See above, you were talking about "eligibility" and mischaracterizing Marie's post, etc... I asked you to be more specific. I then cited a case where a collector has a perm purp to pull a report based on a medical debt. By all means, please elaborate on what the "eligibility" relevance is. Allow me to reiterate, because I want to engage in this credit issue of permissiible purpose, it is of GREAT interest to me: I believe that Marie mentioned something about medical debts, and there is no permissible purpose to collect on a medical debt. Here is what she says specifically: "eg: doctor's offices, hospitals etc are NOT considered credit as per the fcra... they can see if they want to originally do business with you... but cannot use your info later for either collections or "processing of your claim"... FTC opinion letters to this " Now look at Greenhouse v. TRW, (granting defendant summary judgment where defendant obtained plaintiff's credit report in an attempt to collect unpaid medical charges) A lot of personal attacks, with ZERO discussion about permissible purpose. LOL
George and Sarge- No offense, but this thread is about CREDiT. It is not entitled "attack The Kid". LOL I believe that Marie mentioned something about medical debts, and there is no permissible purpose to collect on a medical debt. Here is what she says specifically: "eg: doctor's offices, hospitals etc are NOT considered credit as per the fcra... they can see if they want to originally do business with you... but cannot use your info later for either collections or "processing of your claim"... FTC opinion letters to this " Now look at Greenhouse v. TRW, (granting defendant summary judgment where defendant obtained plaintiff's credit report in an attempt to collect unpaid medical charges) A lot of personal attacks, with ZERO discussion about permissible purpose. LOL Now I apologize that it had to be The Kid who added something new and informative to the FAQ. ))))))) Yeah, case law speaks louder than a poster's unsupported opinion. ))))))))))))))))))))))))
Hmmmmm....think maybe there is a reason no one wants to discuss any of the threads with ya? Heck, the Monday Night Football game is more interesting....LOL
It's cuz you can't attack my arguments, so you turn to attacking the person. Simple, old, recognizable tactics.. You haven't posted one thing about CREDIT in this thread, Sarge. Basically, is what happened is that I presented an opposing position to a long time poster's opinion, then supported it with on point case law, and that produced anger and resentment. Right Doc? LOL ;0)
That's veeery interesting Whyspers, tell me more. I'm currently working on suing EQ. for "suppressing" a good TL in order to reduce my score. There's no law against it but there should be. Sorry to high jack the PP thread. If the original inquirer wants to email me I'll be happy to help. I've already got my $1,000 for no PP. That's all the case law I need. LOL
Right, that was your whole point..to dilute a meritorious position, well supported by on point case law, on the subject of PERMISSIBLE PURPOSE. If you think that you "killed" the thread with your perssonal attacks, completely unrelated to CREDIT, then you can go to bed proud of having accomplished that. Great....
We would love to. Without spending any more than one minute to communicate with you let me say this because this is important. I'd love to see your "cases" but you never quote the links so we can go look. Everyone notices it but you. In Mickey Mouse Vs. The CreditNet Trouble Maker the judge clearly ruled that if you want the credability you demand, SOURCE YOUR MATERIAL!!! Further case law bolsters my point; Betty Boop Vs. Evil Kaneval Mohotma Ghondi Vs. The Tooth Fairy Godzilla Vs. The Smog Monster Go look, you'll see what I mean. LOL
Yeah, that's hilarious..you took a credit related thread and attempted to turn it into a mockery. Congrats, "Vets," you guys are true leaders.
