Debt | Lionheart Group Scam Prevention Toolkit

Unemployed? Suck it Up

January 6th, 2012. Published under Unemployment. No Comments.

slyurl.co Unemployed? Suck it Up Get the latest, most up to date information on benefits and help with the situations that you’re facing today as well as the possible serious situations you will be facing in the future.

Follow this link:
Unemployed? Suck it Up

Republicans To Unemployed: You’re Spoiled, Drug-Taking Hobos & Animals, Who Shouldn’t Breed.

December 25th, 2011. Published under Unemployment. No Comments.

slyurl.co Republicans To Unemployed: You’re Spoiled, Drug-Taking Hobos & Animals, Who Shouldn’t Breed. Get the latest, most up to date information on benefits and help with the situations that you’re facing today as well as the possible serious situations you will be facing in the future.

See more here:
Republicans To Unemployed: You’re Spoiled, Drug-Taking Hobos & Animals, Who Shouldn’t Breed.

Tonight: Latest on the debt debate – CNN (blog)

July 30th, 2011. Published under Political Scams. No Comments.

Tonight: Latest on the debt debate CNN (blog) Denms, and shame on Harry /reid and the senate for not at least trying to discuss cut, cap & trade , which is far better than /Boehner's bill.. The UK is in trouble becasue of just such Socialistc leanings as MR, Morgan.. Go back to Britain. … 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Kudos to Attorney David Larson for Targeting Debt Collector Portfolio Recovery

March 1st, 2011. Published under Scams. No Comments.

Portfolio Recovery Associates (stock ticker PRAA)

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.

Debt Collector Portfolio Recovery Associates Sending out Bogus IRS 1099-C’s to Consumers Again?

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

According to Budd Hibbs, a well-known consumer advocate, Junk debt buyer and debt collection company Portfolio Recovery Associates are sending out IRS form 1099-C’s to consumers. The problem is that Portfolio Recovery Associates (and other junk debt buyers) purchase old debts for a couple of pennies per dollar and then attempt to collect the full face value of the debt, even though they paid much less than face value. In my opinion if Portfolio Recovery is sending 1099-C’s to consumers claiming the full face value of a debt, they may be committing fraud on the consumers involved as well as committing fraud on the Internal Revenue Service. In effect they are writing off the full amount of the ‘forgiven’ debt’ and in reality only paid a small amount for the debt. Two years ago, we went to a Washington Post reporter who contacted the IRS regarding this matter. PRA must be able to produce some type of valid documents that make their claims credible, however based on their record of accomplishment; they likely have little or nothing to back up their claim. We contacted many attorneys and officials about this, we can expect that the Consumer Protection Financial Protection Board currently being set by Professor Elizabeth Warren will finally address the abuse and force PRA to comply with the law. Demand they send you documents that prove their claim or copies of accounts, signatures, goods provided, services rendered and all other information that connects your social security to their alleged loss. IMPORTANT: Once a 1099-C is issued, the law mandates that the debt can no longer be collected. This includes PRA selling it off to another vulture. They MUST show a zero balance on your credit report and are prohibited from extending the seven-year reporting statute. PRA cannot call you or send collection notices after a 1099-C has been issued. ~ Collectors Exposed I can’t for the life of me figure out why the IRS, or the Federal Trade Commission for that matter, allows junk debt buyers to get away with cheating the US government out of taxes that they write off and end up not paying in real taxes. It really does make me wonder about the entire debt collection industry in general. I guess if they have no fear of cheating consumers then they have no fear of cheating our government either. For the full excerpt on Portfolio Recovery Associates and “Bogus” 1099-C mailing click here .

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

GOP For Rich, Dems For Unemployed

December 6th, 2010. Published under Unemployment. No Comments.

www.allheadlinenews.com New TYT Network channels: www.youtube.com www.youtube.com New TYT Facebook Page(!): www.facebook.com Follow us on Twitter: twitter.com www.theyoungturks.com DISCOUNTS: www.theyoungturks.com FREE Movies(!): www.netflix.com Note: The above two links are for TYT sponsors. Read Ana’s blog and subscribe at: www.examiner.com TYT Network (new WTF?! channel): www.youtube.com Check Out TYT Interviews www.youtube.com Washington, DC, United States (AHN) – Two million Americans are set to lose their insurance after jobless claims expire on Tuesday. Lawmakers returned from their Thanksgiving break on Monday without voting on extending them. About 800000 workers who have been searching for jobs for at least six months will spend the holidays without unemployment insurance, and 2 million by New Year’s Eve. Another 2 million will see their benefits expire by the end of February. A bill extending unemployment insurance during the holidays failed in the House on Nov. 18 before Congress went on its Thanksgiving recess. Republicans blocked the measure, saying it would add to the deficit. Lawmakers voted 258-154, short of the two-thirds required to pass the bill. All except 11 votes opposing the measure were from the GOP. The bill introduced by Reps. Jim McDermott (D-WA) and Sander Levin (D-MI) temporarily extends benefits for three months until February 2011. Republicans oppose the measure because it would increase the deficit by billion, and add to the .795 …

Read the original post:
GOP For Rich, Dems For Unemployed

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

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

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

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

Fake Courtroom Debt Collector Unicredit America Inc Probe Expanded

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally A Debt Collector Charged With Fraud

November 7th, 2010. Published under Fraud. No Comments.

Oklahoma based Federal Cash Advance of Oklahoma LLC (aka CASHMAX, Fed Cash, TOPCASH, Cash Service Center) allegedly sent deceptive collection letters to debtors that contained a Dallas (Texas) County clerk’s office forged signature and bore the official seals of Texas and Dallas County. The letters also contained phony court case numbers and included improper / illegal criminal allegations. Unsecured debt is a civil matter and not a criminal matter yet nefarious collections agencies will often misuse the term ‘criminal prosecution’ to extort consumers into making payments. To be noted that these tactics are illegal. “The notice letters illegally threatened criminal prosecution, referenced a phony “case numbers” and cited fictitious criminal penalties of up to five years in prison and heavy fines.” ~ Consumer Affairs “Attorney General Greg Abbott on Friday announced a temporary restraining order against Patrick D. “Dylan” White and Federal Cash Advance of Oklahoma LLC, based in Norman. The company did business as CASHMAX, Fed Cash, TOPCASH and Cash Service Center.” ~ Bloomberg Business Week “Texas has sued a payday lender that allegedly misrepresented itself as a government agency in some mailings”. ~ Lubbock Online Last week I reported on a collection company Unicredit America Inc that allegedly set up a fake courtroom and sent fake Sherriff’s to debtors homes. The lobbying group and trade industry organization ACA International continues to lay claims that collection abuse is a rare occurrence yet more and more illegal collections are appearing in the news. My question is how is it that Congress and the Federal Trade Commission minimize the illegal activities of the collection industry and continue to turn a blind eye on illegal collections. It’s is time to criminalize illegal debt collection activities. It is the only way to end debt collection abuse that consumers endure on a daily basis.

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.

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

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

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

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

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,

Radio Interview With the Author of Stick It To Sue Happy Debt Collectors on KSVY Sonoma

September 28th, 2010. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

I’ve been meaning to post the radio interview regarding my book Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors. KSVY Sonoma California, interviewed me regarding consumers defending themselves against debt collectors in court. Jamie Waterman is the host and I think you will get a lot from the interview Listen to Allen’s radio interview regarding debt collectors on KSVY Sonoma California with host Jamie Waterman, Click here to listen to the broadcast . (under 5mb, MP3). Allen is the author of the book “ Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors ”, that has saved many a consumer from the clutches of abusive debt collectors and shady debt collection law firms. Allen has a new book nearly ready for publishing titled, “ Suing Abusive Debt Collectors, Don’t Get Mad Get Even ”, that shows consumers how easy it is to sue debt collectors for illegal debt collection tactics and violations of consumer rights. Allen Harkleroad is a veteran when it comes to beating bad debt collections, whether it defending himself in court or suing collectors for violating the law. Allen is an avid and judicious consumer advocate who enjoys helping others. In addition to consumer advocacy he enjoys writing and blogging on various technology and business subjects. Follow Allen on Twitter Contact Allen via email Other books by Allen Harkleroad Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors In this book, I cover original creditor lawsuits and junk debt buyer lawsuits (3rd party collectors), and the similar ways that you will deal with them. I will also cover strategies to keep debt collectors off your back before any lawsuits are filed and how and when to sue a debt collector for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The Care and Feeding of a Sucks.com “The author, Allen Harkleroad, has gone toe-to-toe with many multi-billion dollar companies on the planet for publicly criticizing their products and services on the Internet. Many times these companies used legal intimidation or threats to force him to shut down his sucks.com websites. The scare tactics didn’t work as Allen understands his first amendment legal rights, and copyright / trademark law. He shares his knowledge and expertise with you.” Confidential SEO Secrets “I’ve been building websites since early 1994. To get visitors to my websites I solely rely on search engine referrals for the bulk of my traffic. I don’t buy advertising or market my websites in any other way than search engine optimization. I eat, sleep and breathe search engine optimization. My websites consistently rank in the top 5 results for the keywords I target. My books shows you how to do the same.”

Continued here:
Radio Interview With the Author of Stick It To Sue Happy Debt Collectors on KSVY Sonoma

Senator Al Franken To Introduce Legislation To Curb Debt Collection Abuse

September 27th, 2010. Published under Fraud. No Comments.

According the the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Senator Al Franken will be introducing legislation aimed at curbing debt collection abuses. Apparently Senator Franken became quite shocked by the increasing number of lawsuits being filed by consumers against abusive debt collectors, and the tactics being used by the debt collection industry. In at least one state, debt collectors are using arrest warrants against defendants that do not show up in court when sued. Being sued over a debt is a civil matter, not a criminal matter judges should be the only ones that have the authority to issue an arrest warrant for failure to appear.

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

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

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

BUSTED: Junk Debt Collector Phillips & Cohen 866-504-9784 You’re About To Be Sued

September 23rd, 2010. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

To whom it may concern at Phillips & Cohen, the debt collector that called me today and referenced a file number and told me to call them back or a would be pursued, is the same guy on that called me from another collection agency on May 2nd 2007 and told me he had fraud charge pending. Dirty debt collector scare tactics. I have included the voice mail from today and the one from 2007. I can assure you any further funny business on your part will result in my taking legal action against all involved. I’ve sued quite a few debt collectors for violating state and federal law and don’t have a problem doing so again. Scare tactics such as these are a wasted effort on your part. Being that you are a junk debt collector your sole option is to file suit naming me as defendant. Be aware though, I know how to beat the likes of you in court. So bring it on. Also just to so you are aware the number you are calling is a business phone. You will be receiving a cease all communication letter via certified mail. I would suggest that you abide by the cease and desist. Listen to the first MP3 file below, then listen to the older one, you will notice distinct voice characteristics in both recording, pay particular attention in the second This is a typical bad debt collector scare tactic and also illegal. Today Call from 866-504-5035 (09/23/2010) The old call in 2007, same guy, threatening fraud charges . (note the distinct similarities, same guy different name) Of course ACA International claims illegal and abusive debt collections are few and far between, yet here is the same guy, with two different names, working at two different collection agencies, doing the same sort of scare tactics. All I can say is come and get me (in court) so I can put you in your place. I had previously contacted the Federal Trade Commission about the older voice mail and now that I know that Phillips & Cohen and Worldwide Asset Purchasing are behind the calls I will forward the new information to Robin Rock, FTC attorney in Atlanta that had previously contacted me about the first call. When the FTC is through with you

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

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

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

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

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

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

Being Sued Over a Debt? It May Just Be Fraud Upon The Court

September 13th, 2010. Published under Fraud. No Comments.

Many times an original creditor will farm out the collection of a debt to a collection company (such as Nationwide Credit), who in turn farm it out to collection attorneys so they can file suit on the debt (such as Hanna and Associates, the now defunct Mann Bracken, and others). The big problem with this is that the law firm that filed the suit doesn’t directly represent the original creditor, but the 2nd party collection company. Since the law firm didn’t name the 2nd party as the plaintiff, but named the original creditor as plaintiff many see this as “fraud upon the court” and at the very least the law firm didn’t name a “party in interest” in the lawsuit. Even better news is that anything the law firm introduces as evidence, witnesses, or documents is pure hearsay, being that the law firm is in actuality a third party to the proceedings. Collection law firms will go to great pains to hide the fact that they are indeed third parties to a suit and that they do not in fact directly represent the original creditor. I personally have been subject to such suits and have discovered several methods to expose the truth in the matter. First though, I would like to show an actual example of an attorney firm filing a lawsuit in which they didn’t directly represent the original creditor. Several years ago I was sued by Macey, Wilensky, Kessler and Hennings LLC of Atlanta Georgia. The suit named American Express Centurion Bank as Plaintiff. I had suspected that Nationwide Credit (a debt collection company) had been assigned the alleged account as I had sued another debt collector prior to being sued by Macey, Wilensky, Kessler and Hennings LLC and in the settlement the collector offered, American Express was included (which I made the remove before I settled with them). So upon being sued by Macey, Wilensky, Kessler and Hennings LLC I filed a FDIC complaint against American Express and asked to find out to whom they alleged debt had been assigned much to my surprise the letter I received (see below) from American Express in response to my complaint named Nationwide Credit Incorporated and not the law firm that filed suit. I then filed and won a motion (see below) to dismiss and subsequently filed suit against Macy, Wilensky, Kessler and Hennings LLC. Click image to see full size

Bad Debt Collection Companies Being Hit Where It Hurts In The Wallet

September 10th, 2010. Published under Scams. No Comments.

It’s good to see that nefarious debt collection companies are being fined for bad debt collection tactics. Below are several headlines that really have made my day. With more and more consumers beating debt collectors in court and aggressive state Attorney Generals’ going after abusive debt collection companies there will eventually be a lot less collection abuse. West Virginia AG Settles with National Recovery Services (aka Debt Collectors Carpenter Capital) Texas AG Goes After American Home Mortgage Servicing Maryland Beats Back Worldwide Asset Over Court Abuse Minnesota Debt Collection Agency Given the Boot (Five Star Group of Minnesota and Commercial Surveillance Bureau) Too bad the Federal Trade Commission takes their sweet time going after unscrupulous debt collection companies. It is high time that federal collection laws, such as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), be enhanced to exact more monetary fines from bad collection agencies.

Visit link:
Bad Debt Collection Companies Being Hit Where It Hurts In The Wallet

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

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

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

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

Abusive and Stupid Debt Collector Headlines of the Week

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

Consumer News Highlights – Racist Debt Collector Gets Nailed for $1.5-Million Judgment

August 10th, 2010. Published under Fraud. No Comments.

Lot’s of good pro-consumer news this week. Racist Debt Collector Gets Nailed for $1.5-Million Judgment The Debt Collection Machine Collections agencies placing debt under incorrect name Second suspect in process serving case arrested

Excerpt from:
Consumer News Highlights – Racist Debt Collector Gets Nailed for $1.5-Million Judgment

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

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

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

Home Assure LLC, Mortgage Relief Marketer Will Return $2.4 Million to Consumers to Settle Charges

July 30th, 2010. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

A company that deceived consumers with promises it could save their homes from foreclosure will pay $2.4 million to victims as part of a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission. The case is part of the agency’s continuing crackdown on scams that prey on financially distressed homeowners. According to the FTC’s complaint, Home Assure LLC conducted a nationwide marketing campaign designed to take advantage of struggling homeowners by offering so-called mortgage foreclosure rescue services. Home Assure typically charged consumers an up-front fee of $1,500 to $2,500. The company’s representatives falsely claimed that its special relationships with lenders would enable it to get favorable loan modifications or stop foreclosure, and that the company had helped thousands of consumers avoid foreclosure. One of the claims on its website was, “If we are unable to negotiate a plan with your lender that improves your situation or gives you a viable strategy to avoid foreclosure, we will refund 100% of your money. . . No questions asked!” According to the FTC, however, Home Assure did little or nothing to help consumers avoid foreclosure. In numerous instances the company refused to pay refunds, sometimes claiming that consumers did not meet the terms of the contract for a refund or that they had breached the contract by contacting their lender or filing for bankruptcy, and sometimes without giving a reason. (4/6/2009 release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/04/hud.shtm ; 11/24/2009 release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/11/stolenhope.shtm ) The settlement order imposes a $2.4 million judgment on Home Assure and bans the company from selling mortgage loan modification and foreclosure relief services. The order also permanently prohibits Home Assure from misrepresenting any good or service, disclosing or benefitting from customers’ personal information, and failing to dispose of customer information properly. The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the stipulated final order was 5-0. The order was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. NOTE: Stipulated court orders are for settlement purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Stipulated orders have the full force of law when signed by the judge. The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics .

Continued here:
Home Assure LLC, Mortgage Relief Marketer Will Return $2.4 Million to Consumers to Settle Charges

NEW FTC Rule to Protect Consumers in Credit Card Debt

July 30th, 2010. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

Amendments to Telemarketing Sales Rule Prohibiting Debt Relief Companies From Collecting Advance Fees Will Take Effect in October 2010 Starting on October 27, 2010, for-profit companies that sell debt relief services over the telephone may no longer charge a fee before they settle or reduce a customer’s credit card or other unsecured debt. “At the FTC we strive every day to make sure America’s middle class families get straight deals for their dollars,” Chairman Jon Leibowitz said. “This rule will stop companies who offer consumers false promises of reducing credit card debts by half or more in exchange for large, up-front fees. Too many of these companies pick the last dollar out of consumers’ pockets – and far from leaving them better off, push them deeper into debt, even bankruptcy.” Three other Telemarketing Sales Rule provisions to take effect on September 27, 2010, will: require debt relief companies to make specific disclosures to consumers; prohibit them from making misrepresentations; an extend the Telemarketing Sales Rule to cover calls consumers make to these firms in response to debt relief advertising. The Final Rule covers telemarketers of for-profit debt relief services, including credit counseling, debt settlement, and debt negotiation services. The Final Rule does not cover nonprofit firms, but does cover companies that falsely claim nonprofit status. Over the past decade, the FTC and state enforcers have brought a combined 259 cases to stop deceptive and abusive practices by debt relief providers that have targeted consumers in financial distress. Advance Fee Ban The Final Rule contains specific requirements for debt relief providers related to charging an advance fee before providing any services. It specifies that fees for debt relief services may not be collected until: the debt relief service successfully renegotiates, settles, reduces, or otherwise changes the terms of at least one of the consumer’s debts; there is a written settlement agreement, debt management plan, or other agreement between the consumer and the creditor, and the consumer has agreed to it; and the consumer has made at least one payment to the creditor as a result of the agreement negotiated by the debt relief provider. 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 Final Rule specifies how debt relief providers can collect their fee for each settled debt. First, the provider’s fee for a single debt must be in proportion to the total fee that would be charged if all of the debts had been settled. Alternatively, if the provider bases its fee on the percentage of what the consumer saves as result of using its services, the percentage charged must be the same for each of the consumer’s debts. Dedicated Account for Fees and Savings Another new provision of the Final Rule will allow debt relief companies to require that consumers set aside their fees and savings for payment to creditors in a “dedicated account.” However, providers may only require a dedicated account as long as five conditions are met: the dedicated account is maintained at an insured financial institution; the consumer owns the funds (including any interest accrued); the consumer can withdraw the funds at any time without penalty; 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. Disclosures and Prohibited Misrepresentations Under the Final Rule, providers will have to make several disclosures when telemarketing their services to consumers. Before the consumer signs up for any debt relief service, providers must disclose fundamental aspects of their services, including how long it will take for consumers to see results, how much it will cost, the negative consequences that could result from using debt relief services, and key information about dedicated accounts if they choose to require them. The Final Rule also prohibits misrepresentations about any debt relief service, including success rates and whether the provider is a nonprofit entity. The FTC’s Statement of Basis and Purpose, which accompanies the Final Rule, provides extensive guidance about the evidence providers must have to make advertising claims commonly used in selling debt relief services. The Rulemaking Process In August 2009, the FTC published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing amendments to the Telemarketing Sales Rule and requesting public comments. Over 300 commenters, representing a wide variety of stakeholders, submitted comments in response. The Commission also held a public forum on the proposed amendments on November 4, 2009. The FTC developed the Final Rule based on the public comments, the record of the public forum and the FTC’s September 2008 Workshop on the debt settlement industry, recent testimony before Congress, and law enforcement actions brought by the Commission and the states. Information for Businesses Today, the FTC staff issued a compliance guide to help businesses comply with the new debt relief rules. The compliance guide describes the key changes to the Telemarketing Sales Rule affecting debt relief services, helps businesses determine if they are covered by the new rules, details information that covered entities must disclose to customers, and discusses how fees may now be collected. It can be found at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/marketing/bus72.pdf on the agency’s website and is linked to this press release. The FTC vote approving publication of the Federal Register notice was 4-1, with Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch voting no. The notice will be published in the Federal Register shortly, and is available now on the FTC’s website at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2010/07/R411001finalrule.pdf . The provisions of the Final Rule will take effect on September 27, with the exception of the advance fee ban provision, which will take effect on October 27. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, click: http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/complaint.shtm or call 1-877-382-4357. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. For free information on a variety of consumer topics, click http://ftc.gov/bcp/consumer.shtm .

Visit link:
NEW FTC Rule to Protect Consumers in Credit Card Debt

Federal Trade Commission Proposals to Reform the Debt Collection Industry

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

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

Still Having Wages Garnished by Mann Bracken Debt Judgment? Here is What to Do

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

According to an attorney that is suing Mann Bracken on behalf of a consumer, Cory Zaidel has stated that consumers that are under a wage garnishment by Mann Bracken should file a motion to quash (set aside) the garnishment as the money being garnished may not be going to the creditor or debt buyer that obtained a judgment against them. “The claims are mounting,” said Towson consumer attorney Cory L. Zajdel, who is representing a Howard County woman in a suit against Mann Bracken for allegedly unfair debt-collection practices. Consumers whose wages are still being docked should file paperwork to quash the garnishment with the court that handled the case, Zajdel said. Maryland’s district courts have the necessary forms, he said. His concern is that money going to the defunct Mann Bracken might not make it to the creditors. ~ Baltimore Sun In addition the court appoint receiver for now defunct Mann Bracken may sue ‘parties’ that may have caused the demise of Mann Bracken. My personal opinion (Allen Harkleroad, author of Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors ) would be to file a motion to Quash and/or a Motion to Vacate any prior judgments that Mann Bracken may have obtained against consumers, especially judgments with wage garnishments.

See the original post here:
Still Having Wages Garnished by Mann Bracken Debt Judgment? Here is What to Do

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

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

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

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: debt

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Search

Categories

Recent Posts