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 no where in this case that I saw decribes Lusk as having disputed the PP with the CRA or with the puller directly. how can a PP be used to assume that money MAY be OWed. it hasnt been determined yet that they was a PP as no actual debt exsited during this time. In my OPINION I see that lusk failed to address his contentions properly therfore he did not prevail. from what LK has posted I dont see how the 2 are directly related. Lusk failed to prove the proponderance of the evidence here it would be applicable on the point that tenant screening was an issue as to when the offer was extended to rent a home/apt but I dont see the PP in obtaining a consumer file in connection that a debt MAY? or MAY NOT be owed. I think it is a good point just wasnt presented properly. I dont see where the defense proved their side either.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying t Where did I say the appeal is not the final decision???? That's what I thought, I didn't. I noticed the highlighted portions and knew exactly where your definition of unpublished and the rules associated with it came from where you posted it as factual in the other thread. Like I said, you don't have a clue and this confirms it for anyone that had any doubts. If you think that is what the rules are regarding citing an unpublished case, you need to do some state and court specific reading of the rules for unpublished opinions. Here's what you SHOULD have highlighted: 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 "Lusk failed to prove the proponderance of the evidence here it would be applicable on the point that tenant screening was an issue as to when the offer was extended to rent a home/apt but I dont see the PP in obtaining a consumer file in connection that a debt MAY? or MAY NOT be owed. " -Actually, this is NOT a "rent screening" case. It is attempting to collect a debt for damages a tenant caused.
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 "Like I said, you don't have a clue and this confirms it for anyone that had any doubts. If you think that is what the rules are regarding citing an unpublished case, you need to do some state and court specific reading of the rules for unpublished opinions. " Ok...your right...I know nothing about anything. so sassy...since you can clearly see I am an idiot....show me....point me to where I and others can educate ourselves on this...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying t I did!!!!!!!!!! I highlighted it for you even. Pick any court you want and go read its rules (for the 3rd time now) for unpublished opinions.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying t BTW I saw your post BEFORE you edited, thanks for that confirmation as well. Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying t I posted this hiding not sassy B]"Lusk failed to prove the proponderance of the evidence here it would be applicable on the point that tenant screening was an issue as to when the offer was extended to rent a home/apt but I dont see the PP in obtaining a consumer file in connection that a debt MAY? or MAY NOT be owed. " hiding 90 quote} -Actually, this is NOT a "rent screening" case. ************************************** Hiding I know that but read the PP statement FAB's stated purpose for the request, pre-rental screening, constituted a legitimate business need even though it was erroneous. to me this shows Knowledge **************************************** 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. **************************************** they had no right to the pull in my opinion money was not due , it was stated possible money due again this shows knowledge, intent of the mind. there is no PP for possible that I could see the judge agreeing in this case.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying t "they had no right to the pull in my opinion money was not due , it was stated possible money due again this shows knowledge, intent of the mind. there is no PP for possible that I could see the judge agreeing in this case" umm but they did! thats the point LOL
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying t Hiding are you saying yes they did what have a pp? I think they didnt , but disregarded the rules and pulled anyway they figured what could happen. i think they were being snoopy. if the tenant did owe which in this case was not yet determined what would be the need for the landlord to pull his CR ? tell me if you were a landlord and an apt was damages from your tenant, what rights without having a judgment do you have to pull my CR? if it was not determined you could be held liable for the damage yet? BUT was it legal isnt that the whole arguement here. I remember reading somewhere unless there is a valid debt or judgment there is no PP in regards to consumer reports within the scope of debt collection. I have to go find it again and post it tommorrow.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying t "I remember reading somewhere unless there is a valid debt or judgment there is no PP in regards to consumer reports within the scope of debt collection. " LOL this is what this WHOLE thead is about.. THIS IS JUST A THEORY. THERE IS NOTHING that says this other than "beleifs" My point has been just that....there is only cases AGAINST this theory.. FUN..check your mail
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying t ok i will, I need to call it a nite I repost tommorrow after I look up some cases to see if there is anything other than theory. the law library is 2 miles away I think Ill pull the annotated codes while im at it and get back to you all
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying t find the Lusk case...the original..it will be in the state "reporter"
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: tryi didnt waste anything but thanks for caring.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying t ****************************************** hiding how is this directly related to LK case?? I dont see that this case was disputed with the CRA or the furnisher LK case was he first disputed the pull with the CRA then contacted the puller as per the CRA instructions and inquired as to the purpose for the pull they ignored him in this instance they failed to verify that they had pp and the CRA failed to maintain procedures unless I am missing something here?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: tryi -1. There is NOTHING IN THE LAW which requires them to investigate inquiries. Yes yes "maximum accuracy" etc etc blah blah. INQUIRIES HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED IN COURT. -2. The reporting agency has a firm defense against any claim of "impermissible access" because the contract with the "puller" requires the puller to "certify" ALL THEIR pulls will be permissible. So reporting agency is off the hook. -3. The reporting agencies' "instructions" to contact the puller DOES NOT establish anything. They could also tell you to jump off a cliff! -4. "they ignored him in this instance they failed to verify that they had pp and the CRA failed to maintain procedures" This is the problem. -5. The reporting agency and the puller ARE NOT REQUIRED TO "VERIFY" their permissible purpose. PERIOD. NOT TO THE CONSUMER, NOR THE REPORTING AGENCY. -6. The "subsriber" is only required to "certify" in their contract with the reporting agency that they have permissible purpose. -7. THE Lusk case establishes, in at least ONE COURT, that the collection agency does NOT have to reply, provide the reason, or "Verify" their permissible purpose with the consumer after the consumer's request. LUSK- "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." -Regardless if the case is UNPUBLISHED, the court still said it. AT THE LEAST, it gives us an idea of how they may rule/react when LK poses the "theory" that by them not responding, they are somehow "guilty". -8. LK is not suing because they failed to "verify/respond", BUT THIS IS THE "heart" OF THIS CASE. -Additionally, there is a HUGE BURDON on the consumer: Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION 352 F.3d 896;2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 25791 "To prove willfulness under the Act, Plaintiffs must "show that the defendant knowingly and intentionally committed an act in conscious disregard for the rights of the consumer." Dalton v. Capital Associated Indus., Inc., 257 F.3d 409, 418 (4th Cir. 2001) Plaintiffs have failed "to produce any evidence whatsoever of knowing, intentional, or willful" FCRA violations by either BAAF or any of its employees. n4 " -The collection agency just has to say "your honor, the inquiries were in connection with collecting a debt. LK's validation rights had expired, and we were not REQUIRED BY LAW to reply to him. Additionally your honor, we have been made aware of several posts in an internet forum, in which the plaintiff, known as LK in the forum, has stated on several occassions, that his cases are "a free stab" at suing, and there was no consequences if he had not filed in good faith. It is out position that LK has used the legal process as a "game" and as such, we request this case be dismissed, and out legal fees be paid by plaintiff. We have also learned that he plans an additional 59 questionable cases. We request the court rule LK as a "sue happy" and he be barrred from filing further cases.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hiding did you read my response to the case you e-mailed me? it said the puller is not required to inform the consumer that they pulled the report or what it contained. it is that exactually period > it has nothing to do with nor does it state anywhere that the puller doesnt have to give an aswer to the consumer "WHY " they pulled the report. they need to verify that they did have PP while the CRA can assune whatever they want to if the consumer disputes it they do have a right to know the PP from the puller. I believe LK has a valid case to argue
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: R ***************************************** oh no you didnt LK my vigin eyes !!! eek lol I think you are both obsessed here. do you guys dream about this in your sleep too ?? j/k
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bump for hiding ??
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "they need to verify that they did have PP while the CRA can assune whatever they want to if the consumer disputes it they do have a right to know the PP from the puller. " quid pro quo... PROVE it
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the proper question here should be let the puller prove to the court he had a PP. the consumers report was pulled, just because the puller says or claims they had pp is one thing but to actually have a valid PP it is another .. this is a matter the judge needs to decide not for continued debate and opinion
