I would like to know the answer too. Anyone here know what is the answer. I'll do some poking around and get back to you if I find an anything. You should email the people at Lending Tree as they probably can answer it..

Not to sound too smart-alecky, but, uhh...

What's your point?..

The point is that users of reports don't know how to use the system properly, and what you experienced (illegal HARD inquiry you wouldn't have such a strong case if it didn't affect the score) happened to another (me)(albeit in a different circumstance), and, I'll bet, many others..

But, if you're suggesting that that's too broad for this thread, then I have a question that your answering may help in your specific case..

You said, "So, by my count, I have them on six seperate violations of the FCRA. They have 1) placed an unauthorized "hard" inquiry on my CR's (no permissible purpose)... ".

So, when you get to court, how will you explain how this whole thing came about (you disputed a legitimate entry with something called a "nutcase" letter)?.

If you dance with the devil, you may get burned...

I don't have to explain anything..

They.

Have to explain why they placed an inquiry on my CR without my knowledge or consent where there was no existing or pending business relationship. The whole story in court begins on January 24th, 2002, the day they put an illegal inquiry on my CR's..

My whole point in poking at this particular fire was to, hopefully, make the original paid charge off go away via deletion. Failing that, let the circumstances evolve whereby they commit an illegal act, which they have. That now gives me the leverage I lacked. No-one forced them to commit an illegal act. They took that on themselves. All they had to do was remove the dang inquiry, and I lose all my leverage.



I don't see where I have anything to lose or get 'burned' by this...

I have the exact same situation:.

I sent a modified verification letter to an OC. They pulled my file, unauthorized, to "see what we were reporting, and we find it to be correct." I filed suit. They requested a jury. Who knows where this will go ultimately..

Like Quixote said, whatever caused them to undertake an illlegal act is really not the issue. The fact that they did it is at issue. In my case, just because they deleted the inquiry AFTER I filed suit doesn't make everything okay. SOmeone else wrote in another thread "it is like robbing a bank, thinking you are going to be caught, and giving the money back before they arrest you. It doesn't mean there wasn't a crime."..

You set them up, and you admit it. What are you going to tell the judge when she asks how this whole thing came about?.

HER: You seem to know the law very well. What was your dispute?.

YOU: I was temporarily insane, I was a NUTCASE, your honor. I couldn't help myself; I knew my dispute was frivolous. But they still hurt me! Waaaah..

HER: Dismissed..

But, if you get away with it (fat chance), write a book and start a web site and initiate a cottage industry for that kind of malarkey. You'll be famous and will make us all rich. All we have to do is send a bunch of letters with wacky claims....

If you aren't getting enough action, there are enough real problems with their disclosures to complain about. Why don't you try some of them, instead of your scam? Let me know if you want some suggestions. You're one of the message board's standouts; I thought you were smarter than this...

Cmon Greg,.

Now you're just being silly. You know good and well that the underlying situation has nothing to do with FDCPA violations. It's in the form of a "Statutory Tort" and completes when the CA brakes the law..

*********** END OF STORY!.

Besides Quix has enough savvy not to go into court and call his corrospondence a "NutCase" letter..

I expect more from you...

Greg,.

Quixote is indeed one of this board's standouts and remains one, says me..

Scam!!!!!!!!!!!! Where's the scam? there's no scam..

It is as legitimate to request verification of a correctly reported negative tradeline as it is an incorrect one..

CRA's are required to delete information that is not verified within 30 days that provision doesn't have a darn thing to do with accurate or inaccurate, it's a matter of record-keeping..

If they don't know what they are reporting, they aren't allowed to view your report to find out..

They CHOOSE to report, they are not required to report, as such, they must maintain the records and follow the rules..

Scam, humphhhhhhhhhhhh..

I'm still swooooooooooooooning, Quixote, you standout, you!.

Sassy..

Quixote, there is wild speculation about the content of your letters (but, then again, this.

Is.

The Internet.

Not known for it's credibility isn't it?). What'ya say you post them here?.

WWJD?..

======================.

Quixote says they have no experience with lawsuits..

I do have experience with then both as a plaintiff and as a defendant yet Quixote.

States my experience is worthless..

Pretty outstanding isn't it?..

Quixote, I really admire your gumption in filing this lawsuit and I want to say that I hope that it works out. It sounds like you've done your homework and that should certainly help you prevail. I don't quite understand the controversy in this thread. From my reading, Macy's caused an improper hard inq to be placed on your rpt. You tried through the normal channels to get this removed. Unfortunately, they were stubborn.

If you are able to get them to clear up the TU problem in the process so much the better. At this point it's almost a courtesy based upon what they have put you through w/ the inq. Afterall, all they had to do is recode it to PRM unless you have a block on your rpt and in that case they could have just removed it. What incentive do these people have to leave a potentially damaging mark on your rpt for 2 long yrs? Don't know myself but a lot of these creditors won't budge w/o strong proding. I wish you all the best in this endeavor...

Greg,.

Ultimately, every letter I sent to them was some variation on letters you've seen here and at Bill Bauer's site. I'll see if I can find the older ones and post them, but there really is no secret..

Bottom line is, I had asked them for validation (I know, I know- but I was shaking the tree to see what came out), and in fact, they provided decent documentation of the account late last year. Frankly, I had dropped the subject and had pretty much given up on getting the Macy's tradeline off of my CR's. I really had no leverage, and they didn't seem to be scaring at all. That's the dirty little secret about Nutcase-type letters; if the other guy knows their stuff, it's meaningless. So, as I said, I had dropped the subject late last year (Dec. 6, 2001 was the date on the last letter I sent them)..

Then, out of the blue, this year, an inquiry shows up on my Experian report (January 24th). I disputed through the CRA and it came back verified. I tried to dispute agin, but Experian rejected it out of hand. I called Macy's; they said; "Gee that's too bad. Go pound sand." I called again and spoke to a supervisor. All I was asking was that they remove the inquiry that they had no right to place on my CR's in the first place.



At that point, I decided to get serious..

They.

Broke the law; not me. I notified them in writing that I disputed the inquiry and asked them politely to remove the inquiry. Twice. They have thus far ignored this request. They have not complied with the law inasmuch as they have a statutory obligation to notify the CRA that this item is in dispute, and to correct information that they know to be incorrect..

Out in front of my house is a three way stop that is roundly ignored by motorists in the area, even though it is clearly marked. This bugs me because I have a daughter who plays in the neighborhood with friends. Not out on the street, but still... There's a school bus stop about a hundred feet away. People drive through this Stop at anwhere from 5- 45 mph (no kidding). This, in an upscale residential area.

The Stop sign in one direction is on my property and there are oleanders near it. I go out every so often to trim them back so that the Stop sign remains unobstructed from view. On top of that, I have given permission to the local police to sit on our property to monitor the intersection. The police will sit out in full view in the middle of my driveway, sometimes on a motorcycle, sometimes in a cruiser. Fifteen, maybe twenty feet off the street, but right out in the open.

Still.

Go right through the Stop sign without so much as slowing down. They'll write fifteen tickets in an hour. I have gotten phone calls from the homeowners association asking if I have given the police my permission. They have gotten a number of angry phone calls from other home owners in the association who have gotten tickets in front of my house. Apparently, it's my fault that these people are getting tickets. You know what? I don't give a damn.

People are actually starting to slow down (very few actually stop- but hey, it's an improvement) One block away, there was a fatal accident less than a year ago..

I don't see where trying to blame me for Macy's putting an unathorized inquiry on my CR makes any more sense than trying to blame me for getting a ticket in front of my house. All you gotta do is comply with the law and my actions have no effect on you...

If you actually offered a suggestion, I'd love to read it. Thus far, you only spout, and spout, and spout...

Quixote, I absolutely agree with you on this one.....

If you had known in the very beginning how this would all play out, it would have, indeed, been a "set up;" however, you didn't know what they would do! How could you have set them up?.

This has striking similarities to my suitThey reported incorrectly, I notified them, they ignored me, I disputed, they verified, I notified them. This circle went around and around for months. Finally, I asked for verification of what they were reporting. Fishing? Maybe. I knew that the reporting was incorrect. I also KNEW that they could not substantiate their claim.

They refused and said "pound sand." I wrote 3 letters asking them, politely to remove their inquiry, they said "pound this specific pile of sand" (I love that!). I told them I would file suit if they did not remove the inquiry. THey ignored me. I filed the suit. Guess what? They deleted the inquiry as "an act of goodwill." What goodwill? You guys broke the law! You only found this small pocket of good in your heart as soon as I named you as a defendant! This is crap, and I sick of being s*it on by these jerks.

Quixote, you have taken the high road here. Just do what you need to do. The fact that anyone wants to make this an issue of morality or conscience is not applicable. I applaud your effort, and I hope you beat them at their own game. Please keep us informed..

Good luck,.

Lisa..

If paying the penality for breaking the law is an act of good will we sure have a lot of crooks and other law breakers doing acts of goodwill by going to to jail don't we?..

Thanks Lisa..

I gave it a little more thought, and, if, as Greg suggests, I might have to answer the question of "what instigated this?", I simply asked that they (Macy's) produce proof of the accusation on my CR or delete and if they declined to do either, I would reserve my legal rights. Their response (if it was their response- I don't.

Know.

That these two events are related) of pulling my CR is not a Permissible Purpose, regardless of whether there was or is impending legal action. I'll bring a copy of the FCRA and the Greenblatt letter along with me with the appropriate sections hi-lited, or better yet, I'll let the attorney do it if it gets to court..

Again, all they had to do was delete and this whole thing goes away six months ago..

It's like blaming the girl in the slinky dress for the... well you know the rest of that story... And, uhh, for the record, I have.

Never.

Worn a slinky dress.;).

BTW, Greg, I actually appreciate your grilling me. It's making me think this whole through more thoroughly than I otherwise might have. I still think I'm right, but now I know better.

Why.

..

Tom..

The letters. Surely they'll make a court appearance. Why not copy and paste them here?.

What is your response to the court when they ask if you made a dispute with the credit reporting agency?.

Consider that and think about a telemarketing case I watched over a two-year period. The plaintiff turned down a $4000 settlement because of the gag order, went to court, represented himself, and won!.

The award: $1..

(Rice V. Chevy Chase Bank -.

Http://www.paralegal-concierge.com/L...nsumerlaw.html.

).

WWJD (.

W.

Hat.

W.

Ould.

J.

Udy.

D.

O)? Judge Judy...

Greg, I'm not trying to avoid your question. I have changed jobs, and therefore laptops, twice since late last year. I have paper copies of the letter, but I'm still looking for electronic versions. Additionally, I have work to do in between posting ;), and I'm still trying to get the Lending Tree mortgage stuff straight for our first home purchase (exercising the lease option on the home we're in now). I'm just a little bit harried..

The letters themselves are very much what you've seen posted here a numbe rof times. Nothing special. I guess what I'm starting to wonder is, why do you care so much about the specific wording. it seems like your trying to keep me from exercising my rights. It seems like you're of the opinion that Macy's should be able to put as many inquiries on my credit reports as they want, whenever they want and I should just shut up about it..

If I were having this conversation with someone whose opinions I hadn't already come to respect over the last year, I would suspect I was being baited by a troll for Macy's. I'm certain that's not the case here, but I honestly don't get what your point, or maybe more accurately, your agenda, is. Why do you seem to want so badly for me to drop my case?.

Presume for a moment that I'm telling the truth which I am); just a bunch of generic huffing and puffing letters; modified validation and estoppel letters is about all they are. No legal actions taken, nor specifically threatened, until this month. The question I would like to ask you is, What did.

I.

Do that justifies.

Their.

Breaking the law six different ways?.

BTW, I'm sure you've seen it before, but here's.

A more applicable example of a pro se litigant in my exact situation..

BTW again; I think that Judy would want to know who broke the law. Not I sez the Quixote...

While you search for the letters, I would ask if your Lending Tree mortgage quest is affected by your credit report. That's a new twist to the story..

"The question I would like to ask you is, What did I do that justifies their breaking the law six different ways?".

That's a loaded question I have no evidence of any illegality (another point we should discuss: This board is littered with rantings, but little proof of the claims, yet everybody so incredulous do they just like to bitch and never reach a resolution (web space is free, scanners are cheap)?). But assuming I have evidence, six is pushing it. And, you have to prove.

Willful.

Non-compliance. They'll kill you with their claim of negligence. Perhaps no, likely you're just dealing with boneheads. Now you're left with only damages and costs..

So, I'm cynical and defeatist because the law is flawed. There should be stautory awards given whether the inaccuracy is willful, or not. That way there doesn't have to be this silly, overly-dramatic, costly court procedure, or the threat of it..

What are your damages?.

There is so much wrong with credit reporting, in general. TransUnion's consumer disclosure they sent to me indicates a blatant nose-thumbing of a basis tenet: Full disclosure to the consumer (see Case 2, creditaccuracy.com). And a guy with your brains is wasting his time on a case with a dubious history. It's depressing. You're not even going after the bureaus (whose lousy quality control is responsible, too if not more so)..

How much credence should I give one whose name is synonymous with the lack of acceptance of reality, his fatal flaw?..

Hi Greg,.

While admittedly there's a big difference between willful and negligent noncompliance I don't believe that what Quix is doing with them is a NONvictory..

After all, he's dragging them into court, putting them through that legal expense, and generally causing them considerable "pain in the ass" type nuisance work..

This is all very expensive for them even tho Tom may never see a penny. Dragging them through the keyhole butt first is a victory in and of itself..

That may not qualify as total victory but it's not exactly a waste of time, is it? Maybe they will think twice before screwing up with the next person. And I bet the inq comes off in the process..

:)..

"That may not qualify as total victory but it's not exactly a waste of time, is it?".

Yes...

I dont see the problem here, there were FCRA violations, regardless of how they came about, there they are. right?.

Open and shut case..

You can argue all day that the nutcase letter wasnt warranted, doesnt change the fact that Macy's did not follow the FCRA..

I think the worst that you'd get out of this is some cash for their violations and a hard inquiry removed..

And stress until that occurs, of course..

Imho..

Greg is right in that, it's not quite that simple Imlost...

So if I get laughed out of court, I'm out twenty eight bucks and a few hours of my life in exchange for a terrific learning experience. Others may even benefit vicariously from my crashing defeat..

On the other hand, after I pointed out to them several times in certified letters that what they were and are doing is not in compliance with the law, can they still claim negligence? We'll find out. October 4th..

I agree with you that the law is flawed. Given that the law says that the CRA's can simply ask the OC, "Zis OK?", and when the OC responds, "Zats OK", the CRA can legally report back that , "Zats OK." I don't see where I have any grounds under the current law to sue the CRA. I do see lots of opportunity for going after the OC, the "Furnisher" in FCRA language, for knowingly "furnishing" faulty info..

I don't see any down side to this. If I totally lose, I'm stuck with an inquiry on my report for another eighteen months. Big Deal. The paid charge off goes away in ten months anyway. Another Big Deal. Yawn.



No bearing whatsoever.

On my Lending Tree mortgage situation. As soon as Chevron and Cap1 were knocked out of the way, the Lending Tree mortgage became possible. My scores are high enough (see below they've all gone up 10-20 points since I last updated). A six year old paid charge off that only shows up on one report isn't going to kill me. The Lending Tree mortgage companies all seem to only really care about the last two years..

That's one way to look at it, I suppose. I look at differently, as you would probably expect. :P When I first started looking into improving my credit, I though it was an impossible task. I found this place, signed on and even posted a few times under the oh-so-flashy screen name of tda325. Then the bug bit me. I suddenly realized that maybe, just maybe, I could do this.

Maybe I could improve the life of not only myself, but far more importantly, my wife and daughter. Maybe I could, dare I even think it? maybe I could even get my credit clean enough to buy a house. Seemed like an.

Impossible Dream.

To me, but I was willing to try; to pick up the challenge, hoping that I'd be able to get enough help here to get it done. I'm not sure I really believed it, but I was hoping really hard. So I got my new screen name, tilted my whatever-that-thing-is-that-they-tilt and away I went. Now, well, I wear my optimism, as well as my screen name as a badge of pride. It works for me. I think it's one of my best things.



Quixote.

On the license plate..

I've worked really hard at this. I've gotten over.

75 derogatory.

Trade listings removed between my CR's and those of.

The Lovely Mrs. Quixote.

We're buying a house. A nice one. Two thousand sq. ft. on 3/4 acre in a.

Very.

Nice neighborhood. I have already qualified, and should have finalized next week, for a Stated Income, Stated Asset loan. Basically they check my pulse, and fund the loan. At 6 7/8 percent with one point. Not bad. If I hadn't just needed to change jobs and had more cabbage stuffed away, we could have gotten a better rate, but the fact that I'm able to get a.

Decent.

Rate on a $271,200 Lending Tree loan on basically just my signature, on the strength of my credit reports, just fourteen months after first tilting at my personal windmills, well, dang it, I'm kinda proud of that. You can choose to believe me or not. It's entirely up to you. There's over a thousand posts to look back through if think I might have some ulterior agenda..

EggZachry...

A lawyer in an infamous credit reporting error case told me about the most damaging testimony in the trial a manager of the credit reporting agency who just didn't know the rules of the FCRA..

Right now, whether it is damaging, or not and indeed, whether it exists is heresay. But when that part of the trial transcript is published on web, it will change everything. The mere exposing of something like that will make a huge difference..

I can probably count on one hand the actual documented (the actual evidence) and published cases of creditors and credit bureaus mishandling issues like yours. But to read the message boards, they happen at a rate of 100 per second. Should I believe it all?.

Will you publish your documents? Wouldn't that be just as important as winning if not more so? And, I would be curious to see how the chain of command would react: Imagine your case, then, if you had everybody up to the president making foolish statements (instead of just some flunky clerk that they can use as their fall guy). Now, that's entertainment...

If by my letters, I'll do what I can. Still haven't found them in any of my zip files..As new letters are sent and received, I'll be posting them in this thread. I've alread posted my offer of settlement letter above..

I'm not sure why.

Anything.

Would be more important than winning the case..

Believe me, so would I. So far , not a peep. There has been no offer to accept or reject. Believe me. If, as in the case you cited above, they offer 4K to go away, I'll be gone very quickly..

Now you're starting to get into the proper spirit of things...;)..

So for this we are supposed to over pay for loans and insurance????.

LB 59..

Quixote, I really admire your gumption in filing this lawsuit.

MandyB.

So do..

So he can go to the post office site and verify you sent them????.

For what it's worth, I don't think you need to post it. The letters would be nice to see as it may help others, but I believe in you 100% no questions asked...

Thanks LKH. I sorta figured that Greg is trying to double check me. I guess I just wonder why my word is all of the sudden suspect; at least with some people. If I was trying to peddle something here, I would totally understand someone trying to verify any claims I might make. But, hey I'm just providing the narration for a small little adventure going on in my life. Anybody who wants to watch or not watch, listen or not listen, believe me or not believe me, is perfectly welcome to.



I certainly could re-type the letters in here, but I'm not a fast typist, and, frankly, I've got better things to do. If I find the files I guess I might as well post them, considering I've already posted the offer for settlement letter. The only caveat I'll put on that is that the letters I sent them were developed when I was signed up with Bill Bauer. Despite the fact that apparently Bill and I don't get along so well anymore, out of courtesy to Bill, I will ask his permission before posting the letters, as I think he has copyrighted some of his template letters. Not sure about that, but I'll check with him (if he'll reply to me, that is)..

I just can't figure out what's bugging Greg.... Why would I make all this up? Why is Greg so tanked up about this? It can't possibly affect him directly, whether it's true or not, can it?..

Does it affect him? Who knows. Greg, as far as I know is anti-cra. He has a strong way of doing and saying things. But his purpose to all of this defies me...

Let me say this again (and, by the way, I'm pro-.

Accuracy.

) I can probably count on one hand the actual documented (the actual evidence) and published cases of creditors and credit bureaus mishandling issues like yours. But to read the message boards, they happen at a rate of 100 per second. Should I believe it all?.

I just want the truth, and I don't know you from Adam..

If you post the numbers of the certified mail return receipts, anybody reading this message board can verify your veracity about that particular issue of this case by going to.

Http://www.usps.com/shipping/trackandconfirm.htm.

And confirm an actual letter was deliverd on a particular date. It gives your story some degree of credibility, and makes it more intriguing..

Take a step back. I went to a county fair last night and goaded five of my friends into paying $2 to see the "ape woman freakshow (discovered in 2000, believed to be the daughter of missionaries in Africa!). I actually had compunction about it because I didn't want to be a part of the exploitation of a poor deformed or diseased human being..

As it turned out, it was a corny mirror trick. And to think that I actually believed there was a real, living being... It is as if I've made some great stride over a great divide between my ignorance and the truth..

How is anybody supposed to take anything on the Internet seriously? And now that someone has asked for the number, but the supposed plaintiff refuses to give it, doesn't that cast doubt on the story?.

Did you keep photocopies of the letters you sent?..

The thing is, Greg, as I've already stated, not in so many words, I don't give a damn whether you believe me or not. I'm not trying to sell you anything, do business with you, and I certainly owe you nothing..

I've also said at least three times now that I have photocopies of the letter. I have also said that they were very simple letter that I got from Bill Bauer. I have also said I don't know how many times, THE ONLY ISSUE IS WHETHER MACY'S HAD A PERMISSIBLE PURPOSE TO PUT AN NQUIRY ON MY CREDIT REPORT ON JANUARY 24, 2002. The rest of this nonsense is just that; nonsense...

I still dont see the problem here. you could nitpick every posting on the board in this fashion if you wanted to...

You're having a bigger problem with him than me aren't you?..

My sense of humor tends to lean towards the sarcastic side. ;)..

THE INTERNET - An anonymous message board participant was so angered by another's message that he began exposing his credit report scores with this signature:.

Fisher (or someone claiming to be him) couldn't figure it out. "I think my last request for a letter, and think of the-horror-of-it-all a certified mail registration number put him over the top whoever he is, the poor soul," Fisher's screen persona speculated..

"But, hey, it's their First Amendment right," proclaimed the person identifying himself as Fisher..

The exchange, ultimately, meant nothing because of the ethereal nature of the Internet, described by some as a "vast wasteland" a medium resembling a television, with the exception that one can talk back to the screen..

"I'm not sure why they don't use their 'ignore' button," was the person purporting to be Fisher's response. "Maybe a cry for help? There was some business about a 'nutcase' letter' and trying to dupe a former creditor. He's taking this quite seriously.".

"I don't think he liked me asking about that last thing," said, the person known as Fisher, referring to a relevant point not offered by the poster..

Even with all the animosity, ambiguity and anonymity, the person claiming to be Fisher said, "Is there any bad press?".

Http://www.quoteworld.org/docs/nmvas328.php..

I've been posting my scores for eight months now. I updated them yesterday because I had new information with which to update them with. The last update was August 6th, and the last one before that I think was in May..

I'm not looking for any press at all. If anything, I think I have probably already posted too much on this case; particularly the Offer For Settlement letter... Sort of like laying down all your cards in the middle of a game. This game doesn't end until October 4th. Win, lose, or draw, I'll post everything at that point, even if I have to retype some of the letters..

Never can be too paranoid...

But at least now we have humor. A big improvement.....

I would ask for proof, but know better..

I was referring to me..

What are you worried about?: ".

I have also said I don't know how many times, THE ONLY ISSUE IS WHETHER MACY'S HAD A PERMISSIBLE PURPOSE TO PUT AN NQUIRY ON MY CREDIT REPORT ON JANUARY 24, 2002..

".

Hopefully, not to present as evidence...

About every third person here posts their scores, so I don't see any reason why I shouldn't also..

That is still my position. I do however, recognize a number of other things have happened (letters passing back and forth having to do with the paid chargeoff) or could happen (who knows who is watching this?). I am just not at all sure that I should post every last piece of information prior to going to court. How does that stengthen my case? Admittedly, I'm not sure how it weakens it either, but, by reserving action, I don't have to try and undo something later that I wish I hadn't done? Capische?.

No, because.

Someone.

Has been insisting that I post them, and so far, I have not been able to find the original Word docs, only the photocopies. Unless I find the Word docs, if I am to post them at all, it will be by retyping them; re-keying them to be more precise. Before I would do that, though, I will remind you again, I will seek Bill Bauer's consent to publish those letters that he drafted, which was just a couple of them..

Considering how easy it would be to manipulate the wording of anything I might Copy and Paste into a post here, I truly don't believe you will lend credence to anything I post here anyway. So, I'm back to my original question;.

Why should I?.

I'll challenge you again to suppose for just a moment that everything I have told you so far is true. If you were in my shoes, wouldn't you ask yourself, ".

Why should I?.

"..

About every third person here posts their scores, so I don't see any reason why I shouldn't also..

I was only referring to the statement that you posted them, at all. You took exception to my stating that you did so in reaction to my previous statements..

How does that stengthen my case? Admittedly, I'm not sure how it weakens it either, but, by reserving action, I don't have to try and undo something later that I wish I hadn't done? Capische?.

I don't speak Danish. As you said, it's a learning experience. Don't worry, you're anonymous..

Considering how easy it would be to manipulate the wording of anything I might Copy and Paste into a post here, I truly don't believe you will lend credence to anything I post here anyway..

At the risk of being yelled at, again, I'll comment. Copying and pasting things into a message board space is far less compelling than scans of actual papers and scans of proofs of delivery cards..

Why should you? Because you're still here, asking questions. The documents.

Are.

The case. And the devil is in the details..

Why should.

I.

? I did; see Case 2. There's nowhere for them to hide. I don't expect.

Everybody.

To go completely public, but somebody's got to do it. And I'm only getting started..

They are different means to an end. The law does a poor job of 1) protecting the consumer and 2) punishing the offenders..

You're playing their game, and they know the rules a lot better than you not to mention their having more resources. Get on the docket of the Court of Public Opinion, instead...

Got an offer in the mail from Mavy's today. Basically they'll delete the inquiry and the derogatory tradeline in exhange for my dropping the suit. I'm drafting a letter.

Based on Christine's letter (at Bayhouse).

, whose situation was really remarkably similar to mine. Basically, I'm gonna go for it. Press on with the lawsuit. Tell them to suck an egg. I've got them dead to rights and if they don't already know it, they soon will. As I've already mentioned in this thread, the deletions aren't that big a deal.



Oh, and Greg, I have given it some thought. I'm not going to post their letter to me or any of the letters until this is all over. When I do post them, I will include CRR numbers..

I can't put my finger on exactly why I am hesitant to lay everything down beforehand, but, well, I am..

I was looking back through some old posts and saw that I took this same approach when I was.

Knocking on Chevron's door..

When it was all over, I posted the letters. But not before then. Maybe I just like to stick to a pettern that's woreked before. Maybe I'm paranoid. Maybe both...

That's right. Stay with it. When they see you aren't playing with them, they'll be offering some cash as well as deletions. Keep us up to date...

Good Luck,.

I've got one of the CRAs in my sights and given the amount of interest in this and other repair sites, it's probably best not to tip our collective hands..

Remember: Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not after you...

Legal Assistant.

Federated Department Stores, Inc..

7 West Seventh Street.

Cincinnati, OH 45202-2471.

September 3, 2002.

Re: Quixote v. Macy’s West/FDSB.

Case No. LESo20449.

Dear Ms. H.:.

You state in your August 28, 2002 letter that it is Federated Department Store's position that the FCRA permits a creditor to pull a consumer's credit report when any tradeline is disputed....

"In response to your allegation that various sections of the Fair Credit Reporting Act were violated, please be advised that the FACS Group, Inc. was actively engaged in researching your dispute regarding your Macy’s credit account........The credit report was requested in conjunction with researching your dispute on your credit account.".

A) WHY does Macy’s/FDSB NOT know what it is reporting to the credit reporting agencies?.

B) Why didn't Macy’s/FDSB ask me for my credit report?.

You state "The "permissible purpose" may also be viewed as having arisen in connection with a business transaction that was “initiated by you - the dispute with Macy’s/FDSB.".

I refer again to the GreenBlatt FTC opinion letter. I gave you the internet URL,.

Http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/greenblt.htm.

, in my June 11, 2002 letter (sent Certified Return Receipt Requested), and apparently you didn't bother to read it. So here is another excerpt:.

"1. Whether the requests for the consumer credit reports comply with the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 604, 15 U.S.C. 1681b?.

No. Neither the dispute resolution conference, the imminent threat of civil litigation, nor the desire to craft a settlement offer provide the brokerage firm with a permissible purpose to obtain a brokerage client's consumer report under Section 604..

In the 1990 Commentary on the FCRA, the Federal Trade Commission ("Commission") stated that "[t]he possibility that a party may be involved in litigation involving a consumer does not provide a permissible purpose for that party to receive a consumer report on such consumer.because litigation is not a 'business transaction' involving the consumer." 16 C.F.R. 600 App., 55 Fed. Reg. 18804, 18816 (May 4, 1990). This statement extends to all aspects of litigation, including the pre-litigation discussions and settlement preparations that you describe, and was not altered by the recent amendments to the statute.".

If I, an untrained consumer, can find the written opinion of the government agency charged by Congress to write and enforce regulations surrounding the Fair Credit Reporting Act, with a simple search of the FTC website, it seems extremely implausible to me that a department full of highly trained legal specialists, who make their living in the very field regulated by the FCRA, were not aware of it. As of this reading, you have now been made aware of it by me on two separate occasions, and yet, thus far, have consciously chosen not to comply with the letter nor the legislative intent of the FCRA. I wonder how that will sit with a judge....

Summary:.

A dispute, litigation, or the threat thereof, is NOT a permissible purpose to run my credit. If it is true that Macy’s/FDSB has NO records of what they report to credit reporting agencies, well, looks like that should be another law suit, possibly by the FTC. I would have certainly supplied you with a copy of my report had you requested it, just like I supplied you with all the info on the January 2002 credit dispute..

Macy’s/ FDSB had NO permissible purpose to run my credit and to subsequently lower my credit scores..

I was denied credit based on my Experian credit report and I suffered damages. Macy’s/FDSB not only violated the FCRA, but failed to remove the inquiry to mitigate damages..

As I am extremely busy, I am once again offering to settle this matter on the following terms:.

UNLESS, by the end of FIVE Business Days from the provable receipt of this letter,.

1) Macy’s/FDSB removes ALL inquiries from my credit reports..

2) Macy’s/FDSB removes ALL other tradelines from my credit reports..

3) Macy’s/FDSB wires $2,500 into my checking account at Union Bank.; Instructions Follow:.

Union Bank of California, Routing number 122000496 - UBOC phone: 1-800-238-4486 For Further Credit (FFC) to: Account Number: xxxxxxxxx; Quixote &.

The Lovely Mrs. Quixote.

{Our Address}, Temecula, CA 92591. If your institution requests Union Bank’s address, it is UBOC, Temecula Branch # 242, 26407 Ynez Rd., Temecula, CA 92591-4654.

THEN, you may consider this settlement offer withdrawn. I will immediately consult with an attorney who specializes in Consumer Advocacy with an emphasis on Fair Credit Reporting Act cases. We will jointly determine whether it would be more appropriate to move this action to state court where, under California Civil Code Sections 1785.30- 1785.35, the penalties are more severe; $5000 per instance, rather than the $1000 per violation imposed under the FCRA, and without the $5000 total penalty limit imposed by the Small Claims jurisdiction. Additionally, we will discuss whether there have not been additional violations committed by Macy’s/FDSB by not only pulling my credit without a permissible purpose, but by your own admission, revealing the contents of my credit file to a third party, FACS, Inc..

I found it interesting, by the way, that you claim FACS was investigating my claims of FCRA violations. The inquiry happened on January 24, 2002; my letter outlining the violations of the FCRA was dated June 11, 2002. FACS, Inc. must be prescient..

When I check my account on on the morning of the sixth day after you have received this letter and don't see your deposit, I'll start incurring legal fees. I don't have time for your legal games, that's for lawyers. It's nearly midnight and I'm tired..

Apparently Federated Department Stores, Inc/ Macy’s/FDSB pulls credit reports on everyone who disputes their screwed up credit reporting. Macy’s/FDSB has shown absolutely no remorse. It looks like Macy’s/FDSB will only comply with the FCRA if ordered by the court or a regulatory agency. I strongly suspect this is no longer a small claims case..

Should you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me via fax to {my e-Fax #} or e-mail to {my e-mail} ..

Sincerely,.

Quixote.

Cc: David Szwak, Esq..

Louis G. Bruno, Esq..

MORE TO COME..

September 27, 2002.

Via E-Mail and U.S. Mail.

Mr. Quixote.

Quixote's Address.

Temecula, CA 92591.

Re: Quixote v. Macy’s West/FDSB.

Dear Mr. Quixote:.

Your letter of September 3, 2002 to Ms. Hawkins was referred to me for response..

You initially complained that we improperly reported derogatory information on your credit report. Specifically, you asserted that we were estopped from reporting your account as a “paid charge off.” You believed that since you had paid your charged off account, we would remove any derogatory report..

As you know, we are required to accurately report our customers’ payment history. Prior to your payment we reported the account as having been “charged off.” This is far worse than the current and accurate report of a “paid charge off,” because it indicates that you paid your debt, albeit late. I am sorry that you were under the impression that once you paid your debt, any derogatory reference would be removed..

When you disputed our report with the credit bureaus, we verified that the report was accurate, which it was. Thus, no violation of the FCRA occurred at that time..

In October and December of 2001, you disputed that you ever had a Macy’s account, even though you had paid the account in full on March 10, 2001. When researching this claim, a credit report was obtained to see how the bureau was reporting your account. Credit bureaus do not always accurately report the information transmitted to them, because of file matching or other problems, so we had to check to be sure..

You are now asserting that we had no right to obtain a credit report, based on your reading of the FTC’s Greenblatt letter. Please note that the Greenblatt opinion is not applicable to the facts of this case. In Greenblatt, the brokerage house had no authority given by their client, nor any other permissible purpose to obtain a report. Also, the brokerage house was not reporting their clients’ financial behavior to a credit bureau. By contrast, you had at one time given permission to us to obtain your credit report and been informed that we would report your payment history to the bureaus. Because of this existing relationship with you and the bureaus to which we reported and because of your complaint, we had a permissible purpose to review how your account was shown at the bureau..

After a thorough review of our records and your correspondence, I have concluded that compensation is not warranted. However, we are still willing to delete the January 24 inquiry and the Macy’s tradeline from your report, in exchange for you dismissing your claim..

Please contact me via e-mail at or by phone so we can resolve this issue prior to the October 4 hearing date of your small claims case..

Very truly yours,.

Someone..

SO, what do you guys think of their arguments re the Greenblatt letter? Think they've got a point? Think maybe I should accept the deletions, declare victory and go home, a la Greg Fisher' Bird-In-The-Hand thesis? I haven't decided yet.....

Sorry Quixote,.

That blue font within the black is funky!.

Sassy..

Quixote-.

I would like to point out Ms. Ellen's OWN words.

Yep she said ONE TIME, not again years after the account had been closed. Not again when the account was disputed, ONE TIME. Also, if they stil had an existing relationship with you they would have been able to pull an AR, but they dont have a relationship with you therefore no AR..

I say she's bluffing, I'd go thru with it just so crap like this doesn't happen to others, plus you've already filed...

TAKE IT AND.

RUN....

(INQUIRY AND TRADE LINE REMOVAL)..

I agree with George. By twice denying you ever had an acount you've created your own crediblity issue. I doubt you get much sympathy from a judge. Plus, they've offered to give you what you requested. I think they're being pretty reasonable...

I think they're wrong, but I would take it, if it includes an agreement never to report this tradeline again (if you don't watch out, they'll put it back on)...

NOT EVER RE-INSERT IT...and NEVER do another inquiry for any reason...(GET IT IN WRITING)..

Here are your grounds for suing the CRA:.

604. Permissible purposes of consumer reports [15 U.S.C. 1681b].

(c) Furnishing reports in connection with credit or insurance transactions that are not initiated by the consumer..

(1) In general. A consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report relating to any consumer pursuant to subparagraph (A) or (C) of subsection (a)(3) in connection with any credit or insurance transaction that is not initiated by the consumer only if.

(A) the consumer authorizes the agency to provide such report to such person; or.

(B) (i) the transaction consists of a firm offer of credit or insurance;.

(ii) the consumer reporting agency has complied with subsection (e); and.

(iii) there is not in effect an election by the consumer, made in accordance with subsection (e), to have the consumer's name and address excluded from lists of names provided by the agency pursuant to this paragraph...

(3) Information regarding inquiries. Except as provided in section 609(a)(5) [ 1681g], a consumer reporting agency shall not furnish to any person a record of inquiries in connection with a credit or insurance transaction that is not initiated by a consumer..

This was obviously not a "credit or insurance transaction" initiated by you, you did not authorize it, and the transaction did not consist of "a firm offer of credit or insurance," therefore, the CRA was in violation by furnishing your report to Macy's in the first place..

Furthermore the CRA is not allowed to report the inquiry to anyone but you (that is the section 609 exception that is mentioned), so if it is on your credit report as a hard inquiry, that is another violation..

Also, see Cushman v Trans Union (my favorite case cite). The court ruled that when an item is disputed, the CRAs do have to go beyond, "Zis ok? Yes? Zats ok.".

I am particularly interested in how this would play out in court, so I am afraid I can't be objective about whether you should take their offer...

Further food for thought:.

That tradeline will fall off on its' own within the next seven months. So, it's not hurting my scores much, if at all, and therefore is not much of a carrot to dangle..

You may well have a point about my credibility having been hurt by twice denying the account. Greg asked me to post it all early on and, for my own reasons, I was hesitant to do so. I'll send an e-mail to Bill Bauer and see if he minds my posting some of the letters I got from him when I was utilizing his service. If he's Ok with it, I'll post them. My feeling is that, given all the scattered bits of info I've left laying around (particularly in this thread), anybody who wants to could find out pretty much anything they wanted to about me or this case. I've been looking over very carefully the letters I sent out last year to Macy's and I don't see anywhere that I have explicitly denied the accounts.

There's only those two letters and then the inquiry showed up...

Even if you DID deny the accounts, I would think as long as it wasn't your first dispute with the CRA's then you'd be ok. All *I* would say is I gave the real reason the first time and for some reason they didn't fix their errors, so I didn't know what else to say. PLUS a LOT of the times when I've spoken with CRA's CSR's they will say "well I'll just dispute it as not yours"..

Quixote,.

I've been reading through this thread from the beginning, big thread ;-) , since I posted the merged blue font mush..

I've not noticed anywhere that you have admitted or denied it is yours or not yours. You can dispute any darn thing that is not accurate or complete or verifiable. It doesn't matter even if you did deny them. You aren't subject to the reporting requirements, THEY are..

I don't know why keepmine thinks your credibility has been damaged, I don't think it has been..

They are just wrong on the inquiries and their letter confirms it, you can throw their own words back at them. They are operating from a base of assumptions that are bogus and in fact, appear to me to imply that the reporting itself creates an ongoing relationship for as long as the reporting continues..

The FTC has previously filed a complaint against them for FDCPA violations as has the State of Tennessee. Surely they don't want any more microscoping of their business. I can't figure them out, you'd think that since then they would have made an effort to "get it" but they obviously don't..

What happened to your violations for failure to mark the tradeline as disputed?.

Sassy..

That's listed in the suit. Count # 5, if memory serves...

They aren't arguing that failure to note the dispute is a violation or do they think you forgot or hope you haven't noticed?.

Sassy..

Original Message.

From: "Quixote (edit)"<Quixote (edit)@go.com>.

To: "Ellen R Dugan"<(edit)@FDS.com>.

Date: Tue Oct 01 10:57:42 PDT 2002.

Subject: Re: Your FCRA Complaint.

>Ms. Dugan:.

>.

>Assuming your arguments were correct, and I'm not at all convinced that they are, that still does not explain the fact that not once have you notified Experian that the Inquiry in question is disputed by me, the consumer. That alone is a violation of the FCRA. Additionally, though I can agree that I ONCE gave Macy's permission to review my credit; I submit that the key word is ONCE. Given that there exists NO BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP between myself and Macy's, nor did there on January 24th, 2002, I find your argument that you may damage my Lending Tree credit score by pulling my credit report, thus reducing my FICO Lending Tree credit score and making it appear as though I am seeking credit from Macy's, any time you want for the rest of my life because we once-upon-a-time had a business relationship to be so much hogwash. I suspect the Small Claims Court will also. I suppose we'll just have to see..

>.

>I remain open to a serious settlement offer acknowledging the illegality of Macy's actions and accepting the proscribed penalty..

>.

>Best Regards,.

>.

>Quixote (edit).

>.

>.

>Original Message.

>From: "Ellen R Dugan"<(edit).com>.

>To: "Quixote (edit)"<Quixote (edit)@go.com>.

>Date: Fri Sep 27 12:22:02 PDT 2002.

>Subject: Your FCRA Complaint.

>.

>>Dear Mr. Quixote (edit),.

>>.

>>attached please find a response to your letter to Ms. Hawkins (Federated.

>>Department Stores) of September 3, 2002..

>>.

>>Sincerely,.

>>.

>>Ellen R. Dugan.

>>.

(See attached file: Quixote (edit) letter.doc)..

From: Ellen R Dugan <>.

Subject: Re: Your FCRA Complaint.

Dear Mr. Quixote (edit):.

Thank you for your note. I am sorry you are still disagreeing with me, but.

Let me give this one more try:.

An "inquiry" cannot be reported as "disputed." It is something that we did.

In response to one of your challenges. You may not agree with it, but you.

Cannot dispute it as an inaccurate report. Further, you are still.

Maintaining that we had no permissible purpose to obtain a report. Credit.

Information is reported for seven years, in many cases long after an.

Account is closed or has become inactive. We do have the continued right.

To check how an account is reported if the customer disputes the accuracy.

Of the report..

As regards your claim before the small claims court and your request, I.

Will never acknowledge any illegal act on our part in your situation simply.

Because no illegal act occurred. The FCRA is a very complicated statute.

And your claim is based on an incorrect understanding of the requirements.

Of the statute. However, I am still willing, in order to avoid the cost.

And inconvenience of sending someone from our nearest offices to defend us,.

To remove the inquiry and any reference to your account and pay you $500 to.

Settle this dispute, in exchange for your dismissing the complaint. This.

Offer is open till 5 pm Eastern time, October 2, 2002..

Very truly yours,.

Ellen Dugan..

They're cracking. There's a thousand holes in their argument. Due to time constraints, any help with finding the specific shortcuts, case cites, Opinion Letters (name and Link) would be immensely appreciated..

Heh, heh, heh...

Say, Quixote, are you going to sue CRAs as well for their violations?..

I'm not sure this is supposed to be this much fun... ;)..

I just reread the whole thread... NICE going. They're just wrong on Permissible purpose here.. and I've had that directly confirmed by several very large company's attys.....

One even said :" Note... I did NOT pull a credit report to find out how we're reporting the account... so please send me your copy...here's my fax #".

This one seemed proud not to continue to violate my rights and I was actually grateful for it ;).

But very few supervisors and amazingly enough inside counsels seem to get that they just can't stay in our reports forever....

And esp if it's in response to a disputed trade line that then has a lawsuit threat attached to it....

We need some case law not just an FTC opinion to back the pp issue and we'd get more money....

1k not 500 offers b/c we could slam case law down their throats....

So.. whatcha gonna do??? :))))))..

If he doesn't take the deal I'm gonna send Christine Baker over there to beat him with her keyboard..

LOL..

You're not going to like the letter I'm writing then... I'll have it ready to send and post in a few minutes..

Then I'll watch out for rogue keyboards. I hate typing anyway. :P.

Hey, I just thought of something. I wonder if Greg Fisher still thinks I'm making all this up. For some reason, I kinda hope so...

Hope you guys have some coffee....

:).

Original Message.

From: "Quixote (edit)"<(edit)@go.com>.

To: "Ellen R Dugan"<(edit)@FDS.com>.

Date: Tue Oct 01 23:02:20 PDT 2002.

Subject: Re: Your FCRA Complaint.

>Dear Ms. Dugan:.

>.

>Yes, let’s do give this one more try. I should tell you that I take great comfort in knowing that I am in good company in my disagreeing with your conclusions. To wit:.

>.

>YOU WROTE: “An "inquiry" cannot be reported as "disputed." It is something that we did in response to one of your challenges. You may not agree with it, but you cannot dispute it as an inaccurate report.”.

>.

>WRONG! The “Permissible Purpose” may be challenged, and is. There are TWO types of inquiries, Soft Inquiries, such as for promotional purposes or account review purposes. These types of Inquiries are NOT visible to other creditors and do not negatively affect one’s credit scores. A "Hard Inquiry", in contrast, does in fact affect one's credit scores and in this case appears to other potential creditors as if I were attempting unsuccessfully to gain new credit with Macy's. And, by the way, you just explicitly admitted (above) that you had no Permissible Purpose for the Hard Inquiry Macy's placed on my credit. Read On..

>.

>Soft Inquiries are spelled out quite clearly in the Gowen FTC Staff Opinion Letter found at:.

Http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/gowen.htm.

>.

>“Current Borrowers.

>1. Section 604(a)(3)(A) of the FCRA gives a creditor a permissible purpose to obtain a consumer report without the consumer's consent "in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of the consumer." Section 604(a)(3)(F)(ii), which relates to deposit or other non-credit accounts, similarly provides a permissible purpose "to review an account to determine whether the consumer continues to meet the terms of the account." When obtaining consumer reports for such purposes, creditors need not comply with prescreening disclosure requirements because these transactions are exempt under Section 603(m)(1) of the FCRA.”.

>.

>YOU WROTE: “Further, you are still maintaining that we had no permissible purpose to obtain a report. Credit information is reported for seven years, in many cases long after an account is closed or has become inactive. We do have the continued right to check how an account is reported if the customer disputes the accuracy.

>of the report.”.

>.

>WRONG! You have no such right once we have terminated our business relationship..

>.

>From: Appendix to Part 600 – Commentary on the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

>found at:.

Http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/c...cfr600_00.html.

>.

>“Section 604 Permissible Purposes of Reports.

>2. "A consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other: * * *" 1. Relation to Section 603.

>Sections 603(d)(3) and 604 must be construed together to determine what are "permissible purposes," because section 603(d)(3) refers to "purposes authorized under section 604" (often described as "permissible purposes" of consumer reports), and some purposes are enumerated in section 603 (e.g., sections 603(d)(1) and 603(d)(2)). Subsections of sections 603 and 604 that specifically set forth "permissible purposes" relating to credit, insurance and employment, are the only subsections that cover "permissible purposes" relating to those three areas. Section 604(3)(E), a general subsection, is limited to purposes not otherwise addressed in section 604(3) (A)-(D)..

>A. Credit. Sections 603(d)(1) which defines "consumer report" to include certain reports for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer's eligibility for credit or insurance primarily for personal, family, or household purposes and 604(3)(A) must be read together as fully describing permissible purposes involving credit for obtaining consumer reports. Accordingly, section 604(3)(A) permits the furnishing of a consumer report for use in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer, primarily for personal, family or household purposes, and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of, the consumer..

>B. Insurance. Sections 603(d)(1) and 604(3)(C) must be read together as describing the only permissible insurance purposes for obtaining consumer reports. Accordingly, section 604(3)(C) permits the furnishing of a consumer report, provided it is for use in connection with the underwriting of insurance involving the consumer, primarily for personal, family, or household purposes..

>C. Employment. Employment is covered exclusively by sections 603(d)(2) and 604(3)(B), and by section 603(h) (which defines "employment purposes"). Therefore, "permissible purposes" relating to employment include reports used for evaluating a consumer "for employment, promotion, reassignment or retention as an employee.".

>D. Other purposes. "Other purposes" are referred to in section 603(d)(3) and covered by section 604(3)(E), as well as sections 604(1), 604(2) and 604(3)(D) (which contain specific purposes not involving credit, insurance, employment). Permissible purposes relating to section 604(3)(E) are limited to transactions that consumers enter into primarily for personal, family or household purposes (excluding credit, insurance or employment, which are specifically covered by other subsections discussed above). The FCRA does not cover reports furnished for transactions that consumers enter into primarily in connection with businesses they operate (e.g., a consumer's rental of equipment for use in his retail store). 2.



>.

>.

>From The Benner FTC Staff Opinion Letter :.

>.

>“Once an account is closed because the consumer has paid the debt in full (and also, in the case of an open-end account such as a credit card account, notified the creditor to close the account), it is our view that no permissible purpose exists for a CRA to provide file information on a consumer to the creditor. Because there no longer exists any account to "review" and the consumer is not applying for credit, the FCRA provides no permissible purpose for the creditor to receive a consumer report from a CRA.” (Available at:.

Http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/benner.htm.

).

>.

>.

>From the Greenblatt Letter:.

>.

>Section 604(a)(3)(F) allows a consumer reporting agency to provide a consumer report to anyone who "has a legitimate business need for the information (i) in connection with a business transaction that is initiated by the consumer; or (ii) to review an account to determine whether the consumer continues to meet the terms of the account." (Available at:.

Http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/greenblt.com.

>.

(continued)..

(continued).

>.

>From The Gowen FTC Staff Opinion Letter :.

>.

>“Former Borrowers.

>As the previously-quoted legislative history makes clear, "review" of an account under Section 604(a)(3) refers to an existing (i.e., open or current) account. A creditor has no existing business relationship with consumers whose closed end credit accounts have been paid off, i.e., former borrowers. Hence, the creditor would either have to (1) obtain those consumers' written authorizations pursuant to Section 604(a)(2) to access their credit reports or (2) comply with the prescreening requirements set forth in Section 604(c) and, where applicable, Section 615(d).”.

>(Available at:.

Http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/gowen.htm.

).

>.

>I ASK YOU AGAIN, Ms. Dugan; Did Macy’s ever ask me my permission to pull my credit reports pursuant to Section 604(a)(2)? Did Macy’s comply with the prescreening requirements set forth in Section 604(c) and Section 615(d)?.

>.

>From Appendix B, Prescribed Notice of Furnisher Responsibilities.

>.

>“If a consumer notifies a furnisher, at an address specified by the furnisher for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate, and the information is in fact inaccurate, the furnisher must thereafter report the correct information to CRAs. Section 623(a)(1)(B) “.

>.

>THE INACCURATE information being, of course, that Macy’s wrongly reported and wrongly confirmed that it had a permissible purpose for pulling my Credit Report. If, let us suppose, the Macy’s inquiry had been a “soft” inquiry, though still technically not within the letter, and certainly not the spirit of the FCRA, there would have been no adverse effect on my credit scores, no “Permissible Purpose” would have been needed, and this exchange would most likely not be happening. Or maybe you could have just asked me for my credit reports? Hmm?.

>.

>YOU WROTE: “The FCRA is a very complicated statute... “.

>.

>WRONG! It is quite comprehendible. You should read it some time. I did..

>.

>FURTHERMORE, I will continue to maintain that by allowing a third party, FACS, to obtain and review my credit reports (by explicit admission in the first letter from Ms. Watkins) Macy’s committed yet another violation of the FCRA..

>.

>From The Long FTC Staff Opinion Letter :.

>.

>Section 604(a)(3)(A) allows a third party to receive a consumer report if the third party "intends to use the information in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer.and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account, of the consumer.".

>(Available at:.

Http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/long.htm.

) This letter also goes on to discuss at length how a former business relationship does not provide a current Permissible Purpose, regardless of pending litigation..

>.

>BE ASSURED, Ms. Dugan, that I intend to show up in court with all of these readily available legal resources, both the FTC Staff Opinion Letters, and the FCRA itself, printed out in their entirety; with pertinent sections highlited, of course, as well as a complete timeline outlining each and every violation. You may also rest assured, unless somehow this is settled before trial, that should my argument carry the day, Macy’s may well still have to face Civil trial for numerous violations of California State Code Sections 1785.11 (see.

Http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/wa...ction=retrieve.

). This next action will not be in Small Claims, as the allowable penalties under state statutes are considerably higher than under the FCRA in the Small Claims jurisdiction..

>.

>.

>Best Regards,.

>.

> Quixote (edit)..

EDIT- Wierd triple posty thingy that happens to you when you're way too tired and should go to bed but don't...

Sorry sis! I didn't notice your post earlier. I may go after Experian. But I kinda doubt it. Anyway, one windmill at a time! :).

I Think I just set a :) record for one night's work. :) (ANOTHER NEW RECORD! THE CROWD GOES WILD!! I'M GETTING VERY PUNCHY!!!)..

Dear Mr. Quixote (edit):.

Thank you for your note. I am sorry you are still disagreeing with me, but let me give this one more try:.

Dear Ellen,.

You are being pompous and are spewing what can only be your unresearched and flawed personal opinion based on economic gain, greed, and financial security in the form of a paycheck and workload and not the law regulating the actions of FDS. I am sorry you are still disagreeing with me!.

An "inquiry" cannot be reported as "disputed.".

Why Ellen, why can't it be reported as disputed?.

What section of the FCRA are you basing that on, please?.

This section, endows me, Quixote, a consumer, the lawful right to dispute ANY item of information contained in my file...

Yes, ANY item of information and MY file:.

Further, under (a)(1) of the following section, you will note that when I exercise that lawful right a reinvestigation is REQUIRED, that's correct, REQUIRED..

611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. 1681i].

(a) Reinvestigations of disputed information..

(1) Reinvestigation.

Required..

(A) In general. If the completeness or accuracy of.

Any item of information contained in a consumer's file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by the consumer.

And the consumer notifies the agency directly of such dispute....

It is something that we did in response to one of your challenges. You may not agree with it, but you.

Cannot dispute it as an inaccurate report..

I do not agree with it and I can dispute it..

Ellen, hon, this is how it works:.

I, Quixote, am a consumer.

I have a consumer report as prepared by a consumer reporting agency..

The FCRA regulates the information in those reports, the length of reporting time, the procedures for disputing with the CRA, the procedures for disputing with information furnishers, the penalties associated with non-compliant reporting and the duties and responsibilities of both consumer reporting agencies and furnishers of information..

You, Ellen, are a furnisher of information.

I am not bound by the FCRA, Ellen, you are..

I am allowed to dispute any piece of information and a reinvestigation is required..

Ya with me, Ellen? ok, here's the deal:.

On MY consumer report is an inquiry that I did not authorize..

To obtain a consumer report one must have a permissable purpose:.

604. Permissible purposes of consumer reports [15 U.S.C. 1681b].

(a) In general. Subject to subsection (c), any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report.

Under the following circumstances and no other:.

(1) In response to the order of a court having jurisdiction to issue such an order, or a subpoena issued in connection with proceedings before a Federal grand jury..

Do you have a court order, Ellen? If so, please provide me a copy of it..

(2) In accordance with the written instructions of the consumer to whom it relates..

Do you have written instructions from me, Ellen? If so, please provide me a copy of them. I am especially interested if there is any wording that extends your right to pull my report throughout eternity or for the duration of the FCRA defined reporting period..

(3) To a person which it has reason to believe.

(A) intends to use the information in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of, the consumer; or.

...with a credit transaction...AND involving the extension of credit to....

You have stated you were pulling my report in response to my having initiated a lawful dispute that does not involve an extension of credit..

...or review or collection of an account of the consumer....

My account is closed and paid so you have no reason to review or review for collection..

(B) intends to use the information for employment purposes; or.

I did not apply for employment with FDS..

(C) intends to use the information in connection with the underwriting of insurance involving the consumer; or.

This isn't applicable as you don't provide insurance and I didn't apply for anything with FDS irregardless..

(D) intends to use the information in connection with a determination of the consumer's eligibility for a license or other benefit granted by a governmental instrumentality required by law to consider an applicant's financial responsibility or status; or.

Non-applicable.

(E) intends to use the information, as a potential investor or servicer, or current insurer, in connection with a valuation of, or an assessment of the credit or prepayment risks associated with, an existing credit obligation; or.

Non-applicable.

(F) otherwise has a legitimate business need for the information.

(i) in connection with a business transaction that is initiated by the consumer; or.

We previously had a business transaction that I initiated, it was terminated with the closing and payment of my account..

(ii) to review an account to determine whether the consumer continues to meet the terms of the account..

I do not have an open account making this non-applicable..

(4) In response to a request by the head of a State or local child support enforcement agency (or a State or local government official authorized by the head of such an agency), if the person making the request certifies to the consumer reporting agency that....

Non-applicable.

(5) To an agency administering a State plan under Section 454 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 654) for use to set an initial or modified child support award..

Non-applicable.

Further, you are still maintaining that we had no permissible purpose to obtain a report..

Indeed I do, Ellen, for all the reasons we just reviewed in detail above and Sassy typed all the color brackets just for you..

Credit information is reported for seven years, in many cases long after an account is closed or has become inactive. We do have the continued right to check how an account is reported if the customer disputes the accuracy of the report.

Credit information CAN be reported for 7 years if it is accurate, complete, up-to-date and verifiable. There is NO law that says any credit information has to be reported at all..

611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. 1681i].

(5) Treatment of inaccurate or unverifiable information..

(A) In general. If, after any reinvestigation under paragraph (1) of any information disputed by a consumer, an item of the information is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or cannot be verified, the consumer reporting agency shall promptly delete that item of information from the consumer's file or modify that item of information, as appropriate, based on the results of the reinvestigation...

Here's the rest, got wild with Ellen!!!.

Here's the problem, Ellen, you believe you have the right to pull my report for the duration of the reporting period, which could be a maximum of 7 years..

If you choose to report that information has to be accurate by the provisions of the FCRA. There's no provision for checking to be sure or policing the CRA's. It is MY report that is what I do..

Further, the intent of the FCRA flies in the face of your reasoning. If you were allowed to pull a report, or any furnisher for that matter, in response to my having exercised my lawful dispute rights, disputing itself would become a penalty as the inquiry itself lowers my score..

The FCRA intends for disputing to be a mechanism or correction not punishment..

Intent of the amendments:.

Http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1997/9709/fcra929.htm.

Had the account not been closed and paid and you were allowed to review my account, it would be coded as an AR (account review) and not as a hard inquiry..

I alone determine whether the items are accurate or not accurate, you only have the right to REPORT the information, that is a right not a requirement. The right to report however is not a right to review. If you question whether the CRA's are translating the information you report accurately, may I suggest you address that in the business agreement that is between you two..

Because you CHOOSE to report, you are bound by lawful duties and responsibilities as an information furnisher, please see:.

623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. 1681s-2].

There is NO duty or responsibility listed covering a review of reporting to be sure it is being accurately reported and/or that the CRA's haven't made a mistake in translation..

Additionally, Please see this document required of the CRA's to be provided to furnishers of information. Credit Reports: What Information Furnishers Need to Know:.

Http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/infopro.htm.

And Ellen, just because I'm a fair guy, here's a summary of MY rights under the FCRA as provided by the FTC:.

Http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/fcra/summary.htm.

The FCRA provides penalties for non-compliance. If the problem were with the CRA I could sue them as well. There are no provisions for you to sue the CRA on my behalf..

616. Civil liability for willful noncompliance [15 U.S.C. 1681n].

617. Civil liability for negligent noncompliance [15 U.S.C. 1681o].

Chase v Nelson provides that the FCRA provides a cause of action for individuals against furnishers of information:.

Http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...h/0015946p.pdf.

As regards your claim before the small claims court and your request, I will never acknowledge any illegal act on our part in your situation simply because no illegal act occurred..

I didn't ask you to acknowledge an illegal act on your part and I disagree that no illegal act occurred. That is however what courts, judges and juries decide..

The FCRA is a very complicated statute.

And your claim is based on an incorrect understanding of the requirements of the statute. However, I am still willing, in order to avoid the cost and inconvenience of sending someone from our nearest offices to defend us, to remove the inquiry and any reference to your account and pay you $500 to settle this dispute, in exchange for your dismissing the complaint. This offer is open till 5 pm Eastern time, October 2, 2002..

Remove the inquiry and all references to my account and provide written assurances that it will never appear on any consumer report for any consumer reporting agency and pay me $1,000.00 and you've got a deal!.

To aid you in your decision making, I provide the following for you reading pleasure:.

Http://www.milawyersweekly.com/micoa/216166.htm#fn1.

In particular, plaintiff alleged wilful noncompliance with provisions of the FCRA because defendants obtained plaintiff’s consumer credit information under false pretenses and for an impermissible purpose. If plaintiff prevailed on his claim, 15 USC 1681n provides for a potential award of punitive damages..

In addition, plaintiff’s complaint alleged abuse of process and invasion of privacy claims. Review of the causes of action alleged in the complaint and counterclaim reveals a potential for significant damages....

Http://www.nciss.com/Legislative/how...s_the_fcra.htm.

Per section 604, consumer reports may only be procured for credit, employment and insurance underwriting purposes. It is unlawful to order a consumer report for any other purpose. For example, no one may order a consumer report when investigating an insurance claim. No one may order a consumer report for pretrial or litigation support or for a background investigation.

Unless the purpose includes extension of credit..

Http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/greenblt.htm.

The penalties for violating the FCRA are governed by several different sections of the statute, and the applicability of a particular section depends on such factors as who brings the action and the degree of the violator's noncompliance. For example, Sections 616 and 617 impose liability for willful noncompliance and negligent noncompliance, respectively. The monetary penalties mandated by these two sections include actual damages proven by a consumer, plus costs and attorneys fees in each such case. In the case of willful violations, the court may also award punitive damages to a consumer. Any person who procures a consumer report under false pretenses, or knowingly without a permissible purpose, is liable for $1000 or actual damages (whichever is greater) to both the consumer and to the consumer reporting agency from which the report is procured. Also, Section 621 governs enforcement actions brought by the Commission, other agencies, and the states, and provides for various monetary and injunctive penalties.



And finally Ellen, my personal fave:.

Http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/gowen.htm.

Former Borrowers.

As the previously-quoted legislative history makes clear, "review" of an account under Section 604(a)(3) refers to an existing (i.e., open or current) account. A creditor has no existing business relationship with consumers whose closed end credit accounts have been paid off, i.e., former borrowers. Hence, the creditor would either have to (1) obtain those consumers' written authorizations pursuant to Section 604(a)(2) to access their credit reports or (2) comply with the prescreening requirements set forth in Section 604(c) and, where applicable, Section 615(d)..

Very truly yours,.

Quixote (as interpretted by sassy, who only speaks for herself LOL)..

Quixote,.

You're in my head!!!!!!!! It's the windmill, tilt tilt, LOL..

I love your letter!.

Please put a p.s. for me, BTW Ellen, Sassy doesn't like your pompous tone and bets her right arm that you'll lose this case based on your arrogance and failure to stop looking at yourself in the mirror long enough to do some real work..

Go Quixoteeeeeeeeeeee go!.

Sassy..

Dang Sassy!.

That's better than the one I sent! I noticed you got the [/color] thing down cold now..;).

Thanks for rooting me on! You too Butch!.

If Ya' Got It, Tilt It!..

No way, Quixote!.

Your letter is great, no worries anyway, she makes no arguable points, none..

You backed up every one of her bluffs with documentation..

I just had to get anal about the coloring so I wouldn't post blotched colored fonts for you again. That was for you though, not her..

Sassy..

My head is spinning-.

Sassy you kill me, your wit is amazing and your willingness to help others is awesome..

Quixote-.

I'm convinced you could send these "company officials" smoke signals and they STILL won't understand. Kinda reminds me of the woman that says a consumer pulling their own report hurts your score......hmmmm...my score would be -942...

Quixote, my friend:.

GO FOR IT! GET THE BASTARDS!.

Always stress, as you have, that you're not diputing the INQ, you're disputing it being coded as one made under permissible purpose..

Whether their purpose was permissible is NOT A MATTER OR RECORD, AND IS 100% DISPUTABLE PER FCRA..

Saar..

Original Message.

From: "Ellen R Dugan"<(edit)@FDS.com>.

To: "Quixote (edit)"<(edit)@go.com>.

Date: Wed Oct 02 12:34:43 PDT 2002.

Subject: Re: Your FCRA Complaint.

>.

>Dear Mr. Quixote (edit):.

>.

>Thank you for your most recent letter..

>.

>I have been in meetings most of the day and do not have the time to comment.

>in detail to your long letter. I would just like to make the following.

>points:.

>.

>Socalled "promotional inquiries" are shown on a person's credit record when.

>a credit grantor has requested a credit bureau to pre-screen large numbers.

>of potential customers so that a pre-approved offer for a credit card can.

>be made. The pertinent disclosures will be included in the solicitation.

>that is mailed with the pre-approved offer. These types of inquiries are.

>visible to other credit grantors, but they disappear after a few months..

>More importantly, we did not give you the disclosures because you were not.

>pre-screened and no pre-approved offer was made to you..

>.

>As regards your claim that your account was paid and that therefore we had.

>no "permissible purpose" to obtain your report, I see no other way to deal.

>with your allegation that we were incorrectly reporting an account that you.

>said you never had. This, of course, resulted in an "inquiry." You now.

>seem to want us to report the "inquiry" as "disputed." There is no.

>physical way to do so. A credit report is a report on people's payment.

>histories with their various creditors. If a credit report is wrong, it.

>may be disputed by the customer. But an inquiry is not a report on a.

>person's credit history. The inquiry cannot be disputed, with a notation.

>to that effect, on the report. You can complain about it, which you did,.

>and we can delete it, which we offered, but you can't "dispute" it..

>.

>Regarding your comments about FACS, FACS is the service company for FDS.

>Bank. As servicer, FACS has the right to obtain reports on FDS Bank's.

>behalf. It is not considered a "third party.".

>.

>I could go on if I had the time, but I do not think I can convince you.

>that we did nothing improper or illegal. It is unfortunate that we can't.

>settle this in a reasonable manner..

>.

>Very truly yours,.

>.

>Ellen Dugan..

She may be right about this point. Ever seen an inq. with the dispute notation right next to it?.

I haven't..

But still - She's all wet everywhere else..

LOL..

Experian does mark Inquiries as Under Investigation. Remember Doc's Trick? They'll do it on a written dispute or a phoned in dispute also..

I think it's interesting how she goes off on tangents but never actually responds to the mountain of evidence from the FTC that she is wrong. She just keep saying, in effect, "Look, you're obviously not bright enough to understand this very complicated stuff.".

I was totally prepared to accept the second offer, assuming there was one. Now, it looks like we'll see them in court...

Original Message.

From: "Ellen R Dugan"<(edit)@FDS.com>.

To: "Quixote (edit)"<(edit)@go.com>.

Date: Wed Oct 02 12:34:43 PDT 2002.

Subject: Re: Your FCRA Complaint.

>.

>Dear Mr. Quixote (edit):.

>.

>Thank you for your most recent letter..

>.

>I have been in meetings most of the day and do not have the time to comment in detail to your long letter. I would just like to make the following points:.

>.

>Socalled "promotional inquiries" are shown on a >person's credit record when a credit grantor has >requested a credit bureau to pre-screen large >numbers of potential customers so that a pre->approved offer for a credit card can be made. The >pertinent disclosures will be included in the >solicitation that is mailed with the pre-approved >offer. These types of inquiries are visible to other >credit grantors, but they disappear after a few >months. More importantly, we did not give you the >disclosures because you were not pre-screened and >no pre-approved offer was made to you..

My dearest dense Ellen,.

Fave Butch growling dude says you are wet all over, I have to say you are plain drenched!.

Are you now saying, Ellen, your permissable purpose was promotional? Or are you verifying my position that you aren't understanding the difference between a hard and soft inquiry?.

Quixote have you opted-out by chance?.

You are saying not noting an inquiry in dispute is a violation or that they failed to mark the tradeline in dispute when you disputed, or both what was the first dispute, I missed that somewhere?.

I think, if you were corresponding with them prior to the inquiry, and if I'm remembering right you were, the tradeline itself should be marked as disputed as well..

This is from one of your first posts:.

"So, by my count, I have them on six seperate violations of the FCRA. They have 1) placed an unauthorized "hard" inquiry onmy CR's (no permissible purpose), 2) verified that inquiry when disputed through the CRA, 3 &4) received formal notice of dispute (twice) and both time failed to note on my CR that the item is in dispute, 5 &6) Twice failed to correct the item when they had the chance and were requested to do so. ".

For heaven's sake, she doesn't get the marking it as disputed thing either!.

The TRADELINE Ellen, the TRADELINE!.

What section of the FCRA are you basing your claim that you have the right, in response to a dispute, to review my credit? Do you even know what you are basing that on?.

BTW Quixote, which CRA was the inquiry on? It was.

Experian, yes? Experian, if I am remembering right DOES indeed have the ability to mark inquiries as disputed..

What is wrong with you, Ellen? Is there a switch somewhere that we can turn on?.

Sassy has blonde children and loves blonde jokes, but really, if you happen to be blonde you are taking blondeness to a whole new level! Heck, you are taking professional women to a whole new dimension! If you aren't blonde, head to the hair dye section next time you are at walmart; Sassy will donate the peroxide!.

>.

>As regards your claim that your account was paid >and that therefore we had no "permissible >purpose" to obtain your report, I see no other way >to deal with your allegation that we were incorrectly >reporting an account that you said you never had..

Shit fire, Ellen you are dense!!!!!!! Did you read the sections of the FCRA I referenced, quoted and Sassy even color-coded?.

FDS has been in enough trouble with the FTC, I think I MUST submit to them your position on this matter It just doesn't make sense and I cannot fathom where you could be gleaning this permission from..

Again Ellen, you are subject to the FCRA, I am not. There are no provisions for you to police the reporting. When notified by the CRA of a dispute you are required to reinvestigate based ON YOUR RECORDS..

How can you maintain any information is accurate when you have not consulted your records. Do you not know what you are reporting? You are required to know what you are reporting! You are required to maintain the information that the reporting is based on so it can be verified. If it can't be verified, it cannot be reported..

A dispute does not create or re-create a business relationship..

623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. 1681s-2].

(a) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information..

3) Duty to provide notice of dispute. If the completeness or accuracy of.

Any information furnished by any person to any consumer reporting agency.

Is disputed to such person by a consumer, the person may not furnish the information to any consumer reporting agency without notice that such information is disputed by the consumer..

B) Duties of furnishers of information upon notice of dispute..

(1) In general. After receiving notice pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [ 1681i] of a dispute with regard to the completeness or accuracy of any information provided by a person to a consumer reporting agency, the person shall.

(A) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information;.

(B) review all relevant information provided by the consumer reporting agency pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [ 1681i];.

(C) report the results of the investigation to the consumer reporting agency; and.

(D) if the investigation finds that the information is incomplete or inaccurate, report those results to all other consumer reporting agencies to which the person furnished the information and that compile and maintain files on consumers on a nationwide basis..

They violated this part too, Quixote, failing to report the results to all other CRA's to which.....

(grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Ellen, 2 pages again, I'm holding you personally responsible!).

Follow along now, Ellen, this is the important part that you aren't getting your brain around:.

You see (B) above, yes?.

Don't you think if reviewing what was presently being reported on my consumer report was relevant to the investigation you are required to complete that the CRA themselves would forward this information to you?.

Uh huh, I know it's difficult to follow but it is a plain language statute!.

...review all relevant information provided by the CRA....

My report wasn't provided by the CRA. Can you guess why, Ellen?.

No., No., this isn't a trick question..

It wasn't provided to you because it is NOT RELEVANT..

Revelant adjective: relating to or bearing upon the matter at hand..

Whoaaaaaaaaaaaaa, there it is! I can almost see that twinkle of recognition in your eyes now, Ellen! I can, I swear it!.

This, of course, resulted in an "inquiry." You now.

>seem to want us to report the "inquiry" as "disputed." There is no.

>physical way to do so..

(insert heavy sigh) Ellen, babe, c'monnnnnnnn,.

YOU are required upon notice of dispute to report that dispute to the CRA..

IF the CRA is incapable of marking a tradeline or inquiry as disputed, my issue would be with them and not you..

However, you can't say that there is no physical way to do so because you didn't do what YOU were required to do, yes, REQUIRED!.

A credit report is a report on people's payment.

>histories with their various creditors. If a credit report is wrong, it.

>may be disputed by the customer. But an inquiry is not a report on a.

>person's credit history. The inquiry cannot be disputed, with a notation.

>to that effect, on the report. You can complain about it, which you did,.

>and we can delete it, which we offered, but you can't "dispute" it..

OHHHHHHHHH, silly me, it is the legal provisions allowing me to dispute ANY PIECE OF INFORMATION reported that is inaccurate..

Any information reported is subject to dispute..

611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. 1681i].

(a) Reinvestigations of disputed information..

(1) Reinvestigation required..

(A) In general. If the completeness or accuracy of.

Any item.

Of information contained in a consumer's file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly of such dispute, the agency shall reinvestigate free of charge and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph (5), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer..

You are wrong, Ellen, a credit report is not a report on people's payment histories with their various creditors. The FCRA took care of you having to decide what is and what isn't a report, looky what is freely available on line, the DEFINITION, oh yeah, the definition of consumer report itself!!!!!.

Imagine that, Ellen, someone had the foresight to decide this argument already, it is part of the law..

603. Definitions; rules of construction [15 U.S.C. 1681a].

(d) Consumer report..

(1) In general. The term "consumer report" means any written, oral, or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumer's credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living which is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer's eligibility for....

>.

>Regarding your comments about FACS, FACS is the service company for FDS.

>Bank. As servicer, FACS has the right to obtain reports on FDS Bank's.

>behalf. It is not considered a "third party.".

2+1 = what, 2 Ellen? you can't do math either!!!!!!!.

>.

>I could go on if I had the time, but I do not think I can convince you.

>that we did nothing improper or illegal. It is unfortunate that we can't.

>settle this in a reasonable manner..

I agree Ellen, it is unfortunate that the law and common sense don't seem to be something you are capable of understanding. I could go on as well if I had the time but Sassy is starting to wonder about me beating my head against this brick wall that you are..

My previous settlement offer is good until xx/xx/xx..

Or Quixote, take the $500 bucks, these people are plain ignorant they won't even get it when a judge tells them they are wrong..

If it's principle you are willing to go forward on; I'm flying with ya otherwise take what you want, the deletions, and take Mrs. Quixote out to a really great dinner on the idiots..

KHM is right, they wouldn't understand smoke signals!.

>Very truly yours,.

>.

>Ellen Dugan.

Quixote.

As of 9/9/2002, EX (FICO): 709, TU (FICO): 697, EQ (FICO): 748.

What Would Scooby Do?..

Ellen R. Dugan, operating vice president and assistant general counsel.

Federated Department Stores.

7 West Seventh Street.

Cincinnati, Ohio.

Your correspondence with a consumer regarding credit file inquiries can be found on a message board at.

Http://consumers.creditnet.com/strai...720#post245720.

..

Please respond to the group members' comments..

My thanks to ... @fds.com for forwarding this to you...

Ellen-.

Tell me how can I get a job like yours? You may have a degree but you apparently don't know how to use it..

I on the other hand don't have any type of degree, but at least I can realize what Quixote is saying..

It's NOT rocket science...

Not good form Greg. Somewhere in this long thread Quixote said he didn't want to lay all of his cards down just yet. If he had a desire to inform his opponent of this thread prior to the trial, you should have let him do so...

Greg, did you send this thread information to the folks he is battling with?..

Whoaaaaaaaa Greg,.

You asked for documentation, he provided it. He asks for help you send it the attorney representing who he filed against. Knowing he's both a court date and settlement pending..

That's rude WITH an agenda..

Shame on you!.

Sassy..

Niiiiiiiice, Greg..

I've known all along that there was at least a chance, if not a likelihood that Macy's might well be watching. It certainly would not be unprecendented..

Getting feedback and advice where I choose to get it is my right, just as it is my right to either utilize or reject that advice..

Ms. Dugan has not requested any form of confidentiality on any of her letters. If she did, I would honor it..

I wonder how many people who see this thread are going to be reluctant to interact with you in any other threads. Information monger that you are, it seems self damaging..

Who peed in your corn flakes, man?..

Well I will say it, and I'm not stuttering, Greg, if you indeed did send that to her after demanding Quixote post his info, then you are 100% complete ass. What in the world is wrong with you? I can guarantee you that no one here will ever respond to your posts and requests again...

Wowthat is rude, Greg! I think Ellen should serve as a display to parents not to let your children chew on lead-based paints. The brain damage is permanent. This lady still HAS NO PERMISSIBLE PURPOSE for Macy's hard inquiry. This is so open and shut. Macy's is getting off CHEAP if you settle for 1K. You are saving them a lot of money as opposed to filing in Federal court and retaining the services of a lawyer...

No sense stopping now....

Original Message.

From: "Quixote (edit)"<(edit)@go.com>.

To: "Ellen R Dugan"<(edit)@FDS.com>.

Date: Wed Oct 02 20:53:37 PDT 2002.

Subject: Re: Your FCRA Complaint.

>Ms. Dugan,.

>.

>I appreciate your sincere effort to find common ground..

>.

>When I look at the Inquiry in question on my Experian credit report, either online or in hard copy, not a lot of detail is given, merely the innocuous “Permissible Purpose” statement and the date, January 24, 2002. I called Mr. Rick Haas of Experian’s Special Consumer Services Division today. I was curious to see if more detail could be obtained by asking Experian what their more detailed in-house records show. His answer was most interesting. According to Mr.

For the inquiry in question, Macy’s chose to classify it as a “Code 31". According to Mr. Haas’ copy of Experian's manual, “Code 31" translates as “Purpose of Granting or Denying Credit”. Not exactly what Macy's has been arguing all along. You can call Mr.

His number is 800-322-3162..

>.

>Since I already had Mr. Haas on the phone, I told him about our disagreement and asked if what you said was true; that there is no way to put an inquiry in dispute. He said there are actually a variety of ways, the easiest of which is for the subscribing company to simply submit, in writing, a statement that a particular inquiry should not be made visible to anyone other than the consumer and Experian, as there was no Permissible Purpose for a “Hard Inquiry”. This would preserve the factual record of the inquiry without unduly affecting the credit of any individual. It seems to me that someone on your staff could have made that call along time ago, Ms. Dugan, and avoided all of this unpleasantness..

>.

>After describing my situation to Mr. Haas, I asked him if there was anything he could do to help rectify this situation. He suggested that he could mark the inquiry as possibly having a fraudulant purpose; ie, no Permissible Purpose, and that Macy’s would have thirty days to either verify that the inquiry was in fact resulting from a Permissible Purpose or Macy’s could ignore it, and after thirty days it will drop off of my credit report. I asked him to proceed, and so that is where it stands. This presents Macy’s with an interesting choice, in my view. If you ignore the request for verification and allow the inquiry to be removed, it will be taken by me as a silent admission that the inquiry was fraudulant in the first place.



>.

>I have provided you with direct quotes from the FCRA, detailing exactly what is, and what is not, a Permissible Purpose, and followed up with excerpts from three different Opinion Letters from the Federal Trade Commission legal staff, the very people charged by Congress with regulating and enforcing all aspects of the FCRA, which further detailed that in situations very similar to the situation at hand, that no Permissible Purpose exists, because no business relationship exists. Considering all that, I honestly find it absolutely mystifying that you can still be in denial..

>.

>Macy’s/ FDSB is standing squarely on the wrong side of the Fair Credit Reporting Act here, Ms. Dugan. The only question is what it takes to rectify it..

>.

>Best Regards,.

>.

>Quixote (edit)..

Very Nice! You have done your homework! "How about we settle for $2,000 now?".

Humblemarc..

Thanks for saying what I'm too tired to say..

I wrestled with whether to post this saga as it happens for quite some time. What finally compelled me to go ahead and post everything (except the two letters Bill Bauer had a hand in- he has asked me not to) is the thought that this may well end up in some sort of settlement (even at this late date I wouldn't be shocked if we settle) and I may well sign some sort of confidentiality agreement at that time. If I did, I would be precluded from making any more statements, or posting any more about this case. But they would have a hard time making me 'un-say' all I've already said, and 'un-post' all that I've already posted. I've learned so darn much here from other people's experience, and many a time shamelessly stolen their ideas, letters, even a few jokes, and applied them to my own situation. I thought it would be a shame if this ended up going all the way and nobody else had the chance to learn from it; either positively or negatively (where did I go wrong, or what was the key to victory).

'Nuf said...

Edit: BTW, Quixote I'm smiling that you honored your gut and glad you held out posting this until AFTER Greg posted himself into a corner!.

What a lesson for all of us in gut honoring, thank you!.

And a few 5 or 6 pages back that is just what you said while Greg was drilling you and demanding evidence that your gut told you so.....

No problem Quixote. Someone had to say it. It's too bad, but I don't what has gotten into him. Good luck the rest of the way, although I doubt you'll need it...

Step up to the plate and answer this question..

:(.

(Of course, what else could be said now but - No I didn't)..

Fave Butch growling dude:.

Is that (quote) not the answer? or are we asking if he really REALLY sent it?.

The more I think about this, the madder I get, this is beyond my shame on you and beyond ass..

You know what this is, this is CA-ish!.

Sassy..

Thanks! If that's your last offer, I'll take it. I won't tell anyone either. :o)..

All true. But, really, so what if they read everything? I've already sent them everything. What are they gonna do; burn me at the stake?.

Whatever else they can do, they can't eat me...

Don't worry, Greg. if everyone else ignores you, I will respond to your posts and continue to tell you what other people are now figuring out..

Humblemarc..

I was asking if he really sent it but now it's just too late..

No matter what, at this point, expect to hear something like, "oh I was just kidding"..

Talk about catch 22..

:(..

Quixote,.

They could have very well been reading along the whole time, LOL, I've read the infamous thread ;-)who knows, that's not my problem..

My problem isn't with them reading along, it is with Greg taking it upon himself and forcing it along, KNOWING you had both a settlement and court date pending..

And after 3 pages of discussion with his demanding and demanding again that you provide evidence in the form of your letters and correspondence; you answering every post, instead of ignoring him, trying and trying again to tell him why you couldn't or didn't feel comfortable doing so..

He, without so much as a decent, Quixote I think you should forward along a link to this thread, decided for himself without any consideration for you..

Sassy..

OK. Do I get my money back if they do?.

Your first sentence makes no sense, whatsoever. Lacking any type of logical response, you tied two completely unrelated (sending and email vs. demanding documents)(and one didn't even happen; I made no demand read the thread before you comment) events together..

You might as well be saying, "If tomorrow is Sunday, then the moon is made of green cheese.".

There is nothing wrong with me. What is wrong with you? And, what are you notorious for?.

Then he should have not given the company's or the person's name. This.

Is.

A message board that can be seen by anyone with an Internet connection, anywhere in the world, you know. So, the real question is: Does what you do here make a difference? Or is it just aimless venting?.

Yes. Now those are the kid of questions I like. Just the facts, if you please. No ranting. No illogical premises. No nonsensical moralizing..

Yee-haw, Sassy..

I'll limit this to a few of quotes of you (scroll up):.

"liar, liar (Dugan)".

"You are now asserting that we had no right to obtain a credit report, based on your reading of the FTC’s Greenblatt letter." (are you talking into thin air?).

"Dear Ellen,.

"You are being pompous and are spewing what can only be your unresearched and flawed personal opinion based on economic gain, greed, and financial security in the form of a paycheck and workload and not the law... ".

"Here's the rest, got wild with Ellen!!!".

"Please put a p.s. for me, BTW Ellen, Sassy doesn't like your pompous tone and bets her right arm that you'll lose this case based on your arrogance and failure to stop looking at yourself in the mirror long enough to do some real work.".

"Sassy has blonde children and loves blonde jokes, but really, if you happen to be blonde you are taking blondeness to a whole new level! Heck, you are taking professional women to a whole new dimension! If you aren't blonde, head to the hair dye section next time you are at walmart; Sassy will donate the peroxide!".

"Shit fire, Ellen you are dense!!!!!!! Did you read the sections of the FCRA I referenced, quoted and Sassy even color-coded?".

"(grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Ellen, 2 pages again, I'm holding you personally responsible!).

"Follow along now, Ellen, this is the important part that you aren't getting your brain around:... ".

"Uh huh, I know it's difficult to follow but it is a plain language statute!".

Get out of the sun..

I don't see any documentation. Please show it to me, or stop making statements like that..

You're not making any sense, either unless you think Quixote has something of which to be ashamed. Has he lied? While splitting hairs over whether he set them up, saying that the sheer violation is the only thing that matters, he wants to talk about the case in public and pretend that that doesn't matter either. That's nonsense..

You want court? You got court right here in front of the entire world. What could be better justice than that?.

Please, describe the dire consequences that are to come because I sent the terrible email..

Forget those questions. I see I'm estranged..

There's no need for vulgarity..

I don't see your point about your rights. In fact, you have no point in this context except that I'm a big.

Meany.

, or something..

You didn't request any form of confidentiality, either. Indeed, you put the entire ordeal (or, at best, your paraphrase of it) on the Web. This message board is very consistent. It may remain here for decades. What is your point?.

This isn't a street gang, it's a group of independent thinkers. Say I'm a representative of Macy's. Say I'm a consumer with independent thoughts. Say I'm the King of England. When did my right to comment end? When did my right to talk to.

Anybody I wish.

End?.

But, I'm really trying to find the downside to all this. What's going to happen, now: You get your settlement?.

Or was that all just you being a nutcase again? How do we know when you're not nuts?.

I'll call Ms. Dugan tomorrow...

See guys, Greg doesn't get it, never will!.

Greg, in responding to any of my post here, please make some innane comment about my log-in name. like you always do, so everyone can see how "focused" you are on the "facts".

Humblemarc..

Where's the catch 22?.

You've been to his websites and have read his manner of making things public?.

You've read the previous threads saying this is what he thought should have been more important to Quixote than winning the case itself? making it public?.

Greg usually doesn't play with words in his threads and has taken a lot of shots for his communication style..

I've never noticed him to be kidding..

Hmmmm, his intent was for us to believe with certainty that he did forward the thread..

However, I will practice what I have preached and give him the benefit of communicating with words only, and sometimes that leads to misunderstandings without the body language and speech inflections that go along with it..

I'll wait for you to step up to the plate, Greg..

Sassy..

Why don't you butt out and let his case be decided by them. You are going to call her why? What exactly is your agenda Greg? What are you trying to accomplish?..

Uh What happened? My brain decided not to work earlier.....I thought Greg was emailing on behalf of Quixote, don't ask why I thought that.....I need a nap...

Why would you call ms dugan? do you have business with her as well?.

Wouldnt that be some form of slander? or are you just calling to tell her things she already knows? just seems like some sort of malicious intent is showing...

Nothing short of an act of traitorous treachery..

Why don't you just take a trip to Bagdad and call the President a liar..

All the intricacies of Quix's argument are now in the hands of the enemy. Allows her time to formulate a strategy to argue aginst these points..

The eliment of surprise is gone. That's the downside. Beyond your ability to comprehend?.

Quix will still win his case even though you've purposely attempted to undermine his chances for your own personal gain..

No we're not a street gang but I suspect you're fixin to find out what a horrible thing you just did..

:(..

Nup KHM,.

He didn't have the decency to ask Quixote. He just emailed a note along to her, with a link, asking her to comment..

Quixote,.

They could have very well been reading along the whole time, LOL, I've read the infamous thread ;-)who knows, that's not my problem..

My problem isn't with them reading along, it is with Greg taking it upon himself and forcing it along, KNOWING you had both a settlement and court date pending..

And after 3 pages of discussion with his demanding and demanding again that you provide evidence in the form of your letters and correspondence; you answering every post, instead of ignoring him, trying and trying again to tell him why you couldn't or didn't feel comfortable doing so..

He, without so much as a decent, Quixote I think you should forward along a link to this thread, decided for himself without any consideration for you..

Sassy..

The Invitation.

G. Fisher | 743 posts since Apr 2001 207.90.119.5 | 10.02.2002 @ 16:33.

Ellen R. Dugan, operating vice president and assistant general counsel.

Federated Department Stores.

7 West Seventh Street.

Cincinnati, Ohio.

Your correspondence with a consumer regarding credit file inquiries can be found on a message board at.

Http://consumers.creditnet.com/stra...5720#post245720.

..

Please respond to the group members' comments..

My thanks to ... @fds.com for forwarding this to you..

Greg Fisher.

Http://creditscoring.com.

Http://creditaccuracy.com.

..

1. I'm flattered you think I'm so influential. I don't butt out because this is an interactive message board. I'm interacting. The virtual becomes reality sort of thing..

2. Truth. Justice..

3. Accuracy..

4. Get real. You'll be back..

Would you people please stop doing that?.

No, it (assuming you mean that I'm merely talking about this case) is not slander. Please review this page:.

Http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=slander.

Return and give us a full report..

You're not going to ask how long I've been beating my dog/wife/grandmother next, are you?.

Have a little decency..

Your demagoguery is goofy. See Godwin's Law (.

Http://www.godwinslaw.com/.

)..

Quixote has said, repeatedly, all that matters is that they did the alleged dirty deed. Was he wrong? Which is it: Could I (or anything), actually, influence the outcome of the case given that the "facts" are so solid? If he's still going to win, what's the big deal? What would be the better pretense for the victory: The innocent little lamb/plaintiff (not reality), or the "nutcase" gamer?.

This humblemarc (you two should have lunch) person makes a big deal about some elusive quality of goodness that he thinks I lack. But the subject of this thread tried to create a false history about himself through trickery and I don't see Joe Humble making any hifalutin comments about that. You two should get together. It is amazing to me the tiny thread of illegality that is the subject of this discussion. There are far more important issues to tackle. This is only demonstrates the lengths to which a person desperate for action will go..

Failing to mention that minor detail until I dragged it out of him, he continues to delude himself in the mere notion of his claim..

"The element of surprise." This is not Matlock, so please come back to earth. This is more like Judge Judy..

"Horrible thing." You are way too dramatic; tone it down. Words like that cheapen the credibility of the discussion group. It is hard to take you seriously, Festus...

Ah yes, let's discuss the "facts." Never once have I discussed the term "goodness" in any of my threads. I have discussed "kindness," "compassion" and "caring about other people" Things I sensed you lacked from reading all of your posts. Again, these things are the only "facts" and "truths" that last forever. All other "facts" change with time and perspective. "Legality/illegality", these, too, also change from one day to the next, in reality..

Once again, your self-serving self-important ego has led you to act irrationally, to do something that, in fact, is against your best interest of procurring "facts", uncovering justice, accuracy, etc., etc.,. I doubt anyone on this board will be willing to share their cases with you, documents or not. (That's if you are still allowed on the board) No longer will you be able to promote your sites on this board, because either no one will see them or trust you. Again, ego and selfishness, will continue to be your downfall and source of frustation, until you learn otherwise..

"Joe Humble"..

That's why you don't, and never will get it Greg. The ramifications of your act reach FAR beyond Quix's case..

What about all the people in the future who will have Macy's problems?.

Now that Ellen knows about the board don't you think she will turn all her other friends (collection atty's, and collectors in general) on to the site too? Who know's who they work for. Maybe a creditor YOU will have trouble with some day..

How far could this "proliferate" huh? Do you know? Cmon genius, tell us it's no big deal..

What about all the others on the board who will be too afraid now to post anything about their situation for fear of clowns like you busting their strategy out to the enemy..

Did you think of any of this stuff? Of course not..

YOU have undermined this board. As far as I'm concerned you're worse than a Troll. Your acct. should be terminated...