willy2004

Members
  • Content Count

    142
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by willy2004

  1. I sent a brief description of Experian's policy to the attorney that handled the case above. (I only provided excerpts from the case.): Mr. David Szwak, Esq. Bodenheimer, Jones, Szwak & Winchell, LLP 401 Market St. Suite 240 Shreveport, LA. 71101 My belief is that Experian will not change its policy based on consumer complaints. It will take some litigation to change this policy. The reinsertion w/out notice is a serious violation, in my opinion. FIRST, I suggest requesting the "source" of each false item FIRST. SECOND, I suggest committing "disputes" to writing regarding false names,
  2. sounds like a reinsertion under the present FCRA, 1681i(a)(5)(.
  3. Yemaya, this is a serious consumer issue. The procedure below should allow you to dispute the addresses and get them "deleted," though Experian will guise the deletions as an "update" in order to reinsert the false items. Save the documentation. --------------------------------------------- Print out a copy of the page on consumerinfo.com that states you may dispute any underlined item. Attach that page to a dispute letter and state that you are disputing the following addresses on the grounds that they are inaccurate as they do not exist. Demand for DELETION of the false addresses. Experi
  4. CYNTHIA COMEAUX, Plaintiff, vs. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:02cv0304 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, MARSHALL DIVISION 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10705 June 4, 2004, Decided June 8, 2004, Filed OVERVIEW: The credit reporting agency asserted that the consumer's claims under 15 U.S.C.S. § 1681i were time barred since they were not brought within two years from when any liability arose as required by 15 U.S.C.S. § 1681p. The magistrate held that the idea that a credit reporting agency (especially one familiar with mixed file cases
  5. Their "trade information" is a bluff as confirmed on consumerinfo.com that concedes the very obvious: We CAN "dispute" false items of identifying information including false names, nonexistent addresses and SS numbers that belong to other consumers. The FCRA ain't that bad after all, it was an Experian bluff...and it is far from over, but I am positive that it is 100% bluffing. Here is what I have learned: Experian is intent on maintaining as many "variations" as possible in a file. (Lemme post and edit as that was not cool at all.) The Comeaux case brings to light Experian's fraud that I
  6. Local Advocates, Twin Cities Chapter The name is unofficial. The primary goal is to fight the CRAs with a sharp weapon. The first meeting is scheduled for: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 at 8:00 PM Dunn Bros. Coffee 530 University Ave. SE (University Ave. and 6th) Minneapolis, MN. 55414 (612) 331-5195 Minnesotans, please post below if another day/time/place works better for you. I will place a large green notebook on my table. I describe generally and then specifically why I am convinced that establishing local groups of consumer advocates is essential to putting a dent in the CRAs. My ho
  7. admin, you are being facetious I think, haha. I will be following up shortly. The inconsistency with Experian's "authentication" guise is that at no time did they contact either furnisher to inform them of Experian's alleged belief that a document had been forged.
  8. u]Question: Has Experian ever NOT responded in this manner when you submitted documentation with your dispute? I believe that Experian's "authentication" guidelines are nonexistent or unreasonable. They are positively mysterious (see below). I attached a letter that was generated by the furnisher stating that the tradeline should be updated to read "CURRENT/NO DELINQUENCY." Experian responded with the following form letter: "We are responding to the information you sent us. Unfortunately, we could not use this information. We are contacting the source of the information you questioned. Wh
  9. I offer cost free personal process serving to anyone who files suit against this outfit pursuant to 1681g(a)(1). I am over 18 and enjoy stake outs. I am also in the Minneapolis area. (My contribution to the cause.)
  10. mulder, are you in their Priority Dept? If so, pls PM me, I am hoping that those of us in their Priority Dept will one day come together and have a class action claim filed for their violation of Sect 609©(1)( thanks
  11. Yes, Trans Union places consumers in their Priority Dept because they file an AG or FTC complaint. My file was placed there prior to my BBB filing, though my file does have a "Government complaint" notation on it. Doc, how long ago was it that you were in their Prior dept? Did you have problems reaching a representative? I am trying to touch base with consumers in TU's Priority Dept. I believe that a class action is in order. 15 USC 1681g©(1)(. I am required to submit all questions in WRITING per TU's letterhead.
  12. TU tells me that they have undergone a "system upgrade" and that these inquiries no longer print on TU consumer reports. I am well aware of what the (TU CONSUMER DISCLOSURE) inquiry refers to, I am simply trying to ascertain whether or not TU is being frank. If anyone is aware of this "system upgrade," please post and please let me know the general date that you are aware of a "TU CONSUMER DISCLOSURE" inquiry posting to a consumer report. Thank you. I am double posting across the street, thanks, this does concern what I suspect to be fraud related to "Fin Coll Agency."
  13. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692©, NCO is instructed to cease communication with me.
  14. I would check with a lawyer in my state regarding the tape recording of some of these calls.
  15. US ARMY- One option: call 888-5 OPT OUT provide the info to the automated system you will receive a form in the mail shortly thereafter complete the form send it Certified Mail and make a copy of the form that you filled out Send a copy of the Certified Mail receipts (Green Card that you receive back in the mail that is signed by recipient AND round dated receipt that the USPS will give you when you send the mail) to each CRA along with the copy of the form. This will confirm each CRA's understanding that you are in fact OPTED OUT. That is my strategy and it is a bit cumbersome, I admit.
  16. Thanks admin, I received your post in the "lawyer in the house" forum. In 2001, I sued a large hospital (don't ya just wanna hug and kiss me?) because they were violating the FDCPA by failing to include a 1692g notice. It was granted class certification (class action) and defendant settled before even filing an MSJ. They were clearly "debt collectors" while using a name entirely different than their own to collect. 1692a(6). They had no clue...the address of the second entity was the same one as the hospital, no trickery involved, they just had no clue. lol 11,000 consumers in the class,
  17. Gang, thanks for the posts...will check Hall of Fame. I did find a suit filed pro se in Minnesota where I am that was removed to fed court. I am going to get in touch with that consumer. This may not be a form letter...my relationship with TU is highly atypical. thank you for moving this post, Mods..and I am sincere--it was not getting responses upstairs. thanks
  18. Actual litigation or a real threat of actual litigation past the SOL has been held to violate the FDCPA in the 7th Circuit. Is that what happened? Which case did you cite above? AR is 8th Cir., not as good as the 7th for consumers..but hey.
  19. thanks for the post...we'll see how it plays out Katz & Korin did not wish to provide me a "corrected" letter for sure, but spent a long time talking to me. It seems too unfair to file a lawsuit in the midst of a bunch of FCRA violations, and then suddenly lose all FCRA rights upon filing. this one will play out...and I dunno who is "right." We'll see down the line.
  20. will post it here too, okay Two enterprises acting in concert with each other is a requirement for a RICO claim. It may be a single "group," for example a mob family laundering money thru a restaurant. A creditor and a CA operating together = satisfies RICO in that respect A single entity representing itself as one entity = does not satisfy RICO try ricoact.com
  21. If you have dealt with these folks, pls check in and I will continue..thanks
  22. Folks, if you are in receipt of a letter from Sally that provides notice of a denial of credit, refer to the bottom left hand portion of the letter: If it states "B401" and is the same "B401" two page letter that I have in front of me, it contains a substantial ommission that is required to be provided by Secton 615. --------------------------------------------- Several if not many other lenders furnish "denial of credit" form letters that fail to comply with Section 615. Many of these misconstrue the '60 days after the consumer's receipt' language contained in Section 612, which is incorpora
  23. Folks, thanks for reading. A legal question of sorts, though no response will be regarded as "legal advice" so no worries. Here it is and it is not a hypo: Consumer sues CRA Consumer is always pro se Does CRA's counsel have the right to prevent consumer from directing disputes and other FCRA granted rights directly to CRA in lieu of CRA's counsel's demand for the same? National CRA's counsel maintains no toll free telephone number, a side note, and a relevant note if in fact CRA's counsel is forwarding disputes, etc.. TO the CRA client. It's a scammy world and I am thankful that I have t