• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


uwackme last won the day on June 9 2008

uwackme had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

54 Excellent

About uwackme

  • Rank
    Impressive 100+ postings

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Seems this would be a violation of your constitutional right to face your accuser. You cannot cross-examine an affidavit.
  2. Remember, if they reported to the CRA, having admitted in court no proof of the debt and agreeing to a dismissal WITH predjudice.... then the report on your credit record is: Common Law Defamation, which is grounds alone for suing them. How much? What is your reputation worth? Make it $10,000. Do as suggested, only do a mortgage application. Find a nice house you'd like to own, pick the mot hardass bank in the area, and apply for a pre-approved mortgage. When they turn you down, and cite the credit report and the item on it from Midland... wammo... add actual damage claim equal to the value of
  3. It would be the Date of First Default DOFD (that remained uncorrected). So generally the date they first reported you 30 day late to the credit reporting agency(s) beyond which yoou never cleared the default back to good standing. So you can analyze the account history on your credit report so YOU know, and if they don't admit in thier complaint when the default occured (perhaps trying to hide the fact it is SOL) you can always get a subpoena from a district court judge for the communications of the OC to the CRA for your credit file. This would be thier own words meeting thier legal requireme
  4. You are stuck waiting untilt he 7 yrs is up. Ive never heard of Cap1 removing a TL, even if you agreed to pay it off in full, with thier insane gorilla numbers. The live to poison your credit report, seems to be a corporate charter to damage as many consumer's credit ratings as possible.... as they live in the sub-prime lending world, the more disadvantaged you are, the more likely they can screw you harder. The only leverage from here is to analyze thier reporting with a magnifying glass. Make sure they are 100% accurate and truthful. Anything that is not 100% correct, gives you a chance to u
  5. This is your collective advice? First, the COLLECTION AGENCY (CA) that Capital One sent after you, sent you a DUNNING letter, dated May 27th. You need to IMMEDIATELY write up a "Debt Validation" (DV) request and mail this CMRRR (Certified Mail Return Reciept Requested) so you have proof you mailed it. This request is to have the collection agency DEBT COLLECTOR obtain from the Original Creditor (OC) a copy of the documentation informing you about the debt, what it is for, how much the alleged balance is, etc. The CA will then mail a copy of this to you. The importance of doing this right, is t
  6. No insult taken. I agree with you 100% on the accounting lesson. My point is for a consumer faced with a lawsuit, to use every weapon in the arsenal. One of those weapons is the common law "Payment and Tender" defense. Legitimately (aka NON-FRIVOLOUSLY) arguing the Payment and Tender affirmative defense in court is the motivation behind this thought process. At this point you HAVE BEEN SUED. As a consumer advocate I'm just trying to highlight potential fronts in the war on collection. Say I allegedly owe BoA $10,000. They charge it off, and then they write it off their taxes. Thier income is
  7. I'm not gonna waste my breath on the argument beyond this... The Clark court DID NOT rule: "that the return call from the CA was not violative." They found the exact opposite, that the Collection Agency employee Brumley VIOLATED 805c. The court found that Mrs Clark had WAIVED the communications prohibition for the Collection Attorney ONLY, not for the other parties... OC Doctor or Collection Agency Capital (and thier employee Brumley). The court sent the case back to the district court to deal with discovery issues they wrongly ignored originally AND to adjudicate the FDCPA claims.... 805c as
  8. Well, Ive tried to help. The OP wanted to stop the calls. Without getting nasty, lets cut the crap, 99% of collectors "phone calls" are not nice pleasent Hi how are you, they are instead deliberate confrontations to evoke a response from the alleged debtor...ie: PAY UP. With the hundreds nay thousands of consumers who have come to this site seeking help dealing with collection, we've all read the perpetual story of abusive calls, abusive language, hey deadbeat why dont you pay your bills, etc, etc. Telephone calls from collectors are a TOOL of collection, manned by personel trained professiona
  9. "I have a little trouble with you telling people that if they inform a CA to only communicate in writing gives them explicit permission to record them." CDL, I dont know where that comes from. Im sure if you search for my comments on recording Ive been clear. Federal law and rules of evidence allow you to record, regardless of what state law says. BUT, since we live in states no reason not to obey when needed. So in 2 party states TELL THE COLLECTOR they are being recorded (unless they already told YOU they were recording YOU, which many do.) as this covers your butt legally ON TAPE. It usuall
  10. Thats not how I read it. Yes the court isn't RULING on the specifics of using the "inconvenient" term, but they also make it clear the consumer is in the drivers seat over WHAT and WHEN is "inconvenient". And the ramifications if the KNOWN prohibition is violated. So stating in a DV that "it is inconvenient to contact me by TELEPHONE at any time or place" tells the collector PRECISELY when they are forbidden and not forbidden from communicating. It clearly tells the collector they are free to WRITE and sending dunnings, and settlement offers, and validation, etc. Just not call. The specific
  11. Sorry Admin, it was posted in response to post #30.... though the Clark case actually includes some excellent FDCPA information and how the court deals with these issues. It is also a very recent case... this year... and includes some issues handled by the court for the first time ever.
  12. Clark v. Capital Credit Oregon, 9th Cir Court of Appeals in which the 9th circuit clearly agrees with my assertion as to the manner in which section 805 works. This is a very recent decision and one of the few concentrating on the "communications" issue. The subject of the case involves a consumer WAIVER of thier clear RIGHT to have debt collectors NOT contact them by telephone once informed that this is "inconvenient". They wouldn't be discussing the legal issues around the waiver of something IF you didn't have the thing to be waivered in the first place. The court discussion.... THREE JUDGE
  13. I'm working on getting you caselaw examples: Very interesting one, Clark v. Capital Credit Oregon, 9th Cir Court of Appeals in which the 9th circuit clearly agrees with my assertion, and further discusses how later contacting the collector may constitute a waiver of the restriction. The case includes some other very interesting FDCPA issues. As a response to your concern over what a CA might do... regard this as a cease and desist. Well, that's on the collector. Clearly WRITTEN communication is not prohibited, and if the collector wants a shot at getting a settlement, they should pursue same.
  14. For the record, I believe in the constitutionality of income tax.... and double so for the very wealthy. So let me get this striaght, according to you: I'm Capital One Bank, I have $100 million in gross revenues for the year. So I pay my corporate income tax of (dunno, 20%?) on the $100 million.... or $20 million. At no point do I write off and deduct the $10 million in defaults for the same year, yeilding a mere $90 million in gross revenues, with a corporate tax bill of $18 million. At no point do I pay $2 million LESS in taxes because I wrote off the defaults, and in no way do I therefore r
  15. Section 6050P of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) for discharges of indebtedness is the place to start looking into how writing a debt off you taxes plays out with the IRS.