Well I am impressed and I wish you all the luck in the world. Please keep us posted on the outcome.
src="http://i.imgur.com/LEYWe.png">Starting Score: TU 610 EQ 655 - 8/2010
WTG!!!! Great Job!!!
Please do keep us posted. A monumental decision may be made that will effect thousands of consumers and it's all because of your bravery and chutzpah! 
We all need to fight the good fight.
Fascinating. And, BTW...you now have more real life courtroom experience than a lot of attorneys.
Maybe it's a calling.
@virgo wrote:
Sorry for the delay with providing an update.
This will be quite long. Just hope I remember everything. I'll section it off so my rambling doesn't junmble everything.
For starters, they did appear. I figured they because of what my complaint was about. They sent a customer service supervisor from Santa Ana. The bailiff instructed all the parties to exchange info and also sign in that you agree to have a pro-tem hear your case. We both agreed. I also agreed to go to mediation before going in front of the pro-ten. Small claims ejudicators don't have the time or the patience to allow for excessive bantering so if anything, you get a feel for their mindset and if it doesn't work you can still go before the court.
Our so called private and confidential mediation was taken out into the very public hallway where we were split up. This is par for this courthouse. As I am led to a bench the defendant handed me an evelope and said "here is a copy of your credit report". I maybe wrong, and I'm hoping Robert chimes in on this, but I felt that they just violated another law; Permissable Purpose'. I did not request nor give my permission for them to pull my credit report. The mediator saw my expression, told her why I felt that way and she said "well, she's trying to help you". The fact that mediators are not suppose to opined is for another arguement, another day. The defendent later said " she had to for small claims". My position is, if she had pulled the report and kept it internally to make notes and such that would be different. The report she handed me, I felt had nothing to do with small claims and she's not going to use my report to defend their case without a subpoena.
Robert, do you think this violated permissable purpose?
Moving on, so I'm in the middle of outlining my complaints to the med. when the defendant comes over to hand me her cell phone. While we were separated she gets my bank on the phone and wants me to give permission for them to talk to her. I thanked the woman on the phone and hung up. I then asked the defendant where she got her nerve from. The bank is the account that Experians credit monitoring is flagging as a suit/judgement and thirty days late. She refused to accept the emails from the bank and the print out from Experian direct claiming she didn't know how to read the monitoring system info. Did I mention this woman was a supervisor?.
Well the hallway caucus proved futile. One mediator took the defendant into a private so she could phone Experian. The other mediator went to get the mediation supervisor as this appeared to be over their heads. The supervisor asks me in the private/public hallway what exactly I want. I told her the bank errors fixed, and the lien removed or they can pay me. She told me the defendant was on the phone fixing the bank errors.
This going back and forth lasted an unheard of 3 hours. When the super came to get me she had a copy of the FCRA handbook the the defendant had given her. I said that's nice but do you have the California Civil Codes. In California, the civil code goes hand in hand with the FCRA and if the defendant is going to argue rules she might want to look at this. CCC 1785.25
I was taken into the room to continue the slide. Presumably, the defendant already fixed the bank errors but claimed she had no controll over Experian Direct.
Experian Direct is under the same corporate umbrella as Experian. The med. gave me the defendants card so that I can contact her for updates with the reporting system errors.
On to the tax lien. The forum already knows what my position is; i.e. Furnishers of Info... The defendant kept repeating that they have a right to report and that they can only verify and not remove accurate information. I told her the information was placed by you so yes YOU can remove it.
This went round and round at nauseum and I finally had enough and we went in front of the judge.
I intentionally did not remind het of the other issues and I'll explain why later.
I knew going in that this could go either; if I could just get a judge to interpret the 623 and 1785.25 the way I did I might have a chance. It went quickly and smoothly. At first though, the pro-ten had some trouble wrapping his head around my position but he let me prattle on.
Again my position-If a credit bureau is going to procure my public record information for the express purpose of supplying to a third party, they they should be bound by the same laws. And he finished it for me by saying that the law doesn't say that the credit bureau and furnishers can't be one and the same. He then ask about the 30 day notice and that although he himself had an issue in the past, he never got a notice. I told him that that was a violation and he could have pursued it.
He got silent for a few as he read and then still reading, he said "if I were to rule in your favor, I would be the first court in the country to do this. I didn't mean to say it outloud, but I said Precedent.
The whole time the defendent kept repeating 605 which had nothing to do with the issue. She also tried to imply that the record did not belong to me but the court.
The judge said he had to read on it at length but I'm optimistic.
The reason I didn't bring up the other issues is because if she doesn't follow through I will re file and you can only do that if it wasn't brought up in open court.
The one thing that I feel will benefit the forum is how do you sue in small claims when the defendent is out of state? By them obtaining your public record, by whatever means, they have now done business in your county and therefore satisfies venue. The defendent showing up set that precedent in motion.
Well, I should get the outcome in a few days and I will be sure to post.
Thanks for listening.
FYI, there's no precedential effect to a defendant showing up to defend against a case. What you've presented is an argument for proper jurisdiction and venue, but both personal jurisdiction and venue can be waived, so there is no precedent created by Experian sending someone to defend against the claim.
Best of luck in all this.