FDCPA Rule changes exerpted from the Thomas Library.

A recent furor has erupted about whose version of the new FDCPA rule
changes is the correct version.

The Creditwrench message forum first exerpted portions of the proposed
new FDCPA changes which was taken from the Kaulkin-Ginsberg press
release which loudly proclaimed their participation and effectiveness
in getting the new legislation passed into law. Creditwrench obviously
knew that the Kaulkin-Ginsberg release had to be false and misleading
and his purpose was to expose that fact.

Later, a pediantic moron who calls himself "creditwrench-thetruth"
posted equally putrid garbage about what he claimed to have obtained
from the Library of Congress but was also full of false and misleading
information as usual.

The correct version, also later posted by creditwrench on his forum and
herein copied from the creditwrench message board and the Thomas
Library follows.

Creditwrench
Administrator

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,363
Re: FDCPA Changes
Now then, here is the actual wording of the portion of the bill which
is applicable to FDCPA. As you can see there seem to be some
differences between the press release put out by the Caulkin-Groansberg
gag-rag for the benefit of it's ACA (American Criminals Association)
members.

802. Other Amendments
This section makes amendments to the FDCPA. These include:
(1) a clarification that formal pleadings are not initial
communications;
(2) an exception to the definition of initial communication for forms
or notices that do not relate to the collection of a debt and are
required by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, Title V of the GLBA, or
Federal or State law relating to notice of data security breach or
privacy; and

(3) a clarification that debt collection activities and communications
may continue during the 30-day validation period as long as they do not
overshadow or are inconsistent with the disclosure of the consumer's
right to dispute the debt or request the name and address of the
original creditor.

Now then, as can be seen by checking the differences between the actual
wording of the bill and the hype and hoopla put out by
Caulkin-Groansberg and their ACA (American Criminals Association)
things are not quite as they would like consumers to believe that they
are.

Caulkin-Groansberg put out their gagrag article loudly proclaiming how
much good they had done for their "hood" by working closely with
legislators to get the new revisions to FDCPA passed in order to
lighten the burdens put upon the collection industry by an old and
outmoded FDCPA which sorely needed revamping.

Looks more like hogwash to me. As can be readily seen, they just
reported the first part of the legislation but didn't talk about the
part underlined in red above. It is that latter part in underlined red
type that is the actual key to the whole thing. They can't overshadow
in the process in anyway and what constitutes overshadowing has already
been well defined by numerous court decisions.

It also puts the further burden on them which is that their actions may
not be inconsistent with the disclosure of the consumer's right to
dispute the debt or request the name and address of the original
creditor.

What it looks like to me is a ready made trap for the overzealous
criminal rather than bringing any great new benefits to America's Most
Wanted Criminals.

What we will have to do is to be certain that we are more keenly
attuned to exactly what is and is not overshadowing or what may or may
not be adjudged to be interference with our right to dispute the debt
or any portion thereof.

What is also inherently obvious in the comparison between the
Caulkin-Groansburg gagrag version and the actual wording is that C-G
did not read or comprehend the full text but rather in it's rush to
publish rubbish chose to ignore the real truth of the matter in order
to further enhance their bragging.
__________________________________________________ _____
Someone else claims that this version they found somewhere is
The actual wording of the newly ammended FDCPA is as follows:

Collection activities and communications that do not otherwise violate
this title may continue during the 30-day period referred to in
subsection

(a) unless the consumer has notified the debt collector in writing that
the debt , or any portion of the debt , is disputed or that the
consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor. Any
collection activities and communication during the 30-day period may
not overshadow or be inconsistent with the disclosure of the consumer's
right to dispute the debt or request the name and address of the
original creditor.

This latter is also false and misleading information, but when we
consider the source, we would expect nothing less. Either way, there
are no really essential changes in the wording of the two versions. The
only real difference is in the original caulkin-groansberg press
release version which just goes to prove that you can't believe
anything a debt collector or anyone associated with a debt collector
says.

The version that is much more believeable is taken from the Thomas
Library at Thomas Library version
Here it is.
S.2856

Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 (Engrossed Amendment
as Agreed to by House)

SEC. 802. OTHER AMENDMENTS.

*

(a) Legal Pleadings- Section 809 of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (15 U.S.C. 1692g) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:

*

`(d) Legal Pleadings- A communication in the form of a formal
pleading in a civil action shall not be treated as an initial
communication for purposes of subsection (a).'.

*

(b) Notice Provisions- Section 809 of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (15 U.S.C. 1692g) is amended by adding after subsection
(d) (as added by subsection (a) of this section) the following new
subsection:

*

`(e) Notice Provisions- The sending or delivery of any form or
notice which does not relate to the collection of a debt and is
expressly required by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, title V of
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act , or any provision of Federal or State law
relating to notice of data security breach or privacy, or any
regulation prescribed under any such provision of law, shall not be
treated as an initial communication in connection with debt collection
for purposes of this section.'.

*

(c) Establishment of Right to Collect Within the First 30 Days-
Section 809(b) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C.
1692g(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following new sentences:
`Collection activities and communications that do not otherwise violate
this title may continue during the 30-day period referred to in
subsection (a) unless the consumer has notified the debt collector in
writing that the debt , or any portion of the debt , is disputed or
that the consumer requests the name and address of the original
creditor. Any collection activities and communication during the 30-day
period may not overshadow or be inconsistent with the disclosure of the
consumer's right to dispute the debt or request the name and address of
the original creditor.'.

The real truth is that no version has any validity until it is signed
into law by the president and even then sections of it may be
overturned by the Supremes at any time although it is highly doubtful
that the Supremes will have reason to find fault with any of the above
wording.

Another point is that this isn't the full version of the bill by any
stretch of the imagination. These changes are a very small section of a
much larger bill that mostly deals with banks and banking institutions
and gives them much greater freedom in setting up new branch banks and
lessens the paperwork burdens on the banks when reporting to various
banking and banking related agencies. Some sections also make changes
to GLBA and the requirements about who must send out those yearly
privacy notices previously demanded by GLBA.

Although most of us have not been paying attention to GLBA and those
yearly privacy notices that have been required and even some banks
still do not have the right information nor have they ever complied
with the original requirements of GLBA. Many banks are simply handing
out or mailing out a privacy notice to their new customers at or
shortly after opening a new bank account then never again.

So this isn't just about FDCPA but rather a whole range of financially
related law.

We aren't really going to have reliable information until it is signed
by the President, becomes actual law and has been distributed to the
public and even then we will have to guess how the courts will rule on
various cases before we can really get the whole case law on the new
changes.
__________________
This Sigline updates constantly! Try it!
Creditwrench - The lethal weapon against debt collectors
ceo@creditwrench.com
Creditwrench Blog
(405) 616-7901 - CALL ANYTIME
(405)-227-9423 - CALL ANYTIME

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~