PsychDoc's Seminar transcript #4

breeze · October 21, 2005

LESSON FOUR TRANSCRIPT

CREDIT 104: Triaging Your Reports, 10/20/2005

PSYCHDOC'S CREDIT REPAIR SCHOOL FOR BEGINNERS

blackberry74> CSI is about the best show on TV. I love Grissom.

StephanB> So do we have our Amex Clear cards yet?

Clouds> yay!

blackberry74> Hi doc

IDare> lol

Clouds> our host with de most... has just left the building

IDare> he's back

Kiowa> Hi Doc

IDare> hi Doc

PsychDoc> Hi!

Clouds> practicing the quick exit

marlin40> I miss third watch personally

TxQuiltGirl> Doc fell out of the room but looks like he's back -

hiya Doc

PsychDoc> fell off my chair

JHC> hey Doc

StephanB> third watch was good

marlin40> hi doc

Kiowa> when dies it go to dvd

PsychDoc> hi, everybody

ismism> HEY DOC WHAT DOES "REVIEWED" MEAN AS AN OUT COME FOR A EXP

DISPUTE?

marlin40> doc, what do you know about ecoa and reporting of joint

accounts?

PsychDoc> Well, Marlin, here's an

opportunity for me to disclaim my guru status...

marlin40> i'm battling chrysler DH and I are joint on his truck

loan and they refuse to report to his cra's

PsychDoc> Who here knows enough about the

Equal Credit Opportunity Act to answer marlin's question...

Clouds> Fico sends me email today, subj: Know when it's time to

celebrate

blackberry74> not i

marlin40> marv tried dilligently to help but i need more answers

MarvBear> Marlin; they should report it

ismism> ME TOO CLOUDS

ismism> JUNK MAIL I THINK

PsychDoc> Marlin, were you a signatory to

the loan?

marlin40> yes, we both are

Clouds> "It's time to celebrate when I don't have to pay you

turkeys for my scores"

moacsupreme> i got that email too clouds, then it suggested I

subscribe to a service that I already have

ismism> TRUE

PsychDoc> And only you're getting the

report?

MarvBear> They are engaging in discriminatory practices UNLESS for

all their joint account holder in YOUR state they do NOT report.

marlin40> yepper

PsychDoc> Well...

PsychDoc> I don't know the answer.

PsychDoc> But it's one helluva question...

lol

PsychDoc> Post it to the board... I'd like

to see the discussion.

marlin40> yeah, marv is right, they won't report in IL, MI and CO

Clouds> marlin: agree... send them a letter citing ECOA (randomly

if necessary LOL)

ismism> does any one know what "reviewed" means as an out come for

a exp dispute???

PsychDoc> That one I can answer, LOL, ism...

tal> probably the same as verified

PsychDoc> "Reviewed" is another one of their

weasel words.

ismism> listening

blackberry74> figures

PsychDoc> It usually means that they're

taking no action.

marlin40> curious too ismism

PsychDoc> It relieves them of the legal

burden of actually saying it's been verified.

Clouds> suggestion: could we get PsychDoc to bold and color his

text, so he stands out (more than he does already, I mean)

PsychDoc> They've "reviewed" it.

ismism> i dont get it

PsychDoc> Is this better?

tal> what do you do when you have asked for the method of

verification and the CRA doesn't provide it?

marlin40> yeah

PsychDoc> ism, nobody gets it.

blackberry74> sounds like another letter should go out that says

what the hell does that mean, morons?

moacsupreme> under the FCRA is that even an option?

blackberry74> professionally, of course

PsychDoc> FCRA doesn't delineate their

possible responses.

Clouds> just repeat the first request, only louder, tal

Clouds> "I SAID, PLEASE VERIFY...."

PsychDoc> It simply says they need to

consider the disputes and report accurately.

tal> louder meaning ? example please!

Clouds> um, a bit more strident in the language?

moacsupreme> ahhhh

Clouds> (using all caps probably would not do the trick <grin>)

PsychDoc> It would be nice if we had a

stronger FCRA.

tal> ok, that makes sense

PsychDoc> ok, let's start...

Clouds> yes!

StephanB> lobbyists will never let that happen Psych

marlin40> ok

tal> I agree

ismism> im ready

marlin40> bring it on

PsychDoc> CREDIT 104: Triaging Your Reports,

10/20/2005

StephanB> anybody heard about the Cheeseburger Act?

StephanB> now THAT is lobbying

PsychDoc> Hello again, I'm Randy Padawer

(PsychDoc), and we're back for another seminar, the fourth of eight. Tonight

we'll focus upon taking stock of your credit reports and devising a

workable plan.

marlin40> dare I ask?

PsychDoc> I use the borrowed term "triage"

to describe the process -- because what you're really doing is treating

your situation as if it was an emergency requiring a systematic approach.

marlin40> dare I ask?

StephanB> marlin: search cnn

PsychDoc> But before we proceed, let me

first take care of some business. First of all, we all owe a debt of gratitude

to this site, Creditboards.com, and its owners, breeze, Pam, LKH, and

radi8, for upgrading the chat room and, I should add, for making the site

available at all for that matter...

blackberry74> *applause*

PsychDoc> They've put up with a lot through

the last few years, but they've stuck with it only because each one of

them are committed to helping us "little guys" battle the craven corporate

impulses which essentially define the credit bureaus and the lending

industry generally...

PsychDoc> (Did you like that phrase "craven

corporate impulses"?)

PsychDoc>

breeze>

TxQuiltGirl> lol Doc

tal> lol

PsychDoc> How about a rousing round of

applause for Creditboards?! {APPLAUSE SIGN}

blackberry74> i do...craven is a good word. i'll use it on the ceo

of my company tomorrow

TxQuiltGirl> YAY!!!!

tal> yes, I agree

PsychDoc> lol

Brandy_R> YAY CB!!!

ismism> claping

Kiowa> Cheers CB!

Clouds> <clapping madly>

PsychDoc>

TxQuiltGirl> the mods & owners here are AWESOME

StephanB> hehehe

<IDare> sent sound: whistle

scott> woooooooohoooooooo::up

mrchev> yea, CB

ismism> i got the clap

PsychDoc> Ok, for those who've not been with

us before, here is the structure and process of the course:

PsychDoc> There will be 8 sessions every

other Thursday evening, including tonight's. Each session will begin at 9

p.m. Eastern Time (or 8 p.m. Central, 7 p.m. Mountain, 6 p.m. Pacific) and

will last about an hour. We may finish early, or we may finish late. Some

may want to stay longer even after the session's done to chat. We'll have a

mix of lecture, group discussion, and Q&A.

PsychDoc> Tonight I'll run away after the

session... Life has intruded. :/

Clouds> aww

PsychDoc> But there are plenty of informed

folks here from whom I learn every time I read the board...

scott> ::beer

PsychDoc> I hope they'll stick around if the

discussion persists...

moacsupreme> if not there's always the boards

PsychDoc> (that sounded like I was talking

about a symptom... if the discussion "persists")

TxQuiltGirl> lol

PsychDoc> anyway

PsychDoc> The 8 sessions are:

PsychDoc> CREDIT 101: The Ethics of Credit

Repair, 9/8/2005

PsychDoc> CREDIT 102: A Consumer Law

Overview, 9/22/2005

PsychDoc> CREDIT 103: Credit Reports &

Credit Scores, 10/6/2005

PsychDoc> CREDIT 104: Triaging Your Reports,

10/20/2005 (tonight)

PsychDoc> CREDIT 105: FCRA Street Fighting,

11/3/2005

PsychDoc> CREDIT 106: FCBA Street Fighting,

11/17/2005

PsychDoc> CREDIT 107: FDCPA Street Fighting,

12/1/2005

PsychDoc> and

PsychDoc> CREDIT 108: Will He Ever Stop

Beginning The Lectures This Way?

PsychDoc> er

PsychDoc> CREDIT 108: Small Claims Lawsuits,

12/15/2005

TxQuiltGirl> lol'

blackberry74> lol

PsychDoc> Those 8 lessons are divided into

two sections...

PsychDoc> the first three lessons (where

credit repair is framed as an ETHICAL enterprise in opposition to the many

UNETHICAL business practices which comprise the consumer credit industry)...

PsychDoc> and the last five sessions (where

we discuss the nitty-gritty of credit repair -- interventions which

leverage your RIGHTS as a citizen). Tonight's session is the first of this

second group.

PsychDoc> These sessions were created for

those who are new to their credit repair campaigns, but those of us who've

been around the topic for a few years can attest that there's always

something new to learn. So, in that spirit, I hope even my fellow hardened

old-timers will find something interesting to reflect upon as we work through

the course.

PsychDoc> Tonight's syllabus...

Clouds> hear hear

PsychDoc> -1-- Course overview and format

(which we've already done)

PsychDoc> -2-- Brief review of the previous

sessions

PsychDoc> -3-- The purpose of "triage"

PsychDoc> -4-- Credit repair rules of thumb

PsychDoc> -5-- YOU are your guru

PsychDoc> Any questions about the course

format or the syllabus before we continue?

wesdluke> nope

blackberry74> no

tal> no

Miyamoto> nope

scott> lets get it on

PsychDoc> okiedoke

PsychDoc> Here's a brief review of the

previous sessions in just a couple of sentences each...

PsychDoc> Session One... Credit repair

involves INTERVENTIONS which invoke one of three TRUTHFUL communication

tactics: a) polite requests, b} requests for information, and c) legal demands.

PsychDoc> Session Two... Toward that end, we

leverage several federal consumer protection laws, usually these: a) the

Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), which regulates the credit bureaus, b}

the Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA), which regulates original creditors, c)

the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), which regulates third-party

debt collectors, and sometimes d) the Health Insurance Portability and

Accountability Act (HIPAA), which regulates health professionals.

PsychDoc> Session Three... There are three

approaches to handling debt: The Dave Ramsey Way (which provides a

psychological boost as you pay everything down), The Suze Orman Way (which

emphasizes money savings), and The Breeze Way (which emphasizes paying things

down with an eye toward maximizing your credit scores).

PsychDoc> There are no "official" credit

bureaus: Our federal consumer protection laws serve only to LIMIT how the

bureaus behave, but no law mandates that any information appear at all on any

particular report for any minimal length of time, no matter what

Citibank's friendly customer service rep tells you.

PsychDoc> (Is this "bold" type hard on the

eyes?)

phnominon> no

PsychDoc> Is this easier to read?

phnominon> no

blackberry74> no, actually it's better

PsychDoc> ok

PsychDoc> Finally, how you borrow and how

you repay DEBT essentially defines credit scoring, and the "FICO Score" --

the system most often used by lenders to qualify their applicants -- can be

considered to be nothing more than a statistical index of probable

default.

MarvBear> leave it bold I am too old to read skinny print

Clouds> ditto marv

PsychDoc> <-- 44 years old... finally

feeling it

tal> i agree

ismism> a little\

PsychDoc> argh

Miyamoto> I like the bold better

PsychDoc> The transcripts for the first

three sessions appear in the Creditboards Credit Forum area. I would encourage

anyone who's just joined us and who is interested to go ahead and review

them. Each session builds upon the previous ones.

MarvBear> 29 HERE LOL

blackberry74> bold---->for the oldsters lol

JHC> 45 yesterday

tal> presbyopia is setting in

PsychDoc> Marv, you kid you

Clouds> transcripts 1-3 are GRRREAT

PsychDoc> Now on to "credit report

triage"... As an aside, you gotta love the internet. For those who enjoy sound

effects, here's Merriam-Webster's Stepford Person pronouncing the word for all

of us... Link:

PsychDoc> http://tinyurl.com/dze2z

PsychDoc> I know, I know... that was so

pedantic of me

PsychDoc> I can't help it.

Clouds> treee-ahhhzh

PsychDoc> LOL

blackberry74> lol

scott> hahaha

PsychDoc> Anyway, as you know, the term

"triage" is borrowed from war battlefields where medical personnel deal with

groups of injured soldiers. Generally speaking, the wounded are divided

into three groups (hence "triage") --

PsychDoc> 1) the most seriously injured who

require immediate attention in order to prevent death,

PsychDoc> 2) those with serious injuries who

aren't life-endangered,

PsychDoc> and 3) the walking wounded who

will still require first aid but who can assist the EMTs with the other two

groups.

blackberry74> my reports are in group 1

phnominon> and 4- the dead

PsychDoc> well, yeah, phnom

PsychDoc> but we'll pretend nothing's "dead"

on a credit report, lol

phnominon> <--old Army Medic

phnominon> lol

Clouds> I heard it was 1) the ones who'll die no matter what, 2)

the ones who'll live even if you don't treat, 3) the ones who need treatment

to live

PsychDoc> very good!

PsychDoc> lol

wesdluke> .

PsychDoc> Actually I borrowed my definition

this afternoon from Wikipedia

PsychDoc> so there

scott> ::smoke

PsychDoc> LOL!

marlin40> wish my bk was dead

Clouds> <bow to wiki>

PsychDoc> I feel like a giant cane is about

to enter stage left and pull me away now

PsychDoc>

phnominon> lol @ marlin

Clouds> the show must go on, doc

PsychDoc> Simply having a plan for what must

otherwise be terrifying circumstances helps first responders cope.

Similarly, knowing that there is an organized way to proceed (with any endeavor)

helps one get past the fear of starting any sizable task.

breeze> ______}

PsychDoc> Was anybody here (who's already

begun their credit repair program) ever intimidated by the task when they

first got started?

Clouds> YES

PsychDoc> NO BREEZE!

PsychDoc> lol

phnominon> raising hand

moacsupreme> i know i was

JHC> yes

txgrl1502> yes

mrchev> oh yes

525noitces> yup

PsychDoc> Clouds... it's a pretty

intimidating task at first isn't it?

PsychDoc> quite a few hands go up

marlin40> yws

blackberry74> i was, actually. surprising for me

Kiowa> yes..so I hid my head in the sand for 6yrs

ismism> y

Miyamoto> yes and didn't even start disputing yet

Clouds> MY CREDIT IS SO BAD I COULD NEVER EVEN BEAR TO LOOK

scott> no went str8 for em ::ninja

PsychDoc> well I felt the same way at one

point

PsychDoc> go Scott!

Clouds> was, I should say

MarvBear> still intimidating

PsychDoc> very good

Clouds> you go scott

PsychDoc> Sometimes credit report issues are

so plentiful that it's easy to feel like one is about to fight a war (of

sorts). My goals in adopting the metaphor are threefold:

PsychDoc> 1) Impress upon you my belief

(shared by many in this community) that practically no bad credit rating is

beyond repair.

Brandy_R> It took me 8 mos after bk to even look at my scores

PsychDoc> 2) Empower you to approach each of

your three credit reports with optimism and a sense of fun as you

delineate your plan of attack.

Clouds> <blowing party horn>

PsychDoc> 3) Provide some concrete rules of

thumb for matching tradelines with appropriate credit repair

interventions.

PsychDoc> So... whether it's gossipy

bureaus...

PsychDoc> or petty creditors...

PsychDoc> or ruthless and unethical debt

collectors...

PsychDoc> there's a systematic approach for

each

PsychDoc> For those who haven't begun,

here's "PsychDoc's Plan of Attack" (licensed to you only for your own

individual personal use under the "GNU General Public License" but not for use in

any commercial setting).

Clouds> oooh an open source guy

Miyamoto> lol

scott> ::up

PsychDoc> gotta love the GPL

PsychDoc> Let me emphasize before I delve

in, though, that this is simply my approach. I don't want to represent this

as the "correct" way, or the "right" way, or the "only sensible" way, or

anything of that sort. That said, I'll proceed...

Q> fresh, I made it!

PsychDoc> PRELIMINARY STEP: Go to Kinko's

(or your office copy machine, or wherever) and make COPIES of your latest

credit reports. Keep a set of "clean" originals in a file somewhere, though,

just in case you ever need them as evidence in a court proceeding. I

realize that eventuality is unlikely, but that's still a good idea.

PsychDoc> As for the COPIES, you're about to

take a nasty red marker and mark them up as if they're a graffiti wall

somewhere. Spare no mercy. Those reports are the work of the devil. (And if

not the devil, then at least the work product of corporate drones who

probably care less about your personal welfare.)

Clouds> <-- six colors of highlighter

PsychDoc> STEP ONE: Keeping our second

session in mind (CREDIT 102: A Consumer Law Overview), you're going to assess

each item on your report and assign it an appropriate credit repair

intervention. First, comb through your reports and look for those tradelines

(credit industry jargon meaning "an item on your report") where you were never

more than 30 days late.

PsychDoc> And, by the way, don't cheat...

we're NOT going to include anything with 60 day lates or work during this

pass... Now, you're going to write the word "GOODWILL" next to each of those

tradelines. By the way, if you're completely new to all of this, then

don't worry what that means right now. Just do it. You're triaging.

PsychDoc> STEP TWO: Now, you're going to

make a second pass through your reports. This time you're hunting for any

tradeline whose worst notations are 60 days late. For these you'll mark

"GOODWILL OR FCBA." More in a few minutes about that.

PsychDoc> STEP THREE: Now, on the next pass,

you're going to label those items whose worst notations are 90 to 150 days

late and which NEVER entered collection or charge-off status. Mark those

as "FCBA OR NUTCASE."

PsychDoc> More about what that is in a few

minutes also.

PsychDoc> Ok, ok, ok, technically we're

going past "triage" now... Perhaps we'll have to coin a new word...

"quattrage" or even "pentage" or "sextage" (because, YES, there's going to be

fourth, fifth, and sixth steps, ahem).

PsychDoc> Those of us who appreciate 12 Step

Programs are welcome to say the Serenity Prayer now. (Actually, that may

help with this task, but, alas, I digress.)

PsychDoc> And, NO, "sextage" doesn't

guarantee any additional fun when you're through. (Although, actually, that may

help too, but now I'm way off topic. Cough, cough.)

PsychDoc>

Clouds> you SAID it would be fun

moacsupreme> serenity now!

PsychDoc> well, not that fun

StephanB> lol

blackberry74> lol

marlin40> lol

scott> ::wub

PsychDoc> STEP FOUR: Next look for items

that have entered collection or charge-off status. By the way, Equifax

includes their handy "R9" or "I9" designations, which will help make short work

of this task with that bureau's reports. If the tradeline was placed there

by a third-party debt collector (in other words by "XYZ Collection

Company" as opposed to "MBNA"), then mark those tradelines with the phrase

"VALIDATION."

marlin40> not that kind of room huh Doc?

Clouds> quick ONtopic question, doc?

PsychDoc> Creditboards is a family oriented

site. Rated G.

PsychDoc> Well it was anyway.

PsychDoc> If the chargeoff was put there by

an original creditor, mark it "OC VALIDATION." Don't worry about the

wizened souls who proclaim that there's no such thing as "OC VALIDATION" at

this point. They're right, but those of us who advocate differently are right

too. Kindly sit with the tension for a moment, and I'll get back to it in

a few minutes. (Suffice to say, groups of us have been debating this for

years. Meanwhile, consumers are netting credit report deletions,

irrespective of the technicalities.)

StephanB> but wha tabout all those hidden forums?????????????

StephanB> *grin*

Clouds> if the same acct is both a charge off and sent to a

collection agency? then how to mark

PsychDoc> STEP FIVE: Up to now, no tradeline

has received more than one mark. That may change with this step.

PsychDoc> Clouds...

Clouds> waiting for it, go on pls

PsychDoc> Mark it VALIDATION if a CA

Clouds>

PsychDoc> and OC VALIDATION if an OC

PsychDoc> to Step 5...

PsychDoc> This step requires you to work

through your reports and locate any MEDICAL tradelines. If the item was

placed there by a doctor, a hospital, a testing lab, or someone collecting

money for any of those, mark this one with the acronym "HIPAA." Note again

that you may be writing "HIPAA" next to something which was already labeled

"GOODWILL," "GOODWILL OR FCBA," "FCBA OR NUTCASE" or "VALIDATION."

PsychDoc> So...

PsychDoc> a tradeline may have more than one

notation

PsychDoc> STEP SIX: Anything left is

probably there as the result of some legal action -- a lien, a bankruptcy

notation, a judgment, etc. Go back and mark those "COURTHOUSE."

bryan_6i9> i missed some can you start over?

PsychDoc> Now you have the rough outlines of

a plan... with plenty of flexibility. Each of those notations reflects a

particular credit repair procedure.

Clouds> bryan, there will be a transcript

PsychDoc>

blackberry74> there'll be a transcript tomorrow, bryan

bryan_6i9> k

PsychDoc> Your "GOODWILL" tradelines are due

a Goodwill Letter. This is where you need to do your homework -- search

the board for the basic template.

PsychDoc> The "Goodwill Letter" saw its

origins in a letter penned by "marci" (an occasional participant on these

boards) which she called her "Sample Nice Letter for Paid Chargeoffs."

PsychDoc> I borrowed marci's letter (lifting

a couple of her brilliant key phrases), reworked it for those tradelines

with minor late pays which had never charged-off, and dubbed it the

"Goodwill Letter" after a rep for Sears National Bank told me by phone that they

had an internal phrase for certain nice people who begged forgiveness --

the "Goodwill Adjustment."

PsychDoc> That sounds like something a

chiropractor would do...

PsychDoc> Regardless, the approach is

tried-and-true, and while nothing works all the time, this one does work some of

the time.

Clouds> lol

PsychDoc> Has anybody ever had success with

the Goodwill letter?

bryan_6i9> no

Clouds> no

IDare> yep

marlin40> not yet

Kiowa> yes

blackberry74> never tried it. i've used up all my goodwill, i

think

rhl> no, but only because I haven't tried it yet.

PsychDoc> I realize most in here are new...

some no's... some yes's

moacsupreme> not the good will letter for late pays, but good will

adjustments

PsychDoc> Let me diverge from the prepared

remarks for a minute...

phnominon> I dont have any tl's that a goodwill wouldnt get laughed

at.

StephanB> Hey, I think his session is scripted!! it's a fake!

*rotfl*

PsychDoc> I have a philosophy about credit

repair interventions...

scott> i went str8 to bank ..lol

PsychDoc> Stephan, LOL

Clouds> I think doc types 250wpm

PsychDoc> The philosophy is this...

PsychDoc> Let's say that a credit bureau

dispute will work 5 or 10 percent of the time or even 20 percent...

PsychDoc> and let's say that a Goodwill

approach will work 5 or 10 percent of the time

PsychDoc> and let's say that a Nutcase

approach will work 5 or 10 percent of the time

PsychDoc> FCBA same

StephanB> I see a trend ...

PsychDoc> FDCPA validation same, etc.

StephanB> Ommmmmmmmmmm

PsychDoc> and then you try again...

somewhere down the line you're going to clean it up... persistence and a variety

of approaches is key

moacsupreme> kinda like playing the lottery, except on a much more

realistic scale

Clouds> all together now: you only have to win once (thanks to

whoever has that in their sig) once per account, that is

PsychDoc> I just hate it when I see somebody

really punishing themselves after they try an intervention and it doesn't

work.

PsychDoc> They despair...

PsychDoc> OH NO...

tal> how do you mean variety of approaches?

PsychDoc> IT DIDN'T WORK

PsychDoc> I'M DOOMED

StephanB> Speaking of lottery, I was in Oregon the other week and

lost my ticket .. anybody found it?

scott> more than opne way to skin a cat

IDare> lol

blackberry74> all the ones he just mentioned, tal...validation,

goodwill, nutcase, credit bureau disputes, etc.

PsychDoc> It's just horrible because you

know how they feel...

PsychDoc> which is terrible

PsychDoc> but if they kept in mind that each

intervention has a chance of working

PsychDoc> and

PsychDoc> that interventions can be REPEATED

Clouds> yeah, the agony of defeat

tal> so if one doesn't work try a different approach or what?

PsychDoc> and in some cases... some

tradelines can call for multiple interventions

PsychDoc> per the triage approach I just

outlined above

blackberry74> true...that's worked for me on DH's reports

PsychDoc> Your chances of succeeding during

the next year or so... are HUGE. Be encouraged.

PsychDoc> I should put that in all caps: BE

ENCOURAGED.

tal> what if you don't have a year because of applying for a

mortage?

marlin40> where'd ya go?

PsychDoc> Ok, for those tradelines marked

"GOODWILL OR FCBA" you have a choice. You might try one or the other. Or you

might try one and THEN the other. Refer to the second session for

commentary regarding the FCBA approach, and customize your own.

StephanB> Mmm.. an inspirational talker too!

StephanB> hehehe

PsychDoc> Tal, that's a toughie...

scott> ::smoke

PsychDoc> You approach it as quickly as

possible.

PsychDoc> Those tradelines marked "FCBA or

NUTCASE" also present a choice.

moacsupreme> fcba work on installment loans doc?

PsychDoc> yes, moac

tal> I have been hittting it as hard as I can

PsychDoc> Try one, or the other, or do both

(space them apart awhile). The "Nutcase Series" enjoys a good number of

testimonials, and a template and accompanying rationale can be found on the

board

PsychDoc> Again, nothing works all the time,

but taking NO action ensures failure, so buck up and move forward! The

following sentences should not substitute for your doing just a few minutes

of homework and reading the rationale here on the boards, but here it is

anyway in a nutshell

PsychDoc> Essentially, the Nutcase approach

can be summed up as a polite but escalated set of information requests.

Your questions likely compel the other side to wonder what you plan to do

next... Will you sue? Are you a "litigious nutcase"? Sometimes, creditors

would rather just go ahead and delete a severe late mark than risk (or waste

their time) tangling with you any further.

Clouds> hooray for the nutcase pioneer

PsychDoc> As an aside, has anybody seen

success by trying the Nutcase series yet?

Clouds> beside you?

PsychDoc> LOL

marlin40> yep worked for dh

twotrouble> yes

PsychDoc> very nice

rhl> Doc, tiny question about nutcase. Is the "proof of current

address with dl and utility bill" part required?

blackberry74> haven't tried it yet. but it's on tap for a couple

of paid baddies

PsychDoc> rhl, nothing is required

tal> I haven't tried that yet ...considering it

PsychDoc> Let me say something about

"required"...

PsychDoc> You'll sometimes see one of us old

fools say something like...

PsychDoc> "Address it in a red pen."

PsychDoc> "Then fold it twice."

PsychDoc> "Three times along the seam."

PsychDoc> "Then address the envelope in

purple ink."

PsychDoc> And on and on and on. Sometimes

there is a reason for that...

Clouds> heart stickers

Clouds> and a snoopy stamp

scott> lol

PsychDoc> Maybe the old-timer wants you to

NOT look like a credit repair organization... Well... lemme tell ya what I

know about CROs... they break out the purple pens sometimes

PsychDoc> so I'm really at the point where I

hesitate to

tal> how about pink?

PsychDoc> get so specific

PsychDoc> LOL, Tal

PsychDoc> Next, those tradelines marked

"VALIDATION" should receive a formal request for validation pursuant to the

FDCPA. (Again reference the transcript for seminar #2.) You'll find a

template for the letter, as well as its sequential successor termed by some the

"Estoppel" letter, here on Creditboards. Plus, you'll find no end of

discussion and debate regarding such interventions. Again, I would advise that

you spend some time (a few hours) reading about validation before you fire

these off. Also remember that the larger the amount of an alleged

outstanding debt, the greater the risk that you'll "awaken the giant" (search the

board for that phrase). If in doubt, seek legal counsel, or at least ask

for the advice of fellow travelers on the board

PsychDoc> Quick point of discussion...

PsychDoc> Has anybody succeeded with

Validation?

blackberry74> YES!!!

Kiowa> yes

PsychDoc> very nice

StephanB> In progress

tal> What if the CA or OC verify's instead of validates?

scott> yes

PsychDoc> go for it Stephan

PsychDoc>

phnominon> Succeeded as in gotten it, or had the tl removed?

Kiowa> yes ..and no

CreditHungry> what about validation 'poking the lion with a stick"

theory?

PsychDoc> tl removed phnom

StephanB> DW has some paid CO's etc etc

StephanB> /me is clean, just thin

PsychDoc> Now, there are in credit repair,

as with most areas of interest, topics which are controversial where

perfectly smart and right people see things differently

tal> mine verified instead of validated

Kiowa> 3 TL removed

PsychDoc> In credit repair, one such area

involves the notion of "OC VALIDATION" (i.e., "original creditor

validation").

PsychDoc> The FDCPA only (well, almost only,

but we'll not get into more advanced and arcane debates in this beginner

session) regulates third-party debt collectors. So, technically, heapings

of respect should be accorded those who maintain that there is no such

thing as "original creditor validation." Incidentally, in this regard, you'll

find people on the boards debating who "verifies" versus who "validates"

and similar arcana... So technically, it's true... original creditors

verify and don't validate

PsychDoc> That said, I've seen plenty of

people net credit report deletions by sending the STOCK validation letter to

original creditors, irrespective of whether or not the OC was actually

required to do anything at all, and arguments about words notwithstanding. I

personally have never enjoyed the verify/validate wars, but I have enjoyed

watching consumers win their credit repair battles.

PsychDoc> One possible semantic solution

I've recommended... Take a validation letter, substitute the word "verify"

for "validate" and substitute references to the "FDCPA" with references to

the "FCBA" and fire them off.

PsychDoc> Whichever position appeals to you,

you should know that sending a stock validation letter to an original

creditor does not abridge your rights as a consumer in any way.

PsychDoc> So, for example, if you send the

"wrong" letter, perhaps the OC will write you back and say, "The FDCPA does

not pertain to us. Thank you. Now go pay the people to whom we sold the

debt." What they can't do is slap the cuffs on you for daring to ask for

information about the alleged debt.

PsychDoc> The debates almost get political,

and I'll dare not make a claim regarding "what's best" because many

well-informed people I respect disagree with each other.

PsychDoc> My goal tonight: at least

beginners who read this will perhaps now better understand what the argument is

about generally when they come across it here or elsewhere

PsychDoc> QUICK CROA DISCLAIMER: I am not an

attorney, and this is not legal advice. Second, never misrepresent your

situation when sending letters to anyone for any purpose

PsychDoc> Now... on to HIPAA

PsychDoc> This requires more homework.

(Sorry, but there's no way around it.) Search the board for the term "HIPAA".

PsychDoc> I especially appreciate all of

WhyChat's comments and advise regarding how to use this statute. In a

nutshell, no medical provider wants to entertain the possibility that their

credit bureau report has violated your federal privacy rights.

scott> hipaa worked fine for me twice

PsychDoc> That simple but lovely concept

defines the approach.

PsychDoc> Very nice, Scott.

PsychDoc> High five

tal> It worked for me too

PsychDoc> LOL

PsychDoc> great

Kiowa> not for me...

PsychDoc> WhyChat also has a web site... I

wish I'd grabbed it beforehand...

moacsupreme> http://www.whychat.5u.com

Clouds> http://whychat.5u.com ?

PsychDoc> great

Clouds> there ya go

blackberry74> http://whychat.5u.com/

PsychDoc> Kiowa... perfect example of that

percentages game I mentioned...

scott> great site

blackberry74> lol...whychat is a great resource

PsychDoc> The irony is that you could try

that same intervention in 4 or 5 months, and it might work. Of course, by

that time, a bureau dispute may have done the job.

Clouds> wow, HIPAA almost always works... everyone in med is scared

shitless of it as far as I can tell

PsychDoc> It's all about persistence.

marlin40> working on whychat hippa now...oc cashed the check so i'm

on a roll

PsychDoc> Clouds, speaking as a shrink, I

can confirm your hypothesis. LOL!

PsychDoc> Now, I don't want to suggest that

every medical tradeline is necessarily appropriate for a HIPAA-based

credit repair intervention, so, again, do some research on the board before

proceeding in this regard.

scott> lol

PsychDoc> A number of approaches have been

detailed regarding courthouse notations... A detailed discussion of these

would absolutely extend well beyond the parameters of a beginner's seminar,

but the boards contain many relevant discussions worth exploring. At least

you've marked your credit reports for those tradelines which may be

appropriate for one of these approaches.

marlin40> hipaa..chiropractor

marlin40> says medical

PsychDoc> Finally, every single item on a

credit report merits FCRA verification by requesting same from a credit

bureau. That means that essentially every item on your reports will be matched

with at least two interventions... one sent to the bureaus... and one sent

to whoever placed the item on the reports.

PsychDoc> In the next three sessions, we'll

detail FCRA (bureau-directed), FCBA (OC-directed), and FDCPA (CA-directed)

approaches in more detail. Such discussions will also include at certain

points what some term "the one-two punch"... an approach which leverages

both bureau-directed and creditor-directed interventions in tandem in order

to effect a particular result. Stay tuned.

PsychDoc> Finally, let me move to the last

section of tonight's syllabus which is really just a simple reminder...

PsychDoc> You really are your own guru. Or

at least I hope you eventually will be. The more educated you become to

credit repair, the more you'll find yourself entering into the many excellent

debates regarding law, approaches, philosophy, and even attitude.

PsychDoc> Perhaps there is a right answer,

or perhaps every wizened old-timer has a piece of the truth. Ultimately,

the more you know, the better you'll be able to decide how YOU feel about

any number of controversial issues. And with that, I hope somebody new here

feels MORE EMPOWERED to dig into their reports in a SYSTEMATIC WAY... and

then do some co-curricular RESEARCH on the boards to learn more about the

various interventions you've designated.

StephanB> I love I would be able to convince DW that it is OK to

dispute a CO that she paid and is aware.

PsychDoc> Now, on that note, it's time to

end... I'll look forward to seeing you in two weeks when we talk more about

FCRA interventions you can employ with the bureaus. We'll also excerpt

actual letters in the next few sessions, but don't wait for that... Delve

into the boards now and wear out that SEARCH button!

Clouds> great approach, doc -- divide & conquer

StephanB> It's beyong her moral values to dispute is what she said

StephanB>

PsychDoc> Stephan...

blackberry74>

PsychDoc> tell me...

moacsupreme> thanks doc, we all appreciate it

PsychDoc> your DW believes what?

PsychDoc> (thanks all, lol!)

Kiowa> thanks doc

tal> thank you Doc

PsychDoc> Stephan...

BigDog> Thanks!

StephanB> she does not want to dispute a simple 'not mine', because

she knows its hers and she does not want to lie

StephanB> etc etc

mrchev> thanks doc!

PsychDoc> aha

Miyamoto> thanks doc

PsychDoc> ok

Clouds> mil gracias doc

breeze> thanks Doc!

Clouds> must but TRUE and ACCURATE tho

blackberry74> thanks again, doc

Clouds> right?

Brandy_R> Thanks Doc

ekwii> merci beaucoup!

PsychDoc> well, she can still ask the OC to

document that they have crossed every t and dotted every i

Clouds> must BE, that is

PsychDoc> you can pester a paid OC like

crazy

PsychDoc> without lying

PsychDoc> until they are just sick of you

StephanB> That's te approach I am trying to work with now

PsychDoc> One thing I like to say to

folks...

blackberry74> tell dw she can dispute w/out ever saying the tl

isn't hers

scott> and delete

Miyamoto> what about IIB creditors?

PsychDoc> NO LAW LIMITS YOUR NUISANCE

QUOTIENT.

moacsupreme> lol

blackberry74> i've never lied on any of my disputes

StephanB> LOL

Miyamoto> lol

PsychDoc> (Unless you get violent or

threatening... lol)

Kiowa> exactly ..multi approach works

Clouds> <capers, singing>[/b] nut-caase, nut-caase

PsychDoc> So have at them.

breeze> and no law says debt have to be reported at all

StephanB> very true

IDare> Indulge in the Joy of Pestering

Clouds> hear hear, breeze

PsychDoc> Eventually they'll wonder if it's

worth it to report that 60 day late tradeline.

blackberry74> i've always taken out my threats of physical violence

b4 sending the letters

PsychDoc> Breeze hit it on the nose.

moacsupreme> me too, usually in that final edit

moacsupreme> lol

PsychDoc> well...

PsychDoc> See you in two weeks.

breeze> nite

blackberry74> bye doc...thanks again!

breeze> thanks again

PsychDoc> I hope this helps somebody at some

point!

PsychDoc>

blackberry74> lol @ moac

IDare> thanks Doc

StephanB> nice work Psych :0 enjoy real life now

PsychDoc> Thank you too.

PsychDoc>

MarvBear> TY Doc!

PsychDoc> on to life

Clouds> oh man, getting out the markers already LOL

StephanB> lol

PsychDoc> get those markers, Clouds!

PsychDoc>

SCFireFighter · October 21, 2005

Thanks for posting!

txgrl1502 · October 21, 2005

Thank you Pstchdoc, lots of good info.

tal · October 21, 2005

thank you once again for great advice!

Gryffindor · October 21, 2005

My Cliffnotes for Seminar #4

PsychDoc> CREDIT 104: Triaging Your Reports, 10/20/2005

Tonight we'll focus upon taking stock of your credit reports and devising a workable plan.

For those who haven't begun, here's "PsychDoc's Plan of Attack" Let me emphasize before I delve in, though, that this is simply my approach. I don't want to represent this as the "correct" way, or the "right" way, or the "only sensible" way, or anything of that sort. That said, I'll proceed...

PRELIMINARY STEP: Make COPIES of your latest credit reports. Keep a set of "clean" originals in a file somewhere, though, just in case you ever need them as evidence in a court proceeding. I realize that eventuality is unlikely, but that's still a good idea.

As for the COPIES, you're about to take a nasty red marker and mark them up as if they're a graffiti wall somewhere. Spare no mercy.

STEP ONE: TL’S WITH 30 DAY LATE

Don’t cheat... we're NOT going to include anything with 60 day lates or work during this pass. Write the word "GOODWILL" next to each of those tradelines.

STEP TWO: TL’S WITH 60 DAYS LATE

For these you'll mark "GOODWILL OR FCBA."

STEP THREE: TL’S WITH 90 TO 150 DAYS LATE BUT NEVER WENT TO CA OR CO.

Mark those as "FCBA OR NUTCASE."

STEP FOUR: TL’S THAT READ SENT TO COLLECTIONS OR CHARGED OFF.

If the tradeline was placed there by a third-party debt collector (in other words by "XYZ Collection Company" as opposed to "MBNA"), then mark those tradelines with the phrase "VALIDATION."

If the chargeoff was put there by an original creditor, mark it "OC VALIDATION."

STEP FIVE: LOCATE MEDICAL TRADELINES:

Up to now, no tradeline has received more than one mark. That may change with this step. This step requires you to work through your reports and locate any MEDICAL tradelines. If the item was placed there by a doctor, a hospital, a testing lab, or someone collecting money for any of those, mark this one with the acronym "HIPAA." Note again that you may be writing "HIPAA" next to something which was already labeled "GOODWILL," "GOODWILL OR FCBA," "FCBA OR NUTCASE" or "VALIDATION." So... a tradeline may have more than one notation

STEP SIX: BANKRUPTCIES, LIENS AND JUDGMENTS:

Anything left is probably there as the result of some legal action -- a lien, a bankruptcy notation, a judgment, etc. Go back and mark those "COURTHOUSE."

Now you have the rough outlines of a plan... with plenty of flexibility. Each of those notations reflects a particular credit repair procedure.

Your "GOODWILL" tradelines are due Goodwill Letter. http://creditboards.com/forums/index.phps=...&showtopic=1889 Regardless, the approach is tried-and-true, and while nothing works all the time, this one does work some of the time.

I have a philosophy about credit repair interventions...The philosophy is this...Let's say that a credit bureau dispute will work 5 or 10 percent of the time or even 20 percent... and let's say that a Goodwill approach will work 5 or 10 percent of the time and let's say that a Nutcase approach will work 5 or 10 percent of the time. FCBA same. FDCPA validation same, etc. and then you try again... somewhere down the line you're going to clean it up. Persistence and a variety of approaches is key. Your chances of succeeding during the next year or so... are HUGE. Be encouraged.

"GOODWILL OR FCBA" you have a choice. You might try one or the other. Or you might try one and THEN the other. Refer to the second session for commentary regarding the FCBA approach, and customize your own.

"FCBA or NUTCASE" also present a choice. Try one, or the other, or do both (space them apart awhile). The "Nutcase Series" enjoys a good number of testimonials, and a template and accompanying rationale can be found on the board. http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttal...3707#post153707

Again, nothing works all the time, but taking NO action ensures failure, so buck up and move forward! The following sentences should not substitute for your doing just a few minutes of homework and reading the rationale here on the boards, but here it is anyway in a nutshell: Essentially, the Nutcase approach can be summed up as a polite but escalated set of information requests. Your questions likely compel the other side to wonder what you plan to do next... Will you sue? Are you a "litigious nutcase"? Sometimes, creditors would rather just go ahead and delete a severe late mark than risk (or waste their time) tangling with you any further.

"VALIDATION" should receive a formal request for validation pursuant to the FDCPA. You'll find a template for the letter http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=18802

, as wellas its sequential successor termed by some the "Estoppel" letter, here on Creditboards

http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=16439.

Also remember that the larger the amount of an alleged outstanding debt, the greater the risk that you'll "awaken the giant" (search the board for that phrase). If in doubt, seek legal counsel, or at least ask for the advice of fellow travelers on the board.

"OC VALIDATION" (i.e., "original creditor validation"). The FDCPA only (well, almost only, but we'll not get into more advanced and arcane debates in this beginner session) regulates third-party debt collectors. So, technically, heapings of respect should be accorded those who maintain that there is no such thing as "original creditor validation." Incidentally, in this regard, you'll find people on the boards debating who "verifies" versus who "validates" and similar arcana... So technically, it's true... original creditors verify and don't validate.

That said, I've seen plenty of people net credit report deletions by sending the STOCK validation letter to original creditors, irrespective of whether or not the OC was actually required to do anything at all, and arguments about words notwithstanding.

One possible semantic solution I've recommended... Take a validation letter, substitute the word "verify" for "validate" and substitute references to the "FDCPA" with references to the "FCBA" and fire them off. Whichever position appeals to you, you should know that sending a stock validation letter to an original creditor does not abridge your rights as a consumer in any way.

HIPAA. This requires more homework. (Sorry, but there's no way around it.) Search the board for the term "HIPAA". I especially appreciate all of WhyChat's comments and advise regarding how to use this statute. In a nutshell, no medical provider wants to entertain the possibility that their credit bureau report has violated your federal privacy rights. http://www.whychat.5u.com

The irony is that you could try that same intervention in 4 or 5 months, and it might work. Of course, by that time, a bureau dispute may have done the job. It's all about persistence.

Now, I don't want to suggest that every medical tradeline is necessarily appropriate for a HIPAA-based credit repair intervention, so, again, do some research on the board before proceeding in this regard.

COURTHOUSE NOTATIONS:

A number of approaches have been detailed regarding courthouse notations... A detailed discussion of these would absolutely extend well beyond the parameters of a beginner's seminar, but the boards contain many relevant discussions worth exploring. At least you've marked your credit reports for those tradelines which may be

appropriate for one of these approaches.

FCRA VERIFICATION:

Finally, every single item on a credit report merits FCRA verification by requesting same from a credit bureau. That means that essentially every item on your reports will be matched with at least two interventions...

1. one sent to the bureaus...

2. one sent to whoever placed the item on the reports.

Once again, this is a very abbreviated version of the above transcript. I highly recommend that you read the entire transcript and do not rely solely on these notes.

edna mode · October 21, 2005

Once again, another FANTASTIC seminar from PsychDoc!!!

thealicia · October 22, 2005

I love these transcripts... and the cliff notes are great for quick ref. Thanks everyone...

Ishie · October 24, 2005

Wow! These are really helpful. I'm gradually going through them and just got to this one. I'm hoping to be IN for the next one, but this approach is really going to help me. I got my reports recently, and know that next August I'm going to need private loans for med school and was feeling at a total loss of where to start.

Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Savantrice · November 6, 2005

is there going to be a transcript frmo the 5th session? just curious, because the mods are usually great about posting it shortly after.

breeze · November 6, 2005

Yes, I think Doc had to fix it up a little because of the chat system problems. He said he would send it. He's very dependable.

do5 · April 6, 2006

Thank you for this valued information ...

it is awesome!

Deaf CEO · May 22, 2006

How do you determine if TL was placed by a CA or by the OC?

Also where are the Transcripts kept at? Either in pdf or word format?

mason · May 22, 2006

How do you determine if TL was placed by a CA or by the OC?

You should be able to determine that from your reports, but you need to get reports directly from the CRA's. Some third-party reports don't differentiate the two.

Deaf CEO · May 22, 2006

How do you determine if TL was placed by a CA or by the OC?

You should be able to determine that from your reports, but you need to get reports directly from the CRA's. Some third-party reports don't differentiate the two.

So myfico.com would be a 3rd party report?? Erg!!

oh by the way thanks for your response and I pray your pregnancy goes smooth!

mason · May 22, 2006

How do you determine if TL was placed by a CA or by the OC?

You should be able to determine that from your reports, but you need to get reports directly from the CRA's. Some third-party reports don't differentiate the two.

So myfico.com would be a 3rd party report?? Erg!!

oh by the way thanks for your response and I pray your pregnancy goes smooth!

Yea, IMO myfico reports are the worst for giving complete info. I get more complete info. off my TrueCredit reports.

But yea, you need to get your reports directly through the CRA's. DO NOT get them from freeannualcreditreport.com. Ya automatically give the CRA's an extra 15 days in your disputes.

game_on · April 23, 2008

Great stuff. Thank you!

Jen23514 · January 20, 2009

ttt

lostlilkidd · October 20, 2009

These are truly great reads!

Im going through the 6 steps but have a question. I signed up for CCT and on the payment history - it only lists the last two years. Im I suppose to mark my TLs based on only 2 years of payments or total payment history?

Thanks,

PHATFARM · November 24, 2010

Great information cannot wait to get started.

j7n1o7 · February 15, 2012

Question, since the initially seminar by PschoDoc was done in 05, are the principals and steps outline for credit repair still applicable now?

monti · July 22, 2013

I'm just reading all 8 sessions. Are they still applicable?

breeze · July 22, 2013

Still good.

monti · July 23, 2013

^{Thanks Breeze.}

moldyearwax · August 6, 2013

I was wondering the same myself, Thanks Breeze for the answer, Thanks Psychdoc for the seminars! I'm taking care of my spouse's credit, this will take me all the way!

shaiskills · July 6, 2014

Years later and this is still valid info.

Sign In

PsychDoc's Seminar transcript #4

Recommended Posts

breeze

SCFireFighter

txgrl1502

tal

Gryffindor

edna mode

thealicia

Ishie

Savantrice

breeze

do5

Deaf CEO

mason

Deaf CEO

mason

game_on

Jen23514

lostlilkidd

PHATFARM

j7n1o7

monti

breeze

monti

moldyearwax

shaiskills

Join the conversation

Member Statistics

About Us

Pages

Browse

Activity

Important Information