This is for adminppdotcom's methods 4 winning case

[admin]

He says he has 22 cases won in court that use NONE of the methods we post here. I'm giving him the floor so he can share his expert knowledge with us!

Fire away!! Please encourage him!!

[anti-something]

sweet!! I wanna know!!! please share, its all about the sharing you know.

editing to ask what court were these cases filed in? not the name, the level..

[miracle]

We are all here to learn from one another.. please share your method. Sometimes it is great to have a fresh new look on things..... and it could very well help us out... Looking forward to reading your method!

[adminppdotcom]

...

[adminppdotcom]

...

[adminppdotcom]

...

[J_Snow]

Well, good for you... so why the 'tude earlier???

Please-dont answer... I'm just one of those simpletons being ree-tor-e-call and dripping with that sarcasm stuff...

[CRDTNogood]

I can personally attest to his cases. I know who he is and have pulled the docs from Pacer on the Federal and verified them on the County Website too.

He's got an idea that I'm currently using against a CA, just because he suggested it, and it wouldn't hurt to try it and document it completely. I'm doing that. As soon as it finishes, I'll post it all for you too. It's a really good method. As of right now, I have the JBD/CA on two violations, one involving 1692g and it's so BLACK and WHITE, it's ripe for a Federal MSJ once I get a few more to line my pockets with. It looks like I'll file while the cost is $150.00 but hit them with the MSJ too. His method is working so far...

[Recovering Attorney]

What is the method?

[adminppdotcom]

...

[J_Snow]

I'm sorry-But I just dont understand... it seems to me that you are advocating a telephone call to preserve or instill rights for the consumer. If your in front of a judge it seems to me that a paper trail showing that you attempted to contact via USPS and they either failed to respond or they did respond would be better than a 'well I called on this date and here is what they said' argument. Understanding that you believe they dont have to respond to a written request for information, i just dont buy it... thats just my opinion of course...

[admin]

adminppdotcom,

Recovering gave your last technique the thumbs up - care to go into more detail?

[adminppdotcom]

I'm sorry-But I just dont understand... it seems to me that you are advocating a telephone call to preserve or instill rights for the consumer. If your in front of a judge it seems to me that a paper trail showing that you attempted to contact via USPS and they either failed to respond or they did respond would be better than a 'well I called on this date and here is what they said' argument. Understanding that you believe they dont have to respond to a written request for information, i just dont buy it... thats just my opinion of course...

J_Snow, the problem is that in the same scenerio, the debt collector is under aboslutely NO legal obligaition to reply to the consumer's WRITTEN request if you beleive that the 30-day validation period begins after the initial OVERT contact with the consumer.

[J_Snow]

Gotcha-I understand they dont have to reply. Just like I dont have to respond either. But if my written request is for validation-then they better respond or remove the tradeline. Period. Es la ley!

[adminppdotcom]

Gotcha-I understand they dont have to reply. Just like I dont have to respond either. But if my written request is for validation-then they better respond or remove the tradeline. Period. Es la ley!

That just sparks another endless debate.

That's why if you beleive that you can request validation at anytime, and they are legally obligated to send it, this technique will not work for you.

[adminppdotcom]

adminppdotcom,

Recovering gave your last technique the thumbs up - care to go into more detail?

Sure, what else would you like. I guess I am not sure what you are looking for?

[J_Snow]

That just sparks another endless debate.

Agreed... lets not go there!

[DocDon]

Now there would be some useful information....

When a repo'd vehicle is sold at auction, what is considered "way under value" (ie: is there a set percentage, and is this trade-in value, or personal re-sale value), and how do you determine if the interest is not properly credited back?

[adminppdotcom]

Now there would be some useful information....

When a repo'd vehicle is sold at auction, what is considered "way under value" (ie: is there a set percentage, and is this trade-in value, or personal re-sale value), and how do you determine if the interest is not properly credited back?

When a loan is funded for a car, the interest for the LIFE of the loan is added. But if the loan is accelerated, like repo'd, any interest added for the time AFTER the repo has to be credited back.

Many states UCC codes cover this and require the documents to be sent to the consumer (like verification).

[CRDTNogood]

In terms of "commercially reasonable" I believe the burden is on the company that sold the car if they attempt to claim a deficiency. if the waive the deficiency it doesn't matter how much they sold it for. They love to screw the consumer, but I think there was a class action againt Ford Motor Credit for this very thing. It's from the NCLC manuals that I saw the case...

Commercially reasonable is a question of fact and triable issue. Don't know too many cases that support the consumer though.

[gdouglaslee]

Gotcha-I understand they dont have to reply. Just like I dont have to respond either. But if my written request is for validation-then they better respond or remove the tradeline. Period. Es la ley!

That just sparks another endless debate.

That's why if you beleive that you can request validation at anytime, and they are legally obligated to send it, this technique will not work for you.

Hey, Troll, there is no endless debate, it's all in your mind. The "techniques" you probably stole. Who are you, CreditWrench, Jr?

Learn how to read the statutes and specifically learn the meaning of plain language.

Read and Weep:

Gotcha-I understand they dont have to reply. Just like I dont have to respond either. But if my written request is for validation-then they better respond or remove the tradeline. Period. Es la ley!

That just sparks another endless debate.

That's why if you beleive that you can request validation at anytime, and they are legally obligated to send it, this technique will not work for you.

Hey, Troll, there is no endless debate.

Read and Weep:

1681s-2(a)(8)(D) Submitting a notice of dispute

A consumer who seeks to dispute the accuracy of information shall provide a dispute notice directly to such person at the address specified by the person for such notices that

(i) identifies the specific information that is being disputed;

(ii) explains the basis for the dispute; and

(iii) includes all supporting documentation required by the furnisher to

substantiate the basis of the dispute.

Dispute the validity of the debt and any additonal information in the trade-line

(E) Duty of person after receiving notice of dispute.

After receiving a notice of dispute from a consumer pursuant to subparagraph (D), the person that provided the information in dispute to a consumer reporting agency shall--

(i) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information;

(ii) review all relevant information provided by the consumer with the notice;

(iii) complete such person's investigation of the dispute and report the

results of the investigation to the consumer before the expiration of the

period under section 611(a)(1) within which a consumer reporting

agency would be required to complete its action if the consumer had

elected to dispute the information under that section; and

That means they must respond within 30 days. That's better than a DV and if they do not you now have an FCRA violation and an FDCPA violation. That gives you $2000 in leverage.

(iv) if the investigation finds that the information reported was inaccurate,

promptly notify each consumer reporting agency to which the person

furnished the inaccurate information of that determination and provide

to the agency any correction to that information that is necessary to

make the information provided by the person accurate.

[gdouglaslee]

The "proper" response from the debt collector or collection agency depends SOLELY on the consumer's request. There is no one thing that constitutes "proper" verification of a debt "A debt collector verifies a debt by providing information responsive to the consumer's request" -NCLC FDCPA 2004

Proper verification is totally dependent on your state's own standards as established by statute or case law, and the standards set in the federal district court in jurisdiction (who will rely on your state's own standards as established by statute or case law).

The NCLC talks from it's Ivory Tower. They do not sue. They are responsible for 0 case law. Coppola, a pro se, has been responsible for more case law than the NCLC and he and others have argued points that the NCLC couldn't even think of because NCLC does not know how to think outside the box.

I have not seen that they file briefs in support of appeals cases for either the FCRA or FDCPA. For example, I don't think they filed a brief in support of Johnson v MBNA. Fortunately for us, Bennett (Johnson's attorney) thinks outside the box and is willing to take risks.

By relying on NCLC interpretations

[gdouglaslee]

I'm sorry-But I just dont understand... it seems to me that you are advocating a telephone call to preserve or instill rights for the consumer. If your in front of a judge it seems to me that a paper trail showing that you attempted to contact via USPS and they either failed to respond or they did respond would be better than a 'well I called on this date and here is what they said' argument. Understanding that you believe they dont have to respond to a written request for information, i just dont buy it... thats just my opinion of course...

J_Snow, the problem is that in the same scenerio, the debt collector is under aboslutely NO legal obligaition to reply to the consumer's WRITTEN request if you beleive that the 30-day validation period begins after the initial OVERT contact with the consumer.

Troll, you got it all wrong.

There is a legal obligation under both the FCRA and FDCPA.

If we were to adopt your pedantic mutterings as gospel then a situation exists in which the debt collector may never contact the consumer. The end result is that the debt collector's negative trade-line and derogatory information remains on the consumers report and the consumer has no remedy until they are sued or it falls off.

Sure, the consumer can dispute through the CRAs, but that is unsatisfactory, since it does not provide the consumer with validation of the debt.

The FDCPA is a consumer protection act, not a debt collector protection act. Learn and understand the difference.

All courts, including the US Supreme Court, hold that a consumer protection act is to be construed liberally. All courts, including the US Supreme Court, hold that a consumer protection act cannot be construed in such a way as to frustrate the purpose of the act. The primary authority here is the courts, all of them, not the NCLC who have been sitting in their comfy chair so long they would fall down the steps of their Ivory Tower if they attempted to venture out into the real world.

Under the FDCPA the consumer has a right to the validation of the debt and the consumer need not get on their hands and knees and kow-tow to the debt collector to send them a notice to trigger the start of the 30 day validation period, nor does the consumer need to wait an unreasonable amount of time.

"The debt collector's failure, even if through negligence, to send an initial notice does not relieve the debt collector of their obligations under this section of the statute."

I'm not going to post the case because you will rip it and put it on your rinky dink site which contains glaring and blatantly erroneous information, which is probably why it doesn't get enough hits to justify the advertising so it will be pulled an you will be shelling out the big bucks yourself.

[DocPC]

I'm sorry-But I just dont understand... it seems to me that you are advocating a telephone call to preserve or instill rights for the consumer. If your in front of a judge it seems to me that a paper trail showing that you attempted to contact via USPS and they either failed to respond or they did respond would be better than a 'well I called on this date and here is what they said' argument. Understanding that you believe they dont have to respond to a written request for information, i just dont buy it... thats just my opinion of course...

J_Snow, the problem is that in the same scenerio, the debt collector is under aboslutely NO legal obligaition to reply to the consumer's WRITTEN request if you beleive that the 30-day validation period begins after the initial OVERT contact with the consumer.

Troll, you got it all wrong.

There is a legal obligation under both the FCRA and FDCPA.

If we were to adopt your pedantic mutterings as gospel then a situation exists in which the debt collector may never contact the consumer. The end result is that the debt collector's negative trade-line and derogatory information remains on the consumers report and the consumer has no remedy until they are sued or it falls off.

Sure, the consumer can dispute through the CRAs, but that is unsatisfactory, since it does not provide the consumer with validation of the debt.

The FDCPA is a consumer protection act, not a debt collector protection act. Learn and understand the difference.

All courts, including the US Supreme Court, hold that a consumer protection act is to be construed liberally. All courts, including the US Supreme Court, hold that a consumer protection act cannot be construed in such a way as to frustrate the purpose of the act. The primary authority here is the courts, all of them, not the NCLC who have been sitting in their comfy chair so long they would fall down the steps of their Ivory Tower if they attempted to venture out into the real world.

Under the FDCPA the consumer has a right to the validation of the debt and the consumer need not get on their hands and knees and kow-tow to the debt collector to send them a notice to trigger the start of the 30 day validation period, nor does the consumer need to wait an unreasonable amount of time.

"The debt collector's failure, even if through negligence, to send an initial notice does not relieve the debt collector of their obligations under this section of the statute."

I'm not going to post the case because you will rip it and put it on your rinky dink site which contains glaring and blatantly erroneous information, which is probably why it doesn't get enough hits to justify the advertising so it will be pulled an you will be shelling out the big bucks yourself.

Well put!

[adminppdotcom]

...