Significant CRA victory

[Jerseee]

Forum,

(Especially Kgod) Today I received some very uplifting information from TransUnion (One of the 3 major CRAs).

After a re-investigation of an entry on my commercial person's credit report...they have deleted the child support entry that was on the report! This is not to say that I do not support my child--that has nothing to do with what I am doing. But it does open the door to a very important question....how lawful is a child support order if a major CRA cannot even verify the debt?

This is major!!! I hope all of you can comprehend just what happened. I told all 3 CRAs to verify the debt. One did not answer (Equifax), One said that it was valid (Experian), and the other has deleted it (transUnion). So do you know what that means? Well if not.........

According to the code, they all must be reporting the same information (if it is valid and verifiable). Since one has said the order was valid and the other said that it was unverifiable well then......."Houston we have a problem"!

The fact that one of the major 3 cannot verify any alleged debt is testimony on your behalf because they will delete the entry within 30 days!!! And TransUnion did just that after a RE-INVESTIGATION. So that means they investigated the entry atleast twice!

Which means that it is unverifiable! A court order unverifiable?!? A court judgment unverifiable? This has raised massive questions within myself that I do not know where to begin (because of the excitement and joy).

So if Jim, Ice, OT, Sui Juris, James or anyone out there with some or extensive knowledge about judgments/court orders, please chime in before I get plastered and come home on the milk truck.

This is a huge victory if it can be explained. And if can be explained somehow, i may have a tort claim against Experian for publishing and providing false and misleading information, according to the code! US code 15, chapter 41, subchapter III.

[suijuris]

Jersee,

This does look to be a great victory... getting credit cards and debt collectors off a debt report is one thing, but a court order! I will let the more experienced chime in with their thoughts on the implications, but just wanted to say congrats and keep up the great fight!

Regards,
Sui Juris

jerseee, i was late in the game as far as the credit stuff, but im playing catch up and this is how i look at why they cant verify child support. After reading Richard Cornforths material posted here about liability, any presentment must show your liability. In order to have a liability, there must be a obligation. In order to have a valid, verifiable obligation, there must have been CONSIDERATION given to you by the court which ordered you to pay child support. The court cannot verify that they lent you anything!!! Thats why they cannot get around the just compensation clause either if you bring that up. Getting back to the point, thats prima face evidence also of the order being void. Using the clearfield doctrine that governments are corporations when they use federal reserve notes seals the deal with your point. So, they are not immune to verifying the debt either.

[suijuris]

Sounds good Kgod! Funny you brought up Richard Cornforth, I was just watching his videos on void judgements. Jersee, it is likely that judgement is void - did they have subject matter jurisdiction? Was there any witness before the court? I can provide links to the Cornforth videos available for download if anyone is interested.

Sui Juris

[Jerseee]

good points by the both of you,


however, it is my belief that the judgments are given or sold to government agencies such as child support enforcement.& i am not sure of how CRAs conduct investigations (nor do I care) but, sui juris is right about one thing....getting CRAs to delete that non-verifiable entry is huge.& In fact, it may be bigger than i think--i just haven't had the time to do my research on mr. Conforths materials.


i don't think they ask judges anything since i mentioned that Child support enforcement agency was the alleged creditor reporting information to the CRAs every month.


Folks, i think I have stumbled onto something very significant---I can feel it.

[Ice]

The child support agency is the one that reports to the CRA... but it's actually the child that is the Creditor and the child has a guardian (a parent) that DOES ALL LEGAL THINGS FOR THE CHILD.& So, how is it that the child support agency has the right to report to the CRA for the child in the first place?


But, they claim that Child Support, like medical bills, is not supposed to be held against your credit.& And that might be the key in this instance.& Now, if we could actually find the words in the law and could demonstrate that it isn't even supposed to be reported...


then we could prove that someone is doing damage to our character by performing an unlawful act that they know is unlawful.


Right?

[Jerseee]

Actually Ice,


it is in the code that judments can be put on the commercial person's credit (debt) report.


http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/1681s-1.html


that code above does not apply to me but it can be done.


&

ice, glad u brought this up too "child is creditor". Excuse me, but how in the world can a CHILD be a creditor? And, ice, your point is true, the child DOES have a judgment against you along with the state in most cases. Now, if you took your underage child down to the carlot with some money and tell them to buy a car, the law says they cannot contract because they are a minor, but they get amnesia when it comes to child support, because they know that by giving the child a judgement, when they&become a adult, they can go back themselves and get any back child support due them and keep the game and chaos going. I dont care about the guardian excuse, because thats what it is.

[Jerseee]

Kgod,

have you forgotten that the state owns the strawman (even if the fiction is a child property)?

good point jerseee, but what happens if someone challenges the minor law anyway? you think the state gonna jump up and say that they own the strawman? strawman, whats a strawman? that would cause more problems for them.