Is this a strong defense against OC/CA? How can I get it to work for me?

[beeboah]

Looking back at some of my old credit reports, I noticed that the OC suddenly removed the tradeline from all 3 of my credit reports.

I called Equifax, and they stated that the OC told them that the tradeline was ok to remove from the credit report.

Equifax won't give me the communications between them and the OC. They said that they will simply give me something on their letterhead showing that the results of the investigation indicate that the account has been deleted.

I would like to know the following:

1) Can I subpoena the communications between the OC and EQ?

2) Would the fact that the OC removed the item (because they felt it wasn't mine) from my Credit Report help me in court?

Thanks for any info!!

[breathing_easier]

Did the CRA say that the OC told them that the account wasn't yours and that's why they were requesting it be removed? When was the DOLA on the account?

[beeboah]

Did the CRA say that the OC told them that the account wasn't yours and that's why they were requesting it be removed? When was the DOLA on the account?

Yes, EQ told me that. EX and TU said the OC removed it for no reason at all.

DOL was somewhere in 2004.

[uwackme]

Yes, youcan obtain a court ordered subpeona signed by a judge for the complete communications between the OC and the CRA in regards to your tradeline in question.

The CRA's ar notorious for not recognizing any subpeona other thn one signed and ordered by a judge.

[nascar]

Did I miss something?

I'm guessing that since you are concerned that the TL has been removed, it must be a positive one. If it is a valid positive TL, have you contacted the OC to ask why they have requested removal?

Why would EQ be at fault for removing a TL if instructed to do so by the OC?

[beeboah]

Did I miss something?

I'm guessing that since you are concerned that the TL has been removed, it must be a positive one. If it is a valid positive TL, have you contacted the OC to ask why they have requested removal?

Why would EQ be at fault for removing a TL if instructed to do so by the OC?

Yes I think you did. OC removed a negative tradeline suddenly. EQ says that OC elected to remove it because the account was fraudulent.

I am trying to get the communications between the two as a defense in that the OC thought the account was fraudulent, so what gives now.

Hope that clears it up.

Also, thanks to the rest for your advice.

[uwackme]

So, the OC is now suing you over an acct that they admited to a third party (the CRA) they believed was fraudulent and removed the corresponding TL.

So you want thier words to use against them in court, as they stated in a semi public forum in thier own words THEY believed the alleged acct was indeed fraudulent..... correct?

So subpeona the communications, a clear tatement that they think the account is fraudulent would be exculpatory evidence in the suit against you.

[Raysway]

So, the OC is now suing you over an acct that they admited to a third party (the CRA) they believed was fraudulent and removed the corresponding TL.

If this is not the case, then I don't get it either. Pretty astute assumption though, uwackme. That has to be it.

Don't take offense, beeboah. I think others are just used to the statement "I am being sued" or something to that effect.

Peace.

[beeboah]

So, the OC is now suing you over an acct that they admited to a third party (the CRA) they believed was fraudulent and removed the corresponding TL.

So you want thier words to use against them in court, as they stated in a semi public forum in thier own words THEY believed the alleged acct was indeed fraudulent..... correct?

So subpeona the communications, a clear tatement that they think the account is fraudulent would be exculpatory evidence in the suit against you.

Yes, I want to use their words in court. I am not sure if you are saying that this would be useable evidence? Sorry, confused.

[beeboah]

If this is not the case, then I don't get it either. Pretty astute assumption though, uwackme. That has to be it.

Don't take offense, beeboah. I think others are just used to the statement "I am being sued" or something to that effect.

Peace.

Yes, this is what I am saying.

[uwackme]

Yes, you can use this at trial.

Follow the solid proceedures that fight any attempt by plaintiff's counsel to get this declared hearsay.

You subpeona all communications between OC and CRA as regards YOUR tradeline. The CRA will include an affidavit that this is true and complete record of OC's communication to them in regards to your tradeline.

OC made the statements in the communications under penalty of Federal law for accuracy and completeness.... courtesy FCRA.

There are two ways to use the information, as direct evidence for the defense or as rebuttal evidence against plaintiff's testimony. How you would choose to use it depends on how you are arguing your case overall. But either way, the OC stating they thought the acct was fraud is a good step toward obsolving YOU of responsibility.

[maryv]

not to be a downer, but I thought credit reports were hearsay and inadmissable. I think it sucks they are considered "hearsay" especially when it was the original creditor that put the information on the credit report to begin with.