Amerikaner83

Amerikaner83 vs. HSBC

Recommended Posts

They have a building in Downtown Seattle. Serving them will be a piece of cake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make sure you keep us informed because although I got a roundabout way to have their notation changed to something neutral so that it's not hurting or helping my CRs, i would rather have the bastards OFF my CRs. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds great to me! I can't wait for the outcome..... I just hope i don't lose the post and lose out on seeing the victory!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Original post by: Amerikaner83

I don't need to.

They failed to perform an investigation. 1.

They failed to notify EQ of disputed status - 2

They failed to notify TU of disputed status - 3

They failed to notify EX of disputed status - 4

I didn't ask for evidence of their violations. I asked for your support of the unlimited damages assessed by the amount of violations committed.

FDCPA limits to 1K per action, by specifically mentioning such in the Statute. FCRA does not. I don't have time to read the entire text, but I've seen something (statute, case law, whatever) to back it up.

I agree that the FDCPA specifically limits $1000 damages per action while the FCRA is open to interpretation.

Your argument that there are three CRA's and that each should be included when adding up the damages is reasonable.

Your argument that $1000 should be assessed for each violation, simply because the FCRA doesn't specifically address the issue, is weak.

As a moderator, like it or not, a lot of posters will expect you to know what you are talking about without much question. I imagine that several have made copies of your letter and will be sending it out in a great hope of netting a multi-thousand dollar settlement without ever seeking legal reference.

Enlighten us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't ask for evidence of their violations. I asked for your support of the unlimited damages assessed by the amount of violations committed.

I agree that the FDCPA specifically limits $1000 damages per action while the FCRA is open to interpretation.

Your argument that there are three CRA's and that each should be included when adding up the damages is reasonable.

Your argument that $1000 should be assessed for each violation, simply because the FCRA doesn't specifically address the issue, is weak.

Enlighten us.

How about the United States Supreme Court?

http://www.icemiller.com/enewsletter/Bulletins/WillfulViolationofFCRA.htm

On June 4, 2007, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Safeco Ins. Co. v, Burr, No. 06-84, 551 U.S. ___, 2007 U.S. Lexis 6963 (June 4, 2007), construing a provision of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) which provides a plaintiff with statutory damages of between $100 and $1,000 per violation where the defendant “willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed” under the FCRA. 15 U.S.C. §1681n. This decision impacts hundreds of FCRA prescreening class actions filed across the country against lenders, insurance companies and others in which plaintiff class action attorneys are seeking statutory damages for alleged willful violations of the FCRA.
As a moderator, like it or not, a lot of posters will expect you to know what you are talking about without much question. I imagine that several have made copies of your letter and will be sending it out in a great hope of netting a multi-thousand dollar settlement without ever seeking legal reference.

If someone makes a copy of my letter, which by the way was tailored to my personal situation, and sends it out hoping of a windfall without doing ANY research on their own, or without trying at all, then in all honesty they deserve what they get. That's why I did not mention the name of the contact at HSBC I found. That's why I didn't post her number. That's why I didn't post her e-mail address or fax number, or address. For those who have a legit issue with any OC or CA, they are always well-advised to do their own research. It's never a good idea to have peoples' names. addresses, and phone numbers posted on the internet for anyone to see...

If people are not doing any work on their own, then like I said, they absolutely deserve whatever they get. This may be harsh, but I'm not going to sugar-coat it. Like Divemedic said - many people expect there to be a "magic letter" they can send and make it all go away - it doesn't work like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again the plaintiffs in the vast majority of these cases are not alleging actual damages, but instead they are alleging defendants willfully violated Section 1681c(g) and seek to recover the statutory damages of between $100 and $1,000 per violation provided under Section 1681n. Under this theory of liability every 1,000 receipts issued in violation of Section 1681c(g) creates exposure of between $100,000 and $1,000,000.

I know that this interpretation is easier to read than the actual court case but interpreters often get something wrong or simply glamorize some points in order to captivate its reader's interest.

The underlining above reveals such a possible error. ICE Miller would have its readers believe that the FCRA (1681n) itself contains the wording which allows the multi-violation damages.

I have found no support for their statement in the FCRA nor a quick reading of FACTA.

I will download the actual case and read it for authenticity.

I'll be back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lecasbas, I'm not sure what your point is. I agree with you that lurkers may misinterpret what 'Kaner is doing or misuse the information he or anyone else here presents. And I agree that when we give advice DIRECTLY to others about THEIR problem(s), we should provide some credible evidence that it's quality advice. But when one is simply presenting his/her own situation, I don't think a full legal brief supporting the poster's action need be presented.

I also with Kaner - that one should NEVER take action based on someone else's experience reported on an Internet forum. So are you trying to protect others here, or are you trying to help the OP by dissuading him from taking action toward HSBC (because you think his argument is unfounded)? I just don't see the need to challenge any one individual about something quite so vigorously, esp. when it pertains to his/her own personal situation and not advice he/she is giving directly to others. Obviously the OP is taking responsibility for his own situation and acting in what he considers to be his own best interest. As for others -- it's up to them to do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick reply...

I am simply looking for support for Kaner's claim because if what he says is true then I can use this info for my own cases.

I can not go into court referencing Kaner or any other interpreter.

I researched another moderator's claim to no avail. This moderator also had a claim which would have fit into my plan. I wasted valuable time running around in circles trying to establish the moderator's claim. I asked for the moderator's legal support and received silence.

A disclaimer does not absolve a person's moral responsibility to not steer people in the wrong direction. Faulty information should be weeded out.

I hope that the actual case will support Kaner. I really do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would take this serious if I was to receive. Good luck, I'm looking forward to seeing what comes out of this. I have an HSBC acct. that just went to collection since I've been unemployed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just do a google search for "FCRA per violation damages" or something to that effect and read through the thousands of pages there...I'm sure you'll find whatever it is you're looking for.

I know I plan on using some of those cases to bolster my claim for per violation damages..as I've NEVER yet found any Defense for a "per action" FCRA damages - Everything thus far i have found is per violation.

Edit: I think the it is quite significant that in all of the cases I've seen, no Defendant has tried to claim that the FCRA allows for damages in a "per action" context...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just do a google search for "FCRA per violation damages" or something to that effect and read through the thousands of pages there...I'm sure you'll find whatever it is you're looking for.

I know I plan on using some of those cases to bolster my claim for per violation damages..as I've NEVER yet found any Defense for a "per action" FCRA damages - Everything thus far i have found is per violation.

Edit: I think the it is quite significant that in all of the cases I've seen, no Defendant has tried to claim that the FCRA allows for damages in a "per action" context...

I believe it's common knowledge that FDCPA is per action or damages + costs + attorney fees. FCRA is per violation or damages + costs + attorney fees.

Everything I've read supports that. You could also go to some of your local consumer attorney's websites with info to help consumers and it should state it there. Alot of the big firm sites I went to said it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did find where the FCRA does say $2500 per violation:

§ 621. Administrative enforcement [15 U.S.C. § 1681s]

(2) (A) In the event of a knowing violation, which constitutes a pattern or practice of violations of this title, the Commission may commence a civil action to recover a civil penalty in a district court of the United States against any person that violates this title. In such action, such person shall be liable for a civil penalty of not more than $2,500 per violation.

But, this is via administrative enforcement, not private right of action. I think the reasoning for "per violation" here is because the FTC is expected to be procecuting several violators, each having committed its own violation.

I also found a FTC letter which does not say per violation for the consumer yet does say per violation when the FTC procecutes the violator. The letter is addressing PP which, I believe, is not Kaner's issue.

3. If the consumer credit report requests fail to comply with §604 of the Act, what are the penalties for violation?

The penalties for violating the FCRA are governed by several different sections of the statute, and the applicability of a particular section depends on such factors as who brings the action and the degree of the violator's noncompliance. For example, Sections 616 and 617 impose liability for willful noncompliance and negligent noncompliance, respectively. The monetary penalties mandated by these two sections include actual damages proven by a consumer, plus costs and attorneys fees in each such case. In the case of willful violations, the court may also award punitive damages to a consumer. Any person who procures a consumer report under false pretenses, or knowingly without a permissible purpose, is liable for $1000 or actual damages (whichever is greater) to both the consumer and to the consumer reporting agency from which the report is procured. Also, Section 621 governs enforcement actions brought by the Commission, other agencies, and the states, and provides for various monetary and injunctive penalties. The potential monetary penalties include, for those who knowingly violate the FCRA, up to $2500 per violation in a civil action brought by the Commission in district court.

The entire context of the letter is here:

http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/redir?src=websearch&requestId=60eb00aa9d19d053&clickedItemRank=5&userQuery=FCRA+per+violation+damages&clickedItemURN=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ftc.gov%2Fos%2Fstatutes%2Ffcra%2Fgreenblt.shtm&title=%3Cb%3EFCRA%3C%2Fb%3E+Staff+Opinion%3A+Cosgrove-Greenblatt&moduleId=matchingsites.jsp.M&clickedItemPageRanking=5&clickedItemPage=1&clickedItemDescription=WebResults

It doesn't make any sense to me why the commision would specifically say "per violation" for its own procecution and not specifically say "per violation" for private right of action.

Other quick readings applied to class actions. I can see why "per violation" would be applicable here. Several violations are involved. $1000 for 500 people wouldn't make much sense.

I revisited Kaner's ITS letter and saw that his lawsuit would be a private right of action, and not class action.

Unless Kaner (or those of you who blindly support him) can come up with something to substantiate his claim, I would suggest that he change his position to saying that he will contact the FTC and ask that it procecutes his case.

Original post by: CDL

I believe it's common knowledge that FDCPA is per action or damages + costs + attorney fees. FCRA is per violation or damages + costs + attorney fees.

Everything I've read supports that. You could also go to some of your local consumer attorney's websites with info to help consumers and it should state it there. Alot of the big firm sites I went to said it.

Common knowledge is hearsay and will not win a lawsuit.

The FDCPA provides for "per action". The FCRA nor FACTA do not address the issue for private right of action.

Frankly, I am a little tired of chasing down leads to prove your guys right because I want you to be right.

It's your turn to prove me wrong. I hope you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly Lecasbas, and no offense intended here, no one has to prove anything to you. This thread is about Amerikaner83 sharing his experience with the folks on the board here, not about him telling people how to handle their situations (see the thread title). You may, in fact, be perfectly correct about the flaws in his suit, but you also may be wrong. I don't have the knowledge to make that determination. Fact is, whether you're right is irrelevent. He has to convince a judge, not you. I certainly don't believe that every lawsuit brought before a court has been without flaw, nor do I think that the legal system in general is flawless (see convictions of innocent people). I wish Amerikaner83 well in his attempts, and I eagerly await the outcome. If he is successful, then I will have learned something I can possibly use in the future. If he loses, I will also have learned something I may be able to use in the future. Sometimes learning what not to do is as useful as learning what to do. Regardless of the outcome, the readers of this thread will be more informed.

I suggest you stop trying to discredit this before the fact, and just observe like the rest of this. If your personal situation is time sensitive and you need answers before the outcome of this saga, then I'd suggest maybe arguing in this thread isn't the where you should be expending your energies. If you do have the time to wait, however, and he's successful, you may just get that case law you're seeking.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another blind follower.

I am concerned about the other readers of this forum who will get the same egg on their face if they use Kaner's logic.

This forum is not about Kaner and his experiences. If he wishes to chit chat then there is another section of the forum for that.

Posters are here to learn about representing themselves in court or dealing with CA's. Spouting personal opinion and unsubstantiated law is counterproductive.

I'm done trying to establish validity of Kaner's claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a perfect example of where this forum has gone in the nearly 4 years I have been on it. Trust me 4 years ago it was like a haven of people just wanting to help each other. Yes I think its only fair that people express their personal opinions without being bashed but I have noticed that many people do it so disrespectfuly. Hey if you disagree then just move on why keep on questioning when your not going to get the answer that you want. I have posted many times where I did not agree with the other posters like on my reinsertion thread but I didn't continue arguing with them, whats the point we did not see eye to eye so I moved on but I never disrespected them. It does not matter to me if they are a Moderator like Kaner I respect him just as much as I respect the Newbie with one post. Theres another guy that has sent me very rude PM's (read my thread) because of one of my threads but I'm not going to argue with him because its childish and as my job as a High School Principal I deal with children everyday teaching them not to do that. Seriously ask some of the veterans around here, you rarely saw disrespect amongst each other on this forum years ago and now you do and its getting worse. If you don't like your responses after 3 or 4 posts then move on and stop instigating an argument because Lecasbas your not gonna get one from Kaner !!!! Good Day :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A high school principal should know how to break his/her monologue into meaningful paragraphs and that "high shool principal" is not capitalized.

I simply asked Kaner for his legal reference to his "per-violation" damage claim.

The evidence he gave and the evidence I found says that there is no "per-violation" damage for private right of action.

He could, however, start up a class action lawsuit or turn his case over to the FTC and then the multi-violation damages come into play.

Writing a ITS letter saying that you can take an action when you have no legal reference is chancy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lecasbas -

Do you really think that I'm laying all my eggs in one basket in such a public forum such as this? Have you wondered why (or noticed that) I didn't post the first two pages of the Complaint that I will file (the complaint I referenced it in my ITS)? Did you notice I made no mention of any BBB complaints or AG complaints? Come on. I'm not going to tip my hand like that. And shame on anyone who thinks my only ammo against these dingbats I have is what I share on this public forum. If you believe that, then I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona I can get you a great deal on.

He could, however, start up a class action lawsuit or turn his case over to the FTC and then the multi-violation damages come into play.
How do you know I didn't make mention of that in the revision of my ITS I said I'd do before I sent it off? How do you know that's not in my Complaint?

I may not be correct about FCRA having a per violation damage provision in a private right of action suit. Then again, maybe I am. But in EVERY single case I have read or heard about in which the Plaintiff asked for damages PER VIOLATION, there has been NOT ONE objection by the Defendants that the FCRA does not allow Per violation damages. Not one. What does that tell you? You'd think that if there was something that said "per action", that surely one of these Defendants would bring it up, right? Of course they would! But they have not. I wonder why.

By the way - I could also get "per violation" damages if my State AG takes them to court as well, I do believe.

EDIT: yes...drink the Kool-aid my friends!! :evil:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A high school principal should know how to break his/her monologue into meaningful paragraphs and that "high shool principal" is not capitalized.

I simply asked Kaner for his legal reference to his "per-violation" damage claim.

The evidence he gave and the evidence I found says that there is no "per-violation" damage for private right of action.

He could, however, start up a class action lawsuit or turn his case over to the FTC and then the multi-violation damages come into play.

Writing a ITS letter saying that you can take an action when you have no legal reference is chancy.

I don't watch my grammar when I post a 100 mph Lecasbas but of course you have to be childish and make a smart remark....Do you feel better now that you made that comment or do you need to be sent to In-School Suspension ( with capital letters) ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been laying around all day thinking of a way to get yourself out of the mess you got yourself into?

There would be no harm to your case if someone would point out any legal reference to support your claim of mult-violation damages for private right of action. That information would already be public knowledge.

If you did not want to share that info with the forum it would have been helpful to know this instead of sending me on a goose chase through several documents to ascertain that those documents did not support your claim.

My time is just as valuable as yours. You should not waste it.

It wasn't my itention to put you on the spot. I may be suing a CA in the near future and it interested me when you talked about the "per violation" damages from the FCRA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Been laying around all day thinking of a way to get yourself out of the mess you got yourself into?

...

My time is just as valuable as yours. You should not waste it.

I'm sorry I've wasted your valuable time with my unintentional "send Lecasbas off on a goose chase", but you did that entirely on your own accord, not mine.

"laying around all day"? Really? Poor choice of words, my friend. Sure, I was "online" all day. Doesn't mean I was anxiously awaiting each and every post to every thread here. Doesn't mean i was eagerly awaiting your return from the goose chase I supposedly "sent you on". Come on, dude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In-School Suspension ( with capital letters) ?

This should not be capitalized either. Your hyphenation of "in school" however, is correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole thread has turned into a waste of the bandwidth it's using! I made my point in an earlier post and it seems like everyone needs to move on!!!!!!

And for the record, a person doesn't "LAY" around. Frankly, to refer to a person as "laying" around all day is far more grammatically offensive than capitalizing the title of a job. Check your Strunk & White Elements of Style for the usage of lay and lie - or just google it - before you start throwing stones at others' writing habits.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was considering Kaner as part of the landscape..the lay of the land...is this correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.