[BIG TIME]

"verification is only intended to "eliminate the ... problem of debt collectors dunning the wrong person or attempting to collect debts which the consumer has already paid." S. Rep. No. 95-382, at 4 (1977), reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1695, 1699. There is no concomitant obligation to forward copies of bills or other detailed evidence of the debt."

What I'm looking for is the actual opinion letter by whoever it was who said all that. It gets taken out of context a lot.

[hannah]

It is quoted in this FTC opinion letter attached. The actual text in the 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N., I do not have access to at home. West's publishes it.

[BIG TIME]

Thank you sweetie!

[BIG TIME]

Meh. I know that FTC opinion letters are not binding, but trying to figure out who said that and in what context has been a pain.

It also doesn't look like it actually said "...is only intended to..." The "only" in there is what I have a problem with.

[hannah]

Originally Posted by BIG TIME

Meh. I know that FTC opinion letters are not binding, but trying to figure out who said that and in what context has been a pain.

It also doesn't look like it actually said "...is only intended to..." The "only" in there is what I have a problem with.

What the FTC is saying is what the intent was behind those sections. Intent behind the statutes is what drives many court opinions however.

And no, in most circuits FTC opinion letters are not binding like in mine, the 4th.

[JayinGR]

Give me exactly what you need and I'll pull it off of West for you.

[BIG TIME]

PR gave me a link in a PM so I could read it.

http://www.acainternational.org/imag...sfdcpafcra.pdf

That's where I first found it and I wanted to compare the ACA's notes with the actual text. The word "only" isn't in the original.

[hannah]

Jay, he's looking for United States Code Congressional and Administrative News. Copyright Year: 1977. In year 1977 look for 1695 and 1699.

[BIG TIME]

PR sent me a link to another site that has what I was looking for.