sticking it to the big 3

Re: Re: sticking it to the big 3

Ok..the letter forwarded to me (and I hadn't read this thread so wasn't sure what it was when I received it and was completely perplexed...LOL) is clearly a statement in the form of a letter by the county clerk who seems to be taking exception to the claim that a public record was certified by her. She also does state that their records are not internet accessible. It appears to be certified.

Now, that said..Trent, unfortunately, this one is out of my area of experience..and I wouldn't want to give an opinion and be wrong. I will however say that this looks like a valid rebuttal by the county clerk to a claim they feel is untrue.

And, on that, and with regret to not being more helpful, I will step out of this thread.

 

Re: Re: sticking it to the big 3

You aren't willing to post the letter you received from TU that would have the extact wording and titles used?

Those little wording changes are huge and completely change what you are saying or/are trying to say.

Sassy

 

Re: Re: sticking it to the big 3

ty Nana!!!!!!

See trent, that is a good example of how little word changes have huge meaning differences.

You said (court) clerk, Nana says county clerk. You said TU said the clerk of the county "verified and certified"

TU doesn't use the word "certified" in its generic communications.

Why would the court clerk be angry if TU said the clerk of the county verified.

A county clerk would never verify court records.

None of the courts verify or provide information to the CRA's -- the only provide the access to the information.

See what I mean.

Sassy

 

Re: Re: Re: sticking it to the big 3

No worries, trent, now we're getting somewhere.

The reinsertion matters, that's where the "certify" came from.

Who TU was saying verified versus who you were saying verified matters.

You've a huge case, slam-dunk in your favor too, TU wouldn't dare let it get in front of a judge or jury -- you willing to pursue it??????

I'm curious what other letter you have, you said in your first post you now had 2 confirming they were lying.

Sassy

 

Re: Re: Re: sticking it to the big 3

There's 2 clerks in your first post, that is what was confusing and as you went on to try and clarify, a court clerk and a county clerk.

You want to be sure that the letters you have from whatever clerk is the same clerk that TU said verified and the same clerk listed on your reinsertion letter.

It's the same source, yes? They match?

Sassy

 

Re: Re: Re: sticking it to the big

Nup, I'm flying with ya, that's been my experience as well and that is why this is such a hugeeeee violation for TU if your papertrail is in order.

The court is never the furnisher of information, the furnisher required to be disclosed. It is important because we have the right to dispute directly with the furnisher, you can't do that if the CRA's lie about the source.

The court never verifies the information.

The information is available yes, but someone has to go there and get it -- the courts don't provide it to anyone, they only provide access to public records.

Sassy

 

Re: Re: Re: sticking it to the big 3

First of all Trent, Relax. Nobody is attacking your credibility. (at least not yet). lol


In small town Texas, it doesn't surprise me that what you said happened, actually did happen.

When Jenz "suggested" it probably wouldn't happen, she's right. However I'm thinkin you guy's are all talking about a Civil Case being filed by Trent.

Who knows what these people have in mind when they do what they do. But I'll tell ya what; if I were a county Clerk, and a CRA wrote you a letter stating that I did something I did NOT do, first I'd get pissed.

Then I'd go straight to my friend (the Judge) and say "look at this crap. Is it possible they have committed fraud, perhaps through the mail?

The Judge would immediately want to talk to you and see your documents to assertain your adversaries criminal culpability.


In other words, is it possible that all these people at the court house want to examine the entire situation, contemplating a potential criminal referal to the DOJ, and FTC, perhaps the Postal Inspector?

A Civil Case and a Criminal Case are 2 very different animals.

It wouldn't surprise me a bit that what you said is factual. We just may be wrong about our interpretation as to "WHY" it happened.

see?



.

 

Re: Re: Re: sticking it to the big 3

When you asked for the procedures, trent, and received the generic listing from TU, what is the listing on that letter as to the source.

Not the one you posted (that's a requirement for reinsertion), the procedures in response to your dispute.

Sassy

 

Re: Re: Re: sticking it to the big

Also, btw - this could be a great case for Creditnet.



We've all struggled for a long time to try to get to the bottom of this mysterious "certification" business.

I've always known they don't do it, (even though they say they do) but we've never gotten to the bottom of it.


One thing you might consider is a demand for a copy of this certification. Even though we already know they don't have it.

Wouldn't it be interesting to see what kinda BS excuse they come up with on that one.

Now that would be worth waiting for.



For one thing we could see what their standard BS form letter looks like when people demand a copy of this certification.

We might find out how far they'd go to lie about it.

Etc,. Etc., Etc..


.

 

Re: Re: Re: sticking it to the big

Butch,

Can you go re-read the first page please so you can see what he's got, it's huge!!!!!

He has proof that there is no certification, not where public records are concerned.

Which is the point and the CRA's are required to disclose the furnisher of the information, they don't, it's a lie, always a lie where public records are concerned, he's got the proof.

Sassy