Product: Debt collection

Your agency should investigate XXXX XXXX The Credit Bureau of Jonesboro ( CBOJ ), XXXX Court for the XXXX XXXX XXXX Arkansas, XXXX. 

The case was tried to a jury and the jury returned a verdict that CBOJ committed XXXX violations of the FDCPA against me ( See Judgement of the Court ). 

Thereafter, the agency attacked the manner I prosecuted the case and argued that I knew too much about the FDCPA, and the law in general, and that their conduct should be excused, because I was rude and set them up making them violate the law. 

It is extremely note worthy that XXXX XXXX XXXX, owner of CBOJ, is Chairman of the Board for the Arkansas XXXX XXXX XXXX Collection Agencies, and for over a 15 years http : //www.asbca.org/brd_staff/index.html I colorfully commented on the action on message boards, so XXXX XXXX attempted to have the case against him dismissed. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX | XXXX XXXX -- JONESBORO XXXX XXXX. - A federal judge in Arkansas on XXXX XXXX ruled that dismissal of a consumer 's lawsuit against a debt collector is not proper because although the consumer posted messages on a website " in an odious manner, '' valid First Amendment concerns exist ( XXXX XXXX XXXX Credit Bureau of Jonesboro Inc., No. XXXX, XXXX. XXXX. ; XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ). 

CURRENT VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW This agency reported [ communicated ] a disputed debt to the credit bureaus without first validating the debt ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( W.D. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( " Reporting to credit bureaus is a communication within the FDCPA ) ) Banks v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) ( " rejecting the argument that reporting to the credit bureau was not a communication to the consumer and was not debt collection activity '' ) ). 

Did not send me my rights under the FDCPA to dispute and demand validation 5 days after their initial communication with me ; Continues to communicate with me in connection with the collection of the debt after my refusal to pay which places a XXXX & XXXX against them. 

and is illegally poisoning my credit report. 

Reporting a disputed debt to the credit reporting agencies without first providing validation/verification is a clear violation of the FDCPA. See, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX ( " '' The court has learned through its work on countless FDCPA cases that threatening to report and reporting debts to CRAs is XXXX of the most commonly-used arrows in the debt collector 's quiver. Consistent with the view of the FTC-and consistent with the views expressed in XXXX, XXXX, and Semper-the court finds that XXXX was engaged in " collection of the debt '' in violation of XXXX ( b ) when it reported XXXX 's disputed debt to the CRAs before sending verification of that debt to XXXX. " ) ). 

The Credit Bureau of Jonesboro is communicating with me, via my credit reports, and attempting to collect a debt from me, via my credit report, after I have disputed and refused to pay the debt. After a consumer refuses to pay a debt the debt collector may not communicate further with that consumer in an attempt to collect the debt. XXXX 

" A debt collector may still violate the FDCPA, even when following an authorized procedure under the law '' See, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX " It is not legal to violate XXXX part of the FDCPA in an attempt to comply with another part. '' XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) If CBOJ will target a consumer and violate their rights, AGAIN, after that consumer has previously sued them and prevailed, then their conduct toward consumers who your agency is well aware does not have the knowledge and means to defend themselves should be aggressively investigated