Tag Archives: debt
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.
Popular Searches
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!!!
More Than A Dozen Marketers Banned from Selling Mortgage Relief Services; Repeat Offender Ordered to Pay $11.4 Million for Contempt
June 18th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
As part of the agency’s continuing crackdown on scams that prey on financially distressed homeowners, the Federal Trade Commission announced legal actions against more than a dozen marketers accused of pitching bogus mortgage modification or foreclosure relief services. FTC settlement orders ban 16 marketers from the mortgage modification or foreclosure relief business. The promoter of a similar scam has been ordered to pay $11.4 million for flouting a previous court order. And, in a new action, the FTC has charged another online marketing operation with masquerading as a government mortgage assistance program. The FTC settled with the following defendants, all of whom charged consumers up-front fees and made false promises that they could get their loans modified or prevent foreclosure: Making Home Affordable. The FTC alleged that the defendants impersonated MakingHomeAffordable.gov, a federal government Web site that helps eligible homeowners refinance or modify their mortgages. Defendants Sean Cantkier, Michael Haller, Alan LeStourgeon, Greg Rivera, Lisa Roye, and Jeffrey Altmire bought advertising links on the results pages of Internet search engines, and consumers looking for “making home affordable” were diverted to commercial Web sites that pitched loan modification services or sold consumers’ personal information to marketers of such services. (7/10/2009 release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/07/homeafford.shtm ) The defendants will have to give up their ill-gotten gains, ranging from $1,523 to $29,179. Separately, the Commission authorized and the court approved the addition of two counts to the complaint against Scot Lady and dismissed Kean Lee Lim as a defendant. The documents were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Federal Loan Modification Law Center. Defendants Nabile (“Bill”) Anz, Federal Loan Modification Law Center LLP, Anz & Associates PLC, Venture Legal Support PLC, and Jeffrey Broughton settled FTC charges that they hawked their so-called “Federal Loan Modification program” in a national advertising campaign targeting financially distressed homeowners. They charged up to $3,000, much of which they required up-front, but Federal Loan Modification often failed to live up to the promised results, according to the FTC’s complaint. (06/26/2009 release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/06/fedloanmod.shtm ) In addition to the ban on selling mortgage relief services, the settlement order against Anz, Federal Loan Modification Law Center, Anz & Associates, and Venture Legal Support imposes a $10.8 million judgment, and the order against Broughton imposes a $11.1 million judgment. The judgments are suspended based on their inability to pay. The full judgments will become due immediately if they are found to have misrepresented their financial condition or receive any money from the remaining defendants. The order was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The FTC continues to pursue its case against five other defendants. Apply2Save. Derek R. Oberholtzer, Apply2Save Inc., and Sleeping Giant Media Works, Inc. allegedly charged consumers up to $995 in advance for promised mortgage loan modification services. Once they were paid, they often failed to answer or return consumers’ telephone calls and sometimes falsely blamed delays on lenders, even though they had made little or no effort to contact lenders, the FTC charged. Most consumers who got loan modifications or avoided foreclosure did so only through their own efforts. (7/15/2009 release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/07/loanlies.shtm ) The defendants have filed for bankruptcy. The order imposes a judgment of more than $4 million, which is suspended based on their inability to pay. The full judgment will become due immediately if they are found to have misrepresented their financial condition. The order was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. New Hope Modifications. Brian Mammoccio and Donna Fisher have settled charges that they falsely claimed they could obtain mortgage loan modifications for consumers in all or virtually all cases, falsely promised a money-back guarantee, and masqueraded as part of the federally-endorsed HOPE NOW Alliance mortgage assistance network. According to the FTC complaint, in many cases, after consumers paid up-front fees, the defendants failed to return their phone calls, or falsely told them that negotiations were proceeding smoothly. In many instances, consumers learned from their lenders that the defendants had not contacted them. (3/24/2009 release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/03/newhope.shtm ) In addition to the ban on selling mortgage relief services, the settlement order imposes a judgment of almost $3.9 million, which will be suspended when the defendants surrender their assets as specified in the order. The full judgment will become due immediately if they are found to have misrepresented their financial condition. The order was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The $11.4 million contempt order against Bryan D’Antonio and three companies he controls, The Rodis Law Group Inc., America’s Law Group Inc., and The Financial Group Inc., came at the request of the FTC, which charged that operators of the scam had falsely claimed they would stop foreclosures and negotiate lower mortgage interest rates, monthly payments, and principal balances. Promoters of the scam claimed a 100 percent success rate and wrongly advised consumers to pay them instead of making mortgage payments. The FTC alleged that homeowners got few, if any, loan modifications, and many people lost their homes to foreclosure after paying them up to $5,500. The operators also falsely claimed that attorneys would check consumers’ loan documents for fraud and other lending violations that they would use as leverage in negotiating loan modifications, according to the complaint. In May 2009, the FTC charged the defendants with violating a 2001 order that banned D’Antonio from telemarketing and misleading consumers about goods or services. The FTC obtained the 2001 order against D’Antonio and his former company, Data Medical Capital Inc., for operating a work-at-home medical billing opportunity scheme. D’Antonio also pleaded guilty to mail fraud for his involvement in that scam and served almost three years in prison. In addition to the financial sanctions against D’Antonio and the three companies, the court barred him from making misleading statements about refunds, exchanges, and total costs or quantity. The FTC has collected more than $1 million from the defendants’ available assets thus far, and will refer the remainder of the $11.4 million judgment to the Department of the Treasury for collection. The FTC has set up a consumer information line at 1-888-398-8205. Fedmortgageloans.com . The FTC has charged Dominant Leads LLC, MAD TJ Holdings LLC, James Rambadt, Thomas Hayes, and James Kane with misrepresenting that the mortgage assistance and debt relief programs they are marketing are affiliated with the federal or state government, and that consumers may be eligible for a federal or state loan modification or debt relief program. Some of the defendants’ Web sites use logos similar to the federal government’s MakingHomeAffordable.gov logo, and many of their sites feature official government agency seals or logos and links to federal government Web sites. When consumers seeking mortgage assistance or debt relief services call the toll-free numbers on the defendants’ Web sites, they are connected to other companies that sell supposed mortgage assistance relief or debt relief services for a fee. The FTC seeks to stop the defendants’ illegal practices and make them forfeit their ill-gotten gains. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on June 16, 2010. The Commission votes were unanimous in these actions. The Federal Trade Commission is a member of the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. For more information on the task force, go to www.stopfraud.gov . NOTE: The Commission authorizes the filing of a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law. Stipulated court orders are for settlement purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Stipulated orders have the full force of law when signed by the judge. The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics .
See the original post here:
More Than A Dozen Marketers Banned from Selling Mortgage Relief Services; Repeat Offender Ordered to Pay $11.4 Million for Contempt
Debt Collector Hanna and Associates Wins Battle with Georgia, Ultimately loses the War
June 12th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud. No Comments.
A recent State of Georgia Appeals Court ruling ( STATE v. FREDERICK J. HANNA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. ) handed Frederick J. Hanna an (albeit) small victory that prevents the Georgia Office of Consumer Affairs (GA OCA) from obtaining records that may have shown that the debt collection law firm may have abused consumers, violated the Georgia Business Practices Act and the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The ruling doesn’t prevent consumers from filing suit against the debt collector, as the decision boiled down to the fact that only the Georgia Supreme court can regulate the practice of law. I am quite sure Frederick Hanna and his attorney’s are sitting at their desks with smug smiles on their faces and slapping each other on the back. While the law firm may have won the battle with the State of Georgia for the moment, ultimately they have lost the war. “The trial court defeated the OCA’s attempt to compel the law firm’s compliance with its investigative demand by dismissing the lawsuit OCA filed. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding in part that it was an attempt to regulate the practice of law — something that is entirely within the jurisdiction of the Georgia Supreme Court to do. This is a technical way to defeat consumer protection. I agree with Justice Melton’s dissent, but we are in the minority. I note that this was a 4:3 decision. Not a landslide but, for now at least, the law in this state.” ~ Georgia Consumer Protection Attorney Joseph Segui I am quite sure that Georgia state legislators are now seeing that this legal loophole that could allow debt collection law firms to abuse consumers without fear of legal retribution is a big problem. I wouldn’t be surprised that in the near future Georgia Senators and Representatives will draft a change in the law or create new consumer protection laws to put a stop to the abuse by lawyers in the debt collection business. Who knows we may even finally see the State of Georgia more strictly regulate the debt collection industry in the state. One thing is for sure Frederick J. Hanna and Associates are now going to be a target in all of the states they do business in and with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Besides suing abusive debt collector attorneys, consumers can also file Bar Association complaints against lawyers that violate the law, violate ethics, or abuse the legal system to collect debts. Attorney’s and law firms hate to get sued and their second biggest fear is getting suspended or disbarred from practicing law. It only takes a few minutes to contact a particular states Bar Association to request complaint/grievance forms. The more complaints that are filed the more apt are the State Bar Associations to take action. I myself have filed several complaints against debt collection attorney’s as well as filed suit against collection law firms. The more consumers that do, the less consumer abuse that will occur. Stand up consumers and fight back, it’s the only way to beat them at their own game.Stand up consumers and fight back, it’s the only way to beat them at their own game. If you want to beat debt collection law firms then read this book, Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors , you’ll be glad you did.
Book Review – Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors
May 26th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud. No Comments.
This is a customer review written by Bob P., he asked me to not publish his last name due to the nature of the subject. With that said this is what Bob had to say about my book, “Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors”. THE REVIEW Allen’s book is truly the “Holy Grail” for fighting ruthless debt collectors. Most of the examples in the book can be used as is, or slightly modified for your particular state. It will take a little work on your part, but with internet research and Allen’s guidance, your confidence and ability to fight your way out of a debt burden changes from being on the defensive, taking all the collection blows, to going on the offensive with the information you will need to win. Knowledge is power and Allen’s book is filled with the right knowledge and power. Here are some of the key points I never realized: 9 out of 10 folks never respond to suits or show up in court and as a result they automatically lose, not only the amount claimed by inflated attorney fees and expenses. Then it is a simple matter for the collection agencies to garnish your wages. Allen prepares you to fight. If you follow Allen’s instructions, it is mostly paperwork and you will probably never have to go to court. Allen describes that debt collectors often sue based on a “Suits of Accounts”, which does not require as much of a burden of proof as a “Breach of Contract”. In most states this is not the correct type of suit for credit card debt, which is generally “Breach of Contract”. Breach of Contract is much easier for you to defend yourself as it can be more difficult for the collection agency to prove. If you search for “Suits of Accounts” cases in your state, you can often find the State Attorney General or Courts have a write-up explaining why these are not proper suits for credit cards. Again, if you don’t challenge, you make it easy for the collection agencies suing you. Allen also provides the strategy you need. Once you know how the game is played, you will be more effective. Also he gives an excellent explanation of the examples he uses. Allen points out that most credit card receivables from banks are sold to a trust that is held in an Asset Backed Security. He gives the SEC reference to search out filings. His example of Capital One is brilliant. In essence, the bank/collection agency filing suit against you does not own the credit card receivable. Without documentation showing that a defaulted credit card goes back to the bank, you can challenge that the bank/collection agency is not the owner of the debt, and as such, ask for a “Motion to Dismiss”. What a stroke of genius. These are just a few of the gems I found in the book. My thanks to Allen and also thanks that he answers emails as well. To find out more about the book or to purchase visit Beat Debt Collectors (eBook and print editions available). DIRECT PURCHASE LINKS You can buy the print edition at Amazon.com ($24.95) or the eBook (PDF) edition ($19.95) at the GMP Services online store.
See the rest here:
Book Review – Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors
Debt Collectors in the News
May 12th, 2010. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
My apologies for not posting of late, life and work have been busy. Here are some news regarding debt collectors. First of all we have Portfolio Recovery Associates. A West Virginia man got a $200,000 judgment against them for harassment. Evidently Portfolio Recovery Associates didn’t respond to the suit nor showed up in court. Imagine that. Next we have news that New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is suing an attorney for selling the use of his name to a debt collection company, which then harassed consumers across the U.S. with bogus legal threats. The attorney’s name is John Nicolia and the collection company is Eastern Asset Management. Read the full article here .
Read this article:
Debt Collectors in the News
Inspiring Consumer Debt and Consumer Protection Attorneys
April 30th, 2010. Published under Scams. No Comments.
I received several emails from consumer debt and consumer protection attorneys that have read my latest book, “ Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors ”. Mind you I am not an attorney, however because of my previous financial situation I had to learn to fight debt collectors and debt collection law firms because they used questionable tactics to collect or sue on a debt. I’ve spent literally thousands of hours researching federal and state law and learned how to beat greedy debt collectors at their own game. I wrote the book to help other consumers that cannot afford to hire an attorney, so that they can defend themselves in court against unscrupulous lawyers. When a collector files a lawsuit it is not longer about the debt in question but the matter of law. Only one out of ten consumers respond to a debt lawsuit, and end up having their wages and bank accounts garnished because they didn’t fight back.
Midland Funding Loses to Consumer – 8.1 Million Dollar Judgment
April 6th, 2010. Published under Scams. No Comments.
What a day for consumer that get sued by junk debt collectors. Midland Funding is one of the most aggressive junk debt buyers in the US (in my opinion). From the stories I have read and in email communications with readers, Midland Funding’s collectors seem to have no problem violating federal laws to collect a debt. Also from the email’s I have received the attorney’s that Midland pays to sue consumers have no problem manufacturing documents and trying their best to overwhelm consumers in court with questionable documentation of debts. It’s so good to see that juries and judges are smacking Midland Funding right where it hurts. In the wallet. At courthouses across the United States, it has become increasingly common during the economic downturn for lawsuits to be filed against consumers to collect old debts. Lawyers who specialize in the practice are filing thousands of suits on behalf of large firms that have acquired debts from other companies. Although most people don’t fight the suits and lose them by default, a Dallas woman bucked the trend last October. Chrystal A. Snow challenged the validity of a $9,000 debt in a Dallas County Court-at-Law and countersued the debt collector for making improper phone calls, her attorney Ross Teter said. In a case that has received no media attention, Snow won her suit against Midland Funding LLC and the jury hearing the case awarded her $8.1 million — $250 for actual damages, $100,000 for mental anguish and $8 million in punitive damages, he said. “The jury made a finding she did not owe the debt,” Teter said in a phone interview. “We argued that they violated the Texas Fair Debt Collection Act by making harassing phone calls and the jury agreed.” Midland Funding is a subsidiary of Encore Capital Group, a company whose primary business is the acquisition and collection of “charged-off consumer receivable portfolios,” according to its 2009 annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. ~ Watching the Watchers Read the full story , this is indeed a win for all consumers.
Read the original:
Midland Funding Loses to Consumer – 8.1 Million Dollar Judgment
Live On-Air Interview Tonight with the Author of Stick It To Sue Happy Debt Collectors Book
March 25th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
Allen Harkleroad, the author of “Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors, will be live on the on air tonight for a radio interview on KSVY – 91.3 FM Sonoma, CA, the GUYS@5Thursday show, to promote his latest consumer book “Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors”.
Actual Debt Collectors Violating the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act
March 11th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud. No Comments.
Debt collectors violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDPCA) all the time. It’s time to name and shame a couple of them. Of course I reported these to the Federal Trade Commission ( www.ftc.gov ) but to date the FTC hasn’t done diddle about them. First we have “Agent Washington” of UCB (United Collection Bureau) claiming to be a law enforcement officer, claiming to have paperwork in the Bulloch County State Attorneys Office First off credit card debt is a civil matter, not criminal. Everything about this phone call are multiple violations of the FDCPA. Listen to my conversation with Agent Washington (MP3 format). She even called my next door neighbor while I was talking with the idiot. If I knew then what I knew now I would have owned United Collection Bureau. Next up is West Management claiming Fraud Charges. The caller claims to be
Inside ARM takes exception to my reward for proof of illegal debt collection policies
March 8th, 2010. Published under Scams. No Comments.
Inside ARM, a magazine dedicated to the debt collection industry, and in my opinion a mouthpiece for ACA International, the lobbying “organ” (insert your own joke here) for the collection industry to congress, has taken exception that I and my “small” magazine are offering cash rewards for written/documentable proof that collection agencies have policies that authorize and encourage illegal debt collection. Read the story at Inside ARM (opens in new window) for yourself. Mr. Patrick Lunsford is referring to my article entitled, “Debt Collection Employees – looking for Debt Collection Policies that prove Illegal Collections”, which you can read here . I look at it this way, if I hadn’t been subjected to abusive collection tactics (and many, many other consumers as well) there would be no need for myself to write such an article and offer cash for proof of abusive (documentable) collection policies. In addition, I have been approached by many consumers offering to add cash to the bounty for proof of abuse (there are more of us than there of them). The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Congress itself has long turned a blind eye to rouge debt collectors and illegal collection tactics. It is time for consumers to go on the offensive and put a stop to it. I for one will gladly layout my hard earned money to prove that more than a minority of the collection industry actively engage in abusive and illegal debt collection tactics. It’s time to name and shame them all, embarrass Congress, the FTC and the entire U.S. Justice system until strong measures are put in place to monetarily discourage abusive debt collection practices. A small town business and lifestyle magazine is currently running a solicitation looking for debt collectors, or former debt collectors, to come forward with official documentation detailing illegal company policies. In other words, they are trying to find written proof that collection agencies encourage their employees to break the law. And they’re offering a cash reward. It’s just a small indicator of what faces the ARM industry in the media throughout the rest of the year, and going forward. News outlets have figured out that the “debt collectors = evil people” paradigm is stale and needs updating. I think that the solicitation is the opening salvo in a reenergized attack on the industry.”
Live On-Air Radio Interview with the Author of Stick It To Sue Happy Debt Collectors Book
March 7th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Scams. No Comments.
Just a quick note that I (Allen Harkleroad) have an on-air radio interview on KSVY – 91.3 FM Sonoma, CA, the GUYS@5Thursday show, to promote my latest consumer book “Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors”.
Debt Collectors Will Pay More Than $1 Million to Settle FTC Charges – Credit Bureau Collection Services
March 3rd, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
Another unethical debt collector gets smacked by the Federal Trade Commission — A nationwide debt collector has agreed to pay a civil fine of more than $1 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it violated federal law by inaccurately reporting credit information and pressing consumers to pay debts they often did not owe. According to the FTC’s complaint, the company and two of its officers illegally tried to collect invalid debts and reported them to the credit reporting agencies without noting that consumers disputed them. In addition, even after receiving information from consumers that a debt was paid off or did not belong to the consumer, the company continued to assert, no longer with a reasonable basis, that the consumer owed the debt, without trying to confirm or dispute the consumer’s information, in violation of the FTC Act. The FTC charged that the company, Credit Bureau Collection Services, and two of its officers, Larry Ebert and Brian Striker, violated the FTC Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The company also is charged with violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act by reporting information to credit agencies that consumers had proved was inaccurate, failing to inform to the credit agencies that consumers had disputed the debts, and failing to investigate after receiving a notice of dispute from a credit reporting agency. In addition to imposing the $1.1 million civil penalty on the company, the settlement order: Bars the defendants from further violations; Prohibits them from making unsupported statements to collect a debt or obtain information about a consumer; Bars them from making claims that a debt is owed or about the amount, without a reasonable basis; Requires the defendants, when a debt is questionable or a consumer questions it, to either close the account and end collection efforts or investigate the dispute. If they cannot show that the consumer owes a debt, they cannot sell the debt or provide it to any business other than the original client; and Bars the company from re-reporting information to credit reporting agencies that it had voluntarily deleted from credit reporting before December 2008. The Commission vote to authorize staff to refer the complaint and consent decree to the Department of Justice for filing was 4-0. The documents were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. The Commission recently released a video for consumers who are facing debt collection . The video is at www.ftc.gov/MoneyMatters , a site that includes information for consumers on managing credit, dealing with debt, and a variety of other financial topics. NOTE: The Commission authorizes the filing of a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law. Consent decrees are for settlement purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an admission by the defendant of a law violation. Consent decrees are subject to court approval and have the force of law when signed by the judge. The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,700 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 .
Go here to see the original:
Debt Collectors Will Pay More Than $1 Million to Settle FTC Charges – Credit Bureau Collection Services
Florida Consumer Turns Tables On Debt Collector — Sued For $800.00 Dollars, Consumer Collects $120,000.00 Dollars From Debt Collector – CapitalOne Laywers Screwed
March 1st, 2010. Published under Business Scams. No Comments.
Florida Consumer Turns Tables On Debt Collector — Sued For $800.00 Dollars, Consumer Collects $120,000.00 Dollars From Debt Collector Boca Raton resident Steven J. Pincus incurred legal fees in excess of $100,000.00 dollars defending an alleged credit card debt of $800.00 dollars. Pincus later sued the debt collector in federal court for filing a time-barred lawsuit, a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The debt collector settled the matter for $120,000.00 dollars on February 15, 2010.
Attention Former Debt Collection Employees – I am looking for Debt Collection Policies that Advocate Illegal Collection Tactics
March 1st, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
To anyone in the debt collection industry, especially former debt collection employees. We am looking for official company internal documents that advocate the use of illegal debt collection tactics to collect debts. There is a CASH reward for verifiable documents that show proof that a debt collection company actively advocates illegal collection tactics. Use this contact form to contact us and to attach documents. Today could be your “pay day”. It’s time that bad debt collection companies are exposed for what they really are. All contact will be confidential.
Minnesota Legislature to Target Debt Buyers
February 23rd, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud. No Comments.
From Inside ARM , the Minnesota state legislature introduced legislation that would put debt buyers under the same laws and debt collectors and increase fines for violations. A bill introduced last week in the Minnesota House of Representatives — and its companion bill in the Senate — specifically target debt buyers, placing new guidelines on the collection activity of purchased debt and the verification process used by accounts receivable management firms. The bills, HF2996 proposed by Rep. Joe Mullery of Minneapolis and SF2689 authored by Sen. Ron Latz of St. Louis Park, would require debt buyers filing collection lawsuits to produce an assortment of documents proving that borrowers being sued actually owe the unpaid debts. ~ Inside ARM Debt Buyers (Junk Debt) often pimp out their collections to hungry cash-strapped debt collection law firms and questionable debt collection companies to collect debts. Often these third party law firms and collection companies violate a consumers rights. Debt buyers are rarely named as defendants in consumer civil complaints. It is time for all states to enact similar legislation and further regulate the debt collection industry since the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) seems to overlook all but the most egregious violators. State budgets right now are tight and regulating or enforcement of the collection industry would help boost cash flow for states. This type of regulation and enforcement is the only way
Debt Collectors No Text Message or Cell Phone Collections for You
February 4th, 2010. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
It’s good to see that the FCC wants to further regulate the collection industry using the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Often debt collectors cross the line when attempting to collect a debt. It’s time to muzzle the collection industry even further. The FCC has proposed that the TCPA be brought into alignment with the FTC’s telemarketing rules. But the new proposal does not include an exemption for collectors and banks, effectively erasing decades of precedent. Last month, the FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to amend the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors Book is now ranked #1 best seller for Consumer Law and #4 for Litigation/Courts on Amazon.com
February 4th, 2010. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
The Kindle version of my consumer book, Stick It To Sue Happy Debt Collectors, is ranked #1 Best Seller
A Free Legal Resource for Pro Se Defendants and Litigants
January 31st, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud. No Comments.
I just discovered that Google Scholar now has State and Federal Law, including citations, opinions and decisions. What’s even better there are no fees involved. When searching select “Legal opinions and journals”, it yields better legal research results. Google Scholar is a great starting point for consumers defending themselves in court on credit card debt lawsuits, not to mention Pro Se litigants such as myself that sue debt collectors over FDCPA and FCRA violations. The common consumer now has access to legal opinions and decisions that can be used in court filings. I’ve also found it invaluable for seeing what bad debt collection companies are being sued for, this makes it easier for me to file stronger cases against them I encourage anyone that is researching legal issues to give Google Scholar a try before spending money on other online resources. You may just find what you are looking for without having to spend a dime. If you are defending yourself in court against debt collection lawyers and don’t know what to do, you need to get this book, Stick It To Sue Sue Happy Debt Collectors , It shows you exactly how to defend yourself and win, and how to sue debt collectors for harassing you.
The rest is here:
A Free Legal Resource for Pro Se Defendants and Litigants
Today is the Day to Start Asking Your Dealing With Debt Collector Lawsuit Questions
January 29th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Scams. No Comments.
FYI, today and tomorrow I am answering questions regarding how to deal with debt collectors, debt lawsuits and related topics on my book’s Facebook fan page (discussions). If this works well I may do more question and answer sessions each month. Here is the first question posted today Question: In your book, you state that you must answer the summons in order to file a Motion to Dismiss and sworn denial. Makes sense, but what I’m unsure of is the timing for filing the Motion to Dismiss and sworn denial. Do I file these with the clerk of court at the same time I file my answer or sometime later? Answer: In most states you can file a motion to dismiss (and the sworn denial) as soon as you answer the summons. You should be able to file it at the same time you file your answer with the court. You would need to file them at the court clerks office, make sure you have 3 notarized copies. One for the court, one you must send to the plaintiff’s attorney and one for your files. You may also need to write up a verification (that it was sent) and include it with the papers you file with the clerk and include a copy in the papers you send to the opposing attorney. You may want to check your local court rules and your states “Trial Rules” which are sometimes called Rule of Civil Procedure” to see if there is a rule regarding pleadings and motion time-frame to file). Post your questions today and tomorrow (1/29 – 1/30 2010). If you haven’t read my book Stick It To Sue Happy Debt Collectors , I encourage you to take a look. Allen
More here:
Today is the Day to Start Asking Your Dealing With Debt Collector Lawsuit Questions
Stick It To Sue Happy Debt Collectors Book – A Clarification of an Affirmative Defense
January 29th, 2010. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
A reader emailed me and asked what portion of the FDCPA governs the collection of fees, such as attorney fees, outside of the original credit card agreement or amended terms in regards to an affirmative defense that I discuss in my book. In my book “ Stick It To Sue Happy Debt Collectors ”, I omitted a detail on the explanation of an affirmative defense. 18. Plaintiff is barred under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, from collecting attorney fees, interest, collection fees, and any amount not specifically provided for by purported agreement. In the affirmative defense explanation of #18 I should have noted that it is a violation of the FDCPA for a debt collector under: 15 USC 1692f § 808.1 Unfair practices A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section: (1) The collection of any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law. Many debt collection attorneys (especially in “no show” default judgments) will try to collect as much money they can for “attorney fees” and at times attempt to add other costs to a judgment. It is very important that a consumer use the affirmative defenses as outline in the book to prevent greedy lawyers (and Plaintiffs) from getting more than they deserve in the case they actually prove everything (unlikely in 90% of cases) and win a judgment. Consumers many times never respond (1 out of ten respond) to a debt lawsuit for whatever reason. A debt lawsuit is a civil action (they can’t put you in jail for it) and is mostly paperwork. Most of these types of lawsuits are nothing more than a scare tactic to get you to pay or to get a judgment to make you pay. I say make them prove it, if they can’t, you win. This is a preemptive affirmative defense to protect the defendant. If the attorney does collect more than allowed under the original card agreement (even under a default judgment) they may be in violation of the FDCPA. I would assume (my opinion) that if a debt collector files a lawsuit for more than the original amount owed and the interest rate, it could be construed as a false statement and a fraudulent collection practice under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). see section 808.1 of the FDPCA (PDF file) . You may be able to sue, even after the fact. A consumer protection attorney could advise you on how to proceed if this does happen. Check out my book if you want to learn how to fight debt collection lawsuits Stick It To Sue Happy Debt Collectors .
See the article here:
Stick It To Sue Happy Debt Collectors Book – A Clarification of an Affirmative Defense
Virginia AG Goes After Capital One for Debt Collection and Re-Aging
January 25th, 2010. Published under Fraud. No Comments.
I’ve had dealing with Capital One myself, they are a sneaky bunch, it appears that the Virginia Attorney General decided to do something about it. Hopefully other State’s Attorney Generals will dig deeper into Capital One’s business practices. West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw announced Friday that his office has sued credit card issuer Capital One and a debt collection agency for “unconscionable conduct in connection with their credit card lending and collection practices.” The complaint alleges that Capital One Bank, a subsidiary of Capital One Financial Corp. (NYSE: COF), tricked consumers into payment plans by sending them solicitations disguised as offers of new credit. The arrangement allowed Cap One to re-age the debt so that it did not fall under the statute of limitations.
Questions and Answers on Dealing with Debt Collectors January 30th, 2010
January 23rd, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
Next Saturday (Jan. 30) I will be answering questions on how to deal with debt collectors on my book’s Facebook fan page ( Fan Page for Stick It To Sue Happy Debt Collectors ). You can post questions beginning on Friday January 29th and Saturday January 30th. I will do my best to answer as many questions as I can or point you in the right direction if I can’t answer. While you are waiting have a look at the book . See you next Saturday! Allen
Excerpt from:
Questions and Answers on Dealing with Debt Collectors January 30th, 2010
The FDCPA Does Not Give Debt Collector the Right to Leave Voice Mail on Answering Machine
January 21st, 2010. Published under Fraud. No Comments.
I am so glad the 11th circuit court ruled properly on this. I am about to rip a big hole out Hollander Law Offices LLC
Owner of New York Process Server L.I. Process Pleads Guilty to Fraud
January 16th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud. No Comments.
These kinds of folks have caused so many consumers all kinds of problems. Nice to see the owner is going to jail. The owner of a Lynnbrook process server company pleaded guilty to fraud Friday after his company failed to properly notify thousands of people that they were facing debt collection lawsuits. William Singler, owner of American Legal Process, admitted in Nassau County Supreme Court that he knew some of his employees didn’t properly serve court papers the company was hired to deliver. Prosecutors said that left many debtors unaware they were being sued until their cases were over. A pending lawsuit by Attorney General Andrew Cuomo seeks to toss out nearly 100,000 legal judgments related to cases on which the company worked. “Many (victims) had their bank accounts frozen, their wages garnished and liens put on their homes, all because they were denied their day in court,” Cuomo said Friday. Source: Long Island Press
Continue reading here:
Owner of New York Process Server L.I. Process Pleads Guilty to Fraud
Video Intro to My New Book – Stick It To Sue Happy Debt Collectors
January 15th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud. No Comments.
Below is the video introduction for my new book.
Debt Verification versus Validation – It’s the Same Thing
January 10th, 2010. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
I read a lot online, and one of my biggest interests is reading about how debt collectors abuse and harass consumers. One thing that crops up a lot are the terms “Debt Verification” and “Debt Validation” and I believe these is a bit of confusion surrounding them both. These terms are both one and them same, legally speaking under 15 U.S.C.
It’s Official Mann Bracken the Debt Collector is Out of Business in Atlanta
January 6th, 2010. Published under Business Scams. No Comments.
I just watched the WSB-TV channel 5 Mann Bracken report ( not sure how long the video will be up ) by Jim Strickland that indeed Mann Bracken the debt collection law firm in Atlanta is indeed closed. He also reported that the State of Georgia is continuing it’s investigation of Mann Bracken. The company that own(ed) Mann Bracken, Axiant has filed for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and I am betting that Mann Bracken LLP will be doing the same in very short order. Supposedly Axiant owes Mann Bracken around 10 million dollars. (I think I am going to print and frame this image) Mr. Strickland and also reported that the State of Georgia is requesting the appellate
NOW AVAILABLE – New Book – Stick It To Sue Happy Debt Collectors
December 31st, 2009. Published under Business Scams. No Comments.
I Allen Harkleroad, have released a new book titled “Stick It To Sue Happy Debt Collectors”. This is my second consumer book and I believe is a much needed resource for consumers having financial difficulties. To purchase or for more information go to www.BeatDebtCollectors.com . What you will read in my book is based on own personal experiences and what I learned from dealing with debt collector lawsuits over the last couple of years. For the record I have been sued so many times over the last couple of years that I have literally lost count. I can tell you one thing with one hundred percent certainty; I win in court and stick it to sue happy debt collectors, attorneys and law firms. It took a while to learn out how to how to fight a debt lawsuit, represent myself in court and win. Most consumers have no idea how to deal with debt lawsuits and most cannot afford to be represented by an attorney. This is why I wrote this book. In this book I will cover original creditor lawsuits and junk debt buyer lawsuits. Both are very similar in the way that you will deal with them. I will also cover how to keep debt collectors off your back before any lawsuits are filed. I also cover 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). My ultimate goal is to show you how to overwhelm the opposing attorney and to show them that the burden of proving the debt is going to be an arduous, long, tiring and expensive (for them) journey. Most attorneys will bailout (voluntary dismissal) once they see that they have to spend time and money to prove the case. I am not an “easy money target” and after you read my book neither will you. My goal when responding to either an original creditor or junk debt buyer lawsuits is to overwhelm the opposing attorney and forcing the burden of proof on them. As I said earlier my debt collector attorneys and law firms are looking for easy money (default judgments). I turn the tables and show them that they must actually work to get a judgment. Did you know in upwards of ninety-percent (90%) of credit card debt lawsuits that are filed the attorney has insufficient proof that you owe the debt? The reason is that the proper documentation was lost or never transferred to the law firm or the debt buyer. Did you know that one in ten (1 in 10) consumers served with a debt lawsuit will never respond or show up (for whatever reason). In some cases the consumer was never made aware of the lawsuit or possibly it could be because of embarrassment or fear. You’ll see results like this TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword – written by Chris Gleason a prominent consumer protection attorney Acknowledgements Introduction Chapter One – Important Things You May Not Know About Debt Lawsuits Chapter Two – Defending Yourself (Pro Se) Is Mostly Paperwork Chapter Three – Original Creditor Lawsuits Answering the Complaint and Affirmative Defenses – Deny Everything Example Answer and Affirmative Defenses Explanations of the Affirmative Defenses and Other Affirmative Defenses Filing a Motion to Dismiss and Sworn Denials Using the Federal Truth in Lending Act to Your Advantage Breach of Contract not Suit on Account The Motion to Dismiss and Sworn Denial Bombshell Motion to Strike Affidavit of Debt or Affidavit of Account Discovery – Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, Request for Admissions Responses to Plaintiff’s Discovery Chapter Four- Debt Buyer (junk debt collectors) Lawsuits Answering the Complaint and Affirmative Defenses – Deny Everything Explanations of the Affirmative Defenses and Other Affirmative Defenses The Motion to Dismiss and Sworn Denial Bombshell Motion to Strike Affidavit of Debt or Affidavit of Account Discovery – Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, Request for Admissions Chapter Five – Dealing with Debt Collectors Before They Sue You The Never and Always Tips for Dealing with Debt Collectors How to Pay Collection Agencies or Creditors How to Sue Debt Collectors for Violations of the FDCPA Or FCRA Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) Violations Whether you owe a debt or not, this book will give you tools that you can use to get these lawyers off of your back. An attorney friend of mine once told me, “This is America so make them prove you owe them, if they can’t you win”. In as many as ninety percent (90%) of credit card debt lawsuits, the lawyers filing the suits don’t have the documentation to prove that you owe the debt. This book also shows you how and what to file in court to make them back off. REMEMBER: Credit card lawsuits are civil lawsuits. They CANNOT put you in jail even if you lose. So if you are worried or scared, DON’T BE. Most of these sorts of lawsuits are scare tactics by debt collectors (and debt collection law firms) to scare you (to keep you from answering or responding). When they see that they must work for the money, often times they’ll go away. To purchase or for more information go to www.BeatDebtCollectors.com .
See the original post:
NOW AVAILABLE – New Book – Stick It To Sue Happy Debt Collectors
New Book – Stick It To Sue Happy Debt Collectors
December 28th, 2009. Published under Business Scams. No Comments.
I (Allen Harkleroad) am about to release a new book titled “Stick It To Sue Happy Debt Collectors”. This is my second consumer book and I believe is a much needed resource for consumers having financial difficulties. What you will read in my book is based on own personal experiences and what I learned from dealing with debt collector lawsuits over the last couple of years. For the record I have been sued so many times over the last couple of years that I have literally lost count. I can tell you one thing with one hundred percent certainty; I win in court and stick it to sue happy debt collectors, attorneys and law firms. It took a while to learn out how to represent myself in court and win against lawsuit happy debt collection law firms and debt collection companies. Most consumers have no idea how to deal with debt lawsuits and most cannot afford to be represented by an attorney. This is why I wrote this book. In this book I will cover original creditor lawsuits and junk debt buyer lawsuits. Both are very similar in the way that you will deal with them. I will also cover how to keep debt collectors off your back before any lawsuits are filed. I also cover 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). My ultimate goal is to show you how to overwhelm the opposing attorney and to show them that the burden of proving the debt is going to be an arduous, long, tiring and expensive (for them) journey. Most attorneys will bailout (voluntary dismissal) once they see that they
Sallie Mae Sued for Illegal Calls – Consumer Wins
December 26th, 2009. Published under Business Scams. No Comments.
Big behemoth companies are ripe consumer lawsuit targets, mainly because they ignore rules and regulations. Here is just such a story. This may not work for everyone, but it worked for Jeff. He tells Consumerist that after he filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy, Sallie Mae representatives continued to call him, which is sort of illegal. So his bankruptcy attorney sued them. And won a $4,000 settlement. – Consumerist If you are having financial difficulties and the debt collectors start calling, be sure to document everything. It could mean a payday for you. I’ve successfully sued three debt collection companies and have two more in the court system. Make em’ pay for harassing you… RELATED The FREE Definitive Guide on Beating Credit Card Suit on Account Lawsuits How to SUE Debt Collectors for FDCPA violations Dealing with Debt Collectors – How to Take Away Their Power Dealing With Debt Collectors – The NEVERS and the ALWAYS Hitting Deceptive Debt Collectors and Debt Buyers where it HURTS – In the Wallet A Debt Collectors Dirty Little Secret Something Harassing Debt Collectors Rather You Didn’t Know
Go here to see the original:
Sallie Mae Sued for Illegal Calls – Consumer Wins
Judge Bans Closed Debt Collection Firm Bush & Kennedy, Ferguson and Parrott from Louisiana
December 23rd, 2009. Published under Scams. No Comments.
It’s a shame that bad debt collectors operate for a very long time before being put out of business. If state(s) Attorney General’s would be more aggressive in investigating debt collection complaints, there would be far less questionable collectors in business. A Baton Rouge debt collection company that the Louisiana Attorney General’s Office says has been the subject of dozens of complaints from at least 30 states since 2001 was prohibited Tuesday from doing business. J.E. Cullens, who represents Parrott, revealed in court Tuesday that Bush & Kennedy is the subject of an ongoing federal investigation.
FMD Consumer Forum is Now Open
December 19th, 2009. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
I have had several inquiries about adding a forum to the FMD consumer blog and as of this morning it is live an ready for you to participate on. You can get to the forum at http://forum.fivemilliondots.com If you have a problem with the forum you can contact me here: http://fivemilliondots.com/contact.aspx
Here is the original post:
FMD Consumer Forum is Now Open
Credit Card Debt Lawsuits are Easy Money for Debt Collection Law Firms
December 18th, 2009. Published under Fraud. No Comments.
Did you know that only
FTC Roundtable to Discuss Debt Collection Litigation; Continued Call for Public Comments
December 2nd, 2009. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
Have something to contribute in regards to Debt Collection Litigation? See below, you can file comments electronically. Personally I feel that lawyers should not be able to be both a debt collector and a attorney at the same time. They should either be attorneys or debt collectors. I guarantee you there would be fewer consumer lawsuits, especially bogus ones. Speak your mind and let the FTC know what you think. —- The Federal Trade Commission will host a public event on consumer protection issues arising when debt collectors sue consumers to recover on a debt. This will be the last in a series of three FTC roundtable discussions on these topics. WHO: “Protecting Consumers in Debt Collection Litigation: A Roundtable Discussion” WHEN: December 4, 2009, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Registration – begins at 8 a.m. WHERE: FTC’s Satellite Building Conference Center 601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001 This Roundtable follows up on the Commission’s February 2009 Report, Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change – A Workshop Report, which announced that the FTC would hold regional roundtables to help develop policy recommendations related to debt collection litigation and arbitration proceedings. A group of state court judges, government officials, debt collectors and debt buyers, consumer attorneys and advocates, academics, and other stakeholders will discuss topics related to consumer debt collection litigation proceedings, such as service of process, consumer default rates, time-barred debts, evidentiary requirements in collection actions, and post-judgment issues. The Roundtable is free and open to the public. No pre-registration is required. The Commission will also offer a live webcast of the event for those who wish to participate but cannot attend. For details and a link to the webcast, go to http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/debtcollectround/index.shtm . Interested parties are encouraged to submit written comments or original research relating to debt collection litigation or arbitration proceedings through January 8, 2009. Comments should refer to “Debt Collection Roundtable – Comment, Project No. P094806.” To file electronically, follow the instructions and fill out the form at https://public.commentworks.com/ftc/debtcollectroundtable3 . Paper comments should include the above reference both in the text and on the envelope, and should be mailed or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-135 (Annex A), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. Comments containing confidential material, however, must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with Commission Rule 4.9(c). The FTC requests that any paper comments be sent by courier or overnight service , if possible, because postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions. Reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. If you need an accommodation related to a disability, please contact Bevin Murphy at 202-326-3224 or via e-mail at consumerdebtevents@ftc.gov . Your request should include a detailed description of the accommodations you need and a way to contact you if we need more information. Please provide advance notice.
Link:
FTC Roundtable to Discuss Debt Collection Litigation; Continued Call for Public Comments
Two Shoppers Arrested in Black Friday Incident – WSAZ-TV
November 28th, 2009. Published under Political Scams. No Comments.
Two Shoppers Arrested in Black Friday Incident WSAZ-TV No, we don't need jobs, we need 2 trillion more on the debt and the government to take over HC system; we need cap and trade , to destroy our economy further …
Original post:
Two Shoppers Arrested in Black Friday Incident – WSAZ-TV
Man Finds 4.5 Pound Egg in Woods – WSAZ-TV
November 27th, 2009. Published under Political Scams. No Comments.
Man Finds 4.5 Pound Egg in Woods WSAZ-TV No, we don't need jobs, we need 2 trillion more on the debt and the government to take over HC system; we need cap and trade , to destroy our economy further … and more
1 Dead, 1 Injured in Apparent Attempted Murder-Suicide in Logan County – WSAZ-TV
November 26th, 2009. Published under Political Scams. No Comments.
1 Dead, 1 Injured in Apparent Attempted Murder-Suicide in Logan County WSAZ-TV No, we don't need jobs, we need 2 trillion more on the debt and the government to take over HC system; we need cap and trade , to destroy our economy further … and more
Shoplifters Sentenced to ‘Humiliation’ in Pike County – WSAZ-TV
November 25th, 2009. Published under Political Scams. No Comments.
Shoplifters Sentenced to 'Humiliation' in Pike County WSAZ-TV No, we don't need jobs, we need 2 trillion more on the debt and the government to take over HC system; we need cap and trade , to destroy our economy further … Pet Tethering on Agenda Again at Huntington City Council WSAZ-TV all 6 news articles
NCO Financial Group Inc to Buy Axiant (aka Mann Bracken)
November 21st, 2009. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
Accretive is a big hedge fund that “owned” Axiant and Mann Bracken (which I believe is actually one and the same, Axiant being a shell company in my opinion). NCO Financial (part of NCO Group) has had it share of Federal lawsuits against them for FDCPA, FCRA and other violations . Now that they own even more of the debt collection industry I am betting the consumer abuse will only get worse. In that respect maybe the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will finally wake up and take more notice of the debt collection industry. —- The NCO – Axiant official press release Axiant LLC, a leading provider of integrated legal collections services, announced today that it has signed a binding agreement to be acquired by NCO Group, Inc. (“NCO”), a leading provider of accounts receivable outsourcing services. Kevin Keleghan, CEO of Axiant, stated that, “Combining our resources with the litigation services already offered by NCO will create a dominant force in the legal collections market. Axiant’s unique working relationship with Mann Bracken, the largest collection law firm in the United States, in conjunction with NCO’s technology driven Attorney Network platform should maximize our clients’ performance and create opportunities for many of our associates.” Michael Barrist, Chairman and CEO of NCO, stated, “Combining Axiant, which has a strategic relationship with Mann Bracken, to our company enhances our suite of service offerings and furthers our strategy of expanding our litigation capabilities. This combination, in conjunction with our recently announced purchase of Total Debt Management, clearly defines NCO as a leader in the consumer litigation arena.” To facilitate this transaction, Axiant has today commenced chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings in Delaware, in which the sale of Axiant’s assets to NCO will be subject to higher and better offers at an auction and to the approval of the Bankruptcy Court. Closing is expected in the first quarter of 2010 and is subject to satisfactory completion of due diligence, the execution of a definitive agreement and other conditions.
Read more from the original source:
NCO Financial Group Inc to Buy Axiant (aka Mann Bracken)
FTC Announces New Enforcement Actions In Continuing Crackdown On Mortgage Relief Services Scams
September 17th, 2009. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
The Federal Trade Commission today announced two new law enforcement actions in a continuing crackdown on mortgage foreclosure rescue and loan modification scams, bringing to 22 the number of these cases the Commission has filed since the housing crisis began. The FTC also announced developments in similar pending mortgage-related actions. “Today’s challenging economy presents an opportunity for con artists who prey upon financially distressed consumers. The Federal Trade Commission and our state and federal partners will continue to bring law enforcement actions to stop this insidious fraud,” FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz said. “If you’re worried about keeping your home, avoid any company that asks for a large fee in advance, guarantees that they’ll stop a foreclosure or modify a loan, or tells you to stop paying your mortgage company and to pay them instead.” The FTC’s announcement accompanied a meeting of federal and state officials including Chairman Leibowitz, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Attorney General Eric Holder, Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan, and the state attorneys general from eleven states (Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island and Washington). These federal and state officials met in Washington, D.C., to discuss emerging trends and ongoing efforts against fraud in the mortgage marketplace. In addition to law enforcement, the FTC discussed its ongoing rulemaking proceeding involving mortgage modification services and continuing efforts to educate consumers about avoiding mortgage-related scams. In today’s two new announced FTC actions, the defendants allegedly falsely claimed that they would obtain a mortgage modification in virtually all cases. According to the FTC’s complaints, after charging homeowners large up-front fees, the defendants often did little or nothing to help them renegotiate their mortgages or stop foreclosure. The FTC seeks to stop the defendants’ deceptive claims and make them forfeit their ill-gotten gains. Nations Housing Modification Center and its principals allegedly violated the FTC Act and the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule by misrepresenting themselves as a federal government agency or affiliate and falsely claiming that, in return for a $3,000 fee – half due up-front and half due two weeks later – they would obtain mortgage modifications that would make consumers’ loan payments substantially more affordable in virtually every instance. According to the FTC, the defendants also falsely claimed a 90 percent success rate, that only selected customers meeting certain qualifications were offered a loan, and that they had attorneys and forensic accountants on staff. In fact, the FTC alleges that very few homeowners got modifications, the defendants accepted advance fees for services from all applicants, and they had neither lawyers nor accountants on staff. According to the FTC’s complaint, the defendants solicited consumers by mail designed to look as if it came from a federal government agency, deceptively stating, “a bill has been passed by Congress” that “allows the Nations Housing Modification Center to provide relief for homeowners that are delinquent on their mortgage through the Nations Home Affordable Modification Program.” The defendants also allegedly made misleading statements on their Web site and with consumers who called their toll-free number. The complaint alleges that consumers were misled because the defendants’ promotion is very similar to the real government “Making Home Affordable” program that provides free mortgage loan assistance. The defendants are Federal Housing Modification Department, Inc., doing business as Nations Housing Modification Center and Loan Modification Reform Association, and Michael A. Trap, Glenn S. Rosofsky, and Bryan P. Rosenberg. The Commission vote to file the complaint was 4-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on September 16, 2009. The FTC appreciates the assistance of the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the office of Jim Freis, Director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and the office of Bonnie M. Dumanis, District Attorney, County of San Diego, California, in this matter. Infinity Group Services and its president are charged with violating the FTC Act by falsely representing that they would obtain a loan modification in all, or virtually all, instances; that they would give full refunds if they failed to do so; and that they would obtain loan refinancing for an up-front fee of $995. According to the FTC’s complaint, the defendants’ radio ads and Web site urged consumers to call a toll-free number. Once consumers called, the defendants’ sales personnel promised that, in return for the up-front fee, the company would help them modify their mortgage loans through the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Hope for Homeowners program. The defendants claimed a high success rate and offered a full refund if they failed. The FTC alleges that the company often failed to obtain loan modifications and either failed to answer or return consumers’ telephone calls or update them about their status. When consumers were able to contact the defendants, they were falsely told that negotiations were proceeding smoothly or that lenders had caused a delay. In many instances, consumers received refunds only after repeatedly complaining to the FTC, the California Attorney General’s Office, or the Better Business Bureau. The FTC’s complaint further alleged that the defendants also offered mortgage loan refinancing for a “flat fee” of $995 but then sought additional fees ranging from $2,000 to $15,000. In other instances, consumers were led to believe that they had closed on their loans but were later told by the defendants that the loan would not be funded. According to the complaint, the defendants’ Web site stated that there were no hidden costs, but a fine-print footnote stated, “Rates, Fees and Terms are subject to change.” The defendants are Infinity Group Services, also doing business as IGS, Hope to Homeowners, ASK IGS, and ASK IGS, Inc., and the company’s president, Kahram Zamani. The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the complaint was 4-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, on August 26, 2009. The FTC also announced developments in four previously filed foreclosure rescue cases: The FTC has obtained a stipulated federal court order barring Lucas Law Center and its principals from misrepresenting their services and charging up-front fees. The defendants allegedly used an attorney to circumvent California prohibitions against receiving a fee before providing any services. In addition to falsely representing that they would obtain mortgage loan modifications, the defendants allegedly told some homeowners to stop paying their mortgage in order to pay the defendants’ fees of up to $3,995. The order announced today bars the defendants’ allegedly deceptive practices, pending a trial, and requires them to disable Web sites offering their services and to note the FTC’s lawsuit and the order on the Web sites. The order also requires domain name registrars to prevent any changes to the defendants’ Internet domain name registrations. The order names a permanent receiver over the corporate defendants, extends an earlier asset freeze, and bars the defendants from filing for bankruptcy without the court’s permission. The FTC ultimately seeks consumer restitution and a permanent bar on the defendants’ deceptive practices. The defendants are LUCASLAWCENTER “INCORPORATED,” Future Financial Services, LLC, Paul Jeffrey Lucas, Christopher Francis Betts, and Frank Sullivan. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, on July 7, 2009. (see July 15, 2009, press release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/07/loanlies.shtm ) The stipulated order was entered on August 24, 2009. The FTC has obtained a preliminary injunction halting the allegedly deceptive practices of United Credit Adjusters Inc., The Loan Modification Shop, Ltd. , and their principals, and freezing their assets, pending a trial. The Commission recently filed an amended complaint in this matter, adding as defendants The Loan Modification Shop, Ltd. and Casey Lynn Cohen, also known as Casey Lynn Collins, alleging that they and one of the original defendants, Ezra Rishty, misrepresented that they would help consumers obtain a mortgage loan modification or stop foreclosure in all or virtually all instances. The FTC’s original complaint, filed in February 2009, charged seven corporate and three individual defendants with falsely promising to remove negative information from consumers’ credit reports (even information that is accurate and current), charging an up-front fee, and failing to provide written disclosures. (see March 17, 2009, press release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/03/unitedcredit.shtm .) The original defendants are United Credit Adjusters, Inc., doing business as United Credit Adjustors and UCA; United Credit Adjustors, Inc., d/b/a United Credit Adjusters and UCA; United Counseling Association, Inc., d/b/a UCA; Bankruptcy Masters Corp., National Bankruptcy Services Corp., Federal Debt Solutions, Ltd., United Money Tree, Inc., and Ahron E. Henoch, Ezra Rishty, and Gerald Serino, also known as Jerry Serino. The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the amended complaint was 4-0. The amended complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on August 4, 2009. The court entered a preliminary injunction as to all of the defendants on September 1, 2009. The FTC has obtained preliminary injunctions halting the allegedly deceptive practices of Loss Mitigation Services and its principals, pending a trial. Primarily through direct mail solicitation, the defendants allegedly targeted consumers whose mortgage payments have increased, who have made late payments, and whose homes were in foreclosure. They charged up to $5,500 in advance and promised that a loan modification was assured or virtually assured if consumers hired them. The defendants also misrepresented that they were a department of, or affiliated with, the consumer’s lender or mortgage servicer. In many cases, they failed to obtain loan modifications for consumers, some of whom lost their homes while waiting for the promised results. The defendants are Loss Mitigation Services, Inc., Synergy Financial Management Corporation, doing business as Direct Lender, and Dean Shafer, Bernadette Perry, and Tony Perry. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 13, 2009. (see July 15, 2009, press release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/07/loanlies.shtm ) The litigated preliminary injunction as to the corporate defendants and the stipulated preliminary injunction as to the individual defendants were filed on August 19, 2009. The FTC has filed an amended complaint in its action pending against Hope Now Modifications, LLC, adding as defendants Michael Kwasnik, Esq. and The Law Firm of Kwasnik, Rodio, Kanowitz & Buckley P.C. The original complaint, filed in March 2009, alleged that the defendants misled consumers about their ability to provide mortgage loan modification and foreclosure relief or to provide refunds if they failed to do so, and misrepresented that they were affiliated with, or part of, the HOPE NOW Alliance, a non-profit organization endorsed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The amended complaint also alleges violations of the Telemarketing Sales Rule. The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the amended complaint was 4-0. The complaint and amended complaint were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 17, 2009, and September 14, 2009, respectively. (see March 24, 2009, press release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/03/newhope.shtm ) The FTC asks homeowners to report foreclosure rescue and mortgage modification scams to FTC.gov or by calling 1-877-FTC-HELP. The FTC makes those complaints available to federal, state, and local law enforcement through the Consumer Sentinel Network. Homeowners in distress can get free help from the Homeowner’s HOPE Hotline 888-995-HOPE (4673), which connects homeowners to HUD-certified housing counselors. In addition to the FTC’s law enforcement efforts, the agency has initiated a rulemaking proceeding to address the proliferation of companies offering mortgage modification services to determine whether new rules could be useful to protect consumers. The FTC also launched new initiatives to educate consumers on avoiding these scams. For example, the Commission has released a video, “ Real People. Real Stories ,” featuring people targeted by foreclosure rescue scammers sharing lessons learned from their experiences. The FTC is distributing the video, and a version in Spanish, to more than 5,000 housing counseling and consumer protection organizations around the country, and posting them at FTC.gov/yourhome and YouTube.com/FTCVideos . The Commission’s mortgage-related resources are available at www.ftc.gov/moneymatters . NOTE: The Commission authorizes the filing of a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law. 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 1,500 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics .
See the original post:
FTC Announces New Enforcement Actions In Continuing Crackdown On Mortgage Relief Services Scams
Widespread Harassment from Phony Debt Collectors Raises Concerns of Mass Data Breach
August 4th, 2009. Published under Scams. No Comments.
Scammers have Social Security and bank account numbers, home addresses and employer information Arlington, VA – August 3, 2009 – Better Business Bureau is issuing a national alert today about phony debt collectors that are calling consumers nationwide and claiming that they have defaulted on a payday loan and will be arrested if they don’t pay immediately. Claiming to be lawyers, the scammers say they are with the “ Financial Accountability Association ” or the “ Federal Legislation of Unsecured Loans ” and are equipped with a disconcerting amount of personal information about their potential victims.
Many Questionable Debt Collectors, One Man and a Hedge Fund to Rule Them All
July 24th, 2009. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
It kinds of sounds like the beginning of a J.R.R. Tolkien movie… Apparently in the debt collection business having a lot of money keeps regulators, law makers and industry enforcement out of your hair. Hopefully with the true nature and operation of Accretive Technologies being exposed and publicized perhaps regulators, enforcement and law makers will take swift action. Slowly but surely opaque layers are being peeled away and exposing just who and what are behind the National Arbitration Forum (NAF) and several national debt collection law firms. Namely Mann Bracken LLC / LLP, Wolpoff and Abramson and Eskanos and Adler. All of which are “owned” by Axiant, which is in turned owned by a hedge fund, Accretive Technologies, which in turned it owned/run by one man. His name is J. Michael Cline.