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
Mr. Petersen,
Thank you for your email. In it you have provided most of what we need at this time, so please consider your subpoena for appearance on Wednesday, June 27, 2012 withdrawn. Your appearance is not required at this time. I will rely upon the mileage statement you provided in advancing fees and mileage for a future appearance. Please provide a copy of your CV. Thank you.
Elizabeth Read
MARKHAM & READ
One Commercial Wharf West
Boston, MA 02110
T: 617.523.6329
F: 617.742.8604
Michael, I am curious to know what you think Elizabeth Read is getting at, what her MO is so to speak. Do you care to share your thoughts on this?
This again goes to common sense issues of the cases that I will point out again, and in which no doubt will bring out the protective "shill postings" to get defendants and consumers attention off the point.
1) No reasonable person could possibly believe that any of the defendants, whether in the FTC action or the state court action, would prevail considering the overwhelming evidence against them. And juries hate scam collection agencies even before going to the evidence.
2) Begley and Lunsford have already taken the defense that the violations of FDCPA were as a result of "renegade collectors" using "unauthorized scripts" (just so you defendants know, your STO and JSTO scripts violated multiple FDCPA statutes). This is why Markham and Read have claimed a "conflict", because they are essentially blaming the managers, clsoers and dialersfor any violations and thus can't represent them.
3) Elizebeth Read is giving legal advice to the state court defendants, whom she claims a conflict with, in order to keep them "on board" and/or to prevent the managers and senior collectors from giving testimony against their clients, i.e. Read informs the defendants to file general denials in order to prevent defaults, assists with CMC statements, etc.(see Westholder motion and Cook CMC statement filed in state court action). At the end of the day, the conflict is still there and when the state court matter goes to trial, Begley and Lunsford will be there to give testimony against the managers, clsoers and dialers. For them to do otherwise would be to cut their own throats and to admit they filed false declarations in the FTC action. They have already set the managers up by stating in Begley's declaration of 12-21-11 that they "met with managers monthly to stress compliance with the law" (Begley decl., pg. 4, lines 8-10-see previous dropbox posting).
I knowall the owners are still all in communication with the managers and closers (hell, most of them are related),with the managers and closer patting each other on the back and "swearing fealty" to the owners (and allegience to each other). The fun part of this litigation will be a year from now when they all start turning on each other out of necessity but by then it will be too late. And let me me truthful, for the managers and senior closers, its already too late.
Their landlords seem to think they are good for paying something, unless commercial real estate is so vacant in Corona they are giving leases away.
Or are the landlords silent partners?
How about the portfolio brokers?
Landlords, and portfolio brokers, really?
Dumbass.
Capital is either debt or equity.
Not likely telecoms are selling them phone services in exchange for a share of the profits, and they won't extend credit over a month.
But rent, or brokered portfolios, could be structured that way.
So how do they open an office, when you claim they have nothing?
If you "have nothing", how do you get capital, and who has an incentive to provide it?