The post you are about to read might be a first in the history of the Internet. It presents tape-recorded proof of mainstream debt collectors violating federal law in an effort to collect a "debt" they could not even prove was owed.
In fact, these collectors could not even prove the alleged debtor held the card in question. How do I know that? I was the alleged debtor--and discovery in a federal lawsuit showed that the collectors could not prove I ever had the American Express card in question, much less that I owed a debt on it.
A corrupt U.S. District Judge named Abdul Kallon repeatedly made unlawful rulings in my lawsuit, allowing collectors to wriggle off the hook. President Barack Obama appointed Kallon to the federal bench from the corporate Birmingham law firm Bradley Arant, at the suggestion of former U.S. Rep. Artur Davis--and that probably explains why Kallon is a toady for debt collectors and the financial sector.
We, however, are prepared to hold collectors accountable in the court of public opinion, with the first in a series of videos that show how bad actors in the debt-collection industry try to pull scams on consumers. (See video at the end of this post.) We don't have to worry about Abdul Kallon's bogus rulings in the wide-open space of the blogosphere.
Is this post really a first for the Web? Well, I'm not certain about that. I am familiar with several online reports that present direct evidence of debt collectors treating consumers in abusive fashion. One example that immediately comes to mind involved a Texas man named Allen Jones, who was barraged with collection calls that were mind-blowingly vile and racist. Jones wound up winning a $1.5 million judgment against Advanced Call Center Technologies (ACT) in federal court.
I suspect ACT comes under the heading of a rogue debt-collector--and there are quite a few of those out there. It should be noted, however, that the company has a fairly classy looking Web site, so maybe it rises a little above the level of "rogue" in the collection world.
Without question, the violations I am about to reveal are more subtle than the ones Allen Jones experienced. And they clearly come from a mainstream collector. The calls are from the Birmingham law firm of Ingram and Associates, which was hired by NCO, which is owned by JPMorgan Chase. And JPMorgan Chase is the largest private corporation in the world.
You can't get much more mainstream in the financial sector than that.
Does that make our tape recordings unique on the Web? Maybe not, but I'm pretty sure our evidence is at least unusual. It shows irrefutable proof of a high-end collector--if there is such a thing--stooping to unethical and unlawful tactics in an effort to con me out of money they could not prove I owed. And again, this was on a card they could not prove I had ever possessed.
What's the issue in this first video? Here is the key one: The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) states that it is unlawful for a collector to communicate with a third party about a debt, other than to get information about a consumer's location (15 U.S.C. 1692b and 15 U.S.C. 1692c). But Ingram and Associates collector Tracy Mize--working on behalf of NCO and JPMorgan Chase--says right off the bat that she had been talking with my wife about various payment options on the debt.
That presents a slight problem. Even by the collector's own admissions, the alleged card was in my name only. Mrs. Schnauzer was not involved in any way, so she was a third party and they could lawfully only ask her how to locate me. (Her answer on that evening would have been: "He's out in the front yard, mowing the grass.")
Instead, they pried all sorts of personal legal and financial information from a non-party to the alleged debt. At about the 5:20 mark in the video below, Mize talks about all the details from my wife that were now in an account, which had nothing to do with her. You can read the pertinent sections of the FDCPA at the links above and see that Mize's actions were blatantly illegal. And she was working for Ingram and Associates, which was working for NCO, which is owned by JPMorgan Chase. This scam goes right to the top of big finance in the United States.
Welcome to the unseemly real world of debt collectors. The following video shows in stark details just one way they will try to scam consumers. There are many more, and we have more videos on the way.
Roger, you clearly admitted that you owed the debt.
ReplyDelete"Here, the Shulers's false representation claim is without merit. The district court properly granted summary judgment in Ingram's favor because the Shulers admitted that facts 1 through 13 in Ingram's summary judgment motion were undisputed. Thus, the Shulers judicially admitted the facts that Mr. Shuler had a debt with American Express..."
From http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4951705496470982394&q=%22roger+shuler%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,44
That case also refuted everything you say in this post. And you wonder why you have no credibility and your stories do not trigger any changes? It is because you are a liar and lose every lawsuit you've been involved with.
Readers: don't believe me? Go to scholar.Google.com type "roger Shuler" and push the legal documents button. Your "hero" is just a born loser. A real munson
America is a "debtor nation." JPMorgan Chase, and the United Nations belongs to the Rockefeller "global family." And, Rockefeller number one, when a boy, sold his neighbor money with interest so the neighbor's "farm" could continue to work. He began the "debt industry," as the easiest "money" ever "earned."
ReplyDeleteClearly, in opposition to the U.S. Constitution's Article I, Section IX, Section VII.
http://shop.consumerlaw.org/survivingdebt.aspx
512 pages. ISBN 978-1-60248-065-0
NCLC's most popular book, a classic in its field, Surviving Debt provides precise, practical, and hard-hitting advice on how to deal with an overwhelming debt load.
"The best book available for consumers in financial trouble."
-- Stephen Brobeck, Executive Director, Consumer Federation of America
"A gold mine on topics like how to handle collectors, which debts to pay first, and how collection lawsuits work." -- U.S. News & World Report
"Outstanding manual ... seldom is such useful, authoritative information available for so small a price!" -- Booklist, the Magazine of the American Library Assn.
"An important work, extremely useful and practical for individuals in financial distress. This is a much needed book for our times." -- Hon. Marilyn Morgan, United States Bankruptcy Judge
O.K.
When an attorney in Portland, Oregon, said it would cost me $25,0000.00, for the "ECOA" claim, [Equal Credit Opportunity Act] which I would prevail, but needed also an "expert," I opted to purchase all 18 titles at the link where the book is found above. It cost me almost $2,000.00, for all the legal materials I thought I would need in court.
In the Courts, however, United States District [USDC]in the Portland Division, State of Oregon, when I produced the Public Retirement Portfolios [PERS] for the EMPLOYEES OF THE COURTS, et al, the "Justices" were not only stark raving mad, the reality show is what we are living now.
Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, L.I.B.O.R., and all the usual suspects are the managers of the courts and thus, our government and its' retirement IS in essence JPMorgan's gigantic global weapons of mass financial terrorism.
There are Forensically Documented CDs in the courts: California, Washington, Oregon and in every CIRCUIT, from number one in NYC, to the number 11, in the States, Federal, and Tax as well as International, ET AL, et Cetera.
ALL JUSTICES HAVE BEEN REQUESTED, IE NOTICED: PLEASE honor the fact, that, debt is not other than 'derivatives' which is an 'algorithm' which is in essence, fraud.
Virtual "money" is not real.
LABOR WEALTH IS REALITY.
The Judicial System in the U.S. was the BIGGEST yet to be in the ponzi one world scheme and therefore, why, in my opinion, so many "lawyers" that are the most vile ever in America, got "picked."
It is easy for corruption to find a partner and in the debt business there has been no end to the worst case scenario in violating our rule, letter and spirit of our good law - we coin our own money and thus, a "Constitutional Republic," which is one function button back to "home safe."
How blessed we are in the U.S. with Legal Schnauzer the journalist extraordinaire, we had best respect Mr&Mrs Schnauzer's VERVE. /rk
John Cell:
ReplyDeleteCongratulations for knowing how to look up stuff on Google Scholar. That's quite a talent you've got there. A couple of points:
* The "admissions" to which you refer were made by our former attorneys, Darrell Cartwright and Allan Armstrong, who we currently are suing for malpractice. They were made without our knowledge or permission, and they contradict the facts in the case. I invite you to go into the file, beyond the bogus 11th Cir. opinion you cite, and see my deposition testimony.
* If you know anything about the FDCPA, which you apparently do not, the issue is not whether I had an AMEX card, it's whether I had the specific AMEX card in question, whether I was notified in writing (as I requested) for the exact amount in question, etc. I never received any written documentation that I owed a specific debt on a specific card. Failing to provide that information is a violation of FDCPA.
* I've already shown on this blog how the collectors admitted they had no information showing I even had a card or owed them any obligation. The link is below:
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2010/02/debt-collection-fraud-starts-with.html
* I've already shown how the trial court and 11th Circuit got the case wrong under the law:
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2012/08/judge-abdul-kallon-obama-nominee-is.html
I know you aren't interested in the actual facts and law, and whether courts follow them. You like to play little games on Google Scholar.
But these links will remind readers with brain cells how the courts botched this case, and how our own lawyers proved to be our worst enemies, which happens a lot in courts, to all sorts of people.
By the way, I notice you don't even bother trying to counter the key point of the post--that the collectors violated federal law by getting all sorts of information about an alleged debt from a third party.
I have audio that shows many more such violations.
John Cell:
ReplyDeleteYou won't find this on Google Scholar, so I'm not sure it will interest you. But here is a post, featuring documentation of false statements made under oath by collections lawyer Angie Ingram. This is right here in Bham, and I have much more coming on Ms. Ingram's seedy operation:
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2010/02/debt-collectors-motto-lie-early-and-lie.html
Mr. Cell:
ReplyDeleteWhy do you hide behind a phony name while you attack Mr. Schnauzer with what appear to be bogus arguments?
I obviously hide my true identity, too, but I'm not attacking Mr. Schnauzer, or any other blogger. I just happen to find this blog to be quite informative, and I know what it's like to have constant calls from collectors on accounts I don't owe.
If I were to take serious issue with Mr. Schnauzer or any other online author, I would reveal myself. Seems only fair.
You don't have much credibility as long you refuse to state who you really are. You might be one of the attorneys against Mr. Schnauzer in the collection case, for all any of us knows. You certainly seem to have a "dog in the hunt" somehow.
Just my opinion, but you also seem lazy. You look up stuff on Google Scholar that Mr. Schnauzer already has analyzed and shown how it is wrong under the law. You don't do any actual research to support your points.
You are much fury and no sound. Makes me think Mr. Schnauzer is goring your ox somehow, and you don't like it.
I wonder why.
I applaud Mr. Schnauzer for running your comments, when he doesn't have to. But I see no reason to take you seriously.
This audio makes me want to puke. I'm not an expert on debt-collection law, but I've had a few issues in the area, and even I know that collectors cannot get information like this from a third party. This is one of the most understood aspects of collections law. In fact, I think the law says they can only ask a third party how to locate you and cannot even say it's about a debt.
ReplyDeleteI bet they were trying to scare your wife, knowing that would make it more likely you would settle with them. This is all about scare tactics.
LS:
ReplyDeleteIt's ironic that you posted this on pretty much the same day that the Mitt Romney video broke. The Mitt video reveals how big-shot financial types really think. Your video shows how big-shot financial types really work.
An interesting juxtaposition, to pull out a big word.
Readers might be interested to know that this post has been picked up at BuzzFlash, which probably is the No. 1 progressive news aggregation site in the country.
ReplyDeleteIf you aren't familiar with BuzzFlash, I hope you will check it out. A great source for progressive news:
http://www.buzzflash.com/
It should be noted that this call was recorded while I had received zero written information about the alleged debt. In fact, I received no written verification, even after I requested it, and that is a violation of the FDCPA.
ReplyDeleteIf I sound lost at times in the audio, it's because the collector just started calling without sending any written verification about the alleged debt. They do that on purpose, of course, because the less you know, the more likely you are to get rattled and come to some sort of agreement with them.
Think of it: This woman was trying to get me to send her money, maybe even refinance my home, without providing one lick of documentation about whether I even owed the debt. And collectors pull this on thousands of consumers every day.
In her conversation with my wife (a non-party), which they admitted lasted about an hour and produced 14 pages of notes, Ms. Mize said that they had not sent a verification letter as required by law. She said it would come later, but it never did.
During discovery in my lawsuit, Angie Ingram produced a letter that she claimed had been sent a few days before this call was made. Her own employee had admitted no such letter existed at the time and had not been sent.
In other words, Angie Ingram committed perjury. The letter she produced was generated after the fact to cover up a violation of the FDCPA.
Perjury, of course, is a crime, and Ms. Ingram's bar card would be in serious danger if the Alabama State Bar was a remotely honest organization.
I find it interesting that so many of these major corporations, which try to sell the public on their good corporate image, have so many "affiliated & subsiduary companies" which don't have such a "stellar" reputations. this is how the big boys make money. They have their other companies do the dirty work. Their targets are Americans who aren't sophisticated when it comes to finance & their rights.
ReplyDeletePeople are much better off to forget about credit cards & figure out other ways to deal with money emergencies and not make regular purchases on their credit cards. Use cash & send the finance companies a great big message.
Not that long ago people simply paid everything in cash or cheque. Yes there were emergencies but people got through them. Some even, prior to getting married ensured they had enough money in the bank to carry thenmselves through for up to 6 months in case of that emergency. I know that is hard to do in these times but if people start in their early 20s they can get there.
This is very informative post. I have read it many times. Thanks a lot for posting this. Now I can deal better with collectors and also waiting for your new useful post.
ReplyDeleteWe don't have to worry about Abdul Kallon's bogus rulings in the wide-open space of the blogosphere.Uni-source
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately for tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of Americans, debt is something we have to live with every single day. And more and more these debt collection companies are calling us, texting us, emailing us, and otherwise harassing us to pay outstanding balances. Even some that we’re already making payments on. But what a lot of people don’t realize is that most of this harassment is technically not allowed by law .
ReplyDelete