Re: Re: Re: Re: Why Time Barred C&D = Delete (pt 2) Okay, this one is really getting to me now. Could you please save the arguments for PM's??? Not everyone wants to read the he said, she said arguments. I'm following this thread for it's "valuable" content. Not the arguments. Both posters are considered to be knowledgeable in my book, could you please just agree to disagree and move on??? Thanks for your consideration. On a funny note the bickering sounds like a debter and collector... LOL
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why Time Barred C&D = Delete (pt 2) If Sassy and I through our "bickering" have been able to keep this thread "bumped" to the top of the forum, then we are doing a GREAT service to all creditnetters. The WORST CA abuse,in my opinion, is to re-age and poison reports and to file time-barred lawsuits and obtain default judgments. If our little "spat" allows even ONE person to become informed and send a time-barred c&d to a scum scam CA to get deletion from their credit reports and prevent a time-barred lawsuit, then it is well worth it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why Time Barred C&D = Delete (pt 2) Fair enough, I agree. Sorry for my spat. CA's and OC's have been taking their toll on me.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why Time Barred C&D = Delete (pt 2) I beg your pardon, I just finished nodding along with everything WhyChat said in his last 2 clarifying posts and even was laughing with his good humor. And, I'll clarify further, WhyChat is a brilliant thinker, of upstanding character, I admire him greatly, and I always enjoy brain aerobics with him, though it may be perceived as otherwise, we rarely disagree, ditto for Jam who started this thread. It is in the hashing out of the details that makes for solid and substanative arguments and strategies that can be used for everyone's benefit. Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why Time Barred C&D = Delete (pt 2) I already said I agree. I'm sorry for my mini rant.
Re: Why Time Barred C&D = Delete (pt 2) Thank you for the enlightening convesation. I won't pretend to understand it in it's completness like you both, but following your exchange has improved my understanding somewhat.
Re: Why Time Barred C&D = Delete (pt 2) It's exactly like the what is (or isn't) validation thread started by Butch. It's through trying to see if we can poke holes in each others logic that we can strengthen our logic to withstand when the time comes for a *CA* to attempt to poke holes in our logic. Imagine the look on the CA's face, when you have already completely worked out answer to each of his legal objections. In sales, the best salesmen are the ones who have memorized all of the standard objections, and how to turn those objections into a CALL TO ACTION; i.e. from NO to YES! It's far better, and safer to have our thoughts challenged here, then in front of a judge, magistrate, or what have you; where not being able to come up with the right objections could cost you a case, a judgement, etc.
Re: Why Time Barred C&D = Delete (pt 2) I have recently done some research into caselaw, (not credit/debt related) on the subject of the "borrowing" statute in State law. The reason behind the borrowing statute is to prevent "forum shopping" in other types of cass where there may be several States involved. The caselaw is generally for cases involving businesses or car accidents, however the legal principle seems to be, without exception, binding on any type of case. SO- if you are a resident of a LONG SOL State, but your default (cause of action) was in a shorter SOL State, you can not only use your State's borrowing statute in an affirmative SOL defense if you are sued, but also, in my opinion, in a SOL letter.
Re: Why Time Barred C&D = Delete (pt 2) Click here: CREDITNET | Straight Talk | | Why Time Barred C&D = Delete BUMPED
Re: Why Time Barred C&D = Delete (pt 2) *bump* for ca0me15 in reference to Account appears twice, OC and coll. thread reference. and *bump* for Sassy to cross-reference the Brady v Credit Recovery issue to my situation in the Non-Physical Check Question thread. (And any opinions sassy, butch, whychat, and any one else can offer on the ITS.) Under B v CR, would you agree that both CO2 & CO3 exposed themselves to the FDCPA under Sullivan v. Equifax by continuing to report the account in violation of C3's written admission that they claim the account has been disputed since 1998, and C2's personal receipt of repeated validation requests disputing the alleged account?
Re: Why Time Barred C&D = Delete (pt 2) Clever way to keep in touch, Jam ;-) Sorry it took a couple of days but I got my email, clicking now to linked thread. Sassy
Re: Re: Why Time Barred C&D = Delete (pt 2) Yep and yep again, I'm flying with ya!!!!! Putting additional comments in the linked thread. Sassy
Re: Re: Why Time Barred C&D = Delete (pt 2) That's ok, Sassy I was *gasp* about 250 miles from my computer from Thursday to yesterday (and I didn't go into shock, withdrawl, and the world didn't even come to an end.) This just goes to show why arguements like in this thread are fruitful. If you know how to 'trick' the opponent into making themselves fall into the precidents that we have explored by ripping our own theories apart, we can make our own arguements stronger. Because, chances are the opponent would try to attempt to use the 'loophole' in Sullivan v. Equifax to try to evade the debt collector label from either/both d/b/a's.
Why Time Barred C&D = Delete (pt 2) Please see the thread linked immediately above the quote, there is NOT many states, there is 1 state, Wisconsin, based on an unpublished case. The other TWO states are California (with a threat of litigation) and Vermont (which extinguishes the debt once the SOL has run). Will you please confirm if it Vermont that extinguishes a debt after the SOL. I was under the impression it was Wisconsin. Also, if others know of other states that extinguishes debts after the SOL, I'd be very interested in knowing. THanks
