Author Topic: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action  (Read 20464 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Flyingifr

  • -DEAN EMERITUS-
  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 8351
  • Welcome to my Temper Tantrum
Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
« Reply #60 on: November 05, 2015 03:49:50 PM »
The 7th 2015 CAMCO Aware nominee and the 28th overall has surfaced (and has been sunk by the Federal Trade Commission). The coveted CAMCO Award is hereby given (posthumously, of course) to:  BAM Financial, LLC, a California limited liability company, also doing business as West and Associates, Chelsea & Associates, and Chelsea Financial; Everton Financial, LLC, a California limited liability company, also doing business as West and Associates; Legal Financial Consulting, LLC, a California limited liability company, also doing business as West and Associates Services; Luis O. Carrera, also known as Luis O. Carrera-Cavero; and Robert LLaury

What did they do to earn such a presitgious award? To quote from the FTC Compliant,

Quote
Defendants are third-party debt collectors that purchase portfolios of old past-due consumer debt, primarily credit card debt that has been charged off by the credit card issuer. Defendants attempt to collect on that debt by contacting consumers over the telephone, by mail, and
over the Internet.

Since at least 2011, Defendants have regularly engaged in abusive and deceptive acts or practices in an effort to extract money from consumers
around the country.

Defendants' initial contact with consumers is usually by telephone. Defendants' debt collectors call consumers and tell them that they owe Defendants substantial sums of money for an outstanding debt. Typically these are credit card debts that may be as much as ten years old.

In numerous instances, Defendants have called consumers repeatedly or continuously with the intent to annoy, harass, or abuse. For example, Defendants have:

(i) continued to call consumers and their family members even after being told to stop;
(ii) called multiple times per day or frequently over an extended period of time; and
(iii) called the consumers' places of employment, even though the collectors know or should know that it is inconvenient for them to receive calls
there. In one case, after the consumer disclosed that she worked for a government agency and asked not to be contacted at work through a public number, Defendants immediately called her employer's main office number and asked for the consumer's supervisor's name and number and left a message.

In many cases, Defendants have used obscene or profane language or language the natural consequence of which is to abuse the hearer, in an
attempt to coerce consumers into paying them. For example, Defendants told one consumer's mother that "no wonder your daughter is in such a predicament with a mother like you." In another instance, Defendants told the consumer that he was "obviously ... not a genius" because he
answered the Defendants' calls at work. Defendants told another consumer that they would "come after her a**," and another that she was lying and should "shut up."
 
Defendants also frequently have claimed that they are law enforcement, lawyers, members of a law firm, or working with a law firm, when in
fact, they are not.
 
Defendants have routinely sent consumers a form letter titled "LITIGATION NOTICE" with a reference line of "CHELSEA AND ASSOCIATES vs. [CONSUMER]" or "BAM FINANCIAL vs. [CONSUMER]" or "WEST AND ASSOCIATES vs. [CONSUMER]." The letter also contains multiple other false
threats and misrepresentations. For example, the letter states that the consumer must contact the Defendants within 10 days or "litigation will be commenced immediately." The letter also states that the consumer will be required to pay 10% interest on the unpaid balance of the judgment, as well as "attorneys fees, court costs, and processing fees." And in these letters, Defendants warn that other adverse action will be
taken against consumers, including wage garnishment, levy on the consumer's bank accounts or safe deposit box, liens on real or personal property and suspension of real estate, contractor, or driver's license.

In their telephone calls to consumers, Defendants also have used false threats and other means of intimidation to try to coerce consumers into paying them. For example, Defendants have falsely threatened consumers with lawsuits, or falsely asserted that a lawsuit has already been filed against the consumer.
 
In fact, after Defendants have threatened legal action, Defendants usually have not filed any such action to collect the debt. In addition, because they have not filed an action, obtained a judgment, and received an award of costs, Defendants cannot hold the consumer liable for any expenses or legal fees that they incur.
 
In numerous instances, Defendants have falsely threatened consumers with arrest or incarceration if the consumer refuses to pay. In one instance, Defendants told a consumer's 84 year-old mother that they had a warrant out for her daughter's arrest, and later told the consumer they were bounty hunters who would arrange for the sheriff to serve her. Defendants have also falsely threatened to report consumers to government authorities and falsely threatened the loss of child custody if the consumer refuses to pay.
 
Defendants have called consumers and employers, and falsely claimed to be process servers seeking an address at which the consumer may be served with legal process in connection with an action against the consumer.
 
On many occasions, Defendants also have telephoned consumers' family members and told them that the consumer is delinquent on a debt and that the consumer will suffer adverse consequences if the consumer fails to make a payment. 

In addition, in their initial and in their subsequent communications with consumers, Defendants have frequently failed to identify themselves as debt collectors.

In their initial communications with consumers, Defendants also have frequently failed to disclose that information obtained from the consumer will be used for debt collection purposes.

And in numerous instances, Defendants have failed to provide consumers within five days after the initial communication with a statutorily-required written notice -where the information was not contained in the initial communication and the consumer had not paid the debt -setting forth: (1) the amount of the debt; (2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed; (3) a statement that unless the 15 consumer disputes the debt, the debt will be assumed valid; and ( 4) a statement that if the consumer disputes all or part of the debt in writing within 30 days, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. In numerous instances, Defendants have refused to provide consumers with this notice despite consumers' repeated requests, and as a result, consumers not been informed about their statutory right to dispute the validity of a debt.

Defendants also have continued their collection efforts even after consumers have called into question the legitimacy of
the debts, without investigating and verifying that the consumers in fact owe the debt, or owe the amount claimed. For example, in one instance, Defendants sent the consumer, a service member, a "Litigation Notice" and falsely threatened to take action against him under the Uniform Code of Military Justice even though the consumer told Defendants he was the victim of identity theft and that the debt had been paid in full. In another instance, Defendants threatened to take everything the consumer owned, despite the fact that the consumer told Defendants that she had never received any information or notice regarding the debt and that she had called the original creditor who had no record of an account in her name. When she requested that Defendants provide verification of the debt, Defendants refused. 

In these and other instances, Defendants have failed to review information substantiating the debt or its amount, or have failed to consider the consumers' challenges regarding the debt, prior to continuing collection.

In other words, business as usual for many Debt collectors.

BTW-the Flyingifr Method does work. (quoted from Hannah on Infinite Credit, September 19, 2006)

I think of a telephone as a Debt Collector's crowbar. With such a device it is possible to pry one's mouth open wide enough to allow the insertion of a foot or two.

Debtors Exams are the perfect place for us Senior Citizens to show off our recently acquired Alzheimers.

Founder of the Credit Terrorist Training Camp (Debtorboards)

Flyingifr

  • -DEAN EMERITUS-
  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 8351
  • Welcome to my Temper Tantrum
Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
« Reply #61 on: November 05, 2015 04:23:26 PM »
The 7th 2015 CAMCO Aware nominee and the 28th overall has surfaced (and has been sunk by the Federal Trade Commission). The coveted CAMCO Award is hereby given (posthumously, of course) to:  National Check Registry, LLC; Check Systems, LLC; Interchex Systems, LLC; American Mutual Holdings, Inc.; Goldberg Maxwell, LLC; Morgan Jackson, LLC; Mullins & Kane, LLC; Buffalo Staffing, Inc.; ECapital Services LLC, formerly known as Consumer Check Reporting, LLC; Joseph C. Bella, III; Diane L. Bella; and Luis A. Shaw.

Just what did our erstwhile Nominees do o earn such a prestigious and coveted recognition? To quote from the FTC Complaint:

Complaints against ALL the Nominees:

Quote
Since at least February2010,and continuing thereafter, Defendants have used abusive and deceptive tactics to pressure consumers into aking payments on purported debts, often with respect to loans that the consumers have challenged in part or in whole.  Defendants’ core tactic
has beento misrepresent that consumers have committed check fraud or another unlawful act related to purported debts. Defendants have then claimed that consumers will face dire consequences — including arrest and imprisonment — unless the fraud charges are resolved. And defendants claim that the only way to resolve the charges is by making an immediate payment on the debt over the phone. Moreover, Defendants have compounded their threats and misrepresentations by refusing to provide consumers with statutorily-required disclosures and
notices that would assist consumers in understanding and challenging the purported debts.

The Defendants’ tactics already have been the subject of an enforcement action by Plaintiff State of New York. On October 30, 2013, Defendant Joseph Bella agreed to an Assurance of Discontinuance (“AOD”) with the State of New York.  Defendant Joseph Bella agreed to the AOD individually and as a corporate officer of Defendants Check Systems, LLC, Interchex Systems, LLC, Goldberg Maxwell, LLC, Mullins & Kane, LLC, Morgan Jackson, LLC, and National Check Registry, LLC.  The AOD also binds these Defendants’ agents, trustees, servants, employees, auccessors, heirs and assigns, or any other person under their direction and control, whether acting individually or in concert with others, or through any corporate or other entity or device through which the they have or are acting or conducting business, operating or doing business in New York State, including businesses in which they have any legal or beneficial interest. As part of the AOD, Defendants agreed to abide by all
applicable federal and state laws, including the FDCPA.  Specifically, Defendants agreed to refrain from: 
•representing or implying that the Defendants or a creditor has commenced, or is about to commence, legal action against a consumer when that is untrue;
•representing or implying that a consumer has committed a crime or is subject to arrest;
•threatening to seize a consumer’s assets or garnish a consumer’s wages;
•communicating with consumers at the consumers’ place of employment when the Defendants know, or have reason to know, that the employers do not permit such communications;
•discussing a consumer’s alleged debt with third parties—such as the consumer’s friends, non-spouse family members, or coworkers—without
the consent of the consumer or the consumer’s attorney, or unless otherwise permitted by law;
•communicating with third parties for any purpose other than acquiring location information, unless the Defendants have the consent of the
alleged debtor or the alleged debtor’s attorney, or unless otherwise permitted by law;
•communicating with third parties more than once, except as permitted by the FDCPA or other applicable law;
and
•failing to provide consumers, within five (5) days of the initial contact, with the validation rights notice required by the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g.

Defendants, however, have failed to abide by the AOD, and have continued to employ a host of deceptive and abusive collection practices.
Shortly after agreeing to the AOD, Defendants established a new consumer-facing entity—eCapital Services—and started to use phone numbers with out-of-state area codes to contact consumers, in an apparent attempt to evade further attention from state or federal law enforcement.  Under this new guise, Defendants’ main collection strategy has remained in place: alleging consumers have committed fraud, and threatenng
imminent consequences including lawsuits, garnishment, arrest, or imprisonment.  Defendants also have continued making improper contacts with third parties, even going so far as to tell consumers’ friends, family members, or coworkers that the consumers are in legal trouble and are facing civil or criminal sanctions. 

Defendants have profited handsomely—both before and after entering into the AOD--from their combination of aggressive misrepresentations and a failure to comply with basic disclosure requirements.  Since February 2010, Defendants have collected and processed at least 8.7 million dollars in payments for purported debts.

Defendants’ False Threats that Consumers Are Facing Dire Consequences

In numerous instances, Defendants have contacted a consumer by telephone and have asserted that the consumer committed check fraud or another fraudulent act.  Defendants frequently build on the claim that consumers have committed fraud by threatening dire consequences to consumers who do not make payments. Specifically, Defendants have threatened to:
•sue consumers;
•have consumers arrested or imprisoned;
•have police or other law enforcement agents come to consumers’ homes or places of employment to arrest the consumers or to serve the consumers with legal papers;
•garnish consumers’ wages or place a lien on consumers’ property; and
•contact the consumers’ employers and tell the employers the consumers committed fraud or that the Defendants are going to garnish the
consumers’ wages.

Defendants routinely represent that these consequences are in process or will happen in the immediate future, and that the only way for a consumer to prevent these consequences is to make an immediate payment.

Defendants often give their alarming threats an aura of legitimacy by specifically referencing the consumer’s local court or law enforcement agency.  For example, Defendants told one consumer who lived in Washington State that they would have the “Washington County
Police” issue a warrant for her arrest.  Similarly, Defendants told a consumer who was a member of the U.S. Armed Forces that they would bring an action against him under the Uniform Court of Military Justice. 

In truth and in fact, Defendants’ threats are false.  The consumers have not committed check fraud and Defendants have no authority to file criminal charges against the consumers.  Similarly, Defendants have no authority to have consumers’ arrested or imprisoned. Defendants also
have lacked the authority or intention to file lawsuits against consumers or send a process server or law enforcement agent to serve papers on consumers.  And because Defendants lacked the authority or intention to file lawsuits against consumers, Defendants have additionally lacked the authority or intention to garnish consumers’ wages or place liens on consumers’ property.

Defendants’ False or Unsubstantiated Representations that Consumers Owe Debts

In numerous instances, Defendants have claimed that consumers have committed check fraud or another fraudulent act.  Often, Defendants claim that these purported fraudulent acts are related to a loan that the consumers owe.

In numerous instances, consumers have inquired about the details of the alleged check fraud or fraudulent act, but Defendants have refused to discuss the basis for the allegations, or have stated that the consumers previously bounced a check when making payment on a debt.

In many instances, when consumers have asked for more information about the underlying debt, the Defendants have refused to identify the source or said that the debt came from a generic-sounding online creditor such as “Loans.com” or “Loan.com.”

In numerous instances, consumers have claimed that they have never heard of these creditors or asked for additional information about the debts. In many instances, Defendants have responded to these challenges by telling consumers that the actual entity that provided the loan
was a “subsidiary” of the generic-sounding purported creditor, and that Defendants could not provide the name of the subsidiary.  In other instances, Defendants have responded to consumers’ challenges by reasserting the claim that the consumers committed an unlawful act.

In numerous instances, Defendants have continued their collection efforts even after the consumers presented evidence that called into question the legitimacy of the debt, without investigating and verifying that the consumer in fact owes the debt in the amount claimed.
 
For example, Defendants continued their collection efforts against one consumer who notified the Defendant s that the purported debt would have been discharged in a bankruptcy proceeding. 

Other consumers obtained evidence from their banks or, in instances where the Defendants provided the name of an identifiable purported creditor, the purported creditors, which contradicted the Defendants’ claims.

Defendants Fail to Provide Statutorily-Required Notices and Disclosures

In numerous instances, Defendants have failed to provide consumers with basic information—including the Defendants’ business name, that the call was an attempt to collect a debt, and that any information provided by the consumer would be used to collect a debt—during these calls. 

In numerous instances, Defendants also have failed to provide consumers within five days after the initial communication with a statutorily-required written notice—where the information was not contained in the initial communication and the consumer had not paid the debt—setting forth: (1) the amount of the debt; (2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed; (3) a statement that unless the consumer disputes the debt, the debt will be assumed valid; and (4) a statement that if the consumer disputes all or part of the debt in writing within 30 days,
the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.  In numerous instances, Defendants have refused to provide consumers with this notice
despite consumers’ repeated requests, and as a result, consumers have not been informed about the statutory right to dispute the validity of a debt.

Defendants’ Unlawful Disclosure of Information to Third Parties

In numerous instances, Defendants have contacted third parties, including friends, family members, or co-workers of putative debtors.  In many instances, Defendants disclose information about a purported debt to these third parties.

In some instances, Defendants have told third parties that putative debtors have committed check fraud, and that putative debtors are going to be arrested or imprisoned if a debt is not paid.

Defendants’  Unlawful Processing Fee Charges

In numerous instances, Defendants have added a “processing fee” of eight dollars onto each credit card payment that a consumer makes on a purported debt.

The processing fee is not expressly authorized by agreement nor permitted by law

The complaint lists a longer list of violations against individual CAMCO Award nominees that adds to the laundry list of acts that led to their award. It is interesting to not that the Nominees had previously been cited and prosecuted by the New York State Attorney General over these same acts committed previously, and agreed to stop their unlawful acts. They did not.
BTW-the Flyingifr Method does work. (quoted from Hannah on Infinite Credit, September 19, 2006)

I think of a telephone as a Debt Collector's crowbar. With such a device it is possible to pry one's mouth open wide enough to allow the insertion of a foot or two.

Debtors Exams are the perfect place for us Senior Citizens to show off our recently acquired Alzheimers.

Founder of the Credit Terrorist Training Camp (Debtorboards)

Flyingifr

  • -DEAN EMERITUS-
  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 8351
  • Welcome to my Temper Tantrum
Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
« Reply #62 on: November 22, 2015 01:43:08 PM »
The 8th CAMCO Award nominee of 2015 and 29th overall has surfaced (or sunk, it depends on your perspective). Our Erstwhile nominee is Leucadia National Corp. and other debt-buying units of $11.88 billion holding company Leucadia Corp., law firm Mel S. Harris and Associates and process server Samserv. They were shut down by private lawyers with help and support from the FTC and CFPB.

What did they do to earn such a prestigious ward?  To quote from the NY Post "A widespread practice known as “sewer service” lies at the heart of Sykes’ (the lead Plaintiff in the Class Action) case. That’s the term for what happens when debt collectors fail to properly notify consumers of lawsuits, then falsify court papers asserting a valid case." The Nominees are to repay $$59 million, wipe out 355, Default Judgments totaling over $800 million and permanently exit the debt collection business.

Here's the link: http://nypost.com/2015/11/22/over-350k-new-yorkers-settle-with-shady-debt-collector/
BTW-the Flyingifr Method does work. (quoted from Hannah on Infinite Credit, September 19, 2006)

I think of a telephone as a Debt Collector's crowbar. With such a device it is possible to pry one's mouth open wide enough to allow the insertion of a foot or two.

Debtors Exams are the perfect place for us Senior Citizens to show off our recently acquired Alzheimers.

Founder of the Credit Terrorist Training Camp (Debtorboards)

coltfan1972

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 6532
  • My Shoes Cost More Than Your House
Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
« Reply #63 on: November 22, 2015 05:38:24 PM »
The 8th CAMCO Award nominee of 2015 and 29th overall has surfaced (or sunk, it depends on your perspective). Our Erstwhile nominee is Leucadia National Corp. and other debt-buying units of $11.88 billion holding company Leucadia Corp., law firm Mel S. Harris and Associates and process server Samserv. They were shut down by private lawyers with help and support from the FTC and CFPB.

What did they do to earn such a prestigious ward?  To quote from the NY Post "A widespread practice known as “sewer service” lies at the heart of Sykes’ (the lead Plaintiff in the Class Action) case. That’s the term for what happens when debt collectors fail to properly notify consumers of lawsuits, then falsify court papers asserting a valid case." The Nominees are to repay $$59 million, wipe out 355, Default Judgments totaling over $800 million and permanently exit the debt collection business.

Here's the link: http://nypost.com/2015/11/22/over-350k-new-yorkers-settle-with-shady-debt-collector/

Since Inside Arm shut down their message board, "to concentrate more on serious journalism"  :vbrofl: I will chime in with their usual response.   "Just a bad apple." 

Not sure if 29 stand alone apples can affect the whole bunch?, but have to be getting pretty darn close.   
LexisNexis® Legal Newsroom- 05-17-2013 | 10:11 AM --

JONESBORO, Ark. - A federal judge in Arkansas on May 15 ruled that dismissal of a consumer's lawsuit against a debt collector is not proper because although the consumer posted messages on a website "in an odious manner," valid First Amendment concerns exist (Brandon Scroggin v. Credit Bureau of Jonesboro Inc., No. 12-0128, E.D. Ark.; 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 69070).

Flyingifr

  • -DEAN EMERITUS-
  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 8351
  • Welcome to my Temper Tantrum
Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
« Reply #64 on: November 23, 2015 08:06:18 PM »
Since Inside Arm shut down their message board, "to concentrate more on serious journalism"  :vbrofl: I will chime in with their usual response.   "Just a bad apple." 

Not sure if 29 stand alone apples can affect the whole bunch?, but have to be getting pretty darn close.

After counting all those "bad apples" I have concluded that there may be a problem with the whole orchard.
BTW-the Flyingifr Method does work. (quoted from Hannah on Infinite Credit, September 19, 2006)

I think of a telephone as a Debt Collector's crowbar. With such a device it is possible to pry one's mouth open wide enough to allow the insertion of a foot or two.

Debtors Exams are the perfect place for us Senior Citizens to show off our recently acquired Alzheimers.

Founder of the Credit Terrorist Training Camp (Debtorboards)

Flyingifr

  • -DEAN EMERITUS-
  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 8351
  • Welcome to my Temper Tantrum
Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
« Reply #65 on: November 05, 2016 07:25:23 PM »
You know you are in trouble when the Feds and a State join together to shut you down. The CAMCO Committee has been a bit remiss in looking to candidates for such a highly coveted award, but we will spend the next couple of days catching up.

The 30th nominee (and first to be recognized for 2016) for the highly coveted and sought after CAMCO Award goes to Douglas MacKinnon, Mark Gray, Northern Resolution Group, LLC, Enhanced Acquisitions, LLC and Delray Capital, LLC all found (to no one's surprise) in the Buffalo, NY area.

The Complaint describes their activities as "a massive, illegal debt-collection scheme designed, implemented and run by Douglas MacKinnon and his close associate, Mark Gray" (Complaint, allegation 1). It seems they are accused of creating a network of companies to purchase defaulted debts and then use illegal activities to collect (no surprise here).

So what did they do that was illegal? Lets start with

1:They routinely added $200 to the balance of each debt they acquired, regardless of whether the law or contract allowed it (Allegation 4)

2: Impersonated law enforcement officials, court officials and threatened their targets with arrest or legal action they had no intention of taking (Allegation 6)

3: Set up a network of at least 60 CA's to collect on the debts (Allegation 27)

4: Employed call-spoofing technologies to make it appear their collection calls came from government agencies (Allegation 33c)

5: Added additional unauthorized fees and charges to the debts above the $200 above (Allegation 33d)

6: Alleged that lawsuits had already been filed against their targets when no such lawsuits had been or were contemplated to be filed (Allegation 35)

7: Stated in words meant to mislead their targets that they were seeking a "statement in your defense" to alleged criminal complaints (Allegation 36)

8: An audit of the CAMCO Award recipients by a debt seller revealed that the recipients engaged in rampant misconduct including "Delray collectors (a) threatened “pending court action, garnishment,” and suits for fraud or breach of contract; (b) falsely claimed to be “a paralegal”; (c) gave “false and misleading information”; (d) “inflated the current placed balance, at times quoting a balance exceeding 600% of the debt amount”; (e) failed to give required notice letters to consumers upon initial contact; and (f) failed to provide consumers
with “mini-Miranda” warnings and disclose that calls were being recorded." (Complaint Allegation 38) - note - if this is what a debt seller found, can you imagine what the Government investigators will find???

9: When the Government became aware of these practices, the Award Recipients set up a network of new companies to perpetuate the actions of the old ones under investigation in order to extend the time these abuses were taking place in rather than contain them (Allegation 45) The Complaint goes on to list 87 such companies



 

 
BTW-the Flyingifr Method does work. (quoted from Hannah on Infinite Credit, September 19, 2006)

I think of a telephone as a Debt Collector's crowbar. With such a device it is possible to pry one's mouth open wide enough to allow the insertion of a foot or two.

Debtors Exams are the perfect place for us Senior Citizens to show off our recently acquired Alzheimers.

Founder of the Credit Terrorist Training Camp (Debtorboards)

Flyingifr

  • -DEAN EMERITUS-
  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 8351
  • Welcome to my Temper Tantrum
Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
« Reply #66 on: November 05, 2016 11:55:36 PM »
The CAMCO Award Committee has found our 31st nominee for the much coveted and sought-after CAMCO Award - PREMIER DEBT ACQUISITIONS LLC, a limited liability company, also d/b/a PDA Group LLC; PRIZM DEBT SOLUTIONS LLC, a limited liability company, also d/b/a PDS, LLC; SAMUEL SOLE AND ASSOCIATES, LLC, a limited liability company, also d/b/a SSA Group LLC and also d/b/a Imperial Processing Solutions; CHARLES GLANDER, individually and as an officer of Premier Debt Acquisitions LLC, Prizm Debt Solutions LLC, and
Samuel Sole and Associates, LLC; and JACOB E. KIRBIS, individually and as an officer of Premier Debt Acquisitions LLC, Prizm Debt Solutions
LLC, and Samuel Sole and Associates, LLC.  Wow, if your head is spinning as fast as mine, you already know why the FTC shut them down:

*   Using telephone, texts, email and Postal Mail to threaten consumers with arrest, immediate suit and other illegal threats
*   Send police officers to arrest consumers and serve papers on them
*   Making up their own definitions and interpretations of Federal Statutes to make consumers believe they have committed a criminal act by not paying the purported debt
*   Asserting that they are lawyers or Government Officials to threaten or frighten consumers into paying

and the usual litany of illegal acts we are all familiar with and know not to fall for.

Here's the FTC Complaint. The Order shutting them down and enjoining the principals from the debt collection industry was entered in 2016

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/150521premierdebtcmpt.pdf

BTW-the Flyingifr Method does work. (quoted from Hannah on Infinite Credit, September 19, 2006)

I think of a telephone as a Debt Collector's crowbar. With such a device it is possible to pry one's mouth open wide enough to allow the insertion of a foot or two.

Debtors Exams are the perfect place for us Senior Citizens to show off our recently acquired Alzheimers.

Founder of the Credit Terrorist Training Camp (Debtorboards)

Flyingifr

  • -DEAN EMERITUS-
  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 8351
  • Welcome to my Temper Tantrum
Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
« Reply #67 on: November 06, 2016 12:13:48 AM »
The CAMCO Award Committee has found our 32nd nominee for the much coveted and sought-after CAMCO Award - MUNICIPAL RECOVERY SERVICES CORPORATION, a corporation, also d/b/a Warrant Enforcement Division, MARCOS ANTHONY NIETO, a/k/a Mark Nieto Individually and as an officer of Municipal Recovery Services Corporation. Now, this Nominee is a little different from the rest - this Nominee was in business as third-party debt collector of past-due municipal utility bills, traffic tickets, fines, and other debts owed to municipalities in
Texas and Oklahoma. Unfortunately for them, they seemed to not differentiate between their status as third-party debt collectors and the Governmental agencies they were collecting for.

So, why were they shut down? From the FTC Complaint, they

* Sent out letters and POSTCARDS demanding the payments,
* With a Corporate Name that implies it is a Government agency or arm (Warrant Enforcement),
* Representing in the letters and postcards that the letter or postcard was sent by a Municipal Court
* Threatening arrest of the target.

Since a photo is better than a thousand words, just look at the attachment and use your own imagination as to how a Least Sophisticated Consumer would respond.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2016 01:30:08 AM by Flyingifr »
BTW-the Flyingifr Method does work. (quoted from Hannah on Infinite Credit, September 19, 2006)

I think of a telephone as a Debt Collector's crowbar. With such a device it is possible to pry one's mouth open wide enough to allow the insertion of a foot or two.

Debtors Exams are the perfect place for us Senior Citizens to show off our recently acquired Alzheimers.

Founder of the Credit Terrorist Training Camp (Debtorboards)

Flyingifr

  • -DEAN EMERITUS-
  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 8351
  • Welcome to my Temper Tantrum
Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
« Reply #68 on: November 06, 2016 12:22:32 AM »
The CAMCO Award Committee is pleased to announce the nomination of COMMERCIAL RECOVERY SYSTEMS, INC., and TIMOTHY L. FORD, individually and as an officer of COMMERCIAL RECOVERY SYSTEMS, INC., and DAVID J. DEVANY, individually and as a former officer of COMMERCIAL RECOVERY SYSTEMS, INC. for the prestigious and much coveted CAMCO Award and they are hereby announced as the 33rd such Nominee.

There is not much to be said of the current Nominees - their qualifying acts are not even original enough as to be noteworthy - they simply passed themselves off as lawyers or other law firm associated titles, threatened suit they had no legal ability or permission from their clients to file and threatened garnishment on the basis of Judgments they could not obtain because they could not file the suits.

While the Nominee certainly meets the minimum qualifications for the CAMCO Award, the Committee hopes to see them try harder in the future so as to possibly qualify for the Chuzpah Award.

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/150121crscmpt.pdf
« Last Edit: November 06, 2016 01:30:26 AM by Flyingifr »
BTW-the Flyingifr Method does work. (quoted from Hannah on Infinite Credit, September 19, 2006)

I think of a telephone as a Debt Collector's crowbar. With such a device it is possible to pry one's mouth open wide enough to allow the insertion of a foot or two.

Debtors Exams are the perfect place for us Senior Citizens to show off our recently acquired Alzheimers.

Founder of the Credit Terrorist Training Camp (Debtorboards)

Flyingifr

  • -DEAN EMERITUS-
  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 8351
  • Welcome to my Temper Tantrum
Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
« Reply #69 on: November 06, 2016 12:42:11 AM »
The CAMCO Award Committee is pleased to announce the 34th nominee for such a distinguished award as the CAMCO Award. The august nominee is THE PRIMARY GROUP INC., a corporation, f/k/a A Primary Systems Group Inc., also d/b/a Primary
Solutions and PSA Investigations, GAIL DANIELS, individually and as an officer of THE PRIMARY GROUP INC., and JUNE FLEMING, individually
and as an officer of THE PRIMARY GROUP INC.

In order to meet the strict and exacting requirements for such a coveted recognition, the Nominees

 
(1) falsely represented or implied that Defendants' collectors are agents, inspectors, or legal staff; (2) falsely threatened consumers with legal action or arrest; (3) failed to provide required disclosures in text messages and calls directed to consumers; (4) unlawfully communicated with third parties, including consumers' family members, co-workers and employers; and (5) failed to provide statutorily-required validation notices to consumers. Defendants' representatives frequently use titles that falsely represent or imply that they are legal staff. For example, in numerous instances, when contacting persons to collect debts, Defendants have identified themselves as "Agent," "Inspector," or "process server."

Defendants also have threatened to take legal action against consumers-including litigation and arrest-without the intention or ability to take that action. In numerous instances, Defendants have represented to consumers that: (1) there is a pending legal action against them that can be stopped only by immediate payment on a debt; (2) the company already has initiated a lawsuit or will initiate a lawsuit unless the consumer makes an immediate payment on a debt; or (3) Defendants will obtain a default judgment against consumers. Defendants frequently include phony case numbers in their communications with consumers to indicate they have initiated legal process regarding a purported debt.

Defendants also have threatened to take legal action against consumers-including litigation and arrest-without the intention or ability to take that action. In numerous instances, Defendants have represented to consumers that: (1) there is a pending legal action against them that can be stopped only by immediate payment on a debt; (2) the company already has initiated a lawsuit or will initiate a lawsuit unless the consumer makes an immediate payment on a debt; or (3) Defendants will obtain a default judgment against consumers. Defendants frequently include phony case numbers in their communications with consumers to indicate they have initiated legal process regarding a purported debt.

In numerous instances, Defendants have sent a series of text messages to consumers' mobile phones, with individualized information in the bracketed fields, in an attempt to collect debts. The text messages fail to disclose that Primary Solutions is a debt collector trying to collect a debt, and typically state: I'm a process server w/ Primary Solutions, appointed to serve you papers for case [eight digit number]. Would you like delivery at [consumer's home address]? Please have proper ID and witness present who can provide a signature. If there's no reply I'll have to bring the document to your employer. It*s already been verified this is a contact number for [consumer's name]. So I just need an appropriate time and place to serve the papers when ready. Check your call records, a recorded call from [phone number], verified this as the correct number. Indicating otherwise will be proof of deceptive practices. CB#: [phone number]

Add to this improper contact with consumers' friends, neighbors, relatives, employers and the failure/refusal to provide the statutory notices required under FDCPA and you have the perpetual recipe that leads to the CAMCO Award

The FTC Summons: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/150521primarygroupcmpt.pdf
BTW-the Flyingifr Method does work. (quoted from Hannah on Infinite Credit, September 19, 2006)

I think of a telephone as a Debt Collector's crowbar. With such a device it is possible to pry one's mouth open wide enough to allow the insertion of a foot or two.

Debtors Exams are the perfect place for us Senior Citizens to show off our recently acquired Alzheimers.

Founder of the Credit Terrorist Training Camp (Debtorboards)

Flyingifr

  • -DEAN EMERITUS-
  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 8351
  • Welcome to my Temper Tantrum
Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
« Reply #70 on: November 06, 2016 12:45:56 AM »
The 35th Nominee for the much coveted CAMCO Award has been nominated:  BAM Financial LLC, also doing business as West and Associates, Chelsea & Associates, and Chelsea Financial; Everton Financial LLC, also d/b/a West and Associates; and Legal Financial Consulting LLC, also d/b/a West and Associates Services.

In their efforts to earn such a prestigious award the recipients business model entailed extracting payments from consumers through intimidation, lies and other unlawful debt collection tactics. The court subsequently halted the operation and froze the defendants’ assets pending litigation.

The defendants have now agreed to a stipulated final order that bans them from debt collection activities and prohibits them from misrepresenting material facts about financial-related products and services. The order also bars them from profiting from consumers’ personal information and failing to dispose of it properly. The order imposes a $4,802,646 judgment that will be partially suspended upon the surrender of certain assets and requires payment of $59,207 by Luis O. Carrera and $50,562 by Roberto Llaury. The full judgment will become due immediately if the defendants are found to have misrepresented their financial condition.

The FTC Press Release: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/07/ftc-action-abusive-debt-collectors-banned-collection-business
BTW-the Flyingifr Method does work. (quoted from Hannah on Infinite Credit, September 19, 2006)

I think of a telephone as a Debt Collector's crowbar. With such a device it is possible to pry one's mouth open wide enough to allow the insertion of a foot or two.

Debtors Exams are the perfect place for us Senior Citizens to show off our recently acquired Alzheimers.

Founder of the Credit Terrorist Training Camp (Debtorboards)

Flyingifr

  • -DEAN EMERITUS-
  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 8351
  • Welcome to my Temper Tantrum
Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
« Reply #71 on: November 27, 2016 09:35:34 PM »
The CAMCO Award Committee is please and proud to announce the 35th Nominee for such an august honor as receipt of the CAMCO Award. In fact, the recipients are so many this time around tat, instead of receiving an actual award to frame and give a place of honor, the Committee has simply decided to make Xerox copies of the award and give it to each recipient. Halfway through such a daunting task, our copier broke.

Our honorees are: FEDERAL CHECK PROCESSING, INC., a New York corporation; FEDERAL RECOVERIES, LLC, a New York limited liability company; FEDERAL PROCESSING, INC., a New York corporation; FEDERAL PROCESSING SERVICES, INC., a New York corporation; UNITED CHECK PROCESSING, INC., a New York corporation; CENTRAL CHECK PROCESSING, INC., a New York corporation; CENTRAL PROCESSING SERVICES, INC., a New York Corporation; NATIONWIDE CHECK PROCESSING, INC., aka National Processing Services, a Colorado Corporation; AMERICAN CHECK PROCESSING, INC., aka American Check Processing, Inc., a New York corporation; STATE CHECK PROCESSING, INC., a New York corporation; CHECK PROCESSING, Inc., a New York corporation; US CHECK PROCESSING, INC., aka U.S. Check Processing , Inc., a New York Corporation, FLOWING STREAMS, F.S., Inc., a New York corporation; MARK BRIAND, individually and as an officer of one or more of the Corporate Defendants; WILLIAM MOSES, individually and as an officer of one or more of the Corporate Defendants,

Defendants,

and

EMPOWERED  RACING LLC,
 
Relief Defendant. 


Wow.... what a list.

OK, so what did our recipients do to earn such a coveted award? The usual stuff....

Since at  least May 2010, and continuing thereafter, Defendants have used abusive, unfair, and deceptive tactics to pressure consumers into making payments on purported debts, often with respect to loans that the consumers have challenged in part or
in whole.

Defendants regularly have contacted consumers via repeated telephone calls and have threatened consumers with dire consequences-including arrest-if consumers fail to make immediate payments to the Defendants. Defendants regularly have failed to identify themselves as debt collectors, have failed to provide consumers with basic information about themselves or the purported debt, and have failed to provide consumers with the information necessary, and required by law, to confirm or dispute the debt.

Many consumers have paid the alleged debts that Defendants have attempted to collect because they have been afraid of the threatened repercussions of failing to pay, because they have believed Defendants are legitimate and are collecting delinquent debt, or because
they have wanted to stop the harassment.

Since at least May 2010, Defendants have collected and processed millions of dollars in payments for purported debts.

In numerous instances, Defendants have contacted a consumer by telephone repeatedly and asserted that the consumer has committed check fraud or another criminal act. In numerous instances, Defendants have used corporate names including the words "Federal," "US," "American," or "State." In numerous instances, Defendants have failed to identify themselves as debt collectors and have stated or implied that they are affiliated with federal, state, or local government. In numerous instances, Defendants have asserted that unless the consumer makes an immediate payment of hundreds of dollars, Defendants will have the consumer arrested.

In numerous instances, consumers have inquired about the details of the alleged check fraud or criminal act, but Defendants have refused to discuss the basis for the allegations, or have stated that the consumers previously bounced a check when making payment on a debt. In some instances, Defendants have represented that the consumers had insufficient funds when an online payday lender attempted to debit their accounts.

In truth and in fact, Defendants cannot have a consumer arrested for non-payment of a private debt. Moreover, the consumers have not committed check fraud or another criminal act related to the debt that could give rise to criminal sanctions, and the Defendants have no affiliation with any government agencies.

In numerous instances, Defendants also have threatened to sue a consumer or represented that a lawsuit already has been filed against a consumer. These threats and representations often indicate that the lawsuit will be brought or has already been brought in a court system that is close to the consumer's residence, or that a process server or Sheriff will serve papers to the consumer at the consumer's home or place of employment. In numerous instances, Defendants also have told a consumer that they will garnish the consumer's wages, levy consumer's bank accounts, or seize the consumer's property.

In numerous instances, Defendants have represented that the only way the consumer can avoid the purported lawsuit or other consequences is by making an immediate payment.
 
In truth and in fact, in numerous instances, Defendants have not had the authority or the intent to carry out their threatened actions. Defendants have lacked the authority or intention to file a lawsuit against the consumer or send a process service or Sheriff to serve papers on a consumer. Defendants also have lacked the authority or intention to garnish a consumer's wages, levy a consumer's bank account, or seize a consumer's property, in part because Defendants have not filed an action and obtained a judgment against the consumer.

In numerous instances, Defendants have failed to provide consumers with basic information-including the Defendants' business name, that the call was an attempt to collect a debt, and that any information provided by the consumer would be used to collect a debt-during these
calls.

35.
In numerous instances, Defendants also have failed to provide consumers within five days after the initial communication with a written notice setting forth:
(1) the amount of the debt;
(2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is  owed;
(3) a statement that unless the consumer disputes the debt, the debt will be assumed valid; and
(4) a statement that if the consumer disputes all or part of the debt in writing within 30 days, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the
debt collector.

In numerous instances, Defendants have refused to provide consumers with this information despite consumer's repeated requests, and as  a result, consumers have been unable to exercise their rights under the FDCPA to make a cease-and-desist request or to dispute formally
the validity of a debt. In numerous instances, when a consumer has asked about the origin of a purported debt, Defendants have refused to provide details such as the original creditor or the origination date of the loan, or have provided verifiably inaccurate information.

In numerous instances where the Defendants have provided consumers with the name of the purported original creditor, the consumers have attempted to verify the debt with the purported original creditor. In some instances, consumers have been told by the purported original creditor that the consumer does not owe the debt, that the consumer already had satisfied the debt, or that the Defendants do not have the authority to collect on the debt.

In numerous instances, in response to Defendants' attempt to collect on debts, consumers have challenged the debt in whole or in part. In numerous instances, consumers have told Defendants that they do not recognize the debt and/or do not believe that they owe the debt. In some instances, consumers have told Defendants that they recognize the debt, but that the debt was paid in full or has been discharged, often years prior to the Defendants' collection attempts.

Regardless of the nature of the challenge, Defendants have continued to attempt to collect challenged debts without taking independent steps to verify the accuracy of challenged account information. For example, Defendants continued to threaten a consumer with arrest in 2013 even after she had informed them that her debt had been discharged in bankruptcy in 2011. 
 
In numerous instances, Defendants have contacted third parties, including friends, family members, or co-workers of putative debtors. In many instances, Defendants disclose information about a purported debt to these third parties.
 
In some instances, Defendant tell third parties that putative debtors have committed check fraud, and that putative debtors are going to be arrested or imprisoned if a debt is not paid. And in some instances, third parties pay the purported debts out of concern that the putative debtors will be sued, arrested, or imprisoned.

Now, you may be wondering "What is a Relief Defendant"? It seems the other defendants parked their money in the books and accounts of the Relief Defendant. The Relief Defendant itself took no part in the Nominee's operations other than to enable the Nominees to hide their ill-gotten gains somewhere. The Relief Defendant is being sued to get those funds disgorged as damages.
BTW-the Flyingifr Method does work. (quoted from Hannah on Infinite Credit, September 19, 2006)

I think of a telephone as a Debt Collector's crowbar. With such a device it is possible to pry one's mouth open wide enough to allow the insertion of a foot or two.

Debtors Exams are the perfect place for us Senior Citizens to show off our recently acquired Alzheimers.

Founder of the Credit Terrorist Training Camp (Debtorboards)