Harassment
Complaint
Debra M. Persiano
Country: United States
I got a call today at home from a man stating he was a process server for Collin County DA's Office and he is with the Sheriff's office and needed to come serve a warrant on me. I was shocked and asked why? He stated do you live ....are you still at this address are you now at this address and I stated who are you? He again, stated he was from the county going to serve court papers on me today. He gave me a toll free number for what he stated was the county's office which is 1 866.872.6116 gave me a case no. which he called a Cause No. 008307-TX. I called the number was transferred to a Mr. Fisher's office who stated that law suite in the amount of $6,214.24 was filed in Collin Co., Tx and that warrant was out for me. He then after back and forth said let me get more information from my secretary and state this was for an outstanding debt in from Capital One a credit card that I obtained several years back and had disputes over interest charges etc. He stated that if I did not want to go to court or jail that I could pay $1,951.00 in full by end of business today and this matter could be cleared up. I explained that I recently lost my job etc. Anyway, he stated that I needed to call him back by EOB today or they will serve the papers. Ok, so that was a heads up for me. I called the DA's office nothing is filed on me as of today, after searching PMG it is clear that they do not practice best practices for collections and have been in trouble for this before back in 2004. I need someone to give me advise. I want to pay off my debt, I don't want this type of collections to continue this upset me, made my blood pressure raise, this type of collections are not the right thing to do. Had they called and ask to make arrangements or give me an opportunity to clear the matter, rather then threaten me by taken legal action, or harassment stating they are sending a sheriff over today. This is wrong, bad business, and should not continue this company is bad news.
Comments
http://www.napw.com/profile/10180899/Pamela-Mathews/
The ramp up of the summer batch showed the tactic.
Who actually owns the alleged "debts"?
With Begley/Lunsford, it looked like they had control of the bank accounts, regardless of the nominal "managers", and shuffled the capital around as needed.
Are these "list brokers" selling outright, or just "renting", encouraging the proliferation of fly-by-nite operations with little capital, little at stake, and little incentive toward compliance?
Calling as a "process server" is just a con.
Get a life of your own
the Court reviewed, in detail, the voluminous evidence of Defendants’ violative collection practices, including Defendants’ standard talk off scripts, closing scripts,collector rebuttal answers to frequently asked questions, and legal resources guiding collectors in how to best menace consumers with the legal process. These scripts and guidelines all support the central deception perpetrated by Defendants, that the consumer is a defendant in a lawsuit and must pay their purported debt to settle the action. The scripts were contained in employee handbooks that were found in Defendants Jason Begley and Wayne Lunsford’s office at the corporate
headquarters (docket (“dkt”) # 25-1 p.23–25-4 p.9), in managers’ offices at some of the collections rooms (dkt # 25-4 p.10, 25-1 pp. 6-7), and numerous loose leaf copies of these scripts and guidelines were found on collectors’ desks at the four offices the FTC entered on October 13 and 14, 2011 pursuant to the temporary restraining order (“TRO.”). See e.g., dkt ## 25 pp.6-7. Copies of these same scripts, rebuttals, and legal resources were also found at four additional offices run by Defendants that FTC investigator Ann Stahl visited in late December 2011, while accompanied by one of receiver Richard Weissman’s staff members.
Nice footnote:
The scripts and other collector instructions were not found at the office
located at 1181 California Ave., Suite 203, which appeared to have been cleared of documents. See third Stahl dec. ¶ 10. The FTC did not inspect the office located in Cedar Rapids, Iowa because that office was shuttered in October 2011, when the lease purportedly expired. The computer equipment that was contained at the Iowa office was later obtained by receiver Richard Weissman and shipped to Los Angeles. Declaration of FTC counsel Maricela Segura ¶ 5
Exhibit J) and a declaration from defendant Jason Begley to argue that the
violations that did take place were de minimus. Motion at 14.2 What is most telling about these declarations is not what they say, but what
they do not say. None of these declarations attaches a copy of a script or guideline compliant with the FDCPA that was widely used by Defendants’ collectors. Nor do they discuss the details of any training program provided to Defendants’ collectors concerning compliance with the FDCPA. On this point, Mr. Begley’s declaration states simply that they “reminded” managers that collectors should comply with the law. Begley ¶ 7. In addition, he admits that some collectors did not abide by the rules, that they used some bad collectors, and that they drafted and exchanged bad scripts, but that those scripts were not provided by management. Begley ¶ 38.3 Mr. Begley’s finger-pointing, however, flies in the face of the
stubborn fact that these “bad” scripts were the only scripts found throughout Defendants’ offices and were the only scripts included in employee handbooks found in the very office that he and Mr. Lunsford shared. See dkt # 25-1 p.23, 25-3 p. 13, 25-3 p.47.4 Even assuming that defendants Begley and Lunsford did not openly condone the use of these scripts, they notably did not take any corrective measures to bring “bad” collectors into compliance with the law. Begley and Lunsford were well-aware that their collectors were engaging in violations of the
law because they had copies of the numerous lawsuits, Attorney General
complaints, cease and desist letters, and judgments issued against their numerous entities in their corporate office. See e.g., dkt # 25-7 pp. 2-57 (Stahl Att. 26 (Attorney General complaints)), dkt #25-7 pp. 59-79 (Stahl Att. 27 (cease and desist letters)), dkt #25-8 pp. 21-55 (Stahl Att. 29 (BBB complaints))."
SOME PRICELESS FOOTNOTES:
"Mr. Begley also said the following about Wayne Lunsford: that he has a
background in debt collection, and that “based on our three-year working
relationship and our on-going discussions, I do believe he has violated the law as the FTC alleges.” Begley ¶ 39. Whether a typo or not, the sentiment is supported by the evidence establishing Defendants’ widespread violations of the FTC Act and the FDCPA."
One of these handbooks was found in Mr. Lunsford’s desk and was for a
company called Irvine & Associates. See dkt 25-1 p.5 (Stahl ¶ 11), dkt #25-3 p.47 (Att. 4). This is one of the collections companies Defendants formed and hoped to sell to collectors as part of a “turn-key” collection operation. See dkt 45-1 pp. 15-16 (Begley ¶¶ 34, 35). Presumably, the handbook and scripts were part of that turn-key package that Defendants were hoping to sell.
AND THIS:
"Instead, they benefitted handsomely from the money earned through the scheme. See e.g., dkt#32 p. 9 (noting that Begley and Lunsford swept over $2.2 million of company funds into their trusts, and another $1 million into their individual consulting businesses)."