Ok guys...new question for you! Is it possible to call the creditors on your reports and ask them to verify the account for you? I would use a calling card and pay phone of course. But could you have them fax (to a popular copying store) their proof and informattion for your records (name,...). Would asking for proof of say a copy of the old bill be renewing the 7 years? Thanks so much! Eric
Creditor Challenges Eric: What your asking is possible albeit much more effective if done in writing, preferably by Certified Mail. Direct creditor challenges should mostly be engaged, however, after the CRA has received a subscriber (creditor) response resulting from a standard dispute. If you challenge the creditor beforehand it is very likely the collections department, which generally oversees CBR disputes, will require you to go through the traditional CRA dispute process anyway. As in the earlier discussion your letter should be courteous and businesslike, simply asking by what standard (proof) the creditor maintains was supplied to the CRA. Also I wouldnâ??t recommend a direct challenge unless you can unquestionably prove the CBR item is erroneous, and are prepared to supply such to the creditor (upon request). If after you allow the creditor a reasonable effort to resolve the issue(s), and they still cannot (or refuse to) respond accordingly â?? perhaps after three (3) or four (4) letters. Then you may want to caution the creditor regarding compliance with FCRA parameters concerning submissions of false and unsustainable information. That is, allude to or flatly state a contention that in your view such conduct is noncompliant (if thatâ??s applicable). And, no, simply challenging DOES NOT reset any statute whatsoever; just donâ??t acknowledge a willingness to pay the debt or account for it monetarily. Keep The Faith, Anthony Villaseñor
RE: Creditor Challenges Horseshit! Dispute any error with the original creditor first. Sue them for libel if they don't correct it, and they are wrong.
Yup, Crap Is Crapâ?¦ - Pat: I know you mean well, only clearly donâ??t know any better. A cause of action for â??liableâ? is wholly inappropriate in the context of noncompliance with FCRA, in part, due to libelous per quod. Extrinsic evidence showing defamatory intent would be very hard to come by (in the extreme), because it likely wouldnâ??t exist. To prevail in a cause for â??liableâ? one would have to show a deliberate and purposeful aim to damage the express reputation or â??good nameâ? of the victim, hardly something CRAs or creditors set out to do. A proper COA would be complaints under 15. U.S.C. §1681n (and/or O)â?¦ But then again, I suppose some folks are better at guesswork than realityâ?¦ Yes, I agree, crap is crap no matter how one sniffs it out. Keep The Faith, Anthony Villaseñor
RE: Yup, Crap Is Crapâ?¦ - No better source for bad advice than a first year law student. Before dismissing Anthony's post so thoughtfully, Pat, you should take into consideration he actually knows what he's talking about from experience as well as education. Some of your posts, Pat, are embarrassingly uninformed, misinformed, and ridiculous. It's easy to understand that B- you mentioned.
RE: Actions speak louder than Whatever you may think of him, his supposed faults and his advice you cannot take away the fact these he's been successful in a number of lawsuits. (Anybody who kicks Fleets' ass TWICE has got my respect). Which by itself already puts him head and shoulders above the numerous "all talk no action" whiners and crybabies seen and running many credit sites.
...Providing ACTION is truly t Steven: You know your statement presupposes the subject at issue truly filed, not alone prevailed in any such lawsuits. But hay Iâ??m not here to knock anyone for trying, I simply think the attempts are misplaced yet noteworthy. Whereas I mainly take issue with the fact that upon correction for clarification sake, some feathers seem to get ruffled far too easily. Now if this particular person were so secure in their beliefs, so confident in their abilities, why get bent? I mean, if one protests too muchâ?¦ Look at it another way, Stevenâ?¦ If a particular person makes as many erroneous and inaccurate statements as Iâ??ve seen lately, it gives one pause to question the truth of such â??winsâ? â?? in light of established court procedures. Therefore, if one canâ??t accurately articulate established grounds here on this board? Credibility becomes a paramount issue and so to reliability, because cases must be pleaded a certain way. Judges arenâ??t as gullible as some. But these are only my opinions; you are certainly entitled to yours â?? no matter how influenced. Keep The Faith, Anthony Villaseñor Steven Z wrote: ------------------------------- Whatever you may think of him, his supposed faults and his advice you cannot take away the fact these he's been successful in a number of lawsuits. (Anybody who kicks Fleets' ass TWICE has got my respect). Which by itself already puts him head and shoulders above the numerous "all talk no action" whiners and crybabies seen and running many credit sites.
RE: In this case I choose to b C'mon Anthony don't beat around the bush come right out and say it. You believe Pat is flat out lying about his court victories and furthermore is too ill-informed and incompetent to so much as contest nevermind win a court case. Let me point out that Fleet is so crooked and corrupt and breaks so many laws that it is really not that difficult to gain a victory against them regardless of who the judge may be. Furthermore, if somebody were to come on here and claim they have beaten Cross Country Bank (as many have) I would far from questioning the individual's veracity congragulate him heartedly (as would numerous others) besides I have yet to hear ANYBODY lose a case against them. This would go tenfold for cases against a collection agency which are almost guaranteed so dishonest and dispicable are they and so bad is their reputation (and don't think that doesn't play a role with the judges). Don't let your personal opinion of Pat get in the way of certain realities.
libel must be deiberate? no. Sorry, no. Common law libel is, very simply, communicating a statement in writing about someone which harms his reputation. Truth is an absolute defense against libel. When a private individual is involved, and the mattter is a private one, mistake is not generally a defense to libel. A doctrine of qualified privilege has developed through decisions regarding reporting of individual credit information, because the court must weigh both the value of credit reporting to commerce as well as the damage done to the individual by misstatement. In such a case, a plaintiff must show that the defendant "abused" the quaified privilege in order to recover damage. Clearly, an FCRA lawsuit for false reporting requires the plaintiff to show that a CRA did not conduct itself in a reasonable manner. However, the FCRA does not impose any liability on original creditors, who supply the information used in credit reports. If one wishes to sue an original creditor, one must sue for common law and/ or statutory libel. However, in no case is it necessary to show that the defendant intended harm. 72 Geo. L.J. 95, "Common Law Defamation andthe Fair Credit Reporting Act" is an excellent source of references to case law in this area. One of the more important rulings is that of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (460 F.2d 1381) Oberman v. Dun and Bradstreet, in which the plaintiff successfuly sued for libel bcause of false info (outdated) in an investigative credit report.
You Make A Good Argument, Butâ?¦ Pat: First and foremost Iâ??m not here to argue legal theories nor disprove the error of your contentions (above), all be they good but defeatable arguments. In all candor, Iâ??m not here to put anyone else down nor contradict every little failing. That is, even if I were inclined to waste time on mooted research to prove what? Iâ??m right and your wrong, big deal! But I do take issue with one who promotes litigation, however well meaning, as though it were as easy as filing a prayer and waiting for the win. Folks who come to these boards are many times desperate, often bewildered by the credit system, and seek real answers not conjecture or sophisticated legal stands. Litigating is not as easy for the vast majority as simply accepting your recommendations, `if they donâ??t do this SUE THEM!â?? Let me give you an example that may help to illustrate my perspective..? I recently handled one case where the creditor was dead wrong, the collection manager had a personal vendetta against the consumer and really gave the guy a hard time. The evidence the consumer (plaintiff) presented me was clear and unquestionable, yet the court finally ruled against him. Why? Because the consumer was Pro Se (representing himself) and didnâ??t follow procedural guidelines, and subsequently had all his â??unquestionableâ? evidence thrown out â?? disallowed by court ordered sanction. So he couldnâ??t prove his case and ended up OWING the creditor for attorney fees and costs, not to mention possible liability for malicious prosecution. As one can see litigating is a very risky proposition for both sides, irrespective some comments that make is seem like a cake-walk. Although it is anything but, moreover itâ??s expensive and very time consuming. Bottom-line here, Pat, is that I appreciate your zeal in wanting to assert your rights under the law. Itâ??s great that you feel confident enough to do that, but not every consumer is so equipped. Thatâ??s why I strongly disagree with many of your contentions, not out of dislike or for the sake of argument. But because many of your suggestions plainly encourage litigation, when diplomacy and tact can achieve the same end. Put simply, folks who come to these boards are not likely to litigate In Pro Per â?? excluding small claims. To blatantly recommend they litigate does them no constructive good; it doesnâ??t serve to address their REAL issues. So while you and I may disagree on tactics, litigating is not as easy for them as it may be for youâ?¦ Just somethings to keep in mind so that we understand each other better, and thereby avoid any confusion. Keep The Faith, Anthony Villaseñor
Reality Is Perceived Steven: I donâ??t know where you got all that stuff, but you couldnâ??t be farther off. I have no â??personalâ? animosity or otherwise hard feelings against Pat, I donâ??t even know if this person is male or female? Therefore, how could I allow nonexistent issues to cloud my judgment? Thatâ??s certainly goes against logic and rational behavior. Now as to your other contentions regarding instant wins and perceived dishonest creditors, again everyone is entitled to opinion based on their own perceptions. Although I may not agree, that doesnâ??t necessarily make you a liar or wholly inaccurate does it? Keep The Faith, Anthony Villaseñor Steven Z wrote: ------------------------------- Don't let your personal opinion of Pat get in the way of certain realities.
RE: You Make A Good Argument Let me clarify that I by no means advocate self-representation (outside of small claims), for the very reasons stated above as well as the known antipathy of judges towards such but I will maintain given the exponentially increasing AVALANCHE of ancedotes and MOUNTAINS of evidence and prior cases that any and I mean ANY lawyer should find it little more than a cakewalk to defeat such borderline criminal or outright criminal organisations (such as CCB and the very worst of the collection agencies, many of whom make little effort to hide their crimes with their horrid "only a tiny percentage will ever sue us which will amount to chump change we'll make a killing with the rest") in any court in the land unless the judge were paid off in advance. My own, and virtually every other individual particulary those who consider themselves credit professionals or dare I say "expert" on these sites perception is quite clear thank you (especially concerning collection agencies), many of which got a very clear picture as their faces were rammed into it. As for why I am a proponent of lawsuits, here are just some that come directly to mind Intransigent, inflexible companies whose preferred method is to ignore and stonewall until the day they are served with a summons Companies who in their recent desire to 'cut corners' usually begin with senior employees, leaving ill-trained and incompetent reps to take their place Ineffective and mostly apathetic regulatory bodies CRA's and a goodly minority of collection agencies who skirt and BREAK the law every chance they get Mix in the fact that an individual who decides to contest and negotiate may have to wait anywhere from 3 months to over a year to NEVER, all the while losing time, effort and money (especially the true cost of incorrect negative info) and its become more practical to cut through the bullsh*t and end this with a lawsuit. Now for yourself, I wouldn't wait too long standing on that fence as you do for the ever growing sea of lies and muck may soon leave you stranded on it.
But I Like The Fence Steven: Stranded? LOL, hay my friend Iâ??ve been on this island of objectivity since 1994 and havenâ??t been marooned yet. My practice has achieved plenty of documented resolutions, without delay nor need for court. But you see thatâ??s what makes the difference, I believe; the ability to distinguish and offer balance, objectivity uninfluenced by petty assumptions or conformed thinking. Nothing wrong with either of the latter per se, because people see the world as they are â?? not necessarily as it is. Besides, Steven, sitting on the fence is the basis of my profession; in fact one could say the foundation of it. Now as far as the â??â?¦growing sea of lies and muckâ?¦â? I know precisely what you mean, there seems to be a steady flow of that here lately. (Where are my waders?) Here again, some folks simply persist to see the world around them as anything other than a hostile and antagonistic place. Refusing to grasp any other possibility or concept that thwarts such views, perhaps in a paranoid delusion of self-righteousness. I think they call that narrow mindedness, but I could be mistaken? After all, I havenâ??t a clue what â??Iâ??mâ? doingâ?¦ Other than, of course, sitting on a fence. Keep The Faith, Anthony Villaseñor Steven Z wrote: ------------------------------- Now for yourself, I wouldn't wait too long standing on that fence as you do for the ever growing sea of lies and muck may soon leave you stranded on it.
Question for you Anthony What procedural rules were violated? I am now representing myself pre se, but am keeping two lawyers on as co-counsel. The procedural thing is the only thing I am worried about. What sort of procedural violations can result in the case being thrown out?
Steveâ??s Answer Steve: In the particular case I referred to the plaintiff violated discovery rules, having abused the process because he didnâ??t know any better. Still the other side made it look worse than it truly was (which is in a sense their job), and convinced the court to order an exclusionary sanction. Itâ??s not that he lost the case automatically, although that can happen in extreme sanction instances. But the evidence related to the discovery abuse was barred from submission, which was critical to prosecution of his case. Since he couldnâ??t submit evidence related to certain acts relative to his complaint, the jury finally ruled against him. If one canâ??t prove an issue, itâ??s rather difficult to prevail. Correspondingly, I encourage you to frequently check with your attorney(s) regarding procedural aspects. Because you see itâ??s not the understanding or application of strict law that trips up most Pro Pers, but procedure. The thing is to â??LISTENâ? to oneâ??s lawyer when he/she gives tactical advice, because there is probably a procedural aim behind it. Competent counsel is not going to advise you take a certain tact, if conflicts with procedure are present. But rest easy, Steve, because the gent in the case mentioned thought all lawyers are scum and consequently didnâ??t retain one even for advice (very bad move)! You have two (2) to bounce questions off of, so Iâ??m confident in saying procedural hiccups are far less likely. Just follow your attorney advice especially where procedures are concerned, and youâ??ll be that much better off. Keep The Faith, Anthony Villaseñor
Liable due to Libel? You seem to have confused two very simple words: "libel" and "liable." The first is a tort, the other can describe those who have committed torts.
RE: Yup, Crap Is Crapâ?¦ - What sort of experience and education does Anthony have? He mentioned to me that he doesn't practice law.
I Stand Corrected RichGuy: LOL, you know that one totally slip right by me â?? you are so right. Nonetheless, it was inadvertent I assure you, yet I believe the point still came across. Keep The Faith, Anthony Villaseñor
Since You Askedâ?¦ RichGuy: Although I donâ??t practice law as an attorney, in the sense of representing clients for either prosecution or defense. I am a Certified Mediator authorized to practice under California law, both by statute and Bar provisions, and am educated to do so. As mentioned to you in another post (which you may not have had a chance to read) my practice specialty is (of all things) credit and debt related matters. Having over 16 years in the lending field both as original creditor, collections management, and VP of operations for a mortgage serving firm. Going into practice with a specialty of credit matters was really a no-brainer, and has paid off some great dividends. Iâ??m formally educated in human behavior (GO BRUINS!), conflict management, and to a lesser degree law. Iâ??ve been in practice since 1994, and serve both creditor and consumer needs. Of course there is lots more to the resumeâ?? but I think you get the picture. If not, by all means let me know and Iâ??ll fill in some more details. Keep The Faith, Anthony Villaseñor
RE: Creditor Challenges Maybe if Anthony uses the word "defamation", he won't choke on his common law torts.
