Other Contributors

About Us

The contributors to the Consumer Law & Policy blog are lawyers and law professors who practice, teach, or write about consumer law and policy. The blog is hosted by Public Citizen Litigation Group, but the views expressed here are solely those of the individual contributors (and don't necessarily reflect the views of institutions with which they are affiliated). To view the blog's policies, please click here.

« Supreme Court Decides Fair Credit Reporting Act Cases | Main | Utilities and Payday Loans: A Dangerous Combination »

Tuesday, June 05, 2007


buy wholesale

Imagine Discover’s claim to have 50 million cardholders. That would indicate they have 50 million to perhaps 100 million or more Social Security numbers in their files. Certainly all of that personal information and

don macdermid

Note - The 6-10-2008 4:03 pm comments relate to now current conditions. The case #1:03-cv-0111 United States District Court Middle District of Tennessee was once again denied by Judge Knowles - ref Doc. 142 of 5-5-2008, just before trial was to begin!

Once again the case will be in appeal and justice delayed will eventually be justice denied. At 72 years age, the strategy is obvious postponement until life or the ability to function ends the case by default! The financial power and influence of billion dollar predators combined in their union of the ABA will insure that cases of this nature will never make to trial. Private lawyers can’t muster the investment and juries will not pass enough penalties to justify such suits.

From an equal justice standpoint go to the FTC ID Theft Affidavit web site and compare the mandate set upon an ID Theft victim vs. the total lack of contractual protocol demanded of Discover and other predatory lenders! First, read the very first sentence, stating the victim must prove they didn’t incur the debt! Read carefully and see if you can find anything that doesn’t compromise the “victim” or anything that sets an equal requirement on the predator!

By definition, ID Theft is between a lender and someone they didn’t bother to properly identify or know. The victim, by definition, knew nothing of the transaction, lost nothing to the ID thief, and thus doesn’t owe the lender the time of day! The lender obviously didn’t convey any agreement, instruments, or anything else by secure means. Further, the lender fraudulently pretends to know the victim and have power to act on their behalf. If a victim signs an affidavit or fills out a police report, they automatically enter into prosecution events they know nothing about, events only known by the lender and whoever they claim was you. That strategy relieves the predator from the requirements of providing testimony under oath! The victim’s signature will insure there will be no possibility of a victim initiated suit against a predator. Ironically, if equal protections of the law were a reality, and the FTC and courts enforced the documentation and proof required by victims, none of this would have happened and the wife would be alive today.

Imagine Discover’s claim to have 50 million cardholders. That would indicate they have 50 million to perhaps 100 million or more Social Security numbers in their files. Certainly all of that personal information and genealogy would not give them power of attorney for perhaps 1/3 of the population in the USA! Add to it the fact that of the millions upon millions of loan documents bought and sold by loan brokers to anyone with the money, certainly indicates that SSN and personal ID doesn’t mean fiddly squat to anyone, especially when it comes to predators profiling with data bank files! So... why does the scam continue? Corruption is very profitable!

A P&L note of 2003 Discover reasons to be nasty is the fact that provisions for loan losses exceeded net interest income. However the $3 billion in non interest income not only saved the day, but provides a wink at predatory practices.

don macdermid

If you read the opinions in case #1:03-0111, you won’t have a clue. After almost five years, the judge hasn’t laid eyes on me nor have I seen him. It has been a closed session court where clandestine decisions are made behind closed doors. This case is about fraud, extortion, and a very vulnerable hostage who was semi comatose in a hospital when the attacks started. That hostage was released to in home care under the care of a psychiatrist, remained incapacitated, unable to work, and without ability to pay Discover between the times of release until her death almost four months later. The attacks were coordinated by three different Discover employees (not one as indicated by the judicial order). The attacks consisted of various threats of arrest and jail, including police are on the way to the house, if I didn’t pay the debt they claimed to be her’s. Additional threats to create a firestorm by debiting three small merchants and telling them to collect from me began about two weeks after she was in home care. The affects in April and May were devastating. At least four instances of frenzy occurred – described as redness in face, bulging neck veins, shaking & trembling, incoherent, coldness of skin, etc. – all signs of eminent and immediate danger of seizure or stroke. She had lost 1/3 of her body weight during this ordeal. It takes a while for a novice to realize that you can not obtain a restraining order or any other relief at a state or local level because predatory lenders are granted immunity by federal jurisdiction. Not one federal law enforcement, judicial, or regulatory agency would lift a finger to stop Discover. Instead it’s a shuffle and distract policy that never ends, just like this five year old case. It isn’t simple incompetence. The biggest scam in the history of mankind prevails because of unimaginable corruption. The court says Discover did noting wrong because I didn’t foresee suicide. I didn’t foresee suicide because of being overwhelmed by eminent threats of seizure and stroke in Nina and overwhelmed by terror in the home caused by Discover! Two other applicable provisions of that law would apply, but that would jeopardize the killer.

Citizens must have a court order, due process, and law enforcement to force their will on someone else, Discover just does it! The police can not invade our home; person, papers, and effects without a warrant, but Discover can and does. Amendment 5 and 6 says no person shall answer for a crime without grand jury, public jury trial, defense, etc.! The victim is clearly convicted of a crime by her killer in a public forum by Doc. 144. The decision that vindicates the killer is based on perjured evidence in Docs. 131 and 131-2 of 4-25-08, without rebuttal or public scrutiny! The stated claims of what Nina did in 131-2 are absolutely without witness and first hand knowledge. The “applications” fraudulently used to claim agreement in fact not only do not identify the lender, there is no mention of the words ”agree”, “borrower”, or any other combination of words that would remotely imply agreement! Further, the first dated application that could not be found or produced by Discover for five years mysteriously appears in time for Doc. 131. That “planted” document has a different address than the material evidence falsely claimed by Discover in Doc. 131! Plaintiff evidence noted in Discover’s Doc. 106, item 4 represents a vicious plot by three Discover representatives to enrage three small merchants by debiting their bank accounts to bounce their checks and enrage them to attack Nina was excluded by judicial order! Voice recordings of the plot, carrying it out, and evidence obtained from the merchants was claimed to be “irrelevant”! The sick part of this process is the fact that the documents have no standing whatsoever as any form of agreement, thus no crime on the part of someone who picks up a credit card in their name and uses it, and apparently regularly makes payments on it as indicated by evidence (contrary to judicial comments)! Further, Discover did vigorously press for criminal charges in 2003, and those charges were dismissed because of evidence of baiting, fraud, and no agreement! All I want is an open public trial by a jury.

Bob from Debt Help Review

Unfortunately, many people in serious debt don't know about the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. While it doesn't relieve you of your debts, it does have the teeth to keep debt collectors off your back. They may pay substantial consequences (to the debtor!) for not following this consumer-friendly law.

tv bracket

Still the story doesn't mention his debt to income ratio. Is it that bad that the person had to commit suicide for a sum of at least $15000 coming. I say deeper background analysis should be taken.


Terrific comment, Scott. Thanks!

Scott Kreppein

This is an extremely unfortunate example of the need for more stringent legislation in the area of debt collection.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress is more than merely a byproduct of bad debt collection practices; it is the avowed goal of many debt collection agencies. The most frequent bar to civil prosecution is whether the conduct is "outrageous," and -- although, as discussed by the Sixth Circuit in this case, the bar is set extremely high for what constitutes outrageous conduct -- debt collection agencies routinely engage in the most contemptible tactics that easily warrant civil censure.

The problem, however, is that overly-aggressive debt collection efforts are, by definition, directed at persons with financial difficulty. These victims, in turn, either lack the acumen to pursue legal remedies, or are otherwise dissuaded from pursuing redress by the nature of their circumstances.

Another problem facing these victims is a lack of sympathy for persons who fail to pay their debts. Each year, financial institutions earn billions of dollars on fees, sub-prime interest rates, default raters, and the like. An occasionally delinquent consumer can easily pay twice-over the principal on a credit card and have the entire sum swallowed by interest and fees. Often the legal remedies that could be sought by the creditor are intentionally delayed because a judgment, which could be collectible in a variety of fashions but yields perhaps 9% interest, is less profitable than letting the debt grow exponentially and then reaching a seemingly meager settlement.

It is counter-intuitive, but it is often extremely profitable for financial institutions to lend to people who they know cannot pay their debt. Then, in the event that the venture proves unprofitable, the institution will find some mechanism to shift the risk of loss to unsuspecting consumers. The sub-prime mortgage scandal is a perfect example.

When the creditor, rather than the debtor, is viewed as the victim, the threshold for what seems "outrageous" is drastically shifted.

Hopefully, this case will spurn efforts not only by lawyers, but also by psychological researchers. The psychological effect of debt collection is an area where there has been unfortunately little study. In this case, the debt collection efforts exacerbated an already existing condition, one that seems to have been rather severe. Poor financial management, however, is a frequent symptom of psychological illness and Mrs. MacDermid's situation may not be all that rare. Furthermore, it is entirely possible that aggressive debt collection efforts may trigger depression and other psychological difficulties in persons who are otherwise mentally healthy, thus imprinting a sense of defeatism and complacency that significantly worsens the financial trouble which caused the debt collection efforts in the first place.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Subscribe to CL&P

RSS/Atom Feed

To receive a daily email of Consumer Law & Policy content, enter your email address here:

Search CL&P Blog

Recent Posts

September 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30