Is this C&D?

Re: Re: Re: Is this C&D?

I'm not so sure about that. But you are the teacher here, so.........

Would you please post at least a small part of the Spears decision that tells us about that?I think I must have missed something here.

And that is all they have to do is to prove the debt is yours? Or is there more to it?

That much is certain in my mind as well.

OH? What section of FCRA states that?

And in FBA?[/quote] My you certainly are teaching me a whole lot. But as you may realize, I'm a stickler for being able to go to the law and the court rulings to find out what it says and what the courts have ruled. Another little thing I like to check on is the definitions section of the law and the table of parallels so I can see exactly what the definitions of words used in the law have to say as well as to see what other laws might be parallel to the law under question. So often a word defined as having one meaning under one law can have an entirely different meaning under another law.

 

That is how I read it. However, the language is vague enough that they could interpret it another way.

However, in some cases they're covered because they actually own the debt.

Capital one has sued for a 20.00 debt.

Granted, it's a small suit but why take the risk?

Validate them!

 

Your going to drive yourself crazy here!

For the sake of argument - the OC paid out $500 in charges on your behalf, and sold it to the CA for $15. They lost $485 on you - thus no refund to you - but you are done with the OC.

The CA paid $15 for a potential $500. Technically, one could say you owe them $515! If you pay them $500 they earned $485 gross profit, less overhead, salaries, long distance, etc etc.

If by some miracle, it was handed back to the OC gratis (sttttttrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeetch LOL), then they could easily argue all the administrative fees for rekeying in database, mail, staff payroll....see?

Bottom line, you owe $500 to someone, and that $15 purchase fee is not going to count anyway shape or form.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this C&D?

Yes, I think we're both aware of what validation is

That covers Brennan vs Spears and validation.

Why be so trite? Who are you to "test" me?

FBA; I posted my sections that would allow you to validate an OC. Also OC validation is far more stringent under FBA then validation under FDCPA. The fines are less but the wording is far more clear.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this C&D?

Spears v. Brennan does not define validation in any way, shape or form. If you think it does then please show me the part that you rely on. I am thinking that you and others believe that the point where Spears seems to cover validation does not refer to validation at all but rather what 5 indices of information must be present in the initial demand for payment letter.

Spears had nothing to do with validation in the first place. That was not what the case was about. The pivotal question in Spears was whether or not Brennan had the right to bring suit against Spears prior to the end of the 30 day period of time immediately following Brennan's initial contact with Spears demanding payment. The question about what must be contained in that initial communication was peripheral to the question and therefore pertinent. Nothing in Spears dealt with validation at all. At one time I too thought that it did define validation so I called up Clifford Shepard and asked him about that and other things and he clearly outlined what the case was all about and pointed out where I was wrong.

Well, I'll tell you who I am to "test" you. I am the person whom you attempted to teach when you said "Guess what? I am trying to show you another tool," that's who I am. And when one claims to be an authority on a subject s/he then becomes liable to prove that he does indeed know what he is talking about. That is most certainly a reasonable demand. After all, if I am going to attend a class on some subject I want to know what qualifications the teacher has. Yes, I realize that you claim to be a paralegal. That is, just a claim on your part and may or may not be true. But even if you do have some certification from an accredited college, school or whatever it does not prove your level of competency but rather only that you attended. And then there is also the fact that I can have any degree I want hanging on my wall in one day and that from a university. All I have to do is pay their fee and they will give me a degree in law, medicine, nuclear physics or anything else.

What it takes after I graduate from even a prestigious college is the experience to prove competency. Claiming that Spears dealt with validation casts doubt on your credibility and your competency.

There is one thing I really do admire about the methods you said you want to teach me however and that is your great sense of humor. I find it absoulutely hilarious that you would think of flim-flamming creditors into believing that they are subject to FOIA when it is common knowledge that FOIA deals only with the Federal Government and it's agencies and no other entitiy although some states have adopted it's concepts. It is absolutely hilarious to imagine that major banks and credit card companies would be so stupid they would fall for a FOIA request.

And that brings us to another point you also made.

I quite agree with you on that point as well. You see, when I see people who claim to be experts and put out such advice as using FOIA to hornswoggle unsuspecting and innocent people into believing such tripe as Spears dealing with validation or FOIA being applicable to anybody other than the Federal Government it really sets my teeth on edge too.

Your assumptions about how powerful the FBA might be are pretty well misplaced too. The Fair Credit Billing Act specifically applies to errors made on open-end credit accounts, such as credit cards, revolving charge accounts issued by stores and overdraft checking accounts. It does not apply to installment contracts which require payment of a fixed amount each month.

The settlement procedures of the FCBA apply to disputes regarding billing errors such as unauthorized charges (federal law limits your liability to $50), charges listing the wrong amount or date, charges for goods and services not delivered or not accepted, math errors, failure to post payments or credits for returned items, failure to send bills to the correct address if you provided a change of address at least 20 days before the billing period ends, and charges for which you ask for an explanation.

So you see, not only does it apply to a very narrow range of credit transactions and types of creditors and does not apply to 3rd party collectors at all. The creditor is obligated to acknowledge your complaint in writing within 30 days. He must resolve your dispute within two billing cycles, but not more than 90 days. During this period of investigation, you are not required to pay the amount in dispute, however, you must pay any undisputed charges.

So your highly touted methods don't apply to most problems that debtors have in the first place.
Any thought to the contrary is totally off the wall and out to lunch.

Most debtors have long ago thrown away any statements they ever got from the creditor and have no idea what is on their bill so how are they going to dispute?

Paralegal?????

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this C&D?

I've also never specified that Brennan vs Spears was the be all end all of validation. That the thread I posted was a good example of the thought process behind validation. Why should I do the work, when Butch already has? Quite competently, I may add. I also note in that thread, that you agreed!

Validation per the FDCPA would be found in the Wollman Letter, the Cass letter, the Krisor letter and more.

Also, I believe you're putting words in my mouth in your paraphrase. I never stated this is the only method to use, but that it is A method that is frequently unknown or overlooked. We've also never spoken about how or when to use the FBA.
Also, in line with your statement that most debtors throw away statements, the same is true for most creditors. If the account is disputed via FBA, they must provide validation. If they cannot, then they cannot continue collection or reporting activity on it.
Where did I ever speak of the FBA pertaining to 3rd party collectors at all? This was originally a conversation about a C+D to a collector; to kick it back to the OC, before you decided to cast aspersions. Again, I maintain that this is yet another tool that can be used when you've exhuasted the "usual ones". It doesn't have to be one or the other, it can be both and more. Why limit yourself to one tool when you can use a tool chest?

Show me where I advocate the Freedom of Information Act. I spoke in passing of the Privacy Act.

What can I say, Bill, you're almighty. One is begining to understand why so many left.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this C&D?

Webster's dictionary:

One entry found for paralegal.


Main Entry: para·le·gal
Pronunciation: "par-&-'lE-g&l
Function: adjective
Date: 1969
: of, relating to, or being a paraprofessional who assists a lawyer
- para·le·gal /'par-&-"lE-g&l/ noun

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this C&D?

On your message board.

Don't blame it off on me. Most of those who left plainly stated their reasons in a fairly good number of posts before I came back to this forum. It was because they didn't like the way the board was run after PBM left and before CNNSteve took over as monitor. Then one or more of them started their own message boards or websites and so this one suffers to some extent.

And while I was doing the research into your comments I found exactly 6 more new boards that have popped up, some of which are quite good. All but two of them show posters who have been pretty active here on Creditnet then moved over to one of the boards that opened in the first few days after the most popular posters here announced they were leaving because of the way that Creditnet was being run after PBM left. Now they have moved on yet once again. Two of the new boards are owned and moderated by actual consumer advocate attorneys. The only ones allowed to read or post on those boards are those with actual ABA affiliations, bar numbers in other words.

And if I were to blame for the exodus from this board or hated as much as some seem to think why is it that I'm getting anywhere from 2 to sometimes as many as 5 or 6 phone calls a day from those who say they read what I post here? Why is it that most will stay on the phone anywhere from maybe half hour to more than an hour asking me questions?

I've already had 2 phone calls today and they wanted to know more about FOIA because they followed your link to your message board and saw all the conversation about FOIA and they wanted to know why I had not ever said anything about FOIA in relation to debt collection. Simple answer. It has absolutely nothing to do with debt collection unless it is relevant to student loans or some other instance where the consumer becomes a debtor to the government in some way.

Since that includes owing taxes and social security and a whole host of other government agencies it includes just about every American or immigrant or even aliens, illegal or otherwise but does not have anything to do nor any relevance whatever to any type of debt other than that owed to the United States Government or any of it's multitude of regulatory agencies.

As a matter of fact, it might in some instances even be of interest to some Iraqi soldiers who are currently engaged in active battle against our armed forces if they were detained by the military or received medical attention or any other situation in which he might have come under the care or official scrutiny of the US government.

Even those who are currently in custody for having had something to do with the 911 bombing attacks or their attorneys have the right to use FOIA and you can bet they probably do.

But it has nothing whatever to do with consumer debt where private entities are the creditors.

And yes, I did agree with most of what Butch and a few other extremely well informed posters had to say on validation and other subjects, but not with all of what all of them had to say.

Butch's posts are well thought out and are obviously well researched. One does not normally go around attacking or disparaging those whose posts show that beyond a shadow of a doubt they pretty well know what they are talking about. At least I don't.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this C&D?

SHow me where I said it.

Funny, I remember someone else, but not I.

Now you're down to nitpicking little things.

My initial post is still dead bang.

It's another tool to use.

Have fun with your way Bill. Sorry to hear that you're limiting yourself to one method.

I think it's funny a while back you were asking me how to get more mortgage customers.

 

Re: Re: Is this C&D?

Are you saying the OC loses the right to sue if they sell a debt and then buys it back?
=========================================
I have never heard of this happening. have any of you?

The END ************************* LB 59

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this C&D?

[/b]By combining Privacy Act, FCRA and the Fair Billing Act, consumers are covered. [/b][/quote]

We've been using the FCRA and FDCPA because it's easy.

OC's can be easy, too.

It's a matter of know which laws to look at.
_________________
When you were born, you cried and the world rejoiced.
Live your life so that when you die, the world cries and you rejoice.

"Iesus autem transiens per medium illorum ibat"
http://www.nustarsucks.com/index.htm
[/quote] Right there, right off your message board, right out of your own brain and in red for emphasis so you can't miss it. And the part in green says that FDCPA don't have to deal with an OC. Fact: It don't normally apply to original creditors. Only in special circumstances.

And here is another example of mis-information you put out regardint FDCPA and HIPAA.

That is most definitely not true. HIPAA specifically states that so long as a 3rd party debt collector has a written HIPAA agreement with the health care provider who is their client they can receive and use any medical information necessary for debt collection purposes. Your poster "Aces" for one pointed that out to you.

And then you went on to post Whychat's letter which you copied off of her board and did not give her any credit line for it at all. I don't know how she is going to react in your case but I guarantee you that if I had done that she would have been on me like two hip pockets.

Seems to me that proves my statement about you and FOIA.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this C&D?

While I must admit that my methods are not a magical bullet that will slay all comers by any stretch of the imagination I most definitely do not limit myself to just one method by any stretch of the imagination. In fact I use a few that you obviously never heard of or even dreamed of. And yes, FBA is one of them in the few rare instances where it is actually applicable and valid. And I'm developing even more such as filing civil Rico suits against attorneys and creditors. Bet you never thought of that one. Is that valid and will it work? Well, for a long time I've thought that it probably wasn't. But because your posts sent me hunting and I found those new message boards this morning there is a very extensive thread on one of the two attorney only message boards that goes into that very extensively and tells exactly how to do it and make it stick and it gives court case references showing where attorneys, judges and original creditors have been hit with winning civil Rico suits. I've been searching for that exact information for well over 2 years now and thanks to you it seems that I may have finally found it.

That's another example of how I thought maybe you knew something new that I didn't know or think about but then you admitted you didn't.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this C&D?

This last statement of yours, I am sorry I just don't understand. I honestly, don't really need to. I have more clients than I want and they are happy with my services.

Bill, my last post on this, because you're doing what you accuse others of doing: Taking statements out of context to support your arguement. You leave the rest that's not pertinent.

I have seen nothing that supports your argument but name calling and attempts at discreditation.

This has been amusing. Thanks for making a Sailor's dreary day a little better.

Must be fun to piss off people who could possibly help you down the road.
So, to call a spade a spade, have fun with yourself. I understand that you're old, but I thought old dogs could learn new tricks.

Such a shame, I would rather have allies than none.

One last question for you:

If many have a problem with one, who is typically at fault?

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this C&D?

That's easy too. There are actually many answers to your question.

1. Those who expect that others will spend several years researching law and other related topics and then give them the results of their work, time and effort for free. And lots of those kinds are not just "common ordinary folks" who have problems in life either.

2. Wannabe experts who would like others to believe that they are indeed experts and get madder than wet hens when anyone questions them. Ego trippers in other words.

3. People who run collection agencies or are original creditors and want the information for their own ends whatever they may be.

4. Government employees who are looking for ways to put the scam artists who love to charge thousands of dollars for their so called services but are leading people astray with false information or not giving them any real information that people can't find out for themselves for free if they are willing to do their homework but claim to have secret information that can only be had by paying their exhorbitant fees.

And don't come back claiming I fit in that category because I tell people all the time that I don't have any magic bullets and anything I know is information that people can find out for themselves right here on Creditnet and a multitude of other message boards and similiar forums. All they have to do is spend the time to look for it and put together the bits and pieces into a working model that will get the job done most of the time. There isn't one single thing or method I use or teach that I didn't get off the internet somewhere or by attending various public seminars and meetings.

5. People who just live for the opportunity to pick fights and create hate and discontent.

Maybe there are a few other types that I might have listed but that's enough to get the majority of them.

Hope that answers your question.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this C&D?

I only saw one post on that subject that was made by you. I posted that statement. What did you expect me to do, post the whole thread? If anybody is interested in reading the whole thread they can follow your links to the board and then start searching from there. That's what I had to do.

This isn't about what everybody else said about FOIA or HIPAA or whatever.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this C&D?

Here is another possible answer to your question which was

To answer that question we have to examine the series of events to discover who is at fault here. first of all, I didn't address you nor did I ask you any questions or even make any statements referring to you or your methods. You first came into this thread with the following.

Then I posted the following

And to that I got the following comment out of you.

Then in yet another post by you this little bit of snarling comment.

Amazingly enough, you even tried to deny your own words later. You said and I quote in red, Show me where I advocate the Freedom of Information Act. I spoke in passing of the Privacy Act. If one does a Google Search for the words "Privacy Act" this is the first link that pops up. [THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974, 5 USC § 552a -- As Amended] and if one does a Google search for "FOIA" we get a link to the site [US Department of State FOIA Electronic Reading Room] wherein it states [The FOIA was recently amended by the Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996 (E-FOIA). Among other things, E-FOIA grants the public access to government documents via computer telecommunications. The provisions of the FOIA, as amended by E-FOIA, can be found at 5 U.S.C. 552.] So that proves that they are one and the same thing, a fact that you apparently didn't realize. At least that would be the conclusion that would be reached by virtue of your words above which I take the liberty to repeat. Show me where I advocate the Freedom of Information Act. I spoke in passing of the Privacy Act.

Then you take the next slap at me with the following

And so far I haven't said one word that disparaged you or anything you said yet you started getting all defensive at the start of the second page with the following.

It seems to me that right there you started trying to build your defenses for an attack on you by me which I had given absolutely no indication of intending to do. Why?
I came back with "I must say I am a bit surprised at your usage of FOIA on original creditors to say the least." and I came back to you politely asking you to clarify a couple of points for me. I just now checked out the second link you gave me. I do have a question I would like your answer
on if you please.

I noticed in one post there that you mentioned Spears v. Brennan and I'd like to know just what you
find in that case that interests you and that you found useful?

Also, can you explain the differences between validation and verification to me? You did'nt answer that but claimed that Butch had already done the homework so you didn't feel you had to give me your answer to my question which was how you felt that Spears had anything to do with validation. Instead of giving me a decent answer you came back with the following.

So I answered your obviously attacking question as nicely as possible. I said I felt I had the right to do so if you thought you were capable of teaching me something. Then you came up trying to blame it all on me when all I did was ask you to teach me something or to explain your viewpoints.

You said

Quite frankly I think you answered your own question by your snide and snarling comments. People don't like constant bickering going on all the time. It is very disruptive and it serves only to prevent people from getting their questions answered and their problems solved. The sequence of events you precipated and promoted in order to slam me yet once again serves as a good example in my not so humble opinion. And yet you had the gall to state

Seems mighty close to just exactly that with a few ad hominum attacks thrown in for good measure. Why?

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this C&D?

Damn, Bill...you seem to posting to yourself now. Keep on, though, it's fun reading.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this C&D?

Thanks. No, I won't keep on just to provide entertainment. I only made the last post so that folks could see for themselves who started the bickering and that it wasn't me.

Maybe now we can give the thread back to the original poster so she can get her questions answered without more disruption.