More of the Enormis brayings of

Creditwrench students are taught no such thing as Dingleberry suggests or believes.
Creditwrench students are taught that they are to allow debt collectors 30 days to answer their demands for validation before moving on to the next step which is a letter humorously called Estoppel.

Students of CREDITWRENCH are taught that according to the FDCPA, a collection agency has 30 days to respond to a request for debt validation. And, if the collection agency fails to validate within the required 30 day timeline, the to move on to estoppel. While Dingleberry correctly claims that Estoppel has no basis in law for a collection agency's failure o provide validation, Creditwrench has been roundly denounced on message boards such as creditnet, AOC, and many others for his denounciations of the infamous John Gliha estoppel letter which is to be found on message boards all over the internet. Bill Bauer is famous for his denounciations of the Gliha theory which relies on a Western District of Missouri decision in a land dispute known as Englehart v. Gravens.

The creditwrench name for the letter used is nothing more than a tongue-in-cheek name for the letter used which has nothing at all to do with estoppel. It is recommended by the trash boards as being the next step that should be sent after a demand for validation. Gliha's infamous estoppel letter is nothing more than a false ruse with which he hoped to scare debt collectors into giving up. As Gliha has often stated, it worked too and that just points out how damnedably stupid debt collectors can be and usually are.

As Dingleberry points out, there is no requirement in FDCPA that a collection agency respond to a validation request within 30 days. Who cares whether they do or do not respond withing 30 days? There is a totally different reason for the use of the so called estoppel letter than anything this braying jackass has figured out and I have no intention of helping him out. He falsely claims that what I teach on the above matter is false and misleading. That is only so for those such as this dingleberry who are too stupid to figure out the true purpose of the letter.

The 30 day rule is for one purpose and one purpose only and that is to get the collection agency moving and force them to get something done. In reality debt collectors are never under any time line that they must meet. They don't ever have to validate.

That raises the next logical question which is if a debt collector does not accomplish his validation in some reasonable length of time then justice is denied the debtor. The old saying is that justice delayed is justice denied. Debt collectors have often ignored all demands for debt validation and then suddenly jump up and file a lawsuit on the poor debtor and ignore the fact that they have violated the law. Justice denied when that happens. Creditwrench teaches how to defeat the idea that collectors theoretically have forever to validate the debt and thereby deny justice.

There has to be some legal definition of the word "reasonable" and although some courts may have already ruled on that subject, this author is unaware of any such cases which might have addressed that issue. It will be addressed some day in some court of law and the results will be published. Once again, justice delayed is justice denied and the Creditwrench letter just helps point that out.

Creditwrench is not wrong. Only problem is that Dingleberry is too damned stupid to figure out why creditwrench is not wrong so he brays away. Go figure.

CREDITWRENCH is wrong on both the FDCPA's wording, and a matter of law.

1.
There is no requirement in the FDCPA that a collection agency respond to a validation request in 30 days.
2.
Estoppel has no basis in law for a collection agency's failure to provide validation, as there was no requirement that they do so in the first place.

All of CREDITWRENCH's teaching on the above are false and misleading.

In his interminable brayings, he just gave me a great name for a new website. Thanks you stupid jackass.

Creditwrench Senior Member Joined: October 16 2004 Location: United States Online Status: Online Posts: 247

Posted: January 30 2005 at 8:01pm | IP Logged Just another example of how stupid he really is. Another one is his recent false and misleading claim that I advocate use of a letter called estoppel which was first invented by one John Gliha of Ocala, Florida many years ago. I was the first on the internet to decry that outlandish piece of crap and prove that it was pure gibberish. It was being highly touted by such fools as LizardKing and many more on Creditnet back when as well as the dumb validation letter put out by Gliha and plagerized by Lizardking who claimed it was his. I exposed him for the plagerist that he was and since Lizardking was "king of the Hill" on creditnet back then, I was roundly denounced for calling him down about it. I was the first to actually go to the law library and look up the Western District of Missouri case quoted in the stupid estoppel letter, shepardize it and prove that no attorney had ever referenced that case in relation to a debt collection issue. Estoppel could not possibly be correctly used against a debt collector for failure to validate a letter. Problem I had back then was that the letter was having great success because so many debt collectors were so stupid they believed it and simply threw up their hands and refused to collect upon receipt of the letter. It still happens today from time to time. Just about all of the message boards still have some version of the Gliha Estoppel letter which they recommend their followers use. In fact, my berating LizardKing and the rest of the junk theorists over the issues of plagerizing the Gliha letter and calling it their own and my constant put down of the dumb estoppel letter was a large contributor to the fact that I got kicked off of creditnet the first time. It got so bad that I called the second letter I use an "Estoppel" letter just as a tongue-in-cheek name. A funny name intended to parody the Gliha letter. I usually find some humorous name to call all of my letters and tactics. I have what I call my "duh" letter and that one is used when a debt collector writes back and demands all kinds of account information, SSI and other stuff after having first sent out an initial demand letter. The "duh" letter is nothing more than making a photo copy of the demand letter and sending that to them in response to their demand for information. Happens quite often. If the stupid fools send out dumb form letters demanding information they already have then "duh" The enormis dingleberry has once again posted false and misleading information about me on his blog of ignorance. He also (albeit correctly) states that collection agencies have no time limit such as the 30 days I talk about in which they must validate the debt upon timely demand by the debtor. While in most cases collection agencies can get away with never validating the debt, there is also an old axiom that says that justice delayed is justice denied. Of course, denial of justice never seems to bother debt collectors so we have to either set some limit of our own within which we need to move on towards getting the justice the law says we are supposed to be able to get. So 30 days (in my opinion) is just as good as any other number of days within which one needs to get tired of just sitting there twiddling their thumbs waiting for some debt collector to get up off his arse and do something. The so-called estoppel letter I use is nothing more than a reminder that in the debtor's opinion it is time to get busy and do something or get off the porcelain. It actually has nothing whatever to do with the doctrine of estopple. The enormis criminal is too stupid to figure that out so he has to run out and bray some more about things which he obviously knows nothing about. He'll never learn.