Forum
|
|
Forum
|
     | Thursday, March 16, 2000 - 04:59 am  I'm trying to close on a mortgage. There is a charge off to a Lease Co, That I need to pay. I got the contact from each of the 3 CRAs. Phone & Address. The phone number isn't working and the mail comes back address unknown. SO I disputed the info on all three. Knowing that they could not verify the info. CSC removed it, Transunion says they still have a week, but have not received a response yet. Experian says that the creditor confirmed the info and they are getting thru with the contact info they gave me. But I can't. I called the last known Collection Co that contacted me about the debt, They said they didn't have it, Gave me another CO and they showned nothing also. What do I do.
|
| | Thursday, March 16, 2000 - 05:02 pm Get witnesses.
|
| | Thursday, March 16, 2000 - 05:40 pm Re-dispute with Experian.
|
| | Friday, March 17, 2000 - 05:27 am Sean: How many times should he dispute it?
|
| | Friday, March 17, 2000 - 06:01 am I had a similiar problem with EXPERIAN. I wrote a certified letter to their legal dept. and actually started dealing with a real person. Her name is Carrie Higgibotham and her # is (972) 390-4016. She is a Consumer Affairs Specialist. She has been helpful, pleasant and has help me remove inaccurate or out dated info from my credit report. Just remember, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. (I also threatened to sue..lol)
|
| | Friday, March 17, 2000 - 08:23 am That suggests that somehow early on in the dispute process, the CRA's "classify" the disputer as either "legitimite" (in which case you get assigned to a specific person who you have direct access to and who works WITH you), or "less than legitimite" in which case the CRA's make a superficial effort to investigate just for CYA purposes - is that anyone else's impression, or is it just "luck of the draw" as to whomever is investigating your dispute?
|
| | Friday, March 17, 2000 - 10:50 am Anonymous on Friday, March 17, 2000 - 09:01 am: Did they meet the 30-day deadline?
|
| | Friday, March 17, 2000 - 06:21 pm Greg: Third time's the charm.
|
| | Saturday, March 18, 2000 - 12:12 am Sean: How many days should he wait?
|
| | Saturday, March 18, 2000 - 05:56 am Why wait any days at all? If time is of the essence the day you receive the return answer from Experian you should redispute. I'd also send a complaint to the supervisor of the department saying, "I know your employee didn't verify this debt because the phone number on your own credit report is disconnected. Don't you think you should speak to this person who exposed your company to such liability and encourage him to be more diligent?"
|
| | Saturday, March 18, 2000 - 07:19 am So, if in the first dispute, it takes the bureau 30 days to respond-- then another 30 days for them to respond to the second letter-- that's 60 days. How many days-- or how many letters or phone calls-- in your view, should a person let pass before they take legal action?
|
| | Saturday, March 18, 2000 - 07:26 am I recommend three disputes and 90 days.
|
| | Saturday, March 18, 2000 - 02:09 pm Got it. Law 30; Sean 90. Lawsuit taks another __ days.
|
| | Saturday, March 18, 2000 - 02:56 pm Lawsuits should be the last resort, not the first. They're expensive.
|
| | Saturday, March 18, 2000 - 03:23 pm It wouldn't be the first resort. You have to contact them and give them a chance to screw up. How much is this ambiguous "expensive"?
|
| | Saturday, March 18, 2000 - 06:10 pm You need to figure that an attorney, if they're any good, is billing out at not less than $200/hr. Let's say you also have the very fastest working attorney who can get your entire case prepared, complete discovery and take it to court while expending only 20 man-hours. That means you're looking at minimum $4,000 right there. Of course, some attorneys will take cases on contingency. The normal contingency terms state that the attorney gets 33% of the award. Furthermore let's say the attorney feels he has a 67% chance of winning the case. Let's use a little math. Let's say the attorney expects to get an award of $15,000 when he wins and nothing when he loses. Since he has a 67% chance of winning he can figure that for every case he takes he will average $10,000 award per case. From that he's entitled to 33% so $3,300 is what the attorney would make on contingency for what is $4,000 worth of work. That means he would not be willing to take a case that required 20 hours of work unless he figured he'd get $20,000 per win. I don't think Steve's odds of winning are 67% or higher. He says the information is accurate. It's hard enough to win FCRA cases when it's about inaccurate information. If Steve does win, I don't think he's likely to be awarded $20,000 or more. What are his damages? As far as I can tell he doesn't have any. I doubt there's an attorney out there that's quick enough to handle the whole litigation thing in 20 hours or less.
|
| | Saturday, March 18, 2000 - 07:21 pm So, you're saying, a lawsuit won't ever happen? What's wrong with county small-claims court for $1,000 - $2,000? Perhaps the judge would, at least, award the court costs (and force the bureau to remove the entry). The idea is that he doesn't have to put off his house purchase for 6 months (or a year or whatever) for your big lawsuit with all the fancy procedure. The cost of a small-claim might be less than a home inspection. So, again, why is he waiting 90 days? To be polite?
|
| | Sunday, March 19, 2000 - 03:26 am the trouble with the law is that it is a gamble going to court. the odds are 50/50 that you win. You don't get rich hiring lawyers... I'd recommend one only if you find dealing with the cra's or anyone else to be so aggravating that the high blood pressure skyrockets or the meds can't calm you down. Small claims may or may not be a panacea depending on where you live. I just challenged many lines of credit and they couldn't verify within 30 days--outcome: they got deleted.
|
| | Sunday, March 19, 2000 - 03:52 am senator: Have you filed a small claim where you live? What's it like?
|
| | Sunday, March 19, 2000 - 06:48 am I've taken a credit card creditor to small claims court. It didn't cost me a dime (I won back the $30 filing fee) and a court order to remove the inaccurate information. I came armed with bank statements, and receipts showing I wasn't late. Slam dunk. No lawyers necessary.
|
| | Sunday, March 19, 2000 - 08:43 am I got friends in Arizona with a small biz. They got sued in small claims, and they tell me they didn't have the right to appeal (they lost.) The decision was supposedly final. I find that hard to believe. Does anyone know AZ Small Claims? I just searched the web and found nothing. There HAS to be a URL?
|
| | Sunday, March 19, 2000 - 11:09 am Normally in small claims court the plantiff doesn't have the right to appeal but the defendant does.
|
| | Sunday, March 19, 2000 - 12:03 pm So, you're saying, a lawsuit won't ever happen? What's wrong with county small-claims court for $1,000 - $2,000? Perhaps the judge would, at least, award the court costs (and force the bureau to remove the entry). The idea is that he doesn't have to put off his house purchase for 6 months (or a year or whatever) for your big lawsuit with all the fancy procedure. The cost of a small-claim might be less than a home inspection. So, again, why is he waiting 90 days? To be polite?
|
| | Sunday, March 19, 2000 - 04:59 pm Sure a lawsuit will happen. Imagine a family who arranged "creative financing" for their house purchase. They agreed to a balloon payment at the end of five years. They try to refinance before the ballon pops, but lo and behold there's a pesky inaccuracy on their credit profile that they can't get removed despite their repeated efforts. They lose their house to foreclosure. Now that's something to sue over.
|
| | Sunday, March 19, 2000 - 06:12 pm Arizona's Small Claims Divisions A Guide to the Operations of Small Claims Divisions in Justice of the Peace Courts http://www.supreme.state.az.us/info/smclaims.htm For Maricopa County (Phoenix): "It costs $16 to file a claim in small claims court." http://www.azfamily.com/news/3oys/archives/19990310.html
|
| | Sunday, March 19, 2000 - 08:24 pm Thanks so much Greg, I knew there had to be a page. From that URL: Can the court's decision be appealed or changed? Neither party can appeal the decision of the judge or hearing officer in a small claims case. However, if either party believes the judgment was entered in error, or if there were good reasons for one of the parties not appearing in court, that party may request the court to set aside, or vacate, the judgment. A Request to Vacate Judgement form may be obtained from the small claims clerk and filed with the court. The court will review the motion and notify both parties of its decision. Wow! I had no idea. No appeal. My friends might be able to get the judgment vacated because they were sued in person doing dba while actually their corporation holds the dba. Anyway, what's important is that there is NO appeal in AZ. I personally got screwed in Cal when my Small Claims victory was reduced from $2000 to $500 after ITT appealed and showed up with their lawyer who apparently was a buddy of the judge. I didn't have a lawyer. I've never sued again. I might in Arizona.
|
| | Monday, March 20, 2000 - 02:54 am "They lose their house to foreclosure. Now that's something to sue over." Yes, in your view, they should wait until that happens.
|
| | Monday, March 20, 2000 - 01:18 pm Greg, I enjoy your views and you seem quite knowledgeable, but do you have to be so verbally abusive towards Sean. Do you really beleive he is misleading us? He's answering the wuestions as best as he can , and doesn't seem elusive to me. It just seems like you will never be satisfied with any answer you recieve.
|
| | Monday, March 20, 2000 - 04:58 pm Do I believe he's trying to mislead you? Unknown. Doesn't matter. Do I believe he's actually misleading you? Maybe. Are you allowing yourself to be mislead? You answer. What's your opinion on the topic (instead of the same old song of the argument losers: "YES, YOU'RE RIGHT, BUT YOU JUST AREN'T VERY NICE ABOUT IT! SO THERE!")? Verbally abusive? Puh-leeze. Only in the mind of the paper thin-skinned. Please explain that comment in the context of this thread. Please start using a name. Use *@* for your email address so you can remain anonymous. How about the name, "Scooter"? I'm not here to play patty-cake, and if somebody's off, I'll beat it like a drum. Actually, I love it when they don't answer the questions-- makes my task easier.
|
| | Monday, March 20, 2000 - 05:28 pm I question the value of being able to sue in Arizona small claims court and having appeals barred. First of all most credit card companies have a "card agreement" and most of those card agreements say specifically that the terms and conditions of the agreement are subject to the laws of whatever state the creditor is located in. Let's say I live in California and I have a problem with a credit grantor that's located in North Dakota and our cardholder agreement says that the agreement is subject to the laws of the state of North Dakota. 1. Am I really going to fly to North Dakota, file in small claims court, fly back home, wait two weeks and fly back to North Dakota to appear in the lawsuit? 2. What do you think is going to happen if you sue in California small claims court? Isn't the creditor just going to have a lawyer fill out a petition for a change in venue to North Dakota accompanied by a notarized copy of the agreement in which you agree to be subject to the laws of the state of North Dakota, which he mails to the court? Remember the burden of proof of jurisdiction over the matter lies completely on the plantiff. 3. Or you can sue in federal court claiming that the transaction is a matter of interstate commerce, which every federal judge will immediately accept at face value because 99% of them believe that federal law always trumps state law. You'll hear your case at a place that's geographically convenient for you. However, there is no "small claims" federal court that I'm aware of.
|
| | Monday, March 20, 2000 - 06:37 pm Make the national credit reporting agency the defendant.
|
| | Tuesday, March 21, 2000 - 03:17 am Fine, what are you suing for? A whole $1 plus injunctive relief? Or do you really think you can get punitive damages because they took 31 days to get back to you instead of 30? Suppose they never replied to you at all? How will you prove that except by of discovery? How long will that take? How much will that cost? Does your average Joe on the street know how to motion for discovery and what to do with the results? What if you motion for them to produce all the information in your file and they do -- they provide you with 19 boxes filled with paper printouts of everything on you since the beginning of time. Are you going to have time to sift through all that? How much do you make an hour? That's a lot of work for $1.
|
| | Tuesday, March 21, 2000 - 03:41 am As a funny coincidence there was an article put out yesterday on this exact subject.
|
| | Tuesday, March 21, 2000 - 05:45 am Keep a quote from a lawyer on "48 Hours" a few years ago - he said that if he had a liability case worth $ 100,000, he either had to work his butt off for years to get the $ 100,000, or he could settle quick and easy for $ 50,000. Most lawyers want a "quick and easy slam dunk" case that they can settle out of court. Unless you are going to represent yourself, chances are at best you will get a few dollars out of the CRA without any "injunctive relief". One more thing about small claim court actions - if the defendant makes a motion to kick it to superior court, the judge HAS to grant it. Then you are stuck having to either represent yourself with the "rules of evidence" in effect, or hire a lawyer. Small claims courts usually work only when you have a defendant who really has no defense and no means to "pay" for a defense.
|
| | Tuesday, March 21, 2000 - 09:09 am Do you really think the defendant would try to send it to Superior Court and suffer the bad publicity? I don't. You're right in your first paragraph: they'll settle. And if you only get one cent, at least your report is corrected sooner than the 90-days+ monkey business Sean is suggesting. Let's have Fix Your Credit Report Day. Everybody file suit on July 3rd, the day before Independence Day. It'll be fun. Sean: Keep typing. Funny stuff.
|
| | Tuesday, March 21, 2000 - 04:55 pm Yeah I'm sure if Steve sues saying, "Well, I really didn't pay them, and I really did have that charge off, but now no one can find the guy so I should be entitled to $5,000" that every credit reporting agency in the world will immediately send him a check for $2,500 and purge all negative information off his credit profile. And I'm just convinced that this is cheaper, easier and faster than just re-disputing the item and waiting another 30 days.
|
| | Tuesday, March 21, 2000 - 08:44 pm Sean: Even funnier stuff. Keep it up. Steve, I believe, is saying that he wants to contact the people who are accusing him of owing them money that he didn't pay. The problem is that he can't even do that-- contact them. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt: that he wants to resolve the debt, but he can't even talk to them to do so. So, if this is all true, the credit bureaus must either come up with the contact information for the creditor or collector, or remove the entry (because it is unverifiable). He didn't mention bilking the system for any money, and I said, "What's wrong with county small-claims court for $1,000 - $2,000? "Perhaps the judge would, at least, award the court costs (and force the bureau to remove the entry). "The idea is that he doesn't have to put off his house purchase for 6 months (or a year or whatever) for your big lawsuit with all the fancy procedure." And, what happened to your "three disputes and 90 days" thing? It looks like you're saying 60, now. We're talking, primarily, I thought, about changing the report-- not making a killing on damages. Again, that's why I said, in another instance, "And if you only get one cent, at least your report is corrected sooner than the 90-days+ monkey business Sean is suggesting." Let me repeat that: "And if you only get one cent, at least your report is corrected sooner than the 90-days+ monkey business Sean is suggesting." One more time: "And if you only get one cent, at least your report is corrected sooner than the 90-days+ monkey business Sean is suggesting." That goes for this instance, or one where a person is trying to correct an inaccurate report entry. Damage awards are nice, but it sounds like he just wants somebody to come forward to resolve the debt so he is able to buy a house, that's all. The claim is a way to facilitate that. Any questions? Small claims is an answer to inaccurate credit reporting.
|
| | Wednesday, March 22, 2000 - 04:36 am Greg you're twisting your numbers trying to make it look like my procedure will take 90 days longer than yours. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality you can't even think about suing until you've mailed the first dispute off and gotten it back without satisfaction and that normally takes 30 days. Now I have the (gasps from the audience) bizarre suggestion that you try disputing again. If the debt is really that unverifiable then won't it go away in the second dispute? Probably, but no, Greg wants to sue. Do you think you can get your court date in the next 30 days? I sure don't. What if the credit reporting agency asks the judge for a continuance? Aren't the first one or two of those pretty likely to be granted, thus giving the credit reporting agency 30-60 more days to prepare their defense? Your claim that a lawsuit is faster than negotiation is absolutely absurd.
|
| | Wednesday, March 22, 2000 - 05:37 am Sean: What if, what if, what if? Call me crazy, but it still looks like yours could take 120-150 days. This reminds me about that "+/- 5%" you blew the numbers on. I asked, "How many days-- or how many letters or phone calls-- in your view, should a person let pass before they take legal action?" You said, "I recommend three disputes and 90 days." Call me crazy, but even using your premise that the suit will take another 30-60 days to be heard, that would be 120-150 days. My way is 90. And I anticipate that they'll settle before that, anyway. If you wait 60 days, that's 60 days lost in the legal proceedings. The law gives one a right to file suit after 30 days. If you don't want to do that, that's OK with me. You're confused. What's the problem? Do you think the legislators had in mind that the bureaus would be able to buffalo for more time than allowed by the law (30 days), and the consumer would just put up with it-- and make longer than 30 days the defacto time limit and procedure-- as you're suggesting? That human nature is to procrastinate and not act within the legal time limits of the law, and that that's OK because that's just the way people are and it doesn't matter because this whole thing isn't important? The FTC didn't think so in January when they nailed them for not answering their phones. Or, are you just trying to waste my time? I didn't write the law, I'm just suggesting its proper use. 30 days.
|
| | Wednesday, March 22, 2000 - 06:29 am Hey Guys remember me Here are dates of my contact regarding this matter. On in Oct of 99, I contacted experian requesting contact info for the debtor. They gave me the a phone number and an address. I called phone number invalid. On November 4th, 1999, I wrote Experian disputing the debt. They wrote back as verified. On Nov 29, 1999, I wrote the creditor with the address provided from Experian, On Dec 7th, 1999 I got the letter back as undeliverable. On Dec 28th, 1999 I called Experian and ask how they verified the info, They gave me the same info, They said the creditor is responding to them. On Jan 19th, 2000 I sent another dispute to Experian, Came back verified. Steve
|
| | Wednesday, March 22, 2000 - 10:17 am Hey Guys Here's an update as of 3/22/00 2:00pm CST Experian just conference me in with the original creditor. The creditor wasn't sure where the account was, They gave me 3 different Collection agencies. I called all three neither had account. I called the Original creditor back ( BTW _ They had a New Name and number) The first line of CS rep could not help. The CS manager could not help. Question: The information is accurate, I simply want to pay it. The Original creditor said they can't even discuss it because they don't own it. They continue to verify the info with Experian. What DO I DO! I'm standing here with money in hand and no one will take it, I close on the 26th of April. This is the only holdup. Steve
|
| | Wednesday, March 22, 2000 - 10:48 am "Holdup" is a good word for it. Is the tradeline by the original creditor correct? Does it reflect a balance? Is there a tradeline for any collectors regarding that account? What's your mortgage originator doing about it? Did they hire a mortgage report service? What are they doing? Get witnesses.
|
| | Wednesday, March 22, 2000 - 10:56 am Try this as a desperation measure - go to a lawyer, give him 50-100 dollars to write a letter on his letterhead and send it to whatever entity (original creditor, I think) who has put the entry on your report and who keeps verifing it. You said they could not find the account nor who holds it. In the letter, the attorney needs to say something to the effect that "your continued validation of the entry combined with your continued inability to provide NEITHER a valid name/number of a contact for this debt NOR the ability to provide specific information on the debt is causing my client damage. You have 10 business days to EITHER provide me with proper validation of this debt (i.e. provide me with a valid contact name/number of the agency this debt has been assigned to), OR to remove the entry entirely from my client's Credit Report(s). Failure to do so will result in further damages to my client, who will hold you civilly responsible." Maybe they will blink...
|
| | Wednesday, March 22, 2000 - 12:15 pm Steve- Yours would be a poster case for Congress. If you were able to brief that case to them at a hearing it would be perfect! This is so typical of the bungling, clueless, unlawful BS we are all enduring with the CRAs Are you dealing straight with "Experian" or a local bureau?
|
| | Wednesday, March 22, 2000 - 04:05 pm This kind of run around that Steve is getting just makes me want to choke the livin' sh*t out of somebody!!!!
|
| | Wednesday, March 22, 2000 - 04:39 pm All I have to say is good thing Steve didn't sue right at 31 days! He'd have alleged that the credit reporting agency couldn't get in contact with the creditor and they'd have produced the creditor with proof that he'd verified the debt. Steve loses and may get counter-sued for attorneys fees. Ouch. However by waiting a few months now the situation has become clear. Experian may or may not be culpable for the situation by the original debtor who claims not to own the debt and therefore "can't talk about it" sure feels free to talk about it to third parties (Experian). Now Steve has an excellent lawsuit except for one hitch -- the Fair Credit Reporting Act specifically bans Steve from suing the person who provided Experian with the information. Will someone again please tell me how wonderful the Fair Credit Reporting Act is and why we need it so much? I seem to have forgotten...
|
| | Thursday, March 23, 2000 - 03:40 am Sean, So I have nothing to force the creditor to move quicker. Today I'm going to sit down and write them a letter, Should I threaten a suit, DO you guys think this is an honest mistake or are they pulling one of Sear's tactics. Greg, what kind of witness? Where can I read the Fair Credit Reporting act in plain english.
|
| | Thursday, March 23, 2000 - 04:37 am Absolutely you should threaten to sue. It can't hurt, right? You should even contact a lawyer to see what can be done along those lines. The topic of this thread was, "Does Experian actually verify items disputed" and I guess the answer is yes.
|
| | Thursday, March 23, 2000 - 08:48 am Steve: Is the tradeline by the original creditor correct? Does it reflect a balance? Is there a tradeline for any collectors regarding that account? Tell us exactly what that tradeline says. It is difficult to know what you're talking about without seeing the report. What's your mortgage originator doing about it? Did they hire a mortgage report service? What are they doing? Witnesses concerning what is happening to you; somebody other than you who saw it happen. This site's administrator, Christine may want to weigh in, here. Your letters and their responses are good evidence. Get a lawyer. I am not one. I realize it would appear that a lawsuit, even small-claims, and lawyers should not be necessary-- but that's the way it is. Try not to drive yourself nuts doing it yourself. The FCRA itself is in plain english. The FTC has some information, as well. http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/menu-credit.htm http://www.creditscoring.com/pages/laws.htm
|
| | Sunday, March 26, 2000 - 11:33 am Sean said: "Normally in small claims court the plantiff doesn't have the right to appeal but the defendant does." Then, he said: "I question the value of being able to sue in Arizona small claims court and having appeals barred." Sean, please define "normally."
|
| | Sunday, March 26, 2000 - 01:05 pm In California plantiff's can't appeal, but defendants can. Let's check the FCRA for the proper jurisdiction and statute of limitations. Clearly any appropriate United States district court has jurisdiction. That's a federal court for enforcement of federal laws. I realize that's kind of too subtle for your small claims court frenzy, but there it is. Here in California we also have a state fair credit reporting act. Now if a credit reporting agency had violated sections of that act I could see a lawsuit in a state court. Otherwise I would expect that someone who wanted to sue Experian should file that suit in Allen, Texas.
|
| | Monday, March 27, 2000 - 03:50 am Try not to change the subject. So "normally" means California law?
|
| | Monday, March 27, 2000 - 07:08 am California is the most populous state in the United States, isn't it?
|
| | Monday, March 27, 2000 - 09:50 am You didn't answer the question, again. The population of California is 33,145,121. http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/county/co-99-1/99C1_06.txt The population of the United States is 274,494,295 . http://www.census.gov/ California is 12% of the US population.
|
| | Monday, March 27, 2000 - 10:23 am There you go.
|
| | Monday, March 27, 2000 - 11:11 am I'm not going anywhere. Again, you didn't answer the question. Are you saying that you assume that, in most cases, the laws under which the other 88% of the country lives are the same as California's?
|
| | Monday, March 27, 2000 - 04:53 pm Greg, give up please. Or perhaps move your inane line of questioning to the already established "Sean vs Greg" thread. I'm so sick of reading your constant, pedantic attacks on Sean. What is your problem with him anyway? Sheesh!
|
| | Monday, March 27, 2000 - 06:47 pm Anonymous: Get a name. Join the living. Watch this: Sean, here's another question. You said, "Clearly any appropriate United States district court has jurisdiction. That's a federal court for enforcement of federal laws. I realize that's kind of too subtle for your small claims court frenzy, but there it is." But the very section of the law you quoted says, "§ 618. Jurisdiction of courts; limitation of actions [15 U.S.C. § 1681p] "An action to enforce any liability created under this title may be brought in any appropriate United States district court without regard to the amount in controversy, or in any other court of competent jurisdiction, within two years from the date on which the liability arises, except that where a defendant has materially and willfully misrepresented any information required under this title to be disclosed to an individual and the information so misrepresented is material to the establishment of the defendant's liability to that individual under this title, the action may be brought at any time within two years after discovery by the individual of the misrepresentation." But, here's a case where there seems to have been a problem with the way Congress wrote a law. "The Court focused on the language of the FLSA's enforcement section, 29 U.S.C. 216(b), and concluded that the FLSA did not abrogate state sovereign immunity because Congress did not express such an intent by 'clear language.' Id. at 285.(5) In response to Employees, in 1974 Congress amended 216(b), changing 'in any court of competent jurisdiction' to 'against any employer (including a public agency) in any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction.'" http://www.law.pace.edu/lawlib/legal/us-legal/judiciary/second-circuit/test3/97-9433.opn.html So, way back in '74, they grappled with this. Are you saying they didn't learn from that mistake, and they should have made the FCRA say "any FEDERAL court of competent jurisdiction"? Are you saying that the only way to resolve an issue of an incorrect entry on a report-- which may be stopping someone from getting a home loan-- is to make a federal case out of it... and that's what Congress had in mind?
|
| | Tuesday, March 28, 2000 - 03:34 am First of all you need to consult the Constitution of the United States specifically Article 1.8.3, which reads: "Congress shall have the power...to regulate commerce...among the several states." Now people in Congress (and sometimes the supreme court) interpret this veeeeeery loosely. That's why we have a federal minimum wage, federal employment safety standards and a plethora of other federal regulations all justified under the commerce clause. In fact Congress has even said that they have the right to provide for legal remedies in the case of violence against women because it affects interstate commerce. The merits of this argument are before the Supreme Court now. Considering that five out of nine members of the supreme court are members of the Cato institute is, I believe, telling. It seems likely that the united states will be returning to a stricter construction of the constitution. So I don't 100% know what your legal link is about (the server might be down -- the page did not load), but it appears to be about whether or not employees can sue their employer if their employer is one of the 50 states under federal labor law in a federal court. FLSA is the fair labor standards act? If a person lives in California, drives on California roads to his California job (at 7-11) where he sells products to Californians who walk in can we really say that this is interstate commerce? And anyways Article 11 says states can't be sued without their consent anyway. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that you can sue in state court. Wouldn't that mean to sue Experian (for example) you'd need to sue in Allen, TX because that's where Experian is based out of? What makes you so sure that your state has jurisdiction over the matter?
|
| | Tuesday, March 28, 2000 - 03:35 am Oh yeah and lay off of anonymous. I like what he has to say. :P~
|
| | Tuesday, March 28, 2000 - 05:15 am Clarence Darrow: We're talking about a dispute over an incorrect entry on a credit report. Who said anything about Texas? Experian is an Ohio corporation (run by the British-- so, maybe you think English courts have jurisdiction). If they choose to do business in a state, make statements about the citizens of that state, collect money from businesses and citizens of that state, I think they should be subject to the laws of that state. But I'm a layman, not a constitutional scholar like you. However, I don't see anything in a very clearly written law that precludes me from going to a state small-claims court and asking a judge to make them correct their silly report. Please continue to muddle in the mire. This is hilarious. Again, you didn't answer the question. You are so clever! You're trying to exhaust me by not answering it! I almost forgot about it!
|
| | Tuesday, March 28, 2000 - 02:38 pm Greg: I have a name. I just can't use it here...
|
| | Wednesday, March 29, 2000 - 10:09 am Anonymous: Thanks for responding. It gives me a chance to resurrect a thread Sean wishes would die. He's backed himself into another corner. Use a pseudonym and "*@*" for your email address. You be "Shaggy" or "Spike." That way we can attribute the offbase comments to the same person. You may be nothing, but anonymously, you're sure to be.
|
Credit Forum CreditCourt Forum 2003 Credit Suit CreditFactors Order Credit Reports |