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
does it seem to you that Elizabeth Read has taken over as their prime attorney? if so do you have any thoughts as to why that is? she was not their main attorney in the beginning, but rather John Markham seemed to be.
I have wondered if they are fighting so hard to get some money released in order to pay the attorney fees. Since their chances of getting any funds released is slim at best, I do wonder why everyone is working so hard to defend them for no pay.
Further, it is my understanding that John Markham and Elizebeth Read may be married to each other. They have represented in the past the they were at a family gathering together, whcih would seem to indicate some sort of relation.
As for being out here, I beleive that in the recent declaration of John Markham filed in the FTC action, he states he is handling another criminal matter in LA and asked for a continuance/extension of the discovery cut-off. This would explan their presence out here. Further, their "representation" at this point appears to be limited to negotiating a settlement in the FTC action.
The real question is when will they withdraw as attorneys in the state court action. Neither attorney has attended any of the depos and discovery has already gone out to many of the state court defendants. They will soon lose control of these defendants that they technically don't represent and have a conflict with.
I hope they have decided to settle, I know at one point they thought they could win it. I personally do not see how they could win it but denial is a very powerful thing.
I don't understand what they have to do with the state court action, are they also defending Begley and Lunsford in that action? I would think not but could see why they might be interested. As for control, I doubt they have any to start with.
As for control, I will give an excellant example. All the pro per defendants in the state court action repeatedly appeared in state court for inconsequential hearings (status conference hearings) that they did not need to be at. BUT, when the time came for these same defendants to attend depositions wherein testimony was being given against them, one of the most important discovery proceedings that could happen in the case, not one defendant showed up. At the same time, Elizebeth Read claimed some bogus objection that defendants (people she doesn't represent) were being intimidated through this website and therefor would not appear.
End result, Read controlled attendance of defendants at depositions. Had defendants been at these depositions, they would have found out the depth of the [***] they are in, a cesspool that Begley and Lunsford are trying to get out of at the other defendants' expense. So yes, there is a great amount of control being exerted.
Alert for Michael.
1)never will yet and never will ever. LOL
2)I do care as much as you care to shill for Michael. LOL
3)so Michael has said numerous times JSTO and STO so does that mean he's one of them too. LOL
Now let's see here you must be a dead beat debtor riding that wagon with the rest of them blaming these company's for harassment. If any of you haven't realized by now none of these strong armed collection tatics wouldn't exsist if you idiots would stop hiding out and hanging up when a collector calls you. If collectors didn't get hung up on, cussed out, etccc there wouldn't be use for this. What I thinks even more hilarious is that it's funny how debtors are allowed to cuss collectors out and threaten to stop calling and make verbal threats but it's ok. Paybacks a motha [***].
Unconfirmed sources have given info that the defendants in the FTC action are running two new operations, one of whcih is located in Buena Park at 8401 Page St. Monies from these operations are allegedly being funneled through friends and family back to defendants in order to get around the FTC PI. Right now I am looking for information on individuals whose names are attached to that location, namely Kim Miller, Angel Espiritu and a corporation by the name of Assured Client. Complaints online indicate that they operate as Global AG aka Reliant Financial Associates.
I would be surprised if they would actually continue to use those names in connection with a current operation, knowing that it would attract attempts to sieze assets.
This seems like a pretty far stretch and like the above post mentions,even these morons must know how not to screw this one up and get caught violating that order not to operate.Good luck but I do think this will all be dead ends unless these people are seriously,seriously stupid.
You may want to stop grasping at straws and exposing yourself to liability with your carelessness.
how sad when you look at charge-off they don't even use the legal definition they just poorly wing it in their own words Has another address for the company as well
Took the deposition of John Cook today. As expected, he lied in response to almost every question. Apparently someone had told him that if you answer "I can't recall" or "I don't remember", then it is not a lie. Examples of some of his lies that are my favorite,
Question: What does STO mean?
Cook: I don't know.
Question: What does JSTO mean?
Cook: I don't know.
Question: What does POE mean?
Cook: I don't know.
Question: Who were your senior closers?
Cook: I can't recall.
Question: Who were the other managers?
Cook: I can't recall.
Question: What was the pay structure, how did you get paid?
Cook: I don't know. I can't recall.
This went on for hours. He probably thinks this is a good strategy but in reality, no jury is ever going to beleive anything he says because he came off as completely not credible...which means that anything anybody else has said about him will be taken as a fact, regardless of the evidence behind it. Good for trial.
As for you dialers and closers, when asked specifically if he (John Cook) gave any scripts that mentioned "process servers", "lawsuits", "FTAs", etc., Cook denied having ever provided scripts with this type of language or instructing dialers and closers to reference as such. As expected, the owners [***] on the managers, and now the manager has [***] on the closers and dialers. According to Begley, Lunsford and Cook, all the illegal activity that was going on was as a result of illegal conduct of the dialers and closers (mostly the dialers). Should be fun when trial comes, I imagine we will have seven managers all saying they "can't recall" or "don't remember", but they will remeber that they never told the dialers and closers to do anything illegal nor provided them with illegal scripts.
For you consumers out there, the law office is not accepting any more plaintiffs on this lawsuit, but if it is any consolation, the FTC will have some sort of reimbursement program for affected consumers "eventually". When the time comes, I will do my best to post the claims process outlined by the FTC for consumers.
Denials or not, systematic deception shows intent, because it shows an understanding of the whole picture and how the pieces are intended to work together.