CREDITWRENCH
Creditwrench teaches the secrets of the debt collection industry and how to defeat their abusive practices without lawyers. We know how to win!
Thursday, July 08, 2010
Debt collector movie
The following movie was put out by Kaulkin-Ginsberg of Inside Arm and is their attempt to show how debt collectors are in fact good guys and not the bad guys most people view them as.

Kaulkin-Ginsberg is supposedly the collection industry's spokesman advocate and have been promising this type of video campaign for a very long time now but this is the first such video we have seen.




With the long history of negativism projected by the debt collection industry it is going to take a great deal more such videos than this little blurb to do any good.
Friday, May 28, 2010
THE SAGA OF JOHN AND TAMMY.
THE SAGA OF JOHN AND TAMMY.
This is a message that was posted on a forum called Myrland's methods.

This message reveals an almost complete story telling how well such methods as are preached on various internet message boards work. The mistakes that John made tell a tragic tale indeed. Of course John never had a chance in local court to begin with. But he believed what dangerous internet teachers told him and failed
to do his research as a result. He learned the lessons of scam artists instead of the lessons of the law which he apparently may have abhorred.

Obviously he cared nothing for the protections afforded him by the law and instead favored looney tunes played for him by various fruitcake musicians.


 



--- On Thu, 5/27/10, John Corsentino <eightx01@gmail.com> wrote:

From: John Corsentino <eightx01@gmail.com>
Subject: [MYRLANDsMETHODs] Any Advice Please?
To: MYRLANDsMETHODS
Date: Thursday, May 27, 2010, 9:54 PM



After having three instances of Identity Theft in the past three years which threw our finances into a quagmire, I requested the information in the letter below from all of our creditors to try and get a handle on what was or was not ours. Several of our creditors were quite helpful and we are on good terms with them to this day. However, many of them, especially Bank of America, refused to help us in any way. In fact they began to make things worse almost as if they were the cause of the Identity Thefts and had something to hide. They fought us tooth and nail every step of the way until I just stopped making payments on the two accounts which were in my name alone.
 
The first thing I noticed was that they had made an entry on my credit report, which I expected, for non payment. The kicker was that now all of a sudden my wife's name had been added to the larger of the two accounts as a co-holder of the account. When we saw this I renewed my efforts many times over to get them to show something with either mine or hers signature's as proof of ownership of the account.
 
After almost a year of not hearing from them or getting a reply from my requests, they filed a complaint in Court, I suppose hoping I would ignore it and they would win by default. Well I answered the complaint line for line and requested a motion to strike an affidavit from some bank clerk stating he was personally familiar with this account and had the paperwork right in front of him. This shut them up for 5 or six months until I received a very large packet of paperwork containing Request for Documents, Request for Admissions, and Interrogatories all in one package and requiring that I have them back in 20 days. I dashed off a registered letter to the courts and the Lawyer stating I would need 20 days for submission of each request.
 
After I finished submitting in the 60 days I haven't heard a peep from the lawyers concerning this account. Now I receive the letter from the lawyers that they have a judgement against me for the smaller of the Bank Of America accounts. A judgement which I never had a chance  to fight because it was done behind my back.

I just received a notice from the collection attorney stating I had a judgment against me for $8700.00. I had never received a summons or notice of an upcoming court date. I still have not received anything from the courts after a month.

 

I had received a collection notice from the lawyer stating that they had been hired to collect on this account. I sent them a letter (see below) which they never replied to. They just continued to proceed with collections. I watched my credit report for almost a year and saw them make inquiries and also add unpaid account entries as if they were the creditor and were not receiving payments on account as agreed.

 

Ultimately I received the Judgment notice out of the blue with them never having answered my requests below or letting me know about a court date coming up where I could fight them.

 

How do I go about fighting them now in court? I now have found out that they have put a lien on my house and property which caused us to not get a refinance which we would have otherwise have had with no problem.

 

We have been given the royal shaft and do not know what to do. We can't afford the lawyer we were going to hire with the refinance. Can you give us any advice? Everything we have done so far has been pro se  which I believe means without a Lawyer.

 

John and Tammy, Richmond, VA

 

------------------------------------INITIAL REPLY LETTER MAILED TO LAWYER---------------------------------


CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT # 1234 5678 9123 4567

 

Our Name

Our Address

Our Address

 

Lawyer Name                                                                                                 February 03, 2009

Lawyer Address

Lawyer Address

RE      NOTICE OF ERRONEOUS PRESENTMENT AND DEMAND FOR FULL DISCLOSURE– OUR  NAME, ACCOUNT # 1234 5678 9012 3456

Dear Sir/Madame:

 

I recently received your presentment regarding the above listed account.  Please regard this letter as a formal Notice and Demand that your presentment is being returned without dishonor as erroneous and incomplete, and demand is hereby made for full disclosure with respect to the above listed account per UCC 3-501(b).

 

You are hereby noticed that BANK OF AMERICA has failed to provide either adequate and valuable consideration, or full disclosure of the material terms and conditions of the alleged agreement, particularly with respect to the circumstances surrounding the original issuance of the credit involved in this matter and the nature and extent of any finance charges assessed on the above account. 

 

This Notice and Demand should not be perceived as a refusal to pay any valid debt.  However, based upon your conduct and the erroneous and incomplete nature of your presentment, I have questions regarding the validity of the debt you are alleging is due and owing. This letter is not a request for “verification” or “validation”, but a demand for proof of claim, such as may be proven by a certified copy of an original agreement, with my signature, and documentation specifically naming your company as a person entitled to enforce a commercial claim against me.

John, Validation and proof of claim are one and the same thing yet you denied that therefore giving them the right to claim you never
demanded validation as you are allowed to do under the law provided that you do so within 30 days of your receipt of their initial contact with you. If their first (initial) contact with you was by phone then you should have used my 18 questions to ask debt collectors every time they call
. Each time you should have ended the call by demanding that they validate the debt. If their initial contact with you was by letter then you should have demanded validation immediately. Instead you denied that you were asking for validation. And the bit about commercial claim? If the credit cards were issued in your name(s) then it is a consumer transaction and not a commercial transaction

 

In order to determine the validity of your presentment under UCC 3-501(b), at a minimum I will require certified copies of the following:

1.  Your proof of claim related to the above listed account,

2.  any and all instruments in your possession that bear my signature that you believe support your claim per UCC 3-401(a)(1),

3.  any and all account and general ledger statements or accounting reports related to compliance with Financial Accounting Standards 95 & 140 as to the disputed account,

4.  any and all tax forms issued and filed with respect to the above listed account, including, but not limited to 1099 C & 1099 OID. 
John, there is no requirement whatever that they answer any of those questions.

 

Until such time as you are able to provide the demanded information and resolve my concerns please consider this as a formal dispute regarding all charges, finance charges, penalties and other fees related to the above noted account.  In the event that you are unable or unwilling to properly respond to this notice and demand, please send me a billing statement or other communication indicating a zero balance due on the subject account.  Your failure to do so will constitute a fault per UCC 1-201(b)(17), and may require my filing 1099 A & 1099 OID forms with the Internal Revenue Service as appropriate.
No John, not UCC but under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act if the "presentment" was from a 3rd party debt collector. UCC only helps if the transaction involved some type of transaction where a surety or collateral was required. Automobile or real estate purchases. That type of thing.

 

Please understand that all communications, acts or omissions on your part may be used in litigation regarding your non-compliance with state and federal tax and consumer protection laws.  Your failure to respond to this Notice and Demand within ten (10) days will be construed as a waiver of any and all claims regarding the above-listed account, and will act as a confirmation that no further action may be taken on your part with respect to the subject account. 
John, that is about the funniest thing I've heard all day.

 

Respectfully,

 

 

John & Tammy xxxxxxxxxx
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY OF HENRICO

                                                                                                                                                                 ;                                                       FIACARD SERVICES, N.A. FKA BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. (USA) Plaintiff,

 


v.

JOHN xxxxxxxxxxxxxx and Tammy XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 

Defendants.


AT LAW NO. 085CL09894844-00


 


                   INTERROGATORIES

 

REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR INTERROGATORIES

 

COMES NOW the Defendant, appearing pro se, to reply to Plaintiff’s Request for INTERROGATORIES

for the purposes of the pending action only, in writing, within Defendant’s request for extension of  February 19, 2010 allowable time due to the financial difficulties of Defendant in procuring materials to complete request.

In addition, Plaintiff requests the completion of three documents; 1.Request for admissions 2.Request for Production of Documents 3.Interrogatories, and states that all three should be answered within 21 days. This would seem an unreasonable request by Plaintiff. Defendant requests a more reasonable time frame to submit all three documents which would be a total of 63 days. Defendant also prays the court for recognition of Defendant’s Disability which further extends the time needed to prepare documents. Defendant John  XXXXXXXXXX is sometimes in a semiconscious state for days at a time due to severe chronic pain and heavy pain medication.
Sorry John but they don't care about your pain ans suffereing. If the law says you have to respond within 21 days then you have to respond within 21 days. End of the argument.

 

All allegations of Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions are denied unless expressly admitted herein.

 

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, by counsel, and pursuant to Rule 4:8 of the Rules of

the Supreme Court of Virginia, propounds the following Interrogatories to the Defendants, to be

answered in writing and under oath within twenty-one (21) days of the date hereof.

INSTRUCTIONS

As used herein, the term "document" shall mean any and all types of recorded information, including, but not limited to, originals, typewritten, photostatic and other copies of correspondence, contracts, agreements, notes, minutes, deeds, documents, telegrams, mailgrams, work papers, memoranda, pleadings, intraoffice memoranda, expense vouchers, expense records, ledgers, books of account, receipt books, reports, invoices, statements, bills, printouts, papers, diaries, personal calendars, messages, books, letters, photographs, pictures, financial records, notebooks, recordings, sound recordings, film and other data compilations from which information can be obtained.

As used herein, the term "communication" shall mean any and all written communications between two or more persons, or oral communications, including telephone communications, personal conferences, meetings or other exchanges between two or more persons.

As used herein, the term "person" shall include natural persons, proprietorships, corporations, public corporations, municipal corporations, state governments, local governments, governmental agencies, political subdivisions, partnerships, groups, associations or organizations.

As used herein, the terms "describe" or "identify" when used in reference to a natural person, shall mean to state his or her full name, present residential address, present business address, present business title, and present business affiliation, or, if the above are not known, such information as was last known by defendant.

Note: This is a communication from a debt collection. The purpose of this communication is to collect a debt.

 

The terms "describe" or "identify," when used in reference to a document, shall mean to state the type of document (e.g., letter, memorandum, contract, etc.), its date, author or authors, its present location, including identification of the file or files where it may be found, and the name of the custodian or that individual responsible for the maintenance of such document or file.

As used herein, the terms "and" and "or" shall mean and/or.

As used herein, the singular of any work or phrase includes the plural, and the plural includes the singular.

These Interrogatories are continuing in nature, so as to require you seasonably to file supplementary answers if you obtain further or different information prior to trial.
I really like those a lot John. I need about 30 more similar descriptions and clarification. Notice how they snuck in their mini-miranda on you? Didn't see that one coming, did you John?


INTERROGATORIES

 

As used herein, the term “ defendant” shall include persons known as “John L. Corsentino” and “Timi L. Corsentino.

As used herein, all wording presented in italics and underlined shall be representing the words of defendant.

 

 

INTERROGATORY #1

State your full name, present address, date of birth, Social Security number, name and address of your employer, the full name of your spouse, his/her Social Security Number, and his/her employer.

If answering on behalf of the Defendant corporation, state your full name and present address, office held with the Defendant corporation, Defendant's Federal identification number, and full name and address of the officers and directors of said corporation.

ANSWER:

Objection:

Interrogatory No 1 is objected by the Defendant on grounds that it seeks information that is invasive of the Defendant’s privacy, that it is personal, confidential and private, and is irrelevant to any issue in this action, information not calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence, and would result in the disclosure of information where such disclosure would violate the privacy rights of the Defendant.

 

Again: Denied. Since this Interrogatory is another instance of Plaintiff’s ongoing violations of Defendants rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act §816. FDCPA SECTION 809 Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g], Plaintiff has blatantly ignored defendant’s requests for account validation within the 30 day period described in section 809(b) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g, and continued to aggressively pursue collections in violation of Section 809(b) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, See Defendants Exhibit “A”, even after several instances of ID Theft which culminated in a letter from The United States Attorney’s Office. See Defendants Exhibit “B”,

Defendant is should not be required to reply to yet another illegal violation of the FDCPA. Because of defendant’s lack of knowledge due to this violation, defendant cannot formulate an opinion at this time.

 

 

INTERROGATORY #2

Identify all persons known to you to have knowledge of any facts pertaining to matters set forth in this cause of action and for each such person, give his/her address and a synopsis of the nature, extent and basis of their knowledge of these transactions.

ANSWER:

Denied. Since this Interrogatory is another instance of Plaintiff’s ongoing violations of Defendants rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act §816. FDCPA SECTION 809 Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g], Plaintiff has blatantly ignored defendant’s requests for account validation within the 30 day period described in section 809(b) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g, and continued to aggressively pursue collections in violation of Section 809(b) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, See Defendants Exhibit “A”, even after several instances of ID Theft which culminated in a letter from The United States Attorney’s Office. See Defendants Exhibit “B”,

Defendant is should not be required to reply to yet another illegal violation of the FDCPA. Because of defendant’s lack of knowledge due to this violation, defendant cannot formulate an opinion at this time.

Sorry John but you can't just deny it. Your response failed to properly respond and was not pertinent to the demand. You need to get real.
 

INTERROGATORY #3

State the name and address of each witness you may call to testify, either by way of deposition or in person at the trial of this case. State whether each witness is a factual or expert witness. If any witness is an expert, state his/her area of expertise, his/her qualifications as an expert in such area, the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, the substance of the facts and opinion to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion.

ANSWER:

Denied. Since this Interrogatory is another instance of Plaintiff’s ongoing violations of Defendants rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act §816. FDCPA SECTION 809 Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g], Plaintiff has blatantly ignored defendant’s requests for account validation within the 30 day period described in section 809(b) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g, and continued to aggressively pursue collections in violation of Section 809(b) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, See Defendants Exhibit “A”, even after several instances of ID Theft which culminated in a letter from The United States Attorney’s Office. See Defendants Exhibit “B”,

Defendant is should not be required to reply to yet another illegal violation of the FDCPA. Because of defendant’s lack of knowledge due to this violation, defendant cannot formulate an opinion at this time.


Sorry John but you can't just deny it. Your response failed to properly respond and was not pertinent to the demand. You need to get real.
 


INTERROGATORY #4

If your response to any of the Requests for Admissions was a denial, or less than a complete admission, state all facts upon which you base any such denial or failure to admit.

ANSWER:

Denied. Since this Interrogatory is another instance of Plaintiff’s ongoing violations of Defendants rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act §816. FDCPA SECTION 809 Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g], Plaintiff has blatantly ignored defendant’s requests for account validation within the 30 day period described in section 809(b) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g, and continued to aggressively pursue collections in violation of Section 809(b) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, See Defendants Exhibit “A”, even after several instances of ID Theft which culminated in a letter from The United States Attorney’s Office. See Defendants Exhibit “B”,

Defendant is should not be required to reply to yet another illegal violation of the FDCPA. Because of defendant’s lack of knowledge due to this violation, defendant cannot formulate an opinion at this time.
Sorry John but you can't just deny it. Your response failed to properly respond and was not pertinent to the demand. You need to get real.


 INTERROGATORY #5

Give the specific factual basis which supports your defense.

 

Denied. Since this Interrogatory is another instance of Plaintiff’s ongoing violations of Defendants rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act §816. FDCPA SECTION 809 Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g], Plaintiff has blatantly ignored defendant’s requests for account validation within the 30 day period described in section 809(b) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g, and continued to aggressively pursue collections in violation of Section 809(b) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, See Defendants Exhibit “A”, even after several instances of ID Theft which culminated in a letter from The United States Attorney’s Office. See Defendants Exhibit “B”,

Defendant is should not be required to reply to yet another illegal violation of the FDCPA. Because of defendant’s lack of knowledge due to this violation, defendant cannot formulate an opinion at this time.

INTERROGATORY #6

Do you admit indebtedness to the Plaintiff in any sum? If so, what sum?

ANSWER:

Denied. Since this Interrogatory is another instance of Plaintiff’s ongoing violations of Defendants rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act §816. FDCPA SECTION 809 Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g], Plaintiff has blatantly ignored defendant’s requests for account validation within the 30 day period described in section 809(b) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g, and continued to aggressively pursue collections in violation of Section 809(b) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, See Defendants Exhibit “A”, even after several instances of ID Theft which culminated in a letter from The United States Attorney’s Office. See Defendants Exhibit “B”,

Defendant is should not be required to reply to yet another illegal violation of the FDCPA. Because of defendant’s lack of knowledge due to this violation, defendant cannot formulate an opinion at this time.

 

INTERROGATORY #7

State all facts which provide the basis upon which you have answered Interrogatory No.6.

ANSWER:

 Denied. Since this Interrogatory is another instance of Plaintiff’s ongoing violations of Defendants rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act §816. FDCPA SECTION 809 Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g], Plaintiff has blatantly ignored defendant’s requests for account validation within the 30 day period described in section 809(b) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g, and continued to aggressively pursue collections in violation of Section 809(b) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, See Defendants Exhibit “A”, even after several instances of ID Theft which culminated in a letter from The United States Attorney’s Office. See Defendants Exhibit “B”,

Defendant is should not be required to reply to yet another illegal violation of the FDCPA. Because of defendant’s lack of knowledge due to this violation, defendant cannot formulate an opinion at this time.

 

INTERROGATORY #8

Identify all documents which you believe support your defense to this action.

ANSWER:

Denied. Since this Interrogatory is another instance of Plaintiff’s ongoing violations of Defendants rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act §816. FDCPA SECTION 809 Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g], Plaintiff has blatantly ignored defendant’s requests for account validation within the 30 day period described in section 809(b) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g, and continued to aggressively pursue collections in violation of Section 809(b) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, See Defendants Exhibit “A”, even after several instances of ID Theft which culminated in a letter from The United States Attorney’s Office. See Defendants Exhibit “B”,

Defendant is should not be required to reply to yet another illegal violation of the FDCPA. Because of defendant’s lack of knowledge due to this violation, defendant cannot formulate an opinion at this time.

 

FIA CARD SERVICES, N.A. FKA BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. (USA)

 

 

 John XXXXXXXXXX

Tammy xxxxxxxxxx

 

By________________________________

Pro se

 

 

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

 

I hereby certify that on this        day of              ,            , a true

Copy of the foregoing reply to Interrogatories

was

Mailed by certified mail to the Plaintiff xxxxx and xxxxxxx/

xxxxxxxxxxx at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Street, XXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXX, xxxxxxxxxx XX

 

 

                                                                                                                           _________________

                                                                                                                             John  xxxxxxxxxx

 

John L. xxxxxxxxxx

Tammy  xxxxxxxxxx

7 xxxxxxxxxxxx Road

Mxxxxxxxxxxxxx, VA

 


John, that's really funny. And at the same time it  is also sad. You didn't respond to any of their interrogatories. You just spouted off the sme dumb response every time. It is a wonder the court didn't sanction you on top of it all. On the other hand, they just ignored your ignorance and filed for a summary judgment and you didn't object to that either. I really feel sorry for you, that you had to learn your lesson the hard way. Now there is nothing you can do but run and hide. Now you need to learn how to protect your assets and fight back that way and you had better do that real fast because the next thing that will happen is that they will demand garnishment proceedings and grab all the money you have in any bank account or any bank account on which your name appears whether it is your money or someone else's. They can come after any assets they can find including vehicles, tools, furniture and household items. You need to learn what they can and cannot do to you under both federal and state laws. You need to go to LAWDOG.COM WEB SITE
and learn from what they tell you.

I could have helped you if you had found out about me and my methods before all this happened to you. I can help you now but not nearly as well as I could have if you had became one of my students early on. As it is now you have to face the music. I don't face the music, I lead the parade. You could have too but now all you can do is hide and I can teach you how to do that too. But to get help you have to renounce all those silly ideas about UCC, 1099-OID, presentment, dishonor, A4V and all the rest of that nonsense.

Bill Bauer
Creditwrench
Creditwrench web site
(405) 237-2174
(405) 227-9423



__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___


Saturday, March 13, 2010
Ghost writers in the sky
Ghost Writers in the sky.
An old judge went riding out one dark and windy day
Upon a bench he rested as he went along his way
When all at once a mighty herd of red eyed lawyers he saw
A-plowing through the ragged door and up the cloudy aisle

Their faces were still on fire and their shoes were full of crap.
Their horn rimmed glassess were black and shiny and their hot breath he could feel
A bolt of fear went through him as they thundered through the sky
For he saw the lawyers coming hard and he heard their mournful cry

Yippie yi Ohhhhh
Yippie yi yaaaaay
Ghost writers in the sky

Their faces gaunt, their eyes were blurred, their shirts all soaked with wet crap.
He's riding hard to catch that writer, but he ain't caught 'em yet
'Cause they've got to ride forever on that bench up in the sky
On judges and lawyers snorting fire.

Creditwrench is the author of Ghost writers in the sky.
(LOL)

As they ride on hear their cry

As the writers loped on by him he heard one call his name
If you want to save your soul from Hell a-riding on our range
Then judge change your ways today or with us you will ride
Trying to catch the Devil's herd, across these endless skies

Yippie yi Ohhhhh
Yippie yi Yaaaaay

Ghost writers in the sky
Ghost writers in the sky
Ghost writers in the sky
Friday, March 12, 2010
Cunningham and Steven Katz.
Cunningham and Steven Katz.

Senior Member
 
Location: Oklahoma City, Ok.
(405) 237-2174
Re: any experience with Dell.com debt verification?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGreen View Post
So, anyone can appear on someone's credit report as an OC and report bad credit in someone's name, and has zero accountability requirements to any questioning? Pure and simple? They can simply ignore all debt verification requests, legally?

This sure seems to fly in the face of the intent of FCRA and FDCPA to me. But please confirm, is this so?
Yes, it is possible. Let's take a hypothetical situation. Let's suppose that I want to pull your credit report or put either an adverse or a positive report on your credit. I can do that if I join the credit bureaus and pass their membership requisites which are at least close to the following.
(1.) I have a store or an office in some office building.
(2.) I have a business telephone with a yellow pages listing.
(3.) I will submit at least 500 or more reports a month.
There may be other requirements that I'm not aware of however.

If I can't meet those requirements I can contract with someone else who can meet those requirements to allow me to piggyback my reports onto theirs. That way I can submit however many I want until such a time as I can meet the credit bureau requirements.
Theoretically speaking, I can set up a corporation and sell you a plan to send 12 or more reports to the credit bureaus, one a month, claiming that you are paying a loan I made you of whatever amount you want me to report. Say $100,000 for instance and that your payments are always on time and as agreed. You will pay me say maybe $300 a month to do that for you.

There have been many companies who have set up corporations to do just that and have succeeded in doing so. One of the most notable who at least claimed to be able to do that sort of advertised here for a short while was a company set up by Brandon Callier and Craig Cunningham of El Paso, Texas. They were also selling Authorized User trade line accounts back then.

They had formed a New Mexico non-profit LLC and were doing business out of El Paso, TX without having registered their LLC with the Texas Secretary of State. They also had not registered with the Texas State Attorney General's office as a credit repair organization and were operating out of Callier's home without having a City of El Paso business license.
Callier-Cunningham sued me for over a million dollars and among their ludicrous claims they said I had stalked Callier's wife and damaged their business reputation. Of course I had not done any stalking of anybody and even if I had they still could not bring that charge because only a U.S. District Attorney could bring such a criminal charge. The Texas State AG apparently agreed with me and their illegal credit repair scam was quickly put out of business and their web site suddenly disappeared from the internet about the same time. Needless to say, Judge Cardone also put their silly federal case out of business too once she learned the facts. (LOL).

Craig Cunningham recently got a big write up in the Dallas Observer telling how he now lives in a ramshackle house in Dallas and makes a killing filing lawsuits against debt collectors. Problem with that is that a Pacer search soon reveals that about 35 cases have been filed in Texas federal courts by persons named Craig Cunningham but only about half could possibly belong to this Craig Cunningham and there are other people in Texas named Craig Cunningham. That fits with the Observer story saying about 18 cases have been filed by the Craig Cunningham of the story. I've downloaded the summaries of all of them and it appears that he might have gotten a settlement in one case but lost all the rest. Of course, he usually attempts to file in Forma Pauperous so he don't have to pay filing fees. Quite a character to say the least.
Somehow another fellow named Steven Katz also got his picture prominently displayed just below that of Cunningham. Katz is denying any association with Cunningham but with a photo of him sitting behind a desk in a room filled with books and junk of various kinds including a radio of some kind that appears to have fallen off the overcrowded desk and hanging there by it's cord it is indeed hard to imagine how such a photograph would appear in a public newspaper if Katz had not agreed to its publication and most likely signed a press release in order for it to be there. If Katz had not posed for the picture and agreed to its publication he could easily sue the paper and win a huge damage award because upon publication in an article such as the Cunningham article the viewing public would automatically assume that the two must be closely associated.

Birds of a feather flock together type of association.
There have been some comments on both the ACA board (insidearm) and on Katz's board about the article but Katz isn't having much to say about it except one or two general denials of wanting anything to do with it or even comment on it.
Given Cunningham's history I wouldn't want to have shown up even remotely associated with him in any such newspaper story either.

But the answer to your question is that yes, anybody can put just about anything they want on anyone's credit reports if they want to without any proof whatever. They can do it by setting up their own accounts with the credit bureaus or they can do it by piggybacking with some shady debt collector who has an account with the credit bureaus and is willing to accommodate them for a small price. Doing that benefits the debt collector because it helps them maintain their quota of reports which they might not be able to maintain without selling to anyone who wants to piggyback with them for whatever reason, good or bad.

When it comes to the relationship between debt collectors and the credit bureaus we all know that one scumbag will lie and the other one will swear that it is the truth.
__________________
My Google Docs

Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Creditwrench Debt Validation Letter

Creditwrench Debt Validation Letter



Senior Member
 

Re: Just Got Letter - RJM Acq.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KreditKard View Post
I read the back and fine print and I learned that I need to write them within 30 days or they assume that this is a valid debt.
I assume that you are going to pay me $5,000 for responding to your post too. I assume lots of things but just because I assume something don't make it true. Maybe, in lots of cases wish would be a more appropriate word than assume. But one thing I do know and that is that a duck knows something more than either a debt collector or a debt collection lawyer and that is where to stick his bill.

[quote] Do I just type up a short letter and mail it in? I would appreciate some advice on how to handle this situation. Is 2002 within the SOL for California? Thank you for your help.[/quote]

Statute of limitations in California is 4 years. A short letter? Yes, I like short letters very much. The shorter the better. I had a lady call me last evening and tell me about this great debt validation letter she got from somewhere. Five pages long. She said it had lots of great questions debt collectors have to answer. Problem with that is that nowhere in FDCPA does it give you the right to ask them anything at all. Of course neither does it say you can't ask them any questions but that is beside the point. The point is that asking them anything is pointless.
My debt validation letter don't ask them anything, it tells them what I want and what I want is all that matters to me. As far as I am concerned anything else is irrelevant.

As a matter of fact, my letter is now just 3 short paragraphs long and I'm thinking of getting rid of one of those. That first paragraph seems important but in reality about all it does is confuse many of those who attempt to use my letter. I think it would be better to just take it out entirely and get the job done with my DUH letter which is nothing more than a photo copy of the letter they sent me stapled to my debt validation letter. The other two paragraphs are also short and sweet. I just tell them what I want. I'm not interested in teaching them how smart I am. All I want to know is how smart they are. If I have to educate them then I'm going to make their education as expensive as possible for them. I charge at least $1,000 per lesson and more if I can get it. I got one lawyer I'm getting ready to teach pretty soon. Right now that lawyer needs about 5 or 6 lessons and the fight hasn't even got going good yet.

Now then, about that statute of limitations thing. Why are you even worried about that at this time other than as general information to be used at a later time? In the case of a dishonored check I'd say that the start of the statute of limitations would have started 30 days after the check bounced or maybe even when it bounced the second time. The statute of limitations runs until such a time as they file a lawsuit or it expires because of the 4 year limitation in California law.
So what does that mean to you? Does it mean that they can't continue to attempt to collect after the 4 years or does it mean they can't file a lawsuit after the 4 years has passed? Truth is they can do either one forever with no time limitation. Nothing in the law says they can't attempt to collect after the 4 years and nothing in the law says they can't file a lawsuit after the 4 years. But then nothing in the law says they can't go fly a kite or jump in a lake either. So the final outcome is up to you, not them. You have two choices. You can either use the Caspar Milquetoast method of credit repair and make the debt go away quite easily or you can take a much more agressive approach and quite possibly end up getting paid to teach them a few lessons they really don't want to learn. Its up to you but in either case I'd recommend starting off with a nice short validation letter accompanied by a DUH letter
__________________
My Google Docs site

Saturday, March 06, 2010
Caspar Milquetoast method of credit repair.

Caspar Milquetoast method of credit repair


The Caspar Milquetoast method of credit repair is used by the majority of Americans and is endorsed by all creditors, debt collectors and their attorneys as well as most courts, judges, credit bureaus, the IRS and almost anyone who deals with credit and debt issues. This remarkable concept is so popular because it's goal is to refrain from offending or antagonizing anyone under any circumstances. It demands that everyone pay anyone claiming that the consumer owes them money without protest of any kind. It does however allow the consumer to demand validation of the debt collector.

Caspar Milquetoast

was a cartoon character who first appeared in a series of cartoons in 1924 and was known for his great timidity. Caspar Milquetoast was so timid that he was depicted as almost running past a sign which said "NO LOITERING"

Caspar Milquetoast

was so timid that he would never express his opinion on anything and he certainly would not have gone to court to defend himself against a debt collector no matter how outrageous their claim might be. At most he might have demanded validation of the debt but even that would not be in keeping with his extremely timid character.

Caspar Milquetoast

Caspar would probably have much rather filed bankruptcy if that had been necessary in order to prevent having to argue with anybody over anything. The vast majority of Americans today rush to the bankruptcy court solution to their problems thereby
proving millions of times over the route Caspar Milquetoast might well have taken if his creator had put him in that kind of situation. Of course, Caspar would most likely never have gotten himself in such a position in the first place. More than likely he would have just paid up without a whimper.


Needless to say, this author does not recommend what he as envisioned as the Caspar Milquetoast method of credit repair might have been.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Capitol One didn't get paid.


Obviously you are not thinking about the possibility that Capital One just might be telling you the truth? The truth may be that they didn't get paid. The truth may be that the title company paid the court, not Cap1 and Cap1 may not have been paid because they weren't the true plaintiff therefore the court paid the actual judgment holder or their attorney. Attorney's most often want to get paid up to $2500 or more to take a debt collection case plus up to 25% of any money collected.

They garnish the debtor and the court pays the attorney who deducts his cut and forwards the rest to the true plaintiff who takes another whack out of the apple or keeps it all if they bought the debt which is usually the case although Cap1 usually don't sell their debts. They just assign them to TSYS or other debt collectors.

There is also the possibility that the judgment was sold to a judgment recovery company who actually collected the money and since it is now an old judgment it just might be that a judgment recovery company has purchased the judgment and is the party now collecting the new garnishments.

Please believe me when I say that those are not just empty guesses. I know exactly how these things work. First of all, Cap1 usually don't sue anybody. They hire debt collectors who sue in the name of Capital One. Cap1 is famous for having TSYS of Georgia do their collecting for them. TSYS has a subsidiary corporation known as NAN for National Attorney's Network. TSYS sends the debt over to the NAN office which is at the same address as TSYS. NAN hires an attorney to sue defendants. TSYS is the true plaintiff, not Cap1.

In the event they can't get any money they sell the judgment to a judgment recovery service for varying amounts of money, usually $10 to $20 per judgment regardless of how much the judgment is for. There is always a clause in the purchase contract that in the event of successful collection the purchaser pays a commission to the judgment owner of 50% of what is collected. It is done that way because if it were not done that way then the judgment recovery service would become a 3rd party debt collector and subject to FDCPA as well as being subject to getting hit with unauthorized practice of law and sent to prison. Since they ostensibly bought the debt they are now the owners and therefore not subject to FDCPA and if there is any court work necessary they hire attorneys to keep from getting hit with unauthorized practice of law.

So the question becomes one of how do you dig through all that rig-a-marole to get to the bottom of the dung heap? The answer is not that difficult. Go to the clerk of the court and ask to see all the paperwork in the original court case. Get copies of everything and take them home. Find out who the attorney was in the original case and check with them to see what might have gone wrong. Find out who the plaintiff really was. Check the paperwork to see if there were any affidavits presented to the court. If so check to see who notarized it and what state the notary was from. If the notary was from Georgia then you know there is a pack of rats feeding on the deal right from the start. One or more of those rats could be doing a bit of extra dipping into Cap1's till. Nothing unusual about that.

Another clue is how is it being reported on your credit reports if it still is. If Cap1 reports a zero balance and some other rat shows up trying to collect the debt then you have a start on the paper trail. Getting to the bottom of the mess and going after the culprit isn't easy but it can be done. Several of my wins in federal courts have been the direct result of TSYS and others filing false and fraudulent affidavits in various local courts. If they present a funny affidavit then that is providing false and misleading information to a consumer and actionable under FDCPA. TSYS is the easiest to catch at their dirty tricks but others can take some real investigative work.

Meanwhile, back at the county clerk's office ask to see the garnishment records and the payment records of the court on that garnishment. Tell the clerk you already paid that garnishment through the Title company and who the title company was. Tell the clerk that you are getting garnished all over again and you want to know who the garnisher is and where the money is going. If they try to tell you they can't give you that information take it to your state AG and file a complaint against the clerk of the court. All the information the county clerks have is public information and cannot be denied to the public. Find out if there was a satisfaction of judgment filed when the title company paid the judgment off.

Before you start digging go to Wal-Mart and get yourself an Olympus WS-311-M digital voice recorder and use it. Take a friend or adult family member with you as a witness. Keep a careful written record of everything that happens every step of the way. Keep those audio recordings too. When you get to the bottom of it all then start looking for your 3rd party debt collectors and learning how to make them pay you for their skulldoggery and dirty tricks.