Jump to content

Local Advocates, Twin Cities, First Meeting


willy2004
 Share

Recommended Posts

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 hope is that consumers will pool their stories/documents such that we can get some class actions filed against the CRAs. The CRAs affirmatively and adamantly misrepresent the FCRA in order to induce consumers to accept their unfair policies. A policy is less likely to be proved based on one guy’s experience, particularly this guy.  If 100 or 1000 consumers have experienced the same, now it looks more like a policy. Moreover, a policy that 100 consumers have been subjected to that does violate the FCRA is a policy that the CRA “knowingly” adopted. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals and other federal courts have allowed punitive damages to be awarded on this basis.

The CRAs have to be punished with punitive damages, simply stated. If we can come together and pool our evidence of the policies described below, I think (and hope) that a law firm will take our case, win the case, punish the CRA, etc.. A victory of this type will either cause the CRA to change the policy or make it easier for the next consumer plaintiff to get another victory.

Three months ago, I wrote a letter to Experian’s Special Services Manager in which I requested provision of the §611(a)(3)©(ii) notice that is absent from Experian’s “Previously Investigated” form letter. The last thing that she wants to learn is that another consumer has a copy of my letter to her dated well prior to the date of another consumer’s “Previously Investigated” letter. Multiply that effect by 100 or 1000.

Roughly six months ago, I informed Trans Union that NCO is the real identity of a fictitious person that has obtained my consumer report and those of many others. I have a stack of letters to all of their offices informing them of this. They have admitted it to me though they continue to deceive other consumers. The last thing that Trans Union wants to learn is that another consumer is holding copies of my letters and TU’s letters.

I had a laundry list of false names and nonexistent/false addresses on my Experian report. Experian “updated” them though they were actually deleted and reinserted. Experian’s Special Services Manager told me: ‘When it comes to variations, Experian interprets variations as trade information.’ She expressly voiced Experian’s interpretation as a legal conclusion that expresses the legal opinion of Experian’s legal counsel.

She was apparently attempting to mislead me into the false belief that my “dispute” regarding this blatantly false identifying information falls outside the category of that which can be “disputed” pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a). (“…any item of information contained in a consumer's file at a consumer reporting agency…”)

Emphasis is placed on “any” in addition to countless other reasons to conclude that “trade information” is “any information” that can be disputed, deleted, and NOT reinserted in the absence of complying with the reinsertion provisions of 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a)(5)(B) and ©. Additional FCRA provisions are also violated by this policy.

Since the time that Mrs. Stafford has taken the above position, the Comeaux case was decided. You can read about Mrs. Stafford’s other misrepresentations that shed some light on Experian’s commitment to preventing fraud and mixed files. http://www.debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=116075#116075

The first post in the link above describes what I learned last night regarding Experian’s “braveness” in asserting that “trade information” cannot be “disputed.” I have to “call or write” to Experian in order to do this, how suspicious is that? Meanwhile, furnishers can spill false identifying information into my file at will, including “Social Security number variations,” alluded to by the Comeaux court as something other than “variations.” Nonexistent addresses and names of other consumers are neither “variations” that cannot be disputed. How many consumers have had false identifying reinserted into their file? A close friend of mine obtained a mixed file. Previous, unmixed copies of her Experian report show SSN variations, false names, false addresses that are not atypical of an Experian consumer report. Do I have to wait until I get a mixed file and have “actual damages” to stop this crap? I hope not, gang.

So these are only some of the reasons that I am calling this local meeting. I don’t want to see people’s private credit information and nor do I expect anyone to show up or even have a word to say if they do decide to show up. If one or many local networks are established and we eventually have a national network, we will collectively be a dangerous weapon to the CRAs. Infiltration is a topic that will be addressed if and when the time comes, the sooner the better.

It should be obvious that the forums are a unique weapon unto themselves. I hope that we can create more weapons to fight the absurd unfairness that we all know too well. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.