THE CREDIT SAINT FILES PART 2: The Threat That Became a Weapon

A CREDLOCITY FORENSIC COUNTER-INVESTIGATION

Writer: Joeziel Vazquez,

CEO & Board Certified Credit Consultant (BCCC, CCSC, CCRS) 

Experience: 17 Years in Credit Repair Industry  

Published: November 15, 2025 

PROLOGUE: THE EMAIL THAT CHANGED EVERYTHING

The email arrived at 11:23 AM on November 11, 2025.

I was at my desk in Philadelphia, finishing up client reviews, when the notification chimed. The subject line made me sit up straight:

Credit Saint Cease and Desist and Demand to Credlocity (11.11.25)

Two days. That's how long it had been since I published Part 1 of The Credit Saint Files. Two days since I documented 582 consumer complaints showing a pattern so consistent it couldn't be coincidence. Two days since I told Jennifer's story—the single mother working two jobs who paid Credit Saint $1,565.88 over thirteen months for absolutely nothing.

Now Credit Saint wanted $300,000.

Remove everything. Issue a public retraction. Pay damages. Seven days or face federal litigation.

I've been threatened before. Another credit repair "expert" got in my face at an industry real estate convention—chest to chest, thinking physical intimidation would silence documentation. Chanelle Jones sent cease and desist letters before ultimately paying me $25,000 to make her nightmare disappear. Lexington Law's corporate attorneys rattled their sabers until they realized I wasn't the kind of target who folds.

But this threat was different.

Not because it was more credible. Not because the law firm was more impressive. Not because the dollar amount was higher.

It was different because of what they accidentally told me.

See, when you threaten someone with a legal demand letter, you have to make factual claims about your client's business. You have to state, in writing, what is and isn't true. You have to draw lines in the sand.

Credit Saint's attorneys drew those lines with remarkable precision:

"Credit Saint does not have voicemail"

"Credit Saint does not bill in advance of service"

"Credit Saint does not email contracts"

"Jennifer Martinez doesn't exist in our database"

"We've suffered $300,000 in damages from your article"

Each claim was a target. Each denial was a challenge. Each factual representation became something I could test, verify, document.

I read the five-page letter twice. Then I leaned back in my chair, looked at the ceiling of my Philadelphia office, and smiled.

They had no idea who they just picked a fight with.

THE HUNT BEGINS: 12:18 AM

I couldn't sleep.

It was past midnight on November 12, 2025—hours after receiving their threat—and my mind was racing. If Credit Saint's attorneys were lying about basic facts, what else were they lying about?

I grabbed my phone. Not my business line. My personal cell. I was in New Jersey visiting family, which meant I was in a one-party consent state. Perfect for what I had in mind.

First test: The voicemail that "doesn't exist."

Their attorneys stated explicitly in their demand letter: "Credit Saint does not have voicemails."

At 12:18 AM, when the world sleeps and only insomniacs and investigators hunt, I dialed Credit Saint's main customer service number: (877) 637-2673

The automated system answered immediately. Professional. Polished. Exactly what you'd expect from a company trying to look legitimate.

"Press one, for existing clients, press two for sales, press three (I immediately pressed 2) You have reached us after our normal business hours. Please leave your name and number after the tone, and one of our staff will return your call on the following business day"

I pressed 2. Waited through hold music. Listened to the system transfer my call.

It took approximately 20 seconds of navigation before I heard what Credit Saint's attorneys—in a legal document threatening me with $300,000 in damages—claimed didn't exist:

"Press one, for existing clients, press two for sales, press three (I immediately pressed 2) You have reached us after our normal business hours. Please leave your name and number after the tone, and one of our staff will return your call on the following business day"

I sat there in the darkness of my temporary New Jersey location, recording device capturing every word.

The voicemail system exists.

It has a professional greeting. It promises call-backs within 1-2 business days (a promise that, according to 582 consumer complaints, is rarely kept). It's accessible through their main customer service line. It's part of their standard phone infrastructure.

Their attorney lied. In writing. In a legal threat demanding $300,000.

I hung up without leaving a message. My voice never entered their system. My identity never revealed.

This wasn't about testing their response time. This was about catching them in their first provable lie.

In prison law library, I learned something fundamental: credibility is everything. Once you catch someone in one demonstrable lie, everything else they say becomes suspect. Judges know this. Juries know this.

And now I knew Credit Saint's attorneys would lie in legal documents.

The hunt had officially begun.

BECOMING JONATHAN: THE FIRST UNDERCOVER CALL

I've done undercover work before. It's part of how I survived—learning to become whoever I needed to be to get the truth.

But this felt different. This wasn't just about exposing fraud. This was about proving that a company threatening me with legal destruction was systematically violating federal law with every single sale.

November [REDACTED], 2025. Still in New Jersey. Still legally recording.

I created a new identity: Jonathan. Just got laid off. Bankruptcy on my credit report from medical bills. Desperate to buy a house before my wife and I lose the chance.

The sales representative who answered was warm. Professional. Exactly the kind of voice that makes desperate people feel seen.

"Jonathan, let me explain how we handle bankruptcies," she said, her tone reassuring. "Your story—why you had to file, what circumstances led to that decision—that's really all we need to get it removed."

I paused. Kept my voice uncertain. "Wait, you're saying my story can get a bankruptcy deleted?"

"Absolutely," she said without hesitation. "We write a detailed explanation about why you filed—maybe medical bills, job loss, whatever your situation was—and we present that to the bureaus. When they see the context, they often remove it because the circumstances weren't your fault."

My heart was pounding. She was promising illegal deletion of accurate information.

"But the bankruptcy actually happened," I said, playing confused consumer. "It's accurate information, right?"

"It is," she acknowledged, "but that doesn't mean it has to stay on your report. The bureaus look at each case individually, and when we explain your situation, they understand. We've done this hundreds of times."

I let the silence hang for a moment. Let her think I was considering it.

What she just described is a violation of federal law.

The Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA) explicitly prohibits making false or misleading representations about services. Bankruptcies stay on credit reports for 7-10 years by law. They can only be removed if they're:

1. Inaccurate (wrong person, wrong dates, wrong type)

2. Unverifiable (creditor can't confirm it)

3. Outside the legal reporting period

"Your story" doesn't make accurate, verifiable, timely bankruptcies disappear. The credit bureaus don't care about "context" or "circumstances"—they report factual public records as required by federal law.

But Credit Saint's representative just promised exactly that. To someone they thought was a desperate consumer who didn't know better.

Then came the billing conversation.

"So when does the first payment process?" I asked.

"Your first monthly payment processes six days from today," she said brightly. "By then, we'll have all three reports, our analysts will have reviewed them, and we'll already be preparing your dispute strategy."

Six days. Not six months. Day six.

The Telemarketing Sales Rule is crystal clear: credit repair organizations cannot charge until either (1) service is fully performed, OR (2) six months have passed since enrollment.

Credit bureau investigations take 30-45 days minimum. Creditor negotiations take weeks to months. No legitimate credit repair service can possibly complete work in six days.

But their attorney claimed in writing: "Credit Saint does not bill in advance of service."

The representative on the phone just told me they bill on day six.

I had them.

BECOMING MICHAEL: TESTING FOR PATTERN

One recording could be a rogue employee. One promise could be a mistake. One violation could be explained away.

Two recordings showing identical practices? That's a pattern. That's systematic training.

November [REDACTED], 2025. New identity: Michael.

This time I was a homeowner. Late payments on a $420,000 mortgage because I got laid off during the pandemic. Perfect payment history before that. Desperate to clean it up.

Different day. Different representative. Same script.

"Michael, here's the good news about your situation," the rep said, voice full of confidence. "Those late payments from when you were laid off—we can absolutely work on getting those removed. The fact that it was a layoff, not your fault, that's huge. We'll document that you were a perfect customer until circumstances beyond your control happened, and the lender will often agree to remove those lates as a goodwill gesture."

There it was again. The same illegal promise.

"Even though the late payments actually happened?" I asked.

"Right, but they happened because of a situation you couldn't control. Lenders work with us on this all the time. Once they see you're back on track and it was temporary hardship, they're willing to help."

Same lie. Different voice. Identical script.

Late payments can be removed if they're reported incorrectly or if a creditor voluntarily agrees to delete them (rare and entirely discretionary). But Credit Saint's rep was promising removal as an expected outcome based on "we do this all the time."

That's CROA fraud.

Then: "Your first monthly payment processes six days from today."

Identical billing timeline. Word for word.

I hung up after the call ended and sat there in silence, replaying the recordings in my mind.

Two calls. Different days. Different representatives. Different scenarios.

Identical federal law violations.

This wasn't one bad employee. This was systematic training. This was a company-wide script designed to make illegal promises while using language crafted to create plausible deniability.

Someone at Credit Saint wrote this script. Someone approved it. Someone trained these representatives to say these exact words.

And I had it all on tape.

[⚠️ IMPORTANT NOTE TO READERS AND CREDIT SAINT'S ATTORNEYS:]

I am intentionally withholding the exact dates of my undercover sales calls. I'm withholding the full recordings. I'm withholding the complete transcripts.

Not because they don't exist. Not because I'm uncertain about their content. Not because I fear legal scrutiny.

I'm withholding them because discovery, deposition, and trial testimony are where they'll have maximum impact.

Credit Saint's attorneys won't be able to locate these specific calls in their records before I present them in legal proceedings. They won't be able to coach their representatives. They won't be able to prepare alternative explanations.

When the time comes—and it will come—I will release:

• Complete recordings with timestamps

• Full transcripts with every word documented

• Call metadata showing duration, routing, and system details

• Expert analysis from consumer protection attorneys

• Comparison to Credit Saint's claims in legal filings

This is a promise: If Credit Saint proceeds with litigation, or if regulatory agencies open investigations, these recordings will be submitted as exhibits with such comprehensive documentation that no attorney, no judge, no regulatory body could dismiss them.

Until then, Credit Saint gets to live with the knowledge that somewhere in their call records, buried among thousands of sales calls, are two conversations that document systematic federal law violations.

They just don't know which ones.

Sleep well, Credit Saint. The recordings are coming.

THE SMOKING GUN THEY GAVE ME THEMSELVES

Sometimes the best evidence comes from the target's own mouth.

I was digging through Credit Saint's Better Business Bureau complaint history—all 107 complaints filed over three years—when I found it.

December 27, 2022. An official Credit Saint response to a consumer complaint.

The consumer said they were charged without authorization. Standard complaint. But Credit Saint's response stopped me cold:

"On the call you provided a card number after being read a billing disclosure asking your permission to process a payment six days after enrollment."

I read it three times to make sure I wasn't hallucinating.

Credit Saint admitted—in writing, in a public regulatory filing, preserved forever in the BBB database—that they charge clients six days after enrollment.

Their attorneys' November 11, 2025 cease and desist letter: "Credit Saint does not bill in advance of service."

Their own BBB response from December 27, 2022: "process a payment six days after enrollment."

Six days after enrollment is before any service can possibly be performed. The TSR explicitly requires either service completion OR six months. Not six days.

They admitted the violation themselves. In public. Contradicting their own lawyers.

Then I found another one. July 27, 2023:

"The first work fee for the program this client signed up for is $99.00. There was a $15 coupon applied as expressed to the client which brought the price to $84.00 and was $79.99 a month after that. We spoke to the client after they were billed..."

"After they were billed."

Not "after six months." Not "after we completed their disputes." After they were billed—meaning the billing happened first, service later.

I sat back in my chair, stunned at the gift Credit Saint had just given me.

When your own public statements document the exact federal violations I'm alleging, my investigation isn't defamation—it's just reading your own words back to you.

THE $300,000 FABRICATION: WHEN MATHEMATICS DESTROYS LIES

Credit Saint demanded $300,000 for "severe reputational harm" caused by my investigation.

Let me show you why that number is mathematically impossible.

The Timeline:

• November 6, 2025, 8:47 AM: Part 1 published

• November 9, 2025: Google Search Console confirms first indexing (article becomes discoverable)

• November 11, 2025, 6:23 PM: Cease and desist received demanding $300,000

Time between Google indexing and $300,000 demand: 48 hours

I pulled up my blog analytics. The cold, hard data that would demolish their entire damages claim.

Total unique visitors between November 6-11: 41

Not 41,000. Not 4,100. Forty-one human beings.

Let me break that down:

• 20 people came directly (probably clicked links I shared)

• 16 people came from Facebook

• 5 people came from Google search

• 2 people were me checking my own site

Only 5 people discovered my article through organic Google search before Credit Saint sent their threat letter.

Five.

So let's do the math Credit Saint is asking a court to believe:

$300,000 ÷ 41 visitors = $7,317 in damages per person

They're claiming that each individual who read my article caused $7,317 in harm to their business.

To put this in perspective:

• That's more than five months of their own service fees

• That's claiming they lost 2,307 customers (at $130/month each) from 41 readers

• That's suggesting a single blog post viewer causes more financial damage than the average car accident victim

It's absurd on its face.

But here's what makes it even more ridiculous: Credit Saint operates nationwide with 15,233 Google reviews (though we'll get to those in a moment). They have massive online presence. They market aggressively.

An article that had 5 Google search visitors in 48 hours represents:

• 0.0003% reach compared to their existing exposure

• Less traffic than a single negative Yelp review

• Zero material impact on their search visibility

And they want $300,000 for that.

I learned something in prison law library: when someone makes a claim this mathematically impossible, it's not a lawsuit threat—it's intimidation dressed in legal letterhead.

They picked the wrong journalist to intimidate.

THE REVIEWS THAT REVEALED EVERYTHING

I need to tell you about what I discovered in Credit Saint's Google reviews. Not because I want to pile on. Not because I enjoy exposing fraud (Well sort of).

Because the reviews tell a story about real people who trusted a manufactured reputation.

On November 12, 2025—the day after receiving their threat—I did something I've done seven times before in my fraud investigations: I analyzed their reviews forensically.

Not casually scrolling. Not reading a few dozen and forming an opinion. I analyzed over 800 reviews like a detective examining evidence at a crime scene.

What I found was a sophisticated deception so systematic, so coordinated, that it could only be intentional.

The Pattern You Can See With Your Own Eyes

Let me show you something. These are real reviews, posted by supposedly independent customers, using their own words to describe their genuine experiences:

Damira Bullock (1 review total, new account): "Stephen was great! He was very helpful, patient & informative with everything."

Denise Randle (2 reviews total, new account): "He answered all my questions and he was very patient.."

BrittanyRe Stowers (1 review total, new account): "Vickie, is very nice, informative, and patient!"

Elzy Arnold (2 reviews total, new account): "Jamal was wonderful. it was very informative and very patient with me..."

Notice anything?

"Very patient" appears in all four reviews. "Informative" in three. The sentence structure is nearly identical. The adjectives are interchangeable.

Now let me ask you: When was the last time you and three strangers independently chose the exact same words to describe completely different people?

Never. Because that's not how human language works.

When humans write genuine reviews, they use varied language. They tell stories. They describe specific moments. They use their own voice.

"The rep really took time with me even though I had a million questions" "Felt like talking to an old friend who actually cared" "Didn't rush me off the phone like other companies"

Those are different ways to say "patient." Real people would use them.

But when companies manufacture reviews using templates—proven, effective phrases that work well enough to copy-paste with minor variations—you get this:

"Very patient" × 95 reviews "Very helpful" × 95 reviews "Very professional" × 85 reviews "Answered all my questions" × 65 reviews

I counted them. I documented them. This is my professional opinion based on seventeen years in this industry: these reviews are manufactured.

The Tell-Tale Hearts: New Accounts With One Review

Here's what really convinced me I was looking at systematic fraud:

(Download the full forensic audit of the 800 reviews)

34% of Credit Saint's positive reviewers have only written one review ever. This single review. For this one company.

Think about your own Google account. If you've written reviews, you've probably reviewed:

• Restaurants where you ate

• Stores where you shopped

• Services you used

• Places you visited

You have a review history. Because you're a real person living a real life, interacting with multiple businesses.

But Credit Saint has hundreds of accounts that:

• Were created recently ("New" designation)

• Have written exactly one review

• Used template language

• Gave 5 stars

• Never reviewed anything before or since

That's not organic customer behavior. That's what investigators call "sock puppet accounts"—fake identities created for deception.

Let me give you real examples so you can see what I mean:

Yngbld (1 review, New): "I just wanted to thank Shanice For her awesome customer service, knowledge, Patience and understanding..."

Wiswealpow (1 review, New): "Very professional and helpful with the process."

Wofayaw Wofayaw (1 review, New): "The representative was very informative and patient with all my questions."

Those aren't real names. Those are the kinds of random strings you get when you need to create accounts quickly and run out of believable identities.

In my professional opinion, based on analyzing 800+ reviews with documented forensic methodology, approximately 250-300 of Credit Saint's reviews are inauthentic.

The Victims Who Saw Through It

Here's the most powerful evidence that I'm right about the fake reviews:

Over 40 of Credit Saint's own negative reviewers explicitly state the positive reviews are fake.

These aren't people who read my investigation. These are Credit Saint's actual customers—people who paid money, stayed long enough to see reality, and came back to warn others.

Listen to their voices:

Tony Leighton: "Credit saint a total SHAM!! Stay away from them and their fakes reviews, after 8 months nothing has been removed or fixed..."

Tony paid for eight months. Got zero results. And specifically called out the fake reviews.

Jim Vincent (this one is extraordinary): "Most of their indoor sales people that sign you up, live out of the country... Once they sign you up, they always want you to give them a review even though you don't know how good they're Going to do for you that way they get a higher Google rating and trust pilot rating."

Read that again.

Jim described the exact mechanism: Credit Saint pressures customers to leave reviews immediately after enrollment—before they've received any service, before results can be measured, before they realize they've been deceived.

That's why all the positive reviews talk about the "great sales call" and "helpful representative" but never mention actual results. They're reviewing the honeymoon period, not the marriage.

Yolanda Nelson: "I DO NOT RECOMMEND THIS COMPANY...ALL THEY WANT IS MONEY AND DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO YOUR CREDIT. KEEP YOUR MONEY, PLEASE. IT'S A SCAM AND THE REVIEWS ARE FAKE. I CAN'T BELIEVE THEY ARE STILL IN BUSINESS. THE BAD REVIEWS ARE THE REAL REVIEWS."

She's not subtle. She's screaming the truth.

Justin Evans: "These reviews are fake. That is why they have so many of them. Do NOT trust this company."

Jorge Diaz: "I have a really bad feeling about working with these people. Just look at the reviews, I have scrolled through pages and pages of reviews and they are all exactly the same. I haven't read one review about actual results."

Jorge did exactly what I did—he scrolled and recognized the pattern.

Tas Cofer: "If you notice all the 5 star reviews are of the initial phone call, not the final results."

Aya Aya: "I would be very cautious with this place. The reviews and ratings are intentionally misleading. They will ask you to leave a review during your sign up so majority of the reviews you are seeing and the high rating is because people are reviewing the initial call..."

Musah Bawa: "I don't understand why we give reviews within a week of signing up. Can we give actual reviews or testimonies from people that actually saw an increase in their credit scores? Of course most customers service reps are great, but what impact did their services have on your credit score? That's what we need to know."

These aren't my words. These are Credit Saint's own customers, independently reaching the same conclusion I did.

Why This Matters: The Human Cost of Fake Reviews

Let me tell you why I care so deeply about exposing fake reviews.

Because somewhere right now, there's another Jennifer. Another single mother working two jobs. Another family in crisis. Another desperate person Googling "credit repair companies" late at night.

And they're going to see Credit Saint's 4.8-star rating with 15,233 reviews.

They're going to read those templated 5-star reviews saying "very helpful and patient" and "answered all my questions."

They're going to trust that manufactured consensus.

And then they're going to pay $130-$195 per month for 6, 12, 18 months. They're going to be ghosted. They're going to get zero results. They're going to invoke the "90-day guarantee" only to discover 14 hidden disqualifying conditions.

And they're going to blame themselves for being "stupid enough to fall for it."

But they're not stupid. The system is rigged.

When a company floods Google with hundreds of fake positive reviews, it doesn't just boost their rating—it drowns out the truth.

The real reviews—the ones from Tony, Jim, Yolanda, Justin, Jorge, Tas, Aya, and Musah—get buried under an avalanche of manufactured praise.

That's why this matters. That's why I document it. That's why I refuse to be silenced by $300,000 threats.

In my professional opinion, based on forensic analysis of 800+ reviews using standard investigative methodology, Credit Saint's Google review profile is artificially manufactured and constitutes deceptive advertising that harms consumers.

The FTC Would Call This Illegal

The Federal Trade Commission's Final Rule on Fake Reviews—effective as of August 2024—prohibits exactly what I documented:

Fake consumer reviews posted by sock puppet accounts Procuring reviews by pressuring customers to review before service delivery Insider reviews without disclosure Review suppression through volume manipulation

Civil penalties: Up to $51,744 per violation

If even 10% of Credit Saint's reviews are fake (my estimate: 15-20%), and each is a separate violation, the math gets terrifying for them:

1,500 fake reviews × $51,744 = $77.6 million in potential FTC penalties

Those aren't my rules. That's federal law.

THE CHATBOT THAT COULDN'T KEEP THE LIE STRAIGHT

While I was conducting my undercover investigation, I tested one more thing: Credit Saint's website chatbot.

The attorneys claimed in their demand letter that sales representatives don't take calls, don't have personal contact—trying to create distance from the high-pressure phone tactics I documented.

So I asked the chatbot: "Can you help remove bankruptcies from my credit report?"

The response was immediate:

"Removing a bankruptcy from your credit report before it's set to naturally fall off can be challenging, but professional assistance can be very helpful if you find the process overwhelming...

To get started, you can schedule a free consultation with Credit Saint to have your credit report analyzed and discuss your options:

*• Get a Free Consultation

• Call 855-201-0746*

Credit Saint also offers a 90-day money-back guarantee if no negative items are removed within the first 90 days of service."

The chatbot directly contradicts the attorneys' claims.

It encourages phone consultations. It provides a direct number. It emphasizes the guarantee (without mentioning the 14 disqualifying conditions). It creates the impression Credit Saint has special power to remove accurate bankruptcies.

Their own marketing proves their lawyers lied.

WHAT I FOUND NEXT WOULD MAKE THEM PANIC

I sat at my desk, recordings queued, traffic data saved, BBB admissions documented, review templates catalogued.

I had:

✅ The voicemail that "doesn't exist" ✅ Two undercover calls proving TSR violations ✅ Credit Saint's own BBB admission of six-day billing ✅ Traffic data demolishing the $300,000 claim ✅ Forensic evidence of systematic review manipulation ✅ Their chatbot contradicting their attorneys

Everything their lawyers claimed was false—provably, demonstrably, recorded false.

But I knew something they didn't know yet.

I knew that threatening a gay Hispanic man who survived prison by learning law, beat addiction, who built a business serving 79,000 clients from the ashes of his own victimization, who has documented seven successful fraud investigations—that was their biggest mistake.

I don't fold under pressure. I document it. I investigate it. And I expose it.

On November 13th, 2025, I sent my response to Greenspoon Marder LLP.

Eighteen pages. Every claim demolished. Every threat rejected. Every piece of evidence catalogued.

ALL DEMANDS ARE CATEGORICALLY REJECTED AND DENIED IN THEIR ENTIRETY.

No payment. No retraction. No removal.

And at the end, I included something I've never offered any company I've investigated:

An offer of redemption.

A path to reform. A chance to fix what they broke. A partnership to implement ethical practices.

Expiration: December 6, 2025.

I hit send and leaned back in my chair.

Now we wait to see if they choose reform or regulatory destruction.

THEN SOMETHING HAPPENED I DIDN'T EXPECT

The next after I sent my response—one day after categorically rejecting their $300,000 demand—my phone buzzed with a Facebook message.

It was from my social media manager, Janaliz.

The message made my heart race:

"Do you have a phone number and email address Ross can reach out to you at?"

Ross. As in Ross LaPietra? As in the CEO of Credit Saint?

The man whose company just threatened me with $300,000 wanted to talk.

I stared at the message, mind racing through possibilities.

This was either:

1. A genuine attempt at resolution

2. An attempt to gather evidence

3. A desperate move by someone who realized how bad this was about to get

There was only one way to find out.

But what happened in that conversation—and what Ross admitted—would prove everything I'd been saying all along.

TO BE CONTINUED IN PART 3...

What you'll discover in Part 3:

The midday text messages that prove desperation Ross LaPietra's own words: "My goal was to reach out to try to avoid legal recourse" Why the CEO of a company suing you for $300,000 would personally ask to talk What I demanded before any conversation could happen The offer of free help to fix "hundreds of TSR violations and hundreds of CROA violations" And how Credit Saint's response revealed exactly who they really are

Coming Soon: Part 3 - "The CEO Cracks: When Predators Panic"

This investigation continues. The recordings are real. The evidence is documented. The deadline is December 6, 2025.

For Credit Saint victims ready to take action NOW: Email: Admin@credlocity.com Subject: "Credit Saint Victim Support"

IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES & LEGAL NOTICES

Your Money or Your Life (YMYL) Content Notice

This article contains information that may impact your financial decisions and consumer rights. Google classifies such content as "Your Money or Your Life" (YMYL) and holds it to high standards of accuracy, expertise, and trustworthiness. The following disclosures explain the nature, limitations, and sources of information presented in this investigation.

1. INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM DISCLOSURE

Nature of Content:This article is investigative journalism based on documented evidence, consumer complaints, undercover recordings, forensic analysis, and public records. It represents the professional opinions and findings of the author based on 17 years of industry experience and established investigative methodologies.

Purpose:The purpose of this investigation is consumer protection—to document potential violations of federal consumer protection laws and warn consumers about practices that may cause financial harm. This is protected First Amendment activity and constitutes journalism in the public interest.

Not Legal Advice:Nothing in this article constitutes legal advice. Readers should consult qualified attorneys for legal guidance specific to their situations.

2. AUTHOR QUALIFICATIONS & EXPERTISE

Joeziel Vazquez is the author and investigator of this series. His qualifications include:

• 17 years of professional experience in the credit repair industry (2008-2025)

• Board Certified Credit Consultant (BCCC)

• Certified Credit Score Consultant (CCSC)

• Certified Credit Repair Specialist (CCRS)

• FCRA Certified Professional

• CEO of Credlocity Business Group, LLC since 2008, serving 79,000+ clients

• 7 successful fraud investigations documented since 2021, resulting in regulatory actions, court orders, and settlements

• Personal experience as a credit repair fraud victim (Lexington Law, 2008)

• Self-taught legal education through federal prison law library (2008-2011), resulting in two overturned convictions and seven dismissed charges

Limitations:The author is not a licensed attorney and does not provide legal advice. Legal interpretations presented are based on extensive research and consultation with consumer protection legal experts but should not replace consultation with a qualified attorney.

3. METHODOLOGY & VERIFICATION STANDARDS

Evidence-Based Investigation:All factual claims in this article are supported by:

• 582 documented consumer complaints across 5 platforms (BBB, CFPB, Google, Yelp, Trustpilot)

  • https://www.bbb.org/us/nj/saddle-brook/profile/credit-repair-no-advanced-fee/credit-saint-llc-0221-27004499/complaints

  • https://www.yelp.com/biz/credit-saint-llc-saddle-brook?uid=AK8GSk5EDYWN1tY4BjNwQg&utm_campaign=www_business_share_popup&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_source=(direct)

  • https://maps.app.goo.gl/ziyGQd2ooMWDUSQr8

  • https://www.trustpilot.com/review/creditsaint.com

• Three legally recorded phone calls made under New Jersey one-party consent law (N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-3)

• Public regulatory filings including Better Business Bureau responses

• Forensic analysis of 800+ Google reviews using standard investigative methodology

• Analytics data from Google Search Console and blog traffic platforms

• Legal documents including Credit Saint's cease and desist letter

• Credit Saint's own public statements preserved in regulatory databases

Verification Process:Every factual claim has been verified through multiple independent sources. Where recordings or documents are referenced, they have been preserved as evidence and will be made available to regulatory authorities, courts, or investigative journalists upon appropriate request.

Ongoing Accuracy:The author maintains a commitment to factual accuracy. Any errors identified after publication will be corrected promptly with transparent notation of the correction and date.

4. OPINION VS. FACT DISCLOSURE

Factual Statements:The following are presented as verifiable facts:

• Credit Saint sent a cease and desist letter demanding $300,000

• The article had 41 unique visitors before the threat

• Undercover recordings captured specific sales promises

• Credit Saint admitted to six-day billing in BBB responses

• Statistical analysis of review patterns showing template usage

• Consumer complaints documenting similar experiences

Professional Opinions:The following are the author's professional opinions based on documented evidence:

• That Credit Saint's review profile appears artificially manufactured

• That recorded sales promises constitute federal law violations

• That the $300,000 damages claim is mathematically unsupportable

• That the patterns documented suggest systematic practices rather than isolated incidents

Legal Conclusions:Statements about potential legal violations (TSR, CROA, FTC Final Rule) are based on the author's understanding of federal statutes and regulations, consultation with legal experts, and application of law to documented facts. Final determinations of legal violations can only be made by courts or regulatory agencies.

5. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE

Competitive Relationship:The author is CEO of Credlocity, a credit repair company that competes with Credit Saint in the marketplace. This competitive relationship is disclosed openly throughout the investigation and does not diminish the factual accuracy of documented evidence.

Financial Motivation:The author has no financial incentive to fabricate evidence or make false claims. Credlocity does not benefit financially from Credit Saint's regulatory troubles, and this investigation has required significant time and resources that could have been spent on revenue-generating activities.

Personal Motivation:The author's primary motivation is consumer protection, stemming from personal experience as a credit repair fraud victim in 2008. The author has consistently offered partnership and reform opportunities to investigated companies, demonstrating that the goal is harm reduction, not competitive destruction.

No Compensation:The author has received no compensation from any third party (competitors, regulators, law firms, media outlets) for conducting or publishing this investigation.

6. SOURCE PROTECTION & PSEUDONYM USE

Journalistic Practice:This investigation uses pseudonyms to protect vulnerable sources from retaliation, a standard practice in investigative journalism employed by major news organizations including The New York Times, Washington Post, and ProPublica.

"Jennifer Martinez" is a pseudonym for a real consumer whose identity is protected. The author possesses:

• Signed authorization forms

• Recorded interviews

• Contracts bearing Credit Saint's name

• Bank statements documenting charges

• Email correspondence

The facts of her experience are real and documented. Only the name is changed for privacy protection.

Employee Sources:References to Credit Saint employees by first name or pseudonym protect those individuals from workplace retaliation while focusing on systematic company practices rather than individual actions.

7. RECORDING LEGALITY NOTICE

One-Party Consent Recording:All phone recordings were made while the author was physically located in New Jersey, a one-party consent state where it is legal to record conversations without the other party's knowledge or consent (N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-3).

Federal Law Compliance:Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)) permits one-party consent recording when at least one party to the conversation consents to the recording.

Admissibility:These recordings are legally obtained evidence admissible in court proceedings, regulatory investigations, and protected journalistic activity.

8. FAIR USE & COPYRIGHT COMPLIANCE

Limited Quotation:This article quotes from Credit Saint's public statements, legal correspondence, and consumer reviews under the fair use doctrine (17 U.S.C. § 107) for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, and research.

Transformative Use:All quoted material is analyzed, contextualized, and critiqued, constituting transformative use rather than mere reproduction.

No Copyright Infringement Intended:If any copyright holder believes material has been used improperly, please contact Admin@credlocity.com for immediate review and potential removal.

9. CONSUMER ADVICE LIMITATIONS

Not Personalized Financial Advice:This article does not provide personalized financial, legal, or credit repair advice tailored to individual circumstances. Readers should:

• Consult qualified professionals before making financial decisions

• Verify all information independently

• Seek legal counsel for matters involving potential litigation

• Contact licensed credit counselors for personalized credit guidance

No Guarantees:The author makes no guarantees about outcomes for consumers who take action based on this information. Results from filing complaints, demanding refunds, or seeking legal recourse will vary based on individual circumstances.

10. REGULATORY COMPLAINT STATUS

Complaints Filed:As disclosed in this article, formal complaints documenting the alleged violations have been submitted to:

• Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

• Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)

• Pennsylvania Attorney General

• New Jersey Attorney General

No Determination Yet Made:These complaints are pending investigation. No regulatory agency has made a determination of violations at the time of publication. The evidence presented in this article constitutes the author's submission to these agencies for their independent review.

Updates:If regulatory agencies take action, this article may be updated to reflect those developments with appropriate notation and dating.

11. CORRECTIONS & ACCOUNTABILITY POLICY

Commitment to Accuracy:The author maintains the highest standards of factual accuracy and welcomes corrections of any errors.

Proactive Corrections:As documented in this article, the author proactively published corrections on November 11, 2025 before receiving Credit Saint's legal threat, demonstrating commitment to accuracy over reputation protection.

How to Report Errors:Email: Admin@credlocity.comSubject: "Credit Saint Investigation - Correction Request"

Substantiated errors will be corrected promptly with transparent disclosure of the correction, including:

• What was incorrect

• What is now correct

• Date of correction

• Source of corrected information

12. NO DEFAMATION INTENDED

Truth as Defense:Every factual statement in this investigation is believed to be true based on documented evidence, multiple sources, and rigorous verification. Truth is an absolute defense to defamation under Pennsylvania law and the First Amendment.

Protected Opinion:Characterizations and opinions are clearly labeled as such and are based on disclosed facts, constituting protected opinion under Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990).

No Actual Malice:This investigation was conducted with thorough research, multiple verification sources, and proactive corrections when errors were identified—the opposite of actual malice required for defamation claims involving matters of public concern.

13. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

Information Provided "As Is":This article is provided for informational and consumer protection purposes. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, the author makes no warranties, express or implied, about the completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information.

No Liability for Actions Taken:The author is not liable for any actions readers take based on this information, including but not limited to:

• Filing regulatory complaints

• Demanding refunds

• Initiating legal action

• Canceling services

• Choosing alternative providers

Consult Professionals:Readers should consult appropriate professionals (attorneys, financial advisors, credit counselors) before taking any action that may affect their legal or financial position.

14. PRIVACY & DATA PROTECTION

Consumer Privacy:Consumer names have been changed to pseudonyms to protect privacy. No personally identifiable information (addresses, phone numbers, account numbers, Social Security numbers) has been published.

Public Information:All information about Credit Saint (company name, business practices, public statements, review content) is derived from publicly available sources or the author's own investigation.

GDPR/CCPA Compliance:This article complies with applicable privacy regulations. No personal data is collected, stored, or processed through this article.

15. ONGOING INVESTIGATION NOTICE

Living Document:This investigation is ongoing. Additional evidence may be published in subsequent parts of this series. The deadline of December 6, 2025 for Credit Saint's response remains in effect.

Updates:Readers can subscribe to updates at credlocity.com or follow developments through the blog.

Additional Evidence:Full recordings, complete transcripts, and additional documentation may be released upon:

• Expiration of the December 6, 2025 deadline

• Initiation of litigation by Credit Saint

• Request by regulatory agencies

• Public interest considerations

16. CONTACT INFORMATION

For Media Inquiries:Email: Admin@credlocity.comSubject: "Media Inquiry - Credit Saint Investigation"

For Credit Saint Victims:Email: Admin@credlocity.comSubject: "Credit Saint Victim Support"

For Legal Correspondence:Credlocity Business Group, LLC Email: Admin@credlocity.com

For Credit Saint's Response:Credit Saint or its legal representatives may submit responses, corrections, or rebuttals to Admin@credlocity.com. Substantive responses will be published with the author's reply.

17. FINAL STATEMENT

This investigation represents days of research, documentation, analysis, and verification. It is published in good faith for the purpose of consumer protection and in exercise of First Amendment rights to engage in journalism about matters of public concern.

The author stands behind every factual claim made in this article and welcomes scrutiny from regulators, journalists, legal experts, and the public.

Last Updated: November 15, 2025Next Update: Upon publication of Part 3 or significant developments

© 2025 Credlocity Business Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

This article may be shared, linked, or excerpted with proper attribution. Reproduction in full without permission is prohibited.

END OF DISCLOSURES