ya'll are acting funny I think we can all agree that ethically, we may find a "technicality" in our tradelines that allows us to challenge them and that (if we decide to embellish) then we may take a risk... although I believe most have decided that the risk was outweighed by the reward. Even if the risk isn't spelled out in the FCRA (and I also agree it's not in there) it certainly would be hard to press the issue in court, take the oath, then admit you lied on your initial disputes. I'd be curious if, when LizK showed up for the hearings... did they have any copies of your letters? In one case they could quote the guy's letters (and I read on an earlier case something about microfiche copies ) Anyway that's not my real point of this post, so onto productive stuff: While Bill is a bit circular in his posts, he has put out an idea that we can focus on to help us and I sincerely appreciate it. For the last 24 hours or so I've been looking up a ton of laws and cases. The cases are interesting. (Cases against CRAs). The FTC one issued on Fri has an interesting statement in it about how the CRAs certainly understand the impact of info on our reports and how it affects FICO scoring (which to me sets up harms)... but keeping on track: Some US Circuit court cases win based on "negligent or willful noncompliance" with the FCRA. One in particular lost because the initial dispute was worded "please correct every negative on my report"... or something like that. The CRAs seem to argue different sides depending on the case. One CRA actually argued that a correction isn't valid if initiated by the creditor (if a creditor tries to correct its own records if the consumer hasn't first done a dispute). Also it said the CRAs weren't liable if the creditor does a paper correction and then tape reports the crap again... food for thought. So I started making notes of what was winning vs losing just in case. BUT: I'm intrigued by the idea of taking the scope up. I used to debate in high school and in college. We used to be able to take the most innocuous little harm and we could laughingly always "logically" lead it to nuclear war. Always. So I started daisy-chaining statutes. Eg: if creditor A misreports then it's a violation of x and Y, if CRA B doesn't correct it then it's a violation of Z, if credit grantor uses this misinformation and it harms me then it's ABC harm to me etc etc. The standard fight: but a shotgun approach. Still on their ground, still within their scope. But still much more of a fight than most people put up. And I have now 5/6 very true gripes. But the last 1 I just want off and it's a big one. So I've been planning a strategy b/f even doing another thing. I even noticed that the CRAs got the lawmakers to add a "no defamation" clause in the FCRA EXCEPT if the CRAs violate specific sections (being willful or negligent noncompliance)... nice. The law tries to keep the scope narrow which protects them and limits us. I've certainly gotten aggressive about pursuing creditors and furnishers of info b/c it's the fastest, more permanent way to remove stuff. And they really don't want a fight either. who does. BUT Bill is taking it one level up and I commend the idea. I'm still figuring it out: BUT it's changed HOW I'm thinking. And for that I am very grateful he joined this board and I hope he stays. HAVE you guys caught the basic gist of what he's saying? My ideas of his ideas are this: 1. Dispute to the CRAs that you want info validated (Not FCRA validated but something else) but don't give a reason. Don't bother standing on the ground of the FCRA b/c it's their law (and after rereading it 3 times last night I agree... though I did find a few technicalities I didn't know... we'll discuss those later) 2. They likely will refuse to investigate, or they will investigate and say you want your info verified (Which you didn't say... they'll try to keep you in the bounds of the FCRA b/c that's all they know) 3. If they refuse to investigate and say you have to provide more info, you can refuse based on your 5th ammendment right (I've been reading other sites regarding filing a tax return and the possible criminal implications: which is why you might be able to take the 5th on your tax return.. b/c it COULD lead to criminal investigation) but that's another matter. I think the big point he's been making (that we argued against) is that it COULD lead to criminal prosecution (and that's the CRUX for pleading the 5th). Giving them info Could incriminate you... which as we all know, can happen if you talk to them and make a wrong statement ("But I wansn't late on this account"... "SO, you admit it is your account you just weren't late"...) DUH, You just incriminated yourself. 4. IF they refuse to investigate or correct the info, I guess you do have them on a FCRA violation... but I think that's not where he's going I think he WANTS them to refuse and ask for more info... so you refuse and say that, since providing info could lead to you self-incriimination, you plead the 5th. 5. Here's where I think it gets interesting: if they say you can't plead the 5th or that they want you to give up your 5th ammendment rights... then they're violating your constitutional rights (and I kindof like this approach by the way) b/c how many TRW. TU. Eq lawyers are constitutional law specialists???? Now, pushing this issue would be interesting but I think we see where this is going. Course, I am also not a constitutional law specialist so I'M more comfortable with small claims court, FCRA violations et al. And I tend to think that suing them for anything will get some action. But this does raise an interesting point since I'm having trouble with 1 entry and I will not lie... I never have lied to them (especially if I know I'm leading them down the lawsuit trail purposefully). I always find a legitimate gripe. But I'm running thin as my disputes progress... I also think we could, in theory, fall back more onto the "complete" aspect of the reports (so far that's my only fallback position for my bk7 public record) but it's still a FCRA position... I guess I'm taking from this all a mindset of me being the aggressor, not the "victim" of credit reporting agencies. How can I catch them screwing up and thus force my position and get my credit corrected faster? Anyway, I just wanted to put this out here so maybe we all could start thinking productively. We have some VERY smart folks on this board... so keeping that in mind, let's start fresh and think: 1. What rights of ours can they violate? 2. What traps can we set for the CRAs/ creditors so that they purposefully violate our rights (either FCRA or other)?