Lionheart Group Scam Prevention Toolkit » debt

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

Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:04:10 +0000

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

Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:01:33 +0000

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

Wed, 14 Jul 2010 11:35:18 +0000

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

Mon, 21 Jun 2010 19:42:00 +0000

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

Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:22:00 +0000

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

Fri, 18 Jun 2010 11:36:36 +0000

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

Sat, 12 Jun 2010 14:02:00 +0000

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

Wed, 26 May 2010 10:44:23 +0000

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

Wed, 12 May 2010 12:48:26 +0000

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

Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:34:06 +0000

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.