Re: Re: Re: Re: Opinion on This Letter from Schrieb OK OK... I am just wondering what it will take to "make" everyone see the light.?? The info about "validation" is coming str8 from "National Comsumer Law Center" publication "Fair Debt Collection" it is concidered THE BIBLE for Consumer Law attornies who specialize in collection harrasment. I have been planning on copying word for word from the "VALIDATION" section of the book. But I often wonder if THIS would also be QUESTIONED as well?? Just wondering what it will actually take to convince some of you?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Opinion on This Letter from Schrieb This is exactly right gang, sorry. I knew the moment I saw that Hiding had the NCLC manual on FDCPA he'd be saying stuff that didn't seem to agree with our opinions here on CN. So far - I'm delighted to say - he hasen't, (at least for the most part). The tough thing about the NCLC Manuals is it does do "legal speak". Which as far as we're concerned around here often adds confusion rather than clarity. However, if we wish to argue with NCLC, we'll be wasting our time. In that, Hiding is right on. .
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Opinion on This Letter from Schrieb http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57441&highlight=hiding
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Opinion on This Letter from Schrieb We should ALL have this manual. http://www.consumerlaw.org/publications/manuals/fair_debt_collection.shtml It'll put you miles above your fellow credit repair enthusiast. PS: I just re-ordered mine. My order number is 2172. Lotta people have this.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Opinion on This Letter from Schrieb -I would agree with you Butch, THIS IS an everyday environment for me which I am quite confortable in. I need to promote the info in a more consumer friendly manner -I havent been posting much because I have been trying to write the info in a way everyone can understand it, but some of the legislative wording just cant be written any other way! lol (plus I am trying to avoid any flagerant copyright violations LOL) -As most of you by now have realized, I approach the credit "repair" issue from the "worst case scenerio" where all else has failed and you are confronted with the option to "Take it" or have to go to court to enforce your rights. -I have never meant to say anyone or anything on this and other boards was "wrong" (well unless it was LOL ), I have tried to point out the "flaws" or negative ramifications of the idea or technique. One of the biggest enemies we face is that the same "information" available to US as consumers, is ALSO available to the collection agencies etc. -It creates a scenerio like bacteria and antibiotics. After a while a certain strain of bacteria (collection agency/credit agency) start to "learn", and the antibiotic (techiques) become ineffective. -SO knowing the "final answer "(thanks Regis), puts the comsumer at an advantage. BUT learning the "final answer" is NOT EASY and less easily accepted. -It is quite easy to "flame" the "final answer" when it goes against the norm, and in particular if it goes against the very "Technique" you have used succesfully in the past. But KNOWING why a technique works or doesnt is just as valuable. -I hope that when I post, the reader will take in the info and conduct their own research and determine for themselves if it is correct and valuable instead of immediately assuming the info is wrong because it may be "new" and unheard of. -The NCLC books are a must have if you are faced with suits etc, or if you just want the "final answer." BUT, be careful, it is directed to attornies and includes a CD rom of sample pleadings etc which may get you in over your head
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Opinion on This Letter from Schrieb I know, Hiding, I'll just let everyone know now. When I first began watching Hiding post I foresaw this issue coming. So I carefully watched everything he's posted. It didn't take me long to realize that Hiding, knows/knew more than most about the internal workings of how this stuff worked. I looked for areas where one might argue with him. The bottom line is that far and away (for the most part) he has been right on. In fact that which I'd argue with Hiding about has been forgotten because it wasn't really very important anyway. I think (at least I like to think) the gang around here trusts me enough to know, that I would know, if someone' heart was or wasn't in the right place. Or that they were full of sh**. Well, Hiding is not FOS. In fact he's a great asset to the board. I personally expect to have some great debates with him in the future. Here's the one most important thing about Hiding and how he has been perceived around here so for. The NCLC Manuals are segmented into highly concentrated study areas. Like one manual for FCRA, and another for FDCPA, etc. These manuals are INCREDIBLY FOCUSED on their areas of study. What Hiding has been saying about Validation is technically correct. But ALSO very confined to the issue or question raised by the OP on various threads with respect to which specific Act applies. However, this stuff really is complex. Even tho the FDCPA may say one thing about an issue, there ARE other laws that can step in to help us, BUT if one is focused on just what the FDCPA says, it leaves out the possibility that another area of law might be of help in a given situation. Hiding has been extremely FOCUSED in his responses. (Arguably perhaps too focused). Please remember that when you guys feel like arguing with him. (And yes, I know sometimes you do). lol .
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Opinion on This Letter from Schrieb The one problem with trying to interpret the FCRA & FDCPA using a reference designed to be a bible for attorney's is that, neither act is designed to be interpreted by attorneys. Both are designed to be interpreted by the least sophisticated consumer, a.k.a. your peers.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Opinion on This Letter from Schrieb -Actually, the opposite is true: "..since the language of the statute was not written to be understandable to unsophisticated consumers." NCLC Fair Debt Collection Manual 5.7.2.2.1 -Furth v United Adjusters Inc. -FTC Letter Rosenburg 1991
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Opinion on This Letter from Schrieb I highly disagree with that referred quote. Even unsophisticated consumers can understand what constitutes false and misleading statements, and what constitutes unfair and deceptive business practices. Which actually makes up the majority of the FDCPA. Most consumers can identify collection activity, and what constitutes collection activity; the only exception would possibly be the fact that reporting to a credit bureau is actually defined as collection activity. Although a lot of consumers would suspect this, thanks to the CASS Opinion, they can have proof of that determination. Frankly, the FDCPA is one of the EASIEST pieces of legislation to read. (I know, that sounds like an oximoron... ) For the most part the FDCPA is as close to plain English as the legislature ever gets to writing. Granted, when I was in a pinch, I spent those three weeks intently reading the US Code for the FDCPA from the house web site, which I downloaded in Word format, basically eatting, drinking, sleeping the FDCPA.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Opinion on This Letter from Schrieb -I find it interesting that you "highly disagree with that referred quote", which is from the "bible" of debt collection, then refer to AN INFORMAL OPINION LETTER from the FTC -If you want to refer and hold an opinion letter as a higher standard than A COURT OF LAW, and an undisputed "legal bible", then feel free. -Ignorance IS bliss
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Opinion on This Letter from Schrieb -I must say I DID NOT MEAN a personal attack when I posted "ignorance is bliss" -It was MEANT TO BE a "commentary" on the basic human nature to rely on information and experiences which are "confortable" to us, and sometimes not allow ourselves to be open to "other" experiences and information. Sometimes I am just as guilty too
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Opinion on This Letter from Schrieb FTC Opinions & Commentaries are *THE* interpretation of the ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY on the FDCPA & FCRA. And in most cases, they have already analyzed the judgments and rulings which have come before, and represent it in a nice and easy to digest capsule. Who said that I don't read judgements, legal rulings, etc? I've read most of the major rulings; and many of them more than once. I have Johnson v. MBNA all nicely stored on my hard drive and refer to it constantly. The issue that I am addressing is the fact that LAWYERS seem to believe that it is impossible for consumers to read the law, and interpret it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Opinion on This Letter from Schrieb I'm very unsophisticated. I admit it. But I'm eager to educate myself. Thats why I ask, how come an FTC (the govt agency that regulates the collection industry) opinion letter is not held in just as high regard as this 'legal bible' (NCLC publication)? I'm also confused as to why you said 'COURT OF LAW' up there. does this publication come from a court? I told you i was unsophisticated. from the NCLC website 'about us' page: "The National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) is the nationâ??s consumer law expert, helping consumers, their advocates, and public policy makers use powerful and complex consumer laws on behalf of low-income and vulnerable Americans seeking economic justice." I'm really confused now. lol.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Opinion on This Letter from Schrieb -Boy, this post bit me in the ass! lol "Thats why I ask, how come an FTC (the govt agency that regulates the collection industry) opinion letter is not held in just as high regard as this 'legal bible' (NCLC publication)? " -The FTC opinion letters are just that. If you read the disclaimer at the end of all the letters, you see "This is an informal staff opinion and is not binding on the Commission" -Although some courts will refer to the opinion letters and AGREE with them, other courts DIRECTLY DISAGREE and comment the FTC "erroneously stated.." etc. -BUT, the FTC is good at "updating" their opinon letters in response to case law which contradicts their opinions. -The NCLC is a legal resource which incorporates FTC opinions, case law, UNPUBLISHED decisions, commentary on statutes etc. It pretty much does the research work for you. "from the NCLC website 'about us' page: "The National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) is the nationâ??s consumer law expert, helping consumers, their advocates, and public policy makers use powerful and complex consumer laws on behalf of low-income and vulnerable Americans seeking economic justice."" -Nice way to say "least sophisticated" I guess "I've read most of the major rulings; and many of them more than once. I have Johnson v. MBNA all nicely stored on my hard drive and refer to it constantly." http://www.creditsuit.org/blog/archives/000362.html -Keep in mind though, that is a GREAT case for the FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT 623 (b). It addresses what "reasonable investigation" is and "Requires" the collection agency AND the reporting agency to conduct a "reasonable investigation" upon receipt of a DISPUTE per FCRA 611 & 623 (b) -Although it is not a FDCPA validation case, the process descibed by MBNA as their "investigation", CAN BE CONSTRUED as the standard of "validation/verification" -THIS IS JUST MY OPINION ON THIS POINT. -Either way, the process MBNA describes in the case IS what MOST collection agencies ACTUALLY DO upon receipt of a validation request. It shows just how UNLESS you are very specific in your verification request, it can EASILY be verified. "The issue that I am addressing is the fact that LAWYERS seem to believe that it is impossible for consumers to read the law, and interpret it." -I agree 100%. My father refred to most attornies as "over educated idiots".
