willy2004

Members
  • Content Count

    142
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by willy2004

  1. Two forum post, excuse me in advance. Hi, the next question is: Were they represented by Katz & Korin in Indianapolis? The next question is were you representing yourself? Next question is if you got a letter from a paralegal at Katz & Korin directing you to only communicate with Katz & Korin. Next question is did the letter contain a "variation of accurate information" with respect to your name in the portion of the letter that names the parties in the lawsuit. Did the body of the short letter imply that you are an attorney? You would, of course, be representing the party spelled
  2. Hi, the next question is: Were they represented by Katz & Korin in Indianapolis? The next question is were you representing yourself? Next question is if you got a letter from a paralegal at Katz & Korin directing you to only communicate with Katz & Korin. Next question is did the letter contain a "variation of accurate information" with respect to your name in the portion of the letter that names the parties in the lawsuit. Did the body of the short letter imply that you are an attorney? You would, of course, be representing the party spelled out by the "variation" of your accurat
  3. thanks, suggestion threads are good. I like the site a great deal and would be glad to make a suggestion or two in a thread started by a site owner or Mod. no offense HAWK, good idea there.
  4. US ARMY- Ok, excuse me for being jocular regarding this tradeline. It will fall off in 2008 if it remains a collection. What is the SOL on a dishonored check in FL? (Someone here knows.) I can't say whether or not they will sue, my guess is that they r bluffing. Whether or not you opt to negotiate for a deletion depends on what the tradeline is worth to you. If it were me, I would dispute for a bit if I had a legit dispute, and then ultimately negotiate for a deletion. I just realized this: negotiating for a deletion can be a BEAR and I have accomplished it (in most if not all instances) wh
  5. yeah, any inaccurate or incomplete item of information can be disputed under Section 611. ("...any item of information..")
  6. Snow, a violation of the FDCPA? I have heard that reporting to the CRA or pulling credit is considered at least in some cases to be an effort to collect or a communication.
  7. US Army- this is definitely a "classic" rotflmao!! In ALL SERIOUSNESS, I had a similar deletion on a Dominoes pizza. I disputed the tradeline with all three CRAs stating that they forgot the pepperoni and that the pizza was cold on arrival. We wen't back and forth for roughly a year until I "settled" for a deletion by ordering 4 Large pizzas for my Super Bowl party. A HUGE fiasco! LMAO, let me ask you this: Which state are we in? (edit: ok, Florida. Lots of posters from Florida here who will be able to answer this question if it is deemed relevant.) There are laws governing the amounts tha
  8. jazkal, yes, if you enter the tracking number on your round dated Certified Receipt on USPS.COM, you will see the date of delivery.
  9. ARe utility bills subject to an SOL? I am not sure about that one. If the CA just acquired it, then they may not have reported yet.
  10. It is more than twice as long as the old one. OMG, lotta reading to do!! The current FCRA is 37 pages. Some new definitions, new provisions, it will be a good read. Will update some of the additions here. A lot of new definitions, LOTS of them. Some additions to Section 611 requiring resellers of consumer reports to process disputes, though they are not subject to all of Section 611. What is a reseller of consumer reports? PG is not a "reseller" under the new FCRA. (damn!) hehe
  11. I feel like I am the only one posting today..I don't even have any neg TLs. LOL, I guess I just love credit repair and the FCRA. lmao
  12. yeah I still send mine with the green card, but have been considering the same. Billy Kimble, Experian, has not been stamping the date anyway. Another idea and it is not as good as Cert, but it is an option, is to obtain a Certificate of Mailing for 90 cents. A properly sent article of mail creates a presumption of receipt in every state that I am aware of, and I believe that it is a Fed Rule of Evidence as well (not positive). Suppose I send letters 1, 2, and 3 regular mail with Cert of Mailing, then send letter 4 and say: "This letter will confirm your receipt of letters 1, 2 and 3 (stat
  13. Definitely an eyebrow raiser, but I am going to have to ditto RW's post. I will look into it perhaps. I would start by seeing if I can get Citi to admit their permissible purpose under Section 604. In all likelihood, they will say (if they speak at all) that it was in connection with a credit transaction initiated by you. My instnctive response is that you did NOT engage in a credit transaction. (edit) Check that, they are more likely to say "legitimate business need." Better to ask Citi and see what they say. Was there anything in the application that would suggest an application for cred
  14. All of the CRAs are completely out to lunch.
  15. GDL, closing arguments? only kidding. I think that you made the best arguments that the other side can make. I don't think that there are any good arguments to make for Experian. Thanks for the discourse--beers are still on me. 8)
  16. YEP, I had success with Citi on a student loan as well. I contacted my alma mater as well on another one--worked like gold. Good point about over exhausting the GW letters.
  17. GD, the issues with regard to Experian are the following: 1) willful failure to maintain reasonable procedures to assure "maximum possible accuracy" under Section 607( 2) willful failure to follow reinsertion guidelines disputes concerning false names/addresses/SSN (Experian simply deletes or "updates" the items of information in their words." Experian does not follow any of the guidelines regarding reinsertion.) 3) willful failure to provide notice required by Section 611(a)(3)©(ii) in Experian's "PREVIOUSLY INVESTIGATED..." response to a consumer. This response is likely a "frivolous or
  18. So all soft INQS are irrelevant, false names, false SSNs, false addresses are irrelevant? I have trouble buying into that. It is a tremendous admissiion to state that the name or SSN on a consumer report are "irrelevant." By all means, I would love to hear that argument made. The overwhelming issue here is that a consumer may dispute "any item of information" on a consumer report. If Congress intended to limit those items of information to certain categories, they could have and would have. Congress did not do this.
  19. I'm sorry, wrong thread. WHY would a dispute regarding a false name or a false address be irrelevant? They don't even regard it as a dispute pursuant to Section 611. They do not make a frivolous or irrelevant determination or any determination for that matter. This will get litigated eventually. I will look at Casella. As I recall, that is a case where the term "file" is interpreted. Something about the P's wife's "investigative consumer report" and the Ct. says that it is part of the husband's "file." That was the aspect of that case that interested me. I can't imagine that a name on
  20. her, precisely. Douglas, I am sorry if that came off the wrong way, no offense intended. We are all consumers here (hopefully) and on the same team. I do appreciate your arguments, that is the best way to find the "best" argument is too have cross talk, however heated it may be. It is not personal, not from my desk anyway. I literally am VERY upset over this and there are prudential reasons why I am not presently seeking representation on it. Cheers. 8) (beers on me)
  21. Where is the advertisement? LOL All of the info can get reinserted.
  22. well have you tried any disputes? try this dispute: "This account is listed TWICE--that is duplicative. Please delete (one or both.)" If that does not work, come back. LOL
  23. Douglas, laughing (very) loud over here. You would be willing to bet that some of the "name variations" are from court records? Are you planning on qualifying that statement by stating that those court records pertain to ME? There are very likely and almost definitely court records that contain my "name variations." Those court records pertain to someone other than me, however. Your statement regarding the "huge commanility" among names confirms why a SINGLE SSN should identify someone. Most importantly, please indicate why a name, addresss or SSN on a consumer report does not qualif
  24. related links: "SSN Variations" http://debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=14985 "PREVIOUSLY INVESTIGATED..." http://debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=14984
  25. related links: name/address/SSN reinsertions http://debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=92935#92935 "PREVIOUSLY INVESTIGATED..." http://debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=14984