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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism
"...
A syllogism (Greek: συλλογισμός – syllogismos – "conclusion," "inference") is a kind of logical argument in which one proposition (the conclusion) is inferred from two or more others (the premises) of a certain form. In antiquity, there were two rival theories of the syllogism: Aristotelian syllogistic and Stoic syllogistic.[1]
In the Prior Analytics, Aristotle defines the syllogism as "a discourse in which, certain things having been supposed, something different from the things supposed results of necessity because these things are so." (24b18–20)
..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
"...
In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is usually an improper argumentation in reasoning often resulting in a misconception or presumption. Literally, a fallacy is "an error in reasoning that renders an argument logically invalid".[1] By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or participant (appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g. argument from authority). Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure any logical argument.
..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_generalization
"...
A fallacy of defective induction reaches a conclusion from weak premises. Unlike fallacies of relevance, in fallacies of defective induction, the premises are related to the conclusions yet only weakly buttress the conclusions. A faulty generalization is thus produced. This inductive fallacy is any of several errors of inductive inference.
...
Logic
The proportion Q of the sample has attribute A.
Therefore, the proportion Q of the population has attribute A.
Such a generalization proceeds from a premise about a sample to a conclusion about the population.
Faulty generalization is a mode of thinking that takes knowledge from one group's or person's experiences and incorrectly extends it to another.
..."
In a sense, this type of scam is targeted at our inductive and abuctive reasoning instincts, which for most people targetted, does not include experience with fraud and cons.
Counterdeception used in fraud investigation is also built on inductive and abductive reasoning, but by the deliberate addition of the deception hypotheses to the possibilities being weighted.
The effectiveness of this con is reduced to a joke, once potential victims realize that deceptively threatening calls are not an indication of real debt collection or an actual "lawsuit", but instead are a strong indication of fraudulent scammers running a con.
Both sides fit classical deception and counterdeception.
Anyone who thinks Michael is doing this out of the goodness of his heart, I have some swampland to sell you.I don't know many people who really do work without expecting compensation. Michael seems to have found a niche for himself. I'm interested to know how his deposition goes, it should be a fascinating read if he chooses to publish it, but that would not be for about 30 days after he does it. A huge thank you to Michael for downloading all those documents. Pacer is not free and he did not have to share. some of the scripts made me feel sick. I'm also very interested, Michael, as to why you seem to think that Wayne Lunsford is not really being represented by John Markham. I agree with you but I'd like to know why you think that.
I do not consider myself a victim, but if someone feels like they are then I feel like they have every right to call themselves that. For me, when someone harrasses and tries to extort me and my family for money I don't owe, I go on the offensive. I hope anyone who ever worked with this group has to give back every dime they stole and go to prision for as long possible.
I agree that there were rules and they broke them. And that is what they should be punished for. But we dont get to just make up things that someone did wrong just because they did other things wrong.
Idiot shills.
1. Michael will start to add everyone he can possibly think of to the suit.
2. Michael will begin sending threatening letters and making threatening calls to the others.
3. Michael will post their information and do anything he can to scare them.
4. Then, Michael will offer them a settlement ("pay X and I'll let you out of it")
5. Michael will repeat the process until even the janitor that doesn't know what happened there during the day pays (in fact you are on crack if you think he won't start with the most scared and innocent).
Now we are supposed to be stopping threatening and coercive behavior right? Ok. Just checking.
http://www.ripoffreport.com/collection-agency-s/rincon-management-se/rincon-management-services-pac-db3e9.htm
Interesting. In any case, whether Michael is an ex employee fired for sexual harassment, a con man, or someone else, he clearly has a vendetta. But, don't we all? I don't blame Michael for trying to make money. I just wish he would be honest.
As for what I will make, I will not recover one tenth of what I have put out. Please do the math on monies available. Will I stop until every one of these "god fearing" individuals get what they deserve? Never. After the attorneys obtain a judgment against these defendants on behalf of the plaintiffs, then I hope that the plaintiffs will assign it to me...then I get to pursue collection as if it is my own judgment, and my efforts will be actual, not threats or intimidation, and I will not stop-ever-until the judgments are satisfied. And I know every LEGAL collection tactic in the book.
And yes, I do use this forum as a conduit to communicate with all you defendants and those soon-to-be defendants. So...how do you intend on stopping me from ruining your lives for the next 20 years after judgment is entered. Would you like to call and threaten my daughter again?
Updates on Motion To Intervene is to follow.
Interestingly, information was provided at the hearing regarding Sam Marquez and Victor Marquez, whose new collection operation under the name of Legal Asset Financial Group LLC appears to be located on Pomona Ave. in Corona. At this point, the Marquezs' claim to be using an old excel collection program and not the Simple Collect program utilized by Begley and Lunsford.
Information was also provided that defendant Tina Coca has a new operation. This would also mean that most likely defendant Denise Deakins is invovled in this operation as they seem to be a couple.
As previously stated, defendant John Cook has also opened his own operation. All the foregoing confirms previous suspiscions that all the managers of the FTC entity defendants are "back in action" so to speak. This would make sense, as most of them do not have the requisite skills to make comparable money in any other field. Further, the conundrum here is that there is no plausible way to make money on out-of-statute debt unless intimidation tactics are used in violation of the FDCPA.
Apparently, Wayne Lunsford is making sufficient monies from rental properties, allegedly being bought with his family members (most likely Rhonda Loop, who also worked as a senior closer and is Wayne Lunsford's mother) and further has investments in Texas, that he does not need to actively participate in the defense of the FTC action nor ask for any of the seized monies.
Similar to us, there are also individuals that are cooperating with the FTC and the receiver, but for safety concerns, I cannot release their identities. Suffice it to say these individuals appear to be higher up the food chain than most of our witnesses.
Where does this leave the consumers? Unfortunately, a long way from recovering anything through the FTC action. Even if the FTC action settles, a claim process will begin, along with an eventual claim cutoff date. This could take months, if not years, to complete. Further, the FTC went against recommendations of investigators to pursue managers and senior collectors, calling it a "strategy" decision. Unfortunately this strategy has resulted in the continuation of the unethical practices throught the new collection agencies.
We take two more depositions tomorrow. Also, John Cook is a definite for the next depo. After that. Stephanie Porchia is a probably, but only if she moves to set aside her default (otherwise there is no need to take her depo-also, we have no allusions that any testimony we would receive from her would be truthful).
Bottom line, the state court action is still where the most benefit will eventually be realized, in the form of shutting down new operations and holding the managers and senior collectors accountable.
sorry for any typos herein, its been a long day and we have depos again all day tomorrow.
Would you happen to know what investments Wayne may have in Texas? Just curious...