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,
EMPOWERED RACING LLC,
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
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
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
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.