• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by cookiemnster

  1. OK.... I can't NOT say anything. You obtained the cards fraudulently, within the past two months. You then charged enough that you now can't keep up the payments. When the bk hits your reports, will you then put another fraud alert on your reports and say someone stole your ID and filed BK in order to get around the accurate reporting? And you're worried about what cards you can keep, or what cards you'll be able to get post-BK? How about learning something from the experience - something you obviously missed before in whatever situation brought you to all the boards? Now, before you get all high-and-mighty, I have no issue with people filing BK, none at all. I think life hands us circumstances which we can't control which leads to that - and sometimes that's even our own inability to manage credit. But you think none of your creditors are going to cry foul when you get the cards and less than 6 months later you file BK? Did you at least have a job when you applied??? JMNSHO.
  2. IMO, for disputing you need reports from the big 3, just to be as well-informed as possible. However, since you have the reports from - use them to dispute all old name variations and old addresses off of your report. That will get you free reports from the big 3 with your results. From there, dispute the tradelines. no, not really Yes getting all the old chargeoffs will help you. You might want to think about a secured card for now, which will help you start building some positive revolving history. ~Cookie
  3. Even if Providian wasn't specifically listed in your BK, there is caselaw that says that anything that should have conceivably been included is assumed included. Either way, the burden would be on the creditors to prove that they weren't included in BK rather than the other way around. It would be a moot argument anyway for the creditor unless they were secured debts that weren't dischargeable.
  4. Go get 'em Tiger. Oh, wait, you can't - you don't have a solid papertrail. I've been in the boat of not getting an email confirmation for a dispute. All in all, the bottom line is - judges like to see a papertrail. There are enough judges who don't trust electronic communication, don't see it as reliable enough, that the CRRR papertrail is worth it.
  5. People in here generally tell you that for disputing purposes, to get your reports directly from the source - EQ, EXP, and TU. You cannot dispute information that is garnered from a third party re-seller, a category that falls into, even though the scores are based on their algorithm. You can use the information from the reports to dispute via CRRR, however; and that is generally the preferred method for disputing anyway as it builds a solid paper trail.
  6. Sallie Mae is only reporting to EQ right now, but TU is eternally hopeful they'll regain that lucrative contract, so they've only suppressed the TLs instead of deleting them (which is what EXP seems to have done.) I got rid of my suppressed Sallie Mae TL's by writing a letter stating that they've been waiting for that update for over a year, it's obvious SM isn't going to update because everyone knows that SM is no longer reporting to TU.
  7. They have a tiered system, I think - because I don't send much actual mail anymore, my basic charge is only $4.59 a month or so. I know it's a weird number but I'm too lazy to go look at my cc statement And, get this - you can buy that special paper at the post office now. Am I the only one who finds that ironic?
  8. Also keep in mind, that generally, late pays that are over 2 years old are barely factored into your score, if at all. It's the "eyeball" factor at that point ~ meaning it's not very attractive during a manual review. It's very possible to get very very very good credit, even with a couple of late pays.
  9. Follow the normal paper trail, IMO, and add that to your ITS when the time comes. They'll rack up more violations if you give them a little more time. That will give you more to "negotiate" with when you're forcing them to delete.
  10. Sis, this isn't about CIC. This is just where I chose to take it up with you, because I knew you would read the posts here. I'd like to know which boards you're referring to. Specifically.
  11. Gosh, please tell me what it does have to do with, then. I do so hate to be wrong.
  12. NANA SI. Her name is NANA. She is not the people who send astronauts into space. Well, I guess I'll sit over here with the other Big Wigs and Know-It-Alls and watch you self-destruct. I'm sure you know what I mean. Just have no doubt in your mind that if you so much as misspell a word, I'll be there to correct you. Kind of like your misinterpretation of the FCRA earlier today
  13. Awwww, sis. You just don't get it. This isn't about letters. I could care less about letters, I didn't even go look at your letters. I know you had LKH's up there, without credit, after you asked him so nicely to be able to use it. I don't know what other ones you had up there, and could care less. But then again, in other incarnations at other places, I'm known as a Big Wig and a Know It All, aren't I? See, it's not about letters at all. It's about extending courtesy to someone, trying to help them out, and then having that someone bad mouth you on other sites. Oh, and now I don't see where you ask for money. Before you edited, however, it was there "email me! Help starting as low as $50". Of course, that link wasn't there when I reviewed your site for inclusion with the other links on my site. (Such link has since been removed, since you know very well that we don't include links to people who ask for money but rather to other resources so people can help themselves.) SO in all your searching for hours on end to get everything in one spot - and the idea was a good one, I will give you that - it was too much trouble to take 5 minutes and type in the names that went along with the letters. Regardless of the other stuff, that's common courtesy when you go poaching. Just like in the after BK thread, regardless of what Nana said about it - it's common courtesy to give credit to the person who put the original work into composing a letter or list that works. Oh, I won't mention copyright laws and all that. I know at least 2 of the sites that you poached from have copyrights clauses in their TOS that says anything posted there belongs to the site owners and cannot be reproduced in any form without their permission. Copyright infringement is federal, honey. Think about that one.
  14. Never mentioned licensing, did I? I read all the MI statutes last night, as well as the penalties for not complying, so I was rather curious. Nice new home page, by the way. I guess that was one solution to the problem. Sis - you gotta understand that until yesterday I had no problems with you and have even interacted amicably with you. I'm sure you have to be reasonably aware of why you've suddenly incurred my wrath. The knife in my back dictates one thing: to completely discredit you for the fraud and the snake that you have revealed yourself to be, and to show the public the other face that you've hidden so well up until now.
  15. Ahhh yes, I also see nothing wrong with being paid for ones time. I do have to wonder, however, if you're in compliance with all of Michigan's laws regarding credit repair?
  16. You do take credit, sis. Face it. You don't put on the letters who wrote them - the average surfer who happens upon your site will think you wrote them. Why? Because there's nothing there to tell them otherwise. Not giving credit for other people's work is, at best, unethical, dishonorable, and lacks integrity and decency. At worst, well, have you heard the name Bill Bauer? The line is really crossed, however, when someone takes the letters that others have written - that they've refused to give credit for - and uses them in a service that they charge money for. So you're making money off the blood, sweat and tears of others, but can't even have the decency to give them honor of acknowledging that they wrote the letters that are making you money? I think I see a snake in our midst.
  17. Hmm you didn't advise him to read the nutcase series and see if it might apply to his situation. Is that because the letter is too well known for you to attempt to take credit for it?
  18. Could have something to do with disputing the inquiries, that whole fraud department thing, you know.
  19. How much did you charge him for that link, Sis?