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: I wasnt aware the LK filed in Fed court. but if he did and wins I own the rights to the kodak moment lol
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 are you keeping stats on cases now?? who cares how many cases anyone has won, loss, dismissed etc the point of the matter is the law and how we can present it properly in court. this is a learning tool not a trophy ceremony My theory,opinion, or interpretation of law doesnt matter here its what the judge rules its about Presenting your arguement before the court in proper form with evidence to back up your right to the claim you are seeking. so we can look at cases all day and pick out some senerios and try to compare them to our cases but many factors exist in those cases just not what the law said. so I feel this discussion has become futile, I dont want to agree to disagree I actually burned out from all this second guessing crap. Ill just go with the flo and learn from the attorneys.
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: thx LK Ill check it out
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 has anyone read nelson v chase 00-15946 9th circuit Sorry couldnt post the link but I need an opinion on this plz
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: LK really kewl stuff here, spent alot of time reading it was great thx what the stats on your cases anything good yet ?
Re: trying to figure this one out This idea hiding90 seems to have that PP is good forever is ridiculous. The law says we cannot be penalized forever and so all negative information on our CR must be removed in 7 years, except for the few things that stay longer. The point is, everything has an end sometime. So under this crazy notion hiding90 has that PP is good forever, by pulling my report it is being reported again via the inquiry. Again, telling the world of creditors that I have an outstanding debt with such and such CA. And if this "loophole" exists in the law, and there is no caselaw to support a postition one way or another then perhaps we should hold a faxing, calling and letter writing campaign to all appropriate agencies and even our congressman that this is an issue that needs official resolve immediately. It should be a matter of law that once the SOL is up for reporting on CR then any and all inquiries re; this debt are forever barred. And for those CA who so blatently and arrogantly disregard the law the penalties should be trippled. And I really think that individual collectors should be held liabel for the abuse they heap on us. Jane.
Re: trying to figure this one out Jane FYI, hiding 90 was banned from CN shorty after the above post. although he did have some good arguements , I did not always agree with his theory, others on here had the same issues. In the discussions, case law was interpreted differently and some statements were twisted and misrepresented based on opinions. I did however find that some of what he had to say was in fact truth. as far as debts and SOL are concerned I was very confused in the beginning I was lead to believe that a CA could not collect a debt after the SOL, This was wrong they can still pursue a consumer for a debt after the SOL just not enforce legal action. if a C&D letter is sent to the CA, they can not contact you anymore to pursue collection of a debt, unless its under a few exceptions to the rule. however I have found that when working with a CA my ultimate goal was deletion of the TL so I sent a letter saying all communication was to be in writing only that way they could still work out a settlement agreement but they could not call and bug me.( in my case this was post SOL) PP disucssuion were a big deal on here as well, as you can see in this thread hiding stated that a CA can collect a debt forever, that may be partially true in some small aspects but ONLY IF a uninformed consumer allows it. we all know that the CRA can only report the debt for 7 yrs except in some cases( like BK judgments etc. and if the debts past the sol and the 7yr reporting period what hope would a CA have to collect a debt other than illegal means of threat or enticement to an uneducated consumer. the PP came into play as HIding 90 said that as long as the CA has a valid debt they call pull your report. question of arguement was what constitues a valid debt in this senerio? there wasn't one that why butch has started a new thread about needed cases, we are looking up arguements of case law for various areas of gray area and this was one of the topics. I hope you are not confused by this.
Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure this one out / pp This is correct; re: collection of a past SOL debt. A collector CAN attempt collection of a past SOL debt, including suit and seeking judgement. IT IS UP TO THE DEFENDANT TO CITE THAT DEBT IS PAST SOL AS DEFENSE. As for PP on hard inquiry, it is a PP IF, CA had account under their ownership, or "agency" (if CA had legitamate agreement w/OC).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure this one out / pp But does the CA have the right to report the debt beyond the 7 year reporting period,
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure this one out / pp Absolutely not. A negative acct can be reported for up to 7.5 years and no more. I would also suggest that if a ca pulls a report for "collection purposes" and then recieves a validation request within the initial 30 day period and can't or won't validate and ceases collection, that they at that point did NOT have a PP.
Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure th Here's the deal, the way I see it. The 7 years SOL to report on CR is based on the premise that you cannot suffer and be punished for the rest of your life. At some point, the SOL for everything, except murder comes due and you are set free from that burden you were carrying. Now if it's true that a CA can pull your CR anytime they feel like it, for ever and ever, for the rest of your life, then you are never really free the way the laws intended for you to be free. Which is why their is a SOL to begin with. So a real hardass CA decides to pull your CR every month from now until eternity? And hiding thinks that's permissable? LOL. I seriously doubt that this is ok. You at least could get an injuction against whatever CA was hassling you to stop them from ever pulling your CR on that debt. Because if the language indeed doesn't refer to the timelimit to do a pull, PP or not, then I am sure it is an oversight and easily corrected. And at the very minimum, I'm sure one could always get the judge to bar CA from doing that pull that they seem to think they have a PP to do 20 years after the SOL expires. Thanks hiding for the laugh. Jane
Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure th The only way a CA can get you to pay after the SOL, provided they haven't sued you before SOL, is to hope the consumer is stupid. The CA has no legal power to do anything to you or your money unless and until a Court Judgement is issued. Without that judgement, the CA is s**t out of luck. Jane
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figur This is silly and just not true. A CA cannot report forever and the CRA's and CA's (as a furnisher) are both responsible for accuracy and most importantly the commencement of delinquency date, which has to be provided to the CRA's within 90 days of the collection information. A CA couldn't have a 20-year old debt reported without lying about that all important date. Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying WELL GOODY FOR THEM. WE HAVE THE FEDERAL GOVT AND OUR STATE GOVT'S ON OUR SIDE.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I WOULD LOVE TO SEE HIDING TRY TO PULL MY CR FOR A DEBT THAT OCCURED 24 YEARS AGO OR EVEN 10 YEARS AGO. I WOULD ENJOY SPENDING HIS MONEY. JANE
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WELL HIDING, I REALLY THINK YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR MIND HERE BUT I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR YA. IF WHAT YOU SAY IS TRUE AND AS LONG AS THE DEBT REMAINS UNPAID, THEN CR CAN BE PULLED TILL FOREVER. SO HOW COME HIDING, NOT ONE OF MY CREDITORS EVER PULLED MY CR AFTER THE SOL WAS PAST? JANE
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure this one out / pp Hiding, the FDCPA and the validation provisions don't have anything to do with the FCRA and the permissable purpose section -- two seperate laws addressing different things. Flying with LKH, once a debt's validity is disputed, without the verification documents being provided, then under the FCRA there could be no purpose because the information upon which the pull was based, cannot be verified and therefore can't be reported. I don't agree that the inquiry should be deleted because the FCRA doesn't allow for it -- it should be recoded though, as erroneous or whatever, to be only viewable by the consumer. And, the consumer and the CRA should both be collecting their 1k from the CA. Hiding's just beating a dead horse. Sassy
