Dispute Credit pull?

[jsk173]

I did that as not to trash the thread something you don't care about. The same as when someone posts case law you don't care.
Everyone has made their case and the members can decide who the troll is. Sound good?

If you were so worried about "trashing the thread," you would have posted the relevant citation* in your first reply.

 
(* Which, as should be clear to all by now, doesn't exist.)

[chinagel]

To show what a big dummy I am

ur doing a fine job urself

[jsk173]

ur doing a fine job urself

Right, I'm the dummy — not the guy who resurrected a two-month-old thread but refuses to post the citation he claims would prove his point.

Sure.

[JTZ]

Right, I'm the dummy — not the guy who resurrected a two-month-old thread but refuses to post the citation he claims would prove his point.

Sure.

You are the only one hung up on this citation BS. I never once said there was or wasn't a citation. A court case was already provided to prove my point. I will take case law over a citation every day of the week and twice on Sunday. 

[jsk173]

You are the only one hung up on this citation BS. I never once said there was or wasn't a citation. A court case was already provided to prove my point.

It's not B.S. at all.

Definitionally, if something is illegal, there must be a law making it illegal. And yet, despite your strident insistence that I'm wrong, you can't provide a citation to the (alleged) law in question.

I will take case law over a citation every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

You're trying to sound smart but embarrassing yourself in the process. How can there be "case law" without an underlying law that was broken? When you sue someone, you *MUST* cite the law or laws that were allegedly broken. That's why they call them LAWsuits.

[JTZ]

It's not B.S. at all.

Definitionally, if something is illegal, there must be a law making it illegal. And yet, despite your strident insistence that I'm wrong, you can't provide a citation to the (alleged) law in question.

You can repeat your BS all you want. Citations are only that citations. Once a judge rules the citation is meaningless. The judge ruled in this case that proves my point and it wasn't overturned. I said from the beginning if they did this they will get sued and the will lose. The case stated proves it. All you can do is repeat the childish citation comment that no one cares about.

[jsk173]

You can repeat your BS all you want. Citations are only that citations. Once a judge rules the citation is meaningless. The judge ruled in this case that proves my point and it wasn't overturned. I said from the beginning if they did this they will get sued and the will lose. The case stated proves it. All you can do is repeat the childish citation comment that no one cares about.

LOL. Embarrassing.

Talk about "repeating B.S."

Physician, heal thyself.

(By the way, your link was to a settlement, not a legal ruling. There was nothing to "overturn," so the fact it wasn't overturned means absolutely nothing. All you're doing is throwing crap at the wall to try to distract from the fact you can't prove what you stridently claimed you could prove.)

[JTZ]

I have a court case that proves my point and you have? 

[jsk173]

I have a court case that proves my point and you have? 

LOL. You don't have a court case; you have a settlement.

Still waiting for the citation to the alleged law you claim proves your point ...

[jsk173]

By the way, ten seconds of reading shows that your big "court case" wasn't even regarding the same situation being discussed here. The company in this case did hard pulls on PEOPLE WHO WEREN'T CUSTOMERS:

https://secure.dahladmin.com/SOFI/FrequentlyAskedQuestions

Nice try, though.

[JTZ]

LOL. You don't have a court case; you have a settlement.

Still waiting for the citation to the alleged law you claim proves your point ...

You are going to wait a long time since I never claimed to produce some BS citation. Show the post where I said that will produce a citation?
What we do have is a court case proving my point exactly as I said would happen. What have you produced? 

[jsk173]

You are going to wait a long time since I never claimed to produce some BS citation. Show the post where I said that will produce a citation?

This is pathetic. You stridently insisted it was illegal for a bank to do a hard pull for purposes of account review for an existing customer. So where's the citation to the relevant law?

What we do have is a court case proving my point exactly as I said would happen. What have you produced? 

LOL. Pure nonsense. Your big "court case" was a totally different situation than the one being discussed here.

[JTZ]

If they would have pulled a soft instead of hard that would not have been sued. You keep digging your hole deeper and deeper. If you know how to use Google you will find other cases.

What proof have you provided again? 

[jsk173]

If they would have pulled a soft instead of hard that would not have been sued. You keep digging your hole deeper and deeper. If you know how to use Google you will find other cases.

What proof have you provided again? 

This is so pathetic, I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you.

You claimed it's illegal for banks to make a hard pull for purposes of account review for an existing customer, so CITE THE RELEVANT STATUTE.

Seriously, if you care so much about not "trashing the thread," then either put up or shut up. Your four pages (!!) of non-responsive crap are enough.

[JTZ]

I proved my point with a court case.
I am a little confused where did you provide proof of what you are saying? 

[jsk173]

I proved my point with a court case.

LOL. Is this trolling? Did you skip the last page?

I am a little confused where did you provide proof of what you are saying? 

How would you like me to prove this? There's no law that says it's legal to chew gum on Thursdays. Does that mean chewing gum is ILLEGAL on Thursdays? No.

If it's illegal for banks to make these hard pulls, as you've been claiming for five pages now, then there MUST BE A LAW THAT MAKES IT ILLEGAL — a law that you should easily be able to cite.

Put up or shut up.

[username]

LOL

They don't keep doing it because it costs them money, and because hard pulls are mostly irrelevant when a person already has derogatory entries on their credit reports.

This isn't tough.

FTFY.

[aygart]

§ 604. Permissible purposes of consumer reports [15 U.S.C. § 1681b]
(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
    (B) intends to use the information for employment purposes; or
    (C) intends to use the information in connection with the underwriting of insurance involving the consumer; or
    (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
    (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
    (F) otherwise 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.2
    (G) executive departments and agencies in connection with the issuance of government-sponsored individually-billed travel charge cards.1

Review of an account

≠ whenever they want

[jsk173]

§ 604. Permissible purposes of consumer reports [15 U.S.C. § 1681b]
(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
    (B) intends to use the information for employment purposes; or
    (C) intends to use the information in connection with the underwriting of insurance involving the consumer; or
    (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
    (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
    (F) otherwise 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.2
    (G) executive departments and agencies in connection with the issuance of government-sponsored individually-billed travel charge cards.1

Review of an account

≠ whenever they want

LOL. So you found the statute but you're trying to dishonestly misrepresent it?

Sections 3(F)(i) and 3(F)(ii) are applicable to the situation being discussed.

Also, as I said about six pages ago, there isn't a damn thing in there that discerns "hard pull" from "soft pull."

Thanks for proving my point. I appreciate it.

[JTZ]

Also, as I said about six pages ago, there isn't a damn thing in there that discerns "hard pull" from "soft pull."

That is where the judge comes into the picture. He will decide when it can be a hard or soft pull.