Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure this on thank you for your reply can you please tell me what those few exceptions might be ???
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure this on ok you left me hanging here I want to know can you at least point to some research that I can look up ?? PLZ
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure this on http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/fdcpact.htm#805 § 805. Communication in connection with debt collection [15 USC 1692c] (c) CEASING COMMUNICATION. If a consumer notifies a debt collector in writing that the consumer refuses to pay a debt or that the consumer wishes the debt collector to cease further communication with the consumer, the debt collector shall not communicate further with the consumer with respect to such debt, except -- (1) to advise the consumer that the debt collector's further efforts are being terminated; (2) to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor may invoke specified remedies which are ordinarily invoked by such debt collector or creditor; or (3) where applicable, to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor intends to invoke a specified remedy. If such notice from the consumer is made by mail, notification shall be complete upon receipt.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure this on thx jenz involke special remedy ?? what would that be considered?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure this on Actually, it is a case....kinda the whole "case cite" thing explains that. And yes, it was an appeal, an appeal of the UNSECCESFUL CASE WHERE THE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO STATE A case cite to support his "therory"......KINDA LIKE LK's...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure this on whats a case hiding? what are you referring to did I miss something?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure this on FUN....it was a response to this.... quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by hiding90 Case for LK... Lusk v. TRW, Inc., No. 97-4127, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 4, 1999, Filed "Third, FAB had a permissible purpose for requesting Lusk's credit report--collection of money possibly due Lusk's landlord for damage in Lusk's apartment. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(3)(A) (current version at 15 U.S.C.A. § 1681b(a)(3)(A) (West 1998)). Lusk cited to no controlling authority for his proposition that a collection agency ceases to have a permissible purpose for requesting a credit [*4] report after a debtor contests the debt in writing." IF THIS ISNT CLOSE....I DONT KNOW WHAT IS!!! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You said it, you don't know what is! That isn't a case, it's a snippet from the appeal that gives no details or context as to what the case and arguments were or weren't. All that out of context snippet says is that Lusk cited no controlling authority -- doesn't mean there isn't one, means Lusk didn't do it. And, it certainly doesn't address the issue one way or another of whether a permissable purpose exists.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure this on ok im going to go dig it up now & read it and see what it says. thx
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure this on hiding was unable to locate this case at all do you have the link? where did you find it?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure this on LOL Yes, FUN it is a case.......that was a quote from Sassy saying it was not a real case.. Lusk v. TRW, Inc., No. 97-4127, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 4, 1999, Filed http://www.lexisone.com/caselaw/fre...mbined Federal Cases&sourceFile=GENFED;COURTS join lexisone for free then hit the link or search for the case by name THIS IS AN APPEAL. The consumer lost. I am going to the law library in the am to get the orignal case..
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure thi Not Jenz, don't know where that came from??? It isn't "special remedy" it's specific remedy, such as notification that legal action will be commenced to enforce collection. Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure thi thx sassy whew im releaved
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure thi Still twisting and misquoting, eh? NEVER did I say it was not a real case. You really should use the quote function, and it's obvious that you purposefully refuse to, no matter how many times asked by how many different people. I said it was a snippet of an APPEAL without enough details to do anyone any good and didn't address the issue of permissable purpose either way. Convenient the portions that you left out so you could call the decision something that it wasn't, bare bones that it was, the ruling was whether or not oral arguments were needed. You also left out that it is NOT a published decision so not useful to anyone either. Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure thi Blah blah blah.. Yes, it was a case...IT WAS DEPUBLISHED and the APPEAL IS LEFT. THE RULING ON THE APPEAL IS ALL THE INFO WE HAVE becase the original case was APPEALED AND THE APPEAL IS THE FINAL DECISION
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure IF you had any credibility left with anyone, and that's a BIG IF, it is surely gone now. You really don't have a clue and are spewing -- AND, this is absolute proof of it. As I previously advised you, your facade fell off a few hundred posts ago -- if anyone didn't catch it then, surely they know now. Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure what good is an appeal without a final conclusion ? an opinion should be stated in full , otherwise it can be interpreted many different ways using various senerios for its outcome. I dont see the logic in debating a possible outcome if one is not precisely mentioned.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure blah blah blah
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to fi SO Sassy..the appeal is NOT the final decision?? ...Ill post the case/appeal below......NOTICE THE HIGHLIGHTED parts about unpublshed Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to fi 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 1848,* JEFFREY WILLS LUSK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRW, INC.; FEDERAL ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC., Defendants-Appellees. No. 97-4127 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 1848 February 4, 1999, Filed NOTICE: [*1] NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION. SIXTH CIRCUIT RULE 206 LIMITS CITATION TO SPECIFIC SITUATIONS. PLEASE SEE RULE 206 BEFORE CITING IN A PROCEEDING IN A COURT IN THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. IF CITED, A COPY MUST BE SERVED ON OTHER PARTIES AND THE COURT. THIS NOTICE IS TO BE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED IF THIS DECISION IS REPRODUCED. (rule 206 here http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/rules/frame.htm) SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Reported in Table Case Format at: 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 12714. PRIOR HISTORY: Southern District of Ohio. 96-00627. Kemp (M). 9-16-97. DISPOSITION: Lusk's request for oral argument denied and the district court's judgment affirmed. COUNSEL: JEFFREY WILLS LUSK, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Columbus, OH. For TRW, INC., Defendant - Appellee: John Q. Lewis, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Cleveland, OH. For TRW, INC., Defendant - Appellee: Elizabeth P. Kessler, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Columbus, OH. For FEDERAL ADJUSTMENT BUREAU INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee: Robert M. Sanders, Reynoldsburg, OH. JUDGES: Before: SILER, BATCHELDER, and COLE, Circuit Judges. OPINION: ORDER Jeffrey Wills Lusk, proceeding pro se, appeals a district court judgment dismissing his civil action filed pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 168 et seq. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(1), Rules of the [*2] Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a). Seeking monetary relief, Lusk sued Federal Adjustment Bureau, Inc. (FAB) and TRW, Inc., essentially asserting that: 1) TRW provided his credit report to FAB without having reason to believe a permissible purpose existed pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681b; 2) TRW did not maintain reasonable procedures, as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1681e, to prevent FAB from accessing his credit report for impermissible purposes; 3) FAB obtained his credit report without a permissible purpose; and 4) FAB obtained his credit report under false pretenses. The district court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment and found Lusk's subsequent motion for summary judgment and his other miscellaneous motions to be moot. Lusk's timely appeal is construed as reasserting his claims. He also argues that the district court erred by not granting his motion in limine, and he requests oral argument. Upon de novo review, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Harrow Prods., Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 64 F.3d 1015, 1019 (6th Cir. 1995). First, TRW had sufficient reason to believe that FAB had a legitimate business need for Lusk's report because FAB had previously certified that it would only request reports for specified permissible purposes, and FAB's stated purpose for the request, pre-rental screening, constituted a legitimate business need even though it was erroneous. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(3)(E) (current version at 15 U.S.C.A. § 1681b(a)(3)(F) (West 1998)); 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(a); Boothe v. TRW Credit Data, 557 F. Supp. 66, 71 (S.D.N.Y. 1982). Second, Lusk failed to present any significant probative evidence rebutting TRW's evidence that its security screening procedures for new members, such as FAB, constituted reasonable procedures in compliance with 15 U.S.C. § 1681e. Third, FAB had a permissible purpose for requesting Lusk's credit report--collection of money possibly due Lusk's landlord for damage in Lusk's apartment. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(3)(A) (current version at 15 U.S.C.A. § 1681b(a)(3)(A) (West 1998)). Lusk cited to no controlling authority for his proposition that a collection agency ceases to have a permissible purpose for requesting a credit [*4] report after a debtor contests the debt in writing. Fourth, FAB did not obtain the report under false pretenses. FAB had a permissible purpose and Lusk failed to show that FAB willfully indicated the incorrect reason when it requested his credit report from TRW. See Duncan v. Handmaker, 149 F.3d 424, 428 (6th Cir. 1998). Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to grant Lusk's motion in limine challenging the admissibility of the defendants' affidavits. Review of the affidavits shows that they fully complied with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Accordingly, Lusk's request for oral argument is denied and the district court's judgment is affirmed. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to fi so...lets start over....what does this case say or mean?
