Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 11/26/2013 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    I won! Not just dismissal without prejudice but I won! Lawyer for midland (itinerant lawyer who trolls courthouse representing big business) asked for continuance because "the witness didn't work for midland anymore" and the judge said sucks for you. Well, he said it differently but im feeling a bit cocky right now. Anyway, moot point, the witness had to be from OC. I rolled the dice, said I objected to dismissal without prejudice and I was put on the stand. My right hand was shaking as I was sworn in. But I answered truthfully, said I was objecting to the amount (you can only deny so much without pissing off this judge, and frankly, that was all I was asking for from the beginning: to remove the unfairly slammed 28% interest, charges, etc), and that it was midlands burden to prove correct amount and I had no contract with them. After some lecturing to me about a "free ride" and a lecture to midland about being prepared, he ruled for the defendant! Suck it junk debt buyers. Thanks to everyone on this forum who helped. It was lots of work, ripped me of my peace of mind, took hours of research, writing, copying but now OC and JDB don't get thousands of my middle class dollars that they unscrupulously attached to my account. Happy Thanksgiving!
  2. 2 points
    Yes and then scold the defendant for using the law to protect themselves to defeat these bogus lawsuits filed by JDB... when it is these judges and attorneys writing the laws and setting precedents for their use.... doesn't seem right for judge to scold a defendant for using those laws to protect themselves.....
  3. 2 points
    I won! Not just dismissal without prejudice but I won! Lawyer for midland (itinerant lawyer who trolls courthouse representing big business) asked for continuance because "the witness didn't work for midland anymore" and the judge said sucks for you. Well, he said it differently but im feeling a bit cocky right now. Anyway, moot point, the witness had to be from OC. I rolled the dice, said I objected to dismissal without prejudice and I was put on the stand. My right hand was shaking as I was sworn in. But I answered truthfully, said I was objecting to the amount (you can only deny so much without pissing off this judge) and that it was midlands burden to prove correct amount and I had no contract with them. After some lecturing to me about a "free ride" and a lecture to midland about being prepared, he ruled for the defendant! Suck it junk debt buyers. Thanks to everyone on these forums who helped. Happy Thanksgiving.
  4. 2 points
    They need to get a judgment against you. If they do try to garnish money without a court order, that is a FDCPA violation. They cannot legally touch that money right now. These cases take anywhere between 6 to 12 months to cycle through the court system. DO not over-react and focus on kicking the **** out of them.
  5. 2 points
    Like I said attorneys that do not specialize as a consumer attorney, or if it would cost more to pay them than the amount of the debt will advise you to settle. You may have owed the original creditor something, but you don't owe midland anything. They bought your account for less than 100.00, and now want 1700.00 plus. Your choices are you can settle, or you can fight it yourself. If you choose to fight it you are going to need to study, learn the rules of civil procedure, and use the guidance offered here. So California can use a general denial. Here is the link to that. http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/pld050.pdf. And the proof of service form you will need. http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/pos040.pdf Get that filed, then send them a bill of particulars. Here is a sample BOP. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8mtxc68Hb2tU21jc1pGeVVWYjQ/preview. What is their cause of action? Breach of contract, account stated, open book?
  6. 2 points
    They can't take anything until they get a judgment .......... and you are a long way from that. LVNV is a Junk Debt Buyer (JDB) and they, typically, have a hard time proving standing to sue (that they own the debt). Read bmc100's post. Very informative for Michigan defendants. Post the complaint redacting any personal information .......... it will help. Get familiar with Michigan Rules of Civil Procedure & Michigan Rules of Evidence, you will need to know these rules. You are a student ......... and as such, are prepared to learn how to win your lawsuit ........ given the willingness to do the work.
  7. 1 point
    In my experience with debt collection cases, "extremely aggressive and litigious" has zero direct correlation to the ability to get admissible evidence entered into the trial court record, not to mention the ability to successfully prove up, by that evidence, all the required elements of a cause of action. Odds are it wold spook the S&S attorney that has to go trial also. The three attorneys I have opposed in hearings were not too impressive (unless we are talking their alleged hourly billable rate ) even though I was not really all that impressive the first couple of times IMHO. Good on mom! A second opinion from a competent consumer attorney that has actual experience litigating and defending debt collection case would be a good idea. But before I could get that 2nd opinion I would want to get a first opinion from an attorney qualified to bill me for the services that I believe I would need if hiring an attorney in the litigation described in this thread. That does not appear to have taken place at this point. When I have heart trouble I would not want to typically seek the opinion of a general practitioner, no matter how brilliant they may be. I want a heart expert to diagnose and recommend the proper course of action. The civil litigation attorneys I have run across in court are more interested in billing than winning. That is OK if they work for opposing. It is totally unacceptable if they are on my payroll.
  8. 1 point
    Your objection will based on CCP 97, you should read...
  9. 1 point
    Awesome! Good Job! Carol-Lynn
  10. 1 point
    I don't have any Ohio experience, so I don't know all the ins and outs of your court. As far as what to do now, you shouldn't do anything till the judge rules on your motion. You can't proceed with the case if you need more information to file an answer. That motion alone may be enough to bury Midland.
  11. 1 point
    Congratulations!!!! I would guess a subpoena gets 95% of these cases dismissed and you did even better with a WIN!!!!!!
  12. 1 point
    Congrats to you Helena. You are part of the 5% that fight, and even a smaller group that gets the win. Very nice work!!!!
  13. 1 point
    Easy 619, I was in in a similar situation recently. In my case I sent them a CCP 96 request and they responded with a lot more documents than were allowed by the court's order. They also attached these same documents to their CCP 98 Declaration. So I sent a response to their CCP 96 request which included the court's order for sanctions specifically stating the Plaintiff can only admit certain documents into evidence. Then I filed a written objection with the court to their CCP 96 response and their CCP 98 declaration not only for the typical issues associated with a CCP 98 declaration but because they attached documents that were not allowed by the courts order. Also put it in my motion in limine and made a small reference in my trial brief. If you want to know the general format on how to write a written objection it is under California Rules of Court 3.1354. Please be aware, I have no idea if my efforts would have convinced the judge to keep certain evidence out as my case was dismissed before trial. Good luck, pulling for you. I am not an attorney
  14. 1 point
    Way to go!! Once again this just proves that those dreaded affidavits are nothing more than bunk when denied and won't hold up in Court without a witness. Midland is so famous for trying to bluff their way through these cases and once they get challenged, and no easy default judgment is acquired, Midland has very little interest in pursuing much further action. If more people would just fight these cases this avenue of windfall income for Midland would mostly go away. HP
  15. 1 point
    You should get notice of the ruling on your motion for more definitive statement. Do not file an answer until the judge rules on your motion. If you do, it invalidates the motion
  16. 1 point
    When judge offered me dismissal without prejudice, I almost said yes (i was freaking out!) but I felt not only could I get a better result but these jdbs need to lose! They make their living off people's misfortune and misery and lack of knowledge. Now I have better peace of mind knowing I told my story, they had their chance, and the fairer side prevailed. They use the weak side of justice to win. It's just not right.
  17. 1 point
    I am so proud of you. You beat a professional litigant in court. This is really going to be a great Thanksgiving in your house. Don't forget to claim your costs and really put some hurt on Midland.
  18. 1 point
    NICE JOB!! LOL at the judge though... How could he / she get mad about a defendant that would deny everything in this case. It's very possible that a defendant doesn't have a clue in the world as to where these junk debts derive from.
  19. 1 point
    Fantastic!! Congratulations!!
  20. 1 point
  21. 1 point
    I'm not sure if that entry has anything to do with your motion, it looks like a schedule of dates the judge has set for this case. The judge set dates for either you, or the other party to file a motion for summary judgment or other such motion to basically wrap up the case without the need for trial. Then the next deadline was set for the the brief in opposition to said motion. Finally, a bench trial date was set should the case reach that point. This looks like a generic journal entry that gets applied to similar cases at your court. Would you be comfortable stating what court in Ohio this case is through?
  22. 1 point
    Awesome! What a great result. Love that they pushed it to trial and you received a ruling in your favor
  23. 1 point
    Thank you for really taking the time to go over this with me- I will do this.
  24. 1 point
    So under affirmative defenses I would put 1. Plaintiff lacks standing 2. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. 3. Lack if privity You don't have to use any affirmative defenses, and all of them except plaintiff lacks standing will shift the burden on you, so read what they mean before you use them. So your immediate tasks are is to send them a BOP, and answer the suit. You do not file the BOP with the court, but do send it Certified, return receipt requested. You do file the answer with the court along with the proof of service, and send it to the plaintiff Cmrrr.
  25. 1 point
    Smart move. LVNV sued me in July 2012. I fought back, with the help and advice from fellow forum members and they dismissed w/o prej four months later. The SOL has now expired on that debt-in fact all my debts. I was also sued by Unifund and with a consumer attorney's help, got them to back off on three other debts. Fighting back does pay-off. Good Luck! Carol-Lynn
  26. 1 point
    Just wanted to say my case was with LVNV, the lawyer was a Rottweiler, but in the end they not only dismissed, but did it with prejudice at trial.
  27. 1 point
    Defendants answer to complaint and motion to dismiss Comes now the defendant,(name), in propria persona, on a special appearance as opposed to a general appearance, for jurisdictional challenges. The defendant state under the penalties of perjury that the following is true. Plaintiff has presented no facts that can support their claim. Defendant denies any and all the allegations contained in plaintiffs complaint. Plaintiff has provided no affidavits that identify any witnesses that are competent to even testify to any of the facts in the complaint. Under common law, until plaintiff can identify a competent witness that can attest to the facts in the complaint or provides a sworn affidavit of an injured party the plaintiff has not even begun to establish that a claim even exists where there may be a remedy by law. Plaintiffs complaint fails prima facie. Plaintiff has placed no facts on record. No fact appears on recordby affidavit to suggest or to support the averment of plaintiffs pleadings. Plaintiffs attorney cannot testify as to any facts, only a competent witness can testify as to facts. Plaintiffs attorney has a strict duty under oath to document and verify all the allegations set forth in the complaint. Documents proffered by Plaintiff’s attorney are unverified, out of date, irrelevant and inadmissible. Plaintiff has not even proven that they own the alleged debt, nor have they proffered any evidence that even comes close to proving the amount alleged is correct. Courts of general, limited or inferior jurisdiction obtain jurisdiction by the sufficiency of the pleadings. Jurisdiction of a court can be challenged at any time. Plaintiff's pleadings in the complaint lack sufficient evidence to invoke this courts jurisdiction, pertaining to the fact that Plaintiff has not set forth any creditable witnesses to establish subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff has offered no such proof that they have a valid right to collect or sue over the alleged debt, plaintiff has offered no valid rights of assignment; In cases involving a party attempting to recover on an account owed to some other party, proof of assignment of the account is essential to recovery, Cach LLC v Askew stating from Walker 208, S.W. 3d, at 298. Although this case is from the Supreme court of Missouri the United States Supreme Court has determined that Supreme Court cases apply to all States; Howlett v Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990) Federal Law and Supreme Court cases apply to State court cases. Wherefore the defendant prays upon this horable court to dismiss this spurious and frivolous suit Being adjudicated in the honorable court of_________________, on this ___day of, 20__ by the honorable Judge______________________ this court declares that this cause of action be ___dismissed __with prejudice __without prejudice ___ denied Defendants costs List any costs you want the court to award you be reasonable do not get greedy or they judge will not award you anything
  28. 1 point
    While in court, normally the Plaintiff will be first, as soon as the attorney opens his mouth you object, attorneys cannot testify as to the facts of a case, when the attorney testifies he is then in the form of a witness, an attorney cannot be a witness and council. Next you move the court to dismiss the case, you state to the court that in order for the court to have jurisdiction the plaintif must have four things, I call them the legs on the table, because in order for a table to stand it must have four legs. Those four legs of the table are two opposing sides, two legs of the table, facts, and the most important "a witness" if any of these are not present the case(the table) cannot stand. In common law there has to be two things in a civil matter, a sworn statement of injury and an injured party. Examine who they claim is the injured party. To be an injured party one must be the real party in interest. Also pay attention to who does the talking, if the attorney tries to testify and not just enter evidence you object, attorneys cannot testify as to the evidence, but they do it all the time because we let them get away with it. Make sure you state to the court when it is your turn to talk that you are here today in propria persona, on a special appearance as opposed to a general appearance, for jurisdictional challenges. This lets the court know right away that you are challenging jurisdiction and you will not play their games. This is very, very important, if there is no witness in court the court does not have jurisdiction and the plaintiff has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. No competent witness no case. You move the court for an immediate dismissal with prejudice. If the court refuses you object and tell the judge that you want to make your objection on the record that the court has no jurisdiction and your objection will be for an appealable issue. They will more than likely present an affidavit to the court from someone that works for them, you object, if there is no affiant in court that wrote and signed the affidavit the affidavit is moot. You have a right as given to you under the 6th amendment to face your accuser and cross examine any witnesses. If the judge gives you hard time over this because you invoked a constitutional issue you pull out the big guns Your honor Marbury v Madison 5 U.S. 137 (1803) cheif justice John Marshall stated that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Byars v U.S. 273 U.S. 28 (1927) states that the constitution must be liberally construed in favor of the expressly designated beneficiary of the contract. Who is the expressly designated beneficiary? YOU are At this point the judge will more than likely tell you that you could be in contempt of court your reply is Miller v U.S., 230 F2d, 486, 489 (5th Cir 1959) The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. I do no care if it is civil or criminal you have a constitutional right to face your accusers. If the affiant is not present for cross examination the affidavit is moot and should not be allowed to be entered as evidence. Now that you have impeached their witness and affidavit they have no witness and no case. Motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Failure to state some thing does not mean that all they have to do is state that claim in a complaint, the mere act of stating something does not make it true, they have to prove it, if they cannot prove it they have failed to state a claim. Miranda v Arizona, 384 U.S> 436 (1966) Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which should abrogate them. Trinsley v Pagliaro 229, F Supp. 647 (1964) "Statements of counsel in brief or in argument are not facts before the court and are therefore insufficient for a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment." I have had judge after judge tell me that Federal cases do not apply to state cases Howlett v Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990) Federal Law and Supreme Court cases apply to State court cases, . Just last week I had a judge tell me that the constitution has no place in his court......did he open up a can of worms,,,,,,,He will not like a suit in federal court over this. And yes judges can be sued.
  29. 1 point
    The best thing is to read what bmc100 posts he has helped many people make it thru and win their court case. Ask questions on what you don't understand and study the rules of the court and the rules of procedure and read bmc's thread and search for Michigan cases here on creditinfocenter and familiarize yourself with the process. We have all done it and won our cases. You can to.
  30. 1 point
    The day you had it placed in the mail is the day it is considered 'served'. They have the 10 days (+5) from then to serve the response > same rule applies, they need to get it in the mail by the end of that 15th day.
  31. 1 point
    @bmc100 Everyone fears the unknown ......... I know I did ..........
  32. 1 point
    Defendant's MSJs are probably not that uncommon. Some specific case type numbers here: http://www.lawfficespace.com/2010/08/80-of-employers-summary-judgment.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgement - states: According to Federal Judicial Center research, summary-judgment motions are filed in 17% of federal cases.[6] Since almost two-thirds of federal civil cases are dismissed or settled, over half of the cases that reach the final judgment stage were disposed of via summary judgment.[7] 71% of summary-judgment motions were filed by defendants, 26% by plaintiffs.[6] Out of these, 36% of the motions were denied, and 64% were granted in whole or in part.[6] Collection case defendant MSJ filings are probably fairly uncommon. A defendant should determine whether such pursuits are the best use of their time and resources. Perhaps someone could post a link to a case where an MSJ was granted to a collection defendant (and hopefully was upheld on any appeal). It should provide some benefits to the OP as well as helping to guide others similarly situated. Unfortunately, I have not seen such a case.
  33. 1 point
    @ Anon Amos: Please take a look at page 4 # 80 ....thank you.
  34. 1 point
    They should do this petition via change.org they have 1.000.000 members!
  35. 1 point
  36. 1 point
    This would put an end to sol; wouldn't it! the jdb would just keep on cycling and re-aging old d ebts. Whet law can you citeon them on for re-aging a debt.do you bring an old crefitbreport to compare withvthe new? Fcra
  37. 1 point
    Check this list to find cases regarding the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The cases highlighted in blue are the most famous cases that everyone doing credit repair should know about. JOHNNY & TERESA BAKKER v. LAURA J. McKINNON http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/973267p.pdf United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit - August 21, 1998 Laura J. McKinnon, an attorney, appeals from a final judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, following a bench 2 trial, finding that she had intentionally and willfully violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA or the Act), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. Bakker v. McKinnon, Civil No. 96-5112 (W.D. Ark. July 21, 1997) (mem. op.). The district court awarded to each appellee, Dr. Johnny L. Bakker and his two daughters, Teresa Bakker and Carrie Ann Bakker, $500 in compensatory damages and $5,000 in punitive damages. For reversal, appellant contends that the district court erred in finding that she violated the FCRA and in awarding an unreasonable amount for punitive damages. The district court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question). This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). For the reasons given herein, we affirm the judgment of the district court. BENNIE BRYANT, v. TRW, INC., http://proselitigant.net/wwwthreads/Wc1b13055f9ac.htm United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - September 20, 1982, Plaintiff was an individual seeking credit to buy a house. Defendant was a credit reporting agency. Defendant supplied inaccurate information to a mortgage company, causing denial of plaintiff's home loan application. The home loan was eventually approved. Plaintiff sued for damages. The district court awarded plaintiff actual damages and attorneys' fees. Defendant appealed, contending that it was not liable under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) for accurately reporting information it received from consumers' creditors. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that the FCRA § 607(, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1681e(, required a consumer reporting agency to do more than correctly report the information supplied to it by creditors. Plaintiff offered proofs from which the jury could properly have found that defendant's failure to use reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy caused damage to plaintiff's name and consequent anguish and humiliation. Judgment affirmed where the jury could have found defendant's failure to use reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy damaged plaintiff. CARMINE CASELLA, v. EQUIFAX CREDIT INFORMATION SERVICES, and TRANS UNION CORPORATION http://www.tourolaw.edu/2ndCircuit/june95/94-7547.html United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - June 5, 1995 Casella brought this action against Equifax and Trans Union claiming various violations of the FCRA, including 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681c, 1681i©, and 1681g(a)(3)(A). Casella alleged, in substance, that appellees had prepared credit report containing false and defamatory information, and that they had refused either to delete the information or to include a statement of dispute in his credit file after he notified them of the inaccuracy. TERRY COUSIN, v. TRANS UNION CORPORATION http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/5th/9960429cv0.html United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - April 9, 2001 Defendant-Appellant Trans Union Corporation ("Trans Union") appeals, after a jury trial, a final judgment awarding Plaintiff-Appellee Terry Cousin("Cousin") $50,000 in compensatory damages and $4,470,000 in punitive damages for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681u,(1) and for defaming Cousin with malice. Because no reasonable jury could have found that Trans Union acted willfully or with malice and because there was insufficient evidence of actual damages, we vacate the district court's judgment and render in favor of Trans Union. JERRY L. CRABILL, v. TRANS UNION, L.L.C. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/7th/002078.html United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit - July 30, 2001 The Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. sec.sec. 1681-1681t, creates a federal remedy against a credit reporting agency that fails to follow "reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy" of the information contained in a consumer's credit report. sec.sec. 1681e(, 1681o, 1681n; Henson v. CSC Credit Services, 29 F.3d 280 (7th Cir. 1994). The plaintiff, Jerry Crabill, appeals from the grant of summary judgment to the defendant, credit agency Trans Union. JENNIFER CUSHMAN, v. TRANS UNION CORPORATION http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/3rd/971610p.html United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit - June 9, 1997 This appeal concerns, among other issues, the extent of a consumer reporting agency's obligation, pursuant to section 611(a) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a) (1982), to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of information on a consumer's credit report alleged by the consumer to be inaccurate. We hold that the district court erred to the extent that it concluded as a matter of law that defendant Trans Union Corporation ("TUC") fulfilled its obligation under § 1681i(a). Therefore, we will reverse and remand the district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff-appellant Jennifer Cushman's claim for negligent noncompliance with that section. We also hold that Cushman has produced sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that she has proved the publication element of her defamation claim and her claims pursuant to the Vermont Fair Credit Reporting Act ("VFCRA"), VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 9, §§ 2480a et seq. (1993). We will reverse and remand the district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law on those claims. Finally, we remand to the district court to determine whether Cushman has produced evidence sufficient to justify an award of punitive damages and to avoid preemption of her defamation claim. RICHARD J. DALTON v. CAPITAL ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES http://www.branon.com/Fourth%20Circuit%20Opinion.pdf United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - July 16, 2001 Capital Associated Industries, Inc. (CAI) erroneously reported to Richard Dalton’s prospective employer that he had been convicted of felony assault. Dalton sued CAI and three of its employees under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681e( and 1681k, for following inadequate procedures in reporting his criminal history. Dalton also asserted several state law claims against the defendants. The district court threw out all of Dalton’s claims, with some dismissed under Rule 12((6) and some disposed of on summary judgment under Rule 56. This appeal deals only with the summary judgment and focuses mainly on whether there are triable issues on Dalton’s claims that CAI’s failure to follow FCRA-mandated procedures led it to issue a false report on his criminal record. We vacate the award of summary judgment to CAI on Dalton’s FCRA claims because he has proffered evidence that reveals disputed issues of material fact. We affirm the grant of summary judgment on all other claims. SHARON M. DETERS, v. EQUIFAX CREDIT INFORMATION SERVICES, INC. http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/97-3340.htm United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit – February 1, 2000 Equifax"), appeals from a $300,000 judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee, Sharon Deters ("Ms. Deters"), on her sexual harassment claim. The jury awarded Ms. Deters $5,000 in compensatory damages, and $1,000,000 in punitive damages, later reduced by the court to $295,000 based on the cap established by 42 U.S.C. § 1981a((3). The district court denied Equifax's post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law, or alternatively for a new trial or remittitur. See Deters v. Equifax Credit Information Servs., 981 F. Supp. 1381, 1384 (D. Kan. 1997). On appeal, Equifax contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support punitive damages based upon a supervisor's alleged failure to investigate and take prompt corrective action to stop the harassment; (2) it is not responsible for the conduct of its supervisor either because it had no knowledge of that conduct or the supervisor was not a policy maker and was acting in accordance with corporate policy, (3) the district court erred in denying its post-trial motion for a new trial or remittitur, and (4) the district court erred in admitting a videotape recounting sexual harassment, thereby depriving it of a fair trial. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm. JAMES DUNCAN, v. KENNETH S. HANDMAKER, MIDDLETON & REUTLINGER, P.S.C. http://www.law.emory.edu/6circuit/june98/98a0182p.06.html United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit – June 8, 1998 Information is power, as any good attorney knows. Those who hunger for information often need look no further than to a person's consumer report--which summarizes, among other things, credit history and credit worthiness. Given the value of this data, and the rise of the credit reporting industry, it is not surprising that Congress passed the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to regulate consumer reporting agencies and the users of consumer reports. See generally Hovater v. Equifax, Inc., 823 F.2d 413, 416-17 (11th Cir. 1987). Nor is it surprising that some individuals seek to capitalize on general language in the FCRA and thereby construe it as allowing them access to the data they desire. In this appeal, the information-seekers--an attorney and his law firm--argue that the FCRA permits them to obtain consumer reports in the course of defending their client against a lawsuit. We conclude, however, that the FCRA does not generally permit consumer reports to be procured for this purpose. We also find genuine issues of fact with respect to whether the attorney and his firm may be held civilly liable for violations of the FCRA. ROBERTA L. EVANTASH, v. G.E. CAPITAL MORTGAGE SERVICES, http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/03D0568P.pdf United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania – November 2003 Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 24) and Defendant Trans Union LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 25). For the reasons discussed below, Defendants’ Motions are Plaintiff Roberta L. Evantash and her husband, Bernard Evantash, are co-obligors on a mortgage loan with G.E. Capital Mortgage Services, Inc. (“G.E. Capital”) bearing account number 15175516 (the “Account”). On March 6, 2000, Bernard Evantash filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code and included the Account in his schedule. Upon receiving electronic notification from the bankruptcy court that Mr. Evantash had filed for bankruptcy and included the Account in his schedule, Trans Union LLC (“Trans Union”) began reporting the Account on Plaintiff’s credit report as “INCLUDED IN BANKRUPTCY.” GREG and MARY HENSON v. CSC CREDIT SERVICES, TRANS UNION CORPORATION, and COSCO FEDERAL CREDIT UNION http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op3.fwx?yr=93&num=3441&Submit1=Request+Opinion United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit - July 11, 1994 This case has its origin in an earlier suit filed in an Indiana state court by the Cosco Federal Credit Union against one of the plaintiffs, Greg Henson, and his brother Jeff. In that action, the state court clerk erroneously noted in the Judgment Docket that a money judgment had been entered against Greg. Two credit reporting agencies, CSC Credit Services and Trans Union Corporation, relied on the state court Judg ment Docket and indicated in Greg's credit report that he owed the money judgment. Greg and Mary Henson sub sequently brought this suit against Cosco, CSC, and Trans Union. They sought recovery against CSC and Trans Union for violating various provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. sec. 1681 through 1681t, and alleged several state law claims against Cosco. The district court dismissed the Hensons' second amended complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. We affirm in part and reverse in part. LINDA JOHNSON v. MBNA AMERICA BANK, NA http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/4th/031235p.pdf United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - February 11, 2004 MBNA America Bank, N.A. (MBNA) appeals a judgment entered against it following a jury verdict in favor of Linda Johnson in her action alleging that MBNA violated a provision of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), see 15 U.S.C.A. § 1681s-2((1) (West 1998) (amended Dec. 4, 2003), by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation of Johnson’s dispute concerning an MBNA account appearing on her credit report. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. KAREN JONES, v. FEDERATED FINANCIAL RESERVICE CORPORATION http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/6th/980157p.html United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit – May 22, 1998 This appeal requires us to determine if civil liability under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. , may be imposed on an employer for its employee's actions under a theory of apparent authority. Plaintiff-Appellant Karen Jones brought suit against defendants Federated Financial Reserve Corporation ("Federated"), TRW, Inc., Randy Lind and Janice Caylor, claiming that the defendants willfully and negligently violated the FCRA in connection with the acquisition of a report concerning Jones's credit status. Jones appeals the district court's entry of a directed verdict in favor of Federated on Jones's willful noncompliance claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681n; the district court's instruction to the jury on Jones's negligent noncompliance claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681o; the district court's denial of Jones's motion for a new trial; and the district court's exclusion of Jones's expert witness. Because we disagree with the standard of liability relied on by the district court, we reverse the district court's entry of a directed verdict on Jones's willful noncompliance claim as well as the jury's verdict on the negligence claim, and remand for further proceedings. GRACE LAWRENCE V. TRANS UNION LLChttp://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/03D0586P.pdf United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania - December 11, 2003 On July 3, 2002, plaintiff Grace Lawrence (“Lawrence”) filed this action against defendant Trans Union (“TU”), a credit reporting agency, for damages sustained when TU allegedly published false information on her credit report. Defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is denied in part and granted in part. WILLIAM D. LOCKARD, v. EQUIFAX, INC http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/97-8023.man.html United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit - Dec. 31, 1998 In this case, plaintiff-appellant William D. Lockard alleged that he was denied credit because of outstanding debts on his credit report that he did not owe. He brought this suit in state court under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681, and state law causes of action against numerous defendants. The defendants removed the case to federal district court, and the district court denied Lockard's motion to remand. The district court also denied Lockard's motion to amend his complaint against two of the defendants, denied his motion to transfer the case to Louisiana, and dismissed some of the defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court issued a final order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54( for the dismissed defendants. Lockard raises four issues on appeal: the denial of his motion to remand, the denial of his motion to amend the complaint, the denial of his motion to transfer, and the dismissal of the defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction. We dismiss the appeal of the denial of the motion to amend the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, and affirm the district court's ruling on the other three issues. MICHAEL J. NAGLE, vs. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC. http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/11th/0111866.html United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit - July 18, 2002 Plaintiff Michael Nagle brought this action against Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. ("Experian") claiming that Experian had negligently and willfully violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1681.1 He sought actual damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs. The jury found that Experian had negligently violated the FCRA, but awarded neither actual or punitive damages. Nagle moved the district court to award him attorneys fees pursuant to § 1681o, which permits an award of attorneys' fees and costs in the case of a "successful action to enforce any liability under this section." Experian opposed that motion, claiming that Nagle had not brought a "successful action to enforce any liability" because the jury did not award actual or punitive damages. The district court subsequently granted Nagle's motion for attorneys' fees, and awarded fees in an amount in excess of $100,000. Experian appeals the entry of judgment in favor of Nagle, the award of attorney's fees, and the amount of attorney's fees awarded. The crux of this case is whether Nagle brought a successful action to enforce liability under the FCRA. If he did, the district court correctly granted his motion for attorneys fees. Nagle contends that he was "successful" because judgment was entered in his favor. Experian claims that he was not "successful" because the jury did not award him damages. TOBY D. NELSON, v. CHASE MANHATTAN MORTGAGE CORP., http://www.law.com/regionals/ca/opinions/mar/0015946.shtml United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - Filed March 1, 2002 Toby D. Nelson ("Nelson" ) appeals the judgment of the district court for the District of Nevada dismissing his suit under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § § 1681-1681u ("the FCRA" ) for failure to state a cause of action against the defendant Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation ("Chase" ). Holding that section 1681s-2( does create a cause of action for a consumer against a furnisher of credit information, we reverse the judgment of the district court. JAMES J. O'CONNOR v. TRANS UNION CORPORATION http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/99d0806p.pdf United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania - September 28, 1999 On July 16, 1997, the Plaintiff James J. O'Connor ("O'Connor" or Plaintiff") brought this action against Defendant Trans Union Corporation LLC ("Defendant" or "Trans Union") alleging various violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. (1988) ("FCRA") and Pennsylvania tort law. In his complaint, O'Connor alleges, in substance, that Defendant prepared credit report containing false and defamatory information, and that it refused to delete the information from his credit file after he notified it of the inaccuracy. JAMES R. PHILBIN, JR. v. TRANS UNION CORPORATION; TRW CREDENTIALS http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/3rd/961470p.html United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit - December 6, 1996 Plaintiff James R. Philbin, Jr. appeals two orders of the district court, the first dated November 29, 1994, and the second and final order dated December 8, 1995, granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. This appeal raises issues regarding the elements of a cause of action pursuant to § 607( of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(, and the nature of plaintiff's burden in demonstrating a prima facie case pursuant to such a cause of action, questions we have not yet had occasion to address. For the reasons that follow, the judgment of the district court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. LAVON PHILLIPS V. MARY K. GRENDAHL; ECON CONTROL, INC http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/12/012616P.pdf United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit - Lavon Phillips appeals from the district court's entry of summary judgment against him in his Fair Credit Reporting Act and Minnesota tort law claims against his prospective mother-in-law, Mary K. Grendahl; a detective agency, McDowell Agency, Inc.;2 and Econ Control, Inc., doing business as Sherlock Information System. The district court held that there was no evidence that Grendahl or the other defendants had obtained a credit report on Phillips by false pretenses. The court rejected Phillips's contention that he had pleaded a claim for wrongful disclosure of a consumer report and stated that such a claim would not be viable anyway because the document at issue in this case was not a "consumer report" covered by the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Finally, the court held that Phillips's invasion of privacy claim failed because there was no publication of a matter that would be "highly offensive to a reasonable person." Phillips challenges each of the district court's conclusions. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for trial. GARY A. PODELL, v. CITICORP DINERS CLUB, INC., CITICORP CREDIT SERVICES, INC., NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, SALON FURNITURE CO., AND EQUIFAX, INC., TRW INC. AND TRANS UNION CORPORATION http://www.tourolaw.edu/2ndCircuit/May97/96-7246.html United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - May 5, 1997 Appeal from a final judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Haight, J.) granting defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing all of plaintiff's claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681u, and under New York state law. Plaintiff claims that: (1) disputed issues of material fact remain as to defendants' liability under both FCRA and state law; and (2) the district court erred as a matter of law in its alternative ruling that claims for damages for business or commercial losses are not cognizable under FCRA. Affirmed. RICHARDSON, v. FLEET, EQUIFAX, et al http://proselitigant.net/wwwthreads/Wc59d0bd2d89b8.htm United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts - August 10, 2001 The consumers claimed that a third-party bank had improperly reported a charge off in the consumers' name, and that the company continued to indicate the improper charge off on the consumers' credit reports. The court held that as to the claim that the company failed to follow reasonable procedures, relying on creditors for accurate credit information had not necessarily constituted a reasonable procedure as a matter of law since the company had reason to know of the dispute between the consumers and the company. The consumers sent notices to the company regarding errors in their credit history on at least three occasions before the company prepared its credit report for a third party creditor. Hence, a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether it was reasonable for the company to rely exclusively on the information provided by the third-party bank. As to causation, the consumers submitted letters from the third-party creditor, rejecting their applications for credit, and citing to the company's credit report as the primary reason. Finally, no evidence indicated that the company willfully misrepresented or concealed any part of a credit report from the consumers. RICHARD L. SHEFFER, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/03D0300P.pdf IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA - July 24, 2003 Plaintiff Richard L. Sheffer commenced this action against Defendants Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Equifax Information Services, LLC (“Equifax”), Trans Union, LLC (“Trans Union”), and Sears Roebuck & Co. (“Sears”).1 Presently before the Court are Trans Union’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Equifax’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and Sears’s Joinder to the Motions for Summary Judgment. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motions are denied. RICHARD L. SHEFFER, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/03D0066P.HTM United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania - February , 2003 Plaintiff Richard L. Sheffer commenced this action against Defendants Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Equifax Information Services, LLC, Equifax, Inc., Trans Union, LLC, and Sears Roebuck & Co. ("Sears"). Defendant Sears has moved to dismiss the claims against it pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12((6). This case presents an issue under the Fair Credit Reporting Act that has not been addressed in a reported opinion by this Court or the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and I hold that 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2( provides consumers with a private right of action against credit furnishers. Consistent with this holding and for the additional reasons set forth below, I deny Sears's motion. LESLIE K. SPENCE, v. TRW, INC. http://www.law.emory.edu/6circuit/aug96/96a0264p.06.html United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - August 13, 1996 The plaintiff, Leslie K. Spence, alleged in the first three counts of his complaint that defendant TRW, Inc., a credit reporting agency, violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681e( by failing to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information contained in a certain residential mortgage credit report released by TRW on September 12, 1992. Count IV of the complaint alleged that TRW violated § 1681b by furnishing a copy of the report to Michigan Consolidated Gas Company ("MichCon") under circumstances not authorized by law. The fifth and final count alleged that TRW violated § 1681c(4) by including in the report information on an account (the same one the accuracy of which was challenged in Count I) placed for collection more than seven years before the release of the report. SCOTT, v. REAL ESTATE FINANCE http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/2nd/987935.html United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - July 09, 1999 Jonathan and Robert Scott, who are brothers, sued several defendants including ERA Gatewood Realty, Inc. ("Gatewood") and broker Ira Simonoff, alleging that the defendants violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681, 1681a-1681u, as well as New York's Fair Credit Reporting Act ("NYFCRA"), N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. §§ 380, 380-a-380-s. The Scotts claimed that Gatewood and Simonoff obtained and used their credit reports without proper notice or authorization and by means of false pretenses. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Spatt, J .) granted summary judgment in favor of Gatewood and Simonoff and denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. See Scott v. Real Estate Finance Group , 956 F. Supp. 375, 386 (E.D.N.Y. 1997). We affirm in part and reverse in part. SCHOENDORF v. U.D. REGISTER, INC http://www.casp.net/schoen.html February 27, 2002 Defendant U.D. Registry, Inc. (UDR), is a consumer reporting agency that gathers information about unlawful detainer cases and sells it to landlords and other subscribers. Plaintiff Faye Schoendorf, a tenant, filed this action against UDR, alleging that it was providing misleading and incomplete information about her. UDR moved to strike the complaint under section 425.16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which prohibits "strategic lawsuits against public participation," better known by the acronym "SLAPP." The trial court concluded that this action was a meritless attempt to chill UDR's constitutional rights and granted the motion. On appeal UDR contends that it was not required to make any changes in plaintiff's report because the information she provided was not a matter of public record. We conclude that plaintiff made a sufficient showing that UDR should have modified her report even if the additional information was not contained in court files or similar sources. Accordingly, we reverse SEPULVADO, v. CSC CREDIT SERVICES http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/5th/9750423cv0.html United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - October 23, 1998 CSC Credit Services, Inc. (CSC) appeals from judgment entered in favor of plaintiffs Sheree and Edward Sepulvado, after a bench trial, in this matter brought pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681 - 1681(t). We reverse, and render judgment in favor of the defendant, CSC. The Sepulvados' claim that an erroneous credit item on a report prepared by CSC caused Texas Homestead Mortgage Company (Texas Homestead) to deny them a mortgage for the purchase of a new home. The material facts relating to the parties' conduct are essentially undisputed. LESLIE K. SPENCE v. TRW, INC. http://www.law.emory.edu/6circuit/aug96/96a0264p.06.html United States Court of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit - August 13, 1996 Under 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(3)(E), "[a] consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report . . . [t]o a person which it has reason to believe . . . has a legitimate business need for the information in connection with a business transaction involving the consumer." MichCon asked TRW for a copy of the residential mortgage credit report after Mr. Spence had sued MichCon for alleged false reporting of a past-due debt to TRW. The filing of the lawsuit obviously gave TRW reason to believe that MichCon had a "legitimate business need" for the report, such a need having arisen in connection with the preparation of MichCon's defense to the lawsuit. See Ippolito v. WNS, Inc., 864 F.2d 440, 450-452 (7th Cir. 1988), cert. dismissed, 490 U.S. 1061 (1989); Matthews v. Worthen Bank & Trust Co., 741 F.2d 217, 219 (8th Cir. 1984). TRW did not violate § 1681b in furnishing the report to MichCon JOHN STEVENSON, v. TRW INC http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/91/91-07142-cv0.htm United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - April 1, 1993 TRW Inc. is a credit-reporting firm that appeals a judgment against it for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681-1681t). Following a bench trial, the district court awarded John M. Stevenson actual damages of $30,000 for mental anguish, punitive damages of $100,000, and attorney's fees of $20,700 for TRW Inc.'s negligent and willful violations of the Act. After carefully reviewing the record, we affirm the district court's findings of negligence and the award of actual damages and attorney's fees, but we reverse the finding of willfulness and vacate the award of punitive damages. JUDY C. THOMAS v. TRANS UNION LLC http://proselitigant.net/wwwthreads/Wc45bc78aaec3f.htm United States District Court for the District of Oregon - March 21, 2002 Plaintiff individual sued defendant credit reporting agency for alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1681 et seq., claiming that the reporting agency failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information in its credit reports. The individual moved for partial summary judgment. The matter was referred a magistrate judge. TRW INC, v. ADELAIDE ANDREWS http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/00-1045/2000-1045.mer.ami.html United States Supreme Court – May 2001 Whether the limitation period under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., which allows private damage actions "to enforce any liability created under [the Act]" to be brought "within two years from the date on which the liability arises," begins to run at the time of an alleged violation, even if the potential plaintiff has no reason to know that she has been injured. JAMES S. YANG & CLAIRE G. YANG, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/11th/978432man.html United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit - July 22, 1998 While investigating an insurance claim, the appellee, Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO), obtained information from a credit reporting agency regarding the appellants, James and Claire Yang. The Yangs commenced the present lawsuit alleging that GEICO violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1681-1681u (West 1997 & Supp.1998). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of GEICO, holding that GEICO's conduct was not subject to FCRA restrictions because the document GEICO obtained regarding the Yangs was not a "consumer report." We reverse. DEBORAH WILSON v. RENTAL RESEARCH SERVICES, INC http://www.ftc.gov/ogc/briefs/wilsonamicus.pdf BRIEF ON REHEARING EN BANC OF AMICUS CURIAE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION SUPPORTING REVERSAL OF LOWER COURT’S DECISION Section 607( of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(, requires consumer reporting agencies to “follow reasonable procedures” in preparing consumer reports “to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.”1 Defendant-Appellee, Rental Research Services, Inc. (“Rental Research”), is a consumer reporting agency that provides information about prospective tenants to subscribing landlords.2 The information that Rental Research sells comes from multiple data bases, including housing court records and credit reports from TRW Inc., which, like Equifax and Trans Union Corporation, is a national consumer reporting agency that serves as a repository for credit information.3 Thus, TRW sells information to “resellers” like Rental Research, which then include the information in reports to such end users as mortgage companies, banks, and landlords. BERNITA WASHINGTON; KEVIN WASHINGTON; PEGGY MALBROUGH; ROY MALBROUGH, JR; BERNICE AUGUSTINE GUICHARD; VERNON GUICHARD, JR, v. CSC CREDIT SERVICES INC; EQUIFAX CREDIT INFORMATION SERVICES INC http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/5th/9831209cv0.html United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - January 7, 2000 Plaintiffs-appellees Bernita and Kevin Washington (the "Washingtons"), Peggy and Ray Malbrough (the "Malbroughs"), and Bernice and Vernon Guichard (the "Guichards") (collectively, the "consumers") allege that defendants-appellants CSC Credit Services, Inc. ("CSC") and Equifax Inc. ("Equifax") (collectively, the "reporting agencies") violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA" or "the Act"). The district court certified the consumers as class representatives and the reporting agencies challenge this ruling. We reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand.
  38. 1 point
    The whole sticky seemed to be getting cluttered up with dead links, etc., so I summarized here: http://www.creditinfocenter.com/creditreports/HowTheBureausInvestigate.shtml http://www.creditinfocenter.com/creditreports/eOscar.shtml http://www.creditinfocenter.com/repair/MethodOfVerification.shtml
  39. 1 point
    Tring to find the address of that elusive pesky collection agency? ======================================== Alabama http://www.sos.state.al.us/sosinfo/inquiry.cfm?area=Corporations Alaska https://myalaska.state.ak.us/business/soskb/csearch.asp Arizona http://starpas.azcc.gov/scripts/cgiip.exe/WService=wsbroker1/connect.p?app=names-report.p Arkansas http://www.sos.arkansas.gov/corps/search_all.php California http://kepler.ss.ca.gov/list.html Colorado http://www.sos.state.co.us/biz/BusinessEntityCriteria.do Connecticut http://www.concord.sots.ct.gov/CONCORD/online?sn=InquiryServlet&eid=99 Delaware http://www.state.de.us/corp/agents/agts.shtml District of Columbia http://mblr.dc.gov/corp/lookup/index.asp Florida http://www.sunbiz.org/corpweb/inquiry/corinam.html Georgia http://www.sos.state.ga.us/corporations/corpsearch.htm Hawaii http://www.ehawaii.gov/dcca/bizsearch/exe/bizsearch.cgi Idaho http://www.accessidaho.org/public/sos/corp/search.html?SearchFormstep=crit Illinois http://cdsprod.ilsos.net/CorpSearchWeb/corpsrch.html Indiana https://secure.in.gov/sos/bus_service/online_corps/name_search.aspx Iowa http://www.sos.state.ia.us/corp/corp_search.asp Kansas http://www.accesskansas.org/srv-corporations/compressed.do Kentucky http://apps.sos.ky.gov/business/obdb/ Louisiana http://www.sos.louisiana.gov/app1/paygate/crpinq.jsp Maine http://icrs.informe.org/nei-sos-icrs/ICRS?MainPage=x Maryland http://sdatcert3.resiusa.org/ucc-charter/CharterSearch_f.asp Massachusetts http://corp.sec.state.ma.us/corp/corpsearch/corpsearchinput.asp Michigan http://www.dleg.state.mi.us/bcs_corp/sr_corp.asp Minnesota http://da.sos.state.mn.us/minnesota/corp_inquiry-find.asp?:Norder_item_type_id=10&sm=7 Mississippi http://www.sos.state.ms.us/busserv/corp/soskb/csearch.asp Missouri https://www.sos.mo.gov/BusinessEntity/soskb/csearch.asp Montana https://app.mt.gov/bes/ Nebraska https://www.nebraska.gov/sos/corp/corpsearch.cgi?nav=search Nevada https://esos.state.nv.us/SOSServices/AnonymousAccess/CorpSearch/CorpSearch.aspx New Hampshire https://www.sos.nh.gov/corporate/soskb/csearch.asp New Jersey (they charge) https://accessnet.state.nj.us/home.asp New Mexico http://www.nmprc.state.nm.us/corporations/corpsinquiry.htm New York http://appsext5.dos.state.ny.us/corp_public/corpsearch.entity_search_entry North Carolina http://www.secretary.state.nc.us/corporations/CSearch.aspx North Dakota https://secure.apps.state.nd.us/sc/busnsrch/busnSearch.htm Ohio http://www1.sos.state.oh.us/pls/portal/PORTAL_BS.BS_QRY_BUS_INFORMATION.SHOW_PARMS Oklahoma https://www.sooneraccess.state.ok.us/corp_inquiry/corp_inquiry-find.asp?:Norder_item_type_id=24&:Spagefrom=BEsearch Oregon http://egov.sos.state.or.us/br/pkg_web_name_srch_inq.login Pennsylvania http://www.corporations.state.pa.us/corp/soskb/csearch.asp?corpsNav=| Rhode Island http://www2.corps.state.ri.us/corporations/corp_search/index.php South Carolina http://www.scsos.com/corp_search.htm South Dakota http://www.state.sd.us/applications/st02corplook/ASPX/ST32Main.aspx Tennessee http://www.tennesseeanytime.org/soscorp/ Texas https://direct.sos.state.tx.us/acct/acct-templogin.asp Utah https://secure.utah.gov/bes/action/index Vermont http://www.sec.state.vt.us/seek/corpbrow.htm Virginia http://www.scc.virginia.gov/division/clk/diracc.htm (click 'CLERKS INFORMATION SYSTEM' to get to http://s0302.vita.virginia.gov) Washington http://www.secstate.wa.gov/corps/search.aspx West Virginia http://www.wvsos.com/wvcorporations/ Wisconsin http://www.wdfi.org/apps/cris/ Wyoming http://soswy.state.wy.us/Corp_Search_Main.asp ========================= Also, http://registeredagentinfo.com
  40. 1 point
    Here's my list: Since there seems to be alot of the following going on here (and I'm probably guilty of it, too), I thought I'd lay out the classic mistakes people make in putting forth a believable argument. This comes from the classic Greek model of logical arguments. Uses threats or prediction of gloom to win arguments The Appeal to Force is committed when the arguer resorts to force or the threat of force in order to try and push the acceptance of a conclusion. It is often used by politicians, and can be summarized as "might makes right". The force threatened need not be a direct threat from the arguer. For example: "... Thus there is ample proof of the truth of the Bible. All those who refuse to accept that truth will burn in Hell." Personal Attacks The Abusive variety of Arguments occurs when, instead of trying to disprove the truth of an assertion, the arguer attacks the person or people making the assertion. This is invalid because the truth of an assertion does not depend upon the goodness of those asserting it. For example: "Atheism is an evil philosophy. It is practised by Communists and murderers." Saying something is true because it can't be proved not true. This fallacy occurs whenever it is argued that something must be true simply because it has not been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it has not been proved true. (Note that this is not the same as assuming that something is false until it has been proved true, a basic scientific principle.) Examples: "Of course telepathy and other psychic phenomena do not exist. Nobody has shown any proof that they are real." Appealing to the People Appealing to the People. To commit this fallacy is to attempt to win acceptance of an assertion by appealing to a large group of people. This form of fallacy is often characterized by emotive language. For example: "The Bible must be true. Millions of people know that it is. Are you trying to tell them that they are all mistaken fools?" The more who agree with me, the more I must be correct This fallacy is closely related to the Appeal of People. It consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct. Using Endorsements The Appeal to Authority uses the admiration of the famous to try and win support for an assertion. For example: "Isaac Newton was a genius and he believed in God." The fallacy of accident The Fallacy of Accident is committed when a general rule is applied to a particular case whose "accidental" circumstances mean that the rule is inapplicable. It is the error made when one goes from the general to the specific. For example: "Christians generally dislike atheists. You are a Christian, so you must dislike atheists." Converse accident / Hasty generalization This fallacy is the reverse of the Fallacy of Accident. It occurs when one forms a general rule by examining only a few specific cases which are not representative of all possible cases. For example: "Jim Bakker was an insincere Christian. Therefore all Christians are insincere." False Cause fallacies. The fallacy of False Cause occurs when one identifies something as the cause of an event but it has not actually been shown to be the cause. For example: "I took an aspirin and prayed to God, and my headache disappeared. So God cured me of the headache." Circular Argument This fallacy occurs when one assumes as a premise the conclusion which one wishes to reach. Often, the proposition will be rephrased so that the fallacy appears to be a valid argument. For example: "Homosexuals must not be allowed to hold government office. Hence any government official who is revealed to be a homosexual will lose his job. Therefore homosexuals will do anything to hide their secret, and will be open to blackmail. Therefore homosexuals cannot be allowed to hold government office." Note that the argument is entirely circular; the premise is the same as the conclusion. An argument like the above has actually been cited as the reason for the British Secret Services' official ban on homosexual employees. Complex question / Fallacy of interrogation / Fallacy of presupposition This is the interrogative form of Begging the Question. One example is the classic loaded question: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Irrelevant Conclusion The fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion consists of claiming that an argument supports a particular conclusion when it is actually logically nothing to do with that conclusion. For example, a Christian may begin by saying that he will argue that the teachings of Christianity are undoubtably true. If he then argues at length that Christianity is of great help to many people, no matter how well he argues he will not have shown that Christian teachings are true. Sadly, such fallacious arguments are often successful because they arouse emotions which cause others to view the supposed conclusion in a more favourable light. Fallacies of composition One Fallacy of Composition is to conclude that a property shared by the parts of something must apply to the whole. For example: "The bicycle is made entirely of low mass components, and is therefore very lightweight." The other Fallacy of Composition is to conclude that a property of a number of individual items is shared by a collection of those items. For example: "A car uses less petrol and causes less pollution than a bus. Therefore cars are less environmentally damaging than buses." The slippery slope argument This argument states that should one event occur, so will other harmful events. There is no proof made that the harmful events are caused by the first event. For example: "If we legalize marijuana, then we would have to legalize crack and heroin and we'll have a nation full of drug-addicts on welfare. Therefore we cannot legalize marijuana." It's always been that way This is the fallacy of asserting that something is right or good simply because it is old, or because "that's the way it's always been." "You Too" fallacy. It occurs when an action is argued to be acceptable because the other party has performed it. For instance: "You're just being randomly abusive." "So? You've been abusive too." This is a form of personal attack