I've never done this lawsuit thing

Re: The Invitation

This is on that same opinion:

http://www.uael.org/media/online/jenkins_ftc_revisited.html

The predecessor to Section 604(a)(3)(F)(i) provided a permissible purpose if the party "otherwise has a legitimate business need for the information in connection with a business transaction involving the consumer." Because the 1996 amendments abandoned the "involving the consumer" formulation and replaced it with "initiated by the consumer", the FTC letter opinion states that it is now clear that there is no permissible purpose unless a consumer (an individual), rather than a business entity, initiates the transaction.

Sassy

 

Re: The Invitation

Thanks Sassy

I have a veritable sh*tload of unauthorized inquiries, so I have been reading this entire thread with great interest, and gathering ammunition. For my own selfish purposes, I am hoping that Quixote doesn't settle, because I really want to see what happens in court.

A side note to Greg Fisher:

Didn't your mother ever tell you that gratuitous paraphrasis obfuscates?

 

Re: The Invitation

Aha! Well then, that explains it. Thanks Quixote -- I was beginning to wonder if maybe they had changed all their opinions relating to permissible purposes and deleted all those letters. <Herauntsis breathes a sigh of relief>

 

Re: The Invitation

whewwwwwww, ty Quixote!

Go herauntsis, goooooooooooo!

Sassy

 

Re: The Invitation

To help Ellen understand what a "credit report" is and isn't:

Those in the business community who believe that the FCRA is limited to credit are misreading the law.

http://www.bricker.com/attserv/practice/insurance/fcra/poquette.asp

June 10, 1998

Ms. Mary Poquette
Verifications, Inc.
920 Second Avenue South
Suite 610
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

Re: Section 603(d) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act

Dear Ms. Poquette:

This is in reply to your letter asking for the staff's views on the scope of the term "consumer report" as used in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Specifically, you ask whether the term covers only reports containing credit information or whether it is broader in application. You report being told by a number of your clients that some consumer reporting agencies are telling them that the FCRA covers only reports that contain consumer credit information.

The definition of the term "consumer report" in Section 603(d)(1) of the FCRA is broad and covers any information bearing on a consumer's "credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living which is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part for" various listed purposes, including credit, employment, or the underwriting of insurance. The terms "character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living" cover a great deal of non-credit information. For example, driving records, employment records, and criminal records all involve these characteristics, although these types of information do not necessarily reflect upon credit worthiness, credit standing, or credit capacity.

As you can see, the FCRA covers a great deal of information other than credit-related material. Those in the business community who believe that the FCRA is limited to credit are misreading the law. Failure to comply with the FCRA, including the duties imposed by the law upon users of consumer reports, may subject a business to liability for damages, civil penalties, and other relief pursuant to Sections 616, 617, and 621.

I hope that this fully addresses your question. The views expressed in this letter are those of the Commission's staff and do not necessarily represent the views of the Commission or of any particular Commissioner.

Sincerely,

William Haynes
Attorney
Division of Credit Practices

 

Re: The Invitation

BE SURE TO FILE YOUR TROLL ALERTS WITH PBM.

 

Re: The Invitation

There are trolls (goobs I call them)

There are EYES (QQ)

There are the CA's

There are the CRA's

There are the OC's

AND THEN there's

Greg Fisher

Sassy

 

Re: The Invitation

The last staff opinion was in 2000. What the heck have these people been doing?

 

Re: The Invitation

Go to jail, Ellen, go straight to jail.

Do not pass go.

Do not collect $200

(to moral court for you, Greg)

Criminal penalties of up to two years in prison and fines are available for obtaining consumer information under false pretenses.Section 1681q. The statute also provides for civil damages for noncompliance with the FCRA. Wilful noncompliance may result inactual damages, punitive damages, court costs and attorney's fees. Section 1681n. Negligent noncompliance may result in actualdamages, court costs, and attorneys fees. Section 1681o. In addition, the FTC may sue employers who show a pattern ofviolations, and obtain civil penalties of up to $2500 per violation. Section 1681s(a)(2)(A).

 

Re: The Invitation

Lumpy LOL

Quixote,

She's still reading the thread!

Sassy

 

Re: The Invitation

She's probably too busy reading my complaint with 15 FCRA violations telling them I will sue them for $15,000 in district court.

WALLST

 

Re: The Invitation

1p tomorrow, check

Which state are you, California? Have to get the timezones right, LOL, AZ doesn't change.

I'll be thinking of you, Quixote, GOOD LUCK!

Sassy

Edit: Oppsssssssssss, pacific time, check. Same time zone even so I don't have to pretend to be calculating the difference. Good thing too!

 

Virtual/Reality

That's why this place is different: It doesn't appear to be run by idiots who only want free speech-- when its convenient for them.

Where in the world did you get that weird definition of stalking? Look around. I think I see my name signed to anything I say. It isn't like the Thought Police wouldn't know where to find me. What harm are you talking about? What about the other guy harming the lawyer? Does he go to the penalty box, too?

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bookSearch/isbnInquiry.asp?sourceid=00398942015985994805&ISBN=0873377699&bfdate=10-03-2002+23:18:05

It wasn't me. You're not making any sense: I'm not trying to hide anything here.

You've not making any sense. Too much nonsense-- for what? To stay is all I could think of.

I'm not putting words in your mouth, anbody can see the whole conversation.

I don't see any proof that I was "WRONG." Please, explain yourself. I didn't tell any lies. The guy posted the woman's name, address, email address, and physical address. I contacted her. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

You're overrating the value I place on your respect.

Oh, brother.

But, your comment is amusing: It's the first time I've been called a gentleman and an idiot in two adjacent sentences.

If you knew the definition, why did you ask if it was "some form of slander"? Try again: "Law. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation."

Which statement is false? Which is oral?

No, and she doesn't speak Chinese, either.

You're all still acting like this is some sort of secret club, and I'm not following that. If the guy wanted it to be anonymous, it was easy enough. He could have left out all the identifying information (replacing Macy's with "Big, Famous Dept. Store, Ellen Dugan with BFDS lawyer, and the address with 100 Mulberry Street), but he chose not to.

He dosen't seem stupid. So, what gives?

And, the consumer hasn't answered the really BIG question: If nothing mattered but the violation itself, what's the problem?

And, one more: He's conducted himself with dignity here, so even if there are points off for that, I don't see how.

-------------------

I spoke, at length, to Ms. Dugan. At this point, is the offer to settle still open? I see your last words to her: "The only question is what it takes to rectify it," but no proposal to resolve the dispute out-of-court. Is the door closed? If not, what do you want?

 

Re: Virtual/Reality

It seems to me that you are the one who is not making sense, Greg -- you talk and talk without saying anything real. You demand the answers to your questions, but you refuse to give a straight answer to the questions that are posed to you.

Here's what the big deal is: you took it upon yourself to insert yourself into someone else's business (sort of with no permissible purpose, if you get my drift). The way I see it, this board is a community for asking questions, getting advice, education, and support, and sharing ideas and experiences. We are here to give and receive assistance with credit problems. The purpose of the board is not served if we all have to be careful not to spell out the details of what is happening on the chance that you will start writing and calling the people with whom we are dealing.

What is your agenda here, other than being contentious, abrasive, and an all around pain in the ass?