Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Lies of Debt Collectors "Shock the Conscience"

Mrs. Schnauzer and I have a couple of veteran attorneys, Darrell Cartwright and Allan Armstrong, handling our lawsuit against unethical debt collectors.

We suspect that Cartwright and Armstrong have been around long enough to encounter quite a few people who have a serious problem telling the truth. But even long-time lawyers have been taken aback by the disinformation generated by the defendants in our lawsuit--Pennsylvania-based NCO and Birmingham-based law firm Ingram & Associates.

We allege multiple violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA), plus various state-law claims, and our lawyers say it "shocks the conscience" to see how defendants twist the truth in an effort to cover up their wrongdoing.

NCO and Ingram & Associates have a problem trying to squirm out of this case because we tape recorded several conversations with their representatives. The evidence of unlawful actions cannot be denied, but employees of the defendants try to deny it anyway.

Write Cartwright and Armstrong in court documents:

Employees of the co-defendants have submitted sworn affidavits in this case that directly, and irreconcilably, conflict with their own recorded telephone conversations. It shocks the conscience to see how violently the Affiant's own written words collide with their recorded voices.

Two examples come from the affidavit of Jann Blalock, an Ingram & Associates manager with whom I spoke about a debt I allegedly owed to American Express.

In her affidavit, Blalock says that "it was not and is not the practice of Ingram to make any statements or threats to levy upon or threaten to sell the property of a debtor."

So how does that explain Blalock's statement in a recorded conversation that "they attach assets" and they can "take any money that you put into a bank account"?

How does that explain the statement by Blalock's colleague Tracy Mize, which my wife testified to in a deposition, that Ingram could "sell our house on the courthouse steps"?

When confronted with that statement on the tape recording, Blalock says, "We didn't say the house, we said the deed to the house." Oh, I guess that's different.
So Blalock's affidavit indicates she didn't threaten our property, but the tape recording has her admitting that they threatened to sell the deed to our house on the courthouse steps.

In her affidavit, Blalock says she heard Tracy Mize refuse to give information to my wife about why she was calling me. But in the tape recordings, Blalock acknowledges that Mize talked with my wife for roughly an hour and took 14 pages of notes about the conversation. What was Mize talking to my wife about? The upcoming season of Lost?

See what our lawyers mean about shocking the conscience?

And that's hardly all. Defendants state under oath that they never spoke with my wife about the debt--which did not involve her, by the way; the card was in my name. But the recorded conversation they had with me indicates they spoke at length with my wife. Write Cartwright and Armstrong:

"They discussed payment options, executions on judgments that have not been obtained, and likely never could be obtained, and much more."

Representatives from Ingram and NCO stated that courts always rule in their favor, that "there's not much of any way around that." They made this statement, even though they now have admitted that they have no documents from American Express indicating I even had a cardholder agreement, much less that I owed a debt.

We're just getting warmed up with the actions and statements from these debt collectors, and their attorneys, that shock the conscience. There is much more to come. In fact, we are about to show you how we caught lawyers for Ingram and NCO in a lie that boggles the mind . . . while it shocks the conscience.

It boils down to attempted fraud on the court and probably should result in the disbarment, or at least the suspension, of several opposing lawyers. Of course, given the Alabama State Bar's pathetic record for managing its troops, that is unlikely to happen. But what you soon will be reading at Legal Schnauzer is a disgrace to the so-called legal "profession"--and it shows just how desperate these debt collectors are to obscure the truth.

For now, you can check out the affidavit from Jann Blalock, which was given under oath:

Jann Blalock Affidavit

No comments: