I've never done this lawsuit thing

Re: Virtual/Reality

ok libel there you go, some form of libel. I had a 24 hour brain fart.
but your mention of calling her, slander.
btw i dont think your account should be banned, because you do have some nifty opinions, but i do think you are an ass.

 

Re: The Invitation

Knock em dead!

 

Re: Virtual/Reality

Well, that's just the point. HE DOESN'T OWE YOU ANY EXPLANATIONS, and he would be well advised to ignore your pointless and continuous grilling; Rather than exposing in advance his negotiation strategy in a thread now closely monitored by the other party in real-time, thanks to you.


Saar

 

Re: Virtual/Reality

I'm happy to re-answer, in full detail, any questions. Let it rip, but be specific.

I would agree with your definition of the board.

But, I have a question for you: Is one of the board's purposes to trash-talk a member's legal opponent in public, while their name, address, telephone number and email address is available to the world-- without even giving them a chance to respond?

I don't have an agenda; I'm here to discuss things-- with everyone. Apparently you just want a one-sided discussion.

The true absurdity of this case is that the consumer has to go to the extreme to which he did (filing a lawsuit over a mere inquiry?).

To whom do I owe any explanation?

This message board, in fact, has an ignore feature. If he wants, he can use it. So far, he hasn't.

Why?

 

Re: Virtual/Reality

GOOD LUCK QUIX !!!

 

Re: Virtual/Reality

Whatever was talked about here, trash talking or not, does NOT give you the right to insert your big nose into the middle of a legal case. Period.

You very obviously do have an agenda.
And as for whether or not you place a high value on my respect of you doesn't really matter. The fact that a lot of people here that did have respect for you but no longer do, should say something to you.

 

Re: Virtual/Reality

Here's the problem Greg. You may have hurt a members chance in court. If this was a series of communications between Macy's and Quixote and no court action on the horizon you may have had some justification for sending them the thread and asking for a comment. But, with a courtdate 48 hours away, you let a lawyer see Quixtoe's thought process and the advice given by others. When someone is representing themselves, a real lawyer for an opponent is disadvantage enough. A lawyer with a peak at your case is worse. It's just really a pretty crappy thing for one person to do to another. Why not wait until after the case is heard before sending them the thread?

 

Re: Virtual/Reality

Absolutely, positively 100% correct.

 

Re: Virtual/Reality

Good Luck, Quix!

Greg--If you spent more time on developing a few social skills and less time pounding the keyboard with circuitous and torturously long-winded posts...no, forget it, people like you just never get it.

 

Re: Virtual/Reality

ok, Focus, Focus, Focus...

Quixote disputes through various letters
Tradeline never marked in dispute

In RESPONSE to Quixote disputing FDS pulls credit report (paid tradeline); experian; to review how it is being reporting (seeing if the CRA's are reporting right -- OC policing CRA).

No permissable purpose

Inquiry never marked as disputed

Quixote calls CRA
CRA gives coding providing for alleged pp (offer of credit, extension of credit)

With the passage of the GLB -- there HAS to be an offer of credit. If someone is prescreening to determine if you meet the conditions, then you meet them.

OTHERWISE the information (personal identifying info., PIN) is confidential and protected.

FTC commentary on FCRA for permissable purpose: http://www.lawdog.com/CREDIT/crta407.htm

Makes it simplistic and clear that there is authorization to pull in writing OR eligibility for credit, insurance, employment.

Can't mix the two with a closed account. No signature = no purpose in this instance.

ELIGIBILITY, if there is no established relationship, everything hinges on either a signature OR CONSUMER INITIATED eligibility for credit, insurance, employment.

FTC commentary on procedure for disputed accuracy:
http://www.lawdog.com/CREDIT/crta414.htm

The WHOLE, ENTIRE PURPOSE of the FCRA speaks to Quixote's case:

§ 602. Congressional findings and statement of purpose [15 U.S.C. § 1681]
(a) Accuracy and fairness of credit reporting. The Congress makes the following findings:

4) There is a need to insure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumer's right to privacy.

This trickles down to the users; they were added with the amendments providing responsibilities and duties.

******
Let's put the Greg Fisher issue to bed, surely he advised Ellen of when he took it upon himself to call. I can hear him now, Hi Ellen, this is how you should argue Quixote's claim, he set you up.

There is NO setting up provisions. Quixote has the right to dispute for inaccuracy and completeness whenever he wants.

Ellen is bound by the FCRA in how she responds to Quixote exercising that right -- she blew it.

Quixote disputed -- Ellen didn't mark as disputed (tradeline nor the inquiry) and pulled a credit report in response in violation of the FCRA.

There's no leading about it; Quixote didn't hold a gun to her head and say why don't ya pull a report Ellen -- that was Ellen's choice and decision.

What Quixote knows or doesn't know is irrelevant. He doesn't have the burden of proof.

He disputes -- responses are legally mandated.

Information must be UPDATED, COMPLETE, ACCURATE AND VERIFIABLE.

If something is not complete or accurate it must be updated or deleted.

If something is not verifiable it must be deleted.

That is the information furnisher's burden. They must maintain the records to verify -- if they choose not to, the information can NOT be reported.

DONE DEAL, Greg estranged Fisher!

******
FOCUS:

1. FCRA provisions for permissable purpose; disputes; duties and responsibilities of furnishers of information --

2. FTC commentary, FTC opinion letters + details refuted (Quixote has mountains of this)

3. FTC provided What information furnishers need to know -- what Ellen has to do
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/infopro.htm

4. FTC provided Summary of Consumer rights -- what Quixote has to do
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/credit/fcra.htm

5. FTC intent of amendments
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1997/9709/fcra929.htm
Employers, Creditors and Credit Bureaus Have Major New Responsibilities

I've got to get to work, Quixote, but will check back in.

Good luck, stand tall, YOU are right!

No matter what, STANDING UP, being counted, exercising your rights and following through when they are trampled on is the most important, says ME.

Sassy

EDIT: Purpose of FCRA

(2) An elaborate mechanism has been developed for investigating and evaluating the credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, and general reputation of consumers.

As a result of the violations Quixote suffered damage to each of those listed.

 

Re: The end game

 

Re: Virtual/Reality

http://consumers.creditnet.com/stra...ostid=243768&highlight=Ellen+Dugan#post243768

?

 

Re: Virtual/Reality

Quixote!!!!!!!!!

Put your thumb on the end of your nose, extend your fingers, WIGGLE your fingers (that's all Greg deserves from you).

He asks you to post documentation "evidence"

You do

Oppssss you missed an email address

He takes it upon himself, after you provide just what he asked for, to use it against you and manipulate.

In defense he says, well you shouldn't have posted the information with tone even (nanner nanner).

HELLO, this is just what he asked for in the first place and then CHOSE to use it.

(_o_) <-------- Greg

There's 4,000-something members here, yet only 1, saw fit to use what you were posting.

Sassy

 

Re: Virtual/Reality

As if you speak for everyone.

You are incorrect. I have a First Amendment right to free speech.

In what nation do you live? What planet?

You must be clairvoyant; what is my agenda? But, while we're on the subject, what is your agenda?

You are, indeed, lost.

Or you're a liar and guilty of attempted libel ("A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation." )

What is false?

I say "attempted" because you demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about, so none would find you credible.

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

So, Quixote, what happened to the-facts-are-all-that matters deal?