What case law to cite?

I've been off the board for a bit, so I'm not familiar with what you're up to/against. But I'm watching this thread. You asked some questions that I need answered, too.

here is the thread:

https://www.debtconsolidationcare.com/collection-agencies/ordered-documentation.html

basically I'm taking LVNV to small claims court for violating Texas laws. :)

Thanks. And good luck with it!

Heres some FTC letters

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/cass.htm

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/wollman.htm

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/krisor2.htm

Lays out what is NOT validation, Spears VS Brennen

http://www.state.in.us/judiciary/opinions/archive/03260101.ewn.html



Interesting piece of the fdcpa
???? 808. Unfair practices [15 USC 1692f]

A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt ... the following conduct is a violation of this section:

(1) The collection of any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.


Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) sections

FRCP - Rule 1002. Requirement of Original

To prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph, the original writing, record, or photograph, is required, except as otherwise provided in these rules or by Act of Congress.

FRCP - Rule 1003. Admissibility of Duplicates

A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original or (2) in this circumstance it would be unfair to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original.

Wow! thanks! Those will come in handy!

yes, I was going to say that it wasnt case law, but it was an FTC opinion letter instead. In fact, I recall the actual letter is known as the "Cass" letter. Here is a link to it--dont forget to put www. in front of this line

cardreport.com/laws/fdcpa/ftc-opinion/cass.html

Here is the part of the letter that is relevant:

[quote]II. "Is it permissible under the FDCPA for a debt collector to report, or continue to report, a consumer's charged-off debt to a consumer reporting agency after the debt collector has received, but not responded to, a consumer's written dispute during the 30-day validation period detailed in ???? 1692g?" As you know, Section 1692g(b) requires the debt collector to cease collection of the debt at issue if a written dispute is received within the 30-day validation period until verification is obtained. Because we believe that reporting a charged-off debt to a consumer reporting agency, particularly at this stage of the collection process, constitutes "collection activity" on the part of the collector, our answer to your question is No. Although the FDCPA is unclear on this point, we believe the reality is that debt collectors use the reporting mechanism as a tool to persuade consumers to pay, just like dunning letters and telephone calls. Of course, if a dispute is received after a debt has been reported to a consumer reporting agency, the debt collector is obligated by Section 1692e(8) to inform the consumer reporting agency of the dispute.
[/quote]
That's what you need right there. Also, if you're trying to rack up as many violations as you can with LVNV, the last sentence there is good too--if you disaputed, they are required by federal law to report the debt as disputed to the CRA's. If they had already reported to the CRAs before you disputed, then they must revise that report to state that the debt is currently in dispute. I would bet ten bucks that LVNV didnt do that because most CA's dont do it.