cjtx

Members
  • Content Count

    1,061
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

cjtx last won the day on September 4 2008

cjtx had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

240 Excellent

About cjtx

  • Rank
    500 posts and hasn't been banned yet....

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. It is very fishy whenever a data furnisher verifies info that was updated a long time ago... except in cases in which the account was sold, in which case they are not supposed to make any new updates. CRAs take shortcuts all the time. Sometimes they don't contact the data furnisher but verify the old information through some other means, like accessing a third party data repository or going back to the data reported to them a long time ago by the data furnisher. That is why a lot of the times you get an account verified with a very old last update date. Ask for MOV and it may come off, or at the very least, force the CRA to contact the data furnisher, which is what they should have done anyways instead of misrepresenting that the furnisher verified it.
  2. This could explain why your return receipt is messed up. One of my return receipts got lost so I went to the post office and they showed me the system to prove that my letter was delivered. This particular CRA (and my guess is the same goes for the others) receives daily hundreds of certified letters so the mailman just drops everything off and the CRA is supposed to sign, date and return the green cards at its own convenience... Another case of letting the wolf guard the sheep...
  3. I had no idea Expert Global was the parent company of NCO... and that they are located in North Texas... I wonder how many complaints does it take for the FTC to go after a debt collector... and who made the decision to settle for that amount... Lame!
  4. It is usually a good idea to have as much leverage as you can when going to the bargaining table. So it would help if you provide the info BV80 requested so we can help you figure out your options.
  5. I think @shellieh98 made very good points about this. In addition, when you go to therapy for anxiety and stress related disorders, you learn several strategies to handle or minimize the negative effects. For example through exercise (which coltfan mentioned), breathing exercises, natural supplements, teas (which he also mentioned), etc. Unless you absolutely need medication, the same self-help strategies are going to be suggested. So he could make a point that despite his not seeking medical attention, he had enough tools from his previous treatments to deal with it without having to resort to prescriptions. The judge may rule either way, but seeing as he is a do it yourself kind of guy, it would not be far reaching to conclude that this is why he didn't go to the doctor.
  6. I think 169 doesn't apply to justice court because the new 500.9 (effective 31 Aug 2013) deals with discovery in justice court and for pre-trial the court has to approve every single discovery request before they are served on the other party. Other than the notice (where they state 169 doesn't apply to justice court), the 01 March 2013 rules themselves have no explicit reference to justice courts whatsoever. All the rules that used to deal with justice and small claims courts were removed from the "interim" version. So it makes sense that the old TRCP (non-expedited Level I) would apply to justice courts and small claims until August 31. What a mess!!!
  7. I wasn't aware of this decision. Thanks for the cite. I knew before the circuits were split. The Second, Third, Fourth, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits have all held that federal courts lack federal question jurisdiction over TCPA private actions.   • Foxhall Realty Law Offices, Inc. v. Telecommunications Premium Services, Ltd. , 156 F.3d 432 (2nd Cir. 1998) (holding state courts have exclusive jurisdiction over a cause of action created by the TCPA) • ErieNet, Inc. v. Velocity Net, Inc., 156 F.3d 513 (3rd Cir. 1998) (holding Congress intended to refer private litigants under the TCPA to state court, and to preclude federal question jurisdiction) • International Science & Technology Institute, Inc. v. Inacom Communications, Inc., 106 F.3d 1146 (4th Cir. 1997) (holding state courts have exclusive jurisdiction over TCPA private actions) • Chair King, Inc. v. Houston Cellular Corp., 131 F.3d 507 (5th Cir. 1997) (holding Congress granted state courts exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over TCPA private actions) • Murphy v. Lanier, 204 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding state courts have exclusive jurisdiction over a private cause of action created by TCPA)   • Nicholson v. Hooters of Augusta, Inc., 136 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir. 1998), modified, 140 F.3d 898 (11th Cir. 1998) (holding Congress intended to assign the TCPA private right of action to state courts exclusively) But the Sixth and Seventh circuits have ruled that federal courts do have federal question jurisdiction over private TCPA suits.   • Charvat v. Echostar Satellite, LLC, 630 F.3d 459 (6th Cir. 2010) (holding federal district courts have subject matter jurisdiction over TCPA private actions) • Brill v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc., 427 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 2005) (holding state courts do not have exclusive jurisdiction over TCPA private actions)
  8. @debtzapper Thanks for the cite. TCPA grants state courts jurisdiction over federal law. However, states may choose not to exercise jurisdiction, hence the statement: The reasoning behind this is that the potential volume of lawsuits for violations of TCPA could be too much for a state court to handle, so states were given an opt out. So I stand by my statement that state law may preempt TCPA, at least in state courts. I know there is precedent for federal courts exercising jurisdiction, but the plain language of the statute appears to limit jurisdiction to state courts.
  9. Starting in August of this year there will no longer be any "small claims" in justice courts, so my guess is all the changes in TRCP affecting justice courts will become effective at that time. The new definitions of expedited cases seem to be exactly what justice courts are intended to handle, which is still up to $10,000. Are you sure the books you found refer to the new rules? Discovery control plans can be negotiated with the other party and you can file a joint motion to modify them. If the other party disagrees, you must request leave of court.
  10. State law preempts TCPA. I'm not familiar with your state's laws but if there is no private right of action under your state's law, you can't sue using TCPA.
  11. Here is part of the decision regarding TCPA: The point was that there are many issues in TCPA that still result in rulings like this one. There is no consensus across the board and the FCC contradicting its previous rulings instead of clarifying the issues makes it more confusing for the courts who were familiar with the history of the statute which was originally intended to punish abusive telemarketers.
  12. For example: Michael C. Worsham v. Account Receivables Management, Inc., No. JKB-10-3051 (D. Md. Nov. 22, 2011) (Bredar, J.) in which the court decided that TCPA does not apply to debt collectors.
  13. Here is an interesting article citing several different court interpretations of what constitutes or whether you are allowed to revoke consent for debt collection. http://dritoday.org/feature.aspx?id=542 Basically, some courts say the request must be in writing (because FDCPA requires it in writing), others argue that consent can be oral so revocation can also be oral, and even others argue that once you consent you can't take it back.
  14. @BV80 There were several loopholes with respect to express consent. Different courts have interpreted the statute different ways and many give a lot of leeway to accept ambiguous, implicit, far reaching, tricky ways to "obtain" consent. For example: recorded messages stating "press 1 to listen to an important message for you" or "press 9 to speak to a customer service specialist". So the new amendments to the TCPA which become effective in October will eliminate most of the ambiguity and will make it a lot more difficult for solicitors to show there was explicit consent. True. However, there is implicit consent, which many courts presume for debt collectors. Are those FCC declaratory rules binding in court? Many cases involving debt collectors have been thrown out due to the established business relationship exception and many courts refuse to require anything in writing to show consent.
  15. The cases above are a good start, but you need to do some more research. TCPA has some loopholes due to the fact that it hasn't kept up with the changes in technology and telemarketing/soliciting practices. Fortunately, there are some major amendments to become effective in October of this year that focus on written (or digital) explicit permission. The worst offenders are experts at exploiting the loopholes. For example, there was a case in which someone sued a company who called several times in violation of TCPA. It turned out it was a sub-contractor sending caller ID info that identified the solicitor they were calling on behalf of (not the sub-contractor) . Because TCPA's prohibitions are for "any person", the court decided that the prohibition applied to the sub-contractor. So the case was dismissed for lack of standing. Btw, collection calls are deemed to have explicit permission due to the established business relationship exception. Even if you did not give them your number. In this case you need to explicitly revoke permission, through C&D to terminate the presumption of explicit permission for debt collection.