• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Neo9 last won the day on January 12 2019

Neo9 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Neo9

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Los Angeles, CA
  1. Thanks BV80. My brain is fried, I don't know why I didn't reference the AZ laws myself for relevant info. I'm surprised, yet not surprised, none of the three attorneys I consulted knew this. Being honest, and with no disrespect intended to the attorneys, I've found most of the lawyers practicing in this area to be really sub-par and/or lazy. Frustrating. Really appreciate your help a lot.
  2. SOL has expired in NC on the accounts as follows as of today (6/19/21): 62 days past 68 days past 19 days past 180+ days past Midland owns the account that's 180+ expired and still actively pursues it via written correspondence so I am considering the potential they may try to play some games at some point. One attorney I spoke with indicated they "can sue you in AZ" anyway because "they are supposed to sue you where you reside" to suggest they could disregard the NC SOL, sue in AZ, and none were able to offer me any insight into Maricopa County's case law in handling the
  3. I am considering moving from NC (3 yr SOL) to AZ (6 yr SOL). I have a few alleged debts for which the SOL recently expired in NC. I have sought counsel from attorneys in AZ as to how easy it would be to defend a lawsuit if sued in AZ for these accounts. After speaking with three lawyers, none of them have been able to offer any useful insight and seem uncertain of how their own courts would handle the matter, even with consideration to the fact that the contracts are alleged to have been signed while I was a resident of NC and subsequent charges accrued in NC as well. Anyone from A
  4. I see. Very unusual that all of the info on this forum espouses a process which includes writing dispute letters to the data furnishers. As such, I wasn't "trying to make" anything "much more complicated", but rather, was following the instructions provided by this site itself and members who represent themselves as an authority on the subjects. I've spoken to a few attorneys who have also provided advice consistent with those instructions. Which is why I took the time to ask you those very specific questions, to which you did not respond. FCRA 623 requires you to notify a data
  5. Missed this reply last month. I wasn't worried but more so interested specifically in whether their attempts to collect when I called in to them would be considered a violation (in addition to the obvious violations).
  6. Let me take a step back here in case I'm on the wrong path: Which law(s) require a data furnisher to provide accurate information to the credit bureaus? What happens if they refuse to correct inaccurate information and what can be done about it? When I reference "623 dispute" I am referring to having disputed accuracy of trade line data with the CRAs, having it come back verified, and then submitting a subsequent dispute letter to the data furnisher. My question to Amerikaner, regarding his "623 Primer" sticky, was specific to the dispute letter being sent to a data furnisher afte
  7. Thanks for taking the time to provide this info. It's helpful to me because I am exploring the FCRA right now. Currently, I have a data furnisher that made a complete mess of my payment history. At one particular bureau, they are misreporting balance figures, payment amounts, and payment status in a dozen separate instances. This is the reason why I was looking toward FCRA disputes and quoting 623. When you mention it's about useless for consumers, is it really because people tend to just dispute things that are totally accurate? I'm really curious about your insight on that point be
  8. Hey Amerikaner, I noticed in your 623 Primer link in your signature it seems to indicate you prefer to send general 623 disputes without any specific information into the data points being disputed. I wanted to know if I misunderstood this, as I am seeking to understand 623 better, and noticed in the statutes it indicates the consumer should "identify the specific information being disputed" and offer "basis for the dispute". Does simply informing them the trade line is inaccurate satisfy the identification of specific information being disputed?
  9. Thanks for this insight. I was always under the impression the generic response satisfied the statutory requirement under 1681i(a)(6)(B)(iii). The clause seems generic stating that they need only provide a "description of the procedure used to verify..." and "business name, address, and telephone number if reasonably available." Those generic responses seem to provide a general enough description, and I've seen so many differing opinions on this subject, I'd be interested to learn more for my own credit work as to what the precedents are. Your time and consideration is genuinely
  10. Thanks for sharing this additional insight. Are you meaning to dispute the inaccurate information under FCRA 623, but while also including ample documentation to support the claim? I'm wondering if inclusion of supporting documents under such a dispute are beneficial as they will actually be considered by the CRA or the CA/OC when investigating a dispute or because it shows good faith later down the road when pursuing a civil action or in arbitration. Thanks again for your time and consideration in sharing your insights. The comprehensive info you've put together on arbitration is incr
  11. For the OP's benefit, which alternative courses of action would you recommend he consider? It's also possible a 623 dispute is motivated in correcting inaccurate reporting across multiple bureaus. OC's and CA's are fumble fingers when it comes to making sure trade lines are reporting accurately and consistently across all credit bureaus. Violations of which can be utilized as leverage to eventually get things removed down the road. As BV80 suggested, OP should provide additional details on what they are disputing, what's being reported at which bureaus, and what their ultimate motivati
  12. There you go again, making yourself look even more foolish. I used to post here back in 2008-2009 under the username QM07 or something similar. I'll look it up. One of the older members here helped me defend Pro Se in a case brought against me by Citibank, and successfully had the case dismissed. I'm entirely interested in open discourse with those who disagree. Which is why I engaged other members, like Harry Seaward, and told him I respect his opinions and viewpoints on the matter and onboarded some of his recommendations. I just prefer to interact with people who's comments ar
  13. Yes, of course it was. I knew they would ignore it because collection agencies are vile, parasitic organizations that only follow the law if they think there will be documented evidence proving they violated. They never acknowledge faxes.
  14. I was just thinking "when will Clydesmom come in with a bunch of factually incorrect, irrelevant remarks to try and smash another thread." Right on queue. "By your own admission when you sent the certified letter it crossed with their second letter. They had no way of knowing the certified letter was en route when then mailed theirs. That gives them a bona-fide error defense." WRONG. I never claimed their second letter to be a violation. Why don't you try reading the thread one more time. This time, more carefully. More importantly, they had already received verbal dispute on t