Complaint

+1
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

  • 0
    ???
    Everyone just needs to take it the way it is all this stuff will not change anything. People turning on the people who had nothing but good intensions on everyone having a better.  Well shame on you!! No body thought this would happen we all thought we were doing the right thing and for you to come on this and say any different is weak. You better all step up and realize were all in the same boat!! Talking crap on the people you worked witj or worked for is weak!! You know the only thing this company wanted was a better life for all!  Tthe people who get credit and don't pay it back can live with their own demons. Don't get caught up!! Do turn on people who really cared about you!!
  • 0
    ???
    Everyone just needs to take it the way it is all this stuff will not change anything. People turning on the people who had nothing but good intensions on everyone having a better.  Well shame on you!! No body thought this would happen we all thought we were doing the right thing and for you to come on this and say any different is weak. You better all step up and realize were all in the same boat!! Talking crap on the people you worked witj or worked for is weak!! You know the only thing this company wanted was a better life for all!  Tthe people who get credit and don't pay it back can live with their own demons. Don't get caught up!! Do turn on people who really cared about you!!
  • 0
    "talking crap"
    Your moral compass is so skewed you wouldn't know integrity if it slapped you in the face.

    If the people you were working with were committing a crime, then anyone with even a semblance of a moral compass would consider "talking crap on the people you worked witj" as doing the right thing.  It's actually a legally recognized principal - called the Whistle Blower law.  

    There's also another legally recognized principal:  "ignorance of the Law is no excuse".  It's especially valid if the laws you're breaking are in the course of your employment where you would be expected to have a higher degree of accountability.
  • 0
    Just sayin'...
    Todd Loop = Wolf in sheep's clothing

    Q: How do you know Todd Loop is lying to you?

    A: His lips are moving.

    Quick history...convicted felon (embezzlement); adulterer; "dead beat" Dad to an illegitimate child, owing back child support; degenerate gambler; sociopath.

    Track this mofo down and make him face the music once and for all. (oh yeah...did I mention he's Wayne's step Dad?)

    What a f*cking resume!
  • 0
    Occupy Complaint Wire
    Well said! Accountability...wow. What a novel concept!!
  • 0
    That sounds personal...
    It is beginning to look like some of these clowns made enemies along the way who now have a common place to come together and seek justice and support and of course the "Defendants" want to shut down the site. Lmao. We wanted to shut you down for over two years now. Good luck with that, some times you just have to suck it up and take your beating.
  • 0
    You don't know [***]
    I got all your info. You got none of mine just guesses and trying too hard. Take that can of Raid and shove it.You can't find me I got skills you never heard of. Keep tryin.
  • 0
    older and wiser
    FTC doesn't "approve" ANY scripts.

    None of this is surprising.

    An organization designed to deceive others requires that your team be deceived as well.

    Same compartmentalization for internal deception shows up in most fraudulent telemarketing operations.  That is basically what you are, a fraudulent telemarketer.  

    Change the "product", change the script details, it's all the same.
  • 0
    Nothing but good intentions???
    Calling people, telling them they have been sued, or they will be arrested?

    Or even better, telling their parents or grandma, or someone you think is their grandma, THEY will be arrested?

    You and I must have a different meaning for good intentions.
  • 0
    Why is it...
    that anyone with information about you must be some sort of "disgruntled fired employee".  Michael was called that, too, when he asked for information on you, on ripoffreport.

    Did you write those?
  • 0
    Whatever
    Try to justify not paying your debt!! Because of all of you our economy suffers! I really don't give a f---! I have awesome credit and would never not pay my bills no matter how old! You live with whatever gets you through the day! I live in peace.
  • 0
    Whatever
    Try to justify not paying your debt!! Because of all of you our economy suffers! I really don't give a f---! I have awesome credit and would never not pay my bills no matter how old! You live with whatever gets you through the day! I live in peace.
  • 0
    Michael
    Just a quick update. Several people have now been served, including John Cook.  I would assume by now that the various managers are talking and/or texting other un-served named defendants to remain calm, not say anything and that "their attorney" will represent them. I am also aware that many of the named defendants and heretofore unnamed defendants are aware of postings on this site.  While I agree that all named defendants should seek advice of counsel, it is my belief that said advice should come from independent counsel, not counsel for FTC defendants whose interest do not coicide or at the very least will soon diverge from those individuals lower on the "food chain". I beleive that already Wayne Lunsford and Jason Begley are "selling out" the managers and employees.  This belief stems from the Reciever report filed in the FTC action earlier today, wherein the Reciever interviewed Wayne and Jason's attorney, Samuel Lockhart, and stated as follows,

    "On October 13, 2011, Lockhart, the Individual Defendants' cousnel, stated to the Reciever that the Manager Entities had been recently formed and were now collecting the debt purchased from PIF.  Lockhart stated that the Manager Entities were formed fore the purpose of insulating PIG and PIF from the collection process and that neither the Recievership Entities nor PIG and PIF were resonsible for the manner and methods of the collection implemented by the Manager Entities.  He also stated that the Individual Defendants (Wayne Lunsford and Jason Begley) did not have any control over the debt collection process once the debt was sold to the Manager Entities...." [See Reciver report, pg. 8, para. 18]

    Making informed decisions is the best way to proceed, thus all defendants and all former employees should be diligently reading FTC documents and should appear at the court proceedings on Monday. The report filed today further indicates that not all assets/money was seized by the FTC.  As a paralegal and investigator myself, I recognize the fact that the FTC investigators and attorneys have put in thousands of hours into their pleadings. I do not see any way for there to be a "good" ending for the defendants in the FTC action.  Further, please note that the FTC is now using the word "extortion" in their pleadings (see docs filed 11-01-11).  

    "Calfornia Penal Code 520.  "Every person who extorts any money or other property from another, under circumstances not amounting to robbery or carjacking,by means of force, or any threat, such as is mentioned in Section 519, shall be punished by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for two, three or four years."

    I have many times seen situations where inviduals lower on the "food chain' are told to keep their mouths shut or to state that they "don't recall" in response to questions at depositions, only to find late that they turned themselves from a bit part in a large litigation to a main party guilty of perjury. Again, all defendants and all former employees should be seeking advice of counsel at this point.

    Not to wax poetic, but to quote Pink Floyd from the song We You Were Here-

    "Did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage"

    I know, shows how old I am.
  • 0
    Michael
    Sorry, typo-song was Wish You Were Here
  • 0
    wow
    Wayne and Jason selling out their employees. What a joke. Rats.  Every man for himself now.
  • 0
    Receiver's report
    Just now reading the receivers report filed today.  I am now more convinced than ever they will be shut down completely very shortly.
  • 0
    Michael
    Please note that the Recievers report referenced the fact that there was over 2 million dollars in affiliated entities accounts that were not subject to the asset freeze. Translation-How many of you former employees were told that they could not pay you because all the money had been frozen? Please do your research, do not rely on my say so or that of your former employers, read the receivers report yourselves.

    For purposes of full disclosure, I will forard to anyone who ask copies of the reciever's report and other FTC docs (although there are about 1600 pages of those) so that you don't have to pay for them. Send me an email and let me know where to forward them, set up a dead end email for this specific purpose if need be.
  • 0
    Michael
    Update:

    Just reviewed the answer filed by Defendants in the FTC action.  Both Wayne Lunsford and Jason Begley deny that they ever "formulated, controlled, had the authority to control, or participated in the acts and practices as alleged in the FTC complaint" (see answer, pg. 1, para. 13 and 14 of answer filed 11-03-11).

    While this is some what standard language for a "general denial", if you combine this with statments made to the reciever, the only conclusion is that collection managers and all you "independant contractors" took it upon yourselves to violate a multitude of state and federal laws in order to line your own pockets.  

    While this may seem ridiculous to all you former employees, who has more money to hire attorneys to give their side of the story-you...or Begley and Lunsford?  Unfortunately, the law is quite often like this.
  • 0
    ^^
    Their side is complete BULL.Obviously. If they found piles of complaints on their desk then this excuse is thrown out the window.
  • 0
    Serves You Right
    So now everyone who ran an office will be responsible for the calls made IN that office. Wow, and here we thought manager's had it so good. ;)

Post a new comment