A new method of attack

Not much to elaborate on here that I can think of.
XCOM simply sent me a check for one penny using paypal to do so. Since I purportedly owed them money but was demanding validation of the debt by EMCC INC, the only reason I could think of for them sending me such a rediculous amount would be to establish a legal and contractually binding relationship where none otherwise existed. That would be the only reason I could think of. In any event, I would never cash a check for such an idiotic amount under any circumstances.

I suppose that there could be some other explanation for the one penny check, but I couldn't care less what the real reason was, I would not cash it regardless of the reason.

Do you have any reasonable explanation other than what I have assumed, correctly or otherwise? Food for thought???

Bill Bauer
bbauer1@netzero.net

 

Capitalistic?

Maybe also opportunistic, because if you are going to win at this game, you also have to take full advantage of every opportunity and often even must create your own opportunities to attack.

 

What's your point here, Anthony?

Businesses such as the credit bureaus and even most collection agencies pay good money to be members of the BBB just for public image. They want no part of the BBB bad mouthing them and so they take extra pains to keep their good name with the BBB and they usually answer BBB complaints with much greater alacrity than they would with an individual complaint.

Spamming the credit bureaus with useless dispute after dispute over the same adverse report certainly seems to me to be the Neanderthal way to go at it while using the services of agencies specifically designed to help the consumer in constructive ways would seem to me to be the "Joe DiMaggio" approach you mentioned.

Or am I missing something here?

 

The whole point is not what is theory, but what works.
As proof of the pudding, if my "theories" as you call them are so far off base and according to you, unlikely to work in actual practice, then why is it that I just now (10:00 A.M. Sunday, May 6, 2001) recieve a call from a Mr. David Schwartz of EMCC INC telling me that they had not only sent me a letter voiding the purported indebtedness by FED EX, but also had sent demands to all 3 credit bureaus by FED EX demanding that their reports be deleted from my records??

Why then did Mr. Schwartz state that he sincerely apologizes for any inconvenience he or his company may have caused me by reason of their false and fraudulent claims of indebtedness and that they were working very hard to get this removed from my credit reports and would I please consider their sincere efforts to remove before filing lawsuits against them?

Why is it that two other collection agencies have also taken the same approach? Why did one of them actually reach into their own pocket and pay just over $3900.00 to the original creditor rather than face the consequences of their actions?

It is simply a case of what works does so because it is solidly based upon the law and a thorough knowledge of the law, it's principles and it's practical application, not upon some wild-eyed and baseless course of action having no end result other than the need for more spamming techniques.

There is no such thing here as a "false sense of security" instilled in consumers here since every step that is taken by me can and very well might lead to the creditor or collection agency going to court and filing motion for summary judgement against the debtor. I always make sure that those who follow my suggestions know that and are well aware that such might very well be the end result and that in the event the creditor or collection agency does proceed to court, the end result will most likely be that their motion will be granted unless they have solid evidence which can be presented as defense in which case they need to obtain legal counsel and proceed to jury trial with their defense. In the final analysis, absent solid and legally sound defense, it is much better to let the motion for judgement be granted without protest and then go back to court and win that way which I also teach how to do and I do that for free, but also insist that they obtain the assistance of legal counsel in doing so even though by the time they get to court, they will have a very thorough understanding of what they are doing and why. They will understand it step by step.

My websites contain all the forms they will need, many examples of cases they can look up that have been filed by others who have followed my advice and have always won their cases against long time professional attorneys. There has never been a failure in court or out by anyone who has followed my suggestions in over 500 cases. Each and every one resulted in victory for the pro se litigant. Some have been against governmental entities and they received large damage awards.

Can you say the same?

If not, then please refrain from criticizing that which you do not fully understand.

 

Anthony:
For what itâ??s worth folks, real leverage isnâ??t something created but utilized; seldom calling for the need to â??attackâ? oneâ??s credit opposition.

Something I miss here too, Anthony. I must really be ignorant or stupid or something, so maybe you can enlighten me.
If one sends a letter demanding verification or validation of an adverse report on one's credit bureau report, is that not an "attack" upon one's creditor and/or his report?

If one sends a demand for proof of indebtedness to a creditor or collection agency is that not an "attack" upon
that creditor or collection agency?

Would you please please be so kind as to explain just exactly how one would go about attempting to have an adverse report removed from his credit bureau files if he does not "attack" the report in some way, shape or form? Or do you as an officer of the court advocate that we write to the credit bureau(s) and simply ask them to remove?

Like this maybe????
Dear Credit Bureau.
I don't like the report made by Sleazebag Collection Agency about me and my payment history. It is most derogatory and I would certainly appreciate it if you would remove it. It also makes it hard for me to obtain more credit.

Thank you for your kind consideration in this manner

Sincerely yours
Joe Sixpack.

Is that the way you would advocate going about the process of getting something removed from ones credit bureau files?


More to the point consider thisâ?¦ A Neanderthal and Pro Baseball player each wield a club, yet one applies tactics with finesse while the other flails away with little to no (actual) control.

Aha! I think I see the problem here. A certain Daniel Webster informs me that a club may either be an organization or it may be a weapon used in hunting or in warfare while a baseball bat is a tool used in playing the game known as baseball.

While the two have somewhat similiar appearances, they are not one and the same thing.

If a Neanderthal, a "person" living in an era of history when civilization as we know it today was non-existant were to find a modern day aluminum baseball bat, he would most likely put it to use doing the only thing he knew how to do, which would be a totally improper use of the item. He would obviously suffer the consequences of his error the first time he attempted to use it on a sabre toothed tiger since it's lack of weight would have little effect upon the intended victim.

The pro baseball player would also suffer the consequences of his error in the event he attempted to use the club known to and used by the Neanderthal since it would most definitely lower his batting averages and be likely to result in his untimely dismissal from the team. His coach would most likely consider him to be a Neanderthal to say the least.

Using the wrong tool for the job usually ends in disaster and quite often in personal injury to the user.

Still the latter believes heâ??s on to something, but the more sophisticate mind maintains the edge.

Quite true, Anthony. Did you believe you were on to something?

 

I was just wandering because I am a lttle afraid of getting debt validated by the collection agencies.

That is the very thing that is so dangerous about the validation letters put out on this board all the time. You might actually get the validation you sought. That would be like getting your head handed to you on a platter, now wouldn't it? And most especially if you didn't know what to do to keep it from happening. That information is never put out on the message boards, mostly because those who promote the now infamous validation letter got it from somewhere or someone else who also never thought about that possibility.

After all, if you don't do something to keep from getting your head handed to you on a platter, it's going to happen sooner or later, isn't it?

So what one needs to know is how to keep that from happening, what to do to be certain that it does not happen and how to respond in the event that it does happen.

You always have to be ready with the next shot across the bow and finally how to deliver the shot below the water line that sinks the boat in order to win the battle.

You can always spot a dangerous idea like that because if there is no follow up plan, then it's a bad idea. Nothing is ever an end in and of it's self.

 

I'm not trying to imply anything at all, LK.
Neither am I trying to scare anyone. Lots of people are buying "credit wrench" which is not a program at all, and all of them seem quite happy with what they are getting.

The simple fact is that the validation letter posted here so often and formulated originally by 'Due Process' works. It has worked with both of my collection agency situations and it got two of my 6 charge offs with original creditors to delete.

There should be no question as to whether or not it works. It is only a question of how it can be made to work better. One of the problems is that too many people misunderstand it's real intent and purpose and therefor wrongfully jump to the conclusion that it is a magic bullet that will put an end to their problems once and for all. When it does not, they think that the only answer is to take the approach that if one bullet didn't kill the rat then maybe a hundred will.

It is not an end unto itself, but rather must be followed up with appropriate action depending upon what happens, if anything, once the letter is sent and received.

The other 4 are still investigating, even though everything is already deleted and blocked from reappearing with the credit bureaus.

Getting items deleted from ones CRA files is only half the battle, and while quite important, does not cure the problem of the original debt which still looms in the sometimes not too distant background. In otherwords, the rat is not dead until you can get him skinned and hung up to dry without getting bit in the process. Credit wrench does all of that. It kills the rat, skins him and hangs him out to dry and does it without having to riddle his pelt with a few dozen validation letters. One to the credit bureau and one to the creditor/collection agency is all it ever takes

why keep chewing the same cabbage over and over again? Makes no sense.

 

A question for you LK.

I just ran across a download I printed out from the due process forum dated Sunday 25 February 2001 which is the validation letter as it existed at that time. It is basically a one page letter and only has about 5 or 6 blanks on it for the creditor/collector to fill out.

That which you espouse is much, much longer and has a lot more blanks that you require them to fill out. It appears that you have modified the original quite a lot. Is that so?

Have you added a lot to John Gliha's validation letter?