A devious idea

You know, after writing that big essay I feel guilty dipping in again here, but I will with one additional short comment (and I'm past the 15 minutes editing window, or else I would include this with the other).

What if it was your child who was advocating document forgery on a computer bulletin board with a bunch of adults? Wouldn't you hope that at least somebody would point out to your son or daughter that this type of tactic is illegal and could result in jail time? Would you want your child to hang out on a board where he would actually be encouraged to commit felonies? I think as adults we are obligated to act responsibly when interacting with other people's children online.

Doc

 

EXCELLENT posts, PsychDoc! You are being a true "parent" and if Matty's mom knew, I'd think she'd be grateful.


Matty, what you're suggesting - apart from being flat out illegal - wouldn't even work logistically. There is a totally separate address for creditors than for consumers, they have to have a - as LKH pointed out - a creditor ID, and if a creditor is able to subscribe to the service, more often than not, the creditor is able to do all comminucation via e-mail/online and not via snail mail. Especially if this is a creditor that is anything other than some local, one store mom-and-pop establishement. If you got caught (and it would be so easy) - they would follow up on prosecuting you.

As far as "bad v. badder v. baddest" being a relative thing and older posters' inablity to set examples, that's exactly why I don't lie when dealing with creditors and CRAs.

Matty, tell the truth and use the law to the fullest extent possible to protect your rights and get what you need, but be honest and be legal - and you won't have to worry about what ethical/legal path you're heading on.

 

I think we should refrain from debating this idea(albeit a crazy and illegal one). It is wrong ethically, morally and legally for anyone to forge a letter on someones letter head to remove negative items from a credit report. However it is also ethically, morally and legally wrong to dispute items you clearly know is your own and is accurate because you want it removed from your credit report. But of course no one on this board has ever done that. I think the "devious idea" is a foolish idea that is bound to land whomever uses it in the slammer. However, I will refrain from speaking to it's moral, legal or ehtical implications because there may be some out there who would oppose what is openly discussed on this board on the same grounds. I think that what makes this board unique is the free flow of ideas (some unorthodox, but so what). What's even greater about this board is that there is so much good information that you can feel free to choose to use methods you feel comfortable with and ignore the rest.

 

Doc, I read your post and you have made several good points. Maybe I was misplaced in stating that credit repair is "technically" illegal. I don't dispute the carnivorous tactics of the collection agencies or the blatant uses that the CRAs verify our information. The CROA was designed to help people who had been wronged by the system - the reaging of accounts, multiple tradelines being added for one account, etc. These I understand, and wholeheartely agree with a consumers right to delete INACCURATE information. No one should have to go through this forever.

The problem I see on a daily basis, is people are disputing ACCURATE information. I can pull up post after post of persons applying for credit and wanting to get the inquiry deleted (I'm not referring to unpermissible inquiries such as those by companies who never stated that they would pull our report.)
Also of people who know they owe, don't care to pay, but want the tradeline deleted anyway. Posts referring to getting BKs deleted, judgements deleted, liens deleted, etc. Sure, there are a few that contain inaccurate information, but 9 times out of 10, the courts report accurate information and there is a reason that it is there.

I don't dispute that Matty's idea is wrong and illegal, and if he gets caught he will be spending his 18th birthday in jail. Nor do I agree to even try such a tactic, but a 17 year old is after one thing - being cool. We have all been there. At that age, we don't care if it's right or wrong (legal or illegal) as long as we are cool for doing it. I believe alot of Matty's suggestions come from reading this board and boards like it. They (teenagers) don't understand the acts or rules involved (did any of us at 17?).

Should you reprimand someone, when what they are doing is harmful or illegal, to themselves or others? Of course.

Should we be selective in what is considered "bad" and "badder"? A question we have to answer ourselves.

I, usually, don't like disputing what is morally right or morally wrong because it usually leads to threads where both parties believe that what they feel (and are doing) is right. But, I felt that Matty was getting the brunt of our anger where some people, who come and go, we don't even blink an eye - although the suggestions that they make and the deeds that they are peforming are clearly an indication of law breaking (and I wasn't referring to morals). I'm going to end my crusade here because I don't want this to be a disruptive thread with name calling and such. There are those that will disagree with what I have stated and that is fine, I was using my right to free speech.

Dani

 

Robin, I'm going to take your advice and make this my last post in this thread. It's clear to me that you think that following federal statutes like the CROA, the FCRA, the FDCPA, and even paying attention to the FCBA and relevant state laws constitutes a breach of ethics. I think you're wrong of course.

Doc

 

Accurate information should always be able to be proven. Companies who want to report their credit experience with me by law must be able to verify the information they are reporting.

If a company does not keep records needed to prove what they are reporting it's not my fault. If a company chooses not to respond to a dispute or does not respond within the legal time limit that's also not my fault.

 

OK, I'm not done. LOL.

Robin, I've changed my mind about acquiescing to your suggestion that we simply shut down discussion. Instead, I'm going to suggest something else. I'm going to suggest that we NOT allow this thread to be hijacked into a discussion about the ethical merits of FCRA-based tradeline disputes. That is not what's on the table here, and there are other threads where we can mentally stimulate ourselves regarding ethics. Instead, something far simpler regarding the law is at stake. A 17-year-old young man has visited this board and has advocated something that every single person here (so far) has agreed is illegal and personally dangerous to the young man. Even worse, when that was pointed out to him, he comes back with a two-pronged argument: 1) that other people do illegal things (and I believe we've demonstrated the legality of disputing allegations on credit reports) and 2) that he thinks it's still a great way to get rid of inquiries (which is has been roundly refuted by Marie, LKH, marci, among others). Both arguments are attempts to avoid the more basic problem: a kid is advocating lawlessness here.

I would contend that Matty has received good treatment in this thread. If he comes back around in a year with such illegal suggestions, he'll go the way of others who have advocated similar felonious tactics: pbm will likely ban him at that point for breaking the Creditnet Terms of Service. Instead, Matty gets to stay and hear an impassioned debate regarding right and wrong. I believe that can be ultimately very helpful to him at what is apparently a critical time in his moral development.

Doc

 

There are times when I am really sorry for expressing my opinion on this board. This is one of them. I respect the various statutes that allow all of us dispute items that we feel are incorrect, inaccurate or both. I respect the freedom to find answers and execute them to my benefit. I also respect other peoples opinion though I don't necessarily agree with them. It amazes when people on this board get offended by the simple act of one person sharing and expressing their opinion. You would think we have all developed a thicker skin that that. I generalized this statement because it has happened more than once. I am here as most of us are to obtain and share info that can help to further my credit restoration campaign. From now on I will post replies only to those posts that I feel are relevent in this regard.

 

Robin, reread the thread. I'm happy to disagree with you, and I do disagree with you heartily. And, of course, I'm not offended because you have said nothing personal about me upon which I would take offense. Likewise, I've not made it personal either. We simply disagree. I think you're wrong, plain and simple, and that's as far as it goes. I respect the powerful way you write, and I respect you personally. Still, we disagree. As far as taking personal offense goes, I'm wondering if perhaps you aren't the one feeling offended. (I hope not.)

Doc

 

I just have to jump in. This whole board (and almost every other one on credit) regularly congratulates, encourages and promotes the removal of accurate negative information. Is it illegal? Nope, you are using the existing laws to your advantage. But you are technically lying when you remove accurate information, even if the creditor has not proven the information is accurate. You are saying the info is not accurate when it is.

Morality is a completely dictated by each person's point of view. I have used lots of the methods on this board to help myself out. Do I think it is immoral (I really hate that word) to remove accurate negative information from your credit reports using legal loopholes? No. But let's call a spade a spade. Just my thoughts. Please don't throw stones.

 

I'm not sure I'd agree that I am "technically lying" when I challenge an entry on a credit report. (Actually, given my swiss-cheese memory and the agedness of some of these items, in some cases I honestly don't remember.)

What I am saying is "prove it." It's the same thing a criminal defendant says when they stand up in court and plead "not guilty." Those are the words prescribed by the law to mean "I contest these charges and I mean to defend myself."
The law lays out very specific wording for different kinds of challenges to credit-report entries, and you use that wording or lose any chance to defend yourself.

Exercising the pitiful scraps of "rights" given to debtors in this country is no more wrong than exercising your protections under the Bill of Rights.

There's a bright line, however, between exercising rights granted to YOU and infringing on other people. Going back to the original post.....If what you are proposing is to impersonate the original reporting agency, I can easily see where they'd face repercussions IF you could get anyone to take your attempt seriously.

First, the company loses ground in exercising THEIR rights to protect their assets. Second, they could lose credibility with the CRAs. ("I don't know about Phil's Bait Shack. They keep sending me contradictory letters.") Third, if it's a collections bureau you're damaging their relationship with their client. And fourth is the ever-present chance that an innocent third or fourth party could be blamed for YOUR misdeeds.

I know, I know....lonely violins playing for the poor credit bureaus and collection agencies. But the entire system is set up on a tension between competing sets of rights - like a clothesline strung between two poles. Knock down either pole and the entire line collapses, and then you have chaos.

I'd like to see things go in the other direction - more formal rules and protections set up, and more ways to hold the CRAs accountable for what they do.

 

FYI..I now have a copy of a UDF. This is not something you can fake, so those of you with that tiny devil on your shoulder shake it off now..lol.


L