A devious idea

I can't imagine they'd treat it any differently than any other dispute, no matter where you mailed it or what kind of paper it was on.

Heck, the infamous "SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES" letter should show that.

 

Matty,

I'll assume you're still on codeine or whatever for your oral surgery

 

Matty,

After the problems you've had re: lying about your age, it appears you've not learned a thing.

 

Ok - then I nominate you to try, since it was your idea.

 

I don't think it is worth taking the chance. They normally don't send those by mail. It is done by UDF which is faxed and you have to know the code and the creditors ID number.

 

You know, I'm all for creative disputing, but here's a tip for better living:

Never fake somebody's stationery and then use it. If you are caught (and if you ever get into the frame of mind where you actually implement such things, then you ultimately will get caught at some point down the line), then you will have committed multiple felonies and might actually go to jail. Nice, educated, otherwise-upstanding individuals actually do stints in prison from time to time. Not only that, as was previously pointed out, that wouldn't even be effective.

There are so many legal ways to legally repair your credit, and those are the tactics we learn from one another on this board. Even pbm has mentioned from time to time that discussions which would support illegal activity (whether it's a campaign to harass a CA in some organized fashion, or whether it's advocating file segregation, or advising people to acquire a second social security number or EIN in order to get credit, etc.) are not tolerated on Creditnet.

Matty, if I was standing next to you right now, I'm afraid I would ask the same question LKH asked.

Doc

 

Matty...

It is not the same as disputing as "not mine". You are suggesting someone impersonate a creditor. That is, in a roundabout way, comparable to identity fraud.

 

The way you answered my last posting really tells us a lot about your capacity for realistically weighing right versus wrong. You may be worse off than I previously might have guessed, viz.:

Equating a "not mine" defense with outright impersonation is like equating speeding with auto theft.

When you get to college, ask a philosophy professor about the pitfalls of absolutism. If you can internalize his answer, then you'll be helped greatly.

Good luck to you.

Doc

 

Gee, I should have been a "psych doc" lol.

 

I've tried it, it doesn't work...

 

I've actually had creditors send me letters confirming deletion of an inquiry... and I forwarded the letter to the bureaus. Result : nothing.

the creditor has to send a special for (a Universal Data form) to the bureaus, to a special address.

On that form, it has their subscriber identification number and all the places to fill out what needs to be added, deleted etc.

And I dare say that what you suggest is fraud. So in other words, don't do it.

Nice creativity Now channel it to legal methods

 

I'm sorry, but can someone explain the difference to me in the meanings bad, badder, and baddest. How do you rate them?

Bad - Disputing accurate inquiries off your credit report.

Badder - Disputing correct chargeoffs, BKs, etc. off your credit report.

Baddest - Using a company's letterhead to dispute accurate information from your credit report.

Is this how it goes? I'm not trying to defend the kid's rationalization or way of thinking, but we read daily on forums, all across this Net, ways to screw creditors and delete information off our reports. That's why there is such companies as Lexington & Junum, although credit repair is (technically) illegal.

We cast stones at a 17 year old? Shouldn't we be teaching by example? Or is one bad better than another bad? Fraud is fraud, isn't it?

Dani

 

Dani, I've become a fan of your posts here, but I'm going to tell you why you're dead wrong on several fronts with this one.

1) You contend that credit repair is illegal. I would suggest that you read the Credit Repair Organizations Act. In fact, credit repair is legal, and the CROA spells out the conditions under which credit repair can be undertaken legally. "Organizations" are regulated by the CROA in certain ways, but three groups are specifically exempted from all provisions of the act: a) individuals doing their own credit repair; b) lawyers doing credit repair on behalf of clients; and c) non-profit agencies doing credit repair. Anyone else must abide by certain rules prescribed by the CROA. In any event, how did you decide that credit repair was "technically" illegal as you put it?

2) Note that the FCRA specifically spells out a procedure for disputing tradelines appearing in credit bureau files. If you believe that an item is innaccurate, obsolete, or otherwise in error, federal law invites you to challenge the item. It doesn't guarantee you'll win, but it does protect your right to dispute. The FTC has also held that CRAs are not government or quasi-governmental agencies, so therefore their files are not legally sacrosanct. In other words, a credit report is simply a list of unproven allegations made by one citizen against (or in support of) another citizen. At any time the report's contents may be challenged. The FCRA does state that if a citizen believes that an item is COMPLETELY ACCURATE, then he or she doesn't have the right to challenge that. However that judgment call is left to the individual consumer to make.

3) Note that the FDCPA specifically spells out the method for consumers to challenge claims made by collection agencies, and they call that process "validation." Collection agencies are well recognized for using so many underhanded techniques that the government had to finally step in and regulate the mostly-nasty business of collections. Consumers are invited to essentially police the activities of collection agencies by requesting validation anytime a collection agency makes a demand. The FTC has held that CAs are obligated to maintain complete records and proof of the debts they attempt to collect; otherwise, they haven't done their homework, and they must not run their businesses that way. Collection agencies who aren't able to prove their debts should either change the way they run their businesses or forgive the debts and go out of business. The intention here is not to give consumers a free ride when debts are sold to collection agencies. Instead, the intention is to clean up the collections business which runs rife with illegality. One day, as collection agencies gradually run their businesses better, "validation" will not result in debts being forgiven because, by then, the whole collections business will have pulled itself out of the gutter and will be conducting business in the way the FTC and consumers would like them to do.

4) There is no debate that document forgery is a felony, and no one -- especially young people who may choose to try such tactics -- should be encouraged to engage such legally dangerous practices. Dani, there's a world of difference between conducting FCRA-prescribed tradeline verifications or requesting FDCPA-prescribed CA debt validations or conducting credit repair in accordance with the CROA ...versus... engaging in blatantly illegal acts. Unlike the type of credit repair discussed on this board, there is no federal law that describes the right way to do what Matty is suggesting vis-a-vis faking letterhead, etc.

No one is "casting stones at a 17 year old," Dani. Unfortunately, Matty has a well-established record of admitting to doing dishonest things related to credit and finances. Alongside such admissions he usually proclaims something like, "Gosh, don't treat me like I'm a criminal! I'm not stealing cars! I don't beat up people! I'm responsible!" I certainly believe that Matty is not a bad person who willfully hurts others, and I'm assuming that he's a great student, a kind-hearted person, and an all-round good guy. That's not his problem. His problem is that he has set himself upon a path that may one day result in his being incarcerated for any variety of white-collar crimes related to finances. That doesn't mean he will do those things. But I do firmly believe -- and call me old-fashioned if you like -- that adults have a responsibility to speak out especially when they see a minor publicly admitting (or even advocating in this case) blatantly illegal acts related to false documentation that land adults (can anyone say Michael Milkin? Enron? Arthur Anderson?) in jail every single day.

Doc

 

Let us know what prison you end up in so we can send you care packages.


Really, really bad idea.


L