Committed

I agree. Then sue them My thoughts exactly .. wouldn't be the first person I have taken a settlement from. Thanks for all the insights ... MUCH APPRECIATTED ... As I stated there is NO POLICE REPRT! There has been an afidavit sent to the OC (sprint pcs) ... I have a letter from the investigator SPECIFICALLY stating that the CONVICTED perpetrator used SO's name to get and account at Sprint and about 10 other places .... We have all the Rope they need to hang themselves ... at this point the fact that it is on the reprt doesn't matter ... It is not OUR job to do THEIR job and attempt to prove or disprove the debt ... Just want to rack up a few violations .... they want copies of EVERYTHING under the sun and the blood of a first born in their affidavit ... it is a joke ... if they want to violate I will gladly take their settlement money I have been out of the "GAME" for awhile yet am refreshed to know these salamanders are still salamanders ....

Ok ... My dear SO was the victim of Identity theft. (They prosecuted and convicted the slime) She has a letter from the investigator listing most of the fraudulent accounts however in the past year there have been more that have popped up on her reports. There was a Sprint Collection that popped on from Calvary so she siputed with EQ as not hers. Calvalry verified and then sent a letter telling her she needs to fill out this fraud affidavit. They had already ignored a validation request. Does she need to fill out the fraud affidavit? I thought that was only required by the CRA to block the identity theft items ... am I wrong on that. My inclination is to send Calvalry a letter saying validate that the account is hers or be sued. We have a letter from the investigator stating that the perp applied for credit from sprint so evidence is in her favor ... the stuff they WANT on the affidavit is rediculous ... not to mention I thought the burden was on them to prove the account they are collecting is legit .... The problem with the CRA and an Identity theft claim is there is no polic report b/c the woman who stole the ID was busted by the postal inspectors office and then prosecuted ... it did not go through the police and prior to being notified by the investigator last year my SO had no clue what had happened as she never really looked at her reprts or got ANY letters b/c of the theif using a different address an all

Okay I am asking for some assistance with clarity ... Do you ever get a letter from a scumbag CA and just get all amped up becasue you know you have them by the curlys and your mind becomes clouded over in the knowing you can wax them BIG!!! This after you already have 10 months worth of damges and documentation amassed. This is where I am at right now. I have a CA listing several bogus TL's on all reports as duplicates and every messed up way possible. The long and short is I have been amassing a massive paper trail of mucho FCRA and FDCPA violations for almost a year ... my patience finally ran out ... and am ready to file suit ... as a last ditch effort I offered settlement ... The TL's at issue are 2 bogus debts that the CA created 3 accounts each for on each report for a total of 6 TL's on each report. Now to the good stuff ... after a few letters back and forth I get the impression the attorney is all about smoke and mirrors ... the major issues TO THEM is this case are : verification of a debt is the same as validation .. to support this the ignorant attorney very eloquently attempted to use chaudry, even though she never directly quoted it, and only used the pieces that work for them, here is the quote: What cracks me up is I NEVER ASKED for verification, but rather validation. In addition they left out the most important part of Chaudry wich is: The next point of contention is they claim a dispute of not mine is GENERIC. Yep you read it .... they continue to call a dispute of not mine GENERIC. They state "their investigation was reasonable in light of my generic dispute" SAY WHAT ...... HUH .... COME AGAIN PLEASE!!!! WHat a joke ... if it ain't mine ..... it ain't mine. If i dispute everything ... I dispute EVERYHTING ... debt , amount, account # dates ... EVERYTHING The next point of laughing matter is that the contend a that as a furnisher of info a reasonable investigation is merely verifying name, ssn, address, balance, and date of delinquency. WHat cracks me up is there is no contract, zip zero nada yet the continue to hold steadfast that they can verify a dollar amount ... what a joke no contract .... no debt ... no dollar amount. The next laughing matter in this case is that the duplicate accounts they created are a "non issue" because the accounts have been closed and deleted, AFTER I notified them they were invalid, what is funny though is that they still exist as "paid collections" and even funnier is I disputed them at least 6 times each and their so called "reasonable investigations" lead to information to VERIFY them as valid .... Sorry kids but you are still on the hook .... My head is spinning right now and I reading and re-reading my research and was looking for some useful insight .... oppinions ..... or useful quotes or citations to use ..... I am mainly amped about the validation vs verification argument ... and the wreckless use of CHAUDRY ..... the other laughing points ... well I'm sure a federal judge would be quite helpful in explaing I am sending one last letter in the next few days and then filing .... I am also palnning on adding their latest letter as another false and misleading representation violation for their failure to accurately qoute a case and an attempt to deceive ... when I say I am throwing the sink I mean the sink . I am acctually more dumbfounded at how reckless this attorney is .

Once you have confirmed that it has been received, dispute with the CRA's again. From there it depends on what happens and what your goal is. If you plan to file suit you need to have damages ... so that may mean some declines that state the asset TL as reason for denial. it all depends on your goals and timeframe

Their reason for getting it vacated was their secretary made a clerical error. My arguement was that not showing up was neglegent on their part. I could not believe the judge let them slide. To paraphrase what he said, he was granting the order unless I could prove they intentionally failed to show up. No way possible for me to prove their absense was not a mistake. The judge was nice though. He said while reviewing my case he noticed that jurisdiction was "an issue I may want to do more research on". Think about it like this ... they have to show small claims in NOT the place for the case ... you just need to argue that the court IS competent and be able to show where FCRA and FDCPA state that, have you searched records for other FCRA FDCPA cases in that court ... what judge is gonna say their court is not competent? If the judge says that ... he is doing you a favor ... take his hint ... run fast and file in Fed

That is what I was getting at ... I think they do prefer it because as we saw w/ farter they bank on a judge who is ill informed of the FCRA and FDCPA ... often times it seems in small claims not only does one need to present a solid case but also "teach" FCRA class to the judge ... all the while slime-set plays up the "this is just another dead beat debt avoider" hoping the judge takes the position of "poor ole slimebags this alleged debtor tried to set them up" and make a ruling on the underlying debt RATHER THAN slimesets actions ...

That's a joke right They are slime .... did they also send you the receipt showing they paid $30 bucks for your alleged debt ??? My guess is that asset gets sued at least ten times a week in various courts :roll: :roll:

let em bump to fed ... better to have a judge who knows the law in and out ... other than that just argue that based on the happenings that court is a competent means ... but in all honesty don't let them punk you into being afraid of Fed ... they are doing you a favor IMHO ... do a search for beerfart ... he just got done going a few rounds with the slimes ...

not related to rte 9 but reading another post just got me to thinking ... every thread here should have one person write asset acceptance sucks in at least one reply so when the genius' decide to use the search feature .... they get to read through every thread posted on the board... bet that would make it real worthwhile for them ... as we all know they have nothing better to do ... and think about it they may even learn something yeah right! :roll:

Yeah ... they can read the board all they want .... PM's do have a place I do appreciate the info from yourself and bre :8) very considerate, and I am sure I will have more Q's as my time approaches. It just seems; regardless of what one person posts; A$$et could give a rats, and honestly believe they are above everything in this world. Knowing this, I will will build my case over the next several months and let them hang themselves. The file is open and continues to grow! Now to read and just get caught up here ... Vaca is great but upon retund the mountain has grown ...

Um not far from NJ ... :roll: I' d be more specific but you know ... they're watching and I prefer to lay low when it come to possible suit sorry to miss the question ... for some reason I am not getting emails for replys all the time ... and my week has been busy ... much reading time

Okay outside of A$$, I have one CA left on my reports,and I have just been racking up the violations left and right, you name it they've done it. In addition they have helped give ammo should I need to file against the CRA's. Here is a brief timeline This CA has listed 2 diff accts with 2 cra's and 1 account with the big three. A few months back they duplicated 2 of the accounts and created 2 different account numbers for each account creating 4 TL's instead of 2, for a total of 5. As soon as these clowns showed on the first report I sent DV, and never got squat. I have sent DV at least 3 times for every acct # they list, along with esstoppel My last round of disputes saw one TL updated to paid collection. Then this past month the clowns reported the TL's to the third cra, once again without ever providing DV. Outside of monthly bills the only thing they have ever sent was a letter stating they cannot perform an investigation, blah, blah, blah but that they would continue to update the information. About a month ago I put together a suit and an ITS letter to send to there legal department I have been contemplating an approach and would like some feedback ... Should I : Dispute with the CRA and send copies of the letters, or just do a generic dispute knowing they will verify Send another validation for the duplicate accounts just to have my bases covered. Jump straight to ITS and add the new violations to the suit, along with a complaint to the FTC ... I have very high damages in this case, as they were the only CRA on one of my reports when I racked up massive denials stating collection accts for denial. I am leaning towards the ITS, b/c that was my plan ahead of time before they added to the third cra with dupes ... TIA

I'd be curious to know as my case against asset is building .... really wanted to be their but SO was in a bunch over cutting time from the long weekend trip ... looks like I missed something good Not surprised that A$$est reads here .... errrr looks here anyway .... obviously they cannot read becasue their practices are so rediculous ... GREAT POST painintheA$$et ... good advice for anyone getting ready to take on a$$et ... $220 K in damages and counting

Just back from short vaca ... thought there would be an update Hope everything went well on Friday ... did they even show?

GREAT advice :wink: :wink: :wink: Not to be a demoralizing person, there needs to be a realistic approach Suing anyone without knowing ALL of the statutes that *may* be actionable is not wise ... not to mention lets the opposition know that you haven't a clue ... You filed a case in hopes of showing you are serious ... yet you may have shown them you are merely an ill prepared adversary with a weak case ... There may be little to offer at this stage ... can you post what you based your complaint on or what you filed with the court to see what insight there may be ... Building a solid paper trail that can be used in conjunction with the statues is the key ... I tend to let the file build and at the same time build my case and then jump on them when I have more than 10 violations and have exhausted every other recourse ... IMHO filing suit should be the last resort ... not the second or third step ... especially for something so small and close to falling off your report ...