Forum
|
|
Forum
|
     | Sunday, August 27, 2000 - 05:47 am  From http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2000/08/performance.htm "California Debt Collection Agency Settles FTC Charges Of Fair Credit Reporting Act Violations" "... According to the Commission, PCM systematically reported accounts with delinquency dates that were more recent than the actual date of delinquency, resulting in negative information remaining on consumers' credit reports long beyond the seven-year period mandated by the FCRA. The Commission's complaint also alleges that PCM violated Section 623 by ignoring or failing to investigate consumer disputes referred by credit bureaus, and by failing to notify credit bureaus when consumers disputed collection accounts with PCM. ... According to the terms of the proposed settlement, payment of the fine would be waived due to the company's poor financial condition." Can somebody explain to me why the FTC allows these vultures to continue to do business? Does anybody go to jail? I see nothing about compensation to the consumers who suffered tremendous damages.
|
| | Sunday, August 27, 2000 - 09:48 pm WHAT AN OUTRAGE ! ! ! ! ! According to the terms of the proposed settlement, payment of the fine would be waived due to the company's poor financial condition." I'm sure everybody sees the irony in this. This company sole purpose was to manipulate, harass & threaten those in a "poor financial condition" Does anybody know if their victims are suing?
|
| | Monday, August 28, 2000 - 04:07 am Well that's the way our country has become. Silicon breast implant manufacturers get sued for millions and have to settle even though there is no credible evidence that their product harms anyone. The reason why? Because they have deep pockets. But when a company has clearly done something wrong they can get off scot-free because their pockets are not deep enough to tempt a lawyer to get involved.
|
| | Sunday, September 17, 2000 - 01:01 am Why does it take a lawyer? Why do ONLY consumers with the cash for lawyers have ANY rights anymore? Yet, the corporation with no cash is allowed to continue to do biz as always, just like an East Indian cow, it can do nothing wrong.
|
| | Sunday, September 17, 2000 - 04:09 am It takes a lawyer because that's the way lawyers want it. They want no competition from other people. You know I went onto http://www.exp.com/ and asked for someone to fill out the initial pleading for me vs. Experian (pro-se) and that I'd handle the rest. I was quoted $140 an hour and 100 hours of work.
|
| | Sunday, September 17, 2000 - 03:12 pm Is that 100 hours of work? $14,000? Wow! And re "It takes a lawyer because that's the way lawyers want it. They want no competition from other people." I'm not objecting to the lawyers doing their job, The government should NOT allow big corporations to break the law without any consequences whatsoever. The government lawyers should put the PCM CEOs in jail for a few years. How about CEOs taking responsibility for their actions? When you think a 15 year old girl should be responsible for her hospital bills, why not hold ADULTS responsible for their actions? At the very least, the government could have revoked PCM's business licenses.
|
| | Sunday, September 17, 2000 - 05:44 pm Yeah ... $14k for a paralegal to help me do a case pro se. That's an outrageous sum ... it seems like there should be a cheaper way. And as for the FTC fine there should be no fine, but there should be restitution mandated for the people who were injured.
|
| | Sunday, September 17, 2000 - 11:48 pm Yeah, restitution would be real nice. I've never understood why American law doesn't provide for restitution. Does anyone know why? When somebody steals your stuff and gets caught, shouldn't there be an automatic judgment for all your damages be attached to the guilty verdict?
|
| | Monday, September 18, 2000 - 04:24 am There are several reasons why, but one of the biggest one is the increasing number of legislated victimless crimes. Prostitution, possession of drugs, possession of an illegal firearm, insider trading, gambling, hiring an illegal alien, etc. Who is the victim? For example in the case of possession of drugs to whom should I pay restitution? Instead now recourse is paid to the state. This eliminates any need to find a victim and the embarassment of not having one. This also means that the punishment doesn't always fit the crime. Like people getting 25 to life for shoplifting if it's their third strike.
|
| | Monday, September 18, 2000 - 01:43 pm I don't understand how victimless crimes cause the elimination of restitution for people who clearly suffered damages. Since a judge/jury can reason whether to kill someone for their crime, you'd think they'd be able to determine whether there was a victim deserving restitution.
|
| | Monday, September 18, 2000 - 06:40 pm There are a number of reasons. I'm not sure that this forum is a good place to air all of them, but since you're interested here goes... The increase in victimless crimes is a major cause. For one thing courts become overloaded dealing with the quantity of people caught in possession of drugs and other technical crimes. The second major cause is the increase in power of District Attorney's and City Prosecutors. The third major cause is the increase in the severity of punishments. These three factors together increase the number of plea bargains. The city doesn't have the time or resources to try the huge number of cases brought before them, but they need to seem "tough on crime" at the same time. The result is usually a deal. The accused (even if innocent) may be looking at 7-10 years and even if he figures he has a 75% chance of beating it that's still a 25% chance of losing. In other words just being ACCUSED of a crime is worth about 2 years in prison in this case. The beleagured prosecutor, however, is willing to let the guy go for 60 days in jail, 100 hours of community service and probation. Most people take it and carefully plead "nolo contendere." The suspect accepts punishment but does not admit any kind of guilt. This is hardly conducive to seeing the victim restored to what was rightfully theirs. Most crimes don't even HAVE victims. Furthermore unless the suspect has a lot of dough a lawyer isn't likely to touch the case. Also lawsuits are becoming less and less about culpability and more and more about the huge cost of defending it without the right to being compensated for your legal costs if you win. Witness the lawsuits against firearm manufacturers because criminals misuse their product. Witness the lawsuits against tobacco companies because people smoke, get ill, and the government chooses to spend tax money to help them. I could go on and on. The point is that the "justice system" is becoming less and less about justice and more and more about DA's advancing their careers by getting 99% conviction rates (most of them plea bargains) and trial lawyers getting 35% contingency from negotiating a $100,000 settlement. I would rather see us return to a system of establishing the existence of a victim, the culpability of the defendent and restitution of the damages.
|
| | Monday, September 18, 2000 - 11:22 pm I'm not aware that there has ever been a law requiring restitution, EXCEPT of course when it comes to protecting corporate (bad check laws and the automatic treble damages many States have.) The FTC obviously spent substantial resources to investigate PCM. Yet, there is no fine, because of their poor financial condition, there is no restitution, for whatever reasons, and there is no jail time. On the other hand, I know a guy who caught driving drunk about 4 or 5 years ago. He wasn't in an accident, he didn't hurt anybody. Because he didn't take the $1,000 class he was supposed to take as part of his court deal, he was arrested a few months ago. He then got 90 days house arrest with an electronic ankle bracelet, he leaves the house only to go to work. And he was ordered to take a now even more expensive class. I don't understand why the PCM CEO's can't be ordered do the same: house arrest, and getting a "real job" and paying at least some restitution. Many many consumers have been HURT by PCM. My DUI friend hasn't hurt anybody, and never drove drunk again. Yet we have the resources to go after him. I'm not saying people should be able to drive drunk, but I don't understand why ONLY people, individuals, consumers, are held responsible when they break the law.
|
| | Tuesday, September 19, 2000 - 12:59 pm Don't forget what banks can do to consumers with the evil Chexsystems. They should be held more accountable. We always are whenever a mistake (usually theirs) is made, why can't the same be said of corporate responsibility?
|
Credit Forum CreditCourt Forum 2003 Credit Suit CreditFactors Order Credit Reports |