Lionheart Group Scam Prevention Toolkit

Archive for 'Business Scams'

Report Finds 60 Percent Increase in Pharmaceutical Industry Deals That Delay Consumers’ Access to Lower-Cost Generic Drugs

May 3rd, 2011. Published under Business Scams, Scams. No Comments.

Pharmaceutical companies struck an unprecedented number of deals in Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 in which the manufacturers of branded products paid potential generic rivals and generic companies agreed to defer the introduction of lower-cost medicines for American consumers, according to an overview of industry data released by the staff of the Federal Trade Commission . The FTC staff report found that the number of these deals skyrocketed more than 60 percent, from 19 in FY 2009 to 31 in FY 2010. Overall, the agreements reached in the latest fiscal year involved 22 different brand-name pharmaceutical products with combined annual U.S. sales of about $9.3 billion. “Collusive deals to keep generics off the market are already costing consumers and taxpayers $3.5 billion a year in higher drug prices,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz. “The increasing number of these deals is a win-win proposition for the pharmaceutical industry, but a lose-lose for everyone else.” Millions of Americans rely on generic drugs to make medicine affordable, and generics also help hold down costs for taxpayer-funded health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Generic prices are typically at least 20 to 30 percent less than the name-brand drugs, and in some cases are up to 90 percent cheaper. In recent years, certain brand-name companies have paid generic challengers to settle their patent challenges and delay the introduction of lower-cost medicines. An FTC staff study has found that such settlements that include a payment delay generic entry by 17 months longer on average than those that do not include a payment. The FTC has challenged a number of these patent settlement agreements in court, contending that they are anticompetitive and violate U.S. antitrust laws. The agency also has supported legislation in Congress that would prohibit settlements that increase the cost of prescription drugs. Source: FTC

View post:
Report Finds 60 Percent Increase in Pharmaceutical Industry Deals That Delay Consumers’ Access to Lower-Cost Generic Drugs

Bud Hibbs Wants Your Junk Debt Buyer Affidavits from Debt Collection Lawsuits

April 23rd, 2011. Published under Business Scams, Scams. No Comments.

Bud Hibbs is attempting to collect affidavits to show that junk debt buyers engage in signing documents where they claim to have firsthand knowledge of the accounts and that these affidavits are routinely

Announcement of Filing a Class Action Lawsuit Against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC for Alleged Violations of The Telephone Consumer Protection Act

April 19th, 2011. Published under Business Scams, Scams. No Comments.

The law firms of Turner Law Offices, LLC and Arcadier & Associates, P.A. have filed a Class Action lawsuit against Defendant Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (“PRA”) in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on behalf of all persons in the State of Florida who, since February 18, 2011, received a non-emergency telephone call from PRA to a cellular telephone through the use of an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice and who did not provide prior express consent for such calls during the transaction that resulted in the debt owed. The action is captioned Karen Harvey et al. v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, and is numbered 6:11-CV-00582. The law firms of Turner Law Offices, LLC and Arcadier & Associates, P.A. have filed a Class Action lawsuit against Defendant Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (“PRA”) in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on behalf of all persons in the State of Florida who, since February 18, 2011, received a non-emergency telephone call from PRA to a cellular telephone through the use of an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice and who did not provide prior express consent for such calls during the transaction that resulted in the debt owed. The action is captioned Karen Harvey et al. v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, and is numbered 6:11-CV-00582. According to the Complaint, PRA violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) by using automatic dialing systems and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice to contact cell phone users about purported debts without their prior consent. As described in the Complaint, Ms. Harvey, the named plaintiff in the action, was repeatedly contacted since February 18, 2011 on her cell phone about a purported credit card debt. The plaintiff never consented to those calls, nor did she provide PRA with her telephone number. Under the TCPA, PRA could be ordered to pay attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses and costs of the lawsuit, and statutory damages of $500 for each negligent violation, and/or $1,500 for each knowing and/or willing violation. According to the Complaint, the potential Class Members are estimated to number in the tens of thousands. Additionally, the complaint alleges collective damages exceeding five million dollars ($5,000,000). The Attorneys who have filed the lawsuit have significant experience litigating high profile and collective action cases on behalf of consumers and plaintiffs. Henry A. Turner , Esq., MBA from Turner Law Offices, LLC concentrating in consumer rights litigation, is a trial attorney with twenty years of experience and has been successful in recovering millions of dollars for consumers including a $2,950,000 Class Action Settlement with Pitney Bowes, Inc. in a case involving the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Martin K. O’Toole et al. v. Pitney Bowes, Inc.; United State District Court for the Northern District of Georgia; Case No. 1:08-CV-1645. Maurice Arcadier , Esq., MBA from Arcadier and Associates, P.A. is also an experienced trial attorney with 14 years of experience and board certified by the Florida Bar. Mr. Arcadier likewise brings class action experience and is currently co-counsel in a high profile collective action case against Florida Power and Light , Romero v. Florida Power and Light Company, Case No.: 6:09-cv-1401, in the Middle District of Florida. Indeed, with the combined experience, background and resources of the Turner Law Office and Arcadier and Associates, many consumers in Georgia and Florida may receive protection from the unsolicited calls as well as $1,500.00 for each call they received. If there are any consumers who likewise have received unsolicited calls, they may contact any of the attorneys below. While the cases only address claims in Georgia and Florida at this time, the alleged violations may be occurring nationwide and any consumer who is experiencing the type of calls described above from Portfolio Recovery or other debt collectors are encouraged to contact the law offices below or an attorney of your choosing. For further information please contact: Henry A. Turner, Esq., MBA TURNER LAW OFFICES, LLC 403 W. Ponce de Leon Avenue Decatur, Georgia 30030 (404) 261-7787 hturner(at)tloffices(dot)com http://www.tloffices.com or Maurice Arcadier, Esq., MBA ARCADIER AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. 2815 W. New Haven, #304 Melbourne, Fl. 32904 T: 321-953-5998 F: 321-953-6075 arcadier(at)wamalaw(dot)com http://www.wamalaw.com

Original post:
Announcement of Filing a Class Action Lawsuit Against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC for Alleged Violations of The Telephone Consumer Protection Act

Regulators Seeks to Halt 10 Operators of Fake News Sites from Making Deceptive Claims About Acai Berry Weight Loss Products

April 19th, 2011. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

The Federal Trade Commission is requesting federal courts to temporarily halt the allegedly deceptive tactics of 10 operations using fake news websites to market acai berry weight-loss products.

Judge Issues Huge Smackdown on Debt Collectors and Industry for Harassing Consumers on Facebook and Social Media

April 18th, 2011. Published under Business Scams, Fraud. No Comments.

This should be a warning to every debt collection company in the United States that do not reign in collectors that break the law to make a quick commission. Legal precedence and decisions such as this will cost your companies mega-bucks. Personally I hope debt collectors do continue to harass consumers this way, so that the consumers can sue the pants of of the idiots and put money in their pockets for enduring the abuse. I like getting paid for debt collectors breaking the law. I’ve made more suing devious debt collectors than they ever have from me, and as long as they flaunt the law consumers can and will get paid for the harassment. A debt collection company operating in Jacksonville Florida, MarkOne financial, has (probably fired by now)

Your Tax Dollars at Work–TSA Caught Fondling 6 Year Old Little Girl

April 13th, 2011. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

For me this is the last straw. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has gone too far and I dare them, the department of homeland security or anyone else to stifle my thoughts and opinions of this outrage. I have a daughter. While she is an adult now if what I am about to share had happened to her, I would not have stood by and let it happen. I am a real guy and it takes a lot to affect me emotionally, what the TSA did to a six year old little girl has me choked up and almost to the point of tears. The more I think about the incident the angrier I get. FACT: The TSA has not to date ever stopped a terrorist action. Yet the continue to harass and embarrass U.S. citizens without any probable cause. Children being are being groped, breast cancer survivors are being subjected to routines normally reserved for criminals. Guess what… Your hard earned tax dollars are being spent on this useless arbitrage against citizens of this country. Call your congresspersons and other leaders and demand that the Transportation and their porno-scanners be abolished. You can bet as long as there is breath in my body I will campaign to end the TSA’s activities.

Oil and Gasoline Market Manipulators, Beware the FTC and CFTC Are Coming For You

April 12th, 2011. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

As part of their ongoing efforts to keep markets that they oversee open and fair for American consumers, the Federal Trade Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today announced that they signed an agreement to foster further cooperation between the two agencies by helping them share nonpublic information. The FTC and CFTC signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that will facilitate sharing of non-public information on investigations being conducted by the agencies, including investigations into the oil and gasoline markets. The agreement will help the FTC enforce its petroleum market manipulation rule , which prohibits fraudulent manipulation of U.S. petroleum markets. Information-sharing also will help the CFTC in exercising its authority to pursue manipulation in the oil markets. “It is important for regulators to share information to be able to pursue market manipulation wherever it arises,” CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler said. “I thank Chairman Leibowitz and the staff of the FTC for their work on this MOU and look forward to partnering with them in ensuring the integrity of the oil markets.” “With gasoline prices on the rise, we are committed to doing all we can to ensure that petroleum markets are competitive,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz. “Competition works to keep prices lower, and this MOU improves the ability of the FTC and CFTC to take action if and when we find market manipulation. I’d like to thank our CFTC partners for helping to improve the already excellent communication between our two agencies.” Both the FTC and CFTC have authorities to take legal action to stop fraud-based manipulation of the petroleum markets. In addition, the CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction to regulate exchanges, clearing organizations and intermediaries in the U.S. futures industry. The MOU will further facilitate information sharing between the FTC and CFTC on regulatory issues of common interest, such as manipulation of oil and gasoline markets. At the same time, the agreement states that the FTC and CFTC take all necessary steps to ensure that the confidentiality of this nonpublic information is maintained. It also provides that the agreement does not modify the agencies’ current abilities, responsibilities, or obligations to comply with existing laws or regulations, including the FTC’s confidentiality obligations under the premerger laws. Both the FTC and the CFTC votes were unanimous in approving the MOU. It became effective when it was signed, and will remain in effect until it is terminated by either the FTC or CFTC. The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them.

Regulators Collect $2.2 Million from Kirkland Young LLC, Bans them From Mortgage Relief Business

April 11th, 2011. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

Under a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission, two companies and three individuals are banned from the mortgage relief services business and must relinquish $2.2 million in assets for consumer refunds. The action is part of the FTC’s ongoing effort to stop scams that target financially strapped homeowners seeking mortgage relief. In November 2009, the FTC alleged that Kirkland Young LLC and its manager, David Botton, misrepresented themselves as consumer mortgage lenders, servicers, or their affiliates, and falsely promised they would modify consumers’ loans and make their mortgage payments more affordable. The court halted the operations and froze the defendants’ assets pending resolution of the case. The following month, the FTC added Botton’s sister, April Botton Krawiecki; their father, Samy Botton; and Attorney Aid LLC as defendants. In addition to banning the defendants from selling mortgage relief services, the settlement announced today permanently prohibits them from misleading consumers about financial-related goods and services, such as misrepresenting loan or refund terms, affiliation with any person or government entity, and the ability to improve someone’s credit history. The settlement bars the defendants from selling or otherwise disclosing customers’ personal information, enforcing contracts with mortgage relief clients, and violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule. The settlement imposes a $6.1 million judgment that will be suspended when Samy Botton has paid $300,000; David Botton has surrendered certain assets, including a condo, a car, and a boat; April Botton Krawiecki has surrendered a condo; and Kirkland Young LLC and Attorney Aid LLC have surrendered all of their assets, worth $2.2 million. The FTC recently issued the Mortgage Assistance Relief Services Rule , which bans providers of mortgage foreclosure rescue and loan modification services from collecting fees until homeowners have a written offer from their lender or servicer that they decide is acceptable. Because the defendants’ claims predated the Rule, the FTC did not allege any violations of the Rule in this case. The Commission vote approving the proposed consent order was 5-0. It is subject to court approval. The FTC filed the proposed consent order in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The FTC acknowledges the assistance of the Offices of Attorney General in Florida and Ohio in this matter. Click here for facts about how consumers can help save their home from foreclosure and avoid scams. Source: FTC Federal Trade Commission v. Kirkland Young, LLC, a limited liability company, David Botton, individually and as a manager of Kirkland Young, LLC. (United States District Court Southern District of Florida) Civil Action No. 09-CV-23507 FTC File No. 092 3162

Two More Consumers Fend Off Debt Collectors in Court and Win with “THE BOOK”

March 22nd, 2011. Published under Business Scams, Fraud. No Comments.

I do love hearing that readers of the Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors Book are fighting back against frivolous debt collection lawsuits and winning. Consumers that cannot afford and attorney can defend themselves in court again debt collectors and leave triumphant. Below are portions of emails that I received today from readers. I am so glad that I can empower people and enjoy their victories nearly as much as they d0.

Audio of West Asset Management Debt Collector Abusing Consumer – West Asset Management Fined 2.8 Million

March 21st, 2011. Published under Business Scams, Fraud. No Comments.

Debt Collector West Asset Management to Pay a Record 2.8 Million for Abusing Consumers

March 16th, 2011. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

A leading debt collection company has agreed to pay a civil penalty of $2.8 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that its aggressive collection techniques violated federal law. As part of its efforts to protect consumers affected by the struggling economy, the FTC alleged that West Asset Management, Inc. violated the FTC Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the FTC’s complaint , thousands of consumer complaints have been filed against West Asset Management Inc., which employs 1,500 debt collectors in 13 states and one offshore location. West Asset Management debt collectors allegedly violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by calling consumers multiple times each day, often regarding accounts that did not belong to them, and sometimes using rude and abusive language. The FTC further charged that West Asset Management also illegally disclosed the existence of consumers’ debts to third parties and ignored consumers’ written demands that West Asset Management stop calling them. The company also allegedly withdrew funds from consumers’ bank accounts or charged their credit cards without consent and falsely claimed that consumers would be sued, arrested, or have their property seized for nonpayment of their debt. In addition, the FTC alleged that West Asset Management falsely claimed that partial payments would be accepted as full settlement on accounts and that negative information would stay on consumers’ credit reports until debts were paid. According to the complaint, West Asset Management has collected on more than 24 million accounts on behalf of clients in the healthcare, telecommunications, consumer credit, and government service industries. The settlement imposes a $2.8 million civil penalty, which is the largest civil penalty obtained by the FTC in a debt collection case. The settlement order permanently prohibits West Asset from using false, deceptive or unfair debt collection tactics, including: Misrepresenting itself as a law firm or that its collectors are attorneys; Misrepresenting that debtors will be arrested or have their property seized if they don’t pay; Threatening actions that would be illegal, or actions that the company has no intention of taking; Making false statements to collect a debt or obtain information about a consumer; Withdrawing funds from consumers’ bank accounts or charging their credit cards without their consent; Depositing postdated checks before the date on the check, or threatening to do so; Revealing to third parties that a consumer owes a debt; Asking a third party for a consumer’s location information more than once without the third party’s consent or a reasonable belief that the person’s earlier response was wrong or incomplete and that the person now has correct location information; Calling consumers before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m., or at their workplace; Communicating with a consumer after receiving written notice that the consumer refuses to pay or wants the collector to stop calling; and Using obscene or profane language, or harassing consumers with repeated phone calls. Source: FTC United States of America, Plaintiff, v. West Asset Management, Inc., Defendant (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia) Case No. 1:11-cv-0746 File No. 0723006

Regulators Recover Additional $2.1 Million for Consumers Defrauded by AmeriDebt Scam

March 15th, 2011. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

On March 9, an administrator working for the Federal Trade Commission mailed 78,552 refund checks to consumers defrauded by a credit counseling/debt management scam run by Andris Pukke and his companies, AmeriDebt, Inc. and DebtWorks, Inc. The FTC alleged that the defendants deceived consumers about the fees for debt management plans and misrepresented that AmeriDebt was a non-profit, in addition to making false promises to teach consumers how to handle their credit and finances. The FTC previously returned almost $13 million to consumers in this scam. The distribution of more than $2.1 million announced today is the result of additional funds collected from the defendants, and the amount of each check will vary based upon the amount of each consumer’s loss. Consumers who receive the checks should cash them by May 9, 2011. The FTC never requires consumers to pay money or provide information before redress checks may be cashed. Consumer victims who have not previously filed a complaint with the FTC may still do so. AmeriDebt consumers with questions should call the redress administrator, Gilardi & Co., LLC , at 888-309-3816 or visit www.ftc.gov/ameridebt . Source: FTC Federal Trade Commission v. AmeriDebt, Inc., DebtWorks, Inc., Andris Pukke, and Pamela Pukke, also known as Pamela Shuster (District of Maryland) Civil Action No.: PJM 03-3317; FTC File No. X040009 RELATED STORIES Regulator Puts an End to Chikita’s Tactics of Online Advertising That Deceived Consumers American Express Bank Violating the Credit Repair Organizations Act Using a Debt Collection Letter? Regulator Steps Up Efforts Against Scams That Target Financially-Strapped Consumers Debt Collector Portfolio Recovery Associates Sending out Bogus IRS 1099-C’s to Consumers Again?

Follow this link:
Regulators Recover Additional $2.1 Million for Consumers Defrauded by AmeriDebt Scam

Regulator Puts an End to Chikita’s Tactics of Online Advertising That Deceived Consumers Who Wanted to "Opt Out" from Targeted Ads

March 14th, 2011. Published under Business Scams, Scams. No Comments.

Chitika Inc.’s Opt-Out Expired After Only 10 Days The FTC reached a settlement with online advertising company Chitika, Inc. that ends the company’s allegedly deceptive practice of tracking consumers’ online activities even after they have chosen to opt out of online tracking on Chitika’s website. The FTC investigated Chitika as part of its ongoing efforts to protect consumers’ privacy online. Chitika, whose website states that it delivers three billion ad impressions a month, acts as a go-between for websites and advertisers. According to the FTC complaint, Chitika buys ad space on websites and contracts with advertisers to place small text files called cookies on those websites. Chitika also uses a technique known as behavioral advertising – by placing “cookies” on consumers’ computer browsers, the company tracks consumers’ activities on the web, including searches the consumer has conducted and sites the consumer has visited. Based on consumers’ online activities, the company then displays ads to them that correlate to their interests. The FTC alleged that in its privacy policy the company says that it collects data about consumers’ preferences, but allows consumers to opt out of having cookies placed on their browsers and receiving targeted ads. The privacy policy includes an “Opt-Out” button. Consumers who click on it activate a message that states, “You are currently opted out.” According to the FTC complaint, from at least May 2008 through February 2010, Chitika’s opt-out lasted only 10 days. After that time, Chitika placed tracking cookies on browsers of consumers who had opted out and targeted ads to them again. The FTC charged Chitika’s claims about its opt-out mechanism were deceptive and violated federal law. The settlement bars Chitika from making misleading statements about the extent of data collection about consumers and the extent to which consumers can control the collection, use or sharing of their data. It requires that every targeted ad include a hyperlink that takes consumers to a clear opt-out mechanism that allows a consumer to opt out for at least five years. It also requires that Chitika destroy all identifiable user information collected when the defective opt out was in place. In addition, the settlement requires that Chitika alert consumers who previously tried to opt out that their attempt was not effective, and they should opt out again to avoid targeted ads. Source: FTC In the Matter of Chitika, Inc., a corporation FTC File No. 1023087

Is American Express Violating the Credit Repair Organizations Act Using A Debt Collection Letter?

March 8th, 2011. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

Last month I received and unusual letter from American Express Centurion Bank offering me a chance to repair my credit, by them offering a credit card, if I pay an alleged debt. I do believe this “offer” is an unfair and deceptive act that may violate the Credit Repair Organizations Act by promising to improve my credit. The letter gets even funnier, further down in the letter they use a carefully worded phrase (after offering me a new credit card) that states, “After you pay your balance in full we will send you a pre-qualified application for a new Optima card”.

Man Can Sue for FDCPA Violation – Debt Collector Filed Suit in Wrong Jurisdiction

March 8th, 2011. Published under Business Scams, Scams. No Comments.

Jonathan Hess of Clay New York won the right to peruse debt collection law firm Cohen & Slamowitz for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Cohen & Slamowitz filed a collection lawsuit against Mr. Hess in an improper jurisdiction. The U.S. Court of Appeals in New York reversed a lower courts ruling which allows Mr. Hess to continue his FDPCA lawsuit against the law firm. “The initial lawsuit against Hess was filed in Syracuse City Court by Woodbury-based Cohen & Slamowitz on behalf of Midland Funding. Hess hired lawyer Anthony Pietrafesa, who challenged the lawsuit on jurisdictional grounds because none of the parties resided in Syracuse or a contiguous town as required by law.” ~ Syracuse.com Debt collectors must file debt lawsuits in the judicial district in which the defendant resides. Failure to properly files in the proper venue and jurisdiction should result in a dismissal of such lawsuits. In my opinion the filing of a lawsuit in an improper jurisdiction could quite possibly be a violation of the FDCPA, as it is false or misleading.

If you paid a "reimbursable repair" for a Dell Inspiron Notebook model 1150, 5100, or 5160, a class action lawsuit may affect your rights.

March 3rd, 2011. Published under Business Scams, Scams. No Comments.

What is this lawsuit about? The Plaintiffs said that Dell acted deceptively in designing, manufacturing, marketing, selling, and servicing the Inspiron 1150, 5100, and 5160. The Plaintiffs also said that at the time it sold these computers, Dell knew they contained three common defects that could cause premature failure: (1) inadequate cooling systems (2) a power supply system that prematurely fails when used as intended and (3) motherboards that prematurely fail when used as intended. Dell denies wrongdoing or liability of any kind associated with the claims brought by the Plaintiffs, and has agreed to settle the case for the sole purpose of avoiding the uncertainties, expenses, and time of further litigation. How do I know if I am part of the Settlement? The Court has decided that everyone who fits this description is a Class Member: All individuals and entities in the United States who own or have owned a Dell Inspiron 1150, 5100, or 5160 notebook computer. How much would my payment be? We do not know how much your payment would be at this time. The amount of your payment will be based on which model laptop you own or owned, whether the repair was a Reimbursable Repair performed by Dell or an ASP (Banctec or QualxServ), and when the repair took place. Can I get out of the Settlement? Yes. If you are a Class Member, you may exclude yourself from this case by sending a letter stating your name and address to the following address by December 6, 2010: Carideo Settlement Claims Administrator, c/o Analytics, Inc., P.O. Box 2009, Chanhassen, MN 55317-2009. Note that your letter must clearly state that you wish to be excluded from the Class. If you exclude yourself from the Class, you will not be eligible to participate in any aspect of the Settlement. How can I get a payment? If you own or have owned a Dell Inspiron 1150, 5100, or 5160 notebook computer that has undergone one of the Reimbursable Repairs described above, you may receive a refund in one of several ways: Dell will use information within its repair databases to determine those who paid for Reimbursable Repairs. The ICA will mail a Notice of Eligibility postcard to people who are entitled to an automatic refund under the Settlement. The Notice of Eligibility postcards will be mailed by December 6, 2010 If you receive such a Notice, you must confirm your mailing address with the ICA within thirty (30) days of receiving the Notice of Eligibility. If you confirm your address on time, you will receive your refund within ninety (90) days of the Notice of Eligibility or the Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement, whichever is later. If you do not confirm your address with the ICA, you will not receive a refund. If you do not receive a Notice of Eligibility, it means you do not automatically qualify for a refund based on Dell’s repair databases and you must submit a claim form. Claim forms and instructions regarding submission of claims can be accessed through the Online Claim Submission button on the top of the screen. The claim form will ask you for (1) the Service Tag Number of your Inspiron 1150, 5100 or 5160; (2) an invoice, receipt or other documents showing your Inspiron 1150, 5100 or 5160 was serviced for a Reimbursable Repair by Dell or one of Dell’s ASPs (Banctec or QualxServ), and the amount paid for the Reimbursable Repair; and (3) a declaration under penalty of perjury confirming the truth of the claim. Follow the instructions on the claim form closely. If you no longer have documentation of a Reimbursable Repair and Dell’s database does not contain the necessary information related to such repairs, you may nonetheless submit a claim and Dell will cooperate in attempting to locate the necessary documentation. Under such circumstances you must submit a Claim Form including a written explanation of: (1) whether the relevant repair was performed by Dell or one of its ASPs (Banctec or QualxServ); (2) the date of the repair; (3) the reason for service; (4) a reason for why the proof of repair is not available; and (5) a description of your efforts to find the necessary documentation. Such claims must be made under oath, and are subject to the penalties for perjury. Claim forms may be submitted either online or by U.S. mail. If you have any questions, you may also contact the ICA toll-free by calling 1-866-890-4857 or emailing to carideosettlement@analytics-inc.com. You have until April 5, 2011 to send in a claim form seeking a refund under this Settlement. Claims will not be accepted if submitted online or postmarked after April 5, 2011. When would I get my payment? You will not be paid until after the Court approves the Settlement and there is a Final Order and Judgment in the lawsuit. The Court will hold a hearing on December 17, 2010 to decide whether to approve the Settlement.

TCPA Class Action Filed Against Debt Collector Portfolio Recovery Associates Inc

March 3rd, 2011. Published under Business Scams. No Comments.

Turner Law Offices, Llc Announce Filing Of A Class Action Lawsuit Against Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc.

Regulators Asks Court to Shut Down Text Messaging Spammer

February 24th, 2011. Published under Business Scams. No Comments.

The Federal Trade Commission asked a federal judge to shut down an operation that allegedly blasted consumers with millions of illegal spam text messages, including many messages that deceptively advertised a mortgage modification website called “Loanmod-gov.net.” The FTC is asking the court to freeze the defendant’s assets. According to the FTC complaint , the defendant behind the operation, Phillip A. Flora, sent millions of text messages, pitching loan modification assistance, debt relief, and other services. In one 40-day period, Flora sent more than 5.5 million spam text messages, a “mind boggling” rate of about 85 per minute, every minute of every day, according to additional court documents filed by the agency. The FTC alleges that consumers lose money as a result of Flora’s spam text messaging because many of them get stuck paying fees to their mobile carriers to receive the unwanted text messages. The text messages told consumers to respond to the message or visit one of the operation’s websites. One of the sites, loanmod-gov.net, used a web address that appeared to be a government web address, claimed to provide “Official Home Loan Modification and Audit Assistance Information,” and displayed a photo of an American flag. According to the FTC’s complaint, Flora collects information from consumers who respond to the text messages – even those asking him to stop sending messages. He then sells their contact information to marketers claiming they are “debt settlement leads.” The FTC charges that Flora violated the FTC Act by sending unsolicited commercial text messages to consumers, and by misrepresenting that he was affiliated with a government agency. In addition, the FTC charges that he advertised his text message blasting services by sending consumers e-mail spam that violated the CAN-SPAM Act – a law that sets the rules for commercial email. The FTC alleges that his e-mail spam failed to include a way for consumers to “opt-out” of future messages and failed to include the physical mailing address of the sender, as required by the law. The FTC acknowledges the invaluable assistance it received from Verizon Wireless, AT&T, and CTIA – The Wireless Association in this matter. The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 5-0. It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

How to Send Shivers down Debt Collection Attorney’s Spines

February 18th, 2011. Published under Business Scams, Fraud. No Comments.

In upwards of ninety-five percent of debt collection lawsuits the plaintiff and legal counsel cannot prove a debt is owed. This is even truer when it comes to debt lawsuits brought by junk debt collection companies and their collection attorneys. Most consumers are not aware that filing suit on anything, including civil debt actions, are frivolous without proper proof. If you are being sued or have won a dismissal over a credit card or other debt lawsuit, petition or ask the judge to impose sanctions against the opposing counsel for bring a frivolous action before the court. In addition, I suggest that an ethics complaint be filed with your state’s Bar Association against the attorney. Since the collection industry is flooding the legal system with debt lawsuits, many of which are questionable to begin with, it falls on the consumers to put the courts and attorneys on notice for frivolous actions. A judge, in most cases, will not impose sanctions unless requested by the defendant or the defendant’s attorney. When more consumers do request sanctions for frivolous civil actions, collection attorneys will be a bit more “gun shy” about filing baseless lawsuits. Each time an attorney is sanctioned for such, it not only helps the consumer but other consumers as well. The primary problem though, is that only one in ten consumer’s respond to debt lawsuits, which means the law firm or collection agency does not have to prove anything. Until such time that Federal and State laws are strengthened to force debt buyers and their attorneys to show proof at the time of filing litigation, we all must push back with every legal means at our disposal. Remember nine and half out of ten times a debt lawsuit is baseless. It is time to start sending shivers down debt collection attorney’s spines and start

The Retarded Tax Collectors of San Joaquin California and GMP Services Inc of Georgia

February 14th, 2011. Published under Business Scams. No Comments.

This has to be the dumbest tax assessors / collectors ever. Evidently a company in California, named GMP Services Inc, the same name as my company, which has never done business in the state of California, and only in the state of Georgia since 1996 received a notice of tax lien from the San Joaquin County California tax assessors office for delinquent taxes in the amount of $5,251.18. Number one we’ve never had a business address outside of the state of Georgia since we incorporated in 1996 IN THE STATE of GEORGIA. We have insufficient ties with the state of California to even warrant paying taxes in any state outside of the state of Georgia. I wouldn’t be surprised if every company in the United States that goes under GMP Services Inc (and there are quite a few of them) received the same tax lien notification from San Joaquin County California. Front what I can tell (see below) the GMP Services Inc in question resided at 17270 W Commerce Way, Tracy California 95377, which I have no idea who is owns it, is the company in question.

Business Opportunity Con Artist Surrenders Million-Dollar Las Vegas Home

February 12th, 2011. Published under Business Scams, Scams. No Comments.

After trying for years to keep assets he acquired while deceiving consumers with false promotions and bogus business opportunity pitches, a repeat offender has agreed to turn over his Las Vegas home, valued at over $1 million, and give up his appeal of the Federal Trade Commission’s case against him. The settlement announced today wraps up the FTC’s case against Richard C. Neiswonger, who twice has been held in contempt of court at the FTC’s request – first, for deceptively marketing business opportunities in violation of an earlier court order, and second, for failing to turn over assets to pay a multi-million-dollar judgment against him. In April 2007, a federal district court held Neiswonger, his business partner William S. Reed, and their firm, Asset Protection Group, Inc., in civil contempt for violating a 1997 court order that prohibited them from deceptively promoting business opportunities and failing to disclose material facts to consumers. The court banned Neiswonger from selling business opportunities to consumers and telemarketing. The court also entered a $3.2 million judgment against him – the amount of his ill-gotten gains – and required him to transfer the title of his Las Vegas home to a court-appointed receiver within 20 days if he failed to pay the judgment in full. Neiswonger never made the payment, and in September 2009, at the FTC’s request, the district court held him in contempt for a second time and ordered him to turn over the title to the house or face jail time. The court found that he had failed to deliver a marketable title to his home. Under the final settlement order, Neiswonger will surrender the house in Las Vegas, valued at more than $1 million. The order requires his wife, Shannon Neiswonger, and any other people living in the house to move out and turn it over for sale by a court-appointed receiver. It also requires the Neiswongers to dismiss all related appeals and release any claims they may have against the receiver or the FTC, and it directs the receiver to sell the house to help pay the judgment. The FTC previously obtained Neiswonger’s $379,000 retirement account to help pay the judgment as well. As part of the settlement, Shannon Neiswonger, who was not a defendant in the FTC action, will be paid $100,000 from the proceeds of the sale of the house, which she owned jointly with Richard Neiswonger. Source: FTC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD C. NEISWONGER, individually, d/b/a “MARKETING SYSTEMS,” and as an officer of each corporate defendant; S&K GROUP, INC.; SHAPIRO, KOSSMEYER & FLOM PC d/b/a S&K GROUP, INC. and S&K PC; CARL F. KOSSMEYER, individually and as an officer of S&K Group, Inc., and Shapiro, Kossmeyer & Flom PC; MEDICAL RECOVERY SERVICE, INC. (Joliet, Illinois and Las Vegas, Nevada); NANCY FREEMAN, individually and as an officer of Medical Recovery Service, Inc.; and MARC FREEMAN, individually and as an officer of Medical Recovery Service, Inc., Defendants. (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri) Civil Action No.: 4:96CV02225 SNL FTC File Nos.: 962 3134; X970012

See more here:
Business Opportunity Con Artist Surrenders Million-Dollar Las Vegas Home

Consumer Beats Debt Collectors Zwicker and Citibank in Court with the ‘Stick It’ Book

February 2nd, 2011. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

Once again, justice is served for consumers. As I have often stated, most debt collection attorney’s, debt collectors, and junk debt buyers don’t have the proof that is needed to prove a consumer owes a debt. They still file frivolous lawsuits even they don’t have proper proof in the hopes of scaring a consumer into paying or that they are able to obtain a summary or default judgment. The biggest problem is that consumers are not aware of or are afraid of debt lawsuits and collectors. In as high as ninety percent of the cases get a judgment because the consumer did not respond or fight back and the plaintiffs were awarded a judgment. Just this morning I received an email from a read of ‘Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors’ and he said: “I bought your book a few months ago and used the information to fight Zwicker and Associates who was representing Citibank. Today I received a call from a representative at the law firm telling me that they have voluntarily dismissed the case! Thank you for the book and all your help.” ~ J Wright I tell countless consumers every day that in nearly ninety-five of debt lawsuits the plaintiff doesn’t have sufficient proof to get a judgment and that by fighting back (as outlined in my book) and a consumer can win against debt collectors. I receive emails every week from happy and relieved consumers that did fight back using the book and won. The tactics that I use to put debt collectors in place (in court) and the countless consumers I have helped with the book

Criminals Working for Debt Collectors May Be Stealing Your Identity

January 31st, 2011. Published under Business Scams. No Comments.

It is bad enough that many times consumers are illegal threatened and harassed by ruthless debt collectors. It appears that many debt collection companies do not perform criminal background checks on call center employees. Many of these employees have criminal records. Even worse is the fact that many states do not require licensing or at the least background checks for debt collection employees. These collectors have open access to a consumers credit reports, bank account information and possibly other credit card information. The state of Minnesota is one of the few states that do require criminal background checks on the collectors they employ. In the past they found that one in twelve collection employees had a criminal record, including: identity theft, rape, check forgery, and assault (source Star Tribune ) The state of Minnesota has put eight large collection companies on notice and is considering pulling their collection licenses because they have consistently failed to perform criminal background checks on employees. The companies are Allied Interstate Inc, AllianceOne Receivables Management Inc, Bureau of Collection Recovery, I.C. System Inc, Financial Recovery Services Inc., NCO Financial Systems Inc, Receivables Management Solutions Inc, and Van Ru Credit Corp. Scary to think that persons involved in identity theft and check forgery has access to countless consumer’s personal credit information. Consumers having financial problems should freeze their credit immediately to prevent potential identity theft by collection industry employees. Other states should license debt collection industry employees or at the very least force companies to perform criminal background checks. All consumers deserve protection from known criminals, don’t you think?

Court Freezes Assets of Massive Internet Enterprise in Alleged Billing Scheme

January 28th, 2011. Published under Business Scams, Scams. No Comments.

At the request of the Federal Trade Commission, a federal court has frozen the assets of corporations and an individual behind a far-reaching Internet enterprise that allegedly made more than $275 million by luring consumers into deceptive “trial” memberships, and bogus government-grant and money-making schemes. The court froze the assets of 61 corporations (collectively known as “I Works”) and their alleged ringleader, Jeremy Johnson. It placed these defendants’ assets under the control of a court-supervised receiver to help ensure that funds are available for consumer restitution when the case is concluded. In December 2010, the FTC alleged that I Works lured consumers into “trial” memberships for bogus government-grant and money-making schemes, and then repeatedly charged monthly fees for these and other memberships the consumers never ordered. According to the FTC’s complaint, the operation used websites that pitch various money-making programs or tout the availability of government grants to pay personal expenses. The websites offer “free” information at no risk and ask consumers to provide their credit or debit card numbers to pay a small shipping and handling fee such as $1.99. But when consumers provide their billing information, I Works charges them a hefty one-time fee of up to $129.95 and monthly recurring fees of up to $59.95 for the advertised programs, and other monthly fees for unrelated programs. The FTC’s complaint alleges that this scheme has caused more than 500,000 consumers to seek chargebacks – reversals of charges to their credit cards or debits to their bank accounts. The high number of chargebacks landed the defendants in VISA’s and MasterCard’s chargeback monitoring programs, resulted in millions of dollars in fines for excessive chargebacks, and prevented the defendants from getting access to the credit card and debit card billing systems using their own names. To keep the scam going, the defendants tricked banks into giving them continued access to these billing systems by creating 51 shell companies with figurehead officers, and by providing the banks with phony “clean” versions of their websites. According to the FTC, the defendants, which include the 61 corporations, Johnson, and nine other individuals, violated the FTC Act by misrepresenting that government grants are available for paying personal expenses, that consumers are likely to obtain grants by using the defendants’ program, that users of their money-making products will earn substantial income, and that their offers are free or risk-free. The complaint also alleges that they failed to disclose that consumers who pay a nominal shipping and handling fee would be enrolled in expensive plans that charge fees until consumers cancel, and that they charged consumers’ credit cards and debited their bank accounts without their consent. The FTC further alleges that the defendants’ websites featured deceptive positive reviews and deceptive testimonials that misrepresented the benefits of their grant services. The FTC also alleges that they violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E by debiting consumers’ bank accounts without their signed written consent and without providing consumers with a copy of the written authorization.

Another Consumer Beats Debt Collector in Court Using The “Book”

January 24th, 2011. Published under Business Scams, Scams. No Comments.

I love receiving email from consumers who have purchased and used the information in the “Book”. By book, I am referring to the “’Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors” book. Just this morning I received yet another relieved consumer that battled a debt collection attorney in court, and won. “I have managed to win my motion to dismiss with the help of you book. Thanks! The original creditor’s lawyer showed up but I still won the motion to dismiss.” ~ B. Topol Many consumers are afraid of debt collection lawsuits and in the majority collection cases the consumer never shows up. Not showing up for a debt lawsuit is, in my opinion, worse than losing in court. If a consumer doesn’t show up to fight a collection lawsuit then the collector receive a default judgment and take money from a consumers paycheck, bank accounts or worse. In default judgments lawyers and collectors tend to tack on questionable fees and usurious interest. In nearly ninety-four percent of debt cases file, the consumer never shows up or responds. By far, the single largest issue is that consumers don’t fight back, and collection companies and attorney’s are betting on it. In upwards of ninety percent (90% folks, think about it) the collection company and/or collection attorney cannot prove a debt is owed. Another words, a consumer has nine out of ten chances to beat the collector or attorney. The odds of winning a debt collection lawsuit favors consumers, if they just show up and make the other side prove otherwise. Back before I wrote the book I nearly let debt collectors and their attorney take advantage of me in court. After seeing the questionable tactics they used in court, I became extremely angry and vowed to find a way to fight back and stick it to attorneys that file frivolous court cases. I have spent literally thousands of hours performing legal research and using what I learned in court. Bottom line my legal tactics and precedents work in nearly all collection cases, whether it be an original creditor or junk debt collector. Why should consumers let run roughshod over them and the legal system? They shouldn’t. Consumers can win against collection companies.

Settlement Bans The Hermosa Group and Financial Future Network from Debt Relief Business

January 20th, 2011. Published under Business Scams, Fraud. No Comments.

Three companies and their owner, who allegedly falsely claimed they could help consumers quickly eliminate their credit card debts and stop calls from debt collectors, have been banned from the debt relief business under a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission. According to the FTC’s complaint, the defendants, doing business as The Hermosa Group and Financial Future Network, deceptively advertised debt relief services, in English and Spanish radio and television ads, claiming that consumers could pay thousands less than what they owe on credit cards. The defendants themselves did not provide any debt relief services. Instead, the advertising was meant only to generate sales leads – the names and phone numbers of consumers who called the defendants’ toll-free number – which the defendants sold to debt relief providers or other sales lead generators. The defendants’s ads included sales pitches such as: “With one simple call you can eliminate your debt in a fraction of the time and for less than you owe.” “Find out today how quickly and easily you can eliminate your debt.” “Stop the harassing calls!” The FTC alleges that the defendants’ claims that they could reduce debts substantially, settle debts quickly, and stop calls from debt collectors, were false or unsubstantiated, and that the defendants did not obtain adequate evidence from sales lead buyers that they could achieve the promised results. The complaint also alleges that the defendants falsely claimed they provided the debt relief services they advertised. The defendants are Jonathan Greenberg, Hermosa Group LLC, Media Innovations LLC, and Financial Future Network LLC. The settlement order imposes a $8.5 million judgment that will be suspended when the defendants pay $500,000. The full judgment will be imposed immediately if they have misrepresented their financial condition. In addition to banning the defendants from the debt relief business, the settlement order prohibits them from making unsubstantiated claims about financial related products or services, or misrepresenting material facts about any product or service. The order also prohibits them from disclosing or otherwise benefitting from customers’ personal information, and failing to dispose of this information properly. The FTC recently amended its Telemarketing Sales Rule to require debt relief companies to make certain disclosures and prohibit them from making false claims or collecting fees before delivering the services they promise. Because the defendants’ ads predated these amendments, the FTC did not allege any violations of the Rule in this case. Source: FTC Federal Trade Commission, Plaintiff v. Media Innovations, LLC; Hermosa Group, LLC; Financial Future Network, LLC; and Jonathan Greenberg, individually and as an officer of the companies, Defendants. (United States District Court for the District of Maryland) Case No. 8:11-cv-00164-RWT FTC File No.

Save Yourself From Grief and Frustration Don’t Buy Linksys – Cisco Products Like the NAS200

January 18th, 2011. Published under Business Scams. No Comments.

For a good while before Cisco absorbed Linksys, the makes or consumers networking products I and many of our clients began to have problems with Linksys Firewall Routers. We never could determine exactly what caused the to begin failing. I surmised it might be a component overheating problem. I guess you could say I and our clients got what we paid for, cheap consumer networking products. About a year ago I, against my gut instinct, purchased a Linksys / Cisco NAS 200, network attached storage (NAS) enclosure and picked up two 500 gigabyte SATA hard drives to put in it. While slow having a RAID mirrored storage on our LAN was handy as a file backup drive. About six or eight months ago, I began to noticed when the unit was turned off (both manually or power outage) only one of the two drives would show up in the NAS 200 unit. About four months ago, both drives would randomly disappear and the only way I could access data on the unit was to power the unit off, pull both drives and only put one back in. Eventually after several “swap outs” in a row, I could once again access the data. The NAS unit is on our UPS backup so rarely is the unit ever off, except during extended power outages. After four or five of the swap out routine, I felt that possible one of the drives were bad. SO I plunked down the money and ordered and identical 500 gigabyte SATA drive (about 60 bucks), when I put it in the NAS 200 unit the system only sees the new drive and not the ‘good’ data drive. I upgraded the firmware, I swapped the units around ad nauseum, still couldn’t access my data drive. I decided to do a Google search for “ Linksys NAS200 Problem ”, it appears that hundreds, if not thousands of NAS 200 users are having similar problems. In order to get my data off the NAS, I now have to buy a SATA card for one of our servers, get the NAS 200 to see the data drive again and copy off the data. Once that is done, I still have a SATA drive that I don[‘t need, and had to spend even more money just to access my data. The price of the Linksys / Cisco NAS 200 unit is not worth the frustration, aggravation and costs I have incurred because of it. Do yourself a favor and avoid Linksys / Cisco branded consumer networking products, If you don’t heed my warning and buy their products anyway, just remember I told you stay away from them when your nifty little Linksys / Cisco gadgets fail.

Seriously Who In Their Right Mind Would Buy a Windows 7 Phone?

January 18th, 2011. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

Over the years I have quite a bit of experience with Windows on computers and mobile devices. Nearly everyday I deal with hacked / Infected Windows machines. I constantly ask myself why in the world would anyone buy a Windows based phone. Microsoft seems to believe that Windows is a one-size fits all operating system. I myself believe that to be the contrary. While I haven’t personally used a Windows 7 phone, I can draw from previous experiences that the Windows 7 mobile operating system is as lackluster as Windows CE and Mobile. I’ve owned PDA’s with Windows CE, Tablet PC’s with XP Tablet Edition and have worked with web design clients that wanted their website to look the same as it does in a web browser on their Windows based mobile smartphones. Unless Microsoft has completely re-written the mobile browser it won’t hold a candle to other smartphone browsers. Microsoft Windows is the most targeted operating system for hackers and malware, virus, scareware purveyors. Another words Windows 7 phones will become yet another target of nefarious people. You can just about bet on that. I myself am tired of rebooting my computers and servers every month (sometimes several times a month) because of Windows updates and security patches. Why is it that I rarely every re-boot my Mac or Linux machines? Windows freezes up or bluescreens of death (BSOD’s) with almost clockwork regularity. I can just imagine multitudes of Windows 7 phone users having to pull the batteries out of their phones every couple of days to reboot their kitschy phones. Windows 7 mobile has an interesting and inviting interface, I am afraid though that is all it has going for it. Do yourself a favor and avoid anything running Microsoft Windows.

Read this article:
Seriously Who In Their Right Mind Would Buy a Windows 7 Phone?

Classic Closeouts LLC Who Illegally Charged Consumers’ Accounts Settles Lawsuit

January 13th, 2011. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

Defendants in an operation that the Federal Trade Commission alleged stole millions of dollars from consumers by making unauthorized charges and debits to their bank accounts have reached settlement agreements with the FTC. In Operation Short Change – a July 2009 crackdown on scammers taking advantage of the economic downturn to bilk vulnerable consumers through a variety of schemes – the FTC announced a complaint against Classic Closeouts LLC, its principal Daniel Greenberg, and several other defendants.

Settlement Ends "Tested Green" Certifications That Were Neither Tested Nor Green

January 12th, 2011. Published under Business Scams, Scams. No Comments.

The Federal Trade Commission reached an agreement that will put an end to the deceptive tactics of a company that allegedly sold worthless environmental certifications for hundreds of dollars, and falsely told more than 100 customers that its certifications were endorsed by two independent firms – which it actually owned. The FTC settlement bars Tested Green and its owner Jeremy Ryan Claeys from making misrepresentations when selling any product. “It’s really tough for most people to know whether green or environmental claims are credible,” said David Vladeck, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Legitimate seals and certifications are a useful tool that can help consumers choose where to place their trust and how to spend their money. The FTC will continue to weed out deceptive seals and certifications like the one in this case.” According to the FTC, between February 2009 and April 2010, Tested Green and Claeys advertised, marketed, and sold environmental certifications using both the website www.testedgreen.com and mass e-mails to prospective consumers. The company’s marketing claimed that Tested Green was the “nation’s leading certification program with over 45,000 certifications in the United States.” The FTC complaint alleges, however, that Tested Green never tested any of the companies it provided with environmental certifications, and would “certify” anyone willing pay a fee of either $189.95 for a “Rapid” certification or $549.95 for a “Pro” certification. After customers paid, Tested Green gave them its logo and the link to a “certification verification page” that could be used to advertise their “certified” status. The agency charged that the respondents violated the FTC Act by providing the means to deceive consumers. The FTC also alleges that Tested Green deceived consumers by citing its endorsements from the National Green Business Association and the National Association of Government Contractors – implying that these were independent organizations when, in fact, both are owned and operated by Claeys. The proposed order settles the FTC’s charges against Nonprofit Management LLC and Jeremy Ryan Claeys, both also doing business as Tested Green. It prohibits them from misrepresenting that: an outside party has evaluated a product, service, package, or program based on its environmental attributes; that they have or a third party has the expertise to evaluate the environmental benefits or attributes of a product, service, package, or program; the number of certifications they have issued; and that a product, package, certification, service, package, or program is endorsed by any person or organization. The order also bars Tested Green and Claeys from helping anyone else make false or misleading statements in connection with any of the conduct described above, and bars them from making any representations about a user or endorser unless they clearly and prominently disclose any connection they have with the endorser if one exists. The proposed order also contains reporting obligations and other provisions to ensure compliance with its terms. It will expire in 20 years. Source: FTC In the Matter of Nonprofit Management LLC, a limited liability corporation, also doing business as Tested Green, and Jeremy Ryan Claeys, also doing business as Tested Green, individually and as an officer and member of Nonprofit Management LLC FTC File No. 102 3064

More here:
Settlement Ends "Tested Green" Certifications That Were Neither Tested Nor Green

Massive Internet Enterprise Charged with Scamming Consumers Out of Millions Billing Month-After-Month for Products and Services They Never Ordered

December 24th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Scams. No Comments.

The Federal Trade Commission is taking legal action against a far-reaching Internet enterprise that allegedly has made millions of dollars by luring consumers into “trial” memberships for bogus government-grant and money-making schemes, and then repeatedly charging them monthly fees for these and other memberships that they never signed up for. The FTC seeks to stop the illegal practices and make the defendants pay redress to consumers and give up their ill-gotten gains. “No consumer should be sucker-punched into making payments for products they don’t know about and don’t want,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz. The FTC’s complaint alleges that the defendants offer consumers bogus money-making and government-grant opportunities. They claim that the offers are “free” or “risk-free,” and that they will charge customers only a small shipping and handling fee. According to the FTC’s complaint, the operation, doing business under the name I Works and controlled by Jeremy Johnson and nine other individuals, uses websites that tout the availability of government grants to pay personal expenses or pitch various money-making programs. The websites offer “free” information at no risk and ask consumers to provide their credit or debit card numbers to pay for a small shipping and handling fee such as $1.99. When consumers provide their billing information, though, I Works proceeds to charge them hefty one-time fees of up to $129.95 and monthly recurring fees of up to $59.95 for the grant or money-making programs. I Works charges them additional monthly fees for one or more unrelated programs that consumers did not agree to. The FTC’s complaint alleges that this scheme has caused hundreds of thousands of consumers to seek chargebacks – reversals of charges to their credit cards or debits to their banks accounts. The high number of chargebacks has landed the defendants in VISA’s and MasterCard’s chargeback monitoring programs, resulted in millions of dollars in fines for excessive chargebacks, and prevented the defendants from getting access to the credit card and debit card billing systems using their own names. To keep the scam going, the defendants tricked banks into giving them continued access to these billing systems by creating 51shell companies with figurehead officers, and by providing the banks with phony “clean” versions of their websites. The FTC has charged the defendants with violating the FTC Act by misrepresenting that government grants are available for paying personal expenses, that consumers are likely to obtain grants by using the defendants’ program, that users of their money-making products will earn substantial income, and that their offers are free or risk-free. The complaint also alleges that defendants failed to disclose that consumers who pay a nominal shipping and handling fee will be enrolled in expensive plans that charge consumers fees until they cancel, and that the defendants charged consumers’ credit cards and debited their bank accounts without their consent. In addition, the FTC alleges that defendants posted deceptive positive reviews and used deceptive testimonials that misrepresented the benefits of their grant services. Finally, the FTC has charged the defendants with violating the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E by debiting consumers’ bank accounts without their signed written consent and without providing consumers with a copy of the written authorization. As alleged in the complaint, the defendants gained access to the Visa and MasterCard systems through many entities. The banks included Wells Fargo, N.A., HSBC Bank USA, First Regional Bank, Harris National Association, and Columbus Bank and Trust Company. The payment processors the defendants used included First Data, ECHO, Global Payment Systems, Litle & Co., Moneris, Payment Tech, Trident, and Vital, as well as independent sales organizations, including CardFlex, RDK Inc., Merchant eSolutions, Pivotal Payments, PowerPay, and Swipe Merchant Solutions. The FTC complaint names 10 individuals, 10 corporations, and 51 shell companies as defendants. As alleged in the complaint, the lynchpin of the enterprise is Jeremy Johnson, the sole owner and officer of I Works Inc., which has done business under numerous names. The FTC’s complaint names Johnson and nine other individual defendants: Duane Fielding; Andy Johnson; Loyd Johnston; Scott Leavitt; Scott Muir; Bryce Payne; Kevin Pilon; Ryan Riddle; and Terrason Spinks. In addition, the 10 corporate defendants are: I Works Inc.; Anthon Holdings Corp.; Cloud Nine Marketing Inc.; CPA Upsell Inc.; Elite Debit Inc.; Employee Plus Inc.; Internet Economy Inc.; Market Funding Solutions Inc.; Network Agenda LLC; and Success Marketing Inc. The 51 shell companies named in the complaint are Big Bucks Pro Inc., Blue Net Progress Inc., Blue Streak Processing Inc., Bolt Marketing Inc., Bottom Dollar Inc., doing business as BadCustomer.com, Bumble Marketing Inc., Business First Inc., Business Loan Success Inc., Cold Bay Media Inc., Costnet Discounts Inc., CS Processing Inc., Cutting Edge Processing Inc., Diamond J. Media Inc., Ebusiness First Inc., Ebusiness Success Inc., Ecom Success Inc., Excess Net Success Inc., Fiscal Fidelity Inc., Fitness Processing Inc., Funding Search Success Inc., Funding Success Inc., GG Processing Inc., GGL Rewards Inc., Highlight Marketing Inc., Hooper Processing Inc., Internet Business Source Inc., Internet Fitness Inc., Jet Processing Inc., JRB Media Inc., Lifestyles For Fitness Inc., Mist Marketing Inc., Money Harvest Inc., Monroe Processing Inc., Net Business Success Inc., Net Commerce Inc., Net Discounts Inc., Net Fit Trends Inc., Optimum Assistance Inc., Power Processing Inc., Premier Performance Inc., Pro Internet Services Inc., Razor Processing Inc., Rebate Deals Inc., Revive Marketing Inc., Simcor Marketing Inc., Summit Processing Inc., The Net Success Inc., Tranfirst Inc., Tran Voyage Inc., Unlimited Processing Inc., and Xcel Processing Inc. The Commission vote to file the complaint was 5-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. Source: Federal Trade Commission Federal Trade Commission v. Jeremy Johnson, individually, as officer of Defendants I Works, Inc., Cloud Nine, Inc., CPA Upsell, Inc., Elite Debit, Inc., Internet Economy, Inc., Market Funding Solutions, Inc., and Success Marketing Inc.; as a member of Defendant Network Agenda, LLC; and as the de facto principal of numerous Defendant Shell Companies identified below; Duane Fielding, individually and as an officer of Anthon Holdings, Inc., and as a member of Defendant Network Agenda LLC; Andy Johnson, individually and as a manager of I Works, Inc., and as titular principal of numerous Defendant Shell Companies identified below; Loyd Johnston; Scott Leavitt; Scott Muir; Bryce Payne; Kevin Pilon; Ryan Riddle; Terrason Spinks; I Works, Inc.; Anthon Holdings Corp.; Cloud Nine Marketing, Inc.; CPA Upsell, Inc.; Elite Debit, Inc.; Employee Plus, Inc.; Market Funding Solutions, Inc.; Network Agenda, LLC; Success Marketing, Inc.; Big Bucks Pro, Inc.; Blue Net Progress, Inc.; Blue Streak Processing, Inc.; Bolt Marketing, Inc.; Bottom Dollar, Inc., d/b/a BadCustomer.com; Bumble Marketing, Inc.; Business First, Inc.; Business Loan Success, Inc.; Cold Bay Media, Inc.; Costnet Discounts, Inc.; CS Processing, Inc.; Cutting Edge Processing, Inc.; Diamond J Media, Inc.; EBusiness First, Inc.; EBusiness Success, Inc.; ECom Success, Inc.; Excess Net Success, Inc.; Fiscal Fidelity, Inc.; Fitness Processing, Inc.; Funding Search Success, Inc.; Funding Success, Inc.; GG Processing, Inc.; GGL Rewards, Inc.; Highlight Marketing, Inc.; Hooper Processing, Inc.; Internet Business Source, Inc.; Internet Fitness, Inc.; Jet Processing, Inc.; JRB Media, Inc.; Lifestyles for Fitness, Inc.; Mist Marketing, Inc.; Money Harvest, Inc.; Monroe Processing, Inc.; Net Business Success, Inc.; Net Commerce, Inc.; Net Discounts, Inc.; Net Fit Trends, Inc.; Optimum Assistance, Inc.; Power Processing, Inc.; Premier Performance, Inc.; Pro Internet Services, Inc.; Razor Processing, Inc.; Rebate Deals, Inc.; Revive Marketing, Inc.; Simcor Marketing, Inc.; Summit Processing, Inc.; The Net Success, Inc.; Tranfirst, Inc.; Tran Voyage, Inc.; Unlimited Processing, Inc.; Xcel Processing, Inc., Defendants. (United States District Court for the District of Nevada) Case No. 2:10-cv-02203 FTC File No. 102 3015

So You Want to Expand Your Small Georgia Business?

December 21st, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

With today’s worsening economy many small business owners in Georgia and across the united states are struggling to make ends meet. Business expansion and aggressive marketing are seemingly the only viable options at the moment. It seems that paring down overhead actually reduced revenues in many cases. I know from experience. As we cut costs, we also saw revenues drop accordingly. Many consumers are not spending as they have in the past and this has been causing many business owners to struggle. I do believe that expanding businesses into more areas of retail and services is the only long-term hope for many business to survive. That and more aggressive marketing such as advertising are the only options that small business owners have at the moment. It’s either that or close up shop and walk away. Several times in the past year we had considered shutting everything down and walking away. However, we aren’t quitters and began to brainstorm on how best to beat the economic downturn. The problem is having access to working capital and having a budget for advertising and marketing. Let’s face it, the days of disposable consumer income has dwindled to a trickle. So exactly how does a small business owner expand or marketing their business with less money? I’ve been researching this very matter and have come to several conclusions on how to gain additional financing that won’t send us into the poorhouse or bankruptcy. Most banks in our area are holding onto their money so hard that when they do had it out, there are corners missing form the

New Credit Card Offer Fine Print – Higher Interest Rates and Annual Fees

December 15th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Scams. No Comments.

It seems that credit card companies are becoming more aggressive in credit card marketing by sending out more offers than in they had in the previous three years. They are again marketing to consumers with lower credit scores (higher risk cardholders). The recently enacted CARD ACT prevents card issuers from raising interest rates if a consumer misses a payment, so they are now adding “sneaky” items in their card agreements such as higher APR interest rates (18% and higher) and often adding an annual fee to the cards. On the outside, higher risk consumers with low scores have an opportunity to get credit cards once again. This is a dangerous precedent though as historically speaking these consumers are often the ones that overextend themselves financially and end up defaulting on credit card balances. For the credit card companies though this is a win-win situation as they will sell off any default accounts and write the loss of on their taxes. If the consumer doesn’t default the card companies make money off the higher interest rates and annual fees they are now charging. In my opinion they entire credit card industry is nothing more than gross usury. What ever happened to fairness in the banking industry has ended when it comes to credit cards. Credit cards are a financial crutch at best and at worst a debt trap for struggling consumers. This is coming from a person that knows. I had financial problems and credit cards only made everything worse. I ended up “robbing Peter to Pay Paul” as the saying goes. I found that credit cards are a convenience, not a necessity as many people believe. I haven’t used a credit card in nearly five years. I pay with cash, check or debt card. Even in business I found that I have no need to use credit cards and can do anything that another does with a credit card. I have no credit card payments (or interest) because of this, and have become more financially well off by not using credit cards. “To stem losses, lenders halted new card offers to all but their most affluent customers. At the same time, more than eight million consumers stopped using their credit cards, in a sign of the nationwide belt-tightening, according to TransUnion, the credit bureau. Millions more borrowers who still have cards have been compelled to pay down their balances, or are more often choosing to use cash.”

How I Saved a Ton Of Money By Dumping Georgia Farm Bureau Insurance

December 14th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Scams. No Comments.

I’ll start off by saying that if you have Georgia Farm Bureau Insurance for your car or home you can getting better insurance for less money. I found this out the hard way. Up until a couple of months ago, I thought my Georgia Farm Bureau insurance rates were the best I could get. Little did I know that Georgia Farm Bureau was in so many words, screwing me hard and heavy on my insurance premiums. What’s so funny is that Farm Bureau instigated their own undoing, causing me to switch my home owner and vehicle insurance over to Brinson and Dixon Insurance of Statesboro Georgia. In late summer my good friend and next door neighbor Prince Preston’s home was hit by lightning. He and I both at the time had Georgia Farm Bureau insurance. Neither one of of had ever filed a home owners insurance claim since having insurance with them. As a side not, until October we had Georgia Farm Bureau insurance for more than ten years. Back to the story. Roughly five years ago I had all of the towering pines in my yard cut down (about 28 trees) because I was worried about damage to my home and the trees were getting old and cankered. In a way it probably saved my home from being hit by lightning and there are no tall trees around our house for lightning to strike. After Prince’s house got hit by lightning he had the hardest time to get Farm Bureau to do anything in regards to repairs or the claim he filed. Shortly after the lightning episode a guy shows up at my home wanting to have a look at my home. The guy snapped a few pictures, said everything was fine and left. At the time I thought nothing more about it. Several weeks later I receive a letter from Georgia Farm Bureau that stated to the effect that they weren’t going to renew my home owners policy (Hear that Georgia Insurance Commission?), due to the “condition” of the roof on my home. I admit the roof looks rough, primarily due to the stains on it from the pine trees that are no longer on my property. Structurally the roof is sound, cosmetically it is stained from the pine trees needles that used to cover it. I had been talking with Prince and he mentioned he was moving his insurance to Brinson and Dixon insurance . I know David Brinson as he was a member of my church at the time. So I called David as well to get quotes on my home owner and auto insurance. I am glad I did. Between the new home and auto insurance, my wife and I have saved somewhere around five hundred dollars a year on the combined insurance policies. To add insult to injury with a bit of irony thrown in our new insurance gave us a roof discount, because the roof is indeed in good condition. So suck on that one Georgia Farm Bureau. I am so glad that I moved my insurance from Georgia Farm Bureau, their practices of delay with their customers show what kind of business they truly are. If you have Georgia Farm Bureau insurance I encourage you to get quote son your insurance form other companies (I do suggest giving Brinson & Dixon insurance a call though). I bet you find that you can get better rates, and of course by switching you’ll no longer have to pay that that dratted and annoying Georgia Farm Bureau “membership” fee. ABOUT ALLEN HARKLEROAD Allen Harkleroad, better known as the “ most dangerous consumer in America ”, is the author of the book “ Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors ”. This book has saved many a consumer from the clutches of abusive debt collectors and shady debt collection law firms. Allen also has a new book nearly ready for publishing titled, “ Suing Abusive Debt Collectors, Don’t Get Mad Get Even ”, that shows consumers how easy it is to sue debt collectors for illegal debt collection tactics and violations of consumer rights. Allen Harkleroad is a veteran when it comes to beating bad debt collections, whether it defending himself in court or suing collectors for violating the law. Allen is an avid and judicious consumer advocate who enjoys helping others. In addition to consumer advocacy he enjoys writing and blogging on various technology and business subjects.

See more here:
How I Saved a Ton Of Money By Dumping Georgia Farm Bureau Insurance

Did the TSA Just Put Me on the Do Not Fly List for a Tweet? Attention @TSAcustomerServ

December 10th, 2010. Published under Business Scams. No Comments.

While whomever behind this tweet (from @TSAcustomerServ ) is probably not The Transportation Security Administration. It is still quasi-funny. Earl;ier today I was tweeting some slogans that the TSA could use (parody stuff), like: TSA slogan #1 “I see London, I see France, If you want to fly we gotta see your underpants” and TSA slogan #2 “We’ve handled more packages than UPS”. After the second Tweet I get a response on Twitter from the purported TSA themselves (highly doubtful), to the effect that I am now on the TSA’s Do Not Fly list. It’s kind of funny actually as I don’t fly, don’t care to, and probably never will fly again to begin with. So it’s a moot point for me to be placed on the Do Not Fly list. Now it gets funnier. My brother in law works for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), so the above tweet and the twitter account @TSAcustomerServ has been passed along to him and a friend of mine that is a FBI agent in their local office. I can only assume that either or both can “find out” who is behind that Twitter account. So let’s see who laughs last Mr. @TSAcustomerServ shall we? I wonder how long it will take before that twitter account is canceled? Anyone want to take bets?

More here:
Did the TSA Just Put Me on the Do Not Fly List for a Tweet? Attention @TSAcustomerServ

Debt Lawsuit Scare Tactics – Consumers Should Never Assume Collector Owns The Debt Or Can Prove It

December 10th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud. No Comments.

More often than not original creditors lack proper documentation to show proof of debt in civil debt collection lawsuits. This line of thought goes double, or even triple for junk debt buyers. Junk debt buyers are increasingly using our overwhelmed, taxpayer supported legal system to collect money. Debt lawsuits are primarily scare tactics, as most consumers for some reason are afraid of courtrooms and judges. The fact of the matter is that in more than ninety-percent of collection lawsuits, the plaintiff cannot prove that a debt is actually owed. Many debt buyers that use litigation have little or no documentation to support their case. Often a debt buyer only has a “bill of sale” for a pool of debts that only show account numbers and amounts. Anyone with a computer could manufacture such documents and these “bills of sale” affidavits do not show a legal obligation and are hearsay. Consumers being sued over a debt must ask the court to strike such affidavits or risk a judgment based on baseless affidavits. There are several legal precedents that pro se consumers can utilize to strike such questionable affidavits. Another item that pro se consumers should understand. Legal precedents can be used, even if they are not specific to the state a suit is brought in. Debt Collection attorney’s do the same all the time. A legal precedent is just that, a precedent. While I prefer to use state specific and federal legal decisions in my own pro se briefs and motions I have included other state court legal decisions. Legal Precedents to Strike Affidavits of Debt and Motions for Summary Judgment In Colorado Capital Investments, Inc. v. Villar, 5894/2005 (1′J.Y. Civ. Ct., June 4, 2009), “ (“None of these assignments, however, contain a list of the accounts which were included in the transfer. Thus on their face, these assignments and bills of sale do not specify that defendant’s account was included in any transfer, and cannot support movant’s contention that defendant’s account was so transferred”).” In Unifund CCR Partners v. Cavender, No. 2007-CC-3040, 14 Fla.L. Weekly Supp. 975b (Orange Cty. July 20, 2007) , the court held that a debt buyer “assignment” that does not refer to specific accounts does not establish ownership by the plaintiff, nor is testimony based on a computer screen sufficient. In Velocity Investments, LLC v. Alston, 2-08-746 (2nd Dist., Jan. 15, 2010), supra , “Generic” (i.e. Bill of Sale) contracts that cannot be identified as pertaining to the specific account sued upon. In re A.B., 308 Ill.App. 3d 227, 236, 719 N.E.2d 348 (2nd Dist. 1999) ,

The House Energy and Commerce Committee Have Lost Their Collective Minds

December 8th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

It is official ACA International and other

Consumers Must Fight Back – 94 Percent of Debt Lawsuits Become Default Judgments

December 8th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Scams. No Comments.

For whatever reason, upwards of ninety-four percent (94%) credit card / debt lawsuits are not responded to by consumers. Most often the reasons are that consumers/debtors cannot afford an attorney, or are afraid of the legal system or possibly not aware that a suit was filed against them for a debt. Consumer need to understand that if a civil debt lawsuit is filed and they do not respond, the plaintiff may obtain a default judgment against them. Once a default judgment is obtained, the plaintiff may opt to garnished wages, bank accounts, or possibly file liens on property to satisfy the judgment. Default judgments are extremely difficult for a consumer to fight after the fact. In the case of being afraid of court, there is nothing to fear. Civil lawsuits are mostly paperwork filed by both sides and rarely does the matter end up with all parties being in front of a judge. Even then half the battle of beating debt lawsuits (default judgments) is showing up or responding to the lawsuit. Consumers that cannot afford an attorney can many times beat debt collection lawsuits, especially third party (junk debt or Debt Buyer) lawsuits. Debt collection companies and collection attorneys have been exploiting the legal system for years and the exploitation is becoming more and more common. They know that in nearly nine out of ten cases the consumer won’t respond. Default judgments are “easy” money for them. And in a large number (upwards of 96%) of junk debt lawsuits filed the collection company cannot even prove a debt is owed. Consumers must fight back or risk further financial hardships. Consumers should not be afraid of the legal system. Until such time that the majority of consumers to do fight debt lawsuits in some manner then the collection industry will continue to exploit the tax payer funded legal system. According to attorney Sergei Lemberg, and the Wall Street Journal: Encore Capital Group, parent of Midland Funding, filed 245,000 lawsuits last year, and that approximately 94% of lawsuits result in default judgments. Debt buyers purchased $100 billion worth of debt last year, and often turn to the courts first… ~ Sergei Lemberg Once Encore sues, it is virtually assured a win, says Mr. Black, the company’s CEO. Roughly 94% of collection cases filed against borrowers result in default judgments in favor of the debt buyer, according to industry estimates. The majority of borrowers don’t have a lawyer, some don’t know they are even being sued, and others don’t appear in court, say judges. A growing number of cases brought by debt buyers are plagued by sloppy, incomplete or even false documentation of debts, according to the 20 judges around the country interviewed by the Journal. ~ Wall Street Journal Consumers must be educated on how to deal with debt lawsuits. While many think that courtrooms and judges are scary, in truth it isn’t much worse than sitting down at the bank with a loan officer. Responding to debt lawsuits are mostly paperwork and the consumers personal time to respond. If you are having financial difficulties or are being sued by collection companies, it is time to take a stand and fight back. After all what do you have to lose but forcing collection companies to prove the debt and avoid a default judgment.

Robocallers JPM Accelerated Services and IXE Accelerated Financial Centers Shut Down by Federal Trade Commission

December 7th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

At the Federal Trade Commission’s request, a U.S. district court has approved a settlement shutting down two groups of Florida-based telemarketers that allegedly flooded consumers with misleading pre-recorded robocalls falsely promising to reduce their credit card interest rates. The agency reached a settlement that permanently bans the two related operations from making robocalls and selling debt relief services. The settlement orders are the latest in a series of enforcement actions the FTC has taken to rein in robocallers, especially those who try to take advantage of consumers affected by the economic downturn. According to the FTC, JPM Accelerated Services and related defendants made thousands of illegal pre-recorded robocalls to consumers, identifying themselves only as “card services” and offering lower credit card interest rates. Consumers who pressed “1″ after hearing the automated pitch were transferred to live telemarketers who falsely told consumers that JPM’s services would allow them to dramatically lower their credit card interest rates. The complaint alleged that the telemarketers charged an up-front fee typically ranging from $495 to $995, and promised consumers they would save thousands of dollars in a short period of time as a result of the lower interest rates, and that they would be able to pay off their debts faster. The defendants also falsely stated that if consumers did not save thousands of dollars from lowered interest rates, they would receive a full refund of the up-front fee. After collecting the fee from consumers, however, JPM allegedly failed to deliver the promised interest rate reductions and savings, and routinely refused to honor its money-back guarantee. The FTC complaint also charged the defendants with violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule by calling consumers on the Do Not Call Registry, blocking or “spoofing” caller ID, and making unlawful robocalls. The settlement orders also impose judgments of $5.9 million against defendants associated with JPM, and $3.2 million against six individual defendants associated with an affiliated operation called IXE Accelerated Financial Centers, LLC. The judgments represent the amount of money consumers lost through these robocall schemes. The judgments are suspended, based on the defendants’ inability to pay, but will become due if the defendants are found to have misrepresented their financial condition. Two of the defendants in the IXE operation, Ivan X. Estrella and Jaime Hawley, also are liable for an unsatisfied $75,000 judgment recently entered against them in a case brought by the Florida Attorney General. The Commission vote authorizing the consent orders settling the court action against the individual defendants was 5-0. The orders were filed in the U.S. District Court for Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division on November 9, 2010, against: 1) Ivan X. Estrella, Jamie M. Hawley, and Kimberly Nelson; and 2) Jeanie B. Robertson, Brooke Robertson, Alexander J. Dent, Micha S. Romano, Paul Pietrzak, and Ashley M. Westbrook. Estrella, Hawley, and Nelson worked with the IXE corporate defendants listed below. The rest of the individual defendants worked with the JPM corporate defendants. At the FTC’s request, the court also has dismissed the charges against Paige Dent. The court is reviewing the FTC’s request for a default judgment against the corporate defendants in this case, including the IXE corporate defendants (IXE Accelerated Financial Centers, LLC; and IXE Accelerated Services Inc.), and the JPM corporate defendants (JPM Accelerated Services Inc.; IXE Accelerated Service Centers Inc.; MGA Accelerated Services Inc.; World Class Savings Inc.; Accelerated Savings Inc.; and B&C Financial Group Inc.). The proposed default judgment includes monetary judgments of $3.2 million against the IXE corporations, based in Orlando, Florida, and $5.9 million against the JPM corporations, based in Melbourne, Florida. International Cooperation The FTC brought this action with valuable assistance from other law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and Canada, including: the U.S. Postal Inspection Service; the Attorney General of Florida; the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs; the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission; and the Toronto Strategic Partnership, which includes as member agencies the Competition Bureau Canada; the Toronto Police Service Fraud Squad – Mass Marketing Section; the Ontario Provincial Police Anti-Rackets Section; the Ontario Ministry of Consumer Services; the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; and the United Kingdom’s Office of Fair Trading. Valuable assistance also was provided by the Better Business Bureau of Central Florida. Source: FTC Federal Trade Commission v. JPM Accelerated Services Inc., a Florida corporation, IXE Accelerated Financial Centers, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, IXE Accelerated Services Inc., a Florida corporation, IXE Accelerated Service Centers Inc., a Florida corporation, MGA Accelerated Services Inc., a Florida corporation, World Class Savings Inc., a Florida corporation, Accelerated Savings Inc., a Florida corporation, B&C Financial Group Inc., a Florida corporation, Jeanie B. Robertson, Brook Robertson, Ivan X. Estrella, Jamie M. Hawley, Kimberly Nelson, Paige Dent, Alexander J. Dent, Micha S. Romano, and Ashley M. Westbrook. (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida Orlando Division) Civil Action No. 09-CV-2021 FTC File No. 092 3190

Originally posted here:
Robocallers JPM Accelerated Services and IXE Accelerated Financial Centers Shut Down by Federal Trade Commission

Financial Freedom of America, Debt Consultants of America, Debt Professionals of America Charged With Misleading Claims

December 5th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

According to the FTC’s two complaints, the defendants made deceptive claims that consumers who enrolled in their programs could eliminate 30 to 60 percent of their credit card debt and be out of debt in 18 to 36 months. The defendants marketed their services via websites and TV and radio ads that urged consumers to call toll-free numbers for a free consultation and to enroll in their debt relief programs. One operation claimed to use “secret programs most credit card companies won’t tell you about.” The other operation touted its “established relationships” with creditors and claimed that its program would “save you literally thousands of dollars.” The defendants charged consumers up-front administrative fees, monthly maintenance fees, negotiation fees, and in some instances, a cancellation fee. The FTC’s complaints charge that few consumers received the promised results. Many consumers canceled or dropped out of the programs before their debt was reduced because they couldn’t afford to pay the defendants’‘ sizable advance fees and accumulate money to pay off their debts. Consumers looking for help with credit card debt should be wary of anyone who tells them to stop paying their bills, to pay someone other than their creditors, or to stop talking to their creditors. Consumers should also be careful about paying for financial assistance before they receive it. The FTC recently announced changes to the Telemarketing Sales Rule that prohibit companies that sell debt relief services over the telephone from charging fees before they settle or reduce a customers’ credit card or other unsecured debt. This ban on advance fees protects all consumers who enroll in a debt relief service after October 27, 2010, and specifies that fees for debt relief services may not be collected until: the debt relief service successfully settles or changes the terms of at least one of the consumer’s debts; there is a settlement agreement, debt management plan, or other agreement between the consumer and the creditor that the consumers has agreed to; and the consumer has made at least one payment to the creditor as a result of the agreement negotiated by the debt relief provider. The new provisions of the Rule also prevent debt relief providers from front-loading their fees if a consumer has enrolled multiple debts in one debt relief program. Click here for more information about the advance-fee ban. In addition, the Rule requires debt relief providers to make truthful and substantiated claims about their services. The FTC will actively enforce the Rule and these new provisions, as will the states, which also have enforcement authority under the Telemarketing Sales Rule. The defendants in one of the two cases announced today are Financial Freedom of America, Inc., now known as Financial Freedom Processing Inc., Corey Butcher, and Brent Butcher. The second case names Debt Consultants of America Inc., Debt Professionals of America Inc., Robert Creel, Corey Butcher, and Nikki Creel, also known as Nikki Vrla. The Commission vote to file the complaints was 5-0. The complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. Source: FTC Federal Trade Commission, Plaintiff v. Financial Freedom Processing, Inc., formerly known as Financial Freedom of America, Inc., a corporation; Corey Butcher, individually and as an officer of the corporation; and Brent Butcher, individually and as an officer of the corporation, Defendants. (United District Court for the Northern District of Texas) Case No. 3:10-cv-02446 FTC File No.

The Four Best Places to Grab Deals For Your Holiday Shopping

November 28th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

Online deal aggregators and deal websites are “the places” to be to grab the best deals for holiday shopping whether it is for Black Friday, Cyber Monday or regular holiday shopping. I’ll keep this short and sweet so you can get the best deals for your hard earned dollars.

Smart Ways Not To Go Into Debt When Holiday Shopping

November 27th, 2010. Published under Business Scams. No Comments.

There many “smart” things you can do to keep from going deeper in debt this holiday season (any time for that matter).

Unsealed Lawsuit Shows Dell Hid Computer Faults and Defective Capacitors

November 19th, 2010. Published under Business Scams. No Comments.

A North Carolina judge unsealed documents in a lawsuit involving Dell and Advanced Internet Technologies (AIT). The case was settled earlier and shows that Dell was aware and attempted to hide the fact that many computers had defective motherboard components such as capacitors. What bothers me is that Dell “ranked” customers and only repaired or replaced computers or hardware based on how much money these customers might cost Dell. “The issues with the computers revolved around the capacitors that dot computer motherboards. A typical Dell computer could have up to 20 of these capacitors, which cost a fraction of a penny each and help regulate electrical operations of the machines. As it tried to deal with the mounting issues, Dell began ranking customers by importance, putting first those who might move their accounts to another PC maker, followed by those who might curtail sales and giving the lowest priority to those who were bothered but still willing to stick with Dell. ~ New York Times

Fake Courtroom Debt Collector Unicredit America Inc Probe Expanded

November 16th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

Last week I reported on Unicredit America Inc for allegedly running a fake courtroom complete with fake deputies, judge and attorneys ( read it here ). According to a Michigan newspaper the probe has been expanded and also resulted in a judge ordering the debt collection operation shuttered and at least one client of Unicredit intends to file suit for breach of contract and fraud. It also appears that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) may also be interested in Unicredit America Inc. Attorney General Tom Corbett called Unicredit tactics “an unconscionable attempt to use fake court proceedings to deceive, mislead or frighten consumers into making payments.”

Debt Collection Class Action Lawsuit Encore Capital Group (aka Midland Funding, Midland Credit Management)

November 15th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

I sincerely hope this is the first of many class-action and individual lawsuits filed against debt collection companies and their holding companies that fraudulently submit affidavits to courts in order to get a judgment. It is also up to judges to questions these affidavits and to force affiants to show proper documentation that would show if the affidavit is fraudulent or not. The sad news is most judges allow these sorts of worthless documents to be used in court without question. I imagine that this is happening in just one state, but in all states. On November 10, 2010 in a Washington State U.S. District court a class-action lawsuit was filed naming Encore Capitol Group Inc, Isaac Hammer, Jane Doe Suttell, Jane Doe Case, John Doe Gurule and others. Lauber et al v. Encore Capitol Group Inc et al, civil filing number: 2:2010cv05132 According to Courthouse News Service, “A Bellevue law firm works with collection agencies to mislead courts and consumers by using “robo-signers” in Minnesota who sign up to 400 affidavits a day, falsely swearing they have “personal knowledge” of cases in Washington state, to secure speedy default judgments, according to a federal class action. The class claims that Encore Capital Group, Midland Funding, and Midland Credit Management work with the Suttell & Hammer law firm, faxing a boilerplate form to a “legal specialist” in Minnesota, who signs the affidavit before any supporting documents are attached. “Encore Capitol Group (‘Encore Capitol’) has developed a proprietary, sophisticated, ‘system driven’ collection process based on the ‘predictive behavior’ of consumers (and state courts). In conjunction with its subsidiaries and ‘franchisee’ law firms (including the Suttell Law Firm) it engages in computer automated, high volume, state court litigation in the collection of distressed debt (purchased at pennies on the dollar).”

Debt Collector Threatens to Dig Up Dead Daughter and Hang Body From Tree

November 12th, 2010. Published under Business Scams. No Comments.

A woman in Bellville Missouri received threatening and vulgar phone calls from a debt collector (Rumson, Bolling and Associates of California 818-431-8169). Mrs. Henshaw alleges that the collector told her “ they were going to dig her daughter up and hang her body from a tree ,” if she didn’t pay the debt. In addition Mrs. Henshaw recorded several conversations with the collector and in one conversation the collector said he would “kill and eat her dog”. The collector’s also allegedly called the woman “white trash” among other vulgar names. This is the very reason that the Federal Trade Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau needs to further regulate the debt collection industry. It isn’t until collectors are prosecuted under criminal statutes will the consumer abuse and harassment end. WMOV Channel 4 in Saint Louis has the full story, you can read it here . RELATED Hey GOP, Congress and FTC Stop Listening to Lobbyists and Groups Like ACA International

Excerpt from:
Debt Collector Threatens to Dig Up Dead Daughter and Hang Body From Tree

Hey GOP, Congress and FTC Stop Listening to Lobbyists and Groups Like ACA International

November 11th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

The lobbying and trade groups that comprise the accounts receivables industry (aka debt collection industry) are constantly clouding issues to dissuade Congress, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP)

Hero – West Virginia AG Recovers 1.25 Million from Three Debt Collection Companies

November 9th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

It is good to see that several state Attorney General’s like West Virginia’s Darrell McGraw aggressively pursue debt collectors that bend the law to collect debts. Today’s news is a win for consumers in West Virginia. It appears that three debt collection firms, Trailhead Capital, LLC, , Hollis Cobb Assoc., Inc., Trailhead’s affiliated collection agency in Norcross, GA; and Troy Capital, LLC, a debt buyer based in Las Vegas, NV violated West Virginia law by collecting debts without a license or bonding. West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw today announced settlement agreements with three unlicensed collection agencies that will result in $1,277,648.33 in cancelled debts for 161 West Virginia consumers and $15,337.50 in cash refunds Records also showed that the debts the companies were attempting to collect were primarily charged-off credit card accounts originally owed to Chase, Wells Fargo Bank, and GE Capital. In West Virginia, businesses that purchase defaulted debts for collection, as Trailhead and Troy Capital did, cannot avoid being licensed and bonded by hiring other agencies to assist them in collecting the debts. Rather than working with consumers to develop plans that might enable them to pay their debt over time, banks increasingly sell defaulted credit card debt for pennies on the dollar to collection agencies called debt buyers,” McGraw continued. “Debt buyers often take overly aggressive collection actions that include the filing of lawsuits – even when they have little proof of the debts they seek to collect from consumers.

Debt Collector Unicredit America Inc Accused of Setting Up Fake Courtroom

October 30th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Scams. No Comments.

The ACA International (lobbying Group for the Collection Industry) continually tells congress that debt collection abuse if few and far between yet many stories are making headlines such as this one. According the several news outlets a Michigan Attorney General have filed suit against Unicredit America Inc, for false, misleading and coercive collection tactics. Apparently the company set up a fake courtroom completely with fake judge. In addition the ‘court’ had fake deputies that threatened debtors with arrest. “Authorities charge that Unicredit used civil court subpoenas to summon consumers to fake court hearings that were used to intimidate consumers into providing access to bank accounts, making immediate payments or surrendering vehicle titles and other assets. Sometimes, the complaint charges, Unicredit employees were sent to consumers’ homes in order to retrieve documents or have consumers sign payment agreements. Consumers also allegedly received dubious ‘hearing notices’ and letters — often hand-delivered by individuals who appear to be sheriff deputies — which implied they would be taken into custody by the Sheriff if they failed to appear at the phony court for ‘hearings’ or ‘depositions’.” ~ GoErie.com As I have always said that greed in the collection industry spurs many to break the law, harass consumer and to stop to whatever is necessary to collect money. This news item just goes to show that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) hasn’t taken the collection industry seriously and that the accounts receivables (aka collection industry) does need further and more stringent regulation. Many consumers are being harmed by such activities, unfortunately the legal system and regulators are slow to act on behalf of those harmed. My best advice to consumers being illegally being harassed or abused is to forego any complaint process and sue bad collectors, either by finding a consumer protection attorney or by filing a lawsuit themselves (pro se). The only way to stop debt collector abuse is by hitting them in their wallets. Until such time that illegal collection becomes financially unfeasible, the abuse will not stop.

See more here:
Debt Collector Unicredit America Inc Accused of Setting Up Fake Courtroom

Nationwide Credit Services Inc Barred From Making False Claims and Charging Up-Front Fees

October 28th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

A credit repair operation has agreed to stop making false claims and stop charging up-front fees under a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission. The settlement is part of an ongoing crackdown on scams that target financially strapped consumers, taking hundreds of dollars of fees to purportedly remove negative information from consumers’ credit reports even if the information is accurate and timely. The FTC filed the action in “Operation Clean Sweep” in October 2008. According to the FTC’s complaint, James R. Dooley and his company, Nationwide Credit Services, Inc., falsely claimed that bankruptcies, judgments, slow pay history, repossessions, and collection accounts could be “legally erased” from consumers’ credit reports. The defendants allegedly charged up to $150 in advance and debited a monthly fee from some consumers’ bank accounts. The defendants rarely, if ever, delivered the promised results, and in many instances took consumers’ money without providing any services. Consumers often found their cancellation requests ignored, and their refund requests were almost always denied, the FTC complaint alleged. The settlement order bars the defendants from making misrepresentations about any good or service, such as the ability to improve a consumer’s creditworthiness or remove negative information from their reports. It also prohibits them from charging money up-front for credit repair services, and from collecting payments from consumers who purchased their services before October 20, 2008, when the court froze the defendants’ assets. The order further bars the defendants from disclosing or benefitting from customer information, and from failing to properly dispose of customer information. The settlement order imposes a judgment of more than $1.3 million that will be suspended once the defendants have surrendered funds frozen by the court. The full judgment will become due immediately if they are found to have misrepresented their financial condition. The Commission vote to file the stipulated final order was 5-0. The order was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division. Federal Trade Commission v. Nationwide Credit Services, Inc., a Florida corporation and James R. Dooley, individually and as president of Nationwide Credit Services, Inc. (United States District Court Middle District of Florida) Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-1000-J-25TEM FTC File No.

February 2012
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Jan
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29

Archive for 'Business Scams'

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Search

Categories

Recent Posts