Thursday, November 1, 2012

Tape Recordings Nail Debt Collectors In Flagrant Violations Of Federal Law (Part 3)

Federal law prohibits debt collectors from making any false or misleading statements to an alleged debtor. Collectors also are prohibited from using any statements that abuse or harass an alleged debtor.

We have tape recordings that prove collectors violated both laws in an effort to collect a debt I allegedly owed to American Express. (See video at the end of this post.) In the course of discovery in a lawsuit my wife and I filed for rampant violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), we found that collectors had no information showing I owed the debt. In fact, they had no information showing I had ever possessed the American Express card in question.

Our case is particularly alarming because it does not involve a fly-by-night collection outfit--and there are plenty of those out there. The collectors who contacted us represented one of the largest financial institutions in the world. The voice you hear on the audio belongs to a collector who worked for the Birmingham law firm Ingram and Associates. A Pennsylvania-based firm called NCO had placed my alleged debt with Ingram. NCO is owned by One Equity Partners, the private-investment arm of JPMorgan Chase--and Chase is the largest bank in the United States.

That means the abusive and unlawful actions that you are about to witness go to the very top of the American financial food chain. Our experience shows that corrupt federal judges are willing to rule contrary to fact and law in order to let enormous banks bully consumers.

In the video below, a collector named Tracy Mize says her boss, attorney Angie Ingram, was "hired by American Express" to sue me. Discovery later proved that statement to be false. Ingram was hired by NCO, and she is a member of the NCO Attorney Network; Ingram admitted that in an affidavit. That means Mize's statement is a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692e, which states: "A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt."

Mize was just getting warmed up with her unlawful statements. I told her that Angie Ingram had an obligation under Rule 8.10 of the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct to report misconduct by lawyers that had sullied our financial picture. After all, Mize and her supervisor, Jann Blalock, admitted that they had 14 pages of notes about our experience with lawyers, based on information they had unlawfully obtained from my wife, a non-party to the alleged debt--and I had offered to tell Ingram more in a face-to-face meeting. Mize acknowledged that lawyers have an obligation under the law to report misconduct by other lawyers, but she said Ingram would not be following through on that obligation because Mize was not going to share our information with her.

When I pressed Mize on the issue, she stated: "You can't go any further. Ms. Ingram is not going to be involved in your, uh, witch hunt, okay?" That was a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692d, which holds: "A debt collector may not engage in any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt."

Translation: Debt collectors can not use insults and threats. But they did in this case, on multiple occasions.

If a collector that represents JPMorgan Chase violates the law so casually, imagine what those representing small-time outfits must pull. You can catch a rogue collector "in the act" at the video below. Previously in our series:

Tape Recordings Nail Debt Collectors In Flagrant Violations Of Federal Law (Part 1)

Tape Recordings Nail Debt Collectors In Flagrant Violations Of Federal Law (Part 2)


John Cell said...

Too bad neither were false and the federal district court and 11th circuit disagreed with your arguments that their actions were illegal. Why don't you put that in your post?

Oh right. Because you've never won a single lawsuit, and for that reason, every judge you've come across is a criminal. Conspiracy theorist Roger.

jeffrey spruill said...

Mr. Schnauzer:

Are you still immersed with & in the agony of these criminals--I mean criminals--I mean debt collectors?

I read a little of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)so forgive me of the above Freudian slip/parapraxis.

Anonymous said...

The angie ingram group are low lifes, violates hippa laws and are thugs. After I reported them to the Attorney General, they crawled back into their mouse house never to return.

legalschnauzer said...

Always great to hear from John Cell, the man who has so much courage in his convictions that he hides behind a phony name. As always, Johnny C has major problems with reading comprehension. Too bad.

legalschnauzer said...

Anon at 8:38--

Would be interested in knowing more about your experiences with Ingram. You reference violations of HIPAA. Did they try to access your health-care information in some way?

Anonymous said...

Mr. Cell either is clueless or out of the loop. LS has reported numerous times on court outcome of the debt-collection matter. It's no secret.

Spasmoda said...

Mr. Cell:

It appears you have an interest with the debt-collection industry or the law firms that work for them. Why don't you disclose that information so readers here can know about your true agenda.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Cell:

Like LS, I've been harassed by debt collectors, so I've followed his reporting closely on this subject.

Therefore, I know that Angie Ingram's affidavit is available on the Web. Just Google "Angie Ingram affidavit," and anyone can see that she admits being hired by NCO, not American Express. LS has run it on several posts.

The statements from the Ingram representative were false, and that is a violation of the FDCPA.

Seems you are on a disinformation campaign. It's not working well because this audience can see right thru you.

Anonymous said...

BTW, here is a link to Angie Ingram's affidavit. Her own words show her employees were lying.

John Cell said...

You're a loser. Just like your wife. No neutral judge ever agrees with you. You just lose.

You claim republicans and debt collectors get your wife fired, then she sues and claims discrimination by age, sex, and other reasons. So who was right? Or are you just a dumb disgruntled litigant?

Did sherry rollins appeal? What was the result? Oh yeah...lost.

legalschnauzer said...

Oh, goody. More from John Cell, the least articulate commenter in Internet history. "You're a loser." Is that the best you can do, John? Are you a third grader, out on recess?

As for my wife's federal complaint, that's her case. What she puts in it is her business. What I write on the blog is my business, although she certainly has input.

Civil cases almost always involve multiple claims, and they often are narrowed down after the discovery process and you have more of an idea about what happened. For the record, my wife's complaint includes a claim for tortious interference, which goes to outsiders interfering with her employment relationship at Infinity. She also experienced signs of age and gender discrimination, so she is free to pursue those claims. If she has a non-corrupt judge, a big if, she will be able to determine exactly what happened via discovery.

As a third grader, you surely don't know this, but one claim does not preclude another. That's the way our system works. You will learn about it in high school civics class.

Love your reference to a "neutral judge." Hah, what a knee slapper.

Also, love your reference to the fact Sherry Rollins lost her appeal, as if it actually was considered by the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals.

Even most semi-honest lawyers will tell you that our appellate courts rubber stamp the trial-court judgments on probably 75-80 of appeals before them--and in many cases, a clerk does the rubber stamping, with no judge even looking at the case.

That's the real world, Johnny C, as you will learn as you pass through junior high and beyond.

Better draw this comment to a close because recess probably is about over for you. Don't fall off the monkey bars.

jeffrey spruill said...

Mr. Cell:

What is your definition of a neutral judge?

The judges I've gone before were owned by somebody or something.

legalschnauzer said...


I can answer your question. A neutral judge is one who can't decide if he is going to be bought for $50,000 or $75,000.

legalschnauzer said...

Another definition of a neutral judge:

A judge who is open to being bought by either side.

David in S. Alabama said...

Two things:

1. Who the hell is John Cell?

2. Alabama appellate judges are the best Karl Rove could buy.

Anonymous said...

Shhh that's chump change