Debbie sent a message to Richard Fairbank Co-Founder, Chairman, and CEO, Capital One Financial – email address that said:
Cap One Bank Usa
Dear Mr. Fairbanks,
I am formally requested that Cap One Bank Usa
validate all tradeline notations they have submitted to the major credit reporting agencies on 8/28/2012 by“ Cap One Bank Usa” for me, Debbie, for account number(s) Cap One Bank Usa.
This charged-off account is not mine, I never had an Cap One Bank Usa that charged-off (6) times, and if this alleged debt was mine, no original creditor or collector can show a charge off several times legally month-to-month re-aging purposely this account.
FCRA 621 (c)(1)(B)(3) damages of not more than $1,000 for each willful or negligent violation; and
FACTA 312 (d)(B)
Under FCRA 1681i and FACTA 312 you have continued to report a charge off month after month on my credit reports. We both know once an account is charged off the balance should go to $0 and your insert this in to your profit/loss reports and you cannot continue to report the said account as "charged off" from there forward. By doing this you are considered re aging the account and have willfully violated FCRA 621(c)(i)(B)(3) and are now exposed for (xX$1000) for the (x) months you have violated my rights. Now we can settle this matter now or I can seek legal remedies by contacting Gary Nitkin, national FCRA/FDCPA Attorney, Thrift Supervision, OCC, and my NY Attorney General or you can delete the above account and we all move forward. I look forward to your timely response - Pissed Consumer
Due to possible inaccuracies in these CRA reports, I must demand that the validation/verification I hereby lawfully request be in the form of a notarized statement by a person with original knowledge of the debt as it was constituted and who can testify that the debt was incurred legally, was not subsequently disputed as a result of returned, faulty, or recalled consumer products, was not utilized as a profit-loss tax deduction during the period it may have been payable, and was not claimed as a loss with any insuring entity during the period it may have been payable.
A copy of the consumer credit contract is not sufficient to validate the debt. Validation requires presentment of the account and general ledger statement signed and dated by the party responsible for maintaining the account. Pacific Concrete F.C.U. V. Kauanoe, 62 Haw. 334, 614 P.2d 936 (1980), GE Capital Hawaii, Inc. v. Yonenaka 25 P.3d 807, 96 Hawaii 32, (Hawaii App 2001), Fooks v. Norwich Housing Authority 28 Conn. L. Rptr. 371, (Conn. Super.2000), and Town of Brookfield v. Candlewood Shores Estates, Inc. 513 A.2d 1218, 201 Conn.1 (1986). and Solon v. Godbole, 163 Ill. App. 3d 845, 114 Ill. Dec. 890, 516 N. E.2d 1045 (3Dist. 1987).
And yes, banks/lenders fall up under the The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 USC 552. section 47, Rocap v. Indiek C.A.D.C. 1976, 539 F 2nd 174 U.S. App. D.C. 172
Please be advised that I am not requesting a verification that you have my mailing address; rather, I
am requesting validation, i.e., competent evidence that I had some contractual obligation, consumer protection encumbrance which incurred the original claims associated with this trade line.
Please know that you have 7 days from the tracked and confirmed delivery of this lawful notice to either answer these demands or to remove the associated negative trade line notations from the CRA reports. Any other action may constitute evidence of your intent to abridge one or more civil or other constitutional rights. There is no 180-day marker to justify a charge off status (6) times under the FCRA which is inaccurate reporting .Please prove the creditor/bureau is not violating my rights under FCRA-FCBA § 306. Billing practices The Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1601-1665)
When notified of a dispute about information furnished to a CRA, § 1681s-2(b) obligates a person to conduct an investigation and report the results to the CRA. 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1). The Fourth Circuit has held that investigation must be a reasonable one “to determine whether the disputed information can be verified.” Johnson v. MBNA Am. Bank, N.A., 357 F.3d 426, 430-31 (4th Cir. 2004).
As the court noted in Larson v Ford Credit, , “[t]he majority of courts considering the question have drawn upon defamation’s traditional ‘multiple-publications rule’. Under this rule, each publication of the same falsehood by the same defamer is a separate cause of action, thus starting the limitations clock anew.” (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 577A(1). In the FCRA context, this means each transmission of an erroneous credit information is a separate FCRA violation. (,after failing to perform a reasonable investigation and subsequently re-certifying false information to the CRA’s each month thereafter. This would negate the possibility of any time barred allegations connected to their actions by the Plaintiff when the violations were on going at the time the complaint was filed. )
Please be further advised that continued unsubstantiated reporting of possible inaccuracies to third parties may provide a basis for criminal complaints being filed in accordance with FDCPA, FCRA, and other federal statutes, as well as turning this over to Gary Nitkin national FDCPA/FCRA Attorney-Pissed Consumer
Debbie
P.S. Do to my schedule I prefer to communicate
