[RICKY]

MONTANA & SUI JURIS,


FIRST, I LIKE THIS LETTER YOU HAVE DONE, SUI JURIS.& IT IS&INCLUSIVE AND DIRECTIVE.& LOOKS GOOD TO ME IN MY INFANT STATE OF THIS PROCESS.


MONTANA, ARE YOU THINKING OF SENDING THIS LETTER&AS A FIRST STEP TO A CRA WITHOUT PREVIOUSLY SEEKING REMEDY FROM THE "LENDERS"?


RE:


<FONT size=1>I think that a letter like this could save&me a step.& What I mean is that this kind of looks like a first letter and a second letter rolled into one.</FONT>


TO ME THIS LOOKS LIKE A&FIRST LETTER TO THE CRA AFTER HAVING TAKEN SPECIFIC STEPS FOR REMEDY WITH THE CC COMPANIES AND OTHER ALLEGED "LENDERS".& RE:& SUI JURIS' PARAGRAPH:


<FONT size=1>Not only do these records <U>remain</U> unverified, but I<U> have tendered a good faith payment to each of the creditors in question</U>. Even though the requested verification has not been provided by any of these creditors, in the attempt to satisfy their demands and limit further damage and defamation to my person, <U>I have discharged these debts in accordance with Public Policy. </U></FONT>


<FONT size=1><FONT size=2>SUI JURIS, AM I RIGHT IN UNDERSTANDING THAT&YOUR INTENTION FOR USE OF THIS NEW LETTER IS TO BE A FIRST LETTER TO THE CRA AFTER ALL THE COMMUNICATION WITH THE "LENDERS"?</FONT>



</FONT><FONT size=1><FONT size=2>I AM& FOLLOWING A PATH THAT IS PUTTING THE CRA ON NOTICE FOR REPORTING ANY "UNVERIFIED INFORMATION" ABOUT MY ALLEGED DEBTS FIRST. &THIS IS NOT A LETTER&THAT I THINK WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO SEND THEM UNTIL I'D CONTACTED THE CC COMPANIES, WHICH I HAVEN'T DONE YET.LIKE JERSEEE, I'M GOING TO USE&THE PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE AND LET THEM DO AS MUCH WORK FOR ME AS I CAN GET THEM TO DO.</FONT></FONT>


THOSE ARE&MY THOUGHTS ON THIS LETTER.& ANYONE ELSE?


RCKY