Debtorboards - Sue Your Creditor and Win!

The Flyingifr School of Bill Collector Education Wall of Shame => Wall Of Shame Donors => Topic started by: Flyingifr on November 04, 2005 04:27:44 PM

Title: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Flyingifr on November 04, 2005 04:27:44 PM
The CAMCO award is created to recognize creditors whose collection actions are so egregious and outlandish that they are forced out of business by a Governmental Authority. This award is named after CAMCO, a Junk Debt Buyer who set the standard for egregious FDCPA violations. In order to qualify for this award, the staff of the recipient must violate Collection and/or reporting laws with such disregard and flagrancy that even Government, that sloth of consumer protection, is forced to act.

The first CAMCO Award is, fittingly, awarded to

Capital Acquisitions and Management Corp., a corporation;
RM Financial Services, Inc., a corporation;
Reese Waugh, individually and as an officer Of Capital Acquisitions and Management Corp. and RM Financial Services, Inc.
Jerome Kuebler, individually and as an officer of Capital Acquisitions and Management Corp.;
Scott R. Franson, individually and as an owner and manager of Capital Acquisitions And Management Corp.; 
Mario Bianchi, Individually and as a manager of Capital Acquisition & Management Company
And, of course, all the overzealous Collectors at CAMCO who made it possible.

Here's the link to the FTC announcement of their demise:

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/12/camco.htm

And the text:

Quote
FTC Asks Court to Halt Illegal CAMCO Operation

Company Uses Threats, Lies, and Intimidation to Collect “Debts” Consumers Do Not Owe

In the face of more than 2,000 consumer complaints, the FTC has asked a U.S. District court to order a halt to the harassing, intimidating, deceptive, and illegal ‘debt collection’ practices of Capital Acquisitions & Management (CAMCO). At the agency’s request, the court has frozen the assets of the company and its principals and appointed a receiver to oversee the corporate records and assets, pending trial. The FTC will seek a permanent halt to the illegal threats and lies the defendants use to attempt to collect “time-barred” debts – debts so old that they are beyond the statute of limitations, and cannot appear on credit reports – and debts consumers never incurred and did not owe.

In March 2004, the FTC charged that CAMCO, RM Financial, and their principals were threatening and harassing thousands of consumers to get them to pay old, unenforceable debts or debts they did not owe. The agency alleged that their abusive and deceptive collection practices violated federal law, including the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The companies and individuals paid a $300,000 civil penalty to settle the FTC charges, and were barred from engaging in abusive, deceptive, and illegal collection practices in the future.

In the eight months since that settlement, the FTC has received more than 2,000 consumer complaints about CAMCO’s illegal tactics – three times more than the agency received in the two years before the settlement.

In papers filed with the court, the agency charged that as much as 80 percent of the money CAMCO collects comes from consumers who never owed the original debt in the first place. Many consumers pay the money to get CAMCO to stop threatening and harassing them, their families, their friends, and their co-workers.

According to the FTC, CAMCO buys old debt lists that frequently contain no documentation about the original debt and in many cases no Social Security Number for the original debtor. CAMCO makes efforts to find people with the same name in the same geographic area and tries to collect the debt from them – whether or not they are the actual debtor. In papers filed with the court, the FTC alleges that CAMCO agents told consumers – even consumers who never owed the money – that they were legally obligated to pay. They told consumers that if they did not pay, CAMCO could have them arrested and jailed, seize their property, garnish their wages, and ruin their credit. All of those threats were false, according to the FTC.

According to the FTC, grossly abusive behavior, including shouting and profanity, are commonplace tactics with CAMCO. Collectors told consumers:

We’re “going to hound you ‘til the day you die;”


We will “continue to hunt you;” and


“We’ll get you one way or another.”
CAMCO collectors also ignored restrictions on who and when they could call.

The FTC suit asks the court to order a permanent bar on the operation’s illegal activities and order redress for consumers.

In addition to CAMCO, the complaint names RM Financial Services, Inc., Capital Properties Holdings, Inc., Caribbean Asset Management, Ltd., Reese Waugh, Jerome Kuebler, Eric Woldoff, George Othon, and Jeffrey Garrington.

CAMCO’s offices are located in Rockford and Schaumberg, Illinois. RM Financial is based in Marietta, Georgia. Caribbean Asset Management is based in Montego Bay, Jamaica.

The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the complaint was 5-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division, in Chicago, Illinois.

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 defendant has actually violated the law. The case will be decided by the court.

Copies of the complaint and legal documents related to an earlier settlement with CAMCO and individual defendants are available from the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and also 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 in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish (bilingual counselors are available to take complaints), or to get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint form at http://www.ftc.gov. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad.

And the FTC Complaint:

http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/camco/041208compcamco.pdf
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: mike weed on November 16, 2005 02:58:10 AM
maybe asset acceptance will get the camco award.
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Hedwig on November 20, 2005 12:37:14 AM
maybe asset acceptance will get the camco award.
We can only hope!
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: kdr9232 on August 06, 2006 05:06:18 PM
Manbracken neads one to
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: ghost on November 29, 2009 06:28:26 PM
I want to nominate Advanta for the CAMCO award for 2009. Looks they won't be around much longer, and it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of guys.
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Kitten on November 29, 2009 09:16:17 PM
Manbracken neads one to

Mann Bracken's friends at Axiant gave themselves one. Filed BK to stay FDCPA litigation while they try to sell themselves to NCO Group.

http://debtorboards.com/index.php/topic,8815.0.html
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: DocHemi on January 12, 2010 06:20:43 AM
I would like to nominate Aegis for the first award of 2010
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: FIDC on December 08, 2010 05:56:28 AM
I put this text in another thread a little while ago; the circumstances seemed so similar to the story in this thread I thought perhaps this thread was more appropriate.  So please, forgive the duplication:

Hello.  My wife was served with a paper at work about a year ago.  October 2009.  In regards to a CC balance she did not own or owe.  (Same-name personage deal; the debt collectors, convinced my wife was the legitimate debtor, did not believe her remonstrations of innocence.)  Involved parties were a Debt Collection Cpy. (we'll call them DCC) and his pet law "firm" (a brother who is a lawyer, specializing in high numbers of debt-collection efforts.) We'll call the law firm NSM. (The "M" being the brother, and the "N" & "S" being non-existent.  But it makes his "firm" seem larger.)

DCC showed, in the discovery paperwork, a couple of assignments, but nothing from the original CC company.  Strike One.  DCC bought the account in October of 2009.  Included in the discovery paperwork was a faked invoice to the purported account holder (well, my wife, as far as they were concerned) dated October 2002.  Strike Two.

The CC company charged off the account May 2002; no paperwork exists to demonstrate any previous activity; nonetheless very obviously the Statute of Limitations expired no later than May of 2007.  Strike Three.   Besides there not being any chain of Assignments, there was no contract at all with a signature.  Strike Four.

DCC is not registered as a debt-collection company in the State of Iowa.  It is possible NSM is, under a different name: there is a debt-collection registration under the "N" name; I still need to determine if they are one and the same.  At any rate, DCC is Strike Five.  It is a violation of the FDCPA to sue, or threaten to sue,  a consumer to collect a time-barred debt.  So even if my wife was the legitimate debtor, the SoL expired in 2007 and therefore...Strike Six.

I am a well-established businessman, (a credit rating of 800, right now) and for over 25 years now, have had a particular law firm on retainer.  I asked them in 2009 to just take care of this silliness.  DCC & NSM refused to recognize the points annotated above, and insisted on going to court.  So this past Monday (yesterday, as I type) my wife and a lawyer from my firm went to court.  The 2 lawyers met with the judge in chambers prior to the trial.

I was not there; I am now telling a double-hearsay: my lawyer told my wife who told me ....

The judge asked NSM if they had any contracts, signatures, or trail of Assignments.  NSM admitted they did not, and allowed the judge could dismiss at that point.  The judge would not do that, forcing NSM to present his case at trial.  NSM asked my wife if it was her account.  "No."  NSM asked my wife if she was aware of any other identity-theft issues affecting her.  "No."  NSM had no further questions, and the judge dismissed the case forever and amen.

Now, I'm mad as .  The Police came to my wife's place of work and (apologetically) served her the summons.  Embarrassing as .  (It helps she almost runs the place, but still...people talk.)
She was near panic she'd be held accountable; the name WAS the same !!!  And it was for a large amount (over $5000.)

So for a year or more she's been worried sick about this.  And to some extent, taking it out on me.  (Why hasn't this gone away?  Are you sure YOU didn't have a credit card in MY name?  Sex?  Are you kidding?)  So her work suffered, and a couple weekend sabbaticals we took were just toasted because of her worry.

And of course, my (retained for not a lot) law firm doesn't come close toactually working for free; I haven't seen the bill yet, but it will be over $1000, I am sure.  Might be $2000; they get over $250 per hour.  And I probably could have handled this one pro-se, but I'm not a huge fan of amateurs playing defense.

But now I'm on the offense.  It's my turn, and I'm handling it myself.  With some advice.  How do I hit these slugs, and what should I anticipate?
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: CleaningUp on December 08, 2010 01:45:41 PM
You have an attorney involved. Let him handle it.  That's what you pay him for. His fees are recoverable as damages. If it is a new debt that is alleged, it must be handled as a separate case. What happened in the past can be instructive of no particular use as evidence.

Some observations so your thinking doesn't get skewed.

  -- Your success at business is irrelevant to the case.
  -- Your wife's hostility towards you on this issue is unfair.  Her not seeing that you have no control
      over this suggests that there may be more issues than this in play.
  -- Allegations of collusion between an the collector and his lawyer fails to recognize that the client/lawyer
      relationship is, by nature, one of collusion and that collusion is protected by the attorney/client
      privilege.
  -- Allegations of phony documents need independent substantiation.


One final point. Don't overlook complaints the the consumer affairs sections of state government.  You may not be able to administer the coup de grâce, but you can help put the blade in motion.






Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: FIDC on December 08, 2010 04:10:07 PM
Thanks for your input.  I mostly pointed out my success at business so the board didn't get the impression I'm some fly-by-nighter looking for a quick score.  My wife's attitude, while certainly unfair, is hardly unexpected because wives, demographically, want security and for a year now that was a pretty unsecure -- in her mind, anyway -- point. 

The relationship between the Plaintiff and his lawyer again was to support my contention -- to this board, not to the court - that they're slugs, and not bona fide ethical agents of recompense.

The phony document I think will stand on its own.  I do have possession of this invoice, which they included as part of their "discover" paperwork.  The invoice states clearly that my wife, who once "lived" at this other address (but now lives where she has always lived) owed the collection company over $5000 in October 2002.  Three sheets later in the "discovery" paperwork, was the assignment from the debt scavenger in NJ to the debt scavenger in IA, said transaction occurring in October 2009...almost exactly 7 years later.  And they can't claim it was just a typo either, because the address they used in "2002" was different than the one (the accurate one) they used when they filed papers in October 2009.  I think that one will stand as a pretty clear indication of "dirty hands."

I didn't know my lawyer could recover all of his fees; I thought he would have to take it on contingency.  Quite frankly, I think this is so winnable, that if it is to be a contingency situation, I'll just handle it myself. 

But please keep firing away.  I've got some time around the Christmas season to work on this.
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Mischievous Smurfy on December 08, 2010 07:32:34 PM
I would do some research into the address issue ...

first ... (I will use the term impostor here ... although this appears to be mistaken identity not identity theft)

evidence where the real "wife" resided as much as you possibly can ... as far back as you can from now ... obviously ... paying particular attention to say 1998 - 2002.    I say go all the way because if you disprove that she lived at the impostor's address in 2002 they could very well doctor up evidence that she resided at another address at some other time that is allegedly connected to this account.  I would not "show my hand" on the prove of residences for that same reason ... disprove whatever address they are asserting then wait for them to offer another ... then and only then offer up the evidence to disprove them on that one as well. 

I know this is also SOL but I like to have as many aces as possible in a sticky situation.

Second ...  I would try to do a little skip tracing of my own .... and you can potentially do some that the CAs won't bother to do ... like searching at the recorders office for subsequent deeds to show where the impostor is now.. 

They just sit around an wait for a new address to appear in one database or another ... they don't bother to really investigate as mentioned above.  Start exactly where I suggested ... the recorder's office in the county where the "impostor" lived ... you can also investigate civil records to see if there is any record of her there.  If you find a deed in her name ... you might also find the deed to her new place of residence that she moved to ... potentially a long list of her previous address's.   Fair warning ... she might me a lifetime renter so there won't be any record. 

Your attorney will not do this kind of investigation either ... and even if he did you wouldn't want to pay what he would charge you to do it.  You can do it yourself for very little money.

and since the subject has come up ....

why not treat this as identity theft?  it isn't the consumer's responsibility to investigate and determine if its true identity theft or simply mistaken identity and/or a bad skip trace .... the consumer's only responsibility is protect themselves from the harm of either of the above.

if you treated it as identity theft ... you would get a police report and complete the FTC affidavit of identity theft ... but it would also give you/her additional protections ...  under the FCRA any entity that transacted with an identity thief is required to hand over all information in their care, custody or control to the "victim".  This  would be another route to obtain exculpatory information because they will fight tooth and nail to not give any more evidence that they absolutely have to to obtain a judgment.  It also give you an avenue to demand all information from any entity that ever saw this alleged account ... not just the plaintiff.  In other words you have the support of a federal statute to demand and receive information from the original credit and all entities involved.

again ... this is a lot of legwork your attorney won't do ...and even if he would it would be prohibitively expensive to pay him to do it for you.
Title: Unicredit
Post by: Flyingifr on June 09, 2011 03:16:18 PM
I hereby nominate UNICREDIT to receive the CAMCO award.

You remember who they were... the Erie PA collection Agency that loved the Courts so much they set up their own court room, complete with their own Judge, Bailiff, Law Books, Stands and all the trappings. Debtors were summoned to "Court" where the "Judge" found against them 100% of the time and ordered them to pay....

We all know the real Courts don't like competition and the Pennsylvania Attorney General didn't find this little scheme amusing.

http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2011306089891

[copyrighted material removed]
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Flyingifr on October 28, 2011 01:06:31 PM
I hereby nominate  Jason R. Begley; Wayne W. Lunsford; Rincon Management Services, LLC; Prime West Management Recovery, LLC; Pacific Management Recovery, LLC; City Investment Services, LLC; Global Filing Services, LLC; National Filing Services, LLC; and Union Management Services, LLC. for the CAMCO award.

Among the more egregious behavior are threats to dig up deceased persons' bodies and drop them on the survivors' doorsteps if they didn't pay for the funerals, charging and collecting fees for Court Costs in cases where no suit had been filed and others. The Receiver has determined that the businesses involved cannot survive AND follow the laws so they are to be liquidated.

Here's the text of the FTC announcement (it is a public document so there are no copyright issues):

Quote
At FTC's Request, Court Orders Debt Collection Operation to Stop Deceiving and Abusing Consumers
FTC Alleges that Defendants Targeted English- and Spanish-Speaking Consumers, Posing As Process Servers and Attorneys

At the request of the Federal Trade Commission, a U.S. district court has halted a debt collection operation that allegedly deceived and abused consumers – making bogus threats that consumers had been sued or could be arrested over debts they often did not owe.  As part of its continuing crackdown on scams that target consumers in financial distress, the FTC charged two individuals and seven companies in a Corona, California-based debt-collection operation doing business as Rincon Debt Management.  The court order stops the illegal conduct, freezes the operation's assets, and appoints a temporary receiver to take over the defendants’ business while the FTC moves forward with the case.

Operating since March 2009, the defendants have been unjustly enriched by at least $9.4 million, according to documents the FTC filed with the court.
“Consumers have a right to expect that debt collectors will be truthful and abide by the law,” said FTC Commissioner Edith Ramirez.  “We allege that, instead, the victims in this case were subject to abusive and illegal debt-collection practices, and that cannot stand.”

The FTC complaint alleges that the defendants targeted both English- and Spanish-speaking consumers.  The defendants called consumers and their employers, family, friends, and neighbors, posing as process servers seeking to deliver legal papers that purportedly related to a lawsuit.  In some instances, the defendants threatened that consumers would be arrested if they did not respond to the calls.  The defendants also posed as attorneys or employees of a law office, and demanded that consumers pay “court costs” and “legal fees.”  However, according to the FTC, the debt collectors making calls to consumers were not actually process servers, attorneys, or their employees, and the defendants did not file lawsuits against consumers.  In addition, in many instances, consumers did not even owe the debt the defendants were trying to collect.

The FTC charged that the defendants’ false and misleading claims that they were process servers or attorneys who had filed – or were about to file – a lawsuit against a consumer violated the FTC Act.  In addition, the FTC alleged that the defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by:

    improperly contacting third parties about consumers’ debts;
    failing to disclose the name of the company they represented, or the fact that they were attempting to collect on a debt, during telephone calls to consumers;
    misrepresenting the existence of a debt, the amount, and other facts about the debt; and
    failing to notify consumers of their right to dispute and obtain verification of their debts.

Last month, at the FTC’s request, a U.S. district court halted another debt collection operation that allegedly deceived and abused consumers.

 For consumer information about dealing with debt collectors, see Debt Collection FAQs: A Guide for Consumers.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 4-0.  The FTC filed the complaint and request for a temporary restraining order in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on October 11, 2011.  On the same day, the court granted the FTC's request.

The complaint names as defendants Jason R. Begley; Wayne W. Lunsford; Rincon Management Services, LLC; Prime West Management Recovery, LLC; Pacific Management Recovery, LLC; City Investment Services, LLC; Global Filing Services, LLC; National Filing Services, LLC; and Union Management Services, LLC.

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 defendant has actually violated the law.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them.  To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC's online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357).  The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad.  The FTC's website provides free information on a variety
of consumer topics.  Like the FTC on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

MEDIA CONTACT:
    Betsy Lordan
    Office of Public Affairs
    202-326-3707
STAFF CONTACT:
    Thomas J. Syta, Assistant Director
    FTC Western Regional Office
    310-824-4324
    (Spanish Language Press):
    Quisaira Whitney
    FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection
    202-326-2351

(FTC File No. 1123142)
(Rincon NR)

Here's the link: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2011/10/rincon.shtm
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Flyingifr on October 28, 2011 01:10:44 PM
Busy day at the CAMCO Awards. I hereby nominate Rumson Bolling and Associates to receive the CAMCO award. They were shut down by the Federal trade Commission.  Here's the article - it is a Public Document so there are no copyright issues:

Quote
At FTC's Request, Court Orders Debt Collector to Stop Deceiving Clients and Abusing Consumers

At the request of the Federal Trade Commission, a U.S. district court has halted an operation that allegedly subjected consumers to abusive debt-collection practices and deceived the small-business clients for whom it collects.  The order also freezes the operation's assets and appoints a permanent receiver to run it while the FTC moves forward with the case.

As part of its continuing crackdown on scams that target consumers in financial distress, the FTC filed a complaint against six individuals and three companies involved in a Van Nuys, California-based debt-collection operation doing business as Rumson, Bolling & Associates.

The FTC complaint charges that the defendants, in collecting debts on behalf of their clients:

    harassed and abused consumers by threatening physical harm and death to them and their pets, threatened to desecrate the bodies of deceased relatives, and used obscene and profane language;
    improperly revealed consumers' debts to third parties, such as the consumers' employers, co-workers, neighbors, and family members;
    falsely threatened consumers with lawsuits, arrest, seizure of their assets, or wage garnishment; and
    falsely claimed that consumers would be liable for legal fees incurred in the collection of the debt.

According to the FTC complaint, using the slogan “no recovery, no fee,” the defendants promised small businesses and other potential clients that they would collect debts on contingency, charging a fee only when they successfully collected a debt.  But in many cases, the defendants allegedly collected money from consumers on a client’s behalf and then kept more than they were entitled to, sometimes keeping all the money for themselves, instead of forwarding what was owed to the client.  In some cases, the defendants asked clients for additional fees, purportedly for legal expenses in filing a lawsuit that would “guarantee” the successful collection of a debt.  Many clients paid these fees, but the defendants failed to file the promised lawsuits and the clients never received any money in satisfaction of the debt in question.

The FTC charges that these practices violate the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

For consumer information about dealing with debt collectors, see Debt Collection FAQs: A Guide for Consumers.

The Federal Trade Commission would like to thank the Better Business Bureau of Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties (California) and the Better Business Bureau of the Southland, in Southern California, for their assistance in bringing this case.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 5-0.  The FTC filed the complaint and the request for a temporary restraining order in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on September 12, 2011.  On September 13, 2011, the court granted the FTC's request for a temporary restraining order with an asset freeze and the appointment of a temporary receiver. On September 27, 2011, the court granted the Commission’s request for a preliminary injunction and an order continuing the asset freeze and appointing a permanent receiver.

The complaint names as defendants Forensic Case Management Services, Inc. (doing business as Rumson, Bolling & Associates, FCMS, Inc., Commercial Recovery Solutions, Inc., and Commercial Investigations, Inc.), Specialized Recovery, Inc. (doing business as Joseph, Steven & Associates and Specialized Debt Recovery), Commercial Receivables Acquisition, Inc. (doing business as Commercial Recovery Authority, Inc. and The Forwarding Company), David M. Hynes II, James Hynes, Kevin Medley, Heather True, Frank E. Lindstrom, Jr., and Lorena Quiroz-Hynes.

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 defendant has actually violated the law. 

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them.  To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC's online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357).  The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad.  The FTC's website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.  Like the FTC on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

MEDIA CONTACT:
    Betsy Lordan
    Office of Public Affairs
    202-326-3707
STAFF CONTACT:
    Christopher Koegel
    Bureau of Consumer Protection
    202-326-3224

(FTC File No. 1123035)
(Rumson NR)   
E-mail this News Release
If you send this link to someone else, the FTC will not collect any personal information about you or the recipient.
Related Items:

Federal Trade Commission, Plaintiff v. Forensic Case Management Services, Inc. d/b/a Commercial Investigations, Inc., FCMS, Inc., Commercial Recovery Solutions, Inc., and Rumson, Bolling & Associates; Specialized Recovery, Inc. d/b/a Joseph, Steven & Associates and Specialized Debt Recovery; Commercial Receivables Acquisition, Inc. d/b/a Commercial Recovery Authority, Inc. and The Forwarding Company; David M. Hynes II a/k/a David M. Hynes, Jr.; James Hynes; Kevin Medley; Heather True; Frank E. Lindstrom, Jr.; and Lorena Quiroz-Hynes a/k/a Lorena Quiroz and Lorena Hynes, Defendants.
(United States District Court for the Central District of California)
Case No. CV-11-7484
FTC File No. 112 3035

Here's the link: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2011/09/rumson.shtm
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: BJ_Lurker on October 28, 2011 03:25:49 PM
Nomination of Harold Bolling seconded. I caught onto the Tammy Henshaw case, featured prominently in the FTC action, about four months after the Nov 2010 story broke in St. Louis.

In short, Henshaw's daughter died at 31 of a terminal illness. Her funeral bill was more than Mom had left in the cookie jar. Her daughter's corpse was the one supposedly to be unearthed and hung from a tree. In time, RBA was shamed into paying the funeral bill, literally the least it could do to make things right.

A series of KMOV TV reports doing a good job of follow-on probably did the most PR damage. Early on Harold Bolling tries to softsoap the abusive Henshaw calls and repaint collectors as needing protection from vicious debtors.

Belleville woman irate after vulgar phone calls from debt collectors
http://www.kmov.com/news/local/Foul-Mouth-Debt-Collectors--107059238.html

Debt collector apologizes, offers payment to local woman after making vulgar threats
http://www.kmov.com/home/Debt-collector-apologizes-pays-local-woman-after-making-vulgar-threats-107588144.html

Foul-mouth debt collector resurfaces, rips off local businessman
http://www.kmov.com/news/local/Foul-mouth-debt-collector-resurfaces-fails-to-honor-agreement-with-local-businessman-111423744.html

Harassing debt collector banned from one state; still operates in Missouri, Illinois
http://www.kmov.com/news/investigates/Harassing--debt-collector-banned-from-one-state-still-operates-in-Missouri-and-Illinois-116790248.html

If you listen hard to the various evidence clips, it seems that RBA reps all thought they were comedians, chuckling at their own horrid statements. Meanwhile, you find that even their clients came to dislike them.


This Ventura County Star article on the FTC lockdown fills in many more insider details of a gonzo agency. I think it's the original, later cut down by the wire services.

Feds take over debt collection business accused of harassment
http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/oct/04/feds-shut-down-abusive-debt-collection-business/

This one story grazes several hidden truths about collection agency excess, including the arrogance of management, the teaching of abusive practices from the top, and the fact that many employees can describe the inside of a jail cell from memory.

Aside: Possibly the only reader comments worth a hoot come from "Raylaw43", a former collector with a refreshingly realistic angle.
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Flyingifr on November 24, 2011 01:09:21 AM
The list of CAMCO Award nominees for 2011 is getting bigger and bigger.

I hereby nominate Steven J.  Baum PC Law Firm of Buffalo, NY and Mr. Baum personally for the CAMCO Award. It seems they just coundn't take peoples homes away without fraud and perjury - so bad that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae cut off their supply of victims.  Without victims, Baum just couldn't make it as an ethical lawyer.

The link: http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/news/2011/11/21/baum-law-firm-to-close.html
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: WinningTheBattle2010 on November 24, 2011 10:52:46 PM
  I love you guys/Gals.  A sense of humor and your favorite nominees.

  How about  LVNV , Branchfield?   I read lots on them.

WTB
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Flyingifr on February 02, 2013 05:42:41 AM
It's been a while but we have our 2012 nominee for the coveted CAMCO Award - Goldman Schwartz Inc. of Houston.  Shuttered by order of the US District Court, their creative methods of corporate seppuku included:

  •    falsely representing that Goldman Schwartz is a law firm and owner Gerald Wright is an attorney named Barry Schwartz.
    •    falsely claiming that consumers have committed crimes by not paying their debts, will be arrested or jailed, and will lose custody of their minor children.
    •    falsely claiming to be affiliated with or work in conjunction with law enforcement agencies.
    •    harassing and abusing consumers by using obscene or profane language, calling repeatedly or continuously, and calling late in the evening or early in the morning.
    •    adding unauthorized late fees and attorney’s fees to the amount consumers owe on their debts, and
    •    failing to inform consumers of their rights to dispute the debts, have the debts verified, and obtain the names of the original creditors.

Also named in the Order are Goldman Schwartz Inc, also doing business as Goldman, Schwartz, Lieberman & Stein; Debtcom, Inc., also doing business as Cole, Tanner, & Wright; Harris County Check Recovery Inc.; The G. Wright Group Inc., also doing business as The Wright Group; Gerald Wright, also known as Barry Schwartz; Starlette Foster, also known as Star Foster; and Jennifer Zamora.

Here's a link:

http://www.collectionscreditrisk.com/news/debt-collection-operation-shuttered-by-ftc-3013128-1.html?ET=ccrisk:e15442:92059a:&st=email&utm_source=editorial&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=CCR_Newsline_020113_020113
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Flyingifr on March 03, 2013 12:25:54 AM
The CAMCO Award Selection Committee is lease to announce that we have our first niminee for the 2013 CAMCO Award - Vanderbilt & Associates LLC and Buchanan Capital Management of Orlando, FL.

Not contentto rattle off they typical threats of suit, garnishment and credit destrution, they resorted to threats of imprisonment and who know what else - the news article would only say they impersonated Law Enforcement, Government agents, process servers and others. The purpose was to scare the alleged debtor into paying, regardless of whether the debtor actually owed a debt or even if there was a debt.

The State of Florida froze all their assets, effectively shutting them down.

Here's the link:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-pam-bondi-debt-collector-scheme-20130301,0,7480081.story
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Flyingifr on August 02, 2013 04:34:37 PM
OK, CAMCO Award enthusiasts, we have our second nominee for 2013.

We all know that debt collectors standard stock in trade is to make the threats seem like your world is about to come crashing down on you if you don't comply with their demands in nanoseconds. There is nothing new or extraordinary about that.  We also know that the less scrupulous debt collectors can be as slippery as eels, changing company names frequently to stay one step ahead of the law. Well, hats off to the Federal Trade Commission - they managed to catch three of those eels: Thai Han, Jim Tran Phelps, Keith Hua and some of their companies: Western Capital Group, Credit MP and Crown Funding Co.

What are they accused of? extortion; humiliating debtors by calling their friends, employers and families; and making false threats of lawsuits. Gee, they must have been REALLY egregious for the FTC to shut them down for that - as a former bill collector I used to do all that daily and the FTC never came after me. Oh, yes - I forgot - that was before FDCPA was passed into law so it was legal then. But still, those acts are still very common in the world of bill collectors. The significance of this FTC act is that it gives us pro-se litigants some hints as to what counterclaims we can  put on on the Answers to creditor lawsuits we file, or on our own Complaints.

Here's the link: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/feds-shut-down-calif-debt-142418102.html
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Flyingifr on March 14, 2014 05:34:45 PM
We have our first 2014 nominee for the coveted CAMCO award - a long list of Buffalo (NY, where else?) Collection Agencies named Federal Check Processing, Federal Recoveries, Federal Processing, Federal Processing Services, United Check Processing, Central Check Processing, Central Processing Services, American Check Processing, State Check Processing, Check Processing, Nationwide Check Processing, US Check Processing and Flowing Streams as well as their operators, Mark Briandi and William Moses.

They may sound like a lot of different companies but they really are one basement-type boiler room that changed names on a regular basis to stay one step ahead of the authorities. Their sins? The usual stuff:

Operating the scheme since at least May 2010, the defendants portrayed themselves as representatives of the government by using company names that suggested a government affiliation or national presence - such as Federal Recoveries LLC, Federal Check Processing Inc. and Nationwide Check Processing.

The defendants threatened consumers with consequences such as lawsuits, arrest and imprisonment or seizure of assets – unless consumers paid the debt immediately. The defendants allegedly bought debts and collected debts owed to other companies, and much of the debts the defendants collected on had originated from payday loans.

The defendants in the case repeated their deceptive claims to consumers’ family members, friends, coworkers and employers and revealed the nature of the consumers’ debts to the third parties, the complaint stated.

According to consumers interviewed by the FTC, the defendants routinely refused to provide information about the debt, as required by federal law, or to investigate the debt’s legitimacy – even after some consumers explained that they did not owe the debt, the debt had been paid in full or the defendants did not have the authority to collect on the debt

Quoting a FTC official:  "These debt collectors took deception to new lows,” said Jessica Rich, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “They bullied consumers, falsely accused them of crimes, and pretended to be government officials. Stopping their illegal activity is a real victory for consumers."

Here's the link: http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/03/ftcs-request-court-halts-debt-collectors-allegedly-deceptive
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Flyingifr on March 14, 2014 05:46:20 PM
Lest we forget, there are still worthy 2013 recipients of the CAMCO award out there. I hereby nominate Lisa J. Jeter, Nichole C. Anderson, Hope V. Wilson, Angela J. Triplett, DeMarra J. Massey, and their companies Pinnacle Payment Services, LLC, Velocity Payment Solutions, LLC, Heritage Capital Services, LLC, Performance Payment Processing, LLC, Credit Source Plus, LLC (Ohio), Credit Source Plus, LLC (Georgia), Reliable Resolution, LLC, Premium Express Processing, LLC (Ohio), and Premium Express Processing, LLC (Atlanta).

Here's the FTC release in its entirety:

Quote
At the request of the Federal Trade Commission, a U.S. district court has halted an operation based in Atlanta and Cleveland that allegedly used deceptive and threatening tactics to collect phantom payday loan “debts” that consumers either did not owe, or did not owe to the defendants.  The court order freezes the defendants’ assets to preserve the possibility of providing redress to consumers, and appoints a receiver.

According to the FTC, the defendants operated under a host of fictitious business names that implied an affiliation with a law firm or a law enforcement agency, such as Global Legal Services, Allied Litigation Group, United Judgment & Appeals, Dockets Liens & Seizures, and United Judgment Center.  Using robocalls and voice messages that threatened legal action and arrest unless consumers responded within a few days, the defendants have collected and processed millions of dollars in payment for phantom debts, according to the complaint.  Their practices have generated almost 3,000 complaints to the FTC’s Consumer Sentinel.

According to documents filed with the court, a typical message stated:  “[T]his is the Civil Investigations Unit.  We are contacting you in regards to a complaint being filed against you, pursuant to claim and affidavit number D00D-2932, where you have been named a respondent in a court action and must appear.  There is a contact number on file which you must call, 757-301-4745.  Please forward this information to your attorney in that the order to show cause contains a restraining order.  You or your attorney will have 24 to 48 hours to oppose this matter.”

Working out of offices in Cleveland and Atlanta, the defendants threatened consumers that if they did not pay, their bank accounts would be closed, their wages would be garnished, they would face felony fraud charges, they would have to appear in court thousands of miles from their homes, or they would be arrested at their workplace, according to documents filed with the court.  Many consumers ended up paying the defendants for debts they did not owe because they feared the threatened repercussions of failing to pay, believed the defendants were legitimate and collecting real debts, or simply wanted to stop the harassment, according to the complaint.

The FTC’s complaint names Lisa J. Jeter, Nichole C. Anderson, Hope V. Wilson, Angela J. Triplett, DeMarra J. Massey, and their companies Pinnacle Payment Services, LLC, Velocity Payment Solutions, LLC, Heritage Capital Services, LLC, Performance Payment Processing, LLC, Credit Source Plus, LLC (Ohio), Credit Source Plus, LLC (Georgia), Reliable Resolution, LLC, Premium Express Processing, LLC (Ohio), and Premium Express Processing, LLC (Atlanta).

This is the FTC’s fifth recent case involving allegedly fraudulent, online payday-loan-related operations.  Other cases include American Credit Crunchers, LLC, Broadway Global Master Inc., Pro Credit, and Vantage Funding.

The complaint charges the defendants with violating the FTC Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by falsely telling consumers that:

    they were delinquent on a payday loan or other debt that the defendants had the authority to collect;
    they had the legal obligation to pay the defendants;
    they would be arrested or imprisoned if they did not pay; and
    the defendants had taken or would take legal action.

The complaint also charges that the defendants illegally called consumers at inconvenient
times or places, including at their workplaces, despite being asked to stop; disclosed supposed debts to family members, employers, and other third parties; harassed consumers with repeated calls; failed to disclose their identity as debt collectors; and failed to provide a required written notice telling consumers how to dispute the alleged debts.

For more consumer information on this topic, see Dealing with Debt.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 4-0.  The complaint and request for a temporary restraining order were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division.  On October 24, 2013 the court granted the FTC’s request.

Here's the link: http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2013/10/ftcs-request-court-halts-collection-allegedly-fake-payday-debts
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: coltfan1972 on March 14, 2014 05:58:36 PM
Quoting a FTC official:  "These debt collectors took deception to new lows,” said Jessica Rich, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.

 :vbeek: Wow, I did not realize you could get lower than a snake's belly. 
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Bruno the JDB Killer on March 14, 2014 06:00:22 PM
I hope nobody stops them, we need the money.
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: cracrap on March 15, 2014 06:39:09 PM
+2!
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Flyingifr on April 03, 2014 07:18:30 PM
2014 appears to be a banner year for CAMCO awards. A new nominee has surfaced: Rincon Management Services, LLC, also doing business as "Rincon Debt Management," "Rincon Filing Services," and "Pacific Management Recovery"; Prime West Management Recovery, LLC; Union Management Services, LLC, also doing business as "Union Filing Services"; National Filing Services, LLC; City Investment Services, LLC; Global Filing Services, LLC; Pacific Management Recovery, LLC; Jason R. Begley; and Wayne W. Lunsford.

The Federal trade Commission has permanently enjoined them from the Debt Collection industry for making bogus threats against those in debt, saying that they could be sued or arrested, in some instances over debts they often did not actually owe.

Investigators said that the company targeted Spanish-speakers and people strapped for cash.

Rincon would call the employers of those in debt, family, friends and neighbors, according to the FTC. They also posed as process servers and attorneys or employees of a law office in an effort to collect money.

Their excuse: "We didn't know we violated FDCPA...."

Jeezus, this modus operandi could fit any one of a couple of dozen debt collectors I have seen discussed on DB. The excuse seems to almost be universal.

Here's the link: http://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/1123142/rincon-management-services-llc-et-al
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Anza01 on April 03, 2014 07:33:57 PM
Are these people from Rincon permanently banned from the DC industry or the just the company and tomorrow they will be opened their new company, Nocnir Services Management?
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Flyingifr on April 03, 2014 08:09:16 PM
According to the pleadings and the Injunction the individuals and the companies are permanently banned. That is one of the requirements of the CAMCO Award.
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Flyingifr on May 01, 2014 04:09:13 PM
We now have our THIRD 2014 nominee for the Coveted CAMCO Award - Collection Agency Swanson Walker & Associates, based in Lockport, N.Y., was shut down Wednesday by New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman's office after an investigation revealed the firm repeatedly violated the law by harassing customers, according to the AG's office.

According to information released by the NY Attorney General, Swanson' collectors "persistently violated the law" by improperly calling debtors at their places of employment, accusing them of check fraud and criminal violations, falsely reporting that a lawsuit had or would be filed, improperly disclosing consumer debts to third parties and improperly threatening to seize property, freeze bank accounts and garnish wages.

Swanson's website included several false representations:

    •    "We utilize two methodologies of collections, traditional collection services and litigation."

            How often did they sue? - NEVER

    •    "Litigation is a collection effort made by our associates (non-attorney assistants) under the direction of an attorney."

           Swanson never employed or retained an attorney, and an attorney never gave direction to its associates.

    •    "Litigation efforts commence when a matter cannot be resolved by our recovery specialists.  At this point a retained attorney determines that an account is eligible for litigation, within our jurisdiction, & with the client’s approval the legal process begins."

          What attorney and what lawsuit? See the 2 above comments.

    •    "Once a judgment is obtained we use post-judgment remedies such as wage garnishment and levying on property or bank account."

         Since Swanson never sued anyone, they never got a Judgment and therefore never attached any wages or bank accounts

    •    "Our clients may place accounts with us that are strictly designated for litigation and not for collection purposes."
   
         Since Swanson never sued anyone and never had an attorney on staff or as a consultant, this is obviously false

In addition, owner Sean Millard will pay a $10,000 fine.
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Commercial Guy on May 02, 2014 03:50:06 PM
"This case was handled by Assistant Attorney General James Morrissey and Karen Davis, Senior Consumer Fraud Representative in the Buffalo Regional Office."

That has to be the most overworked regional office in NY.
Title: 2014 is a BANNER YEAR for CAMCO nominees
Post by: Flyingifr on May 21, 2014 07:30:56 PM
Our FOURTH CAMCO Award Nominee for 2014 has surfaced -  Asset & Capital Management Group, Crown Funding Company, LLC,One FC, LLC, Credit MP, LLC, Western Capital Group, Inc., SJ Capitol, LLC, Green Fidelity Allegiance, Inc., Thai Han, Jim Tran Phelps, Keith Hua, and James Novella.

The Federal Trade Commission has permanently enjoined them all from  the Debt Collection Industry and has appointed a Receiver to wind up their operations. In addition, they agreed to pay a fine of $89,826,986 (supposedly every penny they illegally collected)

What did they do to warrant such an honor? From the Complaint (it starts in Page 10 and goes to Page 14):

Quote
Defendants'  collection  scheme is predicated  on convincing  consumers that a debt collection lawsuit has been, or will soon be, filed against them and will result in dire consequences  unless the consumer pays Defendants promptly. In fact, in numerous instances, no lawsuit has been filed nor will soon be filed against the consumers. Rather, Defendants misrepresent the legal status of consumers' purported debts as the subject of pending lawsuits to intimidate consumers into paying them, In furtherance  of the scheme, Defendants often use a two-step collection process to lend credence to the central misrepresentation that legal action against a consumer has begun or is imminent.

In the first step, Defendants' collectors generally call consumers or consumers' employers,  family members, or other third parties and represent that they are process servers, or are working with process servers, and are seeking to serve the consumer with legal papers pertaining to a lawsuit against the consumer.

Often, Defendants' collectors add a sense of urgency to their call by asserting that they are seeking to confirm that the consumer will be available to receive personal service at a certain time and location.  In numerous instances, the collectors claim that the consumer must call another number to obtain any information about the  lawsuit, then provide a callback number and a "case" number for the consumer to reference when calling. In numerous instances, Defendants' collectors warn that if the consumer does not call within a limited time period, generally two or three hours, he or she will be personally  served with process  to appear in court.  Often, the collectors  warn that the police or local sheriff will serve the consumer  at the consumer's  workplace.

In numerous  instances,  in placing these initial calls to consumers  or third parties, Defendants'   collectors  do not state their name and capacity,  and do not disclose enough information  so as not to mislead the recipient  as to the purpose of their call. In numerous  instances,  in their initial communications  with consumers,  Defendants'   collectors  do not disclose that they are debt collectors attempting  to collect a debt and that any information they obtain will be used for that purpose.

In truth and in fact, Defendants  do not employ or contract with  process servers to contact consumers or third parties, there is no lawsuit pending against the consumer, and neither a process server, the police, nor a sheriff is about the serve the consumer with legal process             

The second  step of Defendants'  collection process  generally occurs when a consumer  calls the number that Defendants'  collectors  provide in the initial call and is connected with a collector  whose job is to secure the consumer's payment  for Defendants. In numerous  instances,  the collectors who answer  the consumers'   calls falsely represent that they are with a law office or litigation department that is handling a lawsuit against the consumer. Even when Defendants' collectors disclose that the consumer is reaching a debt collector, in numerous instances they falsely assert that there is a pending lawsuit against the consumer. On these calls, Defendants' collectors generally state that the case involves a debt that the consumer owes.  Defendants' collectors make additional representations to falsely because of non-payment of the debt. In numerous instances, Defendants' collectors  advise consumers that they can "settle"  the action for an immediate payment of the entire debt, or offer consumers a payment plan. Generally, Defendants'   collectors  instruct the consumer  that payment  should be made over the telephone  via his or her credit or debit card.

In numerous instances, Defendants' collectors threaten that if the consumer does not resolve the debt immediately, Defendants will have the consumer arrested, or jailed, or will garnish the consumer's wages and/or seize the consumer's property. In truth and in fact, when Defendants' collectors threaten consumers with legal action, in numerous instances, no legal action has been taken against the consumer and Defendants do not intend to take any such legal action. In addition, Defendants cannot have a consumer arrested for non-payment of a private debt, and, in numerous  instances, cannot have a consumer's   wages garnished  or property seized because they have not filed an action  and obtained  a judgment  against the  consumer.

In numerous  instances, Defendants' collectors  also communicate,  or threaten to communicate,  with consumers'   employers,  family members,  or other third parties to apply pressure  and create a sense of urgency  on the part of the    consumer so the consumer  will pay the alleged debt to resolve the matter. In numerous  instances,  when Defendants'   collectors communicate, or threaten to communicate, with consumers' employers, family members or other third parties, Defendants already possess contact information for the consumer including the consumer's place of abode, telephone number or place of employment. In numerous instances, when Defendants' collectors communicate  with a third party in connection  with the collection  of a consumer's  purported  debt, Defendants'  collectors  disclose the consumer's   purported  debt to the third party. In numerous  instances,  Defendants  do not, within five days of their initial communication  with a consumer,  provide  the consumer with a written notice containing  the amount of the debt and the name of the creditor, along with a statement that the collector  will assume the debt to be valid unless the consumer disputes the debt within 30 days, as well as a statement  that the debt collector  will send a verification  of the debt or a copy of the judgment  if the consumer timely disputes the debt in writing.

Sounds like the typical Payday Loan collection operation to me....

Here's the link: http://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/122-3031/asset-capital-management-group-dba-acm-group-acmg-et-al

The Complaint is attached.
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: coltfan1972 on May 21, 2014 07:36:33 PM
Just more of those rare, rare, rare, bad apples.... :vbrofl:
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Flyingifr on June 11, 2014 05:43:40 PM
They year isn't even half over and we already have our FIFTH CAMCO Award nominee: Leonard G. Potillo, III, owner and operator of United Credit Recovery, LLC dba World Recovery Service  and, we assume, United Credit Recovery itself.

Here's the info:

It seems our nominee chose not only to try to scam consumers out of money with inflated and bogus debts, but used falsified Affidavits (remember the Robo-Signing scandal) to inflate the value of the bogus debts and even the real ones to scam other JDB's into overpaying for the debt portfolios.

Quote
The owner of a debt buying operation in Florida was arrested Monday and charged by federal officials for his role in orchestrating a fraudulent scheme that netted his company some $76 million over five years.

Leonard G. Potillo, III, owner and operator of United Credit Recovery, LLC (UCR), was arrested at his home near Orlando Monday by agents working for the IRS and U.S. Secret Service.

According to the indictment, UCR purchased consumer debt in the form of overdrawn checking accounts from Wells Fargo and U.S. Bank and then used account information provided by the banks to create hundreds of thousands of fake affidavits purporting to describe and to verify debt owed by consumers. UCR used the fake affidavits in collecting the debt.

UCR also used the fake affidavits to boost the value of its portfolios for reselling to other debt buyers. Many ARM companies paid highly inflated prices for portfolios that were essentially useless. That bit of fraud attracted the attention of the Secret Service.

In the course of doing business, Potillo allegedly bribed a U.S. Bank officer with more than $1 million for inside information relating to the bank’s auction of overdraft debt portfolios. This particular matter is being investigated with the help of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP), as U.S. Bank took TARP funds five years ago.

Potillo appeared before a judge late Monday in Orlando. He was formally charged with seven counts of wire fraud, 10 counts of bribery of a bank official, and 16 counts of money laundering.  If convicted, he faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in federal prison for each wire fraud charge, up to 30 years in prison for each bribery charge and up to 10 years in federal prison on each of the money laundering charges.

The government is also seeking a monetary judgment of at least $76 million, roughly the amount gained in the fraud. Officials have already seized a massive amount of Potillo’s property, including bank accounts totaling approximately $3.9 million in deposits; a 2008 Maserati; a 2007 Ferrari; a 2014 Jaguar; a 2010 Aston Martin; two vehicles located in Scotland; three residences in Florida, one residence in Montreal,  and a residence in Edinburgh, Scotland.

Potillo and UCR came under scrutiny late last year when two separate states’ attorneys general filed suit against the firm over the affidavit issue.

A TV news station in Orlando yesterday detailed the impact the case is having on employees of the firm. Federal agents also raided UCR – d/b/a World Recovery Service – offices and sent everyone home. One employee told the station she was there to collect a paycheck for the previous eight weeks.

I especially like the part where it says "A TV news station in Orlando yesterday detailed the impact the case is having on employees of the firm." How about we re-phrase that to "You're out of a job, expect your creditors to be calling you soon. Welcome to OUR side of the world."
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Flyingifr on July 02, 2014 08:52:49 PM
At the midpoint in 2014 we now have our SIXTH nominee for the coveted CAMCO Award - Williams, Scott & Associates, LLC of Georgia,  WSA, LLC of Las Vegas, NV and John Williams who organized both companies and holds a Management position in both.

What did our august Nominees do to earn the CAMCO Award? Nothing that would surprise us on Debtorboards but apparently the Federal Trade Commission was not as amused. Taken from the FTC's Complaint:

Quote
Since at least as early as 2010, Defendants have engaged in a nationwide debt collection scheme to deceive consumers into paying debts that consumers do not actually owe or that Defendants do not have the authority to collect. They call consumers and make a series of misrepresentations and threats to convince consumers that they must pay the purported debts.

11. In numerous instances, Defendants contact consumers who have previously inquired about, applied for, or received payday loans from online lenders or otherwise.

12. In numerous instances, Defendants telephone consumers and inform the consumers that they are delinquent on a payday loan or other debt. In numerous instances, however, consumers are not delinquent on a payday loan or other debt as
purported by Defendants.

13. In numerous instances, Defendants claim to have authority from consumers' lenders to collect the debts. In numerous instances, contrary to their representations, Defendants do not have authority from consumers' lenders to collect those lenders' debts.

14. In numerous instances, Defendants impersonate or claim to be members of law enforcement authorities or affiliated with law enforcement authorities, for example, federal and state agents, investigators, and members of a government fraud task force. In fact, Defendants are not members of or affiliated with law enforcement authorities.

15. In numerous instances, Defendants claim to be attorneys or working for law firms. In fact, Defendants are not attorneys and are not associated with any law firm.

16. In numerous instances, Defendants threaten consumers with arrest or imprisonment if consumers do not immediately pay the purported delinquent debt. Contrary to their representations, Defendants cannot have consumers arrested or
imprisoned for nonpayment of a private debt.

17. In numerous instances, Defendants claim that consumers have committed crimes, such as check fraud and theft by deception, by failing to pay payday loans or other debts that the consumers allegedly owe. Contrary to Defendants'
representations, the consumers have not committed check fraud or another criminal act related to the debts that could give rise to criminal sanctions.

18. In numerous instances, Defendants threaten consumers that their drivers' licenses will be suspended or revoked if the consumers fail to pay the alleged delinquent debt. Contrary to their representations, Defendants cannot suspend or revoke or cause the suspension or revocation of consumers' drivers' licenses for non-payment of a private debt.

19. In numerous instances, Defendants disclose consumers' alleged debts to third parties, such as family members, employers, and co-workers.

20. Defendants often possess or claim to possess the consumers' private information such as Social Security numbers, financial account numbers, or the names and contact information of relatives, leading consumers to believe that the
calls are legitimate collection efforts and that consumers must pay the purportedly delinquent debts.

21. In numerous instances, in their initial communications with consumers, Defendants do not inform consumers that they are debt collectors who are attempting to collect a debt from consumers and that any information obtained from consumers will be used for that purpose.

22. In numerous instances, Defendants use profane language when they call consumers and repeatedly contact consumers on their home, cell and work numbers, as a means of intimidating and harassing consumers to convince them to pay the allege debt. For example, Defendants (i) call consumers multiple times per day or excessively over an extended period of time and (ii) call consumers' places of employment, even though consumers have told Defendants that such calls are
inconvenient or prohibited by consumers' employers.

23. In numerous instances, Defendants fail to provide consumers, within five days after the initial communication with consumers, a written notice containing:
( 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 the debt in writing, Defendants will obtain verification of the debt.

In other words, they simply behaved like normal debt collectors. What made our Nominees actions "above and beyond" the call of legality was that in many cases the debts were in their own imagination. In other words, there was no debt.

Here's the link: http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/07/ftcs-request-court-halts-collection-allegedly-fake-payday-debts
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: head801 on July 04, 2014 01:11:32 AM
I know I have been contacted with this nonsense multiple times. I hope these dirtbags pay through the nose! 1215
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Flyingifr on July 21, 2014 05:30:15 PM
Our SEVENTH nominee for the coveted CAMCO Award for 2014 has surfaced: Check Systems LLC, Interchex Systems LLC, Goldberg Maxwell LLC, Morgan Jackson LLC, Mullins & Kane LLC, Buffalo Staffing Inc. and American Mutual Holdings Inc as well as their Principals,  Joseph and Diane Bella, Luis A. Shaw, National Check Registry and eCapital Services from Buffalo, NY (how surprising) - where FDCPA is merely a suggestion and other laws are concepts. This nomination is specially deserved because it seems the candidates changed their business name (but not their modus operandi, of course) to evade detection that they were ignoring a previous agreement with the authorities to stop violating federal and state debt collection laws. And we here at the Debtoboards CAMCO Award nominating committee find this amazing because?????

And just what did our erstwhile nominees for this much-coveted award do to be put into nomination?

They misrepresented that consumers had committed check fraud or another criminal act; falsely threatened to arrest or imprison consumers, sue them, garnish their wages, or put a lien on their property; failed to back up their claims that consumers owed the debt; charged illegal fees; and improperly revealed consumers’ debts to third parties

And the most shocking parts:

They

•told one consumer in Washington State that they would have the "Washington County Police" issue a warrant for her arrest, and another serving in the military that they would bring an action against him under the Uniform Code of Military Justice;

•said the only way to avoid arrest, imprisonment, lawsuits, wage garnishments, and seized assets would be to make an immediate payment over the phone;

•continued to accuse consumers of check fraud and other crimes even after they produced evidence showing they didn’t owe the debt in question;

•contacted friends, family members, and co-workers of consumers whom they claimed owed a debt, and in some cases, not only revealed the supposed debt but also said the consumers had committed check fraud, and would be arrested or imprisoned if the debt was not paid;

•added an illegal $8 “processing fee” when consumers made payments on supposed debts over the phone;

•failed to provide consumers with debt collection notices and disclosures that are required under state and federal law, making it difficult for consumers to determine whether they owed the debt, and how they could dispute its validity; and

•continued trying to collect a debt from a consumer who had discharged the debt in bankruptcy.

Now, to those of us at Debtorboards who have any kind of memory, none of this is new, shocking or even unusual. Here's the article:

Quote
A U.S. district court on Monday halted a Buffalo, N.Y.-based collection agency from doing business, froze the operation's assets and appointed a temporary receiver to take over the defendants' business pending trial. The ruling came after charges from the Federal Trade Commission and the New York Attorney General’s office.

Going by various names including National Check Registry, the business began using another name – eCapital Services LLC – to evade detection after signing an agreement with New York authorities in October 2013 that prohibited it from violating federal and state debt collection laws, according to the joint complaint.

Three individuals – Joseph C. Bella III, Diane Bella and Luis A. Shaw – and nine interrelated companies they control are charged in the scheme.

Operating since February 2010, the defendants have collected at least $8.7 million dollars in payments for purported debts, according to the complaint, which charged that the defendants’ tactics violated the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and several New York state laws.

The FTC and New York Attorney General's office said the defendants used lies and threats against consumers. The defendants misrepresented that consumers had committed check fraud or another criminal act; falsely threatened to arrest or imprison consumers, sue them, garnish their wages, or put a lien on their property; failed to back up their claims that consumers owed the debt; charged illegal fees; and improperly revealed consumers’ debts to third parties, according to the complaint.

Also, according to the complaint, the defendants:
•told one consumer in Washington State that they would have the "Washington County Police" issue a warrant for her arrest, and another serving in the military that they would bring an action against him under the Uniform Code of Military Justice;
•said the only way to avoid arrest, imprisonment, lawsuits, wage garnishments, and seized assets would be to make an immediate payment over the phone;
•continued to accuse consumers of check fraud and other crimes even after they produced evidence showing they didn’t owe the debt in question;
•contacted friends, family members, and co-workers of consumers whom they claimed owed a debt, and in some cases, not only revealed the supposed debt but also said the consumers had committed check fraud, and would be arrested or imprisoned if the debt was not paid;
•added an illegal $8 “processing fee” when consumers made payments on supposed debts over the phone;
•failed to provide consumers with debt collection notices and disclosures that are required under state and federal law, making it difficult for consumers to determine whether they owed the debt, and how they could dispute its validity; and
•continued trying to collect a debt from a consumer who had discharged the debt in bankruptcy.

Along with Joseph and Diane Bella, Luis A. Shaw, National Check Registry and eCapital Services, the complaint names as defendants Check Systems LLC, Interchex Systems LLC, Goldberg Maxwell LLC, Morgan Jackson LLC, Mullins & Kane LLC, Buffalo Staffing Inc. and American Mutual Holdings Inc.

Source: http://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/132-3215/national-check-registry-llc
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: coltfan1972 on July 21, 2014 06:59:46 PM
Our SEVENTH nominee for the coveted CAMCO Award for 2014 has surfaced: Check Systems LLC, Interchex Systems LLC, Goldberg Maxwell LLC, Morgan Jackson LLC, Mullins & Kane LLC, Buffalo Staffing Inc. and American Mutual Holdings Inc as well as their Principals,  Joseph and Diane Bella, Luis A. Shaw, National Check Registry and eCapital Services from Buffalo, NY (how surprising) - where FDCPA is merely a suggestion and other laws are concepts. This nomination is specially deserved because it seems the candidates changed their business name (but not their modus operandi, of course) to evade detection that they were ignoring a previous agreement with the authorities to stop violating federal and state debt collection laws. And we here at the Debtoboards CAMCO Award nominating committee find this amazing because?????

And just what did our erstwhile nominees for this much-coveted award do to be put into nomination?

They misrepresented that consumers had committed check fraud or another criminal act; falsely threatened to arrest or imprison consumers, sue them, garnish their wages, or put a lien on their property; failed to back up their claims that consumers owed the debt; charged illegal fees; and improperly revealed consumers’ debts to third parties

And the most shocking parts:

They

•told one consumer in Washington State that they would have the "Washington County Police" issue a warrant for her arrest, and another serving in the military that they would bring an action against him under the Uniform Code of Military Justice;

•said the only way to avoid arrest, imprisonment, lawsuits, wage garnishments, and seized assets would be to make an immediate payment over the phone;

•continued to accuse consumers of check fraud and other crimes even after they produced evidence showing they didn’t owe the debt in question;

•contacted friends, family members, and co-workers of consumers whom they claimed owed a debt, and in some cases, not only revealed the supposed debt but also said the consumers had committed check fraud, and would be arrested or imprisoned if the debt was not paid;

•added an illegal $8 “processing fee” when consumers made payments on supposed debts over the phone;

•failed to provide consumers with debt collection notices and disclosures that are required under state and federal law, making it difficult for consumers to determine whether they owed the debt, and how they could dispute its validity; and

•continued trying to collect a debt from a consumer who had discharged the debt in bankruptcy.

Now, to those of us at Debtorboards who have any kind of memory, none of this is new, shocking or even unusual. Here's the article:

Source: http://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/132-3215/national-check-registry-llc

Just more of those rare, rare, rare, bad apples.... :vbrofl:
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Flyingifr on July 29, 2014 05:19:52 PM
The 2014 CAMCO Award nominees keep piling up as we now add Colfax Capital Corp. and Culver Capital LLC of Califiornia, collectively formerly known as Rome Finance to our long list of nominees as our EIGHTH CAMCO Award nominee for 2014.  The company and two of its owners are permanently banned from consumer lending by Consent Order with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. As a result of the Consent Order and the $92 million they were forced to forgive the companies have filed for Bankruptcy protection.

Just what did they do? Predatory lending to military families, including the following:

Hid finance charges when marketing products: Rome Finance and merchants it worked with masked expensive finance charges by artificially inflating the disclosed price of the consumer goods being sold. As a result, they provided consumers with disclosures that had inaccurately low finance charges and annual percentage rates (APR). Consumers received disclosures, for example, indicating the APR was 16% when in fact the APR was 100 percent or more. That inaccurate information prevented consumers from making an informed decision about whether to take out credit.

•Withheld required financial information from billing statements: Billing statements that Rome Finance sent to consumers failed to include certain disclosures required by law such as: the annual percentage rate, the balance that was subject to that interest rate, how that balance was determined, the closing date of the billing cycle, and the account balance on the closing date.

•Deceptively, unfairly, and abusively collected debt that was not owed: Rome Finance was not licensed to provide consumer lending in any state and charged annual percentage rates higher than some states allowed, which voided or limited the collectable debt in some states under state lending law. Rome Finance deceived consumers in these states by failing to inform them that some or all of their debt was void or otherwise did not have to be repaid. As a result, many consumers were misled into thinking that they had to repay the entire loan balance and making those payments, when they did not have to.

What do they have to do?

•Update credit reporting agencies and notify servicemembers and other consumers of debt status: The Colfax Trustee must update the credit reporting agencies so that affected consumers are listed as having paid their debt. The Colfax Trustee must also notify all affected consumers that their debt will no longer be collected.

•Rome Finance and their owners must cease consumer lending: Rome Finance and two of their owners, Ronald Wilson and William Collins, are permanently banned from conducting any business in the field of consumer lending.

•Pay redress for hidden finance charges: Rome Finance was ordered to pay redress to compensate affected consumers for the amount of excess finance charges they paid. When Colfax’s Trustee has complied with certain provisions of the Consent Order, the requirement to pay redress will be suspended because Rome Finance has no ability to pay such redress.

•Pay civil money penalty: For its inaccurate disclosures, and unfair, deceptive and abusive practices, Colfax, through its bankruptcy trustee, will make a $1 penalty payment to the CFPB’s Civil Penalty Fund. The CFPB is not assessing a larger penalty because Colfax is bankrupt. With Colfax making a payment to the Civil Penalty Fund, Rome Finance’s victims may be eligible for relief from the Civil Penalty Fund in the future, although that determination has not yet been made.

•Cooperate with servicemembers and other consumers who seek to vacate judgments: The Colfax Trustee is required until the Colfax bankruptcy case is closed to cooperate in executing any documents presented to him to vacate or satisfy any judgments against consumers relating to the financing agreements.

Here's the link: http://www.collectionscreditrisk.com/news/ccr_regulation/debt-relief-for-scheme-targeting-military-members-3018673-1.html?utm_campaign=newsline-jul%2029%202014&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&ET=ccrisk%3Ae2872404%3A877878a%3A&st=email

 

Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: coltfan1972 on July 29, 2014 07:14:54 PM
A big Debtorboards welcome to our newest award winners.   :drinking:

It truly takes incredible effort and achievement to be awarded the highest award available here at Debtorboards.   Well done, a job well done.   :drinking:
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Flyingifr on August 21, 2014 05:57:02 PM
The CAMCO Award Committee is pleased to announce our NINTH nominee for the coveted CAMCO Award for 2014. The erstwhile nominee is Khemall "Kenny" Jokhoo, whose aliases include Kevin Smith, Kevin Day and Mike Lee, ran a one-man collection agency called First Financial Services out of Minnesota. Allegations about Jokhoo's aggressive collection tactics originally surfaced in October 2007 when Eugene R. Myers of Janesville, Wis., sued him and his employer in federal court.

Federal investigators charged Jokhoo with using his access to credit bureaus and consumer databases to steal identities and defraud financial institutions across the U.S. He was charged with 11 counts of bank fraud, nine counts of mail fraud and 10 counts of aggravated identity theft.

The indictment states that Jokhoo ran a scheme to fraudulently obtain money from individuals and financial institutions. He allegedly used the various resources available to debt collectors to gather information regarding individuals, including dates of birth, Social Security numbers, addresses, employment and financial information.

He allegedly contacted victims and falsely told them they had past due debts that they owed him. He also would sometimes make threats against the victims, placed multiple calls to the victims at unreasonable hours of the day and contacted the victims’ families or employers as a way to induce payments from the victims.

Jokhoo was sentenced Wednesday to 15 years in federal prison for stealing clients’ money and identities and threatening physical harm. In one case, he allegedly threatened to push a disabled veteran in a wheelchair off a bridge.

He was indicted in December 2012 for bank fraud, mail fraud and wire fraud before Wednesday's sentence in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis on 33 counts. Jokhoo, who mostly targeted the elderly, tried to steal more than $700,000 by using identities of more than 60 victims. An administrative law judge previously found that Jokhoo misrepresented himself as a lawyer, harassed debtors over extremely old, uncollectable accounts, made unauthorized withdrawals from debtors’ financial institutions, cashed forged checks and concealed a criminal record on at least seven state license applications since 2005.

U.S. District Judge David Doty said after 175 months in federal prison, Jokhoo will have five years of supervised release. Doty ordered Jokhoo to pay more than $257,000 in restitution, according to a spokesman for federal prosecutors.

Jokhoo was stripped of his collection and real estate licenses by the Department of Commerce, and fined $100,000 in May 2011 for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The CAMCO Award committee has reason to believe that he is already looking for a home in the Buffalo, NY area to be occupied by him upon his release from federal prison.

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca8/13-2627/
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Flyingifr on September 23, 2014 08:10:02 PM
They just keep on coming. The CAMCO Award Committee is pleased to announce the TENTH nominee for the coveted CMACO Award for 2014. All we can say is - thank God we committee members are all either unemployed or retired, because the CAMCO Award Committee duties are become a full time job this year.

Our Tenth (!!!) nominee for 2014 is Pinnacle Payment Services, LLC, a California limited liability company; Velocity Payment Solutions, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company; Heritage Capital Services, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company; Performance Payment Processing, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company; Credit Source Plus, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company; Credit Source Plus, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company; Reliable Resolution, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company; Premium Express Processing, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company; Premium Express Processing, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company; Rapid Resolution, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company; Windfall Management Systems, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company; Heritage Management Services, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company; Freestar World, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company; Nationwide Payment Processors, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company; National Processors Group, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company; Global Acceptance, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company; Capitol Exchange, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company; Pioneer Capital Services, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company; Platinum Express, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company; Solution Processing, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company; Tobias Boyland, also known as Lawrence Johnson; Dorian Wills, also known as Daryll Clay; Lisa J. Jeter, also known as Denise Portier; Nichole C. Anderson; Hope V. Wilson; Angela J. Triplett; DeMarra J. Massey, Defendants as listed by the Federal Trade Commission in its Complaint to the Courts.

And just what did our erstwhile nominees do to earn such a Coveted and sought after award?

From the FTC Press Release:

Quote
the defendants operated under a host of fictitious business names that implied an affiliation with a law firm or a law enforcement agency, such as Global Legal Services, Allied Litigation Group, United Judgment & Appeals, Dockets Liens & Seizures, and United Judgment Center.  Using robocalls and voice messages that threatened legal action and arrest unless consumers responded within a few days, the defendants have collected and processed millions of dollars in payment for phantom debts, according to the complaint.  Their practices have generated almost 3,000 complaints to the FTC’s Consumer Sentinel.

According to documents filed with the court, a typical message stated:  “[T]his is the Civil Investigations Unit.  We are contacting you in regards to a complaint being filed against you, pursuant to claim and affidavit number D00D-2932, where you have been named a respondent in a court action and must appear.  There is a contact number on file which you must call, 757-301-4745.  Please forward this information to your attorney in that the order to show cause contains a restraining order.  You or your attorney will have 24 to 48 hours to oppose this matter.”

Working out of offices in Cleveland and Atlanta, the defendants threatened consumers that if they did not pay, their bank accounts would be closed, their wages would be garnished, they would face felony fraud charges, they would have to appear in court thousands of miles from their homes, or they would be arrested at their workplace, according to documents filed with the court.  Many consumers ended up paying the defendants for debts they did not owe because they feared the threatened repercussions of failing to pay, believed the defendants were legitimate and collecting real debts, or simply wanted to stop the harassment, according to the complaint.

In addition, Lisa J. Jeter, Nichole C. Anderson, Hope V. Wilson, Demarra J. Massey, Dorian Wills, Angela J. Triplett and Tobias Boyland, as well as Pinnacle Payment, are banned from collection activities and helping others engaged in collecting or selling debts.

Boyland was added as a defendant in December 2013, months after the FTC filed its original complaint.

Boyland was a fugitive debt collector captured in March 2011 outside a Red Roof Inn near downtown Pittsburgh. He had been convicted on weapons charges in 2010 and was facing 15 years in state prison.


Boyland at the time was the central figure in a larger investigation, started in 2009, into his former companies' collection tactics. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, while serving as the state's attorney general, had shut down Boyland’s operations - including nine companies in the Buffalo area, Cleveland and Pittsburgh - following a six-month investigation that revealed his employees used violence and threats to collect debts. Boyland's employees also had posed as uniformed police officers.

Boyland previously served 13 years in prison for attempted robbery. It was not immediately clear if Boyland is in prison. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons website, Boyland was last released from prison in 1993.

http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2013/10/ftcs-request-court-halts-collection-allegedly-fake-payday-debts





 
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Flyingifr on November 18, 2014 10:36:18 PM
The CAMCO Committee is pleased to announce its ELEVENTH nominee in 2014 for the coveted CAMCO Award and, for the first time, a nominee has been nominated twice in the same year!!!!

Williams, Scott & Associates, LLC of Georgia,  WSA, LLC of Las Vegas, NV and John Williams, our SIXTH nominee for 2014 has achieved the incredible feat of being shut down TWICE in the same year - first by the Federal Trade Commission and, just today (November 18) by Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara in New York City with the arrest of John Williams and employees Benita Cannedy, Rudy James, Arthur Cook, Christopher Lenyszyn, Clark Smith and Titus McDowell.

 The criminal case followed an earlier civil action by the FTC in which the company agreed to an order stopping it from collecting allegedly fake payday loan debts.

The criminal complaint said WSA employees using aliases such as "Mr. Cline" and "Investigator Ace Rogers" told victims that the "national check fraud center" had filed complaints against them and that they faced jail time.

To sound convincing, the employees read from a script containing phrases that sounded like official legal language, the complaint said.

"Failure to respond will lead to criminal charges being pursued," one line in the script read.

"It's a Class A felony pending against you for theft of property," another read.

The Williams Scott & Associates employees also told victims that WSA stood for "Warrant Services Association."

The case is U.S. v. Williams Scott & Associates, LLC, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 14-mj-2546.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-hits-georgia-based-debt-collector-fraud-charges-172924372--sector.html

I guess some people never learn.......

Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Stormcrow on November 19, 2014 12:38:01 AM
Love the CAMCO Awards! There should be a special category for the latest esteemed nominee.
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Flyingifr on November 19, 2014 01:13:20 AM
Love the CAMCO Awards! There should be a special category for the latest esteemed nominee.

There is.... the coveted title of "ex-Convict" when they get out. Until then it's just "Number 1234567".
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: JROD on November 19, 2014 05:44:26 AM
Nominated twice in the same year?

We have a winner
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Flyingifr on February 26, 2015 05:17:27 PM
While 2014 was a banner year for CAMCO Awards with eleven recipients (ten different ones and one repeater) 2015 is off to a good start. We have two separate nominees in the same day, courtesy of the Federal Trade Commission and the NY State Attorney General. Knowing that the NY AG is involved, we can rest assured the CAMCO Award recipients are located near or in Buffalo, NY.

The first is the usual laundry list:

VANTAGE POINT SERVICES, LLC, a New York limited liability company; PAYMENT MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., a New York corporation; BONIFIED PAYMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., a New York corporation; GREGORY MACKINNON, individually and as an officer of one or more of the Corporate
Defendants; MEGA~ VANDEVIVER, individually and as an officer of one or more of the Corporate Defendants; ANGELA BURDORF, individually and as an officer of one or more of the Corporate Defendants; and JOSEPH CIFF, individually and as an officer of one or more of the Corporate Defendants.

According to the FTC complaint, they "Since at least April2012 Defendants have used deceptive, unfair, and abusive tactics to pressure consumers into making payments on purported debts. These practices fall into five main categories: (I) false representations regarding the Defendants' identities, addresses and
business purposes; (2) false or unsubstantiated threats of arrest and other dire consequences; (3)
unlawful contacts-often involving false claims that putative debtors committed a crime and will
be arrested-with putative debtors' friends, family, and coworkers; (4) failing to provide
statutorily-required information to consumers; and (5) charging illegal processing fees."

Describing the specific actions the CAMCO Award nominees did, the FTC continues....

Quote
In collection calls to consumers, when Defendants identify themselves at all, they falsely claim to be a law firm, process server, an unrelated debt collection company, or government-affiliated entity. Defendants have claimed to be calling from scores of different entities, including: the Law Finn of Hamilton, Tate & Associates, the Compliance and Fraud  division. Mediation Consulting and Warrant Services, the FBI, Legal Processing Services, Client Affairs and Processing, a private investigator working with the State of California, Stateside Mediation, the Law Offices of Christian Young and Associates, Legal Mediation Services, and Maxwell Legal Services.

In many instances, Defendants supplement these fictitious business names by claiming to be affiliated with a state or federal government agency. In some situations, Defendants tell consumers they work directly for a state or federal agency. In other situations, Defendants tell consumers that they are a law firm or similar entity that works as an intermediary with the state, and that the state places accounts with the Defendants to give consumers a chance to pay a debt before criminal charges are filed.

In many instances, Defendants use false titles to reinforce the claim that they are calling from a law firm, process server, or government-affiliated agency. Instead of disclosing  that they are a debt collector, Defendants identify themselves as "investigators" or "attorneys'' when calling consumers. And in some cases, Defendants even go so far as to say that they are an investigator or agent working for a government agency.

When a consumer agrees to make a payment, Defendants usually transfer the consumer to an ostensibly separate "payment processor." A different representative answers the transferred call, and instructs the consumers to make a payment to the "payment processing"  company: Vantage Point Services or Payment Management Solutions. In many cases, as part of these payment instructions Defendants provide a corporate address indicating that the "payment processor" is located in Amherst, New York. When Defendants have responded to consumer complaints submitted to the New York Office of the Attorney General ("OAG"), Defendants have maintained this fa9ade, falsely claiming that they are not debt collectors but mere payment processors.

Defendants also use a variety of phone numbers with different area codes to deceive consumers about their identity. While Defendants utilize dozens of phone numbers at any given time, they have churned through these numbers on a regular basis. Defendants have employed over 500 distinct phone numbers-with scores of different area codes--since May 2013.

By using numbers with different area codes, Defendants further the misrepresentations regarding their identity. For instance, Defendants called one consumer using a phone number with an Illinois-based area code and claimed to be a Chicago-based law firm, and Defendants called another consumer using a phone number with a California-based area code and claimed to be an investigator working with the district attorney of California.

Defendants also have made an array of misrepresentations regarding the location of their corporate offices. They have claimed that both Vantage Point Services and Payment Management Solutions operate out of 4248 Ridge Lea Road, Suite 25, Buffalo, New York 14226. And they have asserted that Vantage Point Services has operated out of a series of locations, including: (i) 4248 Ridge Lea Road, Suites 1, 5, and 25, Buffalo, New York 14226; (ii) 121 Willow Drive, Tonawanda, New York 14150; and (iii) 375 North French Road, Suite 107, Amherst, New York 14228. But, for each of these locations, the Corporate Defendants either have never operated out of the asserted corporate address or, in many instances, did not operate out of the asserted address at the time representations were made.

False or Unsubstantiated Threats of Arrest and Other Dire Consequences

Building on this foundation of deception, Defendants employed an array of false threats to pressure consumers into making payments.

Defendants' main tactic is to falsely represent that a consumer will be arrested if a debt is not paid within a number of hours or even minutes. In many cases, Defendants have claimed that consumers are facing "felony charges" and "arrest warrants" that will be issued by the end of the day. For example, in numerous instances, Defendants have told consumers that two felony warrants would be issued for nonpayment, the consumers would be arrested within hours--or even minutes-if they did not make a payment, and that a Sheriff or police officer was set to go to the consumers' work or home to arrest them. In some cases, Defendants represent that a judge is ready to sign the warrant, and if payment is not received in a matter of hours, Defendants will have the warrant signed and law enforcement agents will be deployed to arrest and jail the consumer.

In many cases, Defendants supplement the threats of arrest with false representations about specific aspects of the arrest process and the consequences of being arrested. For example, ,Defendants left a consumer a voicemail message in which they told the consumer they were going to file "two felony charges" and request that the local Sheriff accompany Defendants to the consumer's residence or place of employment. Defendants also instructed the consumer to "make sure that if there are any large dogs or firearms on the premises" that they be "out of the immediate harm's way" of the Defendants and the
accompanying "uniformed officer." In addition, Defendants advised the consumer to "please have adequate supervision for any minor children in the home."

Similarly, in many instances, Defendants have falsely represented that consumers will spend a mandatory minimum of90 or 120 days in jails if payment is not received. And Defendants have told consumers that once jailed, in order to be released they will have to post bail of thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars.

You can read the rest of the Complaint in the attached file. It's the typical Buffalo-style collection tactics we at DB have been seeing and warning about for years.
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Flyingifr on February 26, 2015 05:35:49 PM
The second nominee for the prestigious CAMCO Award for 2015 is another laundry list of defendants from the Buffalo, NY area:


4 STAR RESOLUTION LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, also doing business as Consumer Recovery Group, Four Star Capital Services, Four Star Resolution Services, LLC, and FS Mediation Group,
PROFILE MANAGEMENT, INC., a New York corporation,
INTERNATIONAL RECOVERY SERVICE LLC, a New York limited liability company, also doing business as Financial Mediation Group,
CHECK SOLUTIONS SERVICES INC . a Colorado corporation, also doing business as County Check Services,
CHECK FRAUD SERVICE LLC, a Georgia limited liability company, formerly known as Check Fraud Services, LLC, and also doing business as Check Services and CFS & Associates Inc.,
MERCHANT RECOVERY SERVICE, INC., a North Carolina corporation, also doing business as Mandatory Arbitration Services and POL Recovery Services,
FOURSTAR REVENUE MANAGEMENT LLC. a New York limited liability company,
TRA VELL THOMAS, individually, and as principal. manager, and/or officer of 4 Star Resolution LLC, Profile Management, Inc., International Recovery Service LLC, Check Solutions Services Inc., Check Fraud Service LLC, and Merchant Recovery Service, Inc.,
MAURICE SESSUM, individually, and as principal, manager~ and/or officer of 4 Star Resolution, LLC, Profile Management, Inc., International Recovery Service LLC, and Check Fraud Service LLC, and
CHARLES BLAKELY III, individually, and as principal, manager, and/or officer of Merchant Recovery  Service, Inc.,
Defendants,
also doing business as American Asset Management, American Asset Recovery, Asset Retention Services, Check Services International, County Arbitration, LLC, Debt Resolution Services, District Restitution Services, Four Star Mediation Group, Global Management Group, Hansen Law Firm, IRG & Associates, POL
Recovery Services, PMI & Associates, Inc., PMR Law Group, Profile Arbitration Enforcement, and other business names.

Their list of business practices also follows the typical Buffalo NY style if debt collection:

Quote
Since at least 2009 and continuing thereafter, Defendants have used deceptive and abusive tactics to pressure consumers into making payments on purported debts. Defendants' core tactic has been to misrepresent that consumers have committed "bank fraud," "check fraud," or another unlawful act related to the debts. Defendants have then claimed that consumers will face dire consequences - including arrest and imprisonment- unless the charges of fraud are resolved by making an immediate payment on the alleged debt over the phone. Defendants have also failed to provide consumers with basic, truthful information about Defendants, and failed to provide consumers with statutorily-required disclosures and notices that would assist consumers in verifying and, where appropriate, challenging the alleged debts.

Defendants are third-party debt collectors that purchase portfolios of alleged consumer payday loan and credit card debts, many of which are past the applicable legal statutes of limitations, and collect payments on their own behalf from consumers nationwide.

Defendants attempt to collect debts by contacting consumers using instrumentalities of interstate commerce, including telephones, United States mail, and electronic mail.

Defendants Use Deception and False Threats to Extract Money from Consumers

Defendants perpetrate their collection scheme primarily by telephoning consumers and making a series of misrepresentations and threats to convince the consumers to pay the purported debts.

Often, a consumer's initial communication from Defendants is in the form of a message left by Defendants' representatives on the consumer's voicemail or answering machine. A typical telephone message informs a consumer of "possible litigation pending" against the consumer and provides a case number. The message further states that the consumer has 48 hours to resolve the issue and provides a phone number to call back and a code enabling the consumer to speak with a claims processor. The message then warns that the failure to comply will result in a complaint "being formalized" with the consumer's residing county.

When consumers call the telephone numbers contained in the phone messages, the) are usually connected to Defendants' representatives, who will sometimes inform the consumers that they are delinquent on a payday loan or other debt. In numerous instances, Defendants' representatives have falsely claimed that (i) they are attorneys, investigators, process servers, court officials, government agents, or criminal law enforcement officials, rather than debt collectors, and; (ii) they will arrest or imprison consumers, take legal action, garnish consumers' wages, and/or seize their property if the consumers do not pay the alleged debts. In fact, Defendants are private parties and do not have the legal authority to have consumers arrested or imprisoned for the nonpayment of a private debt. Further, in most instances when
Defendants threatened consumers with legal action, no legal action was subsequently taken, and, on information and belief, Defendants did not intend to take any such legal action. In many instances, the claimed debts are beyond the applicable statutes of limitation, which would make any such action unlawful. ln other cases, consumers are not obligated to pay the alleged payday loan or other debt at issue because the purported debt was already paid, discharged in bankruptcy, or the consumer never incurred the alleged debt.

In one typical example of Defendants' misconduct, Defendants' representative, employing the pseudonym "Detective Jeff Ramsay," left a recorded voicemail for a Washington State consumer ln which he falsely asserted that he was seeking to serve a bench warrant on the consumer for "check fraud":
Hello, this is Detective Jeff Ramsey. 1 am attempting to touch bases with [consumer] . .. . At this point, I have been mandated to reprocess documentation. I will be back out to your place of residence, {consumer], between the hours of4:00 and 6:00p.m. You are to have two forms of identification, no firearms or narcotics or loose animals on the premises. This is concerning allegations in correlation to check fraud. I have a (inaudible) affidavit concerning this. It appears to be a pending bench warrant
as well. 1fyou wish to actually place a stop order on the bench warrant, [consumer], you have to touch bases with the agency that has retained my services. That would be the NCFC, which is the National Check Fraud Center.

On another occasion, Defendants' debt collectors told a consumer that her husband had committed check and money fraud and that legal action would be taken against the husband if the debt was not repaid within two days. On these calls, one of Defendant's representatives identified himself as " Investigator Kearns'' and falsely claimed that he was employed by a government agency with its headquarters in Washington, D.C., but that the agency was prohibited from providing consumers with its precise location following the events of September 11, 2001. In order to underscore the potential adverse consequences from the consumer's failure to pay, Investigator Keams falsely threatened the consumer that " It's the
government you're messing with!"

Often, when consumers ask for proof of the alleged debts, Defendants' representatives refuse to provide such proof, and. instead, tell consumers that they will receive proof in court or when the debt is paid. Many consumers paid the alleged debts that Defendants purport to be collecting because they were afraid of the threatened repercussions of failing to pay, or because .they wanted to stop the harassment by Defendants.

Defendants have profited substantially from their unlawful and abusive conduct. Since January 20 I O. Defendants have collected more than $30 million from consumers for purported debts.

Defendants Misrepresent Their Identities to Consumers

The phone messages that Defendants' representatives leave for consumers generally do not identify that the call is being placed by or on behalf of Defendants, but instead provide an unregistered fictitious company name or fail to reference any company name. In addition, the messages fail to disclose that the call is coming from a debt collector who is attempting to collect a debt from the consumer, or that any information obtained from the consumer will be used for that purpose, as required by the FDCPA.

Likewise, when consumers do speak with Defendants' representatives and ask for Defendants' name, Defendants' representatives most often do not identify themselves using their true corporate or limited liability company name. Instead, in numerous instances, Defendants' representatives have identified themselves with a variety of unregistered fictitious business names, including, but not limited to, American Asset Management, American Asset Recovery, Asset Retention Services, Check Services, Check Services International, CFS & Associates, Inc., Consumer Recovery Group, County Arbitration. LLC, County Check Services, Debt Resolution Services, District Restitution Services, Financial Mediation Group, Four Star Capital Services, Four Star Mediation Group, Four Star Resolution Services, LLC, FS Mediation Group, Global
Management Group, Hansen Law Firm. IRG & Associates, Mandatory Arbitration Services, PDL Recovery Services, PMI & Associates, PMR Law Group, and Profile Arbitration Enforcement.

In addition to using fictitious company names, Defendants use spoofed phone numbers, and the addresses of virtual offices and remote mailboxes in the United States and Canada in an apparent effort to avoid detection and facilitate their unlawful practices.

Defendants Fail to Provide Statutorily-Required Notices and Disclosures

Pursuant to Section 809(a) of the FDCPA, a debt collector must provide to consumers in its initial communication, or within five days after that initial communication, a written notice setting forth certain specifically defined information about the debt, including a statement that unless the consumer disputes the validity of the debt within thirty days after receipt of the notice, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g. Defendants frequently fail to provide such statutorily-required written notice.

In those instances when Defendants do send a validation notice to consumers, the required disclosures are in small print, and other statements contained in the notice, such as threats of legal action within the thirty-day validation period, often overshadow the mandatory FDCPA disclosure language.

Defendants Use Abusive and Profane Language When Speaking with Consumers

During their collection calls, Defendants often use profane language or language the natural consequence of which is to abuse the hearer, such as calling the consumer a "f_ cking no good liar,'' "idiot," "dummy,'' ''piece of scum," "thief," "dirtbag," "scumbag," or "loser."

In other words, they are using the same scripts and business plans of many previous CAMCO Award winners.
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: coltfan1972 on February 27, 2015 03:44:13 AM
Welcome to the party pal.   :woohoo:
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Flyingifr on February 27, 2015 05:15:35 PM
In order to keep a count of our CAMCO Award recipients, from now on and retroactively we will be numbering them sequentially instead of by year. The next CAMCO Award nominee is number 24.
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: coltfan1972 on February 28, 2015 02:33:47 PM
In order to keep a count of our CAMCO Award recipients, from now on and retroactively we will be numbering them sequentially instead of by year. The next CAMCO Award nominee is number 24.

I think it would be fun if we started a pool, maybe 1/2 the pot to the winner and 1/2 to Debtorboards.   We could have 10.00 a guess for which collector will win next.

Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Bruno the JDB Killer on February 28, 2015 04:11:12 PM
That could be illegal.
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Flyingifr on April 11, 2015 05:23:03 AM
The third 2015 CAMCO Award nominee, and number 24 to receive the award comes from the suburbs of Chicago.

The laundry list of nominees for this award includes K.I.P.,LLC, an Illinois limited liability company; CHARLES DICKEY, individually and as an owner,  member, or managing member of K.I.P.,LLC, and also doing business as EZELL WILLIAMS AND ASSOCIATES, CORP.; EZELL WILLIAMS, LLC; EXCEL RECEIVABLES, CORP.; SECOND CHANCE FINANCIAL CREDIT, CORP.; SECOND CHANCE FINANCIAL, LLC; PAYDAY LOAN RECOVERY GROUP, LLC; PAYDAY LOAN RECOVERY GROUP; PAY DAY LOAN RECOVERY; INTERNATIONAL RECOVERY SERVICES, LLC; INTERNATIONAL RECOVERY SERVICES; and D & R RECOVERY; and CHANTELLE DICKEY, also known as CHANTELLE RUDD  and CHANTELLE WILLIAMS, individually and as a manager of K.I.P., LLC, and also doing business as EZELL WILLIAMS AND ASSOCIATES, CORP.; EZELL WILLIAMS, LLC; EXCEL RECEIVABLES, CORP.; SECOND CHANCE FINANCIAL CREDIT, CORP.; SECOND CHANCE FINANCIAL, LLC; PAYDAY LOAN RECOVERY GROUP, LLC; PAYDAY LOAN
RECOVERY GROUP; PAYDAY LOAN RECOVERY; INTERNATIONAL RECOVERY SERVICES, LLC; INTERNATIONAL RECOVERY SERVICES; and D & R RECOVERY.

Why did the FTC and Illinois Attorney General shut them down? In a nutshell, buying names of people who applied for on line payday loans but who either never got the loans or had already repaid them, and

"26. Defendants also often threaten to sue or to initiate legal proceedings against consumers who fail to pay Defendants for the alleged debt. In truth, however, Defendants have no intention of taking, have no standing or authority to take, and do not take, legal action against these consumers
 
27.  In many instances, Defendants threaten that consumers will face arrest and/or imprisonment if they fail to pay Defendants for the alleged debt. In truth, however, consumers will not face arrest or imprisonment if they fail to pay Defendants. Defendants cannot have consumers arrested or imprisoned for non-payment of a private debt."

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/150410paydaycmpt.pdf
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: coltfan1972 on April 11, 2015 05:02:42 PM
Welcome to the party pal.   :woohoo:
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Bruno the JDB Killer on April 11, 2015 08:07:01 PM
Hans agrees. LOL Karl is MIA in this case.
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Flyingifr on May 31, 2015 11:04:29 PM
The 4th CAMCO Award nominee for 2015 and 25th overall has surfaced. While the CAMCO Award Committee is pleased to recognize this latest nominee's achievements in qualifying for the CAMCO Award, we are disappointed that the nominees have not come up with any original or creative ways of qualifying. While the CAMCO Award Committee does not want to limit the number of wards that can be given to each type of illegal behaviour (like only 2 a year for threatening a debtor with prison) we are concerned that the Collectors are not adding to the universe of actions that would qualify them for the prestigious and coveted CAMCO Award.

Several people have asked why the CAMCO AWARD Committee copies the allegations of legal violations to the Award Nomination announcements. The reason is simple - they represent lawyer-drafted templates that can be copied, pasted and edited by Consumers who suffer the same violations of law from other Collectors seeking the CAMCO AWARD for themselves.

That said, our latest Nominee is 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 collectively.

And what have our erstwhile Nominees done to qualify for this August Recognition? To quote from the Federal Trade Commission Complaint:

Quote
Defendants regularly use deception and false threats to extract money from consumers. In numerous instances, Defendants have:
 
(1) falsely represented in text messages and calls to consumers that a law suit has been filed against them or will be filed imminently;
 
(2) falsely threatened consumers with arrest, imprisonment, or wage garnishment;
 
(3) impersonated state law enforcement officials in communications with consumers;
 
(4) made false or unsubstantiated claims that consumers owe debts;

(5) communicated with third parties, including consumers' family members, co-workers and employers, for purposes other than obtaining location information about a consumer; and
 
(6) failed to provide statutorily-required disclosures to consumers, including disclosure of the fact that communications are from a debt collector and disclosure of
the consumer's right to dispute and obtain verification of any alleged debts.

And just how did they accomplish this? To continue in the FTC's Complaint:

Quote
18. In numerous instances, Defendants have threatened to take legal action against consumers-including litigation and arrest-without the intention or ability to take such action. Specifically, Defendants have threatened to:
• Sue consumers;
• Have consumers arrested or imprisoned;
• Send police or other law enforcement agents to consumers' homes or places of employment to arrest the consumers or to serve the consumers with legal papers;
•  Have  consumers   charged   with  a form  of criminal   fraud,  including   wire  fraud under  18 U.S.C.   § 1343, "payday loan defraudment,"  "writing fraudulent checks," and "defrauding  a financial institution"; and
• Garnish consumers'  wages or seize consumers'  property.

19.      Defendants  have routinely represented to consumers that such legal action is in process or will happen in the immediate future, and that the only way for a consumer to prevent legal action is to make an immediate payment.

20. Defendants  often have communicated threats of legal action in voicemail messages.   For example, in numerous voicemail messages left with consumers or their family members, Defendants claim to be calling from «The State Officials Office" about an "order to produce a body attachment"  against the consumer.   In these messages, Defendants have threatened to dispatch "a uniformed  officer to [the consumer's]  home or place of employment to enforce this body attachment."    Defendants often have ended these messages with additional details to indicate they will be taking immediate action, including requests that the consumer "secure any large animals or firearms on the premises," or claims that "we'll  see you shortly." Defendants have not indicated that they are debt collectors in these voicemail messages, or that these actions would be in taken in an attempt to collect a purported debt.

21. In addition, Defendants'  voicemail scripts direct Defendant's  debt collectors to tell consumers "[tjhere has been a title 18 fraud claim attached to your name and ssn," and that consumers must act "before a service of process is scheduled at your home or place of employment within the next 48 hrs."   These scripts include a copy of the text of 18 U.S.C. § 1343-Fraud    by Wire, Radio, or Television.

22.        Defendants    also  have  represented   to consumers   that they  are attorneys   or representatives    of an attorney.     In numerous   instances   in live phone  calls  with  consumers, Defendants   have  represented    that they  are calling  from  a "law  firm"  or from  a company's    "law division."      In such  instances,   consumers   have  reported   that they  were  under  the  impression   they were  speaking   with  an attorney   or someone  who  worked  with  an attorney.     In fact,  Defendants are not  a Law firm and  Defendants'    collection   agents  are not attorneys   or representatives    of an attorney.

23.        Furthermore,    Defendants   have communicated    threats  of legal  action  in text messages,   dunning   letters,  and  live phone  calls  with  consumers.      In numerous  instances, in phone calls, letters, and text messages, Defendants have represented  to consumers that they have
already initiated a lawsuit against the consumer, or that they will initiate a lawsuit unless the consumer makes an immediate payment on a debt.   For example, in text messages sent to one consumer, Defendants  claimed that they would sue a consumer and seize his possessions  unless he paid an alleged debt.

24.       In addition, Defendants have represented  to consumers in numerous instances that they face arrest for fraud or other criminal charges.   For example, during a collection call with one consumer, Defendants  threatened to send someone to a consumer's  husband's  workplace  in order serve him in front of his co-workers and then "place [him] under arrest" for "obstructing justice"  and "defraudrnent  of a bank."   During a call with another consumer, Defendants told the consumer that if she did not pay the debt, she would have to spend 10 to 14 days in jail in order for the debt to be considered paid.

25.        Defendants    also  frequently   have  used job  titles  or descriptions    that falsely represent   or imply that  their  debt  collectors   are  legal  staff.    In numerous   instances,   when contacting   consumers   to collect  debts,  Defendants   have  identified   themselves   as "process servers,"   or have  purported   to be calling  in connection   with  the  "litigation   division   of internal security"   to "legally   notif[y]"   consumers   about  impending   "service   of process."

26.        In fact,  when  Defendants'    collectors   have  threatened   consumers   with  legal  action, in numerous   instances,   no legal  action  has been  taken  against  the  consumer   and  Defendants    do not  intend  to take any  such  action.     In addition,   Defendants   cannot  have  a consumer   arrested   or imprisoned   for non-payment    of a private  debt,  and,  in numerous   instances,   cannot  have  a consumer's    wages  garnished   because  they  have  not  filed an action  and obtained   a judgment against  the consumer.      Furthermore,    Defendants    are third-party   debt  collectors   and not process servers  or state  law enforcement    officials.

27.       In dunning  letters sent to consumers by email, Defendants have encouraged consumers to make a payment on purported  debts by representing  that such payment would positively affect the consumers'  credit reports.   For example, Defendants have claimed in emails to consumers that a paid settlement of a debt would "REPAIR CREDIT!" or that payment allows consumers to "clear their credit report"  because "the negative trade line on the consumer's  credit report can be resolved."

28.       Payments on debts in collection can change credit reports, however, only if debt owners furnish information about the payments to consumer reporting agencies and the agencies add the information to consumer credit files and credit reports.





Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Flyingifr on May 31, 2015 11:07:38 PM
The 5th CAMCO AWARD Nominee and 26th overall has surfaced - this time all the way from INDIA!!!! WE quote the FTC's announcement:

At the request of the Federal Trade Commission, a U.S. district court has halted an operation that the FTC alleges collected phantom payday loan “debts” that consumers did not owe.  Consumers received millions of collection calls from India, and that since January 2010 the operation took in more than $5 million from victims, according to the FTC.

In tough economic times, many consumers turn to high-interest, short-term payday loans between paychecks.  The FTC alleges that information submitted by consumers who applied online for these loans found its way into the hands of the defendants.   

Often pretending to be law enforcement or other government authorities, the callers working with the defendants would falsely threaten to immediately arrest and jail consumers if they did not agree to make a payment on a delinquent payday loan, the FTC’s court papers stated.  Claiming to be law enforcement, such as a local police department, the “Federal Department of Crime and Prevention,” or simply a “federal investigator,” the callers typically demanded more than $300, and sometimes as much as $2,000.  At other times, the callers said they were filing a large lawsuit against the consumer because of the delinquent payday loan or would have the consumer fired from his or her job, according to the FTC.

But the consumers did not owe money to defendants – either the payday loan debts did not exist or the defendants had no authority to collect them because they are owed to someone else, according to the FTC.  The court order stops the illegal conduct and freezes the operation’s assets while the FTC moves forward with the case.

“This is a brazen operation based on pure fraud, and the FTC is committed to shutting it down,” said David Vladeck, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.  “Consumers should not be pressured into paying debt they don’t remember owing.  Legitimate debt collectors must provide consumers with both written information about the debt, and instructions for protecting themselves if they don’t think they owe the debt.”

The case of Mark Merola is typical of consumers the defendants targeted.  A caller with an Indian accent reached his wife at home and told her Merola would be arrested and immediately imprisoned if he did not pay what he owed on a payday loan.  The caller later said he knew where Merola worked and threatened to send police there to arrest him.  Despite not being delinquent on any loan and not owing money to the caller, Merola was afraid of the threatened arrest, so he paid $523.87 to the defendants.

As part of its continuing crackdown on scams that target consumers in financial distress, the FTC charged Villa Park, California-based American Credit Crunchers, LLC, an affiliated company called Ebeeze, LLC, and the companies’ owner, Varang K. Thaker, with violating the FTC Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Over the last two years, consumers have filed more than 4,000 complaints with the FTC and state attorneys general about fraudulent debt collection calls.                                                                       

According to the FTC’s complaint, Thaker obtained information – often including Social Security or bank account numbers – about consumers who had inquired about, applied for, or obtained online payday loans.  Thaker worked with telephone callers in India who called consumers using deceptive statements and threats to convince them to pay debts that were not owed or that he was not authorized to collect, the FTC alleged.

Thaker also profited handsomely from this scheme, according to documents filed with the court.  He has withdrawn tens of thousands of dollars from the American Credit Crunchers and Ebeeze bank accounts, the FTC alleged.

According to the complaint, Thaker and his companies:

    falsely told consumers they were delinquent on a loan, they must pay it, and the defendants had the authority to collect it.
    falsely claimed to be law enforcement authorities or attorneys.
    made false threats against consumers who refused to pay the alleged debts, including threats of arrest or imprisonment.
    harassed and threatened consumers so that they often paid the alleged debts out of fear of being arrested or sued.
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Stormcrow on June 01, 2015 12:44:38 AM
A multinational cornucopia of malfeasance. Welcome to the party, new nominees!
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: coltfan1972 on June 01, 2015 02:27:07 AM
 :woohoo:

Welcome guys and gals.
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Flyingifr on November 05, 2015 03:13:28 PM
The 6th 2015 CAMCO Aware nominee and the 27th overall has surfaced (and has been sunk by the Federal Trade Commission). The coveted CAMCO Award is hereby given (posthumously, of course) to:  Keilly s. Brace; Braclaire Management, LLC, a New York limited liability company, also doing business as Clear Credit Services, and also doing business as Clear Credit Solutions, and also doing business as Delaware Solutions; Credit Clear Solutions, LLC a California limited liability company; Solidus Group, LLC, a New York limited liability company; Solidus Solutions, LLC, a New York limited liability company, Defendants, and Joelle J. Leclaire, Relief Defendant.

Just what did the recipients do to earn such a prestigious award? To quote from the FTC Complaint:

Quote
Defendants have operated as a debt collection enterprise since at least 2013. Defendants’ debt collection business has relied heavily on deceptive tactics.  In particular, they have attempted to collect on debts even after receiving notice that those debts are invalid. More generally, Defendants have used false threats of lawsuits and arrest to extract payments from consumers. Defendants have also disclosed consumers’ purported debts to third parties, failed to identify themselves in communications to consumers, and failed to provide statutorily required
disclosures.

Defendants’ Attempts to Collect Fake Debts

In numerous instances, Defendants have attempted to collect money on debts even though they knew that those debts were fake. Specifically, prior to September 29, 2014, Defendants purchased a debt portfolio consisting of payday loans supposedly owed to a Red Cedar Services, Inc. (“Red Cedar”), doing business as “500FastCash.” Red Cedar received complaints indicating that Defendants were collecting on the supposed loans.

On September 29 and October 9, 2014 Red Cedar’s General Counsel, Jared Marsh, sent Defendants letters advising that “500FastCash has not
authorized any third-party to sell, broker, market or collect any debt owed to "500FastCash,” thereby notifying Defendants that the debts were not valid and should not be collected from consumers.     

Marsh also called Defendants in late September of 2014. During the call, he spoke with a manager and informed him that the debts were invalid. He also demanded that Defendants cease collection on them.    The manager claimed that a rogue employee had loaded the purported 500FastCash debts on to the Defendants’ system, and stated that the Defendants had fired the rogue employee and deleted the 500FastCash files off their system.

But Defendants did not delete the debts from their database or cease collection efforts.  Instead, they continued to attempt to collect on the fake debts.    Marsh called Defendants again in October of 2014 to reiterate Red Cedar’s demand that they cease collecting on the purported debts.    A manager for Defendants told Marsh that he should speak to Defendants’ attorney, but refused to provide contact information for that attorney and then hung up.    When Marsh called back, the manager told him that, if he called again, Defendants would consider it harassment and report him to law enforcement.

On numerous occasions, Defendants have also ignored consumers’ challenges of the debts, including evidence that they never authorized a payday loan from 500FastCash and communications from 500FastCash that the consumer does not have an outstanding balance with
it.  Instead, Defendants continued their collection efforts.    For example, one consumer told an employee of Defendants that she had called 500FastCash to confirm her supposed debt’s validity and that she knew “he was working a scam.”
 
Defendants’ Attempts to Collect on Unauthorized Payday Loans

In addition to the alleged 500FastCash debts, Defendants have also attempted, in many instances, to collect on payday “loans” that third-party lenders fabricated and imposed on consumers without their authorization.    While attempting to collect on these “loans,” Defendants ignored evidence that consumers had never consented to them and, therefore, did not owe the purported debts.   

As alleged in the Plaintiff FTC’s complaint in FTC v. CWB Services, et al., 4:14-cv-00783 (W.D. Mo.), and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (“CFPB’s”) complaint in a related case, CFPB v. Moseley, et al. 4:14-cv-00789 (W.D. Mo.), certain online payday lenders issued “loans” to consumers without the consumers’ knowledge or consent. When consumers refused to pay these bogus debts, the lenders sold the purported debts to debt collectors.    As a result, these consumers were victimized twice:    once when the lenders attempted to collect on the bogus loans and again when, sometimes years later, debt collectors harassed them for debts they did not owe.

Defendants purchased some of the debts purportedly owed on these fabricated loans.    Even after the FTC and CFPB filed their actions and announced them publicly, however, Defendants have continued to collect on those debts.    Defendants also ignored statements from consumers that they had never heard of the lenders and did not owe debts on these purported payday loans.    Defendants, therefore, knew or should have known that many debts on which they collected or attempted to collect that were purportedly owed to the defendants in CWB Services and Moseley were fabricated.

Defendants’ False Threats of Legal Action Against Consumers

In numerous instances, Defendants have threatened to take legal action against consumers—including litigation and arrest—without the intention or ability to take such action.   Defendants have routinely represented to consumers that such legal action is in process or will happen in the immediate future, and that the only way for a consumer to prevent legal action is to make an immediate payment.     

For example, in numerous voice mails to consumers who allegedly owe a debt, Defendants have claimed that they are planning to serve process on the consumer within 48 hours at the consumer’s home or place of employment.    Other voice mails have told consumers that Defendants will file a claim “immediately” unless consumers contact them.    In addition, in phone conversations and in voice mails, Defendants have told consumers that they have already filed a claim against them.    Defendants have also frequently told consumers that they will sue
consumers for “check fraud” unless the consumers pay.   

In numerous instances, Defendants have represented to consumers that they must pay or face arrest for fraud or other criminal charges.    For example, Defendants have told consumers that:

the “authorities” would come after them;

consumers would be “convicted of forgery and fraud”;   

consumers would be arrested; and

the purported debts are “criminal matters.”

In making these representations, Defendants have often identified themselves in a way that falsely represented or implied that they are affiliated with a law firm or law enforcement.    For example, one employee of Defendants told a consumer that he was employed by the “National Check Fraud Center.”    Another employee claimed to be the head of the litigation department for the“law offices” of Clear Credit Solutions.    Another claimed affiliation with the County Attorney’s Office for Hillsborough County, Florida.

In fact, when Defendants have threatened legal action, in numerous instances, they have not taken legal action against the consumer and Defendants did not intend to take any such action.    In addition, Defendants cannot have a consumer arrested or imprisoned for non-payment of a private debt.    Furthermore, Defendants are third-party debt collectors and not process servers or law enforcement officials.
 
Defendants’ Unlawful Contacts with Third Parties

In numerous instances, Defendants have communicated, or threatened to communicate, with consumers’ family members or other third parties to apply pressure and create a sense of urgency so the consumer will pay them. In numerous such instances, Defendants either:   

(1) already possessed contact information for the consumer, including the consumer’s place of abode, telephone number, or place of employment;

(2) disclosed the consumer’s purported debt to the third party; or

(3) represented to the third party that Defendants will commence legal action—including arrest—against the putative debtor if the debt is not paid.

Defendants’ Failure to Disclose Identity

In numerous instances, Defendants have communicated with consumers by phone without meaningfully disclosing Defendants’ identity.    For example, in numerous voicemail messages, Defendants have represented that a consumer will be sued and have provided a phone number the consumer may call for more information, but have not disclosed the name of their company or the fact that they are debt collectors. In some of these voicemails, Defendants have described themselves as process servers who were planning to deliver papers to consumers at their homes or places of employment.

Defendants’ Failure to Provide Statutorily Required Notices and Disclosures to Consumers

Defendants have failed to provide consumers with statutorily required disclosures, including disclosures identifying themselves as debt collectors and stating that the communication is an attempt to collect a debt and any information provided by the consumer will be used for that purpose.

In numerous instances, Defendants also have failed to provide consumers with a statutorily required notice, either orally in their initial communication with the consumer or in writing within five days of the initial oral communication, setting forth the following:    1) the
amount of the alleged debt; 2) the name of the creditor to whom the purported debt is owed; 3) a statement that unless the consumer disputes the debt, the debt will be assumed valid; 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 and mail it to the consumer; and 5) a statement that, upon the consumer’s written request within the 30-day period, the debt collector will provide the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.     

In numerous instances, Defendants have refused to provide consumers with this notice despite consumers’ repeated requests, and as a result, consumers have been unable to exercise their rights under the FDCPA.

In short, the typical laundry list of FDCPA violations.

Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: coltfan1972 on November 05, 2015 03:25:28 PM
 :woohoo:

WELCOME!!
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Flyingifr 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.

Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Flyingifr 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.
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Flyingifr 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/
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: coltfan1972 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.   
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Flyingifr 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.
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Flyingifr 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



 

 
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Flyingifr 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

Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Flyingifr 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.
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Flyingifr 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
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Flyingifr 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
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Flyingifr 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
Title: Re: The CAMCO Award - Self-Destruction in Action
Post by: Flyingifr 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.