New CRA Letter, Feedback Please:

[suijuris]

Here is a new letter to the CRA's that I have been working on today. I would like to get feedback on this, to see if anyone has comments or suggestions.

Here goes:

================= PAGE 1 of 2 =================

EXPERIAN
PO Box 9595
Allen, TX 75013

Via Certified Mail No.: 0000000000

Subject: Notice of Inaccurate and/or Unverified Records.

This notice is written pursuant to 15 USC, chapter 41, section 1681.

This is your notice to correct the status of the records below to “Paid in full”, or to delete these records from your system entirely. Not only do these records remain unverified, but I have tendered a good faith payment to each of the creditors in question. 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, I have discharged these debts in accordance with Public Policy.

You are now in possession of certified proof that these purported debts have been satisfied in full accordance with the law. Anything less than immediate correction or deletion of the above referenced records will leave me no choice but to file suit for damages.

You should be forewarned that other Credit Reporting Agencies have responded to my earlier letters by removing these unverified records. This stands as evidence that you have not and can not verify the accuracy of these records, but yet you intentionally cause me harm by continuing to store and transmit them to the public. If the other Credit Reporting Agencies can not verify these records, then neither can you.

I will believe they are verified ONLY when I see verification myself. Should you receive verification from any of the creditors in question, immediately forward copies of said verification to me. Failure to do so stands as your admission that no verification has been provided, and that no verification exists or ever existed. It also stands as your acceptance of full liability for any damage caused to myself by your continuing to report negative information that cannot be verified as accurate.

You are in receipt of notice under the authority of the Fair Debt Reporting Practices Act and the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. Storing and/or transmitting the aforementioned inaccurate, and/or unverified records after verifiable receipt of this notice establishes that you have conspired with the aforementioned creditors to use interstate communications in a scheme of fraud by using threat, intimidation, deception, and enticement to coerce a person to commit some act creating a legal disability where none exists.

Respectfully,
Sui Juris

================= PAGE 2 of 2 =================


CREDITOR NAME, ACCOUNT # 0000000000000
You are reporting this account as “charged off and overdue”.
You are instructed update the status to “Paid in full”, or delete the record entirely.
See attachment “A” for proof that good faith payment was tendered to and accepted by the creditor.


CREDITOR NAME, ACCOUNT # 0000000000000
You are reporting this account as “Paid/Account charged off”.
You are instructed update the status to “Paid in full”, or delete the record entirely.
See attachment “B” for proof that good faith payment was tendered to and accepted by the creditor.


================= ATTACHMENTS FOLLOW =================


The attachments will consist of copies of the Affidavit of Mailling, USPS Green Card, and CPN used to discharge the purported debt.

Please let me know any thoughs you may have on this strategy.

Regards,
Sui Juris

You know, it's funny that you posted this because just yesterday I decided that I am no longer scared of "my" credit report.& With that realization, I have decided to pull "my" credit and start dealing with the negative remarks.& It might seem a bit odd that I was so scared of what it will say since I am willing to do things like go into a court room with all of the theives there surrounding me.& I guess that the brainwashing that we have all received can be harder to get over at some times than others, and in my case, until I had my preemie baby, my credit score was a source of pride for me as it was better than perfect.


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.& If I was working at the CRA I would definetey give this to my surpervisor.


I usually send out a first letter that has a little less information and see what there initial reaction is before I send anything further.& However, this looks like a good letter to start with.


Thanks for your time and willingness to share it.


Sara-Jane

[suijuris]

Sara-Jane,

I would not use this as a first letter unless you only have a few negative items. If there are a lot, I would first request verification of each one. Generally, the debt collectors will all be deleted and maybe even a few credit cards.

Also note that this letter includes proof of payment... not sure if you have tendered a good faith payment or not...

Sui Juris

[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

[suijuris]

Ricky,

I recommend that you first seek rememdy with the purported creditor(s).

Everything I send to a purported creditor is preparation for my communication with the CRA. Since the debt is not valid the only reason I even read and respond to their communication is to create a foundation when dealing with the debt report later down the road.

After all, what power do they have other than to create false records on our debt report? Were it not for that I would throw all their communication in the trash.

Sui Juris

[rushpat]

So, this letter would be the final letter to get the CRA to remove the entry.

This would be after the initial letter demanding verification (did you change the form generator to add the USC titles that Jersee used in his initial letter to the CRAs?).

So, I think I smell a new process coming about now. See if this sounds good:

- Send letters to the CRAs demanding verification of a particular entry (credit card for example). This would include the title 15 USC remarks to demand verification and assure that it is not dispute.
- Send follow up letter (if necessary) demanding removal of unverified entries.
- Send this letter as final communication to remove entry (if necessary).
- Send VOD to debt collection agency for CC debt once they start calling. Indicate in this VOD that 3 CRA's have removed unverified entry in the report and that if they (debt collector) can't verify it, using the guidelines in the VOD, then they are involved in fraudulent attempt to collect on an unverified debt and that this constitutes mail fraud and they are using the mail system to do this.

Does this sound like a workable plan?

Comments please...

[rushpat]

Also, I've read that any attorney that purchases a debt for collection purposes is purchasing evidence which is a misdemeanor. I saw a state regulation on this. Is there a federal regulation?

Also, could selling the debt to an attorney constitute selling evidence? Could that be a crime too?

Could we put the current debt collector on notice that if they sell this account they could be involved in a crime?

My mind is whirring with ideas....

[ThinkingWolf]

SuiJuris:


"If the other Credit Reporting Agencies can not verify these records, then neither can you."


I am a complete novice here but I don't believe that you can say&this as fact - as it seems you are. Symantics, logic... is it not possible that the particular agency you are addressing has just a slightly different verification process, or perhaps an "improved" process. How can you know exactly, right now, what their process does or does not do?


Very minor, but it seems that all this correspondence should be as precise as practical, no?


ThinkingWolf

[suijuris]

Originally Posted by rushpat

Also, I've read that any attorney that purchases a debt for collection purposes is purchasing evidence which is a misdemeanor. I saw a state regulation on this. Is there a federal regulation?

Also, could selling the debt to an attorney constitute selling evidence? Could that be a crime too?

Could we put the current debt collector on notice that if they sell this account they could be involved in a crime?

My mind is whirring with ideas....

Sure, this can be done. But we are trying to deal with the CRA at this point, not the Debt Collector.

Sui Juris

[suijuris]

Originally Posted by ThinkingWolf

SuiJuris:


"If the other Credit Reporting Agencies can not verify these records, then neither can you."


I am a complete novice here but I don't believe that you can say this as fact - as it seems you are. Symantics, logic... is it not possible that the particular agency you are addressing has just a slightly different verification process, or perhaps an "improved" process. How can you know exactly, right now, what their process does or does not do?


Very minor, but it seems that all this correspondence should be as precise as practical, no?


ThinkingWolf

Verification. Confirmation of correctness, truth, or authenticity, by affidavit, oath, or deposition. Affidavit of truth of matter stated and object of verification is to assure good faith in averments or statements of party. Blacks 6th Ed.

The point is this: Based on the definition of verification, we know that none exists. Do you really believe that the credit card company or debt collector sent an affidavit with their signature, verifying the debt? NO!

The idea is to let the know that WE KNOW no verification exists, that the other CRAs know this and have corrected their records, and that the recipient of this letter is the last man standing, so to speak. Do they really want to assume liability for information none of the other CRAs will report?

Maybe it would be better to change that sentence to:

"It is beyond me why you would risk suit by reporting inaccurate and/or unverified information - information that other Credit Reporting Agencies have determined to be inaccurate."

It is important that you guys remember that this is just an experiment. I am not recommending that anyone send this letter or anything like it. But I will be sending it and try to keep everyone abreast of any developments.

Regards,
Sui Juris