR UP" A LOT OF MISCINCEPTIONS WHICH CAN BE DETRAMENTAL TO THE CONSUMER. I am hoping everyone can understand this.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry Holy Bat Man! That was a lot to type. (LOL) Instead of playing these "think outside of the box" games.......WHY DON'T YOU JUST SAY WHAT YOU WANT TO SAY. Maybe we're not all logical in our thinking as you have been. That last post MAKES SENSE! You gave explanation, proof, and even more..(the key we're all looking for)...A WAY AROUND IT and why there's a way around it. It makes more sense to me (and I'm sure everyone else) when you put it right out there. Instead of saying "No you can't do that because this says this but it means that".......explain more..."No you can't do it that way, but you can do it this way" As far as disputing with the CRA and not the CA. When you dispute with the CRA and they call you frivoulous, and tell you to contact the CA where does that leave you? Asking for validation from the CA, and NO they don't have to do a darn thing to comply with your demands, but after they don't complay time and time again does that not give you the ammunition you want to again dispute with the CRA and say "Hey Egghead, I tried to verify with CA x amount of times, they don't respond..........so delete the mother scratchin' account already" ??? Since you're so well educated MR. Hiding, EDUCATE ME! and everyone else here...(This isn't meant to be a sarcastic remark)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry I cannot believe you are still trying this approach. What CA has proof of any such attempt to collect a debt. I however do have proof of the initial communication (which happens to be my validation letter) with my signed receipt courtesy of the USPS. Now any further attempt to collect on a non-substantiated, invalid debt until the CA provides it is a clear violation. In addition, reporting any such debt on a consumer credit report is an attempt to collect.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry Yes..that as a lot of typing, BUT WELL WORTH IT IN MY MIND. I often get asked WHY I do this, get beat up, type soo freakin much, battle etc etc.. Well, to tell you the truth, I HAVE SEEN FIRST HAND THE RESULTS OF CONSUMERS GETTING "REAMED" in court when their "theories" or "though sos" where dismanteled right in front of their eyes in court! I am not ashamed to say one of those consumers was ME. It was a case against Sears/RMA. I though I knew it all! I had all the FTC Opinoin letters, all these fancy dancy letters from credit sights that I had sent out, with no reply of course. Went to court, their attorney appreared by phone, should have clued me in at that point! SO I stated me case and cause of action and DEMANDED $ for the violations and this and that blah blah. I SOUNDED GREAT. MADE SENSE AND EVERYTHING!! LOL Well, after the judge patiently listented to my sob story of me getting denied a mortgage cause Sears AND RMA were reporting, he paused and askthe attorney if they had anyhting to say. Long story short, "your honor, the plaintiff (me) has no cause of action here." -DIMISSAL GRANTED. Get a nice phone call the next day "Mr. K, we will be wiling to settle this matter out of court if you just pay our legal fees for the phone appearence!!! BEST $500.00 IVE EVER SPENT lol "Instead of playing these "think outside of the box" games.......WHY DON'T YOU JUST SAY WHAT YOU WANT TO SAY." -Cant argue with that! BUT, as any cautious consumer would be, if what someone says isnt backed up with book, chapter, verse I PERSONALLY need to question it! "instead of saying "No you can't do that because this says this but it means that".......explain more..."No you can't do it that way, but you can do it this way" -No prob... I have TRYING TO DO THAT "As far as disputing with the CRA and not the CA. When you dispute with the CRA and they call you frivoulous, and tell you to contact the CA where does that leave you? " -A couple things you can do. -The reporting agencies NEVER used to respond "frivolous", in fact, up until recently, it was common practice to advise consumers to "DISPUTE TILL ITS OFF", meangin overwhelming the reporting agency with disputes in hopes they just cant respond in time and have to delete it. -THEY HAVE CAUGHT ON Now you have to outsmart them. AND NOT WITH "THEORIES" or techinques, THATS WHAT THEY CAUGHT ONTO IN THE FIRST PLACE -You have to use the tools congress made available to comsumers, BUT USE THEM AS INTENDED. -So, if they return "frivolous" MOST likley IT IS! Its like the boy who cried wolf, at some point they have to just ignore you. AND THAT IS THEIR RIGHT UNDER THE LAW. -BUT BEFORE YOU BLOW UP, THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU ACTUALLY SAID IN THE DISPUTE. -A dispute needs to be VERY SPECIFIC as to what you are disputing. For example, if a tradeline is not yours say for fraud, if you send a dispute saying its not yours, IT IS EASILY VERIFYABLE AS YOURS. -Alls it takes is a simple name and SSN check, and BINGO- VERIFIED. and any further disputes are frivolous as to the "not mine". -BUT!!!!! IF YOU SAY "NOT MINE BECAUSE OF FRAUD, AND HERE IS THE EVIDENCE ETC, THEN IF THEY VERIFY IT, THE "POWER" of FCRA 623 (b) COMES INTO PLAY. -WAS it reasonable that it was verified even when you sent proof? Heck NO!!! -BUT, THIS WOULD REQUIRE YOU TO GO TO COURT. IF YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO GO TO COURT, THEN YOU ARE PRETTY MUCH STUCK! "Asking for validation from the CA, and NO they don't have to do a darn thing to comply with your demands, but after they don't complay time and time again does that not give you the ammunition you want to again dispute with the CRA and say "Hey Egghead, I tried to verify with CA x amount of times, they don't respond..........so delete the mother scratchin' account already" ???" -YES, this is a good "tecjhnique" and I never said it was not. IF it works, GREAT for the consumer. IF IT DOESNT, KNOWING WHAT TO DO IS THE ANSWER. -THE REPORTING AGENCY ONLY has to take into account information RECEIVED from the consumer in its investigation. The consumer trying to prove a negative, as someone on here posted, dont workie "Since you're so well educated MR. Hiding, EDUCATE ME! and everyone else here...(This isn't meant to be a sarcastic remark) " -Ive been trying LOL -And sarcasim is my middle name!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry -Poor misguided soul. -I wish I could help you. -The initial communication referred to in FDCPA 809 IS FROM the debt collector. -In addition, ONLY IF IT CONTAINS THE VALIDATION RIGHTS NOTICE DOES THIS START THE VALIDATION PERIOD. -Any "pre-emtive" validation request DOES NOT REQUIRE THE DEBT COLLECTOR TO DO ANYTHING EXCEPT REPORT THE DEBT AS DISPUTED IF THEY REPORT IT AFTER RECEIPT OF THE DISPUTE. EITHER DOES SUBSEQUENT VALIDATION NOTICES THEY SENT OUT! -I wish there was a way to make it more clear, but I cant. TRY not attacking me for 5 minutes and READ THE INFO ABOUT VALIDATION BELOW! -BETTER yet, ASK BUTCH about it. He had the "displeasure" of telling everyone on here THAT I WAS CORRECT ABOUT IT!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry How can one dispute "Not Mine Because of Fraud" and have evidence. I have a CA reporting on my account for $100, from a "counseling office". It was indeed an office I had gone to back in High School, because of "family" issues.........BUT I NEVER received a bill for it. I had insurance, I had a copay, I paid my copay on my visits, so what in H-E (double Red Wing Hockey Sticks) is this for? I disputed as not mine, not once but twice...>BAM I'm frivolous. So I send CA a letter for "validation". Is it outside the 30 days? Who knows? Because who in the world knows when they will "claim to have sent the original letter". I never received one, so how can they determine the 30 days? How could I dispute with "fraud" and have evidence unless I contacted the CA asking for their "proof" (which you say they do not have to provide?) If they don't have to provide me with proof, I have no "evidence" for the CRA and I'm stuck with a bill for $100 which I can get no evidence of. Is my confussion making sense to you?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry CLEAR AS MUDD HERE IS THE PROBLEM. IT IS PAST THE 30 days. REGARDLESS OF WHEN THEY SENT THE LETTER. I can safely assume you graduated more than 30 days ago VALIDATION IS DEAD AND GONE!! BYE BYE.. get it out of your vocab! ******UNLESS YOUR STATE LAW APPLIES!!!!! THIS IS A HUGE POINT I HAVENT MADE YET. THERE ARE ABOUT 23 STATES WHO HAVE LAWS WHICH MIRROR THE FEDERAL LAWS. ok... EVIDENCE in this case would be YOUR INSURANCE CARRIER! (by the way, insurance is billed OUT OF COURTESY) Anyway, YOUR insurance carrier is one part of the evidence. If you still have the same insurance, you are one step ahead. If not, CONTACT the insurance provider you had and get proof you had insurance. Hell, they prolly have the bill!!! Ok, what happens if they dont want to send it to you. FILE SUIT, against anyone at this point, and subpoena the records lol Ok that was a joke! SO now you have your insurance carrier proving "evidence" you were covered at the time. THIS ALONE would cause a "reasonable investigation" to show the account probably shoud have been payed by insurance right? So you send a dispute to the reporting agency DISPUTING THE ACCOUNT AS BEING "NOT THE CONSUMERS RESPONSIBILITY" AND THAT IS WAS AN INSURANCE CASE AND THE ECLOSED INSURANCE CARD IS WHO IS RESPONSIBLE. You have to understand that a monkey can do the job of the reporting agency employees. BUT MONKEYS ARE CAPABLE OF COMPLEX THOUGHT IF REQUIRED TO Well, if you think a "reasonable" person would agree, BINGO, the reporting agency AND the furhisher are both in violation of FCRA 623 (b) for failing to conduct a reasonable investigation if they verify it or better yet, refused to investigate Simple -BUT, remember, the consumers ONLY RECOURSE is court!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry Ok that's all fine and dandy... TWO PROBLEMS: #1. The insurance I had than, Went O.O.B.! NO way to get copies of the claims #2. How do I know this wasn't a billing error on the part of the Dr.'s office? How do I know they didn't bill me for someone elses's visits? How do I know that they're not sticking me in the rear?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry I am sure you would have know if it was in your rear LOL So, insurance is a no go..okay.. Do you know the Dr's office? Call them and just ask for the bills ? Sometimes its just that easy. How about getting transcitps from the school, this shows you were there, then any info about the insurance co, even if they are out of business. Now you have the dates of treatment, guestimate, and the insurance you had. This combined with a affidavit that you had insurance during this time, sent to the reporting agency is a start. BUT, IF THESE ARE THE FACTS OF THE MATTER, ONLY A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD SIDE WITH YOU. IF YOU HONESTLY BELEIVE IT WAS AN ERROR, WHY CANT YOU SUE THE FURNISHER NOW? YOU DONT EVEN HAVE TO APPEAR -OKAY ILL EXPLAIN THIS ONE!! LOL -NOT ALL CLAIMS UNDER THE FCRA/FDCPA ARE FOR $$$. -DECLARITORY RELEIF AND INJUNCTIVE RELEIF ARE AVAILABLE! (this was an arguement on another thread) -So if you filed in small claims court against the furnisher for FCRA 623 (b), or your state law, AND JUST REQUESTED DECLARITORY RELEIF OR INJUNCTIVE RELEIF INSTEAD OF $, THERE IS A HUGE POSSIBILITY THEY WILL JUST REQUEST THE CRA DELETE THE TRADE LINE -Also, once you file, their records are up for the pickins! Subpeoana them bad boys and see if they can even prove the debt is your in a court of law. If they cant, THEY ARE ALL YOURS! -All it cost was $20.00 or so for the filing fee THEN YOU SETTLE BEFORE COURT, DONT SHOW, CASE GETS DISMISSED AND YOUR CREDIT IT "FIXED"
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry Ok, now let's say I call the Dr's office..... They give me copies of their Files..which shows Dates of visits, payment..etc. etc. It was sooooo long ago, I don't remember for sure if I was there on x date or x date. Sounds to me like I"m going to get screwed.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry If you were in high school were you even 18 years old?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry "It was indeed an office I had gone to back in High School, because of "family" issues.........BUT " -establishes a time frame. If you get the records, by subpeona or other method, and the "visits" on the records DO NOT correspond to when you were in school, WOULDNT THIS BE GOOD EVIDENCE ? -Good point. If you were under 18, your "rents" are responsible (generally)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry I was 18, my birthday is in the begining of the year. However, it was my rents insurance.
