CRA responses to verification request

[Jerseee]

Tora,


I understand your position.& I was there once myself but, from my experience and my past successes, what i have just given you is a key to catch them in that game that they like to play and the one you don't want to play.& Of course they know the code but how many agencies you know actually will honor the code before they get their hands slapped by the courts?& how many agencies will try to steam roll you with codes that support their position but, never address the truth of the matter?&


The method of thinking that i have just given you&is how you stay in honor and keep them to the code and catch them with their hands in the cookie jar.& If they keep ignoring your notifications, that is more evidence for you.& So it&may behoove you not to entertain the thought of this way of thinking.with this thought process, I have cut down on my responses and increased& my results.&


these are just words of wisdom and my experience on how to shorten the game and get some results.


good luck and have fun

Jerseee,


How does your&statement (below)&by itself,&keep them within&the code verses the code itself?


"I cannot confirm or deny, accept or reject any alleged debt that is/has not been verified by your organization. This is not a dispute nor a refusal to pay an alleged debt. To dispute this alleged debt would nullify my due process and put me into dishonor. Therefore, certified verifcation is needed so that I may stay in honor and immediately satisfy the alleged debt or address the potential fraud. This is in accordance with USC 15 Chap. 41."

[Jerseee]

Tora,


Good question and a great opportunity for others to learn how I think and get results using this method of acceptance.


First, one must read the statement carefully.& This statement is a response to them (CRA or debt collector) after they have dishonored my first notice to them to verify the debt according to the code.


Secondly, this statement reinforces my first notice, reminds them of the notice again (honor) and refuses the offer of completing a dispute form while trying to show good faith to resolve the alleged debt.


third, it mentions the "potential fraud".& this alone gets them to thinking twice.& Also give them a hint that you may know something that they didn't think you knew.


So, I ask you...if you were a debt collector and received this from me, what would you do?

[RICKY]

BIRD,


DO YOU MEAN PREPARE IT AND HAVE IT&NOTARIZED?


RICKY

"I cannot confirm or deny, accept or reject any alleged debt that is/has not been verified by your organization. This is not a dispute nor a refusal to pay an alleged debt. To dispute this alleged debt would nullify my due process and put me into dishonor. Therefore, certified verifcation is needed so that I may stay in honor and immediately satisfy the alleged debt or address the potential fraud. This is in accordance with USC 15 Chap. 41."


&


<FONT size=3>I would probably&respond the same way I had been responding...that the items could not be investigated because you did not tell us specifically why the information was inaccurate. </FONT>


<FONT size=3></FONT>&


&


&



&

[Bird]

Ricky:


You can send an affidavit if you want.&


I don't know of any other method to consumate an affidavit other that having it notorized.Nevertheless, the affidavit must be taken before an officer having authority to administer such oath--such an officer is a notary.


You would need the notary for when you sign the affidavit, if you choose to create one.


Bird

[Jerseee]

Tora, (remember, I am responding as if you are a CRA)

"I have read your response and there seems to be a misunderstanding. I did not say that the information was inaccurate or accurate. I need certified verification; therefore, it is your organization's responsibility to provide me with accuracy or inaccuracy of the information. Furthermore, these reasons are not a justification for your organization not to do an investigation. You are now flirting with willful non-compliance of the code. Your actions and ineptness may or already has damaged my commercial person's ability to move in commerce.
It is your organization's charter to ensure accurate and valid information is being reported. Your organization's actions or lack thereof, may potentially defame my commercial person publicly. I will give your organization another opportunity to obey the code (USC 15, Chp. 41)."

Now Tora,

that response is rather long-winded but, I want to try to capture the essence of keeping them tied to the code. You must exhaust all resources before running to court. If there is no other way to access your due process through these means--then you have all those correspondences as evidence of their willful non-compliance.

having fun yet?

i would like to add to jerseee's reply with this that i learned from victoria joy:


we are all being tested by the system.& we must answer the test question with an appropriate response or we fail the test.


to put the CRAs on notice via the code cite &amp; certain language answers that "test" question.& once informed, they know you know and must proceed accordingly.& if they proceed anyway, either one of two things happened:& 1)& we did not do something we should have (most of the time); 2)& "officer" acts out of authority to proceed and becomes personally liable for his/her actions, etc., and will get nailed to the wall for it.


B)& jon

[Ice]

Instead of: "I will give your organization another opportunity to obey the code (USC 15, Chp. 41)."


How about: "I am confident that your organization&will (or wishes to/is determined to/seeks to/etc.)&adhere to the law as specified in USC 15, Chp. 41."


The first sentence is a more direct threat... the second implies a threat without being a threat.& See the difference?


&

[Jerseee]

Thanks Ice,


i got caught up in the heat of the moment.& LOL