And as a public service announcement, some of our special friends remind you: It's almost time to get a flu shot.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Happy Halloween From Legal Schnauzer
The entire Legal Schnauzer team--Mrs. Schnauzer, Baxter the Tonk, Chloe the Tonk, Chucky the Ground Squirrel, and yours truly--wishes our readers a happy and safe Halloween.
And as a public service announcement, some of our special friends remind you: It's almost time to get a flu shot.
And as a public service announcement, some of our special friends remind you: It's almost time to get a flu shot.
Friday, October 30, 2009
What Are Debt Collectors Trying to Hide?
The key date in my wife's recent unlawful termination at Birmingham-based Infinity Property and Casualty Corporation appears to be September 14.
That's roughly the date when it became clear that we intended to move forward with discovery in our lawsuit against NCO Financial Services and Ingram & Associates LLC regarding their collection activities on a debt allegedly owed to American Express.
We are going to examine some rather dramatic actions that took place just before and after September 14. That should provide some insight into why my wife testified under oath in a deposition on Monday that she believes her unlawful termination was driven by individuals with connections to the debt-collection and credit-card industries.
Before we move forward, here's one other date to remember in all of this: October 30. That's today, and it's the deadline for completing discovery in our lawsuit.
Our guess is that the defendants, particularly NCO Financial Services, very much had that date in mind as the middle of September was approaching.
Counsel for NCO had sent us notification, while we were representing ourselves, that they intended to review our medical records as part of the discovery process. This was no surprise because our lawsuit claimed emotional distress and other health-related damages.
By the time the issue came up again in September, we were represented by counsel. So we figured NCO would go through the proper channel to get the records they were entitled to see.
But that is not what counsel for NCO did. Instead, they sent our attorneys a letter, with a railing tone, demanding that we sign releases that would give them unfettered access to our medical records. They also stated that they would file a motion to compel if this task was not completed in 25 hours.
Our attorneys responded with a motion stating that NCO was not entitled under federal law to blanket access to our medical records, and the deadline was arbitrary and improper. The court issued a protective order, stating that NCO could gain access only to the records to which it was entitled.
Since all of this took place, we have not been asked to sign a release for our medical records. It appears NCO never was interested in our medical records in the first place. It just wanted to intimidate us--and it failed.
Here is probably the key sentence in our motion for the protective order:
The following Monday was September 14. And counsel for NCO had been specifically told that the meeting on that date was to discuss discovery issues. Part of the meeting was about the depositions we were scheduled to give at the opposing side's request. But it also involved discussion of information we intended to seek in discovery--through extensive interrogatories and production of documents.
What was counsel for NCO thinking at this point? Here's our guess: When plaintiffs meet with their attorneys about discovery issues on September 14--and the discovery deadline is October 30--that's a pretty clear sign that plaintiffs plan to seek substantial information about the way your client conducts business. This prospect probably made the defendants none too happy.
So what might angry--and worried--defendants do in such a situation, particularly when they knew their wrongdoing had been caught on audiotape?
Well, consider what happened to my wife on September 16, two days after the discovery meeting with our attorneys. Out of the blue, she receives a written notice that she is being placed on probation for alleged tardiness in her job at Infinity Property and Casualty.
Never mind that in late June she had been told to change her start time from 9 to 9:30 a.m. in order to help serve the company's large customer base in California, which is on a two-hour time difference from Alabama. Never mind that one of her superiors admitted she had been told to start working at 9:30. Never mind that Infinity violated its own employee handbook on multiple grounds in the handling of this matter. And never mind that no one at Infinity had said a word about my wife's alleged tardiness--until two days after the discovery meeting with our attorneys.
The alert reader will ask this question: "Schnauzer, you seem to be saying that there is a connection between Infinity Property and Casualty, where your wife worked, and the people involved in your lawsuit against debt collectors. After all, it's hard to imagine that Infinity would cheat your wife out of her job if the company did not have some connection to the opposing side in your lawsuit, right?"
To borrow a line from the late, great Ed McMahon: "You are correct, sir!" And you ask an insightful question.
We have an insightful answer, and we will be posting about it shortly.
Meanwhile, here is a copy of our response to NCO's request regarding our medical records. It shows that opposing counsel went pretty far off the deep end on this one:
NCO Medical Protective Order
That's roughly the date when it became clear that we intended to move forward with discovery in our lawsuit against NCO Financial Services and Ingram & Associates LLC regarding their collection activities on a debt allegedly owed to American Express.
We are going to examine some rather dramatic actions that took place just before and after September 14. That should provide some insight into why my wife testified under oath in a deposition on Monday that she believes her unlawful termination was driven by individuals with connections to the debt-collection and credit-card industries.
Before we move forward, here's one other date to remember in all of this: October 30. That's today, and it's the deadline for completing discovery in our lawsuit.
Our guess is that the defendants, particularly NCO Financial Services, very much had that date in mind as the middle of September was approaching.
Counsel for NCO had sent us notification, while we were representing ourselves, that they intended to review our medical records as part of the discovery process. This was no surprise because our lawsuit claimed emotional distress and other health-related damages.
By the time the issue came up again in September, we were represented by counsel. So we figured NCO would go through the proper channel to get the records they were entitled to see.
But that is not what counsel for NCO did. Instead, they sent our attorneys a letter, with a railing tone, demanding that we sign releases that would give them unfettered access to our medical records. They also stated that they would file a motion to compel if this task was not completed in 25 hours.
Our attorneys responded with a motion stating that NCO was not entitled under federal law to blanket access to our medical records, and the deadline was arbitrary and improper. The court issued a protective order, stating that NCO could gain access only to the records to which it was entitled.
Since all of this took place, we have not been asked to sign a release for our medical records. It appears NCO never was interested in our medical records in the first place. It just wanted to intimidate us--and it failed.
Here is probably the key sentence in our motion for the protective order:
Counsel took this action after being advised that plaintiffs' counsel and plaintiffs were scheduled to meet and discuss discovery issues the following Monday.
The following Monday was September 14. And counsel for NCO had been specifically told that the meeting on that date was to discuss discovery issues. Part of the meeting was about the depositions we were scheduled to give at the opposing side's request. But it also involved discussion of information we intended to seek in discovery--through extensive interrogatories and production of documents.
What was counsel for NCO thinking at this point? Here's our guess: When plaintiffs meet with their attorneys about discovery issues on September 14--and the discovery deadline is October 30--that's a pretty clear sign that plaintiffs plan to seek substantial information about the way your client conducts business. This prospect probably made the defendants none too happy.
So what might angry--and worried--defendants do in such a situation, particularly when they knew their wrongdoing had been caught on audiotape?
Well, consider what happened to my wife on September 16, two days after the discovery meeting with our attorneys. Out of the blue, she receives a written notice that she is being placed on probation for alleged tardiness in her job at Infinity Property and Casualty.
Never mind that in late June she had been told to change her start time from 9 to 9:30 a.m. in order to help serve the company's large customer base in California, which is on a two-hour time difference from Alabama. Never mind that one of her superiors admitted she had been told to start working at 9:30. Never mind that Infinity violated its own employee handbook on multiple grounds in the handling of this matter. And never mind that no one at Infinity had said a word about my wife's alleged tardiness--until two days after the discovery meeting with our attorneys.
The alert reader will ask this question: "Schnauzer, you seem to be saying that there is a connection between Infinity Property and Casualty, where your wife worked, and the people involved in your lawsuit against debt collectors. After all, it's hard to imagine that Infinity would cheat your wife out of her job if the company did not have some connection to the opposing side in your lawsuit, right?"
To borrow a line from the late, great Ed McMahon: "You are correct, sir!" And you ask an insightful question.
We have an insightful answer, and we will be posting about it shortly.
Meanwhile, here is a copy of our response to NCO's request regarding our medical records. It shows that opposing counsel went pretty far off the deep end on this one:
NCO Medical Protective Order
Zipper Problems Continue For Southern Republicans
Southern Republicans, the ones noted for their "family values," just can't seem to stay away from zipper problems.
Roland Corning, an assistant attorney general in South Carolina, is the latest GOPer from the Deep South to be caught with his zipper in the "down and locked" position.
Corning was stopped by a police officer in Columbia, South Carolina, on suspicion of illegal activity. And who happened to be in Corning's company when his vehicle was stopped? An 18-year-old employee of the Platinum Plus Gentleman's Club.
In other words, our guy Corning was with a stripper. And a search of his vehicle proved interesting. Here's how The State newspaper reported it:
Uh right, just in case.
And here is this nugget about Corning's background:
Isn't that something? Last time I checked, unprotected sex outside of marriage probably is the No. 1 cause of abortion. But this "pro life" crusader apparently was revved up for unprotected sex with an 18-year-old--who certainly was not his wife.
Corning was not charged with a crime, but he was fired from his job. And he continues in a "proud" tradition for Southern Republicans. Just off the top of our head, let's think of a few Southern "family values" types who've had problems with their zippers: Newt Gingrich (GA), Bob Livingston (LA), David Vitter (LA), Mark Sanford (SC), Paul Stanley (TN), Chip Pickering (MS), Strom Thurmond (SC).
I'm surely forgetting a number of deserving "honorees." But you get the idea. What Southern Republicans say and what they do are two entirely different matters.
Roland Corning, an assistant attorney general in South Carolina, is the latest GOPer from the Deep South to be caught with his zipper in the "down and locked" position.
Corning was stopped by a police officer in Columbia, South Carolina, on suspicion of illegal activity. And who happened to be in Corning's company when his vehicle was stopped? An 18-year-old employee of the Platinum Plus Gentleman's Club.
In other words, our guy Corning was with a stripper. And a search of his vehicle proved interesting. Here's how The State newspaper reported it:
The search revealed a sex enhancement drug and some sex toys. According to the report, Corning told Wines he had a prescription for the medication and the other items were always in the car "just in case."
Uh right, just in case.
And here is this nugget about Corning's background:
Corning is perhaps best known in the House for his work on anti-abortion initiatives.
Isn't that something? Last time I checked, unprotected sex outside of marriage probably is the No. 1 cause of abortion. But this "pro life" crusader apparently was revved up for unprotected sex with an 18-year-old--who certainly was not his wife.
Corning was not charged with a crime, but he was fired from his job. And he continues in a "proud" tradition for Southern Republicans. Just off the top of our head, let's think of a few Southern "family values" types who've had problems with their zippers: Newt Gingrich (GA), Bob Livingston (LA), David Vitter (LA), Mark Sanford (SC), Paul Stanley (TN), Chip Pickering (MS), Strom Thurmond (SC).
I'm surely forgetting a number of deserving "honorees." But you get the idea. What Southern Republicans say and what they do are two entirely different matters.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Did Debt Collectors Cheat My Wife Out of Her Job?
Why would my wife state in a deposition on Monday that she thought her recent unlawful termination at Infinity Property and Casualty Corporation was driven by individuals connected to the debt-collection and credit-card industries?
Several pieces of circumstantial evidence indicate that Mrs. Schnauzer (MS) was cheated out of her job because we have filed a lawsuit against Pennsylvania-based NCO Financial Services and Birmingham-based law firm Ingram & Associates LLC, both of which deal in debt collection. Both also appear to have close ties to American Express, the original creditor on the alleged debt.
Let's look first at one key piece of circumstantial evidence: MS's difficulties on her job dovetail with discovery issues in our lawsuit. In short, opposing counsel took a number of steps that apparently were designed to threaten us into submission. When it became clear that those tactics weren't working, MS suddenly became the target of fraudulent accusations at work, leading to her dismissal on September 25.
Why, perhaps, was it an urgent matter that my wife be cheated out of her job? The discovery deadline in our case is tomorrow, October 30. Our attorneys have sent a substantial number of interrogatories and requests for documents, which if answered, should shine considerable light on how American Express, NCO, and Ingram & Associates conduct their business--not only with us, but with thousands of other consumers.
Opposing counsel's behavior indicates that they want no part of answering our discovery requests. So it appears that they have engaged in a number of legal tactics that really are thinly disguised threats--designed to make us go away.
I should say that such tactics, to my knowledge, are not unlawful or improper. In fact, when you become acquainted with the justice process in the United States, you learn that litigation is little more than court-sanctioned extortion. Whether it's a plaintiff who has no case or a defendant who has no defense, glorified extortion attempts are central to the litigation game.
In our situation, the defendants appear to have no defense--and that was quite clear from Monday's depositions. So perhaps that explains the threats that have been fired our ways like flaming arrows over the past month or so.
The threats have focused on two primary areas: our depositions and our medical records.
For some time, we have received word through our attorneys that the other side was anxious to take our depositions. This was the case even though we had answered their written discovery requests and received zero discovery from them.
Most folks don't relish the idea of being deposed, and we suspect the other side thought their request would make us weak in the knees. But guess what? We really didn't mind giving our depositions. Answering questions under oath is not all that unpleasant when you are telling the truth, and we've been telling the truth all along. So scare tactic No. 1 didn't work.
Scare tactic No. 2 was an attempt to get unfettered access to our medical records. The defense is entitled to this information, up to a point, because our complaint claims emotional distress and other health-related damages. Most folks probably don't relish the idea of strangers pawing through their medical records, perhaps out of fear that personal or embarrassing information will be revealed. But guess what? We must not be easily embarrassed because we really didn't mind turning over our medical records. Our response to this request was essentially, "Have at it; we don't care." So that scare tactic didn't work either.
Here's the kicker, though: The opposing side's actions indicate they weren't interested in our medical records at all. They sought blanket access to our health provider's records and imposed an arbitrary 25-hour deadline on answering their request. Our attorneys opposed this action, and the court issued an order allowing defendants access only to records to which they are entitled under law.
To my knowledge, the defendants have not wound up seeking our medical records. Certainly nothing was presented at Monday's deposition to indicate that they had.
How does all of this connect to my wife's unlawful termination? Let's follow this timeline:
* September 10--NCO's attorneys send a letter seeking immediate and complete access to our medical records, contrary to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This letter comes after NCO representatives had been informed that we were meeting with our attorneys on September 14 about discovery and other issues.
* September 11--Our attorneys respond with a motion, stating that NCO is not entitled under the law to such access and such a deadline. The court grants this protective order.
* September 14--We meet with our attorneys about discovery and other issues. We tell them, in so many words, that we aren't bothered about providing medical records and depositions--as allowed under the law.
* September 16--I send an e-mail to our attorneys letting them know of dates in October that we are available for depositions. This information is forwarded to opposing counsel, indicating that we are not afraid to be questioned under oath.
Also on September 16, Mrs. Schnauzer receives a written warning at work, fraudulently accusing her of tardiness--even though she had been told to change her work shift from 9 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. in order to help serve the company's large California customer base. This was the first disciplinary action she had received after working at Infinity for almost three years and leads to her dismissal on September 25.
The bottom line? As each of opposing counsel's scare tactics failed, my wife began to face bogus charges at work. Was my wife cheated out of her job because we are standing up to the debt- collection and credit-card industries? Other evidence indicates the answer is yes, and we will be reporting on that in upcoming posts.
Meanwhile, you can get a feel for the tactics NCO is using by checking out their letter regarding our medical records. We will be publishing our response to this letter, showing that it is grounded in intimidation, not the law:
NCO Medical Records
Several pieces of circumstantial evidence indicate that Mrs. Schnauzer (MS) was cheated out of her job because we have filed a lawsuit against Pennsylvania-based NCO Financial Services and Birmingham-based law firm Ingram & Associates LLC, both of which deal in debt collection. Both also appear to have close ties to American Express, the original creditor on the alleged debt.
Let's look first at one key piece of circumstantial evidence: MS's difficulties on her job dovetail with discovery issues in our lawsuit. In short, opposing counsel took a number of steps that apparently were designed to threaten us into submission. When it became clear that those tactics weren't working, MS suddenly became the target of fraudulent accusations at work, leading to her dismissal on September 25.
Why, perhaps, was it an urgent matter that my wife be cheated out of her job? The discovery deadline in our case is tomorrow, October 30. Our attorneys have sent a substantial number of interrogatories and requests for documents, which if answered, should shine considerable light on how American Express, NCO, and Ingram & Associates conduct their business--not only with us, but with thousands of other consumers.
Opposing counsel's behavior indicates that they want no part of answering our discovery requests. So it appears that they have engaged in a number of legal tactics that really are thinly disguised threats--designed to make us go away.
I should say that such tactics, to my knowledge, are not unlawful or improper. In fact, when you become acquainted with the justice process in the United States, you learn that litigation is little more than court-sanctioned extortion. Whether it's a plaintiff who has no case or a defendant who has no defense, glorified extortion attempts are central to the litigation game.
In our situation, the defendants appear to have no defense--and that was quite clear from Monday's depositions. So perhaps that explains the threats that have been fired our ways like flaming arrows over the past month or so.
The threats have focused on two primary areas: our depositions and our medical records.
For some time, we have received word through our attorneys that the other side was anxious to take our depositions. This was the case even though we had answered their written discovery requests and received zero discovery from them.
Most folks don't relish the idea of being deposed, and we suspect the other side thought their request would make us weak in the knees. But guess what? We really didn't mind giving our depositions. Answering questions under oath is not all that unpleasant when you are telling the truth, and we've been telling the truth all along. So scare tactic No. 1 didn't work.
Scare tactic No. 2 was an attempt to get unfettered access to our medical records. The defense is entitled to this information, up to a point, because our complaint claims emotional distress and other health-related damages. Most folks probably don't relish the idea of strangers pawing through their medical records, perhaps out of fear that personal or embarrassing information will be revealed. But guess what? We must not be easily embarrassed because we really didn't mind turning over our medical records. Our response to this request was essentially, "Have at it; we don't care." So that scare tactic didn't work either.
Here's the kicker, though: The opposing side's actions indicate they weren't interested in our medical records at all. They sought blanket access to our health provider's records and imposed an arbitrary 25-hour deadline on answering their request. Our attorneys opposed this action, and the court issued an order allowing defendants access only to records to which they are entitled under law.
To my knowledge, the defendants have not wound up seeking our medical records. Certainly nothing was presented at Monday's deposition to indicate that they had.
How does all of this connect to my wife's unlawful termination? Let's follow this timeline:
* September 10--NCO's attorneys send a letter seeking immediate and complete access to our medical records, contrary to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This letter comes after NCO representatives had been informed that we were meeting with our attorneys on September 14 about discovery and other issues.
* September 11--Our attorneys respond with a motion, stating that NCO is not entitled under the law to such access and such a deadline. The court grants this protective order.
* September 14--We meet with our attorneys about discovery and other issues. We tell them, in so many words, that we aren't bothered about providing medical records and depositions--as allowed under the law.
* September 16--I send an e-mail to our attorneys letting them know of dates in October that we are available for depositions. This information is forwarded to opposing counsel, indicating that we are not afraid to be questioned under oath.
Also on September 16, Mrs. Schnauzer receives a written warning at work, fraudulently accusing her of tardiness--even though she had been told to change her work shift from 9 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. in order to help serve the company's large California customer base. This was the first disciplinary action she had received after working at Infinity for almost three years and leads to her dismissal on September 25.
The bottom line? As each of opposing counsel's scare tactics failed, my wife began to face bogus charges at work. Was my wife cheated out of her job because we are standing up to the debt- collection and credit-card industries? Other evidence indicates the answer is yes, and we will be reporting on that in upcoming posts.
Meanwhile, you can get a feel for the tactics NCO is using by checking out their letter regarding our medical records. We will be publishing our response to this letter, showing that it is grounded in intimidation, not the law:
NCO Medical Records
Larry Langford Is Found Guilty, But Where Was Mary Buckelew?
Birmingham Mayor Larry Langford was found guilty yesterday on all criminal counts in a federal case that stemmed from his time as president of the Jefferson County Commission.
But here is perhaps the most intriguing question that rises in the wake of the Langford prosecution: Where was Mary Buckelew?
Buckelew, who served with Langford on the Jefferson County Commission, was supposed to be one of the prosecution's star witnesses. She pleaded guilty last September to an obstruction of justice charge because she lied to a federal grand jury about receiving $4,000 worth of gifts from an investment banker whose firm received millions of dollars in sewer-bond and swap transactions.
The investment banker was Bill Blount, the same fellow whose gifts to Langford were central to the government's case.
At the heart of Buckelew's plea agreement was her commitment to cooperate fully with the government. Prosecutors said Buckelew's cooperation was "essential" to their case. Buckelew was expected to testify against Langford, and prosecutors asked that her sentencing be delayed until November 12--after the Langford case was over.
So what happened? According to press reports, Buckelew never testified at the Langford trial.
That's a little like acquiring Albert Pujols in a trade just before the World Series and then leaving perhaps the best hitter in baseball history on the bench.
Birmingham attorney and video blogger Eric Guster addressed Buckelew's central role in the Langford case in a recent post at YouTube. Our guess is that Guster is asking the same question that we are asking today: Where in the heck was Mary?
But here is perhaps the most intriguing question that rises in the wake of the Langford prosecution: Where was Mary Buckelew?
Buckelew, who served with Langford on the Jefferson County Commission, was supposed to be one of the prosecution's star witnesses. She pleaded guilty last September to an obstruction of justice charge because she lied to a federal grand jury about receiving $4,000 worth of gifts from an investment banker whose firm received millions of dollars in sewer-bond and swap transactions.
The investment banker was Bill Blount, the same fellow whose gifts to Langford were central to the government's case.
At the heart of Buckelew's plea agreement was her commitment to cooperate fully with the government. Prosecutors said Buckelew's cooperation was "essential" to their case. Buckelew was expected to testify against Langford, and prosecutors asked that her sentencing be delayed until November 12--after the Langford case was over.
So what happened? According to press reports, Buckelew never testified at the Langford trial.
That's a little like acquiring Albert Pujols in a trade just before the World Series and then leaving perhaps the best hitter in baseball history on the bench.
Birmingham attorney and video blogger Eric Guster addressed Buckelew's central role in the Langford case in a recent post at YouTube. Our guess is that Guster is asking the same question that we are asking today: Where in the heck was Mary?
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Now My Wife Has Been Cheated Out Of Her Job, Too
Regular readers know that a central event in our Legal Schnauzer story came when I was unlawfully terminated at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) in May 2008. Now my wife has been cheated out of her job, too.
Overwhelming evidence indicates that I was canned because individuals in Alabama's right-wing power structure did not like the content of my blog, which has helped expose corruption among Alabama judges and lawyers. I have audiotaped evidence that suggests I was fired because of my reporting on the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
Mrs. Schnauzer, as we have come to call her here, might have become a target of the same political forces. But she does not think that's the case. She thinks her unlawful termination can be traced to unscrupulous debt collectors, who we are suing under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA). In fact, she testified under oath to that effect in a deposition on Monday.
Until about a month ago, September 25 to be exact, Mrs. Schnauzer (MS) worked at Infinity Property and Casualty Corporation, a Birmingham-based insurance company. Here is how Infinity's Web site describes the core business:
In other words, if you are a really crappy driver, you might need to know about Infinity. Given the number of really crappy drivers on the road, the company's business has been strong, even during the Bush recession.
One reason Infinity's performance has been pretty good in hard times is that my wife worked her butt off for the company. What was her reward? A bogus pink slip.
I've made a couple of references in recent posts (here and here) to unethical conduct against us involving Infinity Property and Casualty. And I tied it to our FDCPA lawsuit against NCO Financial Services, a Pennsylvania-based debt-collection company, and Birmingham law firm Ingram & Associates. Those earlier references were to this career "hit job" on my wife.
MS worked in a variety of administrative positions at Infinity over almost three full years. Her most recent position was in Salvage, which deals with financial transactions involving wrecked autos that adjusters have deemed "totaled."
Infinity is based in Alabama, but it does relatively little business in the state. Its largest numbers of insured motorists are in California, Florida, and Texas.
Why do I say that MS was cheated out of her job? Numerous factors point in that direction, but let's consider this for starters: Her designated start time for several months had been 9 a.m. But beginning in June of this year, various superiors asked her on at least a half dozen occasions if she would be willing to move her start time to 9:30 in order to help better serve the company's large customer base in California, which has a two-hour time difference from Alabama.
Each time the subject was raised, MS said she would be glad to start at 9:30. Several coworkers told her they also had been approached about the change but could not do it because of child-care issues.
MS's primary supervisors, Greg Kees and Tobin Lunsford, finally announced in a staff meeting on June 26 that she had "graciously agreed" to start working at 9:30 to help cover the California customer base, the company's largest and most profitable. Roughly a dozen people were present at the meeting.
MS started arriving at work around 9:15 or 9:20, always in plenty of time for her new shift. On September 16, Greg Kees called her into his office and told her she was receiving a written warning and being placed on probation. The reason? Kees alleged that she had been tardy some 35 times, all since the June 26 meeting.
As most rational people probably would be in such a situation, MS was dumbfounded. "But you told me, in front of the whole group, that I was to start working a 9:30 shift to help with our California customers. You said that all of the changes announced that day were to take effect immediately. I did what you told me to do."
Kees did not deny making that statement. But get this: He said she was showing up as tardy in the company's eTime system. That, of course, is because he had failed to make the change in the system, which was his responsibility. In other words, MS was being placed on probation because of her supervisor's incompetence.
But that's not the only example of insanity here. The second of two "grounds" for the probation was an allegation that MS had an excessive number of unscheduled absences, implying that she had made it a habit to call in sick on Mondays. MS pointed out that every Monday she had taken off was a scheduled and approved vacation day. In fact, she had taken zero sick days during the time referenced. Kees refused to change the written warning.
MS, of course, told me about this when she got home that night. And she went to her previous supervisor, Mickeye Barfield, and told her what was going on. Barfield said Kees was violating company policy on multiple grounds and recommended that MS go speak to Pam Jenkins, Infinity's vice president for human resources.
Kees, however, made several statements that MS took as threats not to go to HR. At one point, he called her into his office and said "you are fine," and "it's in my drawer," indicating that he was keeping the warning and had not turned it in to HR. In other words, he implied that there was no "official" warning at all.
Fearful of retaliation if she complained--and knowing that her husband had been fired at UAB roughly three weeks after complaining about age discrimination--MS stayed quiet.
On September 25, she was fired.
As MS was being escorted out of the building, Lunsford admitted that she had been told to start working a 9:30 shift to help with California customers. The bottom line? My wife had agreed to make a change that others had refused to make, in order to help serve the company's largest and most important customer base. She was being flexible, accommodating, a team player--all of the things modern American workers are told they are supposed to be.
The result? She was fired.
Have the good folks at Infinity lost their minds or is something else afoot here? MS thinks an off-site "engineer" is driving this train wreck. And she has uncovered evidence to support that theory.
While I was the victim of a political hit job, was my wife the victim of a corporate hit? Mrs. Schnauzer says the answer is yes. And she testified to exactly that under oath on Monday.
(To be continued)
Overwhelming evidence indicates that I was canned because individuals in Alabama's right-wing power structure did not like the content of my blog, which has helped expose corruption among Alabama judges and lawyers. I have audiotaped evidence that suggests I was fired because of my reporting on the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
Mrs. Schnauzer, as we have come to call her here, might have become a target of the same political forces. But she does not think that's the case. She thinks her unlawful termination can be traced to unscrupulous debt collectors, who we are suing under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA). In fact, she testified under oath to that effect in a deposition on Monday.
Until about a month ago, September 25 to be exact, Mrs. Schnauzer (MS) worked at Infinity Property and Casualty Corporation, a Birmingham-based insurance company. Here is how Infinity's Web site describes the core business:
Infinity Property & Casualty Corporation (NASDAQ: IPCC) is a leading nonstandard personal auto insurer. Nonstandard auto insurance provides coverage to drivers who, due to their driving record, age or vehicle type, represent higher than normal risks and pay higher rates for comparable coverage.
In other words, if you are a really crappy driver, you might need to know about Infinity. Given the number of really crappy drivers on the road, the company's business has been strong, even during the Bush recession.
One reason Infinity's performance has been pretty good in hard times is that my wife worked her butt off for the company. What was her reward? A bogus pink slip.
I've made a couple of references in recent posts (here and here) to unethical conduct against us involving Infinity Property and Casualty. And I tied it to our FDCPA lawsuit against NCO Financial Services, a Pennsylvania-based debt-collection company, and Birmingham law firm Ingram & Associates. Those earlier references were to this career "hit job" on my wife.
MS worked in a variety of administrative positions at Infinity over almost three full years. Her most recent position was in Salvage, which deals with financial transactions involving wrecked autos that adjusters have deemed "totaled."
Infinity is based in Alabama, but it does relatively little business in the state. Its largest numbers of insured motorists are in California, Florida, and Texas.
Why do I say that MS was cheated out of her job? Numerous factors point in that direction, but let's consider this for starters: Her designated start time for several months had been 9 a.m. But beginning in June of this year, various superiors asked her on at least a half dozen occasions if she would be willing to move her start time to 9:30 in order to help better serve the company's large customer base in California, which has a two-hour time difference from Alabama.
Each time the subject was raised, MS said she would be glad to start at 9:30. Several coworkers told her they also had been approached about the change but could not do it because of child-care issues.
MS's primary supervisors, Greg Kees and Tobin Lunsford, finally announced in a staff meeting on June 26 that she had "graciously agreed" to start working at 9:30 to help cover the California customer base, the company's largest and most profitable. Roughly a dozen people were present at the meeting.
MS started arriving at work around 9:15 or 9:20, always in plenty of time for her new shift. On September 16, Greg Kees called her into his office and told her she was receiving a written warning and being placed on probation. The reason? Kees alleged that she had been tardy some 35 times, all since the June 26 meeting.
As most rational people probably would be in such a situation, MS was dumbfounded. "But you told me, in front of the whole group, that I was to start working a 9:30 shift to help with our California customers. You said that all of the changes announced that day were to take effect immediately. I did what you told me to do."
Kees did not deny making that statement. But get this: He said she was showing up as tardy in the company's eTime system. That, of course, is because he had failed to make the change in the system, which was his responsibility. In other words, MS was being placed on probation because of her supervisor's incompetence.
But that's not the only example of insanity here. The second of two "grounds" for the probation was an allegation that MS had an excessive number of unscheduled absences, implying that she had made it a habit to call in sick on Mondays. MS pointed out that every Monday she had taken off was a scheduled and approved vacation day. In fact, she had taken zero sick days during the time referenced. Kees refused to change the written warning.
MS, of course, told me about this when she got home that night. And she went to her previous supervisor, Mickeye Barfield, and told her what was going on. Barfield said Kees was violating company policy on multiple grounds and recommended that MS go speak to Pam Jenkins, Infinity's vice president for human resources.
Kees, however, made several statements that MS took as threats not to go to HR. At one point, he called her into his office and said "you are fine," and "it's in my drawer," indicating that he was keeping the warning and had not turned it in to HR. In other words, he implied that there was no "official" warning at all.
Fearful of retaliation if she complained--and knowing that her husband had been fired at UAB roughly three weeks after complaining about age discrimination--MS stayed quiet.
On September 25, she was fired.
As MS was being escorted out of the building, Lunsford admitted that she had been told to start working a 9:30 shift to help with California customers. The bottom line? My wife had agreed to make a change that others had refused to make, in order to help serve the company's largest and most important customer base. She was being flexible, accommodating, a team player--all of the things modern American workers are told they are supposed to be.
The result? She was fired.
Have the good folks at Infinity lost their minds or is something else afoot here? MS thinks an off-site "engineer" is driving this train wreck. And she has uncovered evidence to support that theory.
While I was the victim of a political hit job, was my wife the victim of a corporate hit? Mrs. Schnauzer says the answer is yes. And she testified to exactly that under oath on Monday.
(To be continued)
Schnauzer Prepares to Square Off Against Debt Collector's Pit Bull
Question: What's the only thing slimier than an unethical debt collector?
Answer: An unethical debt collector's lawyer.
That probably was the main lesson gleaned from our depositions yesterday in a lawsuit my wife and I have brought against NCO Financial Services, a debt-collection company based in Horsham, Pennsylvania, and Ingram & Associates, a Birmingham law firm.
We have written several times about the seamy side of the debt-collection industry. You can check out posts here, here, and here. Yesterday's deposition, showed us in an up close and personal way, just how low these dirtbags will go.
The chief villain this time was a lawyer from the Metairie, Louisiana, office of Sessions Fishman Nathan & Israel, a firm representing NCO Financial Services. The guy's name is Bryan C. Shartle, and we will have more on him in a minute.
The deposition itself--which lasted about six hours, including breaks--was rather uneventful. I suspect that's because the facts, as we know them so far, clearly show violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) and one or more state-law torts. But the real fireworks came afterwards.
As I noted yesterday, I suspect the deposition was scheduled--and captured on videotape--mostly for intimidation purposes. Our complaint, and the audiotapes we captured of our conversations with debt collectors, pretty much tell the story. There wasn't a whole lot of relevant information to be added from depositions.
That was apparent from some of the questions that came from Wayne Morse, a lawyer with Waldrep Stewart & Kendrick of Birmingham, representing Ingram & Associates. The depositions were conducted at his office.
Morse went over the complaint with both of us, apparently searching for any inaccuracies--however slight. He asked me to read one line that said we live in Birmingham.
"Do you actually reside in Birmingham?" he said.
"Well, our house is located in unincorporated Shelby County," I said.
"So, that statement is not accurate, is it?"
"Uh, well, our mailing address is Birmingham, AL 35242."
I don't know Morse's hourly fee, but I'm guessing he was hauling in $300 to $400 an hour to come up with penetrating questions like that.
At another point, Morse handed me a copy of the bio from my blog and asked me to read it to see if there was anything inaccurate in it.
I wanted to say: "Well, I don't listen to Three Dog Night as much as I used to, but I still think they were one of the great bands of the late '60s and early '70s. Is there a problem with that?"
Then I thought: "Does he think there is something subversive about the fact I liked the movie Brokeback Mountain?"
Morse did try to raise one serious-sounding issue that, under the law, isn't serious at all.
We currently are represented by attorneys, but we filed the complaint ourselves, acting pro se. The front page of the complaint lists Mrs. Schnauzer and me as plaintiffs. But Morse, in his best "gotcha" voice, pointed out that my wife had not signed the complaint. Morse took that to mean that I had been trying to "represent" her, which I cannot do and I knew all along I could not do.
"Do you know what unauthorized practice of the law means?" Morse said, implying that I had committed what I believe is a crime.
"Yes, I do," I replied, "and I wasn't doing that. We worked together on the complaint, and my wife simply forgot to sign it. It was a clerical mistake."
My wife confirmed that I never had any intentions of representing her, that I did not "prepare the document for her," and that the lack of her signature was an oversight.
Morse implied that this could have dire consequences. But what does the law say about it? Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that every pleading, motion, and other paper--and Rule 8(a) says an original claim is a pleading--shall be signed by at least one attorney, or if the party is not represented by an attorney, shall be signed by the party. The last sentence of Rule 11(a) states:
This was called to our attention yesterday, and I've already asked our attorneys to correct it--hopefully today. Doesn't sound like such a big deal, does it? But hey, Wayne Morse had to do something to earn big bucks.
Perhaps the most noteworthy item about the deposition involved who was not there. Five lawyers were in the room, but none of them represented NCO Financial Services. Hmmm.
Our guy, Bryan C. Shartle, and his associate, Dayle Van Hoose of Tampa, were on speaker phone. Laura Nettles, who represents NCO and is with the Birmingham firm Lloyd Gray & Whitehead, was in parts unknown. Nettles has written a motion for summary judgment on NCO's behalf in the case, and her office is only about three miles from the site of the deposition. You would think she might be interested in our testimony. But she was nowhere to be found. Strange.
Actually, my wife and I suspect there is a good reason why none of NCO's representatives wanted to be in the same room with us yesterday. Consider this paragraph from a recent post on debt collectors:
What are these highly irregular and unethical steps regarding Infinity Property & Casualty? They were addressed in yesterday's depositions, and we will be reporting on them in detail soon.
It appears that NCO's crackerjack legal team knows we are on to their lowball tactics. And that's probably why they did not want to have to face us in the flesh--and look us in the eyes.
Instead, they decided to lob bombs from the safety of their speakerphones. Which brings us back to Bryan C. Shartle. When the depositions were over, Shartle asked to speak to one of our attorneys privately, via cell phone, and asked if the court reporter could keep her equipment in place for a few minutes.
Our attorney seemed surprised by the request, and Wayne Morse seemed none too happy about it at all. Apparently such things normally aren't done in the legal world. When a deposition is over, that's generally all she wrote for that day.
What did Shartle need to say in such an urgent manner? According to our attorney, Shartle said that our complaint was the weakest FDCPA case he had ever seen, he intended to seek costs against me under the fee-shifting provisions of the FDCPA, and if I was unable to pay the costs, I would be incarcerated under federal law.
You probably will not be surprised to learn that I did not react to Shartle's message in a kindly fashion. In fact, I instructed our attorney to tell Shartle--in so many words--he could take his bogus threats and jam them in a certain orifice.
We will be shining considerable light on the facts and law of the case--and on the underhanded tactics someone took regarding this lawsuit--and I think that will show why Bryan Shartle was in a desperate frame of mind yesterday.
We also will be examining the curious dance that appears to be taking place between NCO Financial Services and Ingram & Associates. The issue seems to be: Who's ultimately responsible in this case for violating federal and state law and trying to screw us over?
In other words, the two snakes appear to be coiled up and hissing at each other. Who is the meaner, nastier snake of the two, the one really responsible for unlawful activity against us--and perhaps many other consumers? I think I know the answer to that question after yesterday's proceedings.
In closing, we have a word of advice for Mr. Shartle. My research indicates you don't know the law as well as you think you do. You also don't seem to know schnauzers very well.
We are one of the most trustworthy, good-natured, dependable breeds around. We are not as big as pit bulls, but you cross us at your peril. When you mess with us, when you treat us with disrespect, we can become intelligent, fierce, and effective fighters.
Mr. Shartle, here is one thing you and your friends at NCO can take to the bank about a Legal Schnauzer: You screw with us, and we will bite back hard--and we will get you in a place where it hurts.
Answer: An unethical debt collector's lawyer.
That probably was the main lesson gleaned from our depositions yesterday in a lawsuit my wife and I have brought against NCO Financial Services, a debt-collection company based in Horsham, Pennsylvania, and Ingram & Associates, a Birmingham law firm.
We have written several times about the seamy side of the debt-collection industry. You can check out posts here, here, and here. Yesterday's deposition, showed us in an up close and personal way, just how low these dirtbags will go.
The chief villain this time was a lawyer from the Metairie, Louisiana, office of Sessions Fishman Nathan & Israel, a firm representing NCO Financial Services. The guy's name is Bryan C. Shartle, and we will have more on him in a minute.
The deposition itself--which lasted about six hours, including breaks--was rather uneventful. I suspect that's because the facts, as we know them so far, clearly show violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) and one or more state-law torts. But the real fireworks came afterwards.
As I noted yesterday, I suspect the deposition was scheduled--and captured on videotape--mostly for intimidation purposes. Our complaint, and the audiotapes we captured of our conversations with debt collectors, pretty much tell the story. There wasn't a whole lot of relevant information to be added from depositions.
That was apparent from some of the questions that came from Wayne Morse, a lawyer with Waldrep Stewart & Kendrick of Birmingham, representing Ingram & Associates. The depositions were conducted at his office.
Morse went over the complaint with both of us, apparently searching for any inaccuracies--however slight. He asked me to read one line that said we live in Birmingham.
"Do you actually reside in Birmingham?" he said.
"Well, our house is located in unincorporated Shelby County," I said.
"So, that statement is not accurate, is it?"
"Uh, well, our mailing address is Birmingham, AL 35242."
I don't know Morse's hourly fee, but I'm guessing he was hauling in $300 to $400 an hour to come up with penetrating questions like that.
At another point, Morse handed me a copy of the bio from my blog and asked me to read it to see if there was anything inaccurate in it.
I wanted to say: "Well, I don't listen to Three Dog Night as much as I used to, but I still think they were one of the great bands of the late '60s and early '70s. Is there a problem with that?"
Then I thought: "Does he think there is something subversive about the fact I liked the movie Brokeback Mountain?"
Morse did try to raise one serious-sounding issue that, under the law, isn't serious at all.
We currently are represented by attorneys, but we filed the complaint ourselves, acting pro se. The front page of the complaint lists Mrs. Schnauzer and me as plaintiffs. But Morse, in his best "gotcha" voice, pointed out that my wife had not signed the complaint. Morse took that to mean that I had been trying to "represent" her, which I cannot do and I knew all along I could not do.
"Do you know what unauthorized practice of the law means?" Morse said, implying that I had committed what I believe is a crime.
"Yes, I do," I replied, "and I wasn't doing that. We worked together on the complaint, and my wife simply forgot to sign it. It was a clerical mistake."
My wife confirmed that I never had any intentions of representing her, that I did not "prepare the document for her," and that the lack of her signature was an oversight.
Morse implied that this could have dire consequences. But what does the law say about it? Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that every pleading, motion, and other paper--and Rule 8(a) says an original claim is a pleading--shall be signed by at least one attorney, or if the party is not represented by an attorney, shall be signed by the party. The last sentence of Rule 11(a) states:
An unsigned paper shall be stricken unless omission of the signature is corrected promptly after being called to the attention of the attorney or party.
This was called to our attention yesterday, and I've already asked our attorneys to correct it--hopefully today. Doesn't sound like such a big deal, does it? But hey, Wayne Morse had to do something to earn big bucks.
Perhaps the most noteworthy item about the deposition involved who was not there. Five lawyers were in the room, but none of them represented NCO Financial Services. Hmmm.
Our guy, Bryan C. Shartle, and his associate, Dayle Van Hoose of Tampa, were on speaker phone. Laura Nettles, who represents NCO and is with the Birmingham firm Lloyd Gray & Whitehead, was in parts unknown. Nettles has written a motion for summary judgment on NCO's behalf in the case, and her office is only about three miles from the site of the deposition. You would think she might be interested in our testimony. But she was nowhere to be found. Strange.
Actually, my wife and I suspect there is a good reason why none of NCO's representatives wanted to be in the same room with us yesterday. Consider this paragraph from a recent post on debt collectors:
Here is what's really interesting: It appears that entities from outside the lawsuit have been enlisted to help apply pressure to us. We are talking specifically about Infinity Property & Casualty Corporation, a Birmingham-based insurance company that has taken some highly irregular and unethical steps in our direction.
What are these highly irregular and unethical steps regarding Infinity Property & Casualty? They were addressed in yesterday's depositions, and we will be reporting on them in detail soon.
It appears that NCO's crackerjack legal team knows we are on to their lowball tactics. And that's probably why they did not want to have to face us in the flesh--and look us in the eyes.
Instead, they decided to lob bombs from the safety of their speakerphones. Which brings us back to Bryan C. Shartle. When the depositions were over, Shartle asked to speak to one of our attorneys privately, via cell phone, and asked if the court reporter could keep her equipment in place for a few minutes.
Our attorney seemed surprised by the request, and Wayne Morse seemed none too happy about it at all. Apparently such things normally aren't done in the legal world. When a deposition is over, that's generally all she wrote for that day.
What did Shartle need to say in such an urgent manner? According to our attorney, Shartle said that our complaint was the weakest FDCPA case he had ever seen, he intended to seek costs against me under the fee-shifting provisions of the FDCPA, and if I was unable to pay the costs, I would be incarcerated under federal law.
You probably will not be surprised to learn that I did not react to Shartle's message in a kindly fashion. In fact, I instructed our attorney to tell Shartle--in so many words--he could take his bogus threats and jam them in a certain orifice.
We will be shining considerable light on the facts and law of the case--and on the underhanded tactics someone took regarding this lawsuit--and I think that will show why Bryan Shartle was in a desperate frame of mind yesterday.
We also will be examining the curious dance that appears to be taking place between NCO Financial Services and Ingram & Associates. The issue seems to be: Who's ultimately responsible in this case for violating federal and state law and trying to screw us over?
In other words, the two snakes appear to be coiled up and hissing at each other. Who is the meaner, nastier snake of the two, the one really responsible for unlawful activity against us--and perhaps many other consumers? I think I know the answer to that question after yesterday's proceedings.
In closing, we have a word of advice for Mr. Shartle. My research indicates you don't know the law as well as you think you do. You also don't seem to know schnauzers very well.
We are one of the most trustworthy, good-natured, dependable breeds around. We are not as big as pit bulls, but you cross us at your peril. When you mess with us, when you treat us with disrespect, we can become intelligent, fierce, and effective fighters.
Mr. Shartle, here is one thing you and your friends at NCO can take to the bank about a Legal Schnauzer: You screw with us, and we will bite back hard--and we will get you in a place where it hurts.
Mobile Mansion is at the Heart of a Peculiar Alabama Prosecution
The strange federal prosecution of noted Alabama outdoorsman Edmond H. "Eddie" Smith seems to have its genesis in the disputed ownership of one of Mobile's most storied pieces of property.
The Sonneborn House on Fowl River was built by the man who is credited with turning McDonald's hamburgers into a national brand. Eddie Smith came to live in the Sonneborn House in late 2005, and Smith says that is why he now finds himself in the Mobile County Jail on federal ammunition charges that state documents indicate he did not commit.
Smith says several individuals in Mobile want to turn the Sonneborn property into a commercial and residential development, and that's why they wanted Smith out of the house and into a jail cell.
How did Smith come to reside at the Sonneborn House? The house went up for sale in 2005, and a complicated set of circumstances ensued, capped off by what the Mobile Press-Register called a "closing from hell."
Ownership of the house wound up in dispute. The Press-Register says a Mobile man named Evan Wolfe owns the property. Smith says it belongs to a nonprofit organization he started called the Great Southern Outdoors Foundation and Institute.
This is undisputed: Smith was living in the house when law-enforcement officials arrived with a search warrant and found ammunition in the home. Smith was charged under a federal statute that requires a felony conviction in an underlying case.
But a certified copy of a document from the Alabama Judicial Data Center in Mobile County--titled "Transcript of Record: Conviction Report"--shows that Smith pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in the predicate case. Based on that, he should not have been prosecuted for, much less found guilty on, the federal charges.
Does Smith have a point when he says he was arrested and prosecuted in order to get him out of the Sonneborn house?
Sure looks like it from here.
(To be continued)
The Sonneborn House on Fowl River was built by the man who is credited with turning McDonald's hamburgers into a national brand. Eddie Smith came to live in the Sonneborn House in late 2005, and Smith says that is why he now finds himself in the Mobile County Jail on federal ammunition charges that state documents indicate he did not commit.
Smith says several individuals in Mobile want to turn the Sonneborn property into a commercial and residential development, and that's why they wanted Smith out of the house and into a jail cell.
How did Smith come to reside at the Sonneborn House? The house went up for sale in 2005, and a complicated set of circumstances ensued, capped off by what the Mobile Press-Register called a "closing from hell."
Ownership of the house wound up in dispute. The Press-Register says a Mobile man named Evan Wolfe owns the property. Smith says it belongs to a nonprofit organization he started called the Great Southern Outdoors Foundation and Institute.
This is undisputed: Smith was living in the house when law-enforcement officials arrived with a search warrant and found ammunition in the home. Smith was charged under a federal statute that requires a felony conviction in an underlying case.
But a certified copy of a document from the Alabama Judicial Data Center in Mobile County--titled "Transcript of Record: Conviction Report"--shows that Smith pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in the predicate case. Based on that, he should not have been prosecuted for, much less found guilty on, the federal charges.
Does Smith have a point when he says he was arrested and prosecuted in order to get him out of the Sonneborn house?
Sure looks like it from here.
(To be continued)
Monday, October 26, 2009
Debt Collectors, Depositions, and Videotape
For all of my legal experiences over the past 10 years or so--most of them unpleasant--today will mark a first.
I, the Legal Schnauzer, will raise my right paw, swear to tell the truth, and give a deposition.
It's part of a lawsuit Mrs. Schnauzer and I have brought against NCO Financial Services, a large debt-collection outfit based in Horsham, Pennsylvania, and Ingram & Associates, a Birmingham-based debt-collection law firm.
The lawsuit alleges multiple violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) regarding a debt that allegedly was owed to American Express. Also involved are several state-law torts--fraud, invasion of privacy, defamation, and reckless and wanton training and supervision.
This is part of the fallout from our encounter with corrupt state judges in Alabama. Before our troublesome neighbor, Mike McGarity, filed a bogus lawsuit against me--and Shelby County circuit judges J. Michael Joiner and G. Dan Reeves made numerous unlawful rulings that caused it to drag on for years--we were fortunate to enjoy excellent credit. In fact, I don't recall ever being late on paying a bill.
But when you are forced to shell out probably $30,000 to $40,000 in unexpected legal expenses--and when your wife loses out mysteriously on numerous jobs over a three-year period while the litigation is going on--it can cause your finances to go south in a hurry. Did these judges, unhappy that I had portrayed them in court documents as the criminals that they are, cause someone to track our phone communications and cost my wife numerous jobs? Corrupt judges have the means to easily pull such sleazy tricks, and that's exactly what we think happened--and it's a key reason we wound up receiving calls from debt collectors.
Here's the lesson I want to impart for Legal Schnauzer readers: If you use a credit card, there is a chance that you someday might be hearing from a debt collector, a third-party debt buyer, or a debt-collection law firm--no matter how good your credit might be today. And it's important to understand how the debt-collection game is played.
There's nothing wrong with debt collectors trying to collect money that is owed, but they have to operate within FDCPA guidelines. And they are notoriously bad about ignoring the FDCPA, and its weak sanctions, altogether.
In our case, the violations are clear cut. I tape recorded several conversations with representatives from Ingram & Associates, and the violations are right there for anyone who cares to listen. This isn't a he said-she said case. We have hard, cold evidence.
So what do attorneys for the defendants expect to accomplish by deposing me today? I suspect this is an exercise in damage control and intimidation. Perhaps they hope to trip me up or get me ticked off. As for intimidation, that probably explains why the deposition will be videotaped, which I'm told is usually done only where the deponent is not expected to be available for trial.
There seems to be no legitimate reason for videotaping the deposition, other than trying to make me uncomfortable.
Actually, the other side's only strategy, so far, seems to involve trying to intimidate us. For example, they filed a motion seeking pretty much full access to our medical records. I'm guessing they thought we would be horrified by that notion, but we didn't really care--there's nothing embarrassing or particularly interesting about our medical records.
Our lawyers pointed out that they were entitled to see only certain portions of our records under the law, but once it became clear that this request didn't shake us up, the other side seemed to lose interest in our medical records. I, at least, haven't heard anything new on that front.
On the subject of intimidation, someone took a really low-ball act against Mrs. Schnauzer and me about a month ago. I haven't written about it yet, but I will be providing details in the days ahead. Suffice to say, it was a despicable act--and quite a bit of evidence points to it being related to this lawsuit against debt collectors.
It will be interesting to see if that subject comes up today.
Here is a thought that I hope might help any readers who are feeling sluggish and out of sorts at the beginning of a new week. No matter how bad your Monday is going, consider this: I will be locked up probably all day in a room with at least six lawyers, with a camera and bright lights pointed in my direction.
Unless you are undergoing brain surgery, chemotherapy, radiation treatment, or a prostatectomy--or worse yet, you are having to watch Glenn Beck reruns all day--I probably would be happy to trade places with you.
I, the Legal Schnauzer, will raise my right paw, swear to tell the truth, and give a deposition.
It's part of a lawsuit Mrs. Schnauzer and I have brought against NCO Financial Services, a large debt-collection outfit based in Horsham, Pennsylvania, and Ingram & Associates, a Birmingham-based debt-collection law firm.
The lawsuit alleges multiple violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) regarding a debt that allegedly was owed to American Express. Also involved are several state-law torts--fraud, invasion of privacy, defamation, and reckless and wanton training and supervision.
This is part of the fallout from our encounter with corrupt state judges in Alabama. Before our troublesome neighbor, Mike McGarity, filed a bogus lawsuit against me--and Shelby County circuit judges J. Michael Joiner and G. Dan Reeves made numerous unlawful rulings that caused it to drag on for years--we were fortunate to enjoy excellent credit. In fact, I don't recall ever being late on paying a bill.
But when you are forced to shell out probably $30,000 to $40,000 in unexpected legal expenses--and when your wife loses out mysteriously on numerous jobs over a three-year period while the litigation is going on--it can cause your finances to go south in a hurry. Did these judges, unhappy that I had portrayed them in court documents as the criminals that they are, cause someone to track our phone communications and cost my wife numerous jobs? Corrupt judges have the means to easily pull such sleazy tricks, and that's exactly what we think happened--and it's a key reason we wound up receiving calls from debt collectors.
Here's the lesson I want to impart for Legal Schnauzer readers: If you use a credit card, there is a chance that you someday might be hearing from a debt collector, a third-party debt buyer, or a debt-collection law firm--no matter how good your credit might be today. And it's important to understand how the debt-collection game is played.
There's nothing wrong with debt collectors trying to collect money that is owed, but they have to operate within FDCPA guidelines. And they are notoriously bad about ignoring the FDCPA, and its weak sanctions, altogether.
In our case, the violations are clear cut. I tape recorded several conversations with representatives from Ingram & Associates, and the violations are right there for anyone who cares to listen. This isn't a he said-she said case. We have hard, cold evidence.
So what do attorneys for the defendants expect to accomplish by deposing me today? I suspect this is an exercise in damage control and intimidation. Perhaps they hope to trip me up or get me ticked off. As for intimidation, that probably explains why the deposition will be videotaped, which I'm told is usually done only where the deponent is not expected to be available for trial.
There seems to be no legitimate reason for videotaping the deposition, other than trying to make me uncomfortable.
Actually, the other side's only strategy, so far, seems to involve trying to intimidate us. For example, they filed a motion seeking pretty much full access to our medical records. I'm guessing they thought we would be horrified by that notion, but we didn't really care--there's nothing embarrassing or particularly interesting about our medical records.
Our lawyers pointed out that they were entitled to see only certain portions of our records under the law, but once it became clear that this request didn't shake us up, the other side seemed to lose interest in our medical records. I, at least, haven't heard anything new on that front.
On the subject of intimidation, someone took a really low-ball act against Mrs. Schnauzer and me about a month ago. I haven't written about it yet, but I will be providing details in the days ahead. Suffice to say, it was a despicable act--and quite a bit of evidence points to it being related to this lawsuit against debt collectors.
It will be interesting to see if that subject comes up today.
Here is a thought that I hope might help any readers who are feeling sluggish and out of sorts at the beginning of a new week. No matter how bad your Monday is going, consider this: I will be locked up probably all day in a room with at least six lawyers, with a camera and bright lights pointed in my direction.
Unless you are undergoing brain surgery, chemotherapy, radiation treatment, or a prostatectomy--or worse yet, you are having to watch Glenn Beck reruns all day--I probably would be happy to trade places with you.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Georgia E-Mail Provides Explosive Evidence of Political Prosecution
An e-mail from the federal corruption case of former Georgia senate majority leader Charles Walker should send chills down the spine of every American. More importantly, it should spark a widespread Congressional investigation into alleged political prosecutions, including those of Don Siegelman (Alabama), Paul Minor (Mississippi), and Cyril Wecht (Pennsylvania).
Scott Horton, legal-affairs contributor at Harper's, reports on efforts by Walker's attorneys to show that his prosecution was a political hit job. That included unearthing e-mails from a U.S. attorney's office in Georgia. One e-mail is particularly ugly. Writes Horton:
This is shocking stuff. And Horton puts it in context:
A reasonable person could conclude that similar e-mails probably exist regarding the Siegelman, Minor, and Wecht cases. Where is the effort to unearth electronic communications in the U.S. attorney offices that handled those cases? How about communications involving Republican political operatives, to and from those offices? How about communications from national GOP figures--Karl Rove and people affiliated with him--to those offices.
In a lengthy feature at Huffington Post, Horton reports that all is not stagnant on the political-prosecution front. He notes that a recently released Congressional report and a followup from the U.S. Justice Department indicate that charges of political prosecutions are well grounded.
Now it is time--way past time--for the appropriate governmental bodies to act.
Scott Horton, legal-affairs contributor at Harper's, reports on efforts by Walker's attorneys to show that his prosecution was a political hit job. That included unearthing e-mails from a U.S. attorney's office in Georgia. One e-mail is particularly ugly. Writes Horton:
In one email, Morgan Perry, the director of the Senate Republican Caucus, notes that Walker is the target of research by Republican campaign organizations trying to link him to criminal conduct, and says that “it’s up to us to take him out.”
This is shocking stuff. And Horton puts it in context:
The email creates the inescapable impression that the U.S. Attorney’s investigation of Walker was being coordinated with Republican political operatives and was done in the interests of giving the party an advantage in upcoming elections.
A reasonable person could conclude that similar e-mails probably exist regarding the Siegelman, Minor, and Wecht cases. Where is the effort to unearth electronic communications in the U.S. attorney offices that handled those cases? How about communications involving Republican political operatives, to and from those offices? How about communications from national GOP figures--Karl Rove and people affiliated with him--to those offices.
In a lengthy feature at Huffington Post, Horton reports that all is not stagnant on the political-prosecution front. He notes that a recently released Congressional report and a followup from the U.S. Justice Department indicate that charges of political prosecutions are well grounded.
Now it is time--way past time--for the appropriate governmental bodies to act.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)