from Equifax

Originally Posted by RICKY

<FONT size=1>RANDY,</FONT>


<FONT size=1>SEE THE POST ABOVE TO JERSEEE.& I HAVE SENT YOU EMAILS FROM THIS FORUM AND I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE "PM" PATHWAY TO SEND YOU EMAILS.& THEY SHOULD BE THERE BUDDY...</FONT>

Got the pm's (never thought to check there--duh....) Just responded--with email.


Still no emails getting to me, however.&


Try the email again--put "SJ" in subject line--Cox has a pretty strong spam-filter. Maybe it's blocking you.


Thanks.


Randy

I have sent you emails also, but no response.. :(

Originally Posted by HenryBowman

I have sent you emails also, but no response.. :(

Well, hell's bells. Lemme go check my profile/whatever page and make sure everything is right....brb...


ARGH! Can't even send myself an email!& That bites.


Hell, here's the email: schnimz@cox.net


Try sending it from your own email instead of here and we'll see what happens.


Randy

randy/ricky,


note this loophole in what randy found:


Subject to subsection (c) of this section, any consumer reporting agency <FONT size=4>may</FONT> furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other:


in other words, "they" have an "option" to do so, but are not required.& there are many, many case cites on this.


jon

[RICKY]

JON:


ARE YOU REFERRING TO CASE CITES SUPPORTING THE <U>CONSUMER</U> OR THE <U>CRA's</U>?&


I HAVE&NO EXPERIENCE LOOKING UP CITES.& CAN YOU DIRECT ME?


I HAVE A FEELIN' YOU'RE GOIN' TO GIT INTO THIS ONE ON ME RANDY....!& BE NICE BUBBA...!


RICKY

randy's post above that begins with this:


Sec. 1681b. - Permissible purposes of consumer reports


again, words like "may" "could" "should," etc., imply an action that is possible, but not required on the part of the party so directed.


hth,


jon