Re: Ready to sue now Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes Dave... Depending upon the claim, filing fees for small claims can be less than $30 bucks.... Still $5 cheaper than even a single month of CreditWrench...
Re: Ready to sue now Oh, I've got some issues already before the courts and I'm getting my stuff done for free. I don't have to worry about nothing that way. Just go along for the ride. Mine aren't on my credit anymore but that don't make any difference. I've had my rights violated and I'm gonna make them pay big time. No use paying for Exlax in the smaller courts when I can enjoy the real sweet stuff for free
Re: Ready to sue now As I recall, not once did Bill even remotely suggest that she become a customer of his. Not only that, but he repeated at least twice that the object was to get an attorney who would take the case on for free. Bill can't even do something nice around here without someone bitching at him. Jeez, talk about your one note symphonies.
Re: Ready to sue now BULL*&^&(! Bill... There is no way you've got a pending court case for free. Someone is paying the court fees! They don't just waive them! Stop misleading people!
Re: Ready to sue now I've used contingency attornies twice, and never once paid a dime out of pocket for filing fees. Those fees are deducted at the end. The lawyer generally fronts the cost.
Re: Ready to sue now So, they are not free.. Thank you... If you settle for anything other than cash, where do you think the court costs and lawyer fees are made up? Out of the consumers pocket... right? What if you loose? Who pays the court costs then? What about if you loose and the defendants ask for lawyers fees? Huh? What about that? And btw, why do you think he asked for them to send him an email..... That's where the hard sell for creditwrench is going to be now... looks like he doesn't want anyone listening as he makes his pitch for business. Too many people calling him on violations of CROA and stuff. Otherwise he could have just posted the lawyer contacts here... for everyone to see... It's a salespitch!
Re: Ready to sue now Of course the fees and stuff comes out of the final settlement. So what? If you get paid anything at all, it's money you never had in your pocket before. So if you got money you never had before then it's free money. Anybody know that. OH yeah, but not the EXLAX KID. He ain't figured that out yet. HEY! Great question! Glad you asked about that. And what if you go to small claims court, file a case pro se and you lose? NOT LOOSE, GOOSE. THAT'S THE RESULT OF TAKING EXLAX and the defendants ask for lawyers fees? Huh? What about that? YOU TELL 'EM EXLAX Yeah, I could have posted the links right here on the board for everybody to see. It's already been posted on the board a zillion times. A whole list of good ones and if I remember right, it was posted by Breeze. What do you want me to do, add another bunch of ludicrous gaudy taglines listing the links to all of them so people don't have to ask? Then my messages would look as stupid as yours. Thanks, but no thanks. Yeah right Exlax, it's another sales message. ROFL
Re: Ready to sue now Bill... since when are you one to conserve space in a posting? I guess the truth hurts. The personal attacks are really getting boring Bill. If you can not keep it on the topic and feel the need to SLAM me by calling me ELAX why don't you do it in a chat room... You're really starting to look silly.
Re: Ready to sue now Well I searched the web... For Michigan: 1) Small claims is limited to $3000. If I file a lawsuit for over $600, I have to pay $32.00 filing fee. (Under is $17.00). Also a $5.00 Serving Fee if I want to court to use a process server (I could do this Certified mail/Return Reciept for ~$3.90). 2) I am supposed to file "in the city or county where the transaction in dispute took place, or where the person or business you are suing is located." I am a bit confused on this; does it mean I can sue in my city because the violation occured here? Or does there have to be an office of GMAC in the city where I sue? 3) Would it be presumtious of me to try to sue such a large company for willful noncompliance? I mean, yes I do feel they violated the laws, but how could such an organization violate something that has been established? I keep feeling that I am missing something here? I would be using the FDCRA sec 805 (I have it copied, and would definately use the correct section)... I read and re-read (and will read again!) to make sure that I am going for the right action. Should I site all 5 incidneces, or stick with the two phone calls that came after the validation letter? Of course I have tons more questions... like should I send them a CC/RR before I sue, etc..... And yes, I will check with a real attourney... Deb @ Mich St
Re: Ready to sue now Ok, here's another thread ruined by Bill and Bkev. You guys need to stop this. Doc
Re: Ready to sue now 1.) I would take it to the limit... some others will sue for the min. 2.) You can do either. Make it easy on yourself, sue in the county where your home mailing address is.... 3.) Look at sections 616 and 617... $1000 per violation or actual costs (you don't have to show actual costs but they could be the additional APR on a loan/credit card) plus court costs. Did you tell them about the issue and they failed to correct it? I would say that's wilful and falls under 616. Did they accidently do something? Still a violation, but it would fall under 617. Most small claims court filing papers are short for a reason. You'll have an opportunity to go into detail later... for now I would simply put "for multiple violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act". You can send them a letter (CM-RRR) with the charges and your offer to settle prior to filing a case. Some ignore these, others settle them just the same way as a pending case. It's whatever you feel comfortable with doing... no right or wrong answer. GOOD LUCK!
Re: Ready to sue now No, it would not be presumptious for you to sue such a large company. Not in the least. But it might very well backfire on you and then you would be in bad shape before. It's one thing to find errors in a small claims court judgment and file motion to vacate judgment because you have the solid proof that cannot be denied that the judgment is defective and therefore void upon it's face. Even that is frought with problems and a lot of anxiety until it's over. And doing so is free because you cross file on the original motion using the same case numbers as the ones in the judgment that was already filed against you. Therefore you are not opening a new case which would cost you filing fees and all of that. I have all of the necessary forms on my website that you need and plenty of examples for you to use so you can see how to do it. All of that is for free and not one penny of charge for the information nor the forms that I provide you. All you do is download them or print them off and fill in the blanks with the proper info and go file it. And you won't even owe me the time of day or tell me you did it. I'll never know if you don't tell me. That way it's pretty risk free. But when you start sueing somebody else, that's a whole 'nother ballgame. You can do it if you are not asking for a big monetary settlement and you just want to get your record fixed up. There isn't really a lot to fight about in the first place and the big companies usually figure they might as well give in rather than fight. That's why some folks here on the board are having the luck they seem to be having. But if you are asking for a bunch of damages or are really ticking the big boys off then it's far better to get a good lawyer who will take the case on a fee contingency basis. That way when it's all said and done the lawyer has fronted the money for the suit, he has done all the legwork and he has researched your case. Of course there is no free lunch. Any fool knows that. And of course this is no different. Let's say you get some cash settlement. Just to give you an illustration of what I mean, let us assume that the lawyer got you $1.00 as your settlement. It cost him 2 ¢ for the filing fees and the court costs. It cost him another 1 ¢ to get the other party sued. Now you have 97 ¢ left. The lawyer wants say 50% of the settlement so he gets a total of 47.5 ¢ plus the 3 ¢ costs so he ends up with 50.5 ¢ and you end up with your 47.5 ¢ and let's also assume that you went into the courthouse flat broke with not a penny in your pockets and you walked out the other end with 47.5 ¢ in your pocket. If that isn't Free, it's his brother. So you do what you want, but I'm telling people that don't know how to go to court and win that they should get a competent attorney they can feel that they can do business with and let them go up against those big companies and their high dollar lawyers. They are tough birds and they know what they are doing. I couldn't care less which attorney you finally decide to get. I'll give you a whole list of them and you can choose the one you want and you don't have to tell me which one you choose and you don't have to tell the lawyer you choose that you ever heard of me. I don't care.
Re: Ready to sue now So read your email, dear Bill.... ;-) Deb @ Mich St who always hedges her bets...
Re: Ready to sue now Which is EXACTLY why you take you one free consultation with a competent contingency fee attorney. If they won't take the case, then it was a loser to begin with and you just saved yourself the $32 or whatever it is to file in small claims, then give up a day of your life to argue in front of a judge and end up losing anyway. Seems to me there is LESS at risk by consulting (for free) with a well recommended contingency fee attorney rather than just shooting from the lip.
Re: Ready to sue now We will just have to agree to disagree... lawyers don't take cases they can not easily win... Look at LKH's issues with securng a lawyer with a slamdunk case. It's not as simple as you make it out to be... YES there are times to use a lawyer... but YES there are times you don't have to......
Re: Ready to sue now Why are you so dead set against someone gathering information from anyone but you? What does it cost to sit down with a competent contingency fee attorney? EXACTLY Nothing, so why shouldn't she explore her options? She might find she has a case worth considerably more, even after fees are deducted than she can sue for in small claims. She might find she has Volkswagon sized holes in her case. Either way she is out nothing and in much better position to make an informed decision. I have a theory Bkev. I can't help but wonder, since I see one Regular after another dropping off this board, and the rate of posting running about half or less what it was a month ago, since you started your little tirade, if that isn't exactly what you goal is. Perhaps you are deliberately trying to stifle discussion on this board. Perhaps you work for one of the CRA's or maybe a competing forum and you are simply sabotaging the competition. Perhaps you have particularly targeted one crotchety guy on this board because he has made some effective (though certainly not secret or magic) methods available to people who simply don't have the time to do all the research and memorize every last little strategy themselves. I, like Erica, and many of the others have simply stopped listening to you. I simply don't want to see Debmac misled by you into thinking that your way is the only way, and that if she dares to question the Great and Powerful Bkev, that she is somehow beneath contempt, or just hopelessly stupid, like Bill, and I suppose, myself. For all his flaws, like letting you bait him and drag him down into your gutter instead of taking the high road, for instance, I'll take Bill's advice, paid for or not, over anything you have to say. You're just not worth the trouble.
Re: Ready to sue now Quixote: I'm sorry you don't agree with me. Thats your right. I respect that. I agree with your right to have a different opinion. Why do you have a problem with someone knowing all the facts instead of just what you think? I'm 100% for empowering people. I think that the best decisions are informed decisions. When people are only being given one side of the story, they're being sold a line. I have ZERO problem with her talking with a lawyer. I just point out that it can cost money and that they may turn her down with a good case because it's not worth their time. Doesn't mean she would not win... means it's not in their best interests to persue it. Quixote... You're welcome to your theories no matter how off base you are. If you don't like my exercising my first admendment option, you can turn me on ignore. It seems you have a problem whenever people disagree. I'm sorry, but at least my arguements are always fact based, never personal cuts like the other person. As far running people away, I will tell you I get emails from people daily supporting me. I get private messages in chat supporting me. PBM has NOT told me to stop. I've asked again for a "ruling", for a lack of a better word, on this subject. I eagerly await his response. I never said my way was the only... it's not my way either, its the law. I'm sorry that you have a problem with it. It's very clear if you will look at the facts... Bill is breaking the law. I am not. Bill takes "discussions" personal and attacks people who express a different opinion. I do not. Bill SLAMS me every chance he gets. I've said that sometimes his methods are options for people to explore. What you will notice is that none of the Regular Members go to Bill for pay service now. Granted some have used his services in the past, but I don't know of any that see the need once they take the time to read the laws and watch the posts. They don't need it. I'm sorry you have stopped listening to me. That is your choice. But maybe you should put me on ignore, because you're responding to the messages. Finally Quixote... I'd welcome you showing me one time, just once, where I have baited and drug Bill down in the gutter.... Proof please or I would appreciate you to also make false statements to mislead people. Have a good evening. I understand if you put me on ignore.
One more thing... Creditnet is not a click... it's not a cult... it's a discussion board... If you want to only talk with a few people, start your own board and restrict memberships. I appreciate the fact PBM allows open discussions. I wish Doc would rerun some of those lovely member stats. I think you will see the numbers of posts, new members and active discussions are much higher now that anytime. And you think that's a bad thing because some people choose to be in a more personal group with people who think like they do? I'm sorry, but creditnet.com is an advertising revenue supported board. Even if Bill refuses to pay.
