My First Strike Strategy

Try disputing with the CRA's online first. You may get some quick deletions.

 

1 and 2 - I'm not aware of these, are they state laws?

$2500 violation - fed is $1000, again, are you looking at state laws?

I think you may be a bit confused. The only opinion I've seen is that a computer generated printout is NOT proper validation. Cneters have never been able to pin down exactly what IS validation. Spears v. Brennan does give us a little more info though. Search on this site or google for a link to the case law.

Your logic is great

Keep reading, your on the right path, but an OC is seldom covered by the FDCPA when acting on their own behalf.

Yep, not to be confused with validation. BTW a CA can't verify an OC's TL, I believe. The CRA has to receive verification from the OC (furnisher of info).

A CA cannot verify without validating. You have to keep CA's and OC's separate and straight in your head. OC's could still verify.

120 days - LOL I'm fighting one on this too. Its not OK with me.

R/F - nothing that is inaccurate is a moot point. Tuck it away.


Past Due - There is another thread on this, I haven't read it, but noticed it popped back to page one today. You ought to check it out.


Your going to be great at this, once you get everything straight in your head!!!!!!!

I'm tired now...hope I didn't leave anything out.

jlynn

 

Re: Re: Re: My First Strike Strategy

This is how I keep it straight in my head:

Validation: I want the Collection Agency to prove that their claim against me is true and binding. They have to make their claim valid by proving such...therefore I demand full validation.

Verification: CRA's are required to ensure their data is correct and complete. When notified by the consumer it may not be correct they have to verify it with the person (OC or CA) who reported it to the CRA. The process of double checking their info with the CA or OC is by asking the OC or CA to verify the information. Once the CA or OC says "yes, it is accurate" they have verified the information to the CRA which satisfies the CRA and the info stays the same on your report.

The CA or OC only has to prove to the consumer that the debt is valid.

the CRA only has to ensure accurate information is being reported on the CR's exactly how the furnisher of info sent it to them. They couldn't care less if the debt is valid and they aren't required to care.

I have seen the two terms used interchangeably but they really aren't the same. Just keep in mind what you want the outcome/end result to be whenever you dispute and keep in mind who is responsible for what.

If you were 120 days past due 10 months ago and you have not made any payments in that time span then it would report this way.

 

Re: Re: My First Strike Strategy

In what way do you think that Spears gives any information on what validation consists of?

 

Re: Re: Re: My First Strike Strategy

It doesn't. It gives us a little more info on what is not enough info to constitute validation.

 

Re: Re: Re: My First Strike Strategy

That is all I have ever seen too. Everybody including the FTC seems to know what it isn't but nobody seems to know what it is. Or if they do they don't seem to want to admit it for some reason.

That's almost as bad as nobody can tell me what cash or money is either. Lots of definitions for what it isn't but none that tell us what either one is.

We know for sure that it is not a dollar nor any portion there of since a dollar is legally defined as being so many ounces of pure fine silver or maybe gold. We know it isn't a Federal Reserve Note because those are negotiable instruments of debt. We all know what it is but we can't define it.

Lots of crazy stuff going on with money and government we average folks know nothing at all about.

The U.S. Treasury apparently isn't a part of the U.S. Government and neither is the IRS according to some.

There are a lot of court cases that tell us that things just aren't what we have always been led to believe.

 

Re: My First Strike Strateg

Try checking here regarding validation.

http://www.carreonandassociates.com/validationofdebt.htm

 

Re: My First Strike Strateg

I see they are still foisting off the same dumb, incorrect, misleading and inane garbage. Assuming that Wolman even attempts to tell us what validation is clearly demonstrates that they can't even understand what Wolman says or does not say about validation. They can't even get through the first 15 lines of the page without their having made multiple errors, let alone get down to Wolman where their inability to read and understand really shines.

Now then, since they can't get validation right let's just see how many more gross errors we can find by clicking on the list of articles on the left. First one at the top of the list where it says something about "settle old or past due debts". Click on that and move down to where it says "Never disclose where you work or bank" and there we can't even get through the first half dozen lines before they goofed again. Anyone who has been around any of these boards long enough to find them should already know that while indeed you should never disclose where you work or bank they will get that information in a hearbeat in most cases anyway and if they get a judgment and go for garnishment you will either tell them that information or you will go to jail. And in that same paragraph they claim that giving such information would make it easy to collect on a judgment. That's BS too because you cannot collect on a judgment. A judgment has no authority of collection at all. A judgment will not allow them to take any money from anywhere, not even in states where a prejudgment freeze of assets is allowed as it is in some states where they can freeze money prior to hearing and memorialization of the judgment but in most states they can touch absolutely nothing until they get a garnishment, hold asset hearings and get a separate court order allowing them to actually take the assets. Telling newbies that refusing to reveal where they work or where they bank is common sense but I believe that if they want to help somebody they need to explain the rest of it.

What needs to be understood is that people are desperate for solutions to their problems and will all too often use anything they can find that sounds good and is printed in an attempt to resolve their problems. Inferring that if they refuse or decline to give their work or banking information they will block or even slow down the bill collector by some simplistic ruse as that is going to protect them is unconscionable and dead wrong. That is my opinion. Tell them the truth , the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Here is how I would modify that part.
............ collect the judgment. But you should also realize that no matter what you say or don't say they will get the information anyway in most cases. They only ask such questions so they don't have to dig for it which costs them time and money.

Don't get me wrong here. They do have a lot of good and valid information. But just like apples in a barrel, a few bad apples will soon spoil all the apples.

I will continue in the next post on this matter. Due to the storm of messages that are bound to be generated readers might have to scroll down a ways past all of the naysayers and screamers to get to the next message I post about this.

 

Re: My First Strike Strateg

In "Dear Mr. Rip-off Artist" they would have us believe that what they describe as a restrictive endorsement would constitute an accord and satisfaction which it does not do.

It appears to me that they have no idea what accord and satisfaction is or how it operates. Accord and satisfaction is not a two legged table but rather a three legged table. First there must be a valid dispute. They do present the illustration as just exactly that. The complainer apparently does have a valid dispute. But where is there any evidence that the creditor agrees with the customer thereby creating an accord? If any such meeting of the minds is presented I failed to see it. In accord & satisfaction there must be a valid dispute which both parties must agree exists. That is the first of the three legs. The second is the accord phase in which and agreement is reached between the parties on what would be an equitable settlement in lieu of the original agreement. And then the customer must complete the transaction with their prompt payment in the full amount of the agreement.

All three legs are requisite. If not the table falls down.

Their table falls down.

 

Re: My First Strike Strateg

In the next link down, I learn that If as a debt collector you don't hit your commissions then you are not affective. I would have imagined that if a debt collector failed to hit commissions he would be very affective. I know that I and I suspect most others failing to hit commissions and taking home a short paycheck would be very affective.

Only a few more lines and we run into the next snag and I quote. "we no longer have debtors' prison.

Tell that to the judge after you failed to pay your traffic tickets and try telling that to the IRS after having failed or refused to pay your taxes.

Try telling that to the judge at the next garnishment hearing after you refused to show up at an assets hearing. Or after having written a big hot check which is an instrument of debt by definition.

Just like we have political prisoners galore in America today we also have debtors in prison.

They may have other names for it like contempt of court, failure to appear or check kiting but the result is that the debtor can and often do go to prison regardless of the terminology they put on the incarceration papers.

Now then, further on down the page I see where they finally did describe in good detail exactly what validation is and didn't rely on Wolman to do so.

And then they really show how dumb they can get. This is just about the worst bit of advice that can possibly be given to a poor debtor.

If they fall for that death trap and actually follow this dumb advice they have automatically demanded to be sued for the entire debt immediately and without further ado. Just how dumb can a supposed advisor get? I'm fairly confident that we are not long in finding out. But even their modifying statement is not even close. I've seen them sue for just exactly $0.18 !!! So don't believe that malarky about them not filing suit for under $500 because they do it all the time. Not too many get stupid enough to sue for eighteen cents but it has happened and I can prove it.

And then they close that page by telling people to complain to the FTC who will do absolutely nothing at all about your greviences.

That should be about enough to warn most to stay away from there before you really get burned. If you don't know enough to realize what is good information and what is bad information you will be almost certain to grab the bad and get burned.

And before you think I am always so perfect, please be advised that I too have made and will make mistakes in the future. It is human to err and we are all pretty human.

So rather than getting into a wetting contest about who I think I am to disparage them or what makes me think I am so perfect and they so bad, let us learn the real lesson here which is to read and try to understand what has been said on any message board, website or forum and then do your homework.

Go check it out. Think about it. Study it. Learn it for yourself then you know. Never, never take anybody else's word for it, not even mine.

They want to talk about accord and satisfaction then you go look it up and see for yourself what the law dictionary or the law itself says about the subject.

Any time you blindly take somebody's word for it you are setting yourself up for a fall.