Ok... I wanted to take a minute to get you're opinion on this interpretation of the statement on the CR update. "The data furnisherâ??s response to â??PLEASE CONTACT THE CREDIT GRANTOR IF FRAUD IS SUSPECTEDâ? is an admission that the data furnisher does not possess the knowledge to conclusively verify the dispute, and under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, without said knowledge, they can not conclusively verify that the information which their company is reporting to ________ is complete, verifiable, and accurate, as required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act." Basically, it's to add a Johnson v. MBNA tangent to the dispute. If the DF is saying that I need to contact a third party, to have the third party, whom the FCRA doesn't apply to, anyhow, to verify the account, then they surely could not have conclusively verified it as required under the Johnson v. MBNA ruling. Does this sound like a solid additional arguement?
Yep, TU just verified... And I got a form that I need to fill out for EX (before the BBB dispute I filed, can be initiated.) So I am sending their BBB office the 68+ pages that I sent in April, + a 3 page cover-letter, + a few extra pages for good measure, at least then they can't say I am not providing any additional information for the dispute... But I wanted to make sure I wasn't just relying on Cushman, so if I can have a solid leg by using the Contact OC statement, as an admission that under Johnson v. MBNA they couldn't conclusively verify the account, as they are required by the FCRA. I am hoping that it'll look stronger for the BBB. Had a few screaming matches with TU yesterday, when I saw it updated on their report. They're trying to tell me that in order for it to be updated, they would have had to returned the dispute form. It seems way too unusual that they would return the dispute form on the same day (or 1 day off) two months in a row, just days after they updated with EX on an (a) update... How dumb do you think we are? The best part, TU's fraud department says, the only way that we verify whether an account is to contact the original creditor. WHAT ABOUT WHEN THE ORIGINAL CREDITOR WAS A CO-CONSPIRATOR IN THE FRAUD?!?!?!
Yes, for a short time yesterday, I forgot that when I can save up the $, the CA and CRA's are going to be pumping up my bank accounts, at a rate of $1,000.00 a month... To paraphrase from a snack food ad "Verify all you want, you'll pay me more..." I need to keep that perspective on it, just for a little while longer...
I am so glad I stalled putting the BBB packet in the mail for a day or so... Bringing in the Johnson v. MBNA conclusive verification requirement, and trying to illustrate how they can not conclusively verify, because the original source of information was shut down by the FTC. "If the data furnisher would have reasonably investigated the dispute that they received from ________, and would have contacted the alleged credit grantor, and the alleged credit grantor would have attempted to contact the third party who illegally sold, rented, leased, or transferred my personal identifying information, including their bank account, and credit card information, to the alleged original creditor, they would then possess the knowledge that this is in fact is, and always was a fraudulent account, when they are unable to reach said third party, because as is proven by the supporting documentation provided, said company no longer exists, because they were forced to cease operations by the Federal Trade Commission because of the frauds which they have committed."
YEOW!!! Jam, I'd simply file on em. Name all of em as co-conspirators/defendants. This case could be worth some bux.
Why do you think I need to come up with the legal fees... This is one which is federal bound, but the more verifications under (b) the more $1,000.00 damages to add to the pot... Also, the best part, they only updated the open date on EX to reage it by 5 months, after I complained to the AG's office, hmmmm, gee, can that support not only willful and knowing, but done with malace. "Gee, you had the balls to complain to your and our state ag's offices, well, we'll get even with you..." (and that was after they (b) verified the open date which the original creditors confirmed in writing to the AG's office. )
