Purchased by another lender

If they aren't calling you, what exactly are they going to cease and desist from?

 

dispute it.... mine came off after two disputes. I'm relaly beleiving in the flip-of-the-coin theory.

 

Dispute the Discover. Lot's of times they won't bother to verify because they sold the debt.

Check your other reports to see if the CA is reporting on them. There are ways to get the reports for free too.

 

You owe them money, and you consider them scum?

 

That is an excellent question indeed, Haywood. We all know that all of these people posting here are nothing but deadbeats trying to figure out how to escape their responsibilities, don't we?

Or do we really have the right to assume any such thing? Do we have the right to automatically assume that just because some collector claims that people really do owe the money?

Yes, I am well aware that such is the case in the vast majority of situations. But is this one amongst the vast majority of cases?

And how do we or the person asking for help to resolve their problems know that the amount claimed is the correct amount that they really do owe?

Are people supposed to accept the bill without question? I don't think so and I seriously doubt you do either.

And it makes no difference even if those who post here know full well that it is their debt and it is the correct amount that they owe.

They still have the right to get an accounting for what is claimed. Who knows, maybe they need to prove to some other entity such as the police where they got some item they have in their possession.

Let's not be so damnably quick to judge the other fellow and his motives, eh??

 

I just find it so funny people get so giddy about credit cards and large limits. Its like they think its free money. Very few people can charge alot and pay them off every month.

Its just a cycle of charging, paying a low monthly payment, charging higher, untill they are in serious debt.

There is no reason to have lots of credit crads with 15,000 limits.

rant end.

 

Be that as it may, you still come off as being quite judgmental so since you are so good at it I'd like to ask you a question just to see how you would answer. Of course, anybody else may feel free to jump in with their "vote" as well.

Here is the question.
If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had syphilis; would you recommend that she have an abortion instead of allowing the baby she is carrying to be born?

And while you are at it try this one too.

It is time to elect a new world leader, and your vote counts.
Here are the facts about the three leading candidates:

Candidate A: Associates with crooked politicians, and consults
with astrologists. He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes
and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.

Candidate B: He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon,
used opium in college and drinks a quart of whisky every evening.

Candidate C: He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian,
doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and hasn't had any
extramarital affairs.

Which of these candidates would be your choice, A, B, or C?

 

Sorry, but all 3 answers you gave are wrong.

Haywood is history due to some outrageous acts he committed late last night so he won't be answering the questions, but the answers to all 4 questions are rather amazing and all actually describe real people who are famous but long since dead and gone. Only one of the "candidates" was an American presidential candidate and he did win the election.

And if anyone thinks that the woman in the 1st question should get an abortion, they just aborted one of the most brilliant musical geniuses of all history.

The whole point of the quizzes is to illustrate just how wrong people can be when they become too judgmental of others as haywood was beginning to do.

 

This speaks volumes about your ignorance.

Another S. A.

 

Prove it:
Now put up or shut up.

What a Dunder Head.!

 

Re: Re: Purchased by another lender

I tend to doubt that. Trolls don't ever act that way. Trolls have a definite purpose in mind for what they do and usually have a well planned course of action that is never varied by much. A good troll will never be perceived for what he actually is and certainly would not even dream of doing the things that haywood did. In my opinion the kinds of graphics that he introduced into this forum were nothing more than the actions of a sicko. Trolls are quite often pigs. And I'll bet most folks don't know what the term "pig" stands for either. Its a term invented by those to whom it is most often derogatorially attached. In other words, they though it was cute but it backfired on them. But then that is so often true of what happens when People In Government start messing around with the society they attempt to regulate.

So I guess another old saying most folks today never heard which is, "The yolks on you, you yegg." (LOL)

I doubt that very seriously.

Yes, and some historians claim that it is a story that has absolutely no basis in fact so who knows for sure. I may be old but I just can't remember back that far. (LOL)

Nope, not even close. Candidate A was Franklin D. Roosevelt. Now who are the rest.

Hint. They are not Americans.

 

Re: Re: Purchased by another lender

For the answer to that we have to look to two or more different laws.

C&D is a well established legal principle and although it may or may not have been introduced in to English law on June 15th, 1215 when the English Lords accosted their King in Runnymeade Meadow, pinned him to a tree by running a sword through the nape of his neck and forcing him to agree to and sign the Magna Carta which is certainly one of the most famous docments in world history and the document upon which the constitutions and legal framework of most civilized nations was founded upon it certainly was a most vivid illustration of the meaning of Cease & Desist. That sword brought home the point real quick.

So we can start with the Magna Carta and move on to more modern and more relevant laws such as FDCPA which says something to the effect that if a 3rd party collector receives a cease & desist from a consumer he must comply and describes what he may and may not do after that.

Then GLBA makes the point unmistakably clear that there can be one and only one original creditor and any party subsequent to the original creditor is a 3rd party collector. Therefore it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever that the debt was sold or assigned to some other person, natural or otherwise. They are 3rd party collectors. That applies to both natural and unnatural persons who may or may not have purchased the debt.

 

Re: Re: Purchased by another lender

Let it go, brown. He is history and can't reply to you. On top of that I seriously doubt anyone would want to see his reply if he did answer you.

 

Re: Re: Purchased by another lender

dang! I'm gone 1 day and see what I missed!!

 

Re: Re: Purchased by another lender

What you missed was utterly disgusting and more than enough to turn the stomach of any decent person.