court case--big news

#1 06-03-2004, 11:05 PM

Hers's the link:

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories...6184&ran=67305

Randy

Jerseee · #2 06-03-2004, 11:37 PM

Randy,

Thanks for the info.

dochand · #3 06-03-2004, 11:55 PM

Yeah, it's always nice to see things that we are studying, conversing about and doing being described in a positive light in the major media.

Also nice to see the courts actually backing us up for a change.

Great piece of work!

Doc

Ice · #4 06-05-2004, 10:27 AM

This is interesting:

"By law, the appellate judges wrote, if a creditor cannot verify disputed information, credit agencies are to delete the item or modify it after further investigation. A jury, the judges wrote, "could reasonably conclude that if the MBNA agents had investigated the matter further and determined that MBNA no longer had the application, they could have at least informed the credit reporting agencies" that MBNA couldn't verify Johnson was responsible for the account. "

Don't ya think?

Jerseee · #5 06-05-2004, 12:27 PM

Ice,

How about "WOULDN'T VERIFY"

Ice · #6 06-05-2004, 07:13 PM

WOULDN'T suggests that they COULD but won't.

The Judge said they COULDN'T which means they CAN'T verify it AT ALL.

Big difference between "wouldn't" and "couldn't".

Ask yourself: How many CC companies actually have the original application?? Here we have a judge stating that the COULDN'T verify for lack of evidence -- ain't that what we have been saying all along??

Jerseee · #7 06-07-2004, 01:51 AM

Yep,

Also, wouldn't the judges statement of "couldn't" seem to imply that the judge knows that they can't as well? leading me to believe that the judge knows what's going on but not saying anything from the start. Hhmmmmm

seeker · #8 06-07-2004, 04:25 PM

Is there a court case (JOhnson versus MBNA?) to cite?

Thanks!

Seeker

seeker · #9 06-08-2004, 06:57 PM

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...th/031235p.pdf

in case anyone else is interested. Very interesting reading

See bottom of page seven top of page eight.

Seeker