Tag Archives: financial
American unemployed looking abroad for jobs
November 21st, 2011. Published under Unemployment. No Comments.
Tony Guida profiles Kevin O’Neill, a New Jersey construction manager who was forced to take his business abroad to Dubai after the financial crisis shut everything down.
Read the original here:
American unemployed looking abroad for jobs
Email, Hate Mail and Comments from Readers – Town Hall
September 18th, 2011. Published under Political Scams. No Comments.
Email, Hate Mail and Comments from Readers Town Hall Second, he, like many others expected the Dem Congress to pass Cap and Trade . Like any wise business man, he planted trees to be entitled to sell offsets. Later, he acted against his financial interest when he voted against the Cap and Trade … and more
President Downgrade – The Moral Liberal
August 12th, 2011. Published under Political Scams. No Comments.
The Moral Liberal President Downgrade The Moral Liberal … the financial arena and automakers; and he next wants to institute a cap-and-trade scam that would give Big Brother a vice-grip around the private sector's neck, to name just a few of President Downgrade's constitutional trespasses. … and more
President Downgrade – OpEd – Eurasia Review
August 12th, 2011. Published under Political Scams. No Comments.
President Downgrade – OpEd Eurasia Review … the financial arena and automakers; and he next wants to institute a cap-and-trade scam that would give Big Brother a vice-grip around the private sector's neck, to name just a few of President Downgrade's constitutional trespasses. … and more
President Downgrade – OpEd – Eurasia Review
August 12th, 2011. Published under Political Scams. No Comments.
President Downgrade – OpEd Eurasia Review … the financial arena and automakers; and he next wants to institute a cap-and-trade scam that would give Big Brother a vice-grip around the private sector's neck, to name just a few of President Downgrade's constitutional trespasses. … and more
President Downgrade – Intellectual Conservative
August 12th, 2011. Published under Political Scams. No Comments.
President Downgrade Intellectual Conservative … the financial arena and automakers; and he next wants to institute a cap-and-trade scam that would give Big Brother a vice-grip around the private sector's neck, to name just a few of President Downgrade's constitutional trespasses. … and more
President Downgrade – American Thinker
August 10th, 2011. Published under Political Scams. No Comments.
President Downgrade American Thinker … the financial arena, and automakers; and he next wants to institute a cap-and-trade scam that would give Big Brother a vice-grip around the private sector's neck, to name just a few of President Downgrade's constitutional trespasses. … and more
Business Briefs: N. American Financial plans to go public – Winston-Salem Journal
June 25th, 2011. Published under Political Scams, Scams. No Comments.
Business Briefs: N. American Financial plans to go public Winston-Salem Journal They operate by obtaining people's personal information, and then using it to try to trick them into paying debts they don't really owe. To report debt-collection scams, all (877) 5NO- SCAM or go to www.ncdoj.gov. and more
A Review for – Personal Finance For Dummies®, Mini Edition
June 19th, 2011. Published under Economic News. No Comments.
Best Price $0.99 The easy way to achieve your financial goals!Get expert guidance on how to track expenditures, reduce spending, get out of debt, invest wisely, save for college and other events, and how to survive the unexpected! In no time at all, you will gain valuable financial know-how and find out how to start
More here:
A Review for – Personal Finance For Dummies®, Mini Edition
4. Efficiency, Assets, and Time – Good Video
April 30th, 2011. Published under Economic News. No Comments.
Watch this video when you get a chance. I think you’ll like it. Author’s Description: Financial Theory (ECON 251) Over time, economists’ justifications for why free markets are a good thing have In the first few classes, we saw how under some conditions, the competitive allocation maximizes the sum of agents’ When it was found
Read the rest here:
4. Efficiency, Assets, and Time – Good Video
2. Utilities, Endowments, and Equilibrium – Video
April 29th, 2011. Published under Economic News. No Comments.
Posted From Stacey Debinshire’s Ipad Author’s Description: Financial Theory (ECON 251) This lecture explains what an economic model is, and why it allows for counterfactual reasoning and often yields paradoxical Typically, equilibrium is defined as the solution to a system of simultaneous The most important economic model is that of supply and demand in one
Read the original here:
2. Utilities, Endowments, and Equilibrium – Video
Using An Unsecured Business Line Of Credit
April 25th, 2011. Published under Economic News. No Comments.
Using a unsecured business line of credit for a company tends to be a privilege rather than one of banking options. Loans not backed by securities tend to be possible when there is some sort of history within the parties involved in the financial services. An entity that has been with the financial company for years will be able to do so and a client with reliable references.
Continued here:
Using An Unsecured Business Line Of Credit
Bud Hibbs Wants Your Junk Debt Buyer Affidavits from Debt Collection Lawsuits
April 23rd, 2011. Published under Business Scams, Scams. No Comments.
Bud Hibbs is attempting to collect affidavits to show that junk debt buyers engage in signing documents where they claim to have firsthand knowledge of the accounts and that these affidavits are routinely
Regulators Seeks to Halt 10 Operators of Fake News Sites from Making Deceptive Claims About Acai Berry Weight Loss Products
April 19th, 2011. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
The Federal Trade Commission is requesting federal courts to temporarily halt the allegedly deceptive tactics of 10 operations using fake news websites to market acai berry weight-loss products.
Debt Collector Portfolio Recovery Associates Sending out Bogus IRS 1099-C’s to Consumers Again?
February 5th, 2011. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
According to Budd Hibbs, a well-known consumer advocate, Junk debt buyer and debt collection company Portfolio Recovery Associates are sending out IRS form 1099-C’s to consumers. The problem is that Portfolio Recovery Associates (and other junk debt buyers) purchase old debts for a couple of pennies per dollar and then attempt to collect the full face value of the debt, even though they paid much less than face value. In my opinion if Portfolio Recovery is sending 1099-C’s to consumers claiming the full face value of a debt, they may be committing fraud on the consumers involved as well as committing fraud on the Internal Revenue Service. In effect they are writing off the full amount of the ‘forgiven’ debt’ and in reality only paid a small amount for the debt. Two years ago, we went to a Washington Post reporter who contacted the IRS regarding this matter. PRA must be able to produce some type of valid documents that make their claims credible, however based on their record of accomplishment; they likely have little or nothing to back up their claim. We contacted many attorneys and officials about this, we can expect that the Consumer Protection Financial Protection Board currently being set by Professor Elizabeth Warren will finally address the abuse and force PRA to comply with the law. Demand they send you documents that prove their claim or copies of accounts, signatures, goods provided, services rendered and all other information that connects your social security to their alleged loss. IMPORTANT: Once a 1099-C is issued, the law mandates that the debt can no longer be collected. This includes PRA selling it off to another vulture. They MUST show a zero balance on your credit report and are prohibited from extending the seven-year reporting statute. PRA cannot call you or send collection notices after a 1099-C has been issued. ~ Collectors Exposed I can’t for the life of me figure out why the IRS, or the Federal Trade Commission for that matter, allows junk debt buyers to get away with cheating the US government out of taxes that they write off and end up not paying in real taxes. It really does make me wonder about the entire debt collection industry in general. I guess if they have no fear of cheating consumers then they have no fear of cheating our government either. For the full excerpt on Portfolio Recovery Associates and “Bogus” 1099-C mailing click here .
Popular Searches
Review: A Beginner’s Guide to Day Trading Online (2nd edition)
February 3rd, 2011. Published under Economic News. No Comments.
The Lowest Price we could find is $16.95
Classic Closeouts LLC Who Illegally Charged Consumers’ Accounts Settles Lawsuit
January 13th, 2011. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
Defendants in an operation that the Federal Trade Commission alleged stole millions of dollars from consumers by making unauthorized charges and debits to their bank accounts have reached settlement agreements with the FTC. In Operation Short Change – a July 2009 crackdown on scammers taking advantage of the economic downturn to bilk vulnerable consumers through a variety of schemes – the FTC announced a complaint against Classic Closeouts LLC, its principal Daniel Greenberg, and several other defendants.
Questionable Debt Collectors and Consumer Scams in the News
January 6th, 2011. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
I’ve been slacking a bit with publishing bad debt collector news and headlines. The holiday’s were busy as usual for me. With that Said I bring you the first ‘questionable’ debt collector in the news for the year. Also included in this article are news-worthy scams that consumers are falling for. Education of consumers is needed so that fewer fall for cons and scams, as well a fending
So You Want to Expand Your Small Georgia Business?
December 21st, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
With today’s worsening economy many small business owners in Georgia and across the united states are struggling to make ends meet. Business expansion and aggressive marketing are seemingly the only viable options at the moment. It seems that paring down overhead actually reduced revenues in many cases. I know from experience. As we cut costs, we also saw revenues drop accordingly. Many consumers are not spending as they have in the past and this has been causing many business owners to struggle. I do believe that expanding businesses into more areas of retail and services is the only long-term hope for many business to survive. That and more aggressive marketing such as advertising are the only options that small business owners have at the moment. It’s either that or close up shop and walk away. Several times in the past year we had considered shutting everything down and walking away. However, we aren’t quitters and began to brainstorm on how best to beat the economic downturn. The problem is having access to working capital and having a budget for advertising and marketing. Let’s face it, the days of disposable consumer income has dwindled to a trickle. So exactly how does a small business owner expand or marketing their business with less money? I’ve been researching this very matter and have come to several conclusions on how to gain additional financing that won’t send us into the poorhouse or bankruptcy. Most banks in our area are holding onto their money so hard that when they do had it out, there are corners missing form the
Consumers Must Fight Back – 94 Percent of Debt Lawsuits Become Default Judgments
December 8th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Scams. No Comments.
For whatever reason, upwards of ninety-four percent (94%) credit card / debt lawsuits are not responded to by consumers. Most often the reasons are that consumers/debtors cannot afford an attorney, or are afraid of the legal system or possibly not aware that a suit was filed against them for a debt. Consumer need to understand that if a civil debt lawsuit is filed and they do not respond, the plaintiff may obtain a default judgment against them. Once a default judgment is obtained, the plaintiff may opt to garnished wages, bank accounts, or possibly file liens on property to satisfy the judgment. Default judgments are extremely difficult for a consumer to fight after the fact. In the case of being afraid of court, there is nothing to fear. Civil lawsuits are mostly paperwork filed by both sides and rarely does the matter end up with all parties being in front of a judge. Even then half the battle of beating debt lawsuits (default judgments) is showing up or responding to the lawsuit. Consumers that cannot afford an attorney can many times beat debt collection lawsuits, especially third party (junk debt or Debt Buyer) lawsuits. Debt collection companies and collection attorneys have been exploiting the legal system for years and the exploitation is becoming more and more common. They know that in nearly nine out of ten cases the consumer won’t respond. Default judgments are “easy” money for them. And in a large number (upwards of 96%) of junk debt lawsuits filed the collection company cannot even prove a debt is owed. Consumers must fight back or risk further financial hardships. Consumers should not be afraid of the legal system. Until such time that the majority of consumers to do fight debt lawsuits in some manner then the collection industry will continue to exploit the tax payer funded legal system. According to attorney Sergei Lemberg, and the Wall Street Journal: Encore Capital Group, parent of Midland Funding, filed 245,000 lawsuits last year, and that approximately 94% of lawsuits result in default judgments. Debt buyers purchased $100 billion worth of debt last year, and often turn to the courts first… ~ Sergei Lemberg Once Encore sues, it is virtually assured a win, says Mr. Black, the company’s CEO. Roughly 94% of collection cases filed against borrowers result in default judgments in favor of the debt buyer, according to industry estimates. The majority of borrowers don’t have a lawyer, some don’t know they are even being sued, and others don’t appear in court, say judges. A growing number of cases brought by debt buyers are plagued by sloppy, incomplete or even false documentation of debts, according to the 20 judges around the country interviewed by the Journal. ~ Wall Street Journal Consumers must be educated on how to deal with debt lawsuits. While many think that courtrooms and judges are scary, in truth it isn’t much worse than sitting down at the bank with a loan officer. Responding to debt lawsuits are mostly paperwork and the consumers personal time to respond. If you are having financial difficulties or are being sued by collection companies, it is time to take a stand and fight back. After all what do you have to lose but forcing collection companies to prove the debt and avoid a default judgment.
IOC gallops more than 10% – India Infoline.com
December 1st, 2010. Published under Political Scams. No Comments.
The Hindu IOC gallops more than 10% India Infoline.com The finance ministry has not suggested recalling of corporate loans under scanner in the financial bribery scam , the financial services secretary R. Gopalan … RIL takes Sensex higher, broader markets weak NDTV.com Sensex, Nifty at day's high India Infoline.com Sensex sustains modest gains…IT stocks gain India Infoline.com NDTV.com
Popular Searches
Review: Financial Statements: A Step-by-Step Guide to Understanding and Creating Financial Reports
November 28th, 2010. Published under Economic News. No Comments.
The Lowest Price we could find is $17.99
Money for Nothin’ – American Thinker (blog)
November 8th, 2010. Published under Political Scams. No Comments.
Money for Nothin' American Thinker (blog) According to the Financial Times: The owner of the US's only nationwide cap-and-trade market has signaled the death of the seven-year-old industry, …
Here is the original post:
Money for Nothin’ – American Thinker (blog)
Consumer Legal Resources to Fight and Beat Debt Collectors
October 17th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Scams. No Comments.
Whether you are filing a case against a debt collector for FDCPA or FCRA violations or filing a brief in support of a motion that you filed there are several excellent legal resources online that are completely free. During the process of writing my first pro se consumer defense guide ( Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors ) and while working on my upcoming pro se consumer litigation guide ( Suing Abusive Debt Collectors ) I lived, ate and slept legal research. Quite literally thousands of hours’ worth of research to date. Probably more than the average college law student does during his studies to become an attorney. There isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t do some sort of legal reading or research. While I do have access to several legal publications, I find myself on a daily basis looking at new court decisions and making notes on legal citations using my favorite online resource. Several of them are updated daily, so I can easy find new information within days of a decision being made. The basis of building a good case or even defending one relies mainly on prior legal decisions. I look for similar cases and the subsequent decisions when I draft civil complaints against collection agencies or in defending myself from collection lawsuits. All it takes is a bit of reading and then using the information to your advantage. While I will not go into the details of drafting a civil complaint, or drafting a motion or a brief in this article, I will give you several pointers and resources. Unbelievably Google has a very good resource for legal opinions (with citations) called Google Scholar ( http://scholar.google.com/ ). When Google Scholar first went a live it was a bit sparse in resources, but has since added quite a bit of new information. I find much of the legal resources that I use in my books via Google Scholar. Example from Google Scholar on FDCPA violations by a debt collection company (citations) Foti v. NCO Financial Systems, Inc., 424 F. Supp. 2d 643 – Dist. Court, SD New York 2006 The provisions of the FDCPA are clear that in initial or subsequent communications, it must be disclosed that the communication is from a debt collector. – in DROSSIN v. NATIONAL ACTION FINANCIAL SERVICES INC., 2009 and 3 similar citations —holding collector’s identification of itself by name in pre-recorded message did not satisfy FDCPA’s requirement that it disclose that the communication is from a debt collector – in Costa v. National Action Financial Services, 2007 and 4 similar citations —a case also involving Defendant NCO, where the court held that a pre-recorded message left on a debtor’s voicemail was a “communication” under the FDCPA. – in Inman v. NCO FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, INC., 2009 and 3 similar citations —rejecting a debt collector’s assertion that its voicemail message was not a communication because it did not contain information regarding a debt – in Mark v. JC CHRISTENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC., 2009 and 2 similar citations As such, the call is “in connection with the collection of any debt,” within the meaning of 15 USC
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
Deceptive Marketers Banned from Selling Mortgage Relief Services; One Defendant Ordered to Pay $11.5 Million
July 26th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
Eight marketers are banned from selling mortgage modification or foreclosure relief services under settlements with the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC alleged that the marketers charged homeowners up-front fees and falsely claimed they could get their mortgage loans modified or prevent foreclosure on their homes. The settlements in three separate actions are part of the FTC’s ongoing efforts against scams that target financially distressed consumers. The FTC settled with the following defendants: Federal Loan Modification Law Center. Steven Oscherowitz settled FTC charges that he and others advertised and sold a so-called “Federal Loan Modification program.” They charged up to $3,000, much of which they required up-front, but Federal Loan Modification often failed to live up to the promised results, according to the FTC’s complaint. (4/6/2009 release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/04/hud.shtm ). The settlement order against Oscherowitz permanently bans him from selling mortgage relief services and from telemarketing any good or service. Under the order, Oscherowitz also is prohibited from misrepresenting any good or service, selling or otherwise benefitting from customers’ personal information, and failing to dispose of customer information properly. The order imposes an $11.5 million judgment against Oscherowitz, which represents the amount consumers paid to the defendants while he was involved in the alleged scheme. Any money collected to satisfy the judgment will be paid to injured consumers if practicable, or to the U.S. Treasury as disgorgement of ill-gotten gains. Two individual and three corporate defendants already have settled charges against them in this case, and the FTC continues to pursue its case against five other defendants. Loss Mitigation Services. Dean Shafer, Marion Anthony “Tony” Perry, and Bernadette Perry, also known as Bernadette Carr and Bernadette Carr-Perry, settled allegations that they falsely promised that a loan modification was assured or virtually assured if consumers paid an advance fee of up to $5,500. Shafer and the Perrys, who were principals of Loss Mitigation Services, Inc. (LMS) and Synergy Financial Management Corporation, doing business as Direct Lender or DirectLender.com (Direct Lender), also allegedly misrepresented that the companies were a department of, or affiliated with, the consumer’s lender or mortgage servicer. In addition, Shafer and the Perrys falsely claimed that consumers would receive refunds if LMS or Direct Lender failed to secure a loan modification. In many cases, the defendants failed to obtain loan modifications for consumers, and some consumers lost their homes while waiting for the promised results. (7/15/2009 release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/07/loanlies.shtm .) Under the settlement orders, Shafer and the Perrys are banned from selling mortgage relief services. The orders also impose a $6.2 million judgment that is suspended due to their inability to pay. In addition to the orders against Shafer and the Perrys, the FTC obtained a default order against LMS and Direct Lender, banning them from selling mortgage relief services and ordering them to pay $6.2 million. Hope Now Modifications. Brothers Salvatore and Nicholas Puglia, Hope Now Modifications LLC, and Hope Now Financial Services Corporation settled FTC charges that they falsely claimed that they could obtain mortgage loan modifications in all or virtually all cases and would refund consumers’ money if they failed, and that they were affiliated with, or part of, the HOPE NOW Alliance, a free federal homeowner assistance program. (3/24/2009 release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/03/newhope.shtm ). In addition to banning the defendants from selling mortgage relief services, the settlement order against them permanently bars them from misrepresenting any good or service, violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule, selling or otherwise benefitting from their customers’ personal information, and failing to dispose of their customer information properly. The order also imposes a judgment of almost $5.3 million, which will be suspended when the defendants surrender all of the funds in their bank accounts, which were frozen by the court. The Commission votes to authorize staff to file the stipulated final orders in Federal Loan Modification Law Center and Loss Mitigation Services were 5-0. The orders were entered by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 12, 2010, and July 14, 2010, respectively. The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the stipulated final order in Hope Now Modifications was 5-0. The order was entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on July 12, 2010. NOTE: Stipulated court orders are for settlement purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Stipulated orders have the full force of law when signed by the judge. The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics .
Read the original post:
Deceptive Marketers Banned from Selling Mortgage Relief Services; One Defendant Ordered to Pay $11.5 Million
Debt Collection Abuses Widespread
July 15th, 2010. Published under Business Scams. No Comments.
Debt companies pursuing consumers with a small army of collectors have swamped small claims courts with lawsuits and left a trail of abuses that, in 2009, led consumers to file more than 120,000 complaints with federal regulators. “The Debt Machine: How the Collection Industry Hounds Consumers and Overwhelms Courts,” released today by the National Consumer Law Center, shows an urgent need for stronger and updated consumer protections. “The recession has thrown millions of consumers into the jaws of a giant collection machine,” said Robert Hobbs, NCLC deputy director and report co-author. “Existing laws and regulatory efforts have lagged behind what is needed to effectively monitor powerful, wealthy and ubiquitous collections companies.” “The Debt Machine” tells the stories of consumers who have been dragged into a morass of annoying phone calls, false claims and harassment. It also identifies the financial links between debt companies and some of the nation’s leading banks, documents the buying and selling of billions of dollars of debts and describes the critical role played by hundreds of specialized law firms. This timely report echoes the FTC’s July 12 call for enhanced protections for consumers who face collections actions in small claims courts and private “forced arbitration” forums. “Millions of American families have been subjected to debt collection abuses in recent years,” Hobbs said. “Some have been struggling to pay accumulated debts. Some who don’t even owe the debts have been targeted by a sloppy and over-aggressive debt industry.” “These families – unlike some of the giant banks that are the leading creditors – haven’t asked for a bail-out,” Hobbs added. “But they are entitled to their rights not to be hounded, abused or pursued for claims that they never owed or are no longer legally enforceable. Consumers also deserve their day in court to resolve legitimate disputes.” The report is posted on-line at www.nclc.org/images/pdf/pr-reports/debt-machine.pdf . The National Consumer Law Center is a non-profit organization that seeks marketplace justice on behalf of vulnerable Americans. NCLC works with, and offers training to, thousands of legal-service, government and private attorneys, as well as community groups and organizations representing low-income families. Our legal manuals and consumer guides are standards of the field. Learn more and find a link to the new report on our Web site: http://www.nclc.org .
Original post:
Debt Collection Abuses Widespread
World Economic Outlook As of April 2010
July 5th, 2010. Published under Economic News. No Comments.
According to a report released in April 2010 by the International Monetary Fund here are some global considerations and expectations. The recovery is stronger than expected but the speed of the recovery will vary Financial conditions are easing in some sectors. Capital is flowing into emerging economies. Inflation pressures have lessened but they may still rear their
Follow this link:
World Economic Outlook As of April 2010
More Than A Dozen Marketers Banned from Selling Mortgage Relief Services; Repeat Offender Ordered to Pay $11.4 Million for Contempt
June 18th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
As part of the agency’s continuing crackdown on scams that prey on financially distressed homeowners, the Federal Trade Commission announced legal actions against more than a dozen marketers accused of pitching bogus mortgage modification or foreclosure relief services. FTC settlement orders ban 16 marketers from the mortgage modification or foreclosure relief business. The promoter of a similar scam has been ordered to pay $11.4 million for flouting a previous court order. And, in a new action, the FTC has charged another online marketing operation with masquerading as a government mortgage assistance program. The FTC settled with the following defendants, all of whom charged consumers up-front fees and made false promises that they could get their loans modified or prevent foreclosure: Making Home Affordable. The FTC alleged that the defendants impersonated MakingHomeAffordable.gov, a federal government Web site that helps eligible homeowners refinance or modify their mortgages. Defendants Sean Cantkier, Michael Haller, Alan LeStourgeon, Greg Rivera, Lisa Roye, and Jeffrey Altmire bought advertising links on the results pages of Internet search engines, and consumers looking for “making home affordable” were diverted to commercial Web sites that pitched loan modification services or sold consumers’ personal information to marketers of such services. (7/10/2009 release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/07/homeafford.shtm ) The defendants will have to give up their ill-gotten gains, ranging from $1,523 to $29,179. Separately, the Commission authorized and the court approved the addition of two counts to the complaint against Scot Lady and dismissed Kean Lee Lim as a defendant. The documents were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Federal Loan Modification Law Center. Defendants Nabile (“Bill”) Anz, Federal Loan Modification Law Center LLP, Anz & Associates PLC, Venture Legal Support PLC, and Jeffrey Broughton settled FTC charges that they hawked their so-called “Federal Loan Modification program” in a national advertising campaign targeting financially distressed homeowners. They charged up to $3,000, much of which they required up-front, but Federal Loan Modification often failed to live up to the promised results, according to the FTC’s complaint. (06/26/2009 release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/06/fedloanmod.shtm ) In addition to the ban on selling mortgage relief services, the settlement order against Anz, Federal Loan Modification Law Center, Anz & Associates, and Venture Legal Support imposes a $10.8 million judgment, and the order against Broughton imposes a $11.1 million judgment. The judgments are suspended based on their inability to pay. The full judgments will become due immediately if they are found to have misrepresented their financial condition or receive any money from the remaining defendants. The order was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The FTC continues to pursue its case against five other defendants. Apply2Save. Derek R. Oberholtzer, Apply2Save Inc., and Sleeping Giant Media Works, Inc. allegedly charged consumers up to $995 in advance for promised mortgage loan modification services. Once they were paid, they often failed to answer or return consumers’ telephone calls and sometimes falsely blamed delays on lenders, even though they had made little or no effort to contact lenders, the FTC charged. Most consumers who got loan modifications or avoided foreclosure did so only through their own efforts. (7/15/2009 release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/07/loanlies.shtm ) The defendants have filed for bankruptcy. The order imposes a judgment of more than $4 million, which is suspended based on their inability to pay. The full judgment will become due immediately if they are found to have misrepresented their financial condition. The order was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. New Hope Modifications. Brian Mammoccio and Donna Fisher have settled charges that they falsely claimed they could obtain mortgage loan modifications for consumers in all or virtually all cases, falsely promised a money-back guarantee, and masqueraded as part of the federally-endorsed HOPE NOW Alliance mortgage assistance network. According to the FTC complaint, in many cases, after consumers paid up-front fees, the defendants failed to return their phone calls, or falsely told them that negotiations were proceeding smoothly. In many instances, consumers learned from their lenders that the defendants had not contacted them. (3/24/2009 release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/03/newhope.shtm ) In addition to the ban on selling mortgage relief services, the settlement order imposes a judgment of almost $3.9 million, which will be suspended when the defendants surrender their assets as specified in the order. The full judgment will become due immediately if they are found to have misrepresented their financial condition. The order was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The $11.4 million contempt order against Bryan D’Antonio and three companies he controls, The Rodis Law Group Inc., America’s Law Group Inc., and The Financial Group Inc., came at the request of the FTC, which charged that operators of the scam had falsely claimed they would stop foreclosures and negotiate lower mortgage interest rates, monthly payments, and principal balances. Promoters of the scam claimed a 100 percent success rate and wrongly advised consumers to pay them instead of making mortgage payments. The FTC alleged that homeowners got few, if any, loan modifications, and many people lost their homes to foreclosure after paying them up to $5,500. The operators also falsely claimed that attorneys would check consumers’ loan documents for fraud and other lending violations that they would use as leverage in negotiating loan modifications, according to the complaint. In May 2009, the FTC charged the defendants with violating a 2001 order that banned D’Antonio from telemarketing and misleading consumers about goods or services. The FTC obtained the 2001 order against D’Antonio and his former company, Data Medical Capital Inc., for operating a work-at-home medical billing opportunity scheme. D’Antonio also pleaded guilty to mail fraud for his involvement in that scam and served almost three years in prison. In addition to the financial sanctions against D’Antonio and the three companies, the court barred him from making misleading statements about refunds, exchanges, and total costs or quantity. The FTC has collected more than $1 million from the defendants’ available assets thus far, and will refer the remainder of the $11.4 million judgment to the Department of the Treasury for collection. The FTC has set up a consumer information line at 1-888-398-8205. Fedmortgageloans.com . The FTC has charged Dominant Leads LLC, MAD TJ Holdings LLC, James Rambadt, Thomas Hayes, and James Kane with misrepresenting that the mortgage assistance and debt relief programs they are marketing are affiliated with the federal or state government, and that consumers may be eligible for a federal or state loan modification or debt relief program. Some of the defendants’ Web sites use logos similar to the federal government’s MakingHomeAffordable.gov logo, and many of their sites feature official government agency seals or logos and links to federal government Web sites. When consumers seeking mortgage assistance or debt relief services call the toll-free numbers on the defendants’ Web sites, they are connected to other companies that sell supposed mortgage assistance relief or debt relief services for a fee. The FTC seeks to stop the defendants’ illegal practices and make them forfeit their ill-gotten gains. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on June 16, 2010. The Commission votes were unanimous in these actions. The Federal Trade Commission is a member of the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. For more information on the task force, go to www.stopfraud.gov . NOTE: The Commission authorizes the filing of a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law. Stipulated court orders are for settlement purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Stipulated orders have the full force of law when signed by the judge. The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics .
See the original post here:
More Than A Dozen Marketers Banned from Selling Mortgage Relief Services; Repeat Offender Ordered to Pay $11.4 Million for Contempt
Popular Searches
Bank of America / Countrywide Will Pay $108 Million for Overcharging Struggling Homeowners; Loan Servicer Inflated Fees and Mishandled Loans
June 7th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud. No Comments.
Two Countrywide mortgage servicing companies will pay $108 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that they collected excessive fees from cash-strapped borrowers who were struggling to keep their homes. The $108 million represents one of the largest judgments imposed in an FTC case, and the largest mortgage servicing case. It will be used to reimburse overcharged homeowners whose loans were serviced by Countrywide before it was acquired by Bank of America in July 2008. “Life is hard enough for homeowners who are having trouble paying their mortgage. To have a major loan servicer like Countrywide piling on illegal and excessive fees is indefensible,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz. “We’re very pleased that homeowners will be reimbursed as a result of our settlement.” According to the complaint filed by the FTC, Countrywide’s loan-servicing operation deceived homeowners who were behind on their mortgage payments into paying inflated fees – fees that could add up to hundreds or even thousands of dollars. Many of the homeowners had taken out loans originated or funded by Countrywide’s lending arm, including subprime or “nontraditional” mortgages such as payment option adjustable rate mortgages, interest-only mortgages, and loans made with little or no income or asset documentation, the complaint states. Mortgage servicers are responsible for the day-to-day management of homeowners’ mortgage loans, including collecting and crediting monthly loan payments. Homeowners cannot choose their mortgage servicer. In March 2008, before being acquired by Bank of America, Countrywide was ranked as the top mortgage servicer in the United States, with a balance of more than $1.4 trillion in its servicing portfolio. When homeowners fell behind on their payments and were in default on their loans, Countrywide ordered property inspections, lawn mowing, and other services meant to protect the lender’s interest in the property, according to the FTC complaint. But rather than simply hire third-party vendors to perform the services, Countrywide created subsidiaries to hire the vendors. The subsidiaries marked up the price of the services charged by the vendors – often by 100% or more – and Countrywide then charged the homeowners the marked-up fees. The complaint alleges that the company’s strategy was to increase profits from default-related service fees in bad economic times. As a result, even as the mortgage market collapsed and more homeowners fell into delinquency, Countrywide earned substantial profits by funneling default-related services through subsidiaries that it created solely to generate revenue. According to the FTC, under most mortgage contracts, homeowners must pay for necessary default-related services, but mortgage servicers may not mark up the cost to make a profit or charge homeowners for services that are not reasonable or appropriate to protect the mortgage holder’s interest in the property. Homeowners do not have any choice in who performs default-related services or the cost of those services, and they have no option to shop for those services. In addition, in servicing loans for borrowers trying to save their homes in Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings, the complaint charges that Countrywide made false or unsupported claims to borrowers about amounts owed or the status of their loans. Countrywide also failed to tell borrowers in bankruptcy when new fees and escrow charges were being added to their loan accounts. The FTC alleges that after the bankruptcy case closed and borrowers no longer had bankruptcy court protection, Countrywide unfairly tried to collect those amounts, including in some cases via foreclosure. Settlement Terms The FTC’s complaint and settlement order name two mortgage servicers as defendants: Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, formerly doing business as Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP. The settlement requires Countrywide to pay $108 million, which will be refunded to homeowners who Countrywide overcharged before July 2008. In addition, the settlement order prohibits Countrywide from taking advantage of borrowers who have fallen behind on their payments. The defendants continue to service millions of mortgage loans, including tens of thousands of loans involving borrowers in bankruptcy and foreclosure. In the servicing of loans, the defendants are permanently barred from: Making false or unsubstantiated representations about loan accounts, such as amounts owed. Charging any fee for a service unless it is authorized by the loan instruments, by law, or by the consumer for a specific service requested by the consumer. Charging any fee for a default-related service unless it is a reasonable fee charged by a third party for work actually performed. If the service is provided by an affiliate of a defendant, the fee must be within limits set by state law, investor guidelines, and market rates. Defendants must obtain annual, independent market reviews of their affiliates’ fees to ensure that they are not excessive. In addition, Countrywide must advise consumers if it intends to use affiliates for default-related services and, if so, provide a fee schedule of the amounts charged by the affiliates. The settlement also requires Countrywide to make significant changes to its bankruptcy servicing practices. For example, Countrywide must send borrowers in Chapter 13 bankruptcy a monthly notice with information about what amounts the borrower owes – including any fees assessed during the prior month. The defendants also must implement a data integrity program to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the data they use to service loans in Chapter 13 bankruptcy. This case was brought with the invaluable assistance of the United States Trustee Program, the component of the Department of Justice that oversees the administration of bankruptcy cases and private trustees. This action represents the FTC’s continuing work to help consumers who have been hurt by the economic downturn. For more information about the case and the FTC’s refund program, see www.ftc.gov/countrywide . The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the complaint and settlement was 5-0. The complaint and settlement were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The Federal Trade Commission is a member of the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. For more information on the Task Force, visit www.stopfraud.gov . NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law. Stipulated court orders are for settlement purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Stipulated orders have the full force of law when signed by the judge. The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics .
climate amendment to financial reg bill – Gather.com
May 12th, 2010. Published under Political Scams. No Comments.
climate amendment to financial reg bill Gather.com Here's an amendment that could stop the CO2 credits swaps cold and remove the financial incentive to pass Cap and Trade . It might make some politicians take … and more
Great Vampire Squid Goldman Sachs finally gets its collar felt – Telegraph.co.uk (blog)
April 16th, 2010. Published under Political Scams. No Comments.
Great Vampire Squid Goldman Sachs finally gets its collar felt Telegraph.co.uk (blog) … every part of the Financial Crisis so far, not to mention their “strategic” positioning in the Cap-and-Trade ponzi-scheme that is now in the making. … and more
Helping Hands of Hope Telemarketers Barred from Falsely Telling Consumers That Proceeds from the Sale of Household Goods Will Benefit Charities or the Disabled
April 9th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
Complaint Brought as Part of 2008′s “Operation Tele-Phoney” Law Enforcement Sweep An Arizona-based telemarketing operation that identified itself as “Helping Hands of Hope” has settled charges that it conned consumers into buying household items such as light bulbs and trash bags that were priced substantially higher than at retail, by falsely promising the proceeds would benefit charities or the disabled. The defendants will be permanently barred from such fraudulent conduct and from calling consumers who have asked not to be called. According to the FTC’s complaint, filed in May 2008 as part of the “Operation Tele-Phoney” multi-agency law enforcement sweep against telemarketing fraud, the Helping Hands of Hope defendants used telemarketing to target consumers nationwide, including many who were elderly. In addition to making false promises, Helping Hands’ telemarketers harassed consumers who resisted buying products, sent consumers products they never ordered, and then claimed that they had, in fact, ordered them, the complaint alleged. Finally, the FTC charged that Helping Hands’ telemarketers violated the National Do Not Call Registry rules by calling consumers even after they had asked not to be called again. The court order settles the FTC’s charges against Helping Hands of Hope, Inc.; U.S. Blind Services, Inc.; Employment Opportunities of America, Inc.; Third Strike Employment, Inc.; and Robyn Mayhan. It prohibits the defendants from misrepresenting, or assisting anyone else in misrepresenting, that: a consumer’s purchase will benefit handicapped or disabled people; anyone working for the companies is handicapped or disabled; any of the companies’ products are made or packaged by the handicapped or disabled; or that any company operates a charitable organization. The order also bars the defendants from mailing or billing consumer for any merchandise they did not order. Further, Helping Hands and the other defendants are prohibited from violating the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule, including calling any number that is on the National Do Not Call Registry, calling consumers who have asked not to be called again, and failing to pay the annual fee required to access the Registry. Finally, the order imposes a judgment of $26.3 million against all of the defendants. The corporate defendants will turn over assets worth more than $60,000 in partial satisfaction of the judgment. The judgment against Mayhan, the companies’ president, has been suspended based on her inability to pay. She will have to pay the full amount if she is later found to have misrepresented her financial condition. The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file agreed-upon final order in consent of the court action was 4-0. It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, on April 1, 2010, and entered by the Court on April 6, 2010. NOTE: This stipulated final order is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendant of a law violation. A stipulated final order requires approval by the court and has the force of law when signed by the judge. Copies of the stipulated final order are available from the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, click: http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/complaint.shtm or call 1-877-382-4357. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. For free information on a variety of consumer topics, click http://ftc.gov/bcp/consumer.shtm .
Friday is Economic Groundhog Day
April 3rd, 2010. Published under Economic News. No Comments.
As the country sleeps in, thanks to the Good Friday holiday (for people related to the financial markets that is), the most important economic data since the beginning of time (as the media would have you believe) or at least since Claudius Nero Caesar announced the State of the Republic, will be released. At exactly 8:30
See original here:
Friday is Economic Groundhog Day
Direct Marketing Associates Corp Settles FTC Charges; Falsely Told Consumers They Were Pre-Approved for Auto Loans
March 30th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
A marketing company that solicits prospective customers for automobile dealers has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it falsely told low-income and “credit-challenged” consumers that they were pre-approved for auto loans and improperly obtained their names from a consumer reporting agency. According to the FTC, the company prepared sales solicitations for automobile dealers telling consumers that a specific finance company would lend them money to buy a car, but the finance companies featured in the ads lacked business licenses and didn’t actually make any loans. The marketing company obtained lists of consumers from a credit reporting agency by falsely representing that the lists would be used to make prescreened firm offers of credit to consumers. The settlement order bars the company and its principal from telling consumers they are pre-approved for, or are likely to receive, an extension of credit or financing unless the defendants know that a lender can make good on the offer for all eligible customers. The order also prohibits the defendants from obtaining credit reports from consumer reporting agencies without a purpose authorized by the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The order imposes a $157,000 civil penalty that is suspended based on the defendants’ inability to pay. The full judgment will be imposed if they are found to have misrepresented their financial condition. The defendants are Direct Marketing Associates Corp. and its president and owner, John M. Rainey, Jr. The Commission vote to authorize staff to refer the complaint and proposed stipulated final order to the Department of Justice for filing was 4-0. The documents were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix Division. NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. A complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law. Stipulated court orders are for settlement purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Stipulated orders have the full force of law when signed by the judge. The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics .
See the original post here:
Direct Marketing Associates Corp Settles FTC Charges; Falsely Told Consumers They Were Pre-Approved for Auto Loans
Popular Searches
Loan Pitchman James Nicholson Permanently Banned from Telemarketing
March 30th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
Loan Pitchman Permanently Banned from Telemarketing Consumers Charged Up-Front Fee for Supposed General-Use Credit Card The telemarketing business will be permanently off limits to a deceptive pitchman whom the Federal Trade Commission sued last year for allegedly tricking consumers into paying hundreds of dollars for a credit card that could only be used to buy merchandise from his companies’ Web sites. Under a settlement order with the FTC, pitchman James Nicholson and a group of companies he controls have settled FTC charges related to an advance-fee credit card scam and a bogus advance-fee interest-rate reduction/debt negotiation program, as well as allegations that they debited consumer bank accounts without permission, failed to tell consumers they would not be able to get a refund, and illegally called consumers whose names were on the National Do Not Call Registry. Under the settlement order, Nicholson and his companies will pay more than $200,000. The FTC filed a complaint in 2009 charging Nicholson and several of his businesses with using deceptive telemarketing pitches since 2006 to offer consumers with poor or no credit a general-use credit card in exchange for an up-front fee of as much as $250. Telemarketers working for Nicholson’s chief company, Group One Network, also claimed that consumers would get access to a significant line of credit that could be used for cash advances, and that their payment histories would be reported to the three major credit bureaus. In reality, consumers who paid the fee received an online shopping card they could only use to buy products from Group One’s Web sites, they could not get cash advances, and their credit histories were never reported to the credit bureaus. In April 2009, the FTC filed an amended complaint naming four more companies and adding new allegations relating to the deceptive telemarketing of a bogus advance-fee interest-rate reduction/debt negotiation program by a business operating as Credit First Financial Solutions. The FTC’s amended complaint alleged that Nicholson’s telemarketers, among other things, falsely represented that in exchange for an up-front fee, they could lower consumers’ interest rates by negotiating with consumers’ creditors; would provide consumers a minimum savings of $1,500 to $20,000 within the first 30 days of their enrollment; and would provide a full refund if they failed to achieve the promised savings. The settlement announced today bans Nicholson, a repeat offender who pleaded guilty to wire fraud in connection with fraudulent telemarketing in 1995, from telemarketing and from selling advance-fee loans or credit cards. It also bans him from assisting anyone in telemarketing or marketing such loans. Furthermore, the settlement prohibits Nicholson and his companies from misleading consumers about credit-related goods or services, or any other goods or services they market. Finally, the order imposes a $17.2 million judgment against all the defendants, which has been suspended based on their inability to pay the full amount. However, Nicholson will turn over a 31-foot power boat, his Nissan Pathfinder, and jewelry and art valued at more than $10,000. The other defendants will turn over more than $200,000 in cash and other assets. The settlement resolves the FTC’s charges against: Group One Networks, Inc., doing business as (d/b/a) Credit Line Gold Card, The USA Workers, TheUSAWork.com, and TheUSAWorkers.com; US Gold Line, LLC, d/b/a USGoldLine.com, Gainsway Credit, and GainswayCredit.com; My Online Credit Store, LLC d/b/a MyOnlineCreditStore.com, MYOnlinecr.com, Diamond Executive, NewECredit, and NewECredit.com; James Nicholson, individually and as president of Group One Networks, Inc., and manager of US Gold Line, LLC and My Online Credit Store, LLC; Credit First Financial Solution, LLC; Group One Administrative, Inc.; Tall Pines Administrative Services, LLC; and Sun Coast Data Services, LLC. Brett Fisher, the chief executive officer of Group One Networks, Inc., and manager of US Gold Line, LLC and My Online Credit Store, LLC, settled similar FTC charges in December 2009. He agreed to a court order banning him from selling advance-fee credit cards and from violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule. The order against Fisher also imposed a $17.2 million judgment, which was suspended based on his inability to pay. He has turned over $21,000 in cash to the FTC. The FTC vote authorizing the staff to file stipulated final the order against all the Group One Networks defendants was 4-0. It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, on March 17, 2010, and entered on March 18, 2010. The FTC complaints amending the original complaint and approving the settlement order against Fisher were both 4-0. The amended complaint was filed in court on April 14, 2009, and the court entered the Fisher order on January 12, 2010. The FTC received invaluable assistance in this matter from the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the University of Central Florida Police Department, Largo Police Department, and the Better Business Bureau of West Florida, Inc. NOTE: This stipulated final order is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendant of a law violation. A stipulated final order requires approval by the court and has the force of law when signed by the judge. Copies of the stipulated final order are available from the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, click: http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/complaint.shtm or call 1-877-382-4357. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. For free information on a variety of consumer topics, click http://ftc.gov/bcp/consumer.shtm .
Go here to see the original:
Loan Pitchman James Nicholson Permanently Banned from Telemarketing
Attention Georgians Prepare to Pay Higher Taxes if Georgia and Other States Don’t Block Health Care Reform
March 24th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Scams. No Comments.
This issue not only affects all Georgian’s, but every US Citizen. What congress isn’t telling you is the effect that the Health Care Reform will have on State funded programs that are paid for by taxes. The health care reform is going to cause state and federal taxes to go up, including state sales tax. Under the new health care mandate an estimated 600,000 to 700,000 additional Georgian’s will be enrolled (forced by federal law) onto the stat Medicaid program. Georgia will have to raise taxes to help offset the financial burden that the Health Care Reform will put on the states. The federal health care reform will cost the state of Georgia an estimated additional $500 million dollars a year. Currently the State of Georgia has a budget deficit and the reform bill is only going to add to the deficit.
There is nothing cuddly about the WWF – Telegraph.co.uk (blog)
March 21st, 2010. Published under Political Scams. No Comments.
There is nothing cuddly about the WWF Telegraph.co.uk (blog) If this scheme ever comes off – and it still might, if Americans are foolish enough to vote for Cap and Trade – then the WWF will have the financial clout … WWF Mines The Green Gold Rush To The Amazon: Making $60 billion From Fear Anorak.co.uk (satire) all 5 news articles
The Empire of the Out of Touch – Canada Free Press
March 21st, 2010. Published under Political Scams. No Comments.
The Empire of the Out of Touch Canada Free Press The second was to be Cap and Trade , which would implement government control over American industry and turn the financial markets into a government program …
Read the original here:
The Empire of the Out of Touch – Canada Free Press
The Good News About Utah Businesses and the SBA
March 20th, 2010. Published under Economic News. No Comments.
When was the last time you heard some “Good News” about the financial situation this country is in? Well, recently during National Small Business Week, we did have some good news about being in business in Utah. I’m sure you are aware by now that the SBA requirements surrounding financing of Small Businesses has come under
See more here:
The Good News About Utah Businesses and the SBA
Repo 105 Cause Of Economic Collapse?
March 13th, 2010. Published under Economic News. No Comments.
In August of 2008 most Americans felt relatively safe in their economic lives. Although rumblings had been heard in the financial community of troubles in the credit markets and credit default swaps very few people had any idea of the extent the problems penetrated into the financial system. Over the past almost 2 years the US
Follow this link:
Repo 105 Cause Of Economic Collapse?
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
Payment Processing CEO Banned from the Business; Company Illegally Debited Millions from Consumers’ Bank Accounts
March 1st, 2010. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
The chief executive officer of a payment processing company will be banned from the business as part of a settlement resolving Federal Trade Commission charges that the company illegally debited millions of dollars in bogus charges from consumers’ bank accounts. In 2007, the FTC charged the executive, Tarzenea Dixon, her company, and others with processing unauthorized debits on behalf of deceptive telemarketers and Internet-based schemes they knew, or deliberately avoided knowing, were violating the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule. In addition, the attorneys general of Illinois, Iowa, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, and Vermont charged the defendants with violating various state laws. According to the FTC complaint, the company played a critical role in helping many of its clients carry out these illegal schemes by providing access to the banking system and the means to extract money from consumers’ bank accounts. Between June 23, 2004, and March 31, 2006, the defendants processed more than $200 million in debits and attempted debits. More than $69 million of the attempted debits were returned or rejected by consumers or their banks for various reasons, an indication that in many cases consumers had never authorized the charges. In many instances, the merchants either failed to deliver the promised products or services or sent consumers relatively worthless items. The settling defendant is Tarzenea Dixon. Her co-defendants are Your Money Access, LLC d/b/a Netchex Corp., Universal Payment Solutions, Check Recovery Systems, Nterglobal Payment Solutions, and Subscription Services, Ltd.; YMA Company, LLC; and Derrelle Janey. In addition to permanently banning Dixon from any payment processing, the settlement order bans her from substantially aiding any marketer when she knows, or consciously avoids knowing, that it is violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule. The order imposes a $22 million judgment that is stayed based on her inability to pay. The full judgment will become due immediately if she is found to have misrepresented her financial condition. The Commission vote approving the consent in settlement of the court action against Dixon was 4-0. The FTC filed the documents in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on December 22, 2009, and court entered the order on January 11, 2010. Litigation against Janey continues. On October 28, 2008, the court entered a default judgment against the corporate defendants, Your Money Access, LLC and YMA Company, LLC, barring them from payment processing for any client whose business practices are deceptive, unfair, or abusive within the meaning of the FTC Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, and the state consumer protection laws. The case was part of the FTC’s “Operation Tele-PHONEY” telemarketing fraud law enforcement sweep announced in May 2008. Wachovia Bank Redress Program In December 2008, the FTC announced a settlement between the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and Wachovia Bank, N.A. to issue more than $150 million in redress checks to victims of telemarketing fraud. The checks reimbursed consumers for funds deducted from their accounts by three payment processors that maintained accounts with Wachovia, including Your Money Access. NOTE: Stipulated final judgments and orders are for settlement purposes only and do not constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Consent judgments 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 .
Gore: Kick out lawmakers who fail on climate – The Hill (blog)
February 27th, 2010. Published under Political Scams. No Comments.
Gore: Kick out lawmakers who fail on climate The Hill (blog) If he were forced to divest his financial interests in companies that stand to make billions from Cap and Trade (Kleiner Perkins as an example) we would not … and more
People and Politics | Unemployment Falls – Why Germany’s Jobless Rate Has Hit a New Low
February 19th, 2010. Published under Unemployment. No Comments.
In spite of the financial crisis, the number of unemployed in Germany is the lowest it’s been in 16 years. Currently, some three million people here are without work. Labour market reforms introduced by the then chancellor Gerhard schrã¶der are credited with lowering the unemployment rate. Many people are being forced to accept low-paying jobs. Well-qualified job seekers, who had been unemployed for long periods, are now finding jobs too. We try to find out the reasons for the turnaround on the job market.
Read more:
People and Politics | Unemployment Falls – Why Germany’s Jobless Rate Has Hit a New Low
Popular Searches
Regulators of the World Unite!
February 17th, 2010. Published under Economic News. No Comments.
With apologies to Marx and Engels, this may also sound like the clarion call for those responsible for regulating financial institutions. We have already seen developed countries discuss how regulations on banking, derivatives, etc, can better be coordinated… all the better to keep the financial players from picking the best domicile for their activity. And, now, we
Read more from the original source:
Regulators of the World Unite!
Score Another Consumer Advocate Victory for FMD Consumer Blog
February 6th, 2010. Published under Business Scams. No Comments.
This was a hard ‘nut” to crack. I finally determined that FreedomRoad Financial was owned by Evergreen Bank Group / Bancorp Financial Inc, both of Oak Brook Illinois. The backstory A consumer and his family was being harassed by FreedomRoad Financial for being a credit reference on a loan application. Imagine that, being harassed over someone else’s debt for being a credit reference. FreedomRoad Financial’s alleged investigator even called the consumers family and scared the consumers mother to such a degree that she literally “freaked” out. I suspect though that the “investigator” is an employee of FreedomRoad Financial. Read the fill story here on FMD Consumer (opens in a new window). As a consumer advocate / Consumer Watchdog, I managed to contact the CEO of Evergreen Bank Group and the Vice President of FreedomRoad Financial and within 24 hours they contacted me and are investigating the issue. Hopefull they will fire the “investigator” and “Michelle” for violating collection laws. This is the response I received from Tom Collins the Vice President of FreedomRoad Financial: “Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
UPDATED: Freedom Financial of California Behind Harrassing Debt Collection Phones Calls – 866-354-5387
February 5th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud. No Comments.
UPDATE: The consumer that was begin harrassed over a debt that wasn’t his, he was merely a reference on the original loan. He finally received a response, Freedom Road Financial in Los Angeles were behind the calls. I aso discovered the Freedom Financial involved with the harrassment is owned by Evergreen Bank Group which is owned Bancorp
UPDATED: Abusive Debt Collection Tactics from 866-354-5387 Freedom Financial of Los Angeles
February 3rd, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
I received an email last night from a consumer that claims they are only a reference listed on an account. Supposedly he isn’t a signee at all, yet he and his family are being harassed by a caller (866-354-5387) claiming to be an investigator and stated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) didn’t apply to him. Hi, i have been contacted by a debt collector looking for a person who put me down as a reference, i told the investigator Davis i did not know where the motorcycle was and i had already told that to previous collectors from his firm, i asked him never to call me again, he then stated that he was not a collector rather an investigator, and was not bound by the collection laws, he then went on to call my family members telling them i was in major trouble freaking out my mother , is there anything i can do in this situation? i recorded a call from him. he would not give me a company name but did leave a number 866-354-5387 . What are my options? If it were me, I would temporarily block my caller ID and call the number to see if the number is legitimate. If it is find out who they are and then run to the closest consumer protection you can find. “Investigator” Davis” is not an investigator, he is a debt collector using illegal tactics, that is why he refused to give you the company name, he knows he he is breaking the law by calling the consumers family members and scaring them. If he calls back again ask him for his state investigator license, if he isn’t a debt collector (he probably is though) then remind him that investigators in your state are licensed by the state and he must provide you his investigators license number. What will mostly likely happen is one of the following: (a) he’ll hang up and not call again, (b) Give you some sort of bogus license number. If he does then you can get your state involved by filing a complaint with the state regarding a fraudulent investigator. After all if he gives you a bogus number than he is incriminating himself. If he refuses to give you a license number you bet he is a debt collector that breaks the law. Either way you got him and the company involved by the “cahones”. While I believe it is a debt collector it may be a collection scam, there are quite a few of them making the rounds across the U.S. I would suggest talking to your family and tell them that it is a debt collector using scare tactics. Ask them if possible to record future conversations or at least keep a log with the dates and times that they call each family member. If you do find the company behind the number and sue them, you will need the times/dates for use in court. I did look into the phone number, I didn’t find the company behind the number but did find references to complaints of “Marshalls” and “Investigators” calling from that number. Typical rouge debt collector scare tactics. Until such time that the identity of the company behind the 866-354-5387 is found, a consumer has limited resources in which to fight back. I would start with my states consumer affairs division and file a complaint. You may also want to consider filing a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), it probably won’t help you personally but there will be a record of the abuse. You could also file a report with the local police regarding the harassing phone numbers and then have the phone company put a trace on the line. The phone company generally won’t put a trace on a line unless a police report has been filed. I once had a debt collection company call me claiming to be an officer of UCB (United Collection Bureau) and she got all kinds of nasty, even told me she would call my neighbors and while on the phone with me she did, and my neighbor called me and told me immediately. I should have sued them, but at the time I didn’t know how (now I do). I did call United Collection Bureau and talked to the vice-president of compliance. After playing back the conversation between myself and the UCB officer, he said measures would be taken and I never go hassled by UCB again. Like I said I had the physical evidence, I just wish I knew then what I know about suing debt collectors for violations of state and federal law. UPDATE: The consumer that was begin harrassed over a debt that wasn’t his, he was merely a reference on the original loan. He finally received a response, Freedom Road Financial in Los Angeles were behind the calls. “I told “agent Marshal Davis” out of “northern CA” that i did not trust that he was a real investigator, and might be a phishing scam. I managed to get him to tell me that he is working on behalf of FreedomRoad Financial www.frf1.com he then gave me his contact at freedom road financial Michelle Peacan and her number to verify that he was working for them, i called her at 775.562.3816 and asked if i could record the call and she said no and that she knew who i was and that she has an agent working the case, i then said i did not trust that she worked for freedom road financial and she gave me the their 866.455.7623 main phone number to verify that she was a company representative, stating that she was the only michelle working there, sure enough dial by name brings you to Michelle Peacan, I told her that i was recording the call, i said that i never signed for anything and was not contractually obligated to them and wanted them to stop calling me, she stated that i was involved because i had once told their collection agent i knew where my friend lived and where their bike may be, i then asked if i was in trouble she said that i was involved with the theft of the bike, again i asked if i was in trouble and she said she was not a lawyer and that she would do what she had to to get the bike back and hung up on me.” Need help in dealing with crazy or sue happy debt collectors? Give my book a read .
Read the original post:
UPDATED: Abusive Debt Collection Tactics from 866-354-5387 Freedom Financial of Los Angeles
Popular Searches
I’m about to Sue Worldwide Asset Purchasing II LLC, Hollander Law Offices LLC and Leading Edge Recovery Solutions. They are now Co-Defendants
February 2nd, 2010. Published under Business Scams. No Comments.
These jokers take an alleged $12,000.00 debt, turn it into a $15,000.00 debt then in short order turn it into a $17,000.00 debt. Time to start suing. Evidently Worldwide Asset Purchasing II, LLC (State of Nevada) thinks I owe them. As far as I know I have never had a MBNA account. I did receive a long time ago something stating I owed $12,000.00 to MBNA. May be I do and maybe I don’t. Anyway the junk debt buyer (pays pennies on the dollar for debts), turned the alleged debt over to Hollander Law Offices (a foreign corporation in Georgia) claimed that I owed $15,456.30. Hollander seemed to enjoy leaving voice mail at my employers office that they are debt collectors, we aren’t talking once but many times. I never gave anyone permission to contact my employer about a debt. Can you say multiple violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)? Hollander Law Offices, LLC sent me a letter on 9/12/2009 stating that I owed $15,460.30 (remember the date) I of course ignored the empty legal threats of Hollander Law Offices, LLC. And so I should have. On January 25, 2010 I receive a letter from Leading Edge Recovery Solutions, stating that they represented Worldwide Asset Purchasing II, LLC. for the amount of $17,007.15. Somehow in the period of about 5 months the alleged amount owed jumped $1,541.85. That’s a lot of interest of fees. Bear with me and I will explain all of the violations of the FDCAP this entails.