I dont get this one

Well, what is wrong with that except the fact that it does seem to me to be an illegal reaging of the debt.

I'm no expert on reading or understanding credit reports but it does seem to me that what is being reported here is only asset acceptance reporting when they got the account, not when the account was opened with the original creditor. Seems to me that amounts to illegal reaging of the debt, but then what do I know about that?

Not much.

 

I would assume that the OC's account charged off around Jan 2003. Is that correct?

 

I see how you are calculating that but your assumption might be right and it might not be.

Scheduled to remain on the report until 2010 refers to that particular listing and has nothing to do with when the account charged off unless the listing is by the original creditor.

If it is listed by a 3rd party debt collector it has nothing to do with the charge off date.

 

If it is scheduled to come off in 2010 then the all-important STATUS DATE is 2003. Status Dates are not given out to the consumer - they are afraid we might see real re-aging.

 

I have seen this scenario on my own credit reports. It just so happened when I looked at the OC's TL, the charge-off date was exactly 7 years before the date the CA's TL was 'scheduled' to fall off. So that means that somewhere in the CRA's file, they have the date, they are just not disclosing it on the report itself.

 

Well, since you can't seem to get accurate information from your credit reports then why not get it right from the creditor.

That's easy to do. All you have to do is call them up and ask them when you made your last payment on the account. Thirty days after that starts the SOL for filing suit in most states.

It also tells you that the charge off date was probably about 150 days after that.

You would still have some guessing to do but that is a starting point at least.
Better than what you have now.

Then dispute the OC report as inaccurate information. You can also dispute the trade lines put there by the collection agencies as inaccurate information at the same time. In the final analysis one of them almost has to be incorrect and inaccurate information one way or another.

You should then be able to figure out who to drag into federal court.

 

Why do you say that it is a bogus default judgment? If a court of law granted them a judgment then it isn't bogus at all. It is real and it is a fact that you will have to deal with one way or another.

 

The problem you face is that such frauds up the courts happens hundreds if not thousands of times every day all across America and the judges do absolutely nothing about it. They eat it up like it was fresh hot popcorn. You can scream about it till you are blue in the face and nothing is going to happen.

There is a remedy you might try if you want to take it step by step all the way to your U.S. Congressman but it will take you years to do it and then nothing will be likely to come of it.

 

I can well understand your feelings even though I don't necessarily agree with them. Here is why I don't agree with them. To understand the problem you need to look at it from the judge's perspective.

The judge sees hundreds of such cases as yours every year and in almost every one of them the defendant does owe the money and that is or should be obvious to one and all for the simple reason that if the plaintiff had nothing to complain about he would not be there. The judge's job is to do the greatest amount of justice possible and make the injured party as whole again as possible. That means finding for the plaintiff almost every time.

The debtor (hereinafter referred to simply as "you") is angered because the court has taken away his assets which he worked hard to acquire. Maybe the plaintiff has damaged the defendant in some way or another or acted in a manner that the defendant felt was totally unjust.

So the defendant feels justifiably outraged and maybe with good reason but from the judge's standpoint the defendant has a remedy in law for being wronged but this hearing and venue is not the place where those wrongs can be logically remedied. The defendant needs to bring an action at another time against the plaintiff if he has supportable issues. The judge simply has his job to do today and he is going to do it.

The real problem is when the debtor, angered as he is at his fate before the court runs into some idiot on the internet who "sells" him some crazy theory about how he has been defrauded by the courts. He is often all too willing to listen to wild get-even theories such as the one that claims that they actually risked no money of their own so actually loaned him no money in the first place or any one of dozens of equally silly theories. Those theories and advices may actually be free but the term "sells" still applies because he was induced to "buy" the theories of the huckster. Most often those theories come with a very high price tag. Many people actually pay thousands and thousands of dollars buying into theory after theory only to learn the hard way that they are nothing but scams.

Even if the advice is freely given it is still very costly if it contains false and misleading information. Most of it does and that is why I constantly tell people to do their homework before believing anyone or any of their ideas no matter how sound they may appear to be.

You can go to any number of web sites and message boards and find all kinds of cases quoted. That makes their theories seem rock solid and as good as gold but most of the time you will find that those cases are not binding upon the court in your jurisdiction. Arizona Supreme Court decisions are not binding on any court in New York, Florida, Maine, Ohio, Colorado, Anaheim, Azusa or Kookamonga. They are advisory cases that the attorney hopes will influence the judge to rule the same way the judge in the case he cites has ruled.

California court decisions are only binding in California and nowhere else.
County court judges are not even bound by what Judge Hammer ruled over in the next county. Not even if he was equipped with a rocket powered gavel when he made the ruling.

So don't let some clown on some message board tell you anything unless you can check out what he says with a reliable source. You simply have to learn the law for yourself and not be influenced by what you read on some newsgroup or message board. They may be good sources to get you pointed in the right direction but you have to do the learning yourself.

An example of that is that almost anywhere you go you will be told that you must answer the complaint. Nothing could be further from the truth even though the summons says you must answer the complaint within so many days. Anybody who tells you that you have to answer the complaint simply has no understanding of how the court system works You are never required to answer the complaint within any set time period but you do have to respond to the complaint in some manner within the commanded time frame which is usually set by the court's rules of procedure

A demand for more definitive statements is a proper response to the summons of the court. Furthermore it puts the ball in the plaintiff's court and he has to answer or the defendant can file a motion to compel or maybe even a motion to dismiss parts or all of the plaintiff's case. A motion for default judgment is a powerful weapon in the hands of someone who knows when and how to use it.

The motion for more definitive statements should be immediately followed up with interrogatories, admissions and demand for production of documents and those backed up with motions to deem admitted or subpoena duces tecum if need be. That can be additionally backed up with demands to the plaintiff for disclosures under TILA but should never be sent to the Plaintiff's attorney because the attorney cannot answer those questions. Only the plaintiff can answer them. That tactic can help smoke out fictitious plaintiffs in which case the defendant can motion the court to dismiss for failure to include the indispensable parties, namely the junk debt buyer falsely naming the original creditor as plaintiff and keeping his name under the rug.

The trick is to bury the plaintiff in paper work but not in silly questions. Then if you can catch him or his attorney in violation of FDCPA, FCRA, TILA or maybe even SEC violations then you can haul him into federal court as a defendant.

Will those methods repair your credit? You bet they will. Why? Because if you are a defendant in a lower court you can bet your life that you will lose and get a judgment against you if you use the silly arguments to be found on most web sites. But you can also bet that if you are the plaintiff in a federal court and your complaints are correct and you have done your homework you will win regardless of whether you owe them money or not. If you are right in a federal court and you learn and follow the rules and prepare your paper work correctly you will win every time and most likely will never see the inside of a federal courtroom. You will end up going to a Rule 26(f) meeting somewhere and there you will discuss your differences and try to work out a good faith settlement. In that settlement you can demand that they remove all negative trade lines and agree never to again attempt to sue you for the underlying debt, never to sell it to anybody and you will most likely get your way.

Now then, how's that for aggressive credit repair? Sure beats a bunch of nonsense about whether or not they are going to garnish your donuts and how many they are going to garnish, don't it?

 

A civil case cannot be enforced in any state. A court judgment can be enforced in any state. That authority comes from article 4 section 1 of the Constitution.

The first question however becomes one of relevancy which can best be determined by Shepardizing your case for parallel decisions. If you don't Shepardize your case then you have not properly done your research.

In most case cites the entire case is not cited but rather only relative portions of cases but it can be either way. It all depends upon what point the attorney or Pro Se wants to make.

Yes, you can enforce the decision of another judge by using the appeals process.


Lots of room for discussion there but to answer your other question, no, I do not get paid by the word.

 

That is absolutely true.

But judgments and case cites are two entirely different matters.