Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [World-wide_Politics] Hello, Collections? The Worm Has Turned

Expand Messages
  • derhexer@aol.com
    Thank you for posting that, Maeve. Chris In a message dated 11/30/2009 8:04:27 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, ladymaeve@gmail.com writes: _Hello, Collections?
    Message 1 of 5 , Nov 30, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Thank you for posting that, Maeve.
       
      Chris
       
      In a message dated 11/30/2009 8:04:27 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, ladymaeve@... writes:


      Hello, Collections? The Worm Has Turned

      The phone rang. A woman from a law firm representing a collection agency wanted to know if Mark Hoyte was Mark Hoyte, and he said he was. They were calling to collect $919 on a Sears-Citi card.

      Mr. Hoyte said he never had that credit card.


       Mark Hoyte

      Then the woman wanted to know if his Social Security number ended in 92, and Mr. Hoyte said no, it ended in 33.

      “She says to me, ‘Your date of birth is in 1972,’ ” Mr. Hoyte, 46, recalled in an interview.

      Clearly, they had the wrong Mark Hoyte. But that did not stop the lawyers at Pressler & Pressler from suing him. They swore out a complaint and sent a summons to Mr. Hoyte, ordering him to be in court last Monday.

      Then things took a rare turn.

      Every day of the year, 1,000 cases on average are added to the civil court dockets in New York City over credit card debt — a high-volume, low-accuracy moment of reckoning. The suits are usually brought by collection companies that purchase the debt for pennies on the dollar from card issuers and then work with a cadre of law firms that specialize in collection work.

      Conducting a digital dragnet, they troll through commercial databases searching for debtors. Because of the vast sloppiness and fraud involved, Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo has shut down two of the collection firms and is suing 35 law firms tied to the business.

      A person who blows off a civil court summons — even if wrongly identified — faces a default judgment and frozen bank accounts. But to date, there have been few penalties against collectors for dragging the wrong people into court.

      Until Mr. Hoyte turned up last week in Brooklyn.

      After trying to settle the case in the hallway — the 11th floor of 141 Livingston Street is an open bazaar of haggling — the collections lawyer realized he had the wrong man. He got Mr. Hoyte to sign an agreement that would end the case against him, but not against the Mark Hoyte who actually owed the $919.

      In front of the judge, the lawyer, T. Andy Wang, announced that the parties had reached a stipulation dismissing this Mr. Hoyte from the suit.

      Not so fast, said the judge, Noach Dear.

      “Why didn’t you check these things out before you take out a summons and a complaint?” Judge Dear asked. “Why don’t you check out who you’re going after?”

      Mr. Wang said that Pressler & Pressler used an online database called AnyWho to hunt for debtors.

      “So you just shoot in the dark against names; if there’s 16 Mark Hoytes, you go after without exactly knowing who, what, when and where?” Judge Dear asked.

      Mr. Wang replied, “That’s why the plaintiff is making an application to discontinue.”

      The judge turned to Mr. Hoyte, who works as a building superintendent, and asked him how much a day of lost pay would cost. Mr. Hoyte said $115.

      “Do you think that’s fair?” Judge Dear asked Mr. Wang. “That he should lose a day’s pay?”

      “My personal opinion,” Mr. Wang said, “would not be relevant to the application being sought.”

      The judge said he was prepared to dismiss the case and wanted Mr. Hoyte compensated for lost wages.

      “Your honor,” Mr. Wang said, “I’m personally not willing to compensate him.”

      No, the judge said; he meant that the law firm, Pressler & Pressler — one of the biggest in the collection industry — should pay the $115. He would hold a sanctions hearing, a formal process of penalizing the law firm for suing the wrong man.

      Under questioning by the judge, Mr. Hoyte recounted being called about the debt, providing his Social Security number and date of birth, and being summoned to court anyhow.

      The collections lawyer then began to interrogate Mr. Hoyte.

      “You claim you told Pressler & Pressler it wasn’t you,” Mr. Wang said to Mr. Hoyte. “Did you send them proof, as in a copy of your Social Security number with only the last four digits visible?”

      “No,” Mr. Hoyte said. “They didn’t ask for it.”

      “But you didn’t send any written proof of the claim that it was not you?” Mr. Wang said.

      “I told them on the phone it’s not me,” Mr. Hoyte said.

      Mr. Wang appeared outraged.

      “So without any written proof that it’s not you, you would expect someone just, you know, to go on say-so?” he demanded. “Is that correct?”

      Alice had reached Wonderland: The lawyer who had sued the wrong man was blaming the wrong man for getting sued.

      Judge Dear cut off the questioning. He told Mr. Wang and Mr. Hoyte to come back to court in January.

      “If, somehow, counsel, you decide that you’re going to compensate him for his time off,” Judge Dear said, “I will reconsider sanctions.”



    • Maeve Jones
      We have become a far more thuggish culture these days. ... We have become a far more thuggish culture these days. On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:33 PM,
      Message 2 of 5 , Dec 1, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        We have become a far more thuggish culture these days.

        On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:33 PM, <derhexer@...> wrote:


        Thank you for posting that, Maeve.
         
        Chris
         
        In a message dated 11/30/2009 8:04:27 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, ladymaeve@... writes:


        Hello, Collections? The Worm Has Turned

        The phone rang. A woman from a law firm representing a collection agency wanted to know if Mark Hoyte was Mark Hoyte, and he said he was. They were calling to collect $919 on a Sears-Citi card.

        Mr. Hoyte said he never had that credit card.


         Mark Hoyte

        Then the woman wanted to know if his Social Security number ended in 92, and Mr. Hoyte said no, it ended in 33.

        “She says to me, ‘Your date of birth is in 1972,’ ” Mr. Hoyte, 46, recalled in an interview.

        Clearly, they had the wrong Mark Hoyte. But that did not stop the lawyers at Pressler & Pressler from suing him. They swore out a complaint and sent a summons to Mr. Hoyte, ordering him to be in court last Monday.

        Then things took a rare turn.

        Every day of the year, 1,000 cases on average are added to the civil court dockets in New York City over credit card debt — a high-volume, low-accuracy moment of reckoning. The suits are usually brought by collection companies that purchase the debt for pennies on the dollar from card issuers and then work with a cadre of law firms that specialize in collection work.

        Conducting a digital dragnet, they troll through commercial databases searching for debtors. Because of the vast sloppiness and fraud involved, Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo has shut down two of the collection firms and is suing 35 law firms tied to the business.

        A person who blows off a civil court summons — even if wrongly identified — faces a default judgment and frozen bank accounts. But to date, there have been few penalties against collectors for dragging the wrong people into court.

        Until Mr. Hoyte turned up last week in Brooklyn.

        After trying to settle the case in the hallway — the 11th floor of 141 Livingston Street is an open bazaar of haggling — the collections lawyer realized he had the wrong man. He got Mr. Hoyte to sign an agreement that would end the case against him, but not against the Mark Hoyte who actually owed the $919.

        In front of the judge, the lawyer, T. Andy Wang, announced that the parties had reached a stipulation dismissing this Mr. Hoyte from the suit.

        Not so fast, said the judge, Noach Dear.

        “Why didn’t you check these things out before you take out a summons and a complaint?” Judge Dear asked. “Why don’t you check out who you’re going after?”

        Mr. Wang said that Pressler & Pressler used an online database called AnyWho to hunt for debtors.

        “So you just shoot in the dark against names; if there’s 16 Mark Hoytes, you go after without exactly knowing who, what, when and where?” Judge Dear asked.

        Mr. Wang replied, “That’s why the plaintiff is making an application to discontinue.”

        The judge turned to Mr. Hoyte, who works as a building superintendent, and asked him how much a day of lost pay would cost. Mr. Hoyte said $115.

        “Do you think that’s fair?” Judge Dear asked Mr. Wang. “That he should lose a day’s pay?”

        “My personal opinion,” Mr. Wang said, “would not be relevant to the application being sought.”

        The judge said he was prepared to dismiss the case and wanted Mr. Hoyte compensated for lost wages.

        “Your honor,” Mr. Wang said, “I’m personally not willing to compensate him.”

        No, the judge said; he meant that the law firm, Pressler & Pressler — one of the biggest in the collection industry — should pay the $115. He would hold a sanctions hearing, a formal process of penalizing the law firm for suing the wrong man.

        Under questioning by the judge, Mr. Hoyte recounted being called about the debt, providing his Social Security number and date of birth, and being summoned to court anyhow.

        The collections lawyer then began to interrogate Mr. Hoyte.

        “You claim you told Pressler & Pressler it wasn’t you,” Mr. Wang said to Mr. Hoyte. “Did you send them proof, as in a copy of your Social Security number with only the last four digits visible?”

        “No,” Mr. Hoyte said. “They didn’t ask for it.”

        “But you didn’t send any written proof of the claim that it was not you?” Mr. Wang said.

        “I told them on the phone it’s not me,” Mr. Hoyte said.

        Mr. Wang appeared outraged.

        “So without any written proof that it’s not you, you would expect someone just, you know, to go on say-so?” he demanded. “Is that correct?”

        Alice had reached Wonderland: The lawyer who had sued the wrong man was blaming the wrong man for getting sued.

        Judge Dear cut off the questioning. He told Mr. Wang and Mr. Hoyte to come back to court in January.

        “If, somehow, counsel, you decide that you’re going to compensate him for his time off,” Judge Dear said, “I will reconsider sanctions.”






      • SHADOW Kamen
        Glad to hear something is being done about this crap. SHADOWKamen Main Page (NEW!) http://infoservo.tripod.com/ To: World-wide_Politics@yahoogroups.com From:
        Message 3 of 5 , Dec 1, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Glad to hear something is being done about this crap.




          SHADOWKamen
          Main Page (NEW!)
          http://infoservo.tripod.com/






          To: World-wide_Politics@yahoogroups.com
          From: ladymaeve@...
          Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:03:53 -0500
          Subject: [World-wide_Politics] Hello, Collections? The Worm Has Turned



          Hello, Collections? The Worm Has Turned

          The phone rang. A woman from a law firm representing a collection agency wanted to know if Mark Hoyte was Mark Hoyte, and he said he was. They were calling to collect $919 on a Sears-Citi card.
          Mr. Hoyte said he never had that credit card.


           Mark Hoyte

          Then the woman wanted to know if his Social Security number ended in 92, and Mr. Hoyte said no, it ended in 33.
          “She says to me, ‘Your date of birth is in 1972,’ ” Mr. Hoyte, 46, recalled in an interview.
          Clearly, they had the wrong Mark Hoyte. But that did not stop the lawyers at Pressler & Pressler from suing him. They swore out a complaint and sent a summons to Mr. Hoyte, ordering him to be in court last Monday.
          Then things took a rare turn.
          Every day of the year, 1,000 cases on average are added to the civil court dockets in New York City over credit card debt — a high-volume, low-accuracy moment of reckoning. The suits are usually brought by collection companies that purchase the debt for pennies on the dollar from card issuers and then work with a cadre of law firms that specialize in collection work.
          Conducting a digital dragnet, they troll through commercial databases searching for debtors. Because of the vast sloppiness and fraud involved, Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo has shut down two of the collection firms and is suing 35 law firms tied to the business.
          A person who blows off a civil court summons — even if wrongly identified — faces a default judgment and frozen bank accounts. But to date, there have been few penalties against collectors for dragging the wrong people into court.
          Until Mr. Hoyte turned up last week in Brooklyn.
          After trying to settle the case in the hallway — the 11th floor of 141 Livingston Street is an open bazaar of haggling — the collections lawyer realized he had the wrong man. He got Mr. Hoyte to sign an agreement that would end the case against him, but not against the Mark Hoyte who actually owed the $919.
          In front of the judge, the lawyer, T. Andy Wang, announced that the parties had reached a stipulation dismissing this Mr. Hoyte from the suit.
          Not so fast, said the judge, Noach Dear.
          “Why didn’t you check these things out before you take out a summons and a complaint?” Judge Dear asked. “Why don’t you check out who you’re going after?”
          Mr. Wang said that Pressler & Pressler used an online database called AnyWho to hunt for debtors.
          “So you just shoot in the dark against names; if there’s 16 Mark Hoytes, you go after without exactly knowing who, what, when and where?” Judge Dear asked.
          Mr. Wang replied, “That’s why the plaintiff is making an application to discontinue.”
          The judge turned to Mr. Hoyte, who works as a building superintendent, and asked him how much a day of lost pay would cost. Mr. Hoyte said $115.
          “Do you think that’s fair?” Judge Dear asked Mr. Wang. “That he should lose a day’s pay?”
          “My personal opinion,” Mr. Wang said, “would not be relevant to the application being sought.”
          The judge said he was prepared to dismiss the case and wanted Mr. Hoyte compensated for lost wages.
          “Your honor,” Mr. Wang said, “I’m personally not willing to compensate him.”
          No, the judge said; he meant that the law firm, Pressler & Pressler — one of the biggest in the collection industry — should pay the $115. He would hold a sanctions hearing, a formal process of penalizing the law firm for suing the wrong man.
          Under questioning by the judge, Mr. Hoyte recounted being called about the debt, providing his Social Security number and date of birth, and being summoned to court anyhow.
          The collections lawyer then began to interrogate Mr. Hoyte.
          “You claim you told Pressler & Pressler it wasn’t you,” Mr. Wang said to Mr. Hoyte. “Did you send them proof, as in a copy of your Social Security number with only the last four digits visible?”
          “No,” Mr. Hoyte said. “They didn’t ask for it.”
          “But you didn’t send any written proof of the claim that it was not you?” Mr. Wang said.
          “I told them on the phone it’s not me,” Mr. Hoyte said.
          Mr. Wang appeared outraged.
          “So without any written proof that it’s not you, you would expect someone just, you know, to go on say-so?” he demanded. “Is that correct?”
          Alice had reached Wonderland: The lawyer who had sued the wrong man was blaming the wrong man for getting sued.
          Judge Dear cut off the questioning. He told Mr. Wang and Mr. Hoyte to come back to court in January.
          “If, somehow, counsel, you decide that you’re going to compensate him for his time off,” Judge Dear said, “I will reconsider sanctions.”






          Windows Live™ Hotmail is faster and more secure than ever. Learn more.
        • Maeve Jones
          That judge was a very rare exception...he will prolly lose his job ... That judge was a very rare exception...he will prolly lose his job On Tue, Dec 1, 2009
          Message 4 of 5 , Dec 1, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            That judge was a very rare exception...he will prolly lose his job

            On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 3:10 PM, SHADOW Kamen <shadow_kamen@...> wrote:


            Glad to hear something is being done about this crap.




            SHADOWKamen
            Main Page (NEW!)
            http://infoservo.tripod.com/






            To: World-wide_Politics@yahoogroups.com
            From: ladymaeve@...
            Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:03:53 -0500
            Subject: [World-wide_Politics] Hello, Collections? The Worm Has Turned




            Hello, Collections? The Worm Has Turned

            The phone rang. A woman from a law firm representing a collection agency wanted to know if Mark Hoyte was Mark Hoyte, and he said he was. They were calling to collect $919 on a Sears-Citi card.
            Mr. Hoyte said he never had that credit card.


             Mark Hoyte

            Then the woman wanted to know if his Social Security number ended in 92, and Mr. Hoyte said no, it ended in 33.
            “She says to me, ‘Your date of birth is in 1972,’ ” Mr. Hoyte, 46, recalled in an interview.
            Clearly, they had the wrong Mark Hoyte. But that did not stop the lawyers at Pressler & Pressler from suing him. They swore out a complaint and sent a summons to Mr. Hoyte, ordering him to be in court last Monday.
            Then things took a rare turn.
            Every day of the year, 1,000 cases on average are added to the civil court dockets in New York City over credit card debt — a high-volume, low-accuracy moment of reckoning. The suits are usually brought by collection companies that purchase the debt for pennies on the dollar from card issuers and then work with a cadre of law firms that specialize in collection work.
            Conducting a digital dragnet, they troll through commercial databases searching for debtors. Because of the vast sloppiness and fraud involved, Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo has shut down two of the collection firms and is suing 35 law firms tied to the business.
            A person who blows off a civil court summons — even if wrongly identified — faces a default judgment and frozen bank accounts. But to date, there have been few penalties against collectors for dragging the wrong people into court.
            Until Mr. Hoyte turned up last week in Brooklyn.
            After trying to settle the case in the hallway — the 11th floor of 141 Livingston Street is an open bazaar of haggling — the collections lawyer realized he had the wrong man. He got Mr. Hoyte to sign an agreement that would end the case against him, but not against the Mark Hoyte who actually owed the $919.
            In front of the judge, the lawyer, T. Andy Wang, announced that the parties had reached a stipulation dismissing this Mr. Hoyte from the suit.
            Not so fast, said the judge, Noach Dear.
            “Why didn’t you check these things out before you take out a summons and a complaint?” Judge Dear asked. “Why don’t you check out who you’re going after?”
            Mr. Wang said that Pressler & Pressler used an online database called AnyWho to hunt for debtors.
            “So you just shoot in the dark against names; if there’s 16 Mark Hoytes, you go after without exactly knowing who, what, when and where?” Judge Dear asked.
            Mr. Wang replied, “That’s why the plaintiff is making an application to discontinue.”
            The judge turned to Mr. Hoyte, who works as a building superintendent, and asked him how much a day of lost pay would cost. Mr. Hoyte said $115.
            “Do you think that’s fair?” Judge Dear asked Mr. Wang. “That he should lose a day’s pay?”
            “My personal opinion,” Mr. Wang said, “would not be relevant to the application being sought.”
            The judge said he was prepared to dismiss the case and wanted Mr. Hoyte compensated for lost wages.
            “Your honor,” Mr. Wang said, “I’m personally not willing to compensate him.”
            No, the judge said; he meant that the law firm, Pressler & Pressler — one of the biggest in the collection industry — should pay the $115. He would hold a sanctions hearing, a formal process of penalizing the law firm for suing the wrong man.
            Under questioning by the judge, Mr. Hoyte recounted being called about the debt, providing his Social Security number and date of birth, and being summoned to court anyhow.
            The collections lawyer then began to interrogate Mr. Hoyte.
            “You claim you told Pressler & Pressler it wasn’t you,” Mr. Wang said to Mr. Hoyte. “Did you send them proof, as in a copy of your Social Security number with only the last four digits visible?”
            “No,” Mr. Hoyte said. “They didn’t ask for it.”
            “But you didn’t send any written proof of the claim that it was not you?” Mr. Wang said.
            “I told them on the phone it’s not me,” Mr. Hoyte said.
            Mr. Wang appeared outraged.
            “So without any written proof that it’s not you, you would expect someone just, you know, to go on say-so?” he demanded. “Is that correct?”
            Alice had reached Wonderland: The lawyer who had sued the wrong man was blaming the wrong man for getting sued.
            Judge Dear cut off the questioning. He told Mr. Wang and Mr. Hoyte to come back to court in January.
            “If, somehow, counsel, you decide that you’re going to compensate him for his time off,” Judge Dear said, “I will reconsider sanctions.”






            Windows Live™ Hotmail is faster and more secure than ever. Learn more.


          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.