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
Also, apparently Alex and Victor Marquez are feeling pretty confident about themselves because they have not yet been served, thinking they can't be found (so say our deponents). FYI, if I expend enough effort, you are very easy to find, but at some point it's a numbers game, i.e. i believe at this point it is cheaper to seek publication from the court and proceed from there. With that said, I will be posting the actual physical address to all the new collection agency locations for Marquez, Coca and Cook in the near future. Unfortunately, for the time being, I have other cases that I have to complete investigation on.
I will also continue to upload and post court documents filed in the federal court on the FTC action. For all you consumers, I would suggest calling the FTC and their attorneys and asking why they are settling without naming and/or pursuing the senior collectors and managers. TThese are the individuals who were actually responsible for the day to day calls. The FTC claims to be providing "adequate representation" to all the effected consumers, yet at this point refuses to release any information on the settlement process. Finally, if there is a settlement in the FTC action, it would of course be with no admission of liability, thus there would be no other recourse for the victims to collect from the Defendants therein above and beyond what is sure to be an excruciatingly long settlement process.
Markham and Read
Attn: Elizebeth Read
One commercial Wharf West
Boston, MA 02110
eread@markhamread.com
[cc Maricela Segura-Federal Trade Commission, msegura@ftc.gov]
Re: Bruch, et. al. v. Begley, et. al.; Riverside Superior Court Case no. RIC 1117805;
Civil subpoena for deposition and production of documents
Dear Ms. Read:
Be advised that any communication to and from your office, or from any of your clients, WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED CONFIDENTIAL AND WILL BE SUBJECT TO PUBLICATION, through both written and internet media sources. You may also contact me by phone, but again, any verbal communications with your office will be subject to audio recording.
I am in receipt of your deposition subpoena served upon me on June 12, 2012. There are both procedural and substantive problems with your subpoena.
First, Federal Rule 45(b)(1) provides that service of a subpoena that “requires that person’s attendance” is valid only if the proper witness and mileage fees are included. (See 28 U.S.C. § 1821 for federal witness and mileage fees). Estimated amount for my witness fee is $112.75 pursuant to the aforesaid guidelines. Your office failed to pay these fees thus your subpoena is not valid.
Further, due to my credentials, I will also be asking for expert witness fees to be paid prior to my testimony. I am a licensed private investigator and security consultant in the state of California. I have been an accredited paralegal since 1992 and continue to meet all MCLE requirements dictated by the California Business And Professions code Section 6450 et. seq. My company, Diversified Arbitration, has been in continuous operation since 1993. I have testified in over a dozens trials and have acted as an advocate for many more before the OAH, and AAA and JAMS arbitrations. In that you seek information that is as a result of my investigations and related expertise, I would require a minimum deposit for 8 hours at $150.00. If we can arrange for your office to overnight a certified check or cashiers check for my fees prior to my deposition, I would waive any objection as to the validity of your subpoena. My CV is available upon request.
In addition to the foregoing, any testimony I give would be subject to the following objections: (1) information sought is privileged or confidential; (2) is vague, ambiguous, or overbroad; and (3) imposes an undue burden (although I will be willing to waive the last objection provided your office pay for the preparation and production of the non-privileged documents and ESI requested). These objections are in addition to any objections attorney Scott Harlow may pose at the time of the deposition.
Finally, as you are aware from your attendance at the previous four depositions, many of our witnesses have received threats of physical violence because of their cooperation with our investigation and their cooperation with the law firm that retained my company. I have also received threats from individuals I believe to be associated with the named defendants in the matter of Bruch, et. al. v. Begley, et. al. Please advise how your office intends to protect our witnesses, both the ones who have already testified at their depositions, and the ones that your subpoenas seeks to have me disclose. Since you are aware of the threats and possibility for harm to these individuals, your office would be liable for any disclosures that would lead to harm against said individuals.
In closing, let me commend you on what I assume must be free legal representation your office is providing to Jason Begley and Wayne Lunsford, especially flying back and forth from Boston to California. As you have stated previously, both orally and through court documents filed in the FTC action, your clients “have no money”. On that note, I have noticed there have been multiple applications to the court for monies to be paid to Begley and Lunsford out of the assets seized, but not a single application has been made to pay the former employees. Is that because you do not want to extend your pro bono work to the employees based upon your claimed conflict of interests? Just curious.
Please feel free to contact me directly or contact the Law Offices Of Scott Harlow regarding the issues outlined herein, my deposition testimony and/or my fees.
Sincerely,
Michael Petersen Diversified Arbitration
Anyways, what you are trying to do is completely obvious but it's not going to work. Where are all the angry cursing shills? They were sooo much more entertaining. I could practically taste their tears through the computer screen. This quasi intellectual/e-gangster act is getting kind of old.
He is a regular percipeint witness. Nothing more. He is full of himself. The $112.75 should cover it.
The funny/important letter, would be the response letter from the attorney.
Are you going to post that Michael?
Made a mistake above
Number two, for the poster above, please look up the definition of percipient witness.
Number three, does anybody other than myself know the scope of the request for production of documents and ESI that is being sought by the subpoena? or even the scope of information and testimony sought...other than myslef and the requesting attorney?...no, I thought not. Hence the absurd reference to "percipient witness". Good phrase though, makes a person sound knowledgable.
Number four, of course I will post the attorneys response, to do otherwise would not be equitable. Although it is my belief that this attorney will not respond nor was she ever serious about taking my deposition or the fees would have been provided at the time of service of the subpoena (this is first year law student stuff). Most likely more of an intimidation tactic by the law firm than an actual desire to potentially have me put all evidence obtained on an official record for the world to see (and yes, I;'m the one that would make sure the world saw it).
Further, given your documented admission that you desire any judgment to be assigned to you for purpose of collection, any "expert" testimony would be disallowed.
Also, you can post whatever you wish for whatever reason you wish, but anything you post is fair game to become a topic of discussion.
Finally, given that you are affiliated with a law firm and have admitted that you use this venue to communicate with defendants in the civil case, you should consider whether your conduct runs afoul of the law firm's professional obligations to not communicate with a represented person. I will be reporting your firm to the bar.