No, I will digress. I have violated one of the great tenets of life here: "Never have a battle of wits with an unarmed man."
Um hmm, and don't foget to tell the court that this is the law because LizardKing said so. Unless, of course, he's going to support this stuff. For the record, (1) is true, (2) is false, except that some states may have some kind of time limit, like Texas -- the "Estoppel by Silence" argument is particularly laughable, (3) is false, and (4) may be true, and may be false, depending on the circumstances of the case. As for LK, I challenge you to help people out by (1) pointing to ONE case --any case anywhere that people could actually use -- where a court barred collection of a consumer debt because of some kind of "estoppel by silence" based on a failure to timely respond to a validation request; and (2) show us ONE case -- again, any case -- where a CRA was found to have violated the FCRA by failing to remove a CA tradeline after a consumer wrote in claiming lack of response to a validation request. C'mon, big guy, help us all out, here. We all want to "rest easy."
In my view, the way to tackle this situation is to dispute it with the CRA. If it comes back "verified", then you have got a case for an FDCPA violation *against the CA* for verifying -- which you can argue is "collection activity" -- without providing validation information. As part of your requested relief in your FDCPA suit, you ask for an injuction requiring removal by the CA. NOW you've got something to use against the CRAs. Repeating this over and over doesn't make it true. There is NO REQUIREMENT that the CA validate within a partricular time frame in the FDCPA. The FTC agrees, as do the courts. I agree that putting derogatory information after a request to validate is an FDCPA violation. I do not see how it is an FCRA violation -- what part of the FCRA does this violate? And, under whar provision of the FCRA do you get to sue the CA, as opposed to the CRA? Don't make me laugh. I unserstand "estoppel by silence" very well, thank you, and have yet to see a single case ever where a court has said to a debtor something like "Well, Bank of America has proved that you defaulted on a VISA account to the tune of $10,000, but I am going to excuse you from paying it back because when you asked their collection agency about it, they didn't get back to you." Can you show us such a case? Did you get a Court order requiring them to delete? If not, you didn't force them to do anything, they deleted to avoid hassling with you. Congratulations, and I mean that sincerely. What happened with Experian? Um, hmm. Like I said, repeating this over and over doesn't make it true. Read the rules of evidence sometime, and, in the meantime, we can just agree to disagree on this one. I'll just go ahead and snip the personal attack at the end.
Cypergirl, I beleive that you and I had a discussion about this a while back. Some folks just like to take the FDCPA and take it as the holy bible of law in regards to Collection agencies and consumers. I believe that you and I were both researching previous cases that forced CRAs to really prove that a debt exists if the consumer makes it apparent beyond a doubt that he believes the debt is not his. One of the courts even ruled in favor, stating that the consumer has the right to have the actual CRA prove the debt exists. As far as collectors go, we all know that they are required to prove that the debt in fact exists, if the are going to collect. The only time that courts may except computer printouts, is if the priintouts actually prove a relationship and history between the consumer and the creditor. It would depend on the type of creditor and the way that the conduct their business. I am sure that enough defenses could be raised in behalf of the consumer to thwart any attempts on the collectors part to collect. After all, I have done it myself and I wont post it here for privacy reasons.... It does work... Too bad you had to argue these points with those who dont understand. I hope that the system doesnt ever taint your perception as badly as some of those who post here. We need honest legal proffesionals who can see outside of themselves....
I will try my best Daddyo. In addition, I think a real good legal professional is someone who can see the forest from the trees and look at the totality of circumstances. It is not an easy thing to do, but the big picture is what I feel is important. It is that approach I am trying to employ with my credit repair. Although I managed to clean up alot and could mostly likely get more credit now, I am trying to discipline myself for the future, because I don't intend to fall into the same trap as I did earlier in my life. As for yesterday's argument, Hal made a profound statement, that made really think twice before engaging in conversation with someone who either lacks common sense or only sees the trees from the forest. The problem I have with law school or the legal profession is that soo many are willing to just fall in line and not question authority or the system and I think that is why soo many people have a poor perception of lawyers. For example, I am planning on taking my bar exam next year and there is usually one bar review course that mostly everyone takes, however, I will not because I have been forewarned by others who eventually passed and had to take it twice, that this bar review course is a waste of time but I found an underground bar review that has a really high bar passage rate for first time takers and most of my friends are now questioning me for signing up for it. Then I asked them why are you taking the one that others who have taken and have warned you its a waste time because they had to end up taking the test again and their response was because everyone else is taking it. Thinking like that drives me crazy! For the newbies on the board, please just don't jump on a bandwagon because everyone is doing it. This board is great and is a wealth of knowledge and information, but proceed with caution and do your homework. Eventually the success will happen for you as well. Anyway its justs my 2 cents! Cyprigirl
Squawk1200- Just letting you know I read your comments back to me. I appreciate all the discussion. Just wanted to let you know, as I don't like to leave threads hanging. SofaKing
