Consumers | Lionheart Group Scam Prevention Toolkit

Tag Archives: consumers

Refunds Totaling More Than $11.8 Million to Consumers Defrauded by Q-Ray Bracelet Scam

May 6th, 2011. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

An administrator working for the Federal Trade Commission is mailing 248,931 refund checks to consumers defrauded by QT Inc., Q-Ray Company, and Bio-Metal, Inc., and their owner, Que Te Park, also known as Andrew Q. Park, who made false and misleading advertising claims that the Q-Ray bracelet provided immediate and significant pain relief and deceptively advertised their refund policy. More than $11.8 million is being returned to people who purchased the Q-Ray bracelet and filed a claim form. Purchasers will receive an average of about $47. Consumers who receive the checks should cash them by mid-June 2011. The FTC never requires consumers to pay money or provide information before redress checks can be cashed. Q-Ray consumers with questions should call the redress administrator, Analytics Inc., at 800-269-0056 or visit the FTC’s Q-Ray bracelet webpage . Source: FTC Federal Trade Commission v. QT, Inc.; Q-Ray, Company; Bio-Metal, Inc.; Que Te Park, also known as Andrew Q. Park; and Jung Joo Park (Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division) .

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

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

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

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

Direct E-Cig ‘Free’ Offer for Smokeless Cigarettes Turned Into a Real Drag … – Tucson Citizen

April 28th, 2011. Published under Political Scams. No Comments.

Direct E-Cig 'Free' Offer for Smokeless Cigarettes Turned Into a Real Drag … Tucson Citizen by bbbconsumeralert on Apr. 28, 2011, under alert, Life, scam , Tips Consumers who tried to take advantage of “free” Internet offers for smokeless cigarettes say they were burned by unexpected charges that totaled $100 or more, Better Business Bureau … and more

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

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

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

Maker of Rascal Scooters to Pay $100,000 for Violating Do Not Call Law

April 21st, 2011. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

Called Consumers on Registry Using Phone Numbers Gathered From Sweepstakes Entry Forms The manufacturer of Rascal Scooters, used by disabled and senior consumers with limited mobility, will pay $100,000 to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it illegally called millions of consumers who had chosen to avoid unwanted telemarketing calls by listing their phone numbers on the national Do Not Call Registry. The FTC alleges the firm illegally used phone numbers gathered from sweepstakes entry forms to contact consumers whose numbers are on the Registry. The FTC’s complaint charges scooter manufacturer Electric Mobility Corporation and its owner Michael Flowers with making more than three million illegal sales calls since 2003 to consumers on the Do Not Call Registry who had entered the company’s “Win a Free Rascal” sweepstakes. According to the FTC, in small print under the part of the sweepstakes form provided for the entrant’s phone number, EMC reminded consumers to list their numbers so the company could contact them if they were “the next lucky winner.” EMC encourages consumers to enter its sweepstakes through direct mailing, newspapers, and television advertisements. The FTC charged that its conduct violated both the FTC Act and the Do Not Call provisions of the Telemarketing Sales Rule. The FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule allows a company to call a consumer on the Do Not Call Registry for up to 18 months if it has an “established business relationship” with the consumer and he or she has not asked the firm to stop calling. However, under the Rule, a company may not rely on a completed sweepstakes entry form to establish a business relationship with a consumer. In fact, the FTC consistently has said that simply obtaining a consumer’s phone number – as EMC did with its sweepstakes – does not establish a relationship that would exempt it from the Do Not Call rules. The order settling the FTC’s charges bars EMC from using sweepstakes entries as the basis for claiming an established business relationship with any consumer. The order also includes monitoring and reporting requirements to ensure that EMC complies with its terms. In addition, the order imposes civil penalties against both EMC and Flowers for their alleged violation of the FTC Act. Flowers will pay $100,000, and EMC is subject to a $2 million penalty, which is suspended based on its inability to pay. If EMC is found to have misrepresented its financial condition, the full penalty will become due immediately. Source: FTC United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Electric Mobility Corporation, doing business as Rascal Scooters, and Michael J. Flowers, individually and as an officer of Electric Mobility Corporation, Defendants (United States District Court for the District of New Jersey) Case No. 1:11-cv-02218-RMB-KMW

Read the rest here:
Maker of Rascal Scooters to Pay $100,000 for Violating Do Not Call Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TCPA Class Action Filed Against Debt Collector Portfolio Recovery Associates Inc

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

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

Regulators Asks Court to Shut Down Text Messaging Spammer

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

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

Been Sued by Debt Collector Midland Funding LLC? You May Can Get Paid for Your Troubles

February 21st, 2011. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

Encore Capital Group Inc (ECPG) that owns and operates Midland Funding LLC a junk debt buyer and collection company. In consumer advocacy and protection groups, Midland Funding is well known for aggressive collection tactics such as filing lawsuits against alleged debtors. In many cases the use of an affidavit of debt or account were submitted as evidence supporting Midland Funding’s complaints. The problem is that these ‘affidavits’ may have been flawed or false documents submitted before the court. Encore Capital Group has just recently agreed to settle all pending class-action lawsuits that allege the company used false or phony affidavits in lawsuits filed against consumers. “In the most prominent case, an Ohio federal judge ruled in 2009 that Encore violated federal and state laws by trying to collect credit-card debt using a fake affidavit. Encore disclosed its settlement of the Ohio suit on Monday in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing. Some regulators and judges have complained that documents submitted to courts by debt collectors as proof of what a borrower owes frequently are sloppy or fraudulent. The accounts bought by debt-collection firms often lack information about the underlying debts, such as contracts or payment histories, according to judges who rule on collection cases. “ ~ MarketWatch In addition, the Texas Attorney General recently ordered Encore Capital to produce documents in an ongoing investigation of the company and its subsidiaries, and its methods of collecting debts. What this means for individuals sued by Midland Funding? It means that consumers may have an option to reopen a case that Midland Funding brought against them and have it dismissed for possible perjury or fraud upon the court. This also means that any default judgment obtained or garnishment orders could be dismissed as well. I suggest that if you have been sued or in the process of being sued you may want to contact a consumer protection attorney or even proceed as a pro se litigant and look into have judgments overturned. While I am not an attorney, Encores business practices of using falsified affidavits may also run afoul of the Fair Debt Collection Practices (Act) for use of false or misleading means to collect a debt. Whatever the case may be, consumers sued by Midland Funding now have a tool in which to have judgments or garnishments overturned and quite possibly a strong FDCPA case against Midland Funding LLC.

How to Send Shivers down Debt Collection Attorney’s Spines

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

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

Vantec SATA / IDE to USB 2.0 Adapter Best 20 Bucks I Ever Spent

February 7th, 2011. Published under Scams. No Comments.

The Vantec SATA / IDE to USB 2.0 Adapter completely surprised me. To be honest I had not heard of Vantech prior to ordering this adapter. This adapter is a computer geeks (or IT guy) dream come true. Many times computer repair can be difficult, especially when we run across a dead computer that still has data on the hard drive. If you are lucky and have a machine close buy that will accept the drive you can often pull the data off. This is a clunky and often frustrating method to do so. The Vantec Adapter takes frustration out of the equation. The ‘kit’ comes with a 3-way interface adapter that supports all SATA hard drives, 3.5 inch IDE drives such as those found in laptops as well as 5.25 inch had drives found in desktop computer systems. The kit also comes with a switchable A/C power supply and adapter cable to power up hard drives.

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

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

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

Criminals Working for Debt Collectors May Be Stealing Your Identity

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

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

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

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

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

Self-Publishing – Glad I Didn’t Join Borders Get Published Bookbrewer – They Can’t Pay Publishers

January 22nd, 2011. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

I am self-published and my books can be found at most online bookstores and even in some ‘brick-and-mortar’ bookstores. I also sell my own eBook formats in my company’s store. When Borders announced their ‘Get Published powered by BookBrewer’, I was initially excited, as I wanted my books in the Borders online bookstore. I was initially turned off by the cost of $89.00 to publish an eBook (no print publishing offered). Other eBook retailers such as Amazon, Kobo, LuLu, Barnes & Noble and Smashwords do not charge anything to set up a book or for expanded distribution. If the $89.00 went towards paperback print publication, I might consider such a service. By the way, I use CreateSpace for print publishing, much cheaper and more flexibility, and higher royalty revenues. I received several emails late last year from Borders regarding their eBook publishing. However, the price kept me from exploring their service. I am glad now though that I did hesitate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Classic Closeouts LLC Who Illegally Charged Consumers’ Accounts Settles Lawsuit

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

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

Questionable Debt Collectors and Consumer Scams in the News

January 6th, 2011. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

I’ve been slacking a bit with publishing bad debt collector news and headlines. The holiday’s were busy as usual for me. With that Said I bring you the first ‘questionable’ debt collector in the news for the year. Also included in this article are news-worthy scams that consumers are falling for. Education of consumers is needed so that fewer fall for cons and scams, as well a fending

Oh Happy Days – FinallyFast.com Sued and Forced to Refund Consumers

January 5th, 2011. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

You’ve seen their television commercials claiming to scan and return your computer to full performance. Apparently with the “free” scan consumers got more than they bargained for, namely scareware that made consumer scramble to pay fees to FinallyFast.com (owned by Ascentive, which is another long story of consumer complaints). The Washington State Attorney General sued Ascentive LLC for violating the states spyware act, consumer protection act and the commercial electronic mail act for deceptive marketing practices.

Debt Collectors Gone Wild – Dead Woman’s Affidavits Still Haunting Courts

January 5th, 2011. Published under Fraud. No Comments.

Marta Kunkle died in 1995, yet for years afterward her name appeared on affidavits used in debt collection lawsuits filed by Portfolio Recovery Associates Inc. Despite being sued for fraud in 2008, Portfolio Recovery supposedly stopped using any documents bearing Ms. Kunkle signature in lawsuits. However, in July 2010 her name once again popped up in an affidavit. Several states are in the process or are considering investigating whether Ms. Kunkle’s affidavits are still being used in consumer litigation. Consumers that have been sued by Portfolio Recovery Inc., and had monetary court judgments against them in the past should seek to re-open their cases and see if the judgment was granted based on an affidavit signed and attested to by Martha Kunkle. If Ms. Kunkle’s name does appear then they may can have a judgment overturned or rescinded based on these fraudulent documents. The daughter testified in a deposition that other Providian employees used the name Martha Kunkle when signing affidavits. Along with other employees, the daughter was responsible for signing affidavits. After countersuing Portfolio Recovery Associates for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Ms. Cole was the lead plaintiff in a 2008 federal-court suit in Montana alleging the company targeted 16,000 borrowers using “false and misleading” affidavits. “I’ve watched and wanted to tell defendants in these suits to demand proof of the underlying debt because that proof is so often flimsy,” one Iowa judge.. ~ Wall Street Journal Boilerplate, (aka

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Four Best Places to Grab Deals For Your Holiday Shopping

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

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

Smart Ways Not To Go Into Debt When Holiday Shopping

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

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

More Consumers Are Winning In Court With Stick It To Sue Happy Debt Collectors Book

November 21st, 2010. Published under Scams. No Comments.

It is heartwarming to see more and more consumers fighting back against questionable debt collector lawsuits in court and winning. As I have always said half the battle in winning collection lawsuits is showing up and questioning the lack of evidence or proof of a debt. I had previously written about consumers fighting back against collection lawsuits and sticking it back to the attorney’s and collection agencies filing frivolous lawsuits . It seems that more and more readers of “ Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors ” are prevailing in court against collection agencies. Here

Crazy Debt Collector News Headlines of the Week

November 21st, 2010. Published under Fraud. No Comments.

Once again it is time for the crazy, strange and unusual debt collector /collection headlines of the week. You know the ones that the Federal Trade Commission continues to turn a blind eye to. Florida woman launches legal battle against loan firms debt collection harassing on Facebook McGraw reaches settlement with N.J. lawyer, debt agencies

Unsealed Lawsuit Shows Dell Hid Computer Faults and Defective Capacitors

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

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

Fake Courtroom Debt Collector Unicredit America Inc Probe Expanded

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

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

Court Shutters International Credit Card Interest Rate Scam Robocall Operation

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

At the request of the Federal Trade Commission, a federal district court in Chicago has shut down an international robocall ring that allegedly conned consumers out of $995 each with false promises that it would reduce their credit card interest rates, but provided little or nothing in return. As part of its crackdown on frauds that seek to take advantage of consumers hurt by the recent economic downturn, the FTC charged that the robocall ring made bogus promises that it would provide refunds to consumers if they did not save at least $2,500. When consumers called to complain, however, the robocallers simply disappeared, the FTC charged. The FTC alleges that this company has defrauded nearly 13,000 consumers out of almost $13 million from this scheme. The agency has brought several other cases in the past year against the marketers of worthless credit card interest rate reduction services. According to the FTC, since at least 2007, the defendants allegedly used at least 10 different company names, including AFL Financial Services, when pitching the service. The defendants, who are in Toronto, Canada, and the Rochester, New York, area, operated two telemarketing boiler rooms in Orlando, Florida. They employed illegal robocalls to contact consumers, and then claimed that for $995 they would substantially reduce credit card interest rates and enable consumers to get out of debt three to five times faster. They also falsely suggested that the savings from the lower interest rates would pay for the service. In reality, the defendants failed to lower consumers’ interest rates, and consumers did not save the $2,500 promised by the defendants or receive refunds, the FTC alleges. The FTC complaint charges that the misrepresentations violated the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule and the FTC Act. It also charges that the defendants called consumers whose numbers are on the National Do Not Call Registry and made illegal robocalls. The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 5-0. It was filed under seal in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, against Direct Financial Management Inc.; 2194673 Ontario Inc., doing business as (d/b/a) The Elite Financial Group; F&F Payment Processing Inc.; Bajada Management Group Inc.; David D. Richards; Baird B. Fisher; Jacqueline M. Fisher; and Joseph B. Foley. On November 8, 2010, Judge Joan H. Lefkow entered a temporary restraining order with an asset freeze, halting the defendants’ operations pending trial and appointing a receiver over the two United States corporate defendants. In filing its complaint, the FTC is seeking to stop permanently the defendants’ allegedly illegal conduct and return their ill-gotten gains to defrauded consumers. The FTC brought this case in cooperation with the Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario, Civil Remedies for Illicit Activities Office. The Ministry simultaneously filed a separate lawsuit in Ontario seeking assets for consumer redress to victims in the United States and Canada. The FTC also worked cooperatively with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Toronto Strategic Partnership in bringing this case. The Toronto Strategic Partnership members include the Competition Bureau Canada, the Toronto Police Service Fraud Squad – Mass Marketing Section, the Ontario Provincial Police Anti-Rackets Section, the Ontario Ministry of Consumer Services, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the United Kingdom’s Office of Fair Trading. Source: Federal Trade Commission

More:
Court Shutters International Credit Card Interest Rate Scam Robocall Operation

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

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

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

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

Florida Judge A Hero In My Eyes–Dismisses 155 cases, Refers Collection Firm To The Florida Bar

November 1st, 2010. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

A Naples Florida judge, Vince Murphy, dismissed 155 debt lawsuits filed by Stone Colman & Gonzalez Arbitration LLC (owned by William and Blanchi Dugatkin of Las Vegas and Palm Beach County) for defects in it’s legal filings. The judge also had concerns that the the firm may have been practicing law illegally. Despite the fact that the cases were dismissed based on incorrect filings, I do think that Judge Murphy is a consumer hero. Rather than sit back and let collection firms prostitute his courtroom he stood up and made it clear that this behavior would not be tolerated. It’s a shame that more judges hearing civil debt cases, don’t do the same. “A Las Vegas couple convicted of trying to solicit funds for a fake presidential campaign fundraiser in Washington, D.C., is now being accused of trying to illegally collect medical debt in Collier County.” ~ source Naples News Perhaps the legal system is beginning to take notice of questionable debt lawsuits and will take action. Being that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state law enforcement rarely take action, perhaps the legal system will begin to sift the “chaff from the wheat”. Consumers should not rely on the legal system or enforcement to do anything. Consumers must take action, respond and fight back against debt lawsuits.

Well Imagine That – Debt Collectors Robo-Signing Affidavits

November 1st, 2010. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

Recent news has exposed the robo-signing of affidavits and other documents in the mortgage foreclosure mess yet debt buyers, debt collection companies and even debt collection law firms have have been blindly (and possibly fraudulently) signing affidavits by questionable “custodians of records” at the companies. The problem is that more often than not the companies have no physical records or documents, just an Excel spreadsheet with account numbers and amounts owed. These aren’t proper records that the affiant is swearing to. Even worse, most judges know that these affidavits or at best questionable, yet unless a debtor or legal counsel object to the affidavits their hands are tied. Another huge problem is nearly nine out of ten consumers do not respond to a debt related lawsuit and thus the plaintiff obtains a default judgment. I look at it this way, if you are suing me, I will question and object to everything. I will make you produce the documents that the affiant is swearing to in any affidavit. As a matter of fact on more than one occasion I have been in court and had questionable affidavits produced. I also objected to and quashed the affidavits and walked way from court with the plaintiff voluntarily dismissing the debt lawsuits against me. What bothers me the most when I proved the plaintiff or counsel committed fraud upon the court, nothing was ever done about it as far as I know. All consumers whether having financial problems or not, need to be educated. Consumers need to respond to debt lawsuits and enforce their right to make the plaintiff prove their case. In upwards of ninety-five percent of debt lawsuits, especially debt buyer lawsuits, they have no tangible proof that a debt is owed. Consumers must fight back whether they owe a debt or not. Consumer that can’t afford to hire an attorney to help them fight nefarious collection lawsuit filing companies can fight back. Half the battle is responding and showing up.

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

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 Harassment Should Be A Criminal Offense

October 24th, 2010. Published under Fraud. No Comments.

Debt collectors break the law all the time, they harass and mentally abuse consumers as well as use illegal tactics to get money. Around here we call that extortion and sometimes terroristic threats, both of which are criminal charges. Let’s say for instance that I call people and threatened them and then demanded money? I would probably end up going to jail. If I called people up randomly and hurled racial insults and imaginary threats, again I would probably end up in the county jail for my efforts. How is it that debt collectors (and the companies they work for) often utilize such tactics get away with this? If they are caught it is a mere civil offense? It is a miscarriage of justice to allow companies and their employees to get with a mere slap on the wrist or a monetary fine. State and federal laws need to change and make such abuse criminal. If the Federal Trade Commission and states want to really put an end to consumer abuse

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

This Is Exactly Why Debt Collectors Are Being Sued by Consumers

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

While I understand that if a consumer owes a debt they should pay it. However when debt collection companies cross the line and break the law to collect, they don’t deserve one red nickel. I advocate that consumers should not suffer harassment or abuse by debt collectors, and that they should sue collection companies that do break the law. There is no gray area when someone harasses, abuses or uses illegal tactics to obtain money. If it were an individual harassing a consumer instead of a company, they would be spending time in prison for such activities. Perhaps such abuse should be treated as criminal and the companies officers (and collectors) be put in prison for such activities. By far the largest problem is that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) takes a seemingly blind eye approach to debt collector abuse, even though they have the authority to put a stop to such things. The news media often writes stories on how consumer should file a complaint with the FTC. Problem is that these complaints are, more often than not, ignored by the regulatory authorities. Consumers must fight back to stop collection abuse. In a recent news story a collection agency obtained a photo from MySpace of an alleged debtors daughter and told the consumer to the effect”: There was evidence in the record to suggest that the collection agency’s “investigator” said to plaintiff, after mentioning plaintiff’s “beautiful daughter,” something to the effect of “wouldn’t it be terrible if something happened to your kids while the sheriff’s department was taking you away?”

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

Watch Out Kids Debt Buyers Are Hot On Collecting Defaulted Student Loans

October 11th, 2010. Published under Scams. No Comments.

It seems that the next hot collection industry target is going to be defaulted student loans. So kids get ready for debt collectors to begin harassing, and possibly abusing you verbally and mentally while they attempt to collect on your old student loan. There are many collectors out there that will say (or do) anything to get you to cough up the money, including filing lawsuits against you. Once a student loan, Federal or otherwise, is sold by the original creditor to a third party such as a debt buyer or junk debt collector the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) protection comes into full force. Another words it becomes a debt just like any other consumer debt (credit card, bank load, payday loan, etc.). It’s my opinion that the debt buyers / junk debt collection companies see younger adults as easy targets, and assume you will run to mom and dad and ask them to bail you out. Be aware most that most collector threats are nothing more than that, just empty threats. Debt collection harassment and abuse is illegal and you need to know that. While I do advocate paying debts, the ballgame changes completely when collectors use illegal and abusive collection tactics to scare you into pay them. What debt collectors cannot do: Harassment. Debt collectors may not harass, oppress, or abuse you or any third parties they contact. For example, they may not: Use threats of violence or harm; Publish a list of names of people who refuse to pay their debts (but they can give this information to the credit reporting companies); Use obscene or profane language Repeatedly use the phone to annoy someone. False statements. Debt collectors may not lie when they are trying to collect a debt. For example, they may not: falsely claim that they are attorneys or government representatives; falsely claim that you have committed a crime; falsely represent that they operate or work for a credit reporting company; misrepresent the amount you owe; indicate that papers they send you are legal forms if they aren’t; or indicate that papers they send to you aren’t legal forms if they are. Debt collectors also are prohibited from saying that: you will be arrested if you don’t pay your debt; they’ll seize, garnish, attach, or sell your property or wages unless they are permitted by law to take the action and intend to do so; or legal action will be taken against you, if doing so would be illegal or if they don’t intend to take the action. Debt collectors may not: give false credit information about you to anyone, including a credit reporting company; send you anything that looks like an official document from a court or government agency if it isn’t; or use a false company name. Unfair practices. Debt collectors may not engage in unfair practices when they try to collect a debt. For example, they may not: try to collect any interest, fee, or other charge on top of the amount you owe unless the contract that created your debt – or your state law – allows the charge; deposit a post-dated check early; take or threaten to take your property unless it can be done legally; or contact you by postcard. In addition, a debt collector cannot represent that they are attorneys if they are not, or imply that communications are from an attorney. 15 U.S.C. 1692e(3). If a debt collector does anything outlined above (or similar) it is your obligation to hold them accountable and sue them. Who knows the collector may end up cutting you a check for the abuse or harassment. While the Federal Trade Commission has been tasked with enforcing the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act they rarely take any enforcement action against illegal debt collection. Consumers *must* take action. You can file FDCPA civil complaints yourself in any recognized court of find a consumer protection attorney to help you go after bad collectors. Most good consumer protection attorneys do not require upfront fees to help you sue collectors as they get a small percentage of any monetary award or settlement that they obtain on your behalf. A good place to begin searching for a consumer protection attorney is Martindale ( www.martindale.com ). If you have been harassed or abused by a collector I encourage you to find and retain an attorney. The only way to put a stop to illegal collections is for consumers to fight back using the court system.

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,

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

Tag Archives: consumers

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Search

Categories

Recent Posts