Archive for 'Business Scams'

Homeland Financial Services and Prosper Financial Solutions Debt Reduction Scam Victim Redress Checks

October 27th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

The Federal Trade Commission is mailing almost 7,000 refund checks to victims of a nationwide operation that falsely claimed it would reduce consumers’ debt, leading many people into financial ruin and bankruptcy. Consumers paid the defendants an up-front fee of about 5 percent of their unsecured debt. The redress fund represents the available assets of the defendants, which include Homeland Financial Services, Prosper Financial Solutions, Dennis Connelly, and Richard Wade Torkelson. The amount of each check will vary based on the amount of each person’s payments to the defendants. Consumers who receive checks should cash them on or before December 24, 2010. Checks are being mailed by the redress claims administrator, Gilardi & Co. Consumers with questions should visit www.ftc.gov/refunds or call the administrator at 1-877-987-3923. The total amount of money available for redress is about $1.2 million; the average amount of redress per consumer is about $180. These consumer redress checks can be cashed directly by the recipients of the checks. The FTC never requires the payment of money up-front, or the provision of additional information, before consumers cash redress checks issued to them. Source: Federal Trade Commission

The rest is here:
Homeland Financial Services and Prosper Financial Solutions Debt Reduction Scam Victim Redress Checks

Popular Searches

The Federal Trade Commission Continues To Turn a Blind Eye on Debt Collection Abuse

October 25th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

I am sick and tired of clueless journalists recommending that consumers report collection abuse to the Federal Trade Commission. While it is good that consumers should report illegal debt collections to the FTC, the problem is that the Federal Trade Commission rarely takes action against companies that condone collection harassment. Let’s take a look at the number of FTC enforcement actions against debt collectors in recent years:

They Claim The Recession Is Over But The Depression Lingers

October 24th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Scams, Unemployment. No Comments.

There has been much debate on whether or not we are in an economic recession or a depression. Government officials and the popular news media would have you believe that the “recession’” is over. If that were the case the consumer spending would be at an all time high. Recently it was announced that unemployment was only at twenty-two percent (22%) nationwide. Here is Georgia it is supposedly only ten percent. Somehow I just don’t believe the hype. I dislike pushing reality on people, but we are in a depression folks. Very few jobs are available, banks are still going bankrupt and people are hoarding their hard-earned dollars. The reason why I lay claim to the fact that we are in a depression comes from several real-world observations. The company that I work for has both offline and online business interests. We began to see the effects of the so-called recession back in June of 2009. Our online disposable income sales began to decline sharply. Being a small company we are hyper sensitive to changes in consumer spending, we felt the changes well before larger business began to experience the same effects. Several couple of months ago, we began to see a bit more consumer spending on non-essential goods, however that small gain was quickly replaced with a wholesale decline in consumer spending. Online sales are less than twenty-five percent (25%) of what there were a year ago. I was optimistic prior up until the last several months, currently things have gone bad to at best worst. We are relieved that right now offline sales and services are staying constant. While the “economic recession” as everyone seems to enjoy calling it is over, the consumer spending depression is still upon us. Quite frankly I don’t see it getting any better anytime in the future. While economists and the news media seem upbeat about recovery, it just isn’t happening and the government “stimulus” has been nothing more than a huge failure and a waste of taxpayer money. Until jobs become available and consumers have extra money to spend on things they enjoy the depression will be here to say. We aren’t seeing any sales growth and the last three months have been quite dismal. You can bet if we aren’t seeing any growth, no one else is either.

More here:
They Claim The Recession Is Over But The Depression Lingers

Debt Collector Allied Interstate Will Pay $1.75 Million Settlement for Harassment

October 21st, 2010. Published under Business Scams. No Comments.

All I can say is that it’s about time that the Federal Trade Commission started doing something about debt collection abuse, harassment and illegal collection tactics. Several years ago I myself endured dozens after dozens of phone calls every day from Allied Interstate. Causing a telephone to ring repeatedly to harass is a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). If I knew then what I know now I would have sued the literal pants off of Allied Interstate. Consumers I encourage you to take action for any debt collection harassment or illegal tactics. Find a lawyer or sue them yourselves. This is the first collection in a long while that the FTC has taken action against. I hope that it is the first of many. To resolve Federal Trade Commission charges, one of the nation’s largest debt collectors will pay $1.75 million for allegedly making repeated telephone calls to collect from the wrong person, to collect the wrong amount, or both. The settlement is the second largest civil penalty obtained by the FTC in a debt collection case. From the FTC: “Debt collectors had better make sure their information is accurate, or they could end up paying a big penalty,” said David Vladeck, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “There is no excuse for trying to collect debt from someone if you can’t confirm that they actually owe it.” According to the FTC’s complaint, between 2006 and at least 2008, Allied Interstate, Inc. continued collection efforts even after consumers told the company they did not owe the debt, without verifying the accuracy of the disputed information. Allied is a Minnesota corporation that works out of offices in the United States, Canada, India, and the Philippines. The company also allegedly made improper harassing phone calls to consumers, using abusive language or calling many times a day for weeks or months, sometimes hanging up when the calls were answered. In addition, the complaint charges that Allied made repeat calls to third parties seeking to locate a consumer, revealed alleged debts to third parties without the consumers’ consent or court permission, and threatened legal action against consumers it did not intend to take. The complaint alleges that these practices violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. In addition to the monetary penalty, the proposed consent decree requires Allied to take specific steps whenever (1) a consumer disputes that he or she owes the debt or the amount of the debt, or (2) a reasonable person would consider the information on which Allied is relying to collect the debt to be implausible, facially unreliable, or missing essential information. In either circumstance, Allied must either close the account and end collection efforts or suspend collection until it has conducted a reasonable investigation and verified that its information about the debt is accurate and complete. If Allied cannot substantiate that the consumer owes the debt, the company cannot sell the debt or provide it to any business other than the client from which it obtained the debt. The consent decree also bars Allied from: Making false statements to collect a debt or obtain information about a consumer; Making claims that a debt is owed or about the amount without a reasonable basis; Asking a third party for a consumer’s location information more than once without that 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; Communicating with third parties about a consumer’s debt without the consumer’s consent or court permission; Using obscene or profane language or harassing consumers with repeated phone calls; Making any other false or misleading statement in collecting a debt, including threatening action it does not intend to take; and Violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Commission vote to authorize staff to refer the complaint and the consent decree to the Department of Justice for filing was 5-0. The documents were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Excerpt from:
Debt Collector Allied Interstate Will Pay $1.75 Million Settlement for Harassment

Popular Searches

Debt Relief Companies Prohibited From Collecting Advance Fees Under FTC Rule

October 20th, 2010. Published under Business Scams. No Comments.

Starting October 27, 2010 consumers trying to settle their debts will be protected by a new rule that prohibits companies that sell debt relief services over the telephone from charging fees before settling or reducing a customer’s credit card or other unsecured debt. The ban on advance fees reflects changes that the Federal Trade Commission made to its Telemarketing Sales Rule last July. “The rule change that goes into effect next week is a major victory for consumers struggling to control and manage their debt without inadvertently digging themselves in deeper,” Chairman Jon Leibowitz said. “Starting on October 27, debt relief telemarketers are on notice – if you charge consumers before actually helping them, you will find the FTC and state enforcers knocking at your door to enforce the Rule. We look forward to working with our state partners to ensure that the Rule is enforced across the country.” Over the past decade, the FTC and state enforcers have brought over 250 law enforcement actions to stop deceptive and abusive practices by debt relief providers that have targeted consumers in financial distress. The FTC will be enforcing the new rule, as will the states – which also have authority to bring actions under the Rule. The new advance fee ban 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 consumer 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 rule also has provisions to ensure that debt relief providers do not front-load their fees if a consumer has enrolled multiple debts in one debt relief program. The advance fee ban does not apply retroactively, so it applies only to consumers who enroll in a debt relief service after October 27, 2010. Dedicated Account for Fees and Savings Another provision of the rule that becomes effective October 27 places additional restrictions on debt relief companies that require consumers to set aside provider fees and savings used to pay creditors in a “dedicated account.” Providers may only require a dedicated account if five conditions are met: the account is maintained at an insured financial institution; the consumer owns the funds (including any interest accrued); the consumer can withdraw from the debt relief service at any time without penalty and receive all unearned provider fees and savings within seven business days; the provider does not own or control or have any affiliation with the company administering the account; and the provider does not exchange any referral fees with the company administering the account. Other New Debt Relief Rules Now in Effect Other changes to the Rule took effect on September 27, including requiring debt relief companies to make specific disclosures to consumers and prohibiting them from making misrepresentations. Who’s Covered The rule covers telemarketers of for-profit debt relief services, including credit counseling, debt settlement, and debt negotiation services. The rule does not cover nonprofit firms, but does cover companies that falsely claim nonprofit status.

Read this article:
Debt Relief Companies Prohibited From Collecting Advance Fees Under FTC Rule

Consumer Legal Resources to Fight and Beat Debt Collectors

October 17th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Scams. No Comments.

Whether you are filing a case against a debt collector for FDCPA or FCRA violations or filing a brief in support of a motion that you filed there are several excellent legal resources online that are completely free. During the process of writing my first pro se consumer defense guide ( Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors ) and while working on my upcoming pro se consumer litigation guide ( Suing Abusive Debt Collectors ) I lived, ate and slept legal research. Quite literally thousands of hours’ worth of research to date. Probably more than the average college law student does during his studies to become an attorney. There isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t do some sort of legal reading or research. While I do have access to several legal publications, I find myself on a daily basis looking at new court decisions and making notes on legal citations using my favorite online resource. Several of them are updated daily, so I can easy find new information within days of a decision being made. The basis of building a good case or even defending one relies mainly on prior legal decisions. I look for similar cases and the subsequent decisions when I draft civil complaints against collection agencies or in defending myself from collection lawsuits. All it takes is a bit of reading and then using the information to your advantage. While I will not go into the details of drafting a civil complaint, or drafting a motion or a brief in this article, I will give you several pointers and resources. Unbelievably Google has a very good resource for legal opinions (with citations) called Google Scholar ( http://scholar.google.com/ ). When Google Scholar first went a live it was a bit sparse in resources, but has since added quite a bit of new information. I find much of the legal resources that I use in my books via Google Scholar. Example from Google Scholar on FDCPA violations by a debt collection company (citations) Foti v. NCO Financial Systems, Inc., 424 F. Supp. 2d 643 – Dist. Court, SD New York 2006 The provisions of the FDCPA are clear that in initial or subsequent communications, it must be disclosed that the communication is from a debt collector. – in DROSSIN v. NATIONAL ACTION FINANCIAL SERVICES INC., 2009 and 3 similar citations —holding collector’s identification of itself by name in pre-recorded message did not satisfy FDCPA’s requirement that it disclose that the communication is from a debt collector – in Costa v. National Action Financial Services, 2007 and 4 similar citations —a case also involving Defendant NCO, where the court held that a pre-recorded message left on a debtor’s voicemail was a “communication” under the FDCPA. – in Inman v. NCO FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, INC., 2009 and 3 similar citations —rejecting a debt collector’s assertion that its voicemail message was not a communication because it did not contain information regarding a debt – in Mark v. JC CHRISTENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC., 2009 and 2 similar citations As such, the call is “in connection with the collection of any debt,” within the meaning of 15 USC

Popular Searches

A New Tactic To Get Junk Debt Collectors Off Your Back?

October 12th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud. No Comments.

A reader, I will refer to him as M.W. emailed me after I published a news article and blog post titled, “ Watch Out Kids Debt Buyers Are Hot On Collecting Defaulted Student Loans ” on October 11, 2010. M.W. claims that the form letter below works like a charm with third party / junk debt collectors. Basically when a non-original creditor contacts him, he sends them a validation letter and an invoice for “compelled services rendered”. M.W. states that the collector doesn’t contact him again. If nothing else, it shows the debt collector that they will have a fight on their hands in the event that they bother the sender again. Below is the form letter that M.W. uses. I would like to thank M.W. for sharing this with me and allowing me to share it with others. I can’t wait to put it to the test myself. If nothing else the form letter is quite enlightening. If anyone uses this form letter, please do let me know if it is effective I am very interested as I am sure many other consumers will be as well. My personal belief is “nothing ventured, nothing gained”. —– Begin Form Letter —- To: [Company] Form CA-F.U.-1 [Address] [City, State, Zip] From: [My Name] [My address] [My City, State, Zip] [Date] NOTICE AND DEMAND TO CEASE AND DESIST COLLECTION ACTIVITIES PRIOR TO VALIDATION OF PURPORTED DEBT. 1) Pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 USC 1601, 1692 et seq., this constitutes timely written notice that I decline to pay the attached erroneous purported debt which is unvalidated and unattested, and which I discharge without dishonor, on grounds of false representation, and fraud. A) No contract bearing my signature showing me being named as a party with [Company] was attached. B) No copy of a Judgment bearing my name, was attached. C) By law, I am required to deal with Original Creditors not third party collections agents. D) No copy of your authority to operate within the State of [Your state] was attached. E) No copy of any receipt, or other such transaction document showing [Company] as the primary party was attached. F) I have not opened an account with [Company] Valid proof of my opening an account with [Company] was not attached. 2) 15 USC 1692 (e) states that a “false, deceptive, and misleading representation, in connection with the collection of any debt”, includes “the false representation of the character or legal status of any debt” and further makes a threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken a deceptive practice. 3) Such notice omits information which should have been disclosed, such as vital citations, disclosing the agency’s jurisdictional and statutory authority. Said notice further contains, false deceptive and misleading representation, and allegations intended to intentionally prevent the truth for the purpose of inducing one, in reliance thereof, to part with property belonging to or in trust of them and to surrender certain substantive legal and/or statutory rights, resulting in a legal injury. 4) Pursuant to 15 USC 1692 (g) (4) Validation of Debts, if you have evidence to validate your claim that the attached presentment does not constitute fraudulent misrepresentation and that one owes this alleged debt, this is a demand, that within 5 days, you provide such validation and supporting evidence to substantiate your claim. Until the requirements of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act have been met and your claim is validated, you have no jurisdiction to continue any collection activities. A. Incomplete copies will not be acceptable; B. Unreadable copies will not be acceptable; C. Copies with more than 1/100 th of the pages covered up or hidden behind objects will not be acceptable; D. Copies without the name of [Company] named directly as a first party, will not be acceptable; E. Copies of contracts with any other person, agency, man or woman, will not be acceptable unless my name is also specifically listed as a primary party, and [Company] is also specifically listed as a primary party. 5) This is constructive notice that, absent the validation of your claim within 5 days, you must cease and desist any and all collection activity and are prohibited from contacting me, through the mail, by telephone, in person, at my home, or at my work. You are further prohibited from contacting my common employer, my Bank, or any other third party. Each and every attempted contact, in violation of this act, will constitute harassment and defamation of character and will subject your agency, and you to a liability in your individual personal capacity, who take part in such harassment, and defamation, to a liability for actual damages, as well as statutory damages of up to $1000.00 per day for each and every violation, and a further liability for legal fee’s to be paid to any council which I may retain. Further, absent such validation of your claim, you are prohibited from filing any notice of Lien or Levy and are also barred from reporting any derogatory credit information to any credit reporting agency, regarding this disputed purported debt. 6.Finally, you are ordered NEVER again to contact me unless said contact contains a copy of a valid contract of which you and I are named as primary parties . Since that will never happen, I do not expect to hear from you again in any way, shape, or form. If I do, I will charge you 500.00 for compelled performance. Be advised, your letter constitutes a compelled performance. This is my response to that compelled performance. Any further attempts will be seen as willful criminal acts, which will include, but not be limited to: using the US mails to communicate a threat, Using the US mails to commit extortion, constructive fraud, willful neglect, and any other charges I can think before the date of filing criminal complaints and/or lawsuits. And I will seek damages for having to file said suits. Executed on Date:[date] Signed: ___________________________ [name[]

Popular Searches

Another Consumer Beats Debt Collector Hanna and Associates Using the Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors Book

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

It warm’s my heart to know that consumers are using my book, Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors Book to beat unscrupulous

Popular Searches

Debt Collector Nationwide Credit Sued for Calling Consumers Parents

October 7th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Scams. No Comments.

Nationwide Credit a debt collector out of Kennesaw Georgia has been sued in Federal court for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Practices Act (FDCPA). Due to harassing and abusive communications, calling the plaintiff parents and discussing the alleged debt,

Questionable Debt Collectors In The News

October 4th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud. No Comments.

From my own personal experiences it appears that the debt collection industry is slowly imploding from their own greed and reckless disregard for consumers rights and continual thumbing of their noses at Federal and state collection laws. Karma has come back to haunt the accounts receivables industry (aka debt collection). The last two weeks have been chock full of debt collectors getting slammed by judges in regards to their business practices. State wins $23M from debt collector Friedman & Wexler for improperly pocketing commissions and shorting the state on money it was owed. “The state agency accused the law firm — which oversaw defaulted student-loan collections on behalf of the State of Illinois between 1994 and mid 2006 — of improperly pocketing commissions and shorting the state on money it was owed.” ~ Sun Times Debt collection agency Miller & Levine Inc raided in Athens Georgia “Local, state and federal authorities raided the offices of a debt collection company in Western Clarke County on Tuesday, seizing documents, computers and other evidence in a widespread fraud investigation, officials said.” ~ Athens Banner-Herald Government (Finally) Notices Rise Of “Debtor’s Prisons,” Doesn’t Like Them The practice of suddenly jailing people who have failed to comply with collection requests comes close to violating a ban on imprisonment for debt. Judicial watchdogs are taking note and getting some relief, but many people desperately in debt are still helpless. ~ Crosscut Whether or not Senator Al Franken’s proposed legislation to end debt collector abuse ever gets passed consumers have an obligation to sue abusive debt collector. The Federal Trade Commission and states attorney generals’ have an obligation to pursue debt collectors that flaunt the law, problem is that such enforcement rarely happens. Other sources: Hometown Source

Excerpt from:
Questionable Debt Collectors In The News

Popular Searches

Announcing a New (Upcoming) Consumer Book – Suing Abusive Debt Collectors – Don’t Get Mad Get Even by Allen Harkleroad

September 26th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud. No Comments.

Learn How to Sue Debt Collectors that break the law and stop the debt collectors cold. Don’t get mad, get even! Allen Harkleroad’s upcoming consumer book will be in an easy to understand step-by-step guide with real life examples, stuffed full of tips and tricks on stopping debt collectors cold and profiting from their abuse. The books covers fair debt collection practices act (FDCPA), fair credit reporting act (FCRA), telephone consumer protection act (TCPA) and truth in lending act (TILA) violations that debt collectors frequently use to abuse consumers. The official website for “Suing Abusive Debt Collectors is located at www.suingdebtcollectors.com (be sure to visit and bookmark it). ISBN: 0-9789997-7-0 ISBN-13 978-0-9789997-7-3

Popular Searches

The Quickest and Easiest Way to Sue a Debt Collector for FDCPA Violations

September 25th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud. No Comments.

I’ve been doing a lot of legal research for my next consumer book on how to sue debt collectors and collection law firms for violations of the fair debt collection practices act (FDCPA), fair credit reporting act (FCRA), telephone consumer protection act (TCPA) and the truth in lending act (TILA). I spend literally hours every day reading legal decisions, court filings and legal citations. Of late I have been researching the topic of the lack of proper disclosures (i.e. mini-miranda) in written and oral (i.e. telephone) communications by debt collectors to consumers. As with my last book, “ Stick It To Sue Happy Debt Collectors ”, my next book will also be in an easy to understand format that consumers can use to sue debt collectors for breaking the law. Debt collectors frequently do not properly disclose who they are in telephone conversations or in voice mails left on consumers answering machines. A debt collector must abide certain federal regulations concerning the collection of debts, however, many times debt collectors will refrain from disclosing exactly who they are in order to entice (or scare) a consumer into calling back and this sort of behavior is illegal and actionable in a court of law (you can sue them for it). One of my most recent encounters with the lack of proper disclosure revolves around a debt collection company, Phillips & Cohen Associates LTD (sounds like a law firm name doesn’t is? They aren’t though) and through my research I found several federal cases where Phillips & Cohen lost their motions regarding proper disclosures (among others). Below are two examples of a debt collector not providing proper FDCPA disclosures and/or using misleading and deceptive tactics in contact with me personally. They are the same fellow using similar tactics and lack of proper disclosure (several years apart I might add). The links below are MP3 audio files. Call from 866-504-5035 (09/23/2010) The old call in 2007, same guy, threatening fraud charges Note that in both voicemails the debt collector fails to disclose that he is a debt collector, not does he disclose that the call is in reference to a debt (Section

Popular Searches

Court Halts Deceptive Envelope-Stuffing Operation

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

Consumers Misled to Believe They Could Earn Substantial Income, FTC Alleges At the request of the Federal Trade Commission, a U.S. district court has temporarily halted an envelope-stuffing operation that allegedly scammed cash-strapped consumers by falsely promising they could make substantial income working from home. As part of ongoing efforts to protect Americans who are struggling to cope with the economic downturn, the FTC charged that Louis Salatto and his company, Global U.S. Resources, deceived consumers into paying up-front fees by making phony promises about the earning potential of their envelope-stuffing operation. According to the FTC’s complaint, Salatto bought classified ads in local pennysavers and community newspapers that promised weekly earnings ranging from $1,200 to $4,400.

Repost: Something Harassing Debt Collectors Rather You Didn’t Know

September 17th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

There are many unscrupulous debt collectors out there that violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) many times each day. Things like calling your neighbors and telling them you are a dead beat, or telling you they are sending the police to put you in jail. By law they cannot do either of these nor can they use underhanded collection tactics (lying to you, abuse you, etc.) Before I go any further you need to know a few things. 1. Get caller ID on your phone (it’s going to be your best friend) 2. Document every call made to you by a debt collector 3. Save all answering machine messages (especially the ones where they tell you lies about sending you to jail, etc.) 4. When the debt collectors tells you they are recording the call, jokingly tell them you are recording it to (but make it sound like you are joking). Record the conversation. This will give you permission to record it as they don’t say no. Or if you are quick enough look up the phone number they care calling from and find out where it is originating from (reverse number lookup), then see if you and they are in one-party consent states (only requires one parties consent to record the conversation). 5. When you catch them violating the FDCPA find yourself a Consumer Protection Lawyer. Nearly all of them work on a contingency basis (no cost to you) and many offer

Consumer Headlines of the Week

September 17th, 2010. Published under Business Scams. No Comments.

Below are consumer news that I have come across this week and thought might be of interest to my readers. U.S. Homes Lost to Foreclosure Up 25 Percent (Fox News) Painesville, OH debt collection firm files for Chapter 7 bankruptcy (Crains Business Cleveland) Business is Still Booming for Foreclosure Rescue Scam Artists (Loan Safe) Phony debt collectors put consumers at risk for identity theft Consumer Bankruptcy Filings Fall in August Man Charged Overdraft Fees On Closed Account Collection agencies unprepared following the FDCPA Debt Collectors Asking For Money From Wrong People Firms employ questionable techniques to collect debts Many consumers are turning to prepaid debit cards Card Debt Falling Along With Average Credit Scores

See the original post:
Consumer Headlines of the Week

One Good Thing In A Bad Economy, Junk Debt Buyers Are Losing Their Shirts

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

Personally speaking I enjoy seeing junk buyers going out of business. In a bad economy and buy old junk (bad) debts is a surefire way to go out of business. Junk Debt buyers by old uncollectible debts for a couple of cents per dollar and try collecting the full amount of the debt (and in my opinion is unjust enrichment). Today in the news a junk debt buyer, Hudson & Keyse, LLC

Popular Searches

Payday Loan Defendant Settles Charges; Illegally Tried to Garnish Borrowers’ Wages

September 2nd, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

One of the owners of a payday loan and debt collection operation has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges for his role in a scheme that illegally tried to garnish borrowers’ wages and used other illegal debt-collection practices. According to the FTC’s complaint, the defendants, doing business as Ecash and GeteCash, offered loans to be repaid from borrowers’ upcoming paychecks. Online loan applicants checked a box indicating their agreement with loan terms, including an inconspicuous “wage assignment” clause that said that their wages would be garnished to cover delinquent loan payments. Then, using the name LoanPointe, the defendants attempted to collect on the offered payday loans. Federal law allows federal agencies to require employers to garnish employees’ wages without a court order when the employees owe the government money. According to the complaint, in letters to employers that sought garnishment of their employees’ wages, GeteCash and LoanPointe tried to pass themselves off as having the same collection rights as the government. The FTC’s complaint also alleges that GeteCash and LoanPointe falsely stated that consumers knew their pay would be garnished and had an opportunity to dispute the debt. In addition, GeteCash and LoanPointe allegedly violated the law when they told employers and co-workers about consumers’ debts without their consent. (See http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/04/getecash.shtm ) Under the settlement order, Mark S. Lofgren is banned from collecting debts through wage assignment. He is also permanently prohibited from misrepresenting facts in order to collect a debt; contacting a consumer’s employer in trying to collect a debt, unless he is seeking location information or has a valid court order of garnishment; and disclosing a debt to any third party. In addition, Lofgren is barred from violating the Credit Practices Rule and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, selling or otherwise benefitting from customers’ personal or financial information, and failing to properly dispose of customer information. The order imposes a $38,133 judgment that is suspended based on his inability pay. The full judgment will become due immediately if he is found to have misrepresented his financial condition. The FTC also dismissed Benjamin J. Lonsdale and James C. Endicott as defendants in the case. Litigation continues against Joe S. Strom, LoanPointe, LLC, and Eastbrook, LLC, also doing business as Ecash and GeteCash. The Commission votes to dismiss Lonsdale and Endicott from the complaint were 5-0. The Commission vote to file the stipulated final order with Lofgren was 4-1, with Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch voting no. The documents were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division. NOTE: Stipulated court orders are for settlement purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Stipulated orders have the full force of law when signed by the judge. 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. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics .

Read the original:
Payday Loan Defendant Settles Charges; Illegally Tried to Garnish Borrowers’ Wages

Court Orders Credit Repair Operation To Stop False Claims; Family-Run Scam Surrenders Cars, Houses and Real Estate

September 1st, 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, in this case taking hundreds of dollars in 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. The settlement agreement requires that Clean Credit Report Services, Inc., Ricardo A. Miranda, Ruthy Villabona, and their son, Daniel R. Miranda give up two cars, three houses, and six commercial properties in Broward and Miami-Dade counties in Florida, and in Bogota, Colombia. According to the FTC, they told consumers they would help remove all the negative remarks from their credit reports, as well as current debt. Clean Credit often debited $400 from consumers’ bank accounts before receiving a signed contract, and then did little, if anything, to fulfill its promises. See http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/10/opcleansweep.shtm . The settlement order bars Clean Credit and its owners from making misrepresentations about any good or service, such as the ability to improve a consumer’s creditworthiness or remove negative information from a consumer’s credit report. The order also prohibits Clean Credit from charging money up-front for credit repair services, and from collecting payments from consumers who purchased its services before October 22, 2008, when the court froze the defendants’ assets, including their bank accounts. The order further bars the defendants from disclosing, benefitting from, or failing to properly dispose of customer information. In addition, the settlement order imposes a $14.4 million judgment that will be suspended, contingent upon the defendants surrendering their assets, including frozen funds totaling about $165,000 and any proceeds received from selling their six commercial and three residential properties under foreclosure in Florida; commercial property in Bogota, Colombia; a 1992 Mercedes S300; and a 1997 Chevrolet Venture. The full judgment will become due immediately if the defendants 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 Southern District of Florida. NOTE: Stipulated court orders are for settlement purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Stipulated orders have the full force of law when signed by the judge. 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. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics .

See the original post:
Court Orders Credit Repair Operation To Stop False Claims; Family-Run Scam Surrenders Cars, Houses and Real Estate

Debt Collectors Beware Federal Court Rules One Party Consent Telephone Recordings Are Okay

August 24th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

Over the last several years there has been an ongoing debate regarding the lawfulness of one party telephone conversation recording, such as recording a debt collector making illegal, abusive and threatening phone calls. To date consumers only had their own state laws one the legality of one-party consent phone calls (only one person being aware or consenting to the recording). The US 2nd circuit

Auto Warranty Robocaller To Pay $2.3 Million, Sell Mercedes For Consumer Redress

August 23rd, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

Consumer Redress Collected from All Defendants in Robocall Case Totals $3 Million One of the telemarketers who blasted U.S. consumers with millions of illegal auto “warranty” robocalls last year will pay approximately $2.3 million, give up his Mercedes, and be barred from telemarketing, under a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission that wraps up the agency’s case against the deceptive operation. In sum, the FTC is collecting nearly $3 million to reimburse victims of the scam. The settlements resolve FTC charges that Damian Kohlfeld and his two firms made millions of illegal prerecorded calls to consumers nationwide in an attempt to deceive them into buying extended auto warranties or service contracts (audio files of these calls can be found on the FTC’s website as a link to this press release). The robocalls misled consumers into thinking that the callers were affiliated with consumers’ car dealerships or manufacturers, and that their auto warranty was expiring or about to expire. Earlier this year, the FTC announced a settlement with two other defendants who helped make the robocalls, under which they have paid more than $655,000. The FTC also announced a settlement in September 2009 with Transcontinental Warranty, Inc, the company that employed the defendants in this case to make the illegal prerecorded calls. (See press release at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/09/twi.shtm .) “Fortunately for American consumers, the telemarketers who were responsible for millions of unsolicited and annoying robocalls will never be able to telemarket again,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz. “We’ve also taken away all of their money to provide redress for consumers who were defrauded. This case serves as a clear message: telemarketers who violate the privacy of ordinary Americans will have to pay the price.” According to the FTC’s complaint, Kohlfeld and the Chicago-based firms Voice Foundations, LLC, and Network Foundations, LLC, violated the FTC’s Do Not Call Registry and falsely represented that: the telemarketers were calling from, or affiliated with, the manufacturer or dealer of the consumer’s automobile; the consumer’s original automobile warranty was about to expire; and the telemarketer had specific information about whether the consumer’s vehicle was the subject of a recall. The settlement requires Kohlfeld to pay more than $2.2 million. In addition, he is required to liquidate two investment accounts totaling approximately $130,000 and to sell his 2006 Mercedes. All of the money collected will be used for consumer redress. The settlement order also bans Kohlfeld from telemarketing or assisting others engaged in telemarketing, prevents him from making the misrepresentations alleged in the FTC’s complaint, and bars him from making any misrepresentations related to the sale of any goods or services. The order specifically prohibits him from misrepresenting the cost, use, or effectiveness of any product or service or any of the refund policies associated with any product or services. In addition, Network Foundations will pay $50,000 to be used for consumer redress. Voice Foundations has no assets to pay toward a judgment. If either of the companies later is found to have misrepresented its financial condition, it will be subject to a larger monetary judgment. The Commission vote authorizing the three stipulated final orders settling the court actions against Network Foundations, LLC, Voice Foundations, LLC, and Damian Kohlfeld was 5-0. They were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, on August 19, 2010, and signed by the judge the same day. NOTE: These stipulated final orders are for settlement purposes only and do not constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Stipulated final orders requires approval by the court and have the force of law when signed by the judge. Copies of the stipulated final orders are available from the FTC’s website at http://www.ftc.gov and from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, click: http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/complaint.shtm or call 1-877-382-4357. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. For free information on a variety of consumer topics, click http://ftc.gov/bcp/consumer.shtm .

Go here to see the original:
Auto Warranty Robocaller To Pay $2.3 Million, Sell Mercedes For Consumer Redress

Abusive and Stupid Debt Collector Headlines of the Week

August 20th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Scams. No Comments.

Court Orders Internet Marketers of Acai Berry Weight-Loss Pills and "Colon Cleansers" to Stop Deceptive Advertising and Unfair Billing Practices

August 17th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

At the request of the Federal Trade Commission, a U.S. district court has ordered the marketers of acai berry supplements, “colon cleansers,” and other products to temporarily halt an Internet sales scheme that allegedly scammed consumers out of $30 million or more in 2009 alone through deceptive advertising and unfair billing practices. The FTC will seek a permanent prohibition. Since 2007, victimized consumers have flooded law enforcement agencies and the Better Business Bureau with more than 2,800 complaints about the company. Acai berry supplements, derived from acai palm trees that are native to Central and South America, have become popular in recent years. Last year, the Better Business Bureau named fake “free” trial offers – including those for acai supplements offered by the defendants in this case – as one of the “Top 10 Scams and Rip Offs of 2009.” “Too many ‘free’ offers come with strings attached,” said David Vladeck, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “In this case, the defendants promised buyers a ‘risk free’ trial and then illegally billed their credit cards again and again – and again. We estimate that about a million people have fallen victim to this scam. As if that weren’t enough, there were fake endorsements from celebrities like Oprah Winfrey and Rachael Ray for a product that didn’t work in the first place.” The court order halts the allegedly illegal conduct of Central Coast Nutraceuticals, Inc., imposes an asset freeze, and appoints a temporary receiver over CCN and several related companies, while the FTC moves forward with its case to stop the company’s bogus health claims and other deceptive and unfair conduct. The FTC charged CCN, two individuals, and four related companies with multiple violations, including deceptively advertising AcaiPure, an acai berry supplement, as a weight-loss product, and Colopure, a colon cleansing supplement, as an aid for preventing cancer. The FTC complaint alleges that to sell AcaiPure, the marketers made dramatic claims on their website, including: “ WARNING! AcaiPure Is Fast Weight Loss That Works. It Was Not Created For Those People Who Only Want To Lose A Few Measly Pounds. AcaiPure was created to help you achieve the incredible body you have always wanted …USE WITH CAUTION! Major weight loss in short periods of time may occur.” In pitching Colopure, the defendants cited frightening statistics about colon cancer, while promising that their product would get rid of consumers’ “excess weight and toxic buildup.” The marketers also deceived consumers about their purported “free” or “risk free” trial offers, and about the charges and refund terms consumers could expect, according to the FTC’s complaint. The FTC also alleges that the marketers made numerous additional unauthorized charges to consumers’ credit and debit card accounts. The alleged deceptive practices include: Falsely claiming that using AcaiPure could lead to rapid and substantial weight loss. Consumers were told that “[m]ost consumers taking AcaiPure report weight loss anywhere from 10-25 pounds in the first month.” Making unproven claims that AcaiPure’s weight-loss claims are backed by “double-blind, placebo-controlled weight loss studies.” Deceptively claiming that Colopure could help prevent colon cancer because it would “cleanse your entire system,” “detoxify your organs,” and break down and remove “toxic waste matter which may have been stuck in the folds and wrinkles of your digestive system for years and years.” Falsely claiming that celebrities including Oprah Winfrey and Rachael Ray have endorsed products marketed by Central Coast Nutraceuticals, Inc. In marketing AcaiPure, the defendants declared on their homepage, “Acai Berry rated #1 SUPERFOOD by Rachael Ray.” A photo of Oprah appeared on the homepage, next to a quote that read in part, “Studies have shown that this little berry is one of the most nutritious and powerful foods in the world!” In fact, in declarations to the FTC, both celebrities denied endorsing AcaiPure. Deceptively claiming that the marketers will provide full refunds to all consumers who request them, and that consumers who paid a nominal fee for a “free” trial supply of supplements would incur no risks or obligations. In fact, many consumers found it all but impossible to avoid paying full price for the products, typically $39.95 to $59.95. Failing to adequately disclose that consumers would be automatically enrolled in a membership program and charged for additional monthly supplies of a product. Failing to adequately disclose that consumers would be automatically charged for items other than the trial product unless they opted out. Failing to adequately disclose the terms and conditions of trial programs, membership programs, and additional charges. Making numerous unauthorized charges to consumers’ credit and debit card accounts. Debiting consumers’ bank accounts on an automatic, recurring basis, without obtaining proper preauthorization. The unauthorized debits violated the FTC Act as well as the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E, according to the complaint. “Visa is committed to ensuring that consumers trust digital currency when they shop online by protecting them from deceptive merchant marketing practices,” said Martin Elliott, Senior Business Leader, Payment System Risk, Visa Inc. “Deceptive merchant practices hurt the economy by eroding trust in e-commerce and undermining the vast majority of ethical merchants who deal and compete fairly. We have tightened enforcement of our rules against banks whose merchants generate excessive levels of cardholder disputes because of deceptive marketing. We also make it a priority to partner with law enforcement and agencies like the Federal Trade Commission and support their investigations such as this case.” The FTC would like to thank the Better Business Bureau of Central, Northern & Western Arizona and Visa, Inc. for their invaluable assistance in this investigation. The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint and seek a temporary restraining order was 5-0. The FTC filed its complaint and requested a temporary restraining order against the defendants from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. On August 6, 2010, the court granted the request for the temporary restraining order. The complaint also names as defendants Graham D. Gibson and Michael A. McKenzy, and four companies affiliated with Central Coast Nutraceuticals, Inc. – iLife Health and Wellness LLC; Simply Naturals LLC; Health and Beauty Solutions LLC; and Fit for Life LLC. NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has reason to believe that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law. 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. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics .

Read more:
Court Orders Internet Marketers of Acai Berry Weight-Loss Pills and "Colon Cleansers" to Stop Deceptive Advertising and Unfair Billing Practices

FTC Halts Cross Border Domain Name Registration and SEO Fees Scam

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

The Federal Trade Commission has permanently halted the operations of Canadian con artists who allegedly posed as domain name registrars and convinced thousands of U.S. consumers, small businesses and non-profit organizations to pay bogus bills by leading them to believe they would lose their Web site addresses unless they paid. Settlement and default judgment orders signed by the court will bar the deceptive practices in the future. In June 2008, the FTC charged Toronto-based Internet Listing Service with sending fake invoices to small businesses and others, listing the existing domain name of the consumer’s Web site or a slight variation on the domain name, such as substituting “.org” for “.com.” The invoices appeared to come from the businesses’ existing domain name registrar and instructed them to pay for an annual “WEBSITE ADDRESS LISTING.” The invoices also claimed to include a search engine optimization service. Most consumers who received the “invoices” were led to believe that they had to pay them to maintain their registrations of domain names. Other consumers were induced to pay based on Internet Listing Service’s claims that its “Search Optimization” service would “direct mass traffic” to their sites and that their “proven search engine listing service” would result in “a substantial increase in traffic.” The FTC’s complaint charged that most consumers who paid the defendants’ invoices did not receive any domain name registration services and that the “search optimization” service did not result in increased traffic to the consumers’ Web sites. A federal district court judge in Chicago, Robert M. Dow, Jr., ordered a temporary halt to the deceptive claims and froze the defendants’ assets, pending trial. The settlement and default judgment orders announced today end that litigation. The orders bar the defendants from misrepresenting: that they have a preexisting business relationship with consumers; that consumers owe them money; that they will provide domain name registration; and that they will provide “search optimization services” that will substantially increase traffic to consumers’ Web sites. The defendants are also required to disclose any material restrictions or aspects of any goods or services they provide. The settlement order, entered against defendants Isaac Benlolo, Kirk Mulveney, Pearl Keslassy, and 1646153 Ontario Inc., includes a suspended judgment of $4,261,876, the total amount of consumer injury caused by the illegal activities. Based on the inability of the settling defendants to pay, they will turn over $10,000 to satisfy the judgment. The default judgment order was entered against defendant Steven E. Dale and includes a judgment in the amount of $4,261,876. Charges against Ari Balabanian and Data Business Solutions were dismissed by the court at the FTC’s request. NOTE: Stipulated orders are for settlement purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Stipulated orders have the full force of law when signed by the judge. The Federal Trade Commission works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, click http://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov or call 1-877-382-4357. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. For free information on a variety of consumer topics, click http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/consumer.shtm .

Follow this link:
FTC Halts Cross Border Domain Name Registration and SEO Fees Scam

Is Debt Collector H P & Associates of Jacksonville FL Violating the FDCPA?

August 2nd, 2010. Published under Business Scams. No Comments.

I received an email from an individual and from the tone of her email I felt that she was confused and afraid. Below is an excerpt from her email. “I received a call this evening from HPC collections, based out of Florida, claiming they were “releasing my case” to the local authorities to come collect the debt (me) by 7 PM if I did not pay the debt in full. This totally freaked me out and the “compliance officer” stated there was nothing he could do about it as “you don’t pay us”. Knowing they are a debt collection agency, I’m wondering who “I pay.” ~ Amy G. I did ask her to clarify the name of collection agency that called her and her response was that “ H P & Associates-HPC.

Popular Searches

Deceptive Marketers Banned from Selling Mortgage Relief Services; One Defendant Ordered to Pay $11.5 Million

July 26th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

Eight marketers are banned from selling mortgage modification or foreclosure relief services under settlements with the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC alleged that the marketers charged homeowners up-front fees and falsely claimed they could get their mortgage loans modified or prevent foreclosure on their homes. The settlements in three separate actions are part of the FTC’s ongoing efforts against scams that target financially distressed consumers. The FTC settled with the following defendants: Federal Loan Modification Law Center. Steven Oscherowitz settled FTC charges that he and others advertised and sold a so-called “Federal Loan Modification program.” They charged up to $3,000, much of which they required up-front, but Federal Loan Modification often failed to live up to the promised results, according to the FTC’s complaint. (4/6/2009 release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/04/hud.shtm ). The settlement order against Oscherowitz permanently bans him from selling mortgage relief services and from telemarketing any good or service. Under the order, Oscherowitz also is prohibited from misrepresenting any good or service, selling or otherwise benefitting from customers’ personal information, and failing to dispose of customer information properly. The order imposes an $11.5 million judgment against Oscherowitz, which represents the amount consumers paid to the defendants while he was involved in the alleged scheme. Any money collected to satisfy the judgment will be paid to injured consumers if practicable, or to the U.S. Treasury as disgorgement of ill-gotten gains. Two individual and three corporate defendants already have settled charges against them in this case, and the FTC continues to pursue its case against five other defendants. Loss Mitigation Services. Dean Shafer, Marion Anthony “Tony” Perry, and Bernadette Perry, also known as Bernadette Carr and Bernadette Carr-Perry, settled allegations that they falsely promised that a loan modification was assured or virtually assured if consumers paid an advance fee of up to $5,500. Shafer and the Perrys, who were principals of Loss Mitigation Services, Inc. (LMS) and Synergy Financial Management Corporation, doing business as Direct Lender or DirectLender.com (Direct Lender), also allegedly misrepresented that the companies were a department of, or affiliated with, the consumer’s lender or mortgage servicer. In addition, Shafer and the Perrys falsely claimed that consumers would receive refunds if LMS or Direct Lender failed to secure a loan modification. In many cases, the defendants failed to obtain loan modifications for consumers, and some consumers lost their homes while waiting for the promised results. (7/15/2009 release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/07/loanlies.shtm .) Under the settlement orders, Shafer and the Perrys are banned from selling mortgage relief services. The orders also impose a $6.2 million judgment that is suspended due to their inability to pay. In addition to the orders against Shafer and the Perrys, the FTC obtained a default order against LMS and Direct Lender, banning them from selling mortgage relief services and ordering them to pay $6.2 million. Hope Now Modifications. Brothers Salvatore and Nicholas Puglia, Hope Now Modifications LLC, and Hope Now Financial Services Corporation settled FTC charges that they falsely claimed that they could obtain mortgage loan modifications in all or virtually all cases and would refund consumers’ money if they failed, and that they were affiliated with, or part of, the HOPE NOW Alliance, a free federal homeowner assistance program. (3/24/2009 release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/03/newhope.shtm ). In addition to banning the defendants from selling mortgage relief services, the settlement order against them permanently bars them from misrepresenting any good or service, violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule, selling or otherwise benefitting from their customers’ personal information, and failing to dispose of their customer information properly. The order also imposes a judgment of almost $5.3 million, which will be suspended when the defendants surrender all of the funds in their bank accounts, which were frozen by the court. The Commission votes to authorize staff to file the stipulated final orders in Federal Loan Modification Law Center and Loss Mitigation Services were 5-0. The orders were entered by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 12, 2010, and July 14, 2010, respectively. The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the stipulated final order in Hope Now Modifications was 5-0. The order was entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on July 12, 2010. NOTE: Stipulated court orders are for settlement purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Stipulated orders have the full force of law when signed by the judge. 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. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics .

Read the original post:
Deceptive Marketers Banned from Selling Mortgage Relief Services; One Defendant Ordered to Pay $11.5 Million

Marketers of "Rapid Debt Reduction" Program To Pay $1.5 Million for Falsely Claiming They Could Lower Consumers’ Interest Rates

July 23rd, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud. No Comments.

Defendants Permanently Banned from Marketing Debt Relief Services The marketers of a “Rapid Debt Reduction” program who promised to lower interest rates on credit cards – for an up-front fee of up to $899 – have settled Federal Trade Commission charges that they misled consumers. Under a court order settling the FTC’s case, the pitchmen have been banned from marketing debt-relief services and have agreed to pay $1.5 million that will be used to refund defrauded consumers. Filed as part of the “Operation Short Charge” law enforcement sweep, the FTC’s complaint alleged that Mutual Consolidated Savings (MCS) and its affiliates and principals used cold calls, pre-recorded “robocalls,” and the Internet to push a phony “Rapid Debt Reduction” program to consumers in the United States and Canada. The defendants convinced consumers to pay $690 to $899 for the program, claiming they would reduce credit card interest rates, save consumers thousands of dollars, and enable them to pay off their debt three to five times faster than they could under their current payment schedule. The FTC also alleged that the defendants failed to honor their money-back guarantee. In addition, according to the FTC, the MCS defendants called consumers whose telephone numbers were on the Do Not Call Registry, failed to honor consumers’ requests that they not be called again, transmitted fake Caller ID information, failed to identify themselves during telephone pitches, and made illegal robocalls. The order settling the FTC’s charges bans the defendants from working in the debt relief industry and prohibits them from misleading consumers or helping anyone else mislead consumers about any material facts regarding goods or services they are selling. In addition, they must comply with the agency’s Telemarketing Sales Rule, including not calling consumers on the Do Not Call Registry. The settlement order also requires the defendants to pay approximately $1.5 million – all of their available assets – that will be distributed to injured customers in the United States and Canada. If they misrepresented their financial condition, the defendants will have to pay the full amount of the alleged consumer injury, $22.5 million. The FTC vote approving the complaint and proposed settlement order was 5-0. The settlement order was filed on June 14, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Tacoma and signed by the judge on July 19, 2010. It settles the FTC’s charges against MCS Programs, LLC; United Savings Center, Inc.; and USC Programs, LLC; and their principals, Paul Morris Thompson and Miranda Lynn Cavender. Law Enforcement Coordination In investigating and bringing its case against Mutual Consolidated Savings, the FTC received assistance from the Canadian Competition Bureau. Both the Competition Bureau and the FTC are members of the Vancouver Strategic Alliance, a law enforcement task force located in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. In carrying out the terms of the court order in Mutual Consolidated Savings, the FTC received assistance from the Police Department of Tacoma, Washington. NOTE: Stipulated final orders are for settlement purposes only and do not constitute an admission by the defendant of a law violation. Stipulated orders have the force of law when signed by the judge. Copies of the complaint and final order are available from the FTC’s website at http://www.ftc.gov and from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, click: http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/complaint.shtm or call 1-877-382-4357. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. For free information on a variety of consumer topics, click http://ftc.gov/bcp/consumer.shtm .

See the original post:
Marketers of "Rapid Debt Reduction" Program To Pay $1.5 Million for Falsely Claiming They Could Lower Consumers’ Interest Rates

Debt Collection Abuses Widespread

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

Debt companies pursuing consumers with a small army of collectors have swamped small claims courts with lawsuits and left a trail of abuses that, in 2009, led consumers to file more than 120,000 complaints with federal regulators. “The Debt Machine: How the Collection Industry Hounds Consumers and Overwhelms Courts,” released today by the National Consumer Law Center, shows an urgent need for stronger and updated consumer protections. “The recession has thrown millions of consumers into the jaws of a giant collection machine,” said Robert Hobbs, NCLC deputy director and report co-author. “Existing laws and regulatory efforts have lagged behind what is needed to effectively monitor powerful, wealthy and ubiquitous collections companies.” “The Debt Machine” tells the stories of consumers who have been dragged into a morass of annoying phone calls, false claims and harassment. It also identifies the financial links between debt companies and some of the nation’s leading banks, documents the buying and selling of billions of dollars of debts and describes the critical role played by hundreds of specialized law firms. This timely report echoes the FTC’s July 12 call for enhanced protections for consumers who face collections actions in small claims courts and private “forced arbitration” forums. “Millions of American families have been subjected to debt collection abuses in recent years,” Hobbs said. “Some have been struggling to pay accumulated debts. Some who don’t even owe the debts have been targeted by a sloppy and over-aggressive debt industry.” “These families – unlike some of the giant banks that are the leading creditors – haven’t asked for a bail-out,” Hobbs added. “But they are entitled to their rights not to be hounded, abused or pursued for claims that they never owed or are no longer legally enforceable. Consumers also deserve their day in court to resolve legitimate disputes.” The report is posted on-line at www.nclc.org/images/pdf/pr-reports/debt-machine.pdf . The National Consumer Law Center is a non-profit organization that seeks marketplace justice on behalf of vulnerable Americans. NCLC works with, and offers training to, thousands of legal-service, government and private attorneys, as well as community groups and organizations representing low-income families. Our legal manuals and consumer guides are standards of the field. Learn more and find a link to the new report on our Web site: http://www.nclc.org .

Original post:
Debt Collection Abuses Widespread

Federal Trade Commission Proposals to Reform the Debt Collection Industry

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

The Federal Trade Commission has made recommendations to fix the badly broken debt collection industry, especially debt litigation and arbitration. One of the biggest problems is that debt collection attorneys file complaints against consumers and upwards of 90 percent of the time have no physical proof that a debt is owed or that they are suing the proper person(s). These sorts of questionable debt collection lawsuits are exactly why the book “ Stick it To Sue Happy Debt Collectors ” was written. The book levels the playing field and gives consumers a very high chance of beating erroneous and highly questionable lawsuits in court. The book is written in an easy to understand manner and simplified steps on fighting debt collectors and their attorneys.

Redress Checks Mailed to Borrowers Misled By Chase Financial Funding Inc Allegedly Deceptive Mortgage Ads

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

The Federal Trade Commission is distributing refund checks to borrowers lured by a firm charged with deceptively advertising that it offered 3.5 percent, fixed-payment, 30-year mortgage loans. According to the FTC’s federal court complaint filed in 2004, the firm allegedly duped consumers into signing up for adjustable rate mortgages in which the principal balance would increase if they made payments at the advertised rates. The FTC mailed 261 checks on June 30, with each one totaling $1,238.35. The refund checks are valid for 60 days from the date they are issued. The refunds are the result of a settlement between the FTC and the defendants and the recent distribution of the defendants’ assets by the Bankruptcy court. Consumers who were victimized by the company, Chase Financial Funding Inc., but did not complain to the agency may still qualify to receive refunds. A special phone line has been set up to handle questions. Consumers who think they may be eligible for a refund or have questions can contact the claims administrator on its hotline at 1-877-789-9498. For more information about the case, see the court documents and news release at: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/06/chasefinancial.shtm . NOTE: The settlement in this case does not constitute an admission by the defendant of a law violation. Consent decrees have the force of law when signed by the judge. 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. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics .

See the rest here:
Redress Checks Mailed to Borrowers Misled By Chase Financial Funding Inc Allegedly Deceptive Mortgage Ads

Pro Se Consumer Gets Default Judgment Vacated Using “Stick It To Sue Happy Debt Collectors” Book

June 18th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

I love reading success stories of consumers that have used my book “ Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors ” to beat debt collection law firms that file lawsuits, but have no actual proof that a debt is owed. In this case a Pro Se consumer that purchased the book used what they learned to have a default judgment vacated. “I just wanted to let you know that we were able to remove a judgment after 6 months using your book helped my confidence and knowledge. After the hearing the lowlife attorney approached me to talk about it and i told him there’s nothing to talk about now but you will be in court where i sue you for fraud, FDCPA, FCRA and other violations. That felt soooo good!” ~ S. Brunelle 6/17/2010 Below is a link to the Motion they filed to get the judgment vacated, note that I have REDACTED personal information of the consumer to protect their privacy. View the Motion (PDF format) Consumers defending themselves can win in court and the book “Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors” **WILL** show you how to do it yourself as a pro se defendant. Consumers don’t have to be afraid on debt collection lawsuits any more. I show you have to stick it right back to the debt collectors and their greedy attorneys that will do anything to get a judgment. Here are what other consumers that bought the book have to say (one is a consumer attorney!): “I knew nothing about any of this and I feel like I’ve gotten quite an education following your book. I’m still learning and don’t understand some of the stuff. But talk about sticking it to them….WOW…. after typing up my Discovery to the Plaintiff. I know why you never had to go any further in any of your cases, you stuck it to them alright ! The most dedicated person would throw in the towel rather then gather all that evidence.” ~Petra K. “Thanks for taking the time to write and publish your book. As a someone who has been studying this issue for quite sometime, I can say without circumlocution that your book is hands down the BEST currently available on the market. Indeed, I recognize much of the research in it having spent countless hours over the past 2 years researching debt collection defense, federal consumer rights statutes such as the FDCPA and the FCRA, the “consumer bibles” available from the National Consumer Law Center, et cetera.” ~ CJ Mandolin “Allen’s book is truly the “Holy Grail” for fighting ruthless debt collectors. Most of the examples in the book can be used as is, or slightly modified for your particular state. It will take a little work on your part, but with internet research and Allen’s guidance, your confidence and ability to fight your way out of a debt burden changes from being on the defensive, taking all the collection blows, to going on the offensive with the information you will need to win. Knowledge is power and Allen’s book is filled with the right knowledge and power. Allen also provides the strategy you need. Once you know how the game is played, you will be more effective. Also he gives an excellent explanation of the examples he uses.” ~ Bob P. “I just got out of court, and thanks to the information we learned in your book, I was able to have the judgment vacated. I am starting from scratch in answering the original summons, and will be employing the tips from your book in my response. Thank you so much for all of the help you have provided.” Best Wishes, Kerri A. “Thanks again for the inspiration to use the real party in interest defense in a motion to dismiss, and for the asset-backed securities info. I do think that some judges will be sympathetic to this. If nothing else, it gives us another issue to turn the tables on the collection agencies after they file their motions for summary judgment. Very good resource for pro-se debtors. Following the instructions in this book should win most creditor lawsuits.” ~ Attorney Brett W. Clark, Niketas & Clark, LLP www.NiketasLaw.com “Thank you, with your book I won my first case now working on the next.” ~ H Dodson “Allen you ROCK!!! Dan and I were saying today just how blessed we feel to have found you and your book!” ~ Charlotte V. “I meant to tell you that I read the book on Friday and it is incredible. I love the motion to dismiss. Powerful and easy to understand.” ~ Barbara www.nextlevelunlimited.net “Hi Allen, I got it downloaded just fine and am finding it astoundingly useful. Gives me some hope that I have a chance to defend my cases. I wish I had come across this book before I filed my answer, but I think I did well enough to keep the pressure on. Thanks again for the help. Much appreciated, and well worth the price.” ~ Rick T. “What can I say – this book instantly saved my life! Mr. Harkleroad is “one of us.” He’s been there, done that, and he knows how hideous it feels to be victimized by aggressive Debt Collectors. He writes with common sense and expertise – a rare combination. After spending hours online trying to come up with my own solution, I took a chance and purchased this book and I am so glad I did. Why shouldn’t I do everything legally possible to protect myself? These are real, practical and proven solutions. Many thanks to Allen Harkleroad for helping to empower hard-working people and level the playing field against the Debt Collecting Goliaths.” ~ J. Silva “One of the invaluable characteristics of a great man or woman is their ability to “discern the times” and provide for what is needed in that season. Truly, Allen possesses that ability! His discernment of the times is vividly displayed in his “RIGHT ON TIME” book, “How to Stick It to Sue Happy Debt Collectors”! This book came to me in one of those “need it now” moments and after devouring the first 50 pages, I sat with jaw dropped at the information contained within these pages. How could so much information be out there without my knowing about it? Why have I felt so defeated as I swam against the tide of Debt? Quoting my favorite author, I will tell you how..”My people are destroyed by lack of knowledge!” Hosea 4:6. As I sat with bills in hand, and the phone ringing off the hook, watching gov’t bail outs of bank after bank, I would often ask myself “who is looking out for the little guy?” I have found him! Allen Harkleroad! The information provided in this book is not simply “he said, she said” second hand information that sounds good on paper. This book contains tried and true step-by-step tactics formed from investigation that would take years for the “common man” to pull together. (And he did!). Allen has implemented this information into his own situations, stood as David against Goliath, and WON!!!

Popular Searches

More Than A Dozen Marketers Banned from Selling Mortgage Relief Services; Repeat Offender Ordered to Pay $11.4 Million for Contempt

June 18th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

As part of the agency’s continuing crackdown on scams that prey on financially distressed homeowners, the Federal Trade Commission announced legal actions against more than a dozen marketers accused of pitching bogus mortgage modification or foreclosure relief services. FTC settlement orders ban 16 marketers from the mortgage modification or foreclosure relief business. The promoter of a similar scam has been ordered to pay $11.4 million for flouting a previous court order. And, in a new action, the FTC has charged another online marketing operation with masquerading as a government mortgage assistance program. The FTC settled with the following defendants, all of whom charged consumers up-front fees and made false promises that they could get their loans modified or prevent foreclosure: Making Home Affordable. The FTC alleged that the defendants impersonated MakingHomeAffordable.gov, a federal government Web site that helps eligible homeowners refinance or modify their mortgages. Defendants Sean Cantkier, Michael Haller, Alan LeStourgeon, Greg Rivera, Lisa Roye, and Jeffrey Altmire bought advertising links on the results pages of Internet search engines, and consumers looking for “making home affordable” were diverted to commercial Web sites that pitched loan modification services or sold consumers’ personal information to marketers of such services. (7/10/2009 release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/07/homeafford.shtm ) The defendants will have to give up their ill-gotten gains, ranging from $1,523 to $29,179. Separately, the Commission authorized and the court approved the addition of two counts to the complaint against Scot Lady and dismissed Kean Lee Lim as a defendant. The documents were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Federal Loan Modification Law Center. Defendants Nabile (“Bill”) Anz, Federal Loan Modification Law Center LLP, Anz & Associates PLC, Venture Legal Support PLC, and Jeffrey Broughton settled FTC charges that they hawked their so-called “Federal Loan Modification program” in a national advertising campaign targeting financially distressed homeowners. They charged up to $3,000, much of which they required up-front, but Federal Loan Modification often failed to live up to the promised results, according to the FTC’s complaint. (06/26/2009 release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/06/fedloanmod.shtm ) In addition to the ban on selling mortgage relief services, the settlement order against Anz, Federal Loan Modification Law Center, Anz & Associates, and Venture Legal Support imposes a $10.8 million judgment, and the order against Broughton imposes a $11.1 million judgment. The judgments are suspended based on their inability to pay. The full judgments will become due immediately if they are found to have misrepresented their financial condition or receive any money from the remaining defendants. The order was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The FTC continues to pursue its case against five other defendants. Apply2Save. Derek R. Oberholtzer, Apply2Save Inc., and Sleeping Giant Media Works, Inc. allegedly charged consumers up to $995 in advance for promised mortgage loan modification services. Once they were paid, they often failed to answer or return consumers’ telephone calls and sometimes falsely blamed delays on lenders, even though they had made little or no effort to contact lenders, the FTC charged. Most consumers who got loan modifications or avoided foreclosure did so only through their own efforts. (7/15/2009 release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/07/loanlies.shtm ) The defendants have filed for bankruptcy. The order imposes a judgment of more than $4 million, which is suspended based on their inability to pay. The full judgment will become due immediately if they are found to have misrepresented their financial condition. The order was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. New Hope Modifications. Brian Mammoccio and Donna Fisher have settled charges that they falsely claimed they could obtain mortgage loan modifications for consumers in all or virtually all cases, falsely promised a money-back guarantee, and masqueraded as part of the federally-endorsed HOPE NOW Alliance mortgage assistance network. According to the FTC complaint, in many cases, after consumers paid up-front fees, the defendants failed to return their phone calls, or falsely told them that negotiations were proceeding smoothly. In many instances, consumers learned from their lenders that the defendants had not contacted them. (3/24/2009 release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/03/newhope.shtm ) In addition to the ban on selling mortgage relief services, the settlement order imposes a judgment of almost $3.9 million, which will be suspended when the defendants surrender their assets as specified in the order. The full judgment will become due immediately if they are found to have misrepresented their financial condition. The order was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The $11.4 million contempt order against Bryan D’Antonio and three companies he controls, The Rodis Law Group Inc., America’s Law Group Inc., and The Financial Group Inc., came at the request of the FTC, which charged that operators of the scam had falsely claimed they would stop foreclosures and negotiate lower mortgage interest rates, monthly payments, and principal balances. Promoters of the scam claimed a 100 percent success rate and wrongly advised consumers to pay them instead of making mortgage payments. The FTC alleged that homeowners got few, if any, loan modifications, and many people lost their homes to foreclosure after paying them up to $5,500. The operators also falsely claimed that attorneys would check consumers’ loan documents for fraud and other lending violations that they would use as leverage in negotiating loan modifications, according to the complaint. In May 2009, the FTC charged the defendants with violating a 2001 order that banned D’Antonio from telemarketing and misleading consumers about goods or services. The FTC obtained the 2001 order against D’Antonio and his former company, Data Medical Capital Inc., for operating a work-at-home medical billing opportunity scheme. D’Antonio also pleaded guilty to mail fraud for his involvement in that scam and served almost three years in prison. In addition to the financial sanctions against D’Antonio and the three companies, the court barred him from making misleading statements about refunds, exchanges, and total costs or quantity. The FTC has collected more than $1 million from the defendants’ available assets thus far, and will refer the remainder of the $11.4 million judgment to the Department of the Treasury for collection. The FTC has set up a consumer information line at 1-888-398-8205. Fedmortgageloans.com . The FTC has charged Dominant Leads LLC, MAD TJ Holdings LLC, James Rambadt, Thomas Hayes, and James Kane with misrepresenting that the mortgage assistance and debt relief programs they are marketing are affiliated with the federal or state government, and that consumers may be eligible for a federal or state loan modification or debt relief program. Some of the defendants’ Web sites use logos similar to the federal government’s MakingHomeAffordable.gov logo, and many of their sites feature official government agency seals or logos and links to federal government Web sites. When consumers seeking mortgage assistance or debt relief services call the toll-free numbers on the defendants’ Web sites, they are connected to other companies that sell supposed mortgage assistance relief or debt relief services for a fee. The FTC seeks to stop the defendants’ illegal practices and make them forfeit their ill-gotten gains. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on June 16, 2010. The Commission votes were unanimous in these actions. The Federal Trade Commission is a member of the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. For more information on the task force, go to www.stopfraud.gov . NOTE: The Commission authorizes the filing of a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law. Stipulated court orders are for settlement purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Stipulated orders have the full force of law when signed by the judge. 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. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics .

See the original post here:
More Than A Dozen Marketers Banned from Selling Mortgage Relief Services; Repeat Offender Ordered to Pay $11.4 Million for Contempt

Popular Searches

Debt Collector Hanna and Associates Wins Battle with Georgia, Ultimately loses the War

June 12th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud. No Comments.

A recent State of Georgia Appeals Court ruling ( STATE v. FREDERICK J. HANNA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. ) handed Frederick J. Hanna an (albeit) small victory that prevents the Georgia Office of Consumer Affairs (GA OCA) from obtaining records that may have shown that the debt collection law firm may have abused consumers, violated the Georgia Business Practices Act and the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The ruling doesn’t prevent consumers from filing suit against the debt collector, as the decision boiled down to the fact that only the Georgia Supreme court can regulate the practice of law. I am quite sure Frederick Hanna and his attorney’s are sitting at their desks with smug smiles on their faces and slapping each other on the back. While the law firm may have won the battle with the State of Georgia for the moment, ultimately they have lost the war. “The trial court defeated the OCA’s attempt to compel the law firm’s compliance with its investigative demand by dismissing the lawsuit OCA filed. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding in part that it was an attempt to regulate the practice of law — something that is entirely within the jurisdiction of the Georgia Supreme Court to do. This is a technical way to defeat consumer protection. I agree with Justice Melton’s dissent, but we are in the minority. I note that this was a 4:3 decision. Not a landslide but, for now at least, the law in this state.” ~ Georgia Consumer Protection Attorney Joseph Segui I am quite sure that Georgia state legislators are now seeing that this legal loophole that could allow debt collection law firms to abuse consumers without fear of legal retribution is a big problem. I wouldn’t be surprised that in the near future Georgia Senators and Representatives will draft a change in the law or create new consumer protection laws to put a stop to the abuse by lawyers in the debt collection business. Who knows we may even finally see the State of Georgia more strictly regulate the debt collection industry in the state. One thing is for sure Frederick J. Hanna and Associates are now going to be a target in all of the states they do business in and with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Besides suing abusive debt collector attorneys, consumers can also file Bar Association complaints against lawyers that violate the law, violate ethics, or abuse the legal system to collect debts. Attorney’s and law firms hate to get sued and their second biggest fear is getting suspended or disbarred from practicing law. It only takes a few minutes to contact a particular states Bar Association to request complaint/grievance forms. The more complaints that are filed the more apt are the State Bar Associations to take action. I myself have filed several complaints against debt collection attorney’s as well as filed suit against collection law firms. The more consumers that do, the less consumer abuse that will occur. Stand up consumers and fight back, it’s the only way to beat them at their own game.Stand up consumers and fight back, it’s the only way to beat them at their own game. If you want to beat debt collection law firms then read this book, Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors , you’ll be glad you did.

Bank of America / Countrywide Will Pay $108 Million for Overcharging Struggling Homeowners; Loan Servicer Inflated Fees and Mishandled Loans

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

Two Countrywide mortgage servicing companies will pay $108 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that they collected excessive fees from cash-strapped borrowers who were struggling to keep their homes. The $108 million represents one of the largest judgments imposed in an FTC case, and the largest mortgage servicing case. It will be used to reimburse overcharged homeowners whose loans were serviced by Countrywide before it was acquired by Bank of America in July 2008. “Life is hard enough for homeowners who are having trouble paying their mortgage. To have a major loan servicer like Countrywide piling on illegal and excessive fees is indefensible,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz. “We’re very pleased that homeowners will be reimbursed as a result of our settlement.” According to the complaint filed by the FTC, Countrywide’s loan-servicing operation deceived homeowners who were behind on their mortgage payments into paying inflated fees – fees that could add up to hundreds or even thousands of dollars. Many of the homeowners had taken out loans originated or funded by Countrywide’s lending arm, including subprime or “nontraditional” mortgages such as payment option adjustable rate mortgages, interest-only mortgages, and loans made with little or no income or asset documentation, the complaint states. Mortgage servicers are responsible for the day-to-day management of homeowners’ mortgage loans, including collecting and crediting monthly loan payments. Homeowners cannot choose their mortgage servicer. In March 2008, before being acquired by Bank of America, Countrywide was ranked as the top mortgage servicer in the United States, with a balance of more than $1.4 trillion in its servicing portfolio. When homeowners fell behind on their payments and were in default on their loans, Countrywide ordered property inspections, lawn mowing, and other services meant to protect the lender’s interest in the property, according to the FTC complaint. But rather than simply hire third-party vendors to perform the services, Countrywide created subsidiaries to hire the vendors. The subsidiaries marked up the price of the services charged by the vendors – often by 100% or more – and Countrywide then charged the homeowners the marked-up fees. The complaint alleges that the company’s strategy was to increase profits from default-related service fees in bad economic times. As a result, even as the mortgage market collapsed and more homeowners fell into delinquency, Countrywide earned substantial profits by funneling default-related services through subsidiaries that it created solely to generate revenue. According to the FTC, under most mortgage contracts, homeowners must pay for necessary default-related services, but mortgage servicers may not mark up the cost to make a profit or charge homeowners for services that are not reasonable or appropriate to protect the mortgage holder’s interest in the property. Homeowners do not have any choice in who performs default-related services or the cost of those services, and they have no option to shop for those services. In addition, in servicing loans for borrowers trying to save their homes in Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings, the complaint charges that Countrywide made false or unsupported claims to borrowers about amounts owed or the status of their loans. Countrywide also failed to tell borrowers in bankruptcy when new fees and escrow charges were being added to their loan accounts. The FTC alleges that after the bankruptcy case closed and borrowers no longer had bankruptcy court protection, Countrywide unfairly tried to collect those amounts, including in some cases via foreclosure. Settlement Terms The FTC’s complaint and settlement order name two mortgage servicers as defendants: Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, formerly doing business as Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP. The settlement requires Countrywide to pay $108 million, which will be refunded to homeowners who Countrywide overcharged before July 2008. In addition, the settlement order prohibits Countrywide from taking advantage of borrowers who have fallen behind on their payments. The defendants continue to service millions of mortgage loans, including tens of thousands of loans involving borrowers in bankruptcy and foreclosure. In the servicing of loans, the defendants are permanently barred from: Making false or unsubstantiated representations about loan accounts, such as amounts owed. Charging any fee for a service unless it is authorized by the loan instruments, by law, or by the consumer for a specific service requested by the consumer. Charging any fee for a default-related service unless it is a reasonable fee charged by a third party for work actually performed. If the service is provided by an affiliate of a defendant, the fee must be within limits set by state law, investor guidelines, and market rates. Defendants must obtain annual, independent market reviews of their affiliates’ fees to ensure that they are not excessive. In addition, Countrywide must advise consumers if it intends to use affiliates for default-related services and, if so, provide a fee schedule of the amounts charged by the affiliates. The settlement also requires Countrywide to make significant changes to its bankruptcy servicing practices. For example, Countrywide must send borrowers in Chapter 13 bankruptcy a monthly notice with information about what amounts the borrower owes – including any fees assessed during the prior month. The defendants also must implement a data integrity program to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the data they use to service loans in Chapter 13 bankruptcy. This case was brought with the invaluable assistance of the United States Trustee Program, the component of the Department of Justice that oversees the administration of bankruptcy cases and private trustees. This action represents the FTC’s continuing work to help consumers who have been hurt by the economic downturn. For more information about the case and the FTC’s refund program, see www.ftc.gov/countrywide . The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the complaint and settlement was 5-0. The complaint and settlement were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The Federal Trade Commission is a member of the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. For more information on the Task Force, visit www.stopfraud.gov . NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law. Stipulated court orders are for settlement purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Stipulated orders have the full force of law when signed by the judge. 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. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics .

See more here:
Bank of America / Countrywide Will Pay $108 Million for Overcharging Struggling Homeowners; Loan Servicer Inflated Fees and Mishandled Loans

Book Review – Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors

May 26th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud. No Comments.

This is a customer review written by Bob P., he asked me to not publish his last name due to the nature of the subject. With that said this is what Bob had to say about my book, “Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors”. THE REVIEW Allen’s book is truly the “Holy Grail” for fighting ruthless debt collectors. Most of the examples in the book can be used as is, or slightly modified for your particular state. It will take a little work on your part, but with internet research and Allen’s guidance, your confidence and ability to fight your way out of a debt burden changes from being on the defensive, taking all the collection blows, to going on the offensive with the information you will need to win. Knowledge is power and Allen’s book is filled with the right knowledge and power. Here are some of the key points I never realized: 9 out of 10 folks never respond to suits or show up in court and as a result they automatically lose, not only the amount claimed by inflated attorney fees and expenses. Then it is a simple matter for the collection agencies to garnish your wages. Allen prepares you to fight. If you follow Allen’s instructions, it is mostly paperwork and you will probably never have to go to court. Allen describes that debt collectors often sue based on a “Suits of Accounts”, which does not require as much of a burden of proof as a “Breach of Contract”. In most states this is not the correct type of suit for credit card debt, which is generally “Breach of Contract”. Breach of Contract is much easier for you to defend yourself as it can be more difficult for the collection agency to prove. If you search for “Suits of Accounts” cases in your state, you can often find the State Attorney General or Courts have a write-up explaining why these are not proper suits for credit cards. Again, if you don’t challenge, you make it easy for the collection agencies suing you. Allen also provides the strategy you need. Once you know how the game is played, you will be more effective. Also he gives an excellent explanation of the examples he uses. Allen points out that most credit card receivables from banks are sold to a trust that is held in an Asset Backed Security. He gives the SEC reference to search out filings. His example of Capital One is brilliant. In essence, the bank/collection agency filing suit against you does not own the credit card receivable. Without documentation showing that a defaulted credit card goes back to the bank, you can challenge that the bank/collection agency is not the owner of the debt, and as such, ask for a “Motion to Dismiss”. What a stroke of genius. These are just a few of the gems I found in the book. My thanks to Allen and also thanks that he answers emails as well. To find out more about the book or to purchase visit Beat Debt Collectors (eBook and print editions available). DIRECT PURCHASE LINKS You can buy the print edition at Amazon.com ($24.95) or the eBook (PDF) edition ($19.95) at the GMP Services online store.

See the rest here:
Book Review – Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors

FTC Charges More Defendants and Violations in Matter of Grant Connect, LLC; FTC Approves Final Order Settling Charges That Transitions Optical, Inc. Used Anticompetitive…

April 28th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Scams. No Comments.

FTC Charges More Defendants and Violations in Matter of Grant Connect, LLC The Federal Trade Commission has charged additional defendants and violations in the matter of Grant Connect, LLC, a company that allegedly deceptively promised government grants to consumers, and failed to adequately disclose that those who bought their products or services would be enrolled in continuity plans with significant monthly fees, primarily for other unrelated products. The FTC’s July 2009 complaint also alleged that the defendants debited consumers’ bank accounts without their authorization. The FTC filed an amended complaint adding four individual defendants – Kyle Kimoto, Michael Henriksen, Johnnie Smith, and Tasha Jn Paul – as well as 15 new corporate defendants. The amended complaint also adds five new counts, charging the defendants with participating in three additional deceptive scams, and with using phony testimonials to convince consumers to purchase their products and services. Specifically, in addition to the grant scam that was the focus of the original complaint, the amended complaint alleges that the defendants sold: 1) online shopping club memberships that were deceptively marketed as general purpose lines of credit; 2) phony work-at-home business opportunities marketed using false and unsubstantiated earnings claims; and 3) dietary supplements supposedly containing acai berries that were marketed using baseless health claims. The FTC vote authorizing the staff to file the amended complaint was 4-0. It was filed on April 21, 2010, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, and is available now on the FTC’s Web site and as a link to this press release. (FTC File No. 092-3126; Civ. No. 2:09-CV-01349; the staff contact is Roberto Anguizola, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 202-326-3284. See press release dated August 20, 2009, at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/08/grantconnect.shtm .) FTC Approves Final Order Settling Charges That Transitions Optical, Inc. Used Anticompetitive Practices to Exclude Rivals Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission has approved a final settlement order in the matter Transitions Optical, Inc., and sent letters to members of the public who submitted comments. The final order settles charges that Transitions, the nation’s leading manufacturer of photochromic treatments that darken corrective eyeglass lenses, used anticompetitive practices to maintain its monopoly and increase prices. Photochromic treatments are applied to lenses to protect the eyes from harmful ultraviolet (UV) light. Treated lenses darken when exposed to UV light and fade back to clear when the UV light diminishes. The FTC vote approving the final order was 3-0-2, with Commissioners Edith Ramirez and Julie Brill not participating. (FTC File No. 091-0062; the staff contact is Linda M. Holleran, Bureau of Competition, 202-326-2267. See press release dated March 3, 2010, at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/03/optical.shtm .) Copies of the documents mentioned in this release are available from the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. Call toll-free: 1-877-FTC-HELP.

See more here:
FTC Charges More Defendants and Violations in Matter of Grant Connect, LLC; FTC Approves Final Order Settling Charges That Transitions Optical, Inc. Used Anticompetitive…

Women’s Clothing Retailer Talbots and its Telemarketer to Pay Total of $161,000 for Violating FTC’s Robocall ‘Opt-Out’ Requirements

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

Women’s clothing retailer Talbots and its California marketing company have agreed to pay penalties totaling $161,000 to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that they illegally delivered prerecorded “robocalls” that failed to give consumers proper notice of their right to opt out of receiving telemarketing calls. Talbots operates stores in 587 locations in 47 states, the District of Columbia, and Canada. It markets clothing under the Talbots brand, and prior to July 2009, also marketed clothing under the J. Jill brand. Talbots and its telemarketer, SmartReply, Inc., have both agreed to orders that prohibit them from violating the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule in the future. Among other requirements, when using prerecorded telemarketing messages, the companies must: Tell consumers how to opt out of receiving telemarketing calls from the seller before delivering the seller’s sales pitch; Immediately disconnect consumers who indicate that they do not want to receive such calls; and Inform consumers listening to the message that they can make a do-not-call request at any time during a call. According to the FTC, Talbots and SmartReply violated the prerecorded message requirements in the Telemarketing Sales Rule during seven advertising campaigns conducted between February and July 2009 to promote Talbots and J. Jill. SmartReply’s telemarketing campaigns delivered 40- to 60-second recordings that advertised special sales and offers to consumers who had bought merchandise from Talbots’ companies during the previous year. The messages in these campaigns were drafted by SmartReply and then approved by Talbots. During the seven campaigns, SmartReply made at least 3.4 million robocalls to consumers. The FTC’s complaint details how the companies’ robocall campaigns failed to comply with the Telemarketing Sales Rule. First, the Rule requires that telemarketers give consumers a way to “opt out” of future calls immediately after the message states who the seller is, what they are selling, and the purpose of the call. SmartReply’s robocalls, however, required consumers to listen to almost all of the prerecorded sales pitch for Talbots or J. Jill before informing them that they could interrupt the call. Some messages contained no instructions on how consumers could be added to the do-not-call list and, instead, stated that pressing the prompt would ensure that the consumer would continue to receive prerecorded telemarketing messages. Second, the Telemarketing Sales Rule requires telemarketers to disconnect a call immediately when a consumer chooses an opt-out mechanism. But when consumers tried to use their telephone keypad to be placed on Talbots’ do-not-call list, they were instead connected to another recorded ad, before they were asked to press another prompt to get on the company’s do-not-call list. Third, when a robocall message is played to a live person, rather than to an answering machine, the Telemarketing Sales Rule requires that the message inform the person listening to the message that he or she can request to be placed on a company’s do-not-call list at any time during the call. Instead, SmartReply’s messages for Talbots did not inform consumers that they could opt out until the end of the ad pitch. Under the orders settling the FTC’s charges, Talbots and SmartReply are both subject to a $112,000 civil penalty. Talbots will pay the full penalty and SmartReply will pay $49,000, with the remainder of the penalty stayed due to its inability to pay. The Commission vote approving the complaints and orders was 4-0. The proposed orders require approval by the courts. The complaint and proposed final settlement order regarding Talbots were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and the complaint and proposed final settlement order regarding SmartReply was filed in Central District of California. The Department of Justice filed both actions on the FTC’s behalf on April 26, 2010. Although delivering prerecorded phone messages without consumers’ written authorization is now prohibited under FTC restrictions that became effective September 1, 2009, prior to this date the FTC allowed prerecorded calls to recent customers if the messages met certain requirements that are designed to ensure that consumers are able to make do-not-call requests during both automated and live calls. Today’s cases continue the FTC’s work to enforce rules related to robocalls. In the past year, the agency has brought cases against robocallers pitching fraudulent auto warranties and credit card interest-rate reduction plans. NOTE: The Commission issues or files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the named parties have violated the law. These stipulated final orders are for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendant of a law violation. Stipulated final orders require approval by the court and have the force of law when signed by the judge. Copies of the complaints and proposed stipulated final orders are available from the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, click: http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/complaint.shtm or call 1-877-382-4357. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. For free information on a variety of consumer topics, click http://ftc.gov/bcp/consumer.shtm .

See more here:
Women’s Clothing Retailer Talbots and its Telemarketer to Pay Total of $161,000 for Violating FTC’s Robocall ‘Opt-Out’ Requirements

Popular Searches

I Left Facebook – Where Your Privacy is No Longer Private

April 21st, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Scams. No Comments.

Over the last couple of months Facebook has slowly been making changes that are slowly eroding Facebook users privacy, all in the name of greed. I used to laugh when people referred to the folks at Facebook as being “Corporate Money Whores”, after reading about the latest changes at Facebook I am inclined to agree with that general opinion. Facebook has become nothing more than a money generating machine at the expenses of it’s users (aka YOU). The latest changes exposes a good bit of users profiles even if they are marked private. Yesterday, Facebook announced an awesome new feature that lets anyone see your current city, hometown, education, work, likes, and interests, even if you’ve set your profile to private. Will this benefit individual users and their friends? Not unless the only thing you remember about your dear friend is that they enjoy leather-play and you’re willing to scroll through reams of headshots to find them. No, this new privacy erosion is for the real clients of Facebook: advertisers, and the data-mining minions that toil on their behalf. However, there are two ways to be totally private. – Consumerist Once upon a time, Facebook could be used simply to share your interests and information with a select small community of your own choosing. As Facebook’s privacy policy once promised , “No personal information that you submit to Facebook will be available to any user of the Web Site who does not belong to at least one of the groups specified by you in your privacy settings.” Today, Facebook removed its users’ ability to control who can see their own interests and personal information. Certain parts of users’ profiles, “including your current city, hometown, education and work, and likes and interests” will now be transformed into “connections,” meaning that they will be shared publicly. If you don’t want these parts of your profile to be made public, your only option is to delete them.” – Electronic Frontier Foundation Never mind the fact that you can’t block all Facebook apps at one time, but must block each one individually, ad nauseum. Never mind the fact that Facebook “social games” aren’t social at all (other than pestering your Facebook friends with updates), and try to extract money from you and give you nothing in return but some coinage that can’t be spent on anything but the game itself (social games are a billion dollar industry). Have you noticed that many games are essentially the same with only a slight name change? You, my friends are Facebook’s “Cash Cows”. Yesterday I deleted my Facebook account as I am tired of Facebook monetizing me to such a degree that I no longer feel comfortable or safe on the site. Facebook has become a huge disappointment that at one time had a lot of potential. Now that Facebook takes money over ensuring users safety and privacy I will no longer be a member. You only have three choices: deactivate your account in your Facebook account settings, sign up for Facebook and set your birth date to be under 18 or delete your Facebook account permanently (Facebook website) as I have. If you are tired of Facebook making money at the expense of your privacy I encourage you to dump Facebook and go outside, breath in some fresh air and enjoy the real world for a change.

Here is the original post:
I Left Facebook – Where Your Privacy is No Longer Private

Helping Hands of Hope Telemarketers Barred from Falsely Telling Consumers That Proceeds from the Sale of Household Goods Will Benefit Charities or the Disabled

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

Complaint Brought as Part of 2008′s “Operation Tele-Phoney” Law Enforcement Sweep An Arizona-based telemarketing operation that identified itself as “Helping Hands of Hope” has settled charges that it conned consumers into buying household items such as light bulbs and trash bags that were priced substantially higher than at retail, by falsely promising the proceeds would benefit charities or the disabled. The defendants will be permanently barred from such fraudulent conduct and from calling consumers who have asked not to be called. According to the FTC’s complaint, filed in May 2008 as part of the “Operation Tele-Phoney” multi-agency law enforcement sweep against telemarketing fraud, the Helping Hands of Hope defendants used telemarketing to target consumers nationwide, including many who were elderly. In addition to making false promises, Helping Hands’ telemarketers harassed consumers who resisted buying products, sent consumers products they never ordered, and then claimed that they had, in fact, ordered them, the complaint alleged. Finally, the FTC charged that Helping Hands’ telemarketers violated the National Do Not Call Registry rules by calling consumers even after they had asked not to be called again. The court order settles the FTC’s charges against Helping Hands of Hope, Inc.; U.S. Blind Services, Inc.; Employment Opportunities of America, Inc.; Third Strike Employment, Inc.; and Robyn Mayhan. It prohibits the defendants from misrepresenting, or assisting anyone else in misrepresenting, that: a consumer’s purchase will benefit handicapped or disabled people; anyone working for the companies is handicapped or disabled; any of the companies’ products are made or packaged by the handicapped or disabled; or that any company operates a charitable organization. The order also bars the defendants from mailing or billing consumer for any merchandise they did not order. Further, Helping Hands and the other defendants are prohibited from violating the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule, including calling any number that is on the National Do Not Call Registry, calling consumers who have asked not to be called again, and failing to pay the annual fee required to access the Registry. Finally, the order imposes a judgment of $26.3 million against all of the defendants. The corporate defendants will turn over assets worth more than $60,000 in partial satisfaction of the judgment. The judgment against Mayhan, the companies’ president, has been suspended based on her inability to pay. She will have to pay the full amount if she is later found to have misrepresented her financial condition. The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file agreed-upon final order in consent of the court action was 4-0. It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, on April 1, 2010, and entered by the Court on April 6, 2010. NOTE: This stipulated final order is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendant of a law violation. A stipulated final order requires approval by the court and has the force of law when signed by the judge. Copies of the stipulated final order are available from the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, click: http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/complaint.shtm or call 1-877-382-4357. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. For free information on a variety of consumer topics, click http://ftc.gov/bcp/consumer.shtm .

Excerpt from:
Helping Hands of Hope Telemarketers Barred from Falsely Telling Consumers That Proceeds from the Sale of Household Goods Will Benefit Charities or the Disabled

Ecash and GeteCash Payday Lender Charged by FTC with Deceiving Employers in Scheme to Collect Debts

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

The Federal Trade Commission has charged a payday loan operation with illegally trying to garnish borrowers’ wages and using other illegal debt-collection practices. The FTC seeks to stop these practices and require the operators to surrender improperly collected money so it can be used for consumer refunds. According to the FTC’s complaint, the operators do business as Ecash and GeteCash, offering loans of up to $1,000 to be repaid from a borrower’s upcoming paycheck. They require online loan applicants to check a box indicating their agreement with loan terms. These terms include an inconspicuous statement consumers often don’t see, which states that their wages will be garnished to cover delinquent loan payments. The statement allegedly attempts to circumvent federal requirements, including a debtor’s right to revoke a garnishment agreement. U.S. law allows federal agencies to require employers to garnish employees’ wages without a court order when the employees owe the government money. According to the complaint, in letters to employers, GeteCash tries to pass itself off as having the same collection rights as the government. The FTC’s complaint also alleges that GeteCash falsely stated that consumers knew their pay would be garnished and had an opportunity to dispute the debt. In addition, GeteCash allegedly violated the law when it told employers and co-workers about consumers’ debt without their consent. The FTC alleges that, in carrying out their scheme, the operators violated the FTC Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Credit Practices Rule. The defendants are Eastbrook LLC, also doing business as Ecash and GeteCash; LoanPointe LLC; Joe S. Strom; Benjamin J. Lonsdale; James C. Endicott; and Mark S. Lofgren. Eastbrook, LoanPointe, and Strom have agreed to a preliminary injunction barring them from further unlawful practices. The Commission vote to file the complaint was 4-0. It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division on March 15, 2010. The FTC would like to acknowledge the assistance of the Financial Management Service of the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Idaho Department of Finance. NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law. 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. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics .

View post:
Ecash and GeteCash Payday Lender Charged by FTC with Deceiving Employers in Scheme to Collect Debts

Popular Searches

FTC, Florida Attorney General Charge Promoters of Bogus Alcohol Cure

April 3rd, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

Defendants Publicly Revealed Some Consumers’ Alcoholism, Complaint Alleges The Federal Trade Commission is suing a company that touted a phony cure for alcoholism, charging that it tricked hundreds of problem drinkers into paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for a service prescribing ineffective concoctions of natural supplements, and then threatened to reveal the drinkers’ alcohol problems if they canceled their memberships. Filed jointly with the state of Florida in federal district court, the complaint alleges that the company lured consumers with deceptive claims about its “Permanent Cure” program.

Constructive Notice of Jurisdiction – Catanese and Wells and CyberDefender Corporation

March 30th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

This is a constructive notice that personal jurisdiction over Allen Harkleroad and corporate jurisdiction of GMP Services falls within the state of Georgia. By accessing GMP Services Inc owned websites constitutes your acceptance of our terms of service which dictate jurisdiction of any legal claims. All claims much be filed in the Georgia state court, Bulloch County or US District court, Georgia Southern District. Website terms of service are clearly displayed on all websites owned by GMP Services, Inc of Statesboro Georgia. GMP Services Inc, has insufficient ties to the state of California to afford the state of California of any jurisdiction over myself or GMP Services Inc. Any litigation filed outside of personal and corporate jurisdiction will be moved to the proper jurisdiction and defended and counter-claims will be filed against all parties involved. Mr. Hume, Mr. Catanese you have two choices, file suit against GMP Services Inc and/or Allen Harkleroad in the proper jurisdiction or issue a retraction for the letter send to GMP Services dated March 24, 2010. If you fail to comply with my demand for a retraction of your letter I will take measures to ensure that you and your client never in the future harass myself or GMP Services Inc. Failure to respond to this email or previous emails will constitute acceptance that a retraction will be forthcoming and that the law firm of Catanese and Wells accepts such constructive notice and will in the future abstain from any contact with Allen Harkleroad and/or GMP Services Inc. Have you ever touched a hot stove and said “Damn, I’ll never to that again”? There is good reason why I am called the most dangerous consumer in America. Rest assured, unless I receive my written retraction, I will make an example of Catanese & Wells and CyberDefender Corporation.

Popular Searches

Direct Marketing Associates Corp Settles FTC Charges; Falsely Told Consumers They Were Pre-Approved for Auto Loans

March 30th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

A marketing company that solicits prospective customers for automobile dealers has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it falsely told low-income and “credit-challenged” consumers that they were pre-approved for auto loans and improperly obtained their names from a consumer reporting agency. According to the FTC, the company prepared sales solicitations for automobile dealers telling consumers that a specific finance company would lend them money to buy a car, but the finance companies featured in the ads lacked business licenses and didn’t actually make any loans. The marketing company obtained lists of consumers from a credit reporting agency by falsely representing that the lists would be used to make prescreened firm offers of credit to consumers. The settlement order bars the company and its principal from telling consumers they are pre-approved for, or are likely to receive, an extension of credit or financing unless the defendants know that a lender can make good on the offer for all eligible customers. The order also prohibits the defendants from obtaining credit reports from consumer reporting agencies without a purpose authorized by the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The order imposes a $157,000 civil penalty that is suspended based on the defendants’ inability to pay. The full judgment will be imposed if they are found to have misrepresented their financial condition. The defendants are Direct Marketing Associates Corp. and its president and owner, John M. Rainey, Jr. The Commission vote to authorize staff to refer the complaint and proposed stipulated final order to the Department of Justice for filing was 4-0. The documents were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix Division. NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. A complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law. Stipulated court orders are for settlement purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Stipulated orders have the full force of law when signed by the judge. 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. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics .

See the original post here:
Direct Marketing Associates Corp Settles FTC Charges; Falsely Told Consumers They Were Pre-Approved for Auto Loans

Popular Searches

Loan Pitchman James Nicholson Permanently Banned from Telemarketing

March 30th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

Loan Pitchman Permanently Banned from Telemarketing Consumers Charged Up-Front Fee for Supposed General-Use Credit Card The telemarketing business will be permanently off limits to a deceptive pitchman whom the Federal Trade Commission sued last year for allegedly tricking consumers into paying hundreds of dollars for a credit card that could only be used to buy merchandise from his companies’ Web sites. Under a settlement order with the FTC, pitchman James Nicholson and a group of companies he controls have settled FTC charges related to an advance-fee credit card scam and a bogus advance-fee interest-rate reduction/debt negotiation program, as well as allegations that they debited consumer bank accounts without permission, failed to tell consumers they would not be able to get a refund, and illegally called consumers whose names were on the National Do Not Call Registry. Under the settlement order, Nicholson and his companies will pay more than $200,000. The FTC filed a complaint in 2009 charging Nicholson and several of his businesses with using deceptive telemarketing pitches since 2006 to offer consumers with poor or no credit a general-use credit card in exchange for an up-front fee of as much as $250. Telemarketers working for Nicholson’s chief company, Group One Network, also claimed that consumers would get access to a significant line of credit that could be used for cash advances, and that their payment histories would be reported to the three major credit bureaus. In reality, consumers who paid the fee received an online shopping card they could only use to buy products from Group One’s Web sites, they could not get cash advances, and their credit histories were never reported to the credit bureaus. In April 2009, the FTC filed an amended complaint naming four more companies and adding new allegations relating to the deceptive telemarketing of a bogus advance-fee interest-rate reduction/debt negotiation program by a business operating as Credit First Financial Solutions. The FTC’s amended complaint alleged that Nicholson’s telemarketers, among other things, falsely represented that in exchange for an up-front fee, they could lower consumers’ interest rates by negotiating with consumers’ creditors; would provide consumers a minimum savings of $1,500 to $20,000 within the first 30 days of their enrollment; and would provide a full refund if they failed to achieve the promised savings. The settlement announced today bans Nicholson, a repeat offender who pleaded guilty to wire fraud in connection with fraudulent telemarketing in 1995, from telemarketing and from selling advance-fee loans or credit cards. It also bans him from assisting anyone in telemarketing or marketing such loans. Furthermore, the settlement prohibits Nicholson and his companies from misleading consumers about credit-related goods or services, or any other goods or services they market. Finally, the order imposes a $17.2 million judgment against all the defendants, which has been suspended based on their inability to pay the full amount. However, Nicholson will turn over a 31-foot power boat, his Nissan Pathfinder, and jewelry and art valued at more than $10,000. The other defendants will turn over more than $200,000 in cash and other assets. The settlement resolves the FTC’s charges against: Group One Networks, Inc., doing business as (d/b/a) Credit Line Gold Card, The USA Workers, TheUSAWork.com, and TheUSAWorkers.com; US Gold Line, LLC, d/b/a USGoldLine.com, Gainsway Credit, and GainswayCredit.com; My Online Credit Store, LLC d/b/a MyOnlineCreditStore.com, MYOnlinecr.com, Diamond Executive, NewECredit, and NewECredit.com; James Nicholson, individually and as president of Group One Networks, Inc., and manager of US Gold Line, LLC and My Online Credit Store, LLC; Credit First Financial Solution, LLC; Group One Administrative, Inc.; Tall Pines Administrative Services, LLC; and Sun Coast Data Services, LLC. Brett Fisher, the chief executive officer of Group One Networks, Inc., and manager of US Gold Line, LLC and My Online Credit Store, LLC, settled similar FTC charges in December 2009. He agreed to a court order banning him from selling advance-fee credit cards and from violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule. The order against Fisher also imposed a $17.2 million judgment, which was suspended based on his inability to pay. He has turned over $21,000 in cash to the FTC. The FTC vote authorizing the staff to file stipulated final the order against all the Group One Networks defendants was 4-0. It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, on March 17, 2010, and entered on March 18, 2010. The FTC complaints amending the original complaint and approving the settlement order against Fisher were both 4-0. The amended complaint was filed in court on April 14, 2009, and the court entered the Fisher order on January 12, 2010. The FTC received invaluable assistance in this matter from the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the University of Central Florida Police Department, Largo Police Department, and the Better Business Bureau of West Florida, Inc. NOTE: This stipulated final order is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendant of a law violation. A stipulated final order requires approval by the court and has the force of law when signed by the judge. Copies of the stipulated final order are available from the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, click: http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/complaint.shtm or call 1-877-382-4357. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. For free information on a variety of consumer topics, click http://ftc.gov/bcp/consumer.shtm .

Go here to see the original:
Loan Pitchman James Nicholson Permanently Banned from Telemarketing

CyberDefender Corp, MyCleanPC, DoubleMySpeed and Catanese and Wells Never Heard of the 1st Amendment

March 29th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Scams. No Comments.

A week or two ago I (Allen Harkleroad) expressed my personal opinion of MyCleanPC and DoubleMySpeed, which by the way are owned by the CyberDefender Corporation. While in the past legal threats and legal intimidation may have served CyberDefender well in regards to stifling consumers and individuals public opinions. However, such threats do not work on me as everyone involved will soon find out. I will speak and/or publish my opinions of businesses as I see fit without fear of prosecution or persecution. CyberDefender Corporation and the law firm that represents them (Catanese & Wells of Westlake Village, California) must have never heard of a US Citizens 1st Amendment freedom of speech rights. I intend to educate all of the involved parties as to what the first amendment is and what it covers. First of all, feel free to read my opinion pieces by following the links below (hint they are the same article posted on various websites I and my company owns). Which by the way, are read by an estimated 450,000 unique visitors each month. I included the article as well at the end of this item. Beware of MyCleanPC.com and DoubleMySpeed.com – Same Scam, Same Company Statesboro.biz Beware of MyCleanPC.com and DoubleMySpeed.com – Same Scam, Same Company DesignerToday.com NOT FUNNY PSA: Beware of MyCleanPC.com and DoubleMySpeed.com – Same Scam, Same Company Smarterotti NOT FUNNY PSA: Beware of MyCleanPC.com and DoubleMySpeed.com – Same Scam, Same Company

Popular Searches

Live On-Air Interview Tonight with the Author of Stick It To Sue Happy Debt Collectors Book

March 25th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

Allen Harkleroad, the author of “Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors, will be live on the on air tonight for a radio interview on KSVY – 91.3 FM Sonoma, CA, the GUYS@5Thursday show, to promote his latest consumer book “Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors”.

Attention Georgians Prepare to Pay Higher Taxes if Georgia and Other States Don’t Block Health Care Reform

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

This issue not only affects all Georgian’s, but every US Citizen. What congress isn’t telling you is the effect that the Health Care Reform will have on State funded programs that are paid for by taxes. The health care reform is going to cause state and federal taxes to go up, including state sales tax. Under the new health care mandate an estimated 600,000 to 700,000 additional Georgian’s will be enrolled (forced by federal law) onto the stat Medicaid program. Georgia will have to raise taxes to help offset the financial burden that the Health Care Reform will put on the states. The federal health care reform will cost the state of Georgia an estimated additional $500 million dollars a year. Currently the State of Georgia has a budget deficit and the reform bill is only going to add to the deficit.

Georgia Senate Passes SB 317 to Override National Health Care Reform Sends it to State House

March 23rd, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

On March 18, 2010 the Georgia State Senate passed SB 317, Health; provide that no law shall compel any person to participate in any health care system; authorize to pay directly without penalties/fines, and sent the bill to the Georgia State House for vote. “A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend Article 1 of Chapter 1 of Title 31 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to general provisions concerning health, so as to provide that no law or rule or regulation shall compel any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system; to authorize persons and employers to pay directly for lawful health care services without penalties or fines; to provide for related matters; to provide an effective date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.”

Beware of Debt Collection Scam Phone Calls

March 22nd, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

There has been a lot of news and complaints about fake debt collectors scamming unwary consumers or non-existent debts. Any time a debt collector calls you and demands money over the phone, tell them to put the demand in writing. No matter how many times they call, tell them the same thing, be adamant. If they are scammers they’ll eventually give up. If they are abusive real collectors eventually they’ll get the message that their tactics aren’t going to work. Often the scammers will tell you that unless you pay them you will be put in jail and then require you to use Western Union or other wire service to pay them. Never pay a debt whether real or imagined using a money transfer service. Never give financial any financial information over the phone to any sort of collections company, no matter what. Especially cold callers that demand money. If in doubt just hang up. Block the number if possible or let it go to voice mail. You aren’t required by law to talk to a debt collector, and that goes double for scammers. Hopefully they’ll leave threats on your answering machine that can be used as evidence. Be savvy, don’t give in and tell them to put it in writing.

See original here:
Beware of Debt Collection Scam Phone Calls

Class Action Suit Against Predatory Debt Collection Practices of CapitalOne, Capital One Services and United Recovery Systems

March 18th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud. No Comments.

Deploring deceptive tactics used by debt collection agencies and banks to manipulate consumers, attorney Sergei Lemberg ( www.StopCollector.com ) announced today that his firm filed a class action lawsuit against Capital One Bank, its in-house collection arm Capital One Services, and third-party collector United Recovery Systems. STAMFORD, CT ( PRWEB ) March 18, 2010 — Deploring deceptive tactics used by debt collection agencies and banks to manipulate consumers, attorney Sergei Lemberg ( www.StopCollector.com ) announced today that his firm filed a class action lawsuit against Capital One Bank, its in-house collection arm Capital One Services, and third-party collector United Recovery Systems. “Every day, Americans are victimized by collection agencies’ dirty tricks,” Lemberg said. “When collectors violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, they must be held accountable.” Fair debt attorney Sergei Lemberg The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, explains that the lead plaintiff, Henry Rogers, received one of what are presumably mass-mailed collection letters with the Capital One logo on the letterhead and an offer to “Pay Over Time 0% APR” by calling a toll-free number. “It’s a classic bait-and-switch, and demonstrates the lengths debt collectors will go in order to collect nowadays,” said Lemberg. But, according to Lemberg, the letter was nothing more than a trap. In fact, the letter was sent by Capital One Collections and telephone calls to the toll-free number were, unbeknownst to Mr. Rogers, redirected to United Recovery. “By enticing consumers to make a phone call on a no-lose offer, the bank trapped them into talking to trained debt collectors,” said Lemberg. “These predatory practices mislead consumers and are in clear violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.” Lemberg noted that the FDCPA forbids false, deceptive, or misleading representation, yet the letter Rogers received appeared to come from Capitol One when it actually had been sent by debt collectors (Capital One Collections and United Collections). “It’s a classic bait-and-switch, and demonstrates the lengths debt collectors will go in order to collect nowadays,” said Lemberg. Furthermore, although the law requires that written communication with a consumer must include a notice that information provided by the consumer will be used to collect a debt, the letter that Rogers received buried that information among other notices on the back of the letter. Lemberg said, “The violations didn’t stop there. The letter also didn’t include a required notice that Mr. Rogers had the right to request validation of the debt and to dispute the debt.” Friday’s class action filing is the second such lawsuit brought by Lemberg & Associates for violations of the FDCPA. On December 29, 2009, the firm filed suit against Capitol One Services, NCO Financial Systems, and Capital One Bank in U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York, Binghampton Division on behalf of Gareth Wood and other class members for similar FDCPA violations. This press release references complaint 3:10-cv-00398-VLB, Rogers v. Capital One Svc LLC et al, United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. About Lemberg & Associates, LLC The attorneys at Lemberg & Associates, LLC are experts in consumer law, fair debt law, and lemon law. Sergei Lemberg can brief you about illegal debt collection practices, state lemon laws, and other protections afforded consumers. For more information, contact: Sergei Lemberg Lemberg & Associates, LLC http://www.StopCollector.com 203.653.2250

724318f3d0rg.gif.jpg 135x150 Class Action Suit Against Predatory Debt Collection Practices of CapitalOne, Capital One Services and United Recovery Systems

See original here:
Class Action Suit Against Predatory Debt Collection Practices of CapitalOne, Capital One Services and United Recovery Systems

Popular Searches

Actual Debt Collectors Violating the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act

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

Debt collectors violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDPCA) all the time. It’s time to name and shame a couple of them. Of course I reported these to the Federal Trade Commission ( www.ftc.gov ) but to date the FTC hasn’t done diddle about them. First we have “Agent Washington” of UCB (United Collection Bureau) claiming to be a law enforcement officer, claiming to have paperwork in the Bulloch County State Attorneys Office First off credit card debt is a civil matter, not criminal. Everything about this phone call are multiple violations of the FDCPA. Listen to my conversation with Agent Washington (MP3 format). She even called my next door neighbor while I was talking with the idiot. If I knew then what I knew now I would have owned United Collection Bureau. Next up is West Management claiming Fraud Charges. The caller claims to be