credit card wins

[rushpat]

Just forwarding a post I saw in another forum that might be useful to examine. I would be interested in Jersee, Ice and others to comment on this and see if we can incorporate this into the tactics already discussed.



----



7 cases were recently won in court against the banks, after the banks sued and were won using the following:


FCBA is the Fair Credit Billing Act, that is THE major violation of the creditor. The FDCPA only applies to debt collectors. Under the FCBA,Title 15 USC(US Code) Commerce and Trade section 1666,once you file a dispute, the creditor must acknowledge the dispute within 30 days, then has 2 ore billing cycles(usually 60 days) to investigate and report back to you..which they never do. Under the implementing regulation of that 15 USC, which is 12 CFR( Code of rFed . Regulation) section 226.13 (27) and (b)(1), the creditor is prohibited from collection activities, cannot close the account, the consumer has the right to withhold disputed amount. Under 12 CFR section 226.12 (c) (2) adverse credit reports are prohibited. If you go to www.ftc.gov, then click on the left where it says Consumer, then click on For Consumers, then Credit, scroll to Rules which is abut 3/4 down the page, it is under FCBA.

Take care

Paul

[Jerseee]

rushpat,

That is part of the end game. Good job on the research. That is a key weapon. And remember, I have always said to cite the code in your docs to the CRAs. There is power in the codes but, what I am doing is this:
1. Using and noticing them of the code
2. using the CRAs as an investigative agency
according to the code
3. CRAs results are my evidence of their
investigative findings
4. Their findings are according to the code and
testimony that the debt is fraudulent

That is why it is important to me to get the CRAs involved. Yes the VoD is a tool but, it will not give you the evidence you need against the alleged creditors. The results of the investigation by the CRAs (a public agency providing FREE investigative work) is a greater piece of fire power to have if you have to go to court.

Think about it. Creditors pass on fraudulent information to the CRAs month after month, day after day, damaging folks and their ability to get consideration through their strawman. But once you have the CRAs expose them and delete the unverifiable information....not only has the debt been voided when you send the VOD but, you got the creditor up against the wall by passing fraudulent informaton to the public to damage you commercially. Can you say a libel law suit? An excellent tort IMHO.

Is there anyway you can post the cases?

[Ice]

If a credit card company cannot close the account after the consumer has "disputed" the account... does the credit card company keep adding on interest to that open account??? and does the consumer then have to dispute the new balance every time???


If the account cannot be closed, then what's the point?& Is it worth all the trouble to get these guys into court for "damages"??


Wouldn't it be more fun if we could make them so crazy that they will just WRITE IT OFF AND CLOSE THE ACCOUNT??... and not even attempt to get the CRA's involved??& Wouldn't it be fun to put some fear into them??


If we could use&code to&put fear into them, cool... if not... I can't see changing what I do now for a process that leaves the account open... regardless of the fact that they cannot report it to the CRA's.


But, I haven't seen the docs yet.& If those were made available I would be able to render an INFORMED OPINION.& Until such time as those docs are made available all I can offer are questions and thoughts to ponder.


&

[Jerseee]

Ice,


remember, we never disputed anything--we only asked for the alleged debt to be verified according tot the code.& The tendered payment satisfies the account.& Now if they refuse payment, the alleged debt is satisfied.& If they keep the CPN and continue to bill you--that is another strike against them as they did not adjust the account...extortion comes to mind.


Also they can't have it both ways.& they can't make a concerted effort day after day reporting to CRAs and then turn around and say that the CRAs do not matter.& if they didn't matter then folks wouldn't need to have a credit report pulled on them everytime they tried to improve their lives some how.&


so, we have them in dishonor, going against the code, passing fraudulent information to a public agency, going against public policy,&and probably a host of other things that i am sure you think of to put them out of business.& LOL&


I'd say, "yes" that it is definitely worth it to take them to court for damages when i look at it this way.


thoughts....

[Ice]

Another nail in the coffin kinda thing???


&

[Jerseee]

Hey,


you and I know that we are trying to do the honorable thing according to public policy.& the american people were never greedy IMHO.& it was the thieves trying to get our wealth and labor by any means necessary.

[Ice]

That's right-- THIEVES!


Now, that's why I question the fact that the account "remains open"... and question whether or not they are still charging the interest fees and what not as the account is still "open".


After all, we're dealing with THIEVES AND THEY WRITE THE CODE!!


&

[Jerseee]

ahhh touche'


good point Ice.& but remember, we have evidence from the CRAs&that the debt could not be verified in the first place.


"A thing void from the beginning does not become valid due to lapse of time"& by john locke (i believe)

[rushpat]

Sorry, I don't have the case citings. I grabbed that post from another forum. It looked legit.

I haven't done any discharges yet, because I haven't finished my UCC filings. I want to have those in place before i do any discharging.

Because of this, I'm still paying on a few CC cards. One of them is a huge balance, with a very high interest rate. I was late sending in the last payment and I received a letter from a collection agency that had some interesting wording, which makes me wonder:

"... If you notify this office in writing within 30 dyas from receiving this notice that the debt, or any portion therof, is disputed , this office will obtain verifcation of the debt, obtain a copy of the judment and mail you a coyp of such judgement or verification..."

Hmm.. they are mixing 'dispute' and 'verification' in the same sentence (they do this more than once). Could this be a ploy to say that is is verified and validated by the fact that you are disputing, instead of asking for verification?

[seeker]

I am in the middle of burning the midnight oil to polish the req docs to remove from the public and re-establish in the private.& Wording is everything.& Any suggestions on responding to their assumption of my "resident" status and address?&


&


&