Amerikaner83

Amerikaner83 vs. HSBC

Recommended Posts

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.

This is well said. A person cannot be laying around. If someone or something is laying down, or laying around, then that person or thing must be doing something to something/someone (lay/laid/laid is a transitive verb).

For example, the hen was laying eggs.

This is absolutely a far more egregious grammatical error than a capitalization issue.

Lecabas:

If you're going to pick at someone for their grammar, subsequently insulting their profession, then it would be advisable not to make greater errors of your own in the very same thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's get back to the topic at hand. I am very interested in how HSBC handles this letter. I know the hierarchy of credit card operations very well, and there are 3 different ways HSBC can handle this. I admit I'm curious what their initial response will be.

Further, I think the objections raised are somewhat trivial. IMHO, HSBC has exhibited willfully noncompliant behavior. There are a slew of FCRA violations and violations of Washington's Consumer Potection Act (the latter of which I know almost nothing about, but I'll take 'Kaner's word for it). Whether this is worth $24k in damages is not the most relevant thing. These complaints will be for a judge to decide, should it get that far. I don't think anyone would argue whether or not HSBC has violated 'Kaner's rights...

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

You're asking him to do your homework! If you are so sure he is wrong, then post your evidence of such. I've sifted through your bloviated posts, and, from what I can make out, you've found ten different ways to say the same thing, adding nothing of worth since your initial post. Beside, it is not the critic who counts. In this regard, the credit belongs to 'Kaner, who is actually in the arena...

I tend to agree with 'Kaner when he says: ... 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great letter Amerikaner83!! Sorry I am chiming is so late.

I have three questions for you:

1. Where does the FCRA give you a private right of action for the OC failing to mark an account disputed?

2. Where does the FCRA state that an OC cannot sell/transfer a disputed account?

3. What is your argument that the FDCPA applies to the OC in this case?

Now DW is cracking the whip and it is back to the painting for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Original post by: Bigwoodystyl

I tend to agree with 'Kaner when he says: ... 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.

This tells me that you are another blind follower.

I followed the leads which Kaner offered. I placed some of them on the forum. They do not support his position.

... 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.

Put one of the "serveral cases" on the forum. I already did my "homework" and brought forth what I found. I would be very happy for someone to prove Kaner right.

Lecabas:

If you're going to pick at someone for their grammar, subsequently insulting their profession, then it would be advisable not to make greater errors of your own in the very same thread.

By the way...could you spell my name right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay Lecasbas.

You win.

As far as Amerikaner83's case goes, he has no chance of getting a per violation ruling in his favor. He might as well give it up now. You are right, he is wrong.

As for the rest of us. We are indeed blind, kool-aid drinking, sheep hell-bent on following Amerikaner83 off whichever cliff he deems appropriate. xsheepx We are not capable of supporting someone's actions without surrendering our own independent thought and reason. We cannot spell. We cannot break our posts up into paragraphs. We do not use correct grammar. I'm surprised we can even read. You must, however, give credit where credit is due. We are pretty darn good at using smilies :).

Now that we have established the upper from the lower, the informed from the uninformed, can we move on to watching Amerikaner83's disasterous attempt at litigation? :trainwreck:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As soon as someone comes up with one of the "several cases" which Kaner, et alia, say supports the multi-violation damagaes for a private right of action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This should not be capitalized either. Your hyphenation of "in school" however, is correct.

I capitalized on purpose because you made reference to me capitalizing incorrectly before...... GOOD LUCK KANER LET ME KNOW HOW IT COMES OUT!!!! :mrgreen: ( All capital letters )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I capitalized on purpose because you made reference to me capitalizing incorrectly before...... GOOD LUCK KANER LET ME KNOW HOW IT COMES OUT!!!! :mrgreen: ( All capital letters )

Actually Tmac I'm not so sure you were 100% incorrect. I believe there is some rule that applies to specific names of locations. Say I were to say "Are you going to the Indie 500"? I would need to capitalize that. I.S.S. or O.C.S. is an actual place. I think that sometimes you are supposed to capitalize it and sometimes not. I have seen in both ways. I know I did not explain that very clearly and I know my grammar is horrible. That's why I am going to school to teach math. :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually Tmac I'm not so sure you were 100% incorrect. I believe there is some rule that applies to specific names of locations. Say I were to say "Are you going to the Indie 500"? I would need to capitalize that. I.S.S. or O.C.S. is an actual place. I think that sometimes you are supposed to capitalize it and sometimes not. I have seen in both ways. I know I did not explain that very clearly and I know my grammar is horrible. That's why I am going to school to teach math. :p

Bless you as I am horrible at Math !!!! Hey Deannatx we have some English teachers at our school that can't even speak English so no prob !!!!! Honestly I always won the spelling bee contests and made straight A's in all my English classes !! I just post so fast here as no one pays attention to grammar unless its just unreadable ( should their be a hyphen between un and readable ? ) :mrgreen:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bless you as I am horrible at Math !!!! Hey Deannatx we have some English teachers at our school that can't even speak English so no prob !!!!! Honestly I always won the spelling bee contests and made straight A's in all my English classes !! I just post so fast here as no one pays attention to grammar unless its just unreadable ( should their be a hyphen between un and readable ? ) :mrgreen:

I plan on teaching 8th grade and lower math. Anything above that and I'm lost. The problem with that plan though is that to teach math above elementary level, you have to take a ton of advanced math courses. So.....thinking about sticking to social studies, my second love. But I really enjoy numbers so we will see! I seriously don't pay too much attention to my grammar here either so don't sweat it. I wouldn't. So not worth it. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This tells me that you are another blind follower.

I am neither blind, nor a follower. Further, I find your affront to be condescending and offensive. You are speaking (writing) in what I can only call a gloating, know-it-all tone, when at the same time you have provided no answers and almost nothing that is worthful to this discussion. Simply repeating your question ten different ways and insulting anyone who disagrees with you does not make you right! It also does not make anyone who disagrees with you "blind".

... more pompous bloviation...

By the way...could you spell my name right?

I think that I could, but since you asked so nicely, I'm not going to...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this information is even more beneficial to Kaner. I know it's related to adverse action notices, but it lowers the threshold any consumer with a FCRA lawsuit needs to overcome:

====================================

Posted On: August 5, 2007 by Robert Duff

Credit Reporting Agencies Should Be Worried

A couple of months ago, the United States Supreme Court issued what will no doubt become a landmark opinion in the FCRA litigation arena. That case, Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Burr, clarified for all the courts in the land, including the Seventh Circuit (that had wrongly imposed a higher standard), that punitive damages may be awarded under the FCRA for the reckless disregard of a statutorily-imposed standard of conduct. Many courts had previously said that only intentional or knowing conduct would suffice.

What does this mean? Well, it's HUGE! Quite simply, it means that punitive damages will be much, much easier for consumers to obtain under the FCRA. It means that FCRA defendants will have a much more difficult time obtaining summary judgment on punitive damages claims. It means the value of many FCRA lawsuits just went up astronomically, because now consumers can get these claims before a jury. And when that happens, look out! I think we'll see a slew of large punitive damage verdicts in the next year.

Hopefully, this will make both the furnishers and credit reporting agencies care a little bit more about maintaining standards designed to ensure accurate credit reporting.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-84.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an interesting case CDL.

Look guys...there is no point in me hanging around for a supporting case to come in from the "several pile".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heck yes it did. I found myself getting all riled up while reading these sassy posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow - so many replies since I last saw this thing...let me start off by answering Rick's questions:

1. Where does the FCRA give you a private right of action for the OC failing to mark an account disputed?

FCRA Section 623 (a)(3) is the law that requires the OC to mark account as disputed, but there is no private right of action on subsection (a). BUT - I can get the State or the FTC to recover the per-violation damages of this particular violation if I so choose.

2. Where does the FCRA state that an OC cannot sell/transfer a disputed account?

I don't believe I ever brought that up... not sure where you got that line of thinking...as it was sold way back in 2002.

3. What is your argument that the FDCPA applies to the OC in this case?

Once again, I'm not sure where you got this from...as I never mentioned the FDCPA. FDCPA does not apply to the OC... did I mention FDCPA anywhere?

Lecasbas - it seems as if you are asking me to try and prove that something is legal. I'll use a silly example because it illustrates my point perfectly. It seems to me as if you are asking me to prove that walking across the street is legal. It seems as if you are trying to ask me to prove that wearing jeans on Sunday is legal. I don't understand it. It is not my job to prove something is legal, it is someone else's job to prove it is not.

That's an interesting case CDL.

Look guys...there is no point in me hanging around for a supporting case to come in from the "several pile".

Dude...that's the EXACT SAME case I cited!!! Did you not notice? Safeco vs Burr.

Lovebug - feel free to interject your thoughts on this one as well...

A littel update - got an email from the HSBC Legal department today:

The HSBC legal department is in receipt of the letter you sent to Ms. HSBC

on June 19, 2008, a copy of which we received today.

Please be advised we are investigating the issues you outline in your

letter and will respond to your letter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boy oh boy, this is getting crazy! Good luck 'Kaner. Legal...illegal...precedence...case law...tort...whatever. I'm rooting for ya!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dude...that's the EXACT SAME case I cited!!! Did you not notice? Safeco vs Burr.

My bad, My bad. Sorry I was a little tired and a little distracted by Lecasbas.

I guess I was just blindly following and not PaYiNg - ExTeNsIoN! :oops:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My bad, My bad. Sorry I was a little tired and a little distracted by Lecasbas.

I guess I was just blindly following and not PaYiNg - ExTeNsIoN! :oops:

no no! That remark was not directed at you, CDL. It was directed @ lecasbas - he dismissed it when I posted it, but he actually read it when you did. I was pointing out to HIM that it was the same case - not to you!

:)++

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted by CDL

My bad, My bad. Sorry I was a little tired and a little distracted by Lecasbas.

I guess I was just blindly following and not PaYiNg - ExTeNsIoN!

Originally posted by Amerikaner83

no no! That remark was not directed at you, CDL. It was directed @ lecasbas - he dismissed it when I posted it, but he actually read it when you did. I was pointing out to HIM that it was the same case - not to you!

This inextension is unexceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no no! That remark was not directed at you, CDL. It was directed @ lecasbas - he dismissed it when I posted it, but he actually read it when you did. I was pointing out to HIM that it was the same case - not to you!

:)++

I didn't take any offense to that. I have much thicker skin than that.

What I would like to know is why did you change my missspelling? I thought that was slightly clever! :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wanted to keep it, but I couldn't condone that.

This "mod" thing can be a blessing and a curse, y'know.

I thought it was subtle enough to be "overlooked" :wink: :wink:

Share this post


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