Enormisly false and misleading statements

The antics of Enormis might very well lead one to the conclusion that he might be a refugee from a long term intensive care facility.

Creditwrench Senior Member Joined: October 16 2004 Location: United States Online Status: Online Posts: 213

Posted: January 15 2005 at 9:32pm | IP Logged Interesting. So would the collection agency come to the rescue of their employee? I think that question can be answered by considering whether or not the collection agency would come to the rescue of an employee who drove one of their vehicles while drunk, or for driving the wrong way on a one way street, for speeding or for the violation of any other law. So if they probably would not attempt to go to the rescue of an employee charged with any of the above infractions then why would they if the employee were sued for a violation of FDCPA, FCRA or any other law. In both types of situations they might help out if the employee could prove beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt that he did not commit the infractions but that probably would not be all that easy for the employee to prove. I would guess that they might very well be more inclined to fire him and hope to escape any liability on their part in the event that the plaintiff later decided to sue the agency on the grounds that they were also liable for the actions of their employee. But if they had fired the employee then they would have taken reasonable steps to insure that the infraction was not likely to be repeated and most likely escape any culpability with that argument. However, the statement that the agency cannot come to the aid of their employee is patently false and misleading.

E. Normis
Expert Member



Joined: October 12 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 462

Posted: January 15 2005 at 11:09am | IP Logged

It's not the norm. Most consumers threaten legal action with the intent of getting a settlement check long before going to court. If you're lucky, that's the case here.

The agency can't represent you if you are personally named as a defendant. However, depending on their corporate policy, they can choose to provide you with legal council and/or pay any settlement, fines or damage awards. Only they can answer that question for you. And, depending on any negligence on the part of the agency, you may have recourse against them, and also be able to drag them into it.

One reason they may only be going after you is their fear of going against the agencies legal resources, losing, and having to foot the agencies legal bills for filing a frivilous suit; an unlikely scenario if they have any evidence at all.

If they're not in it for the money, only revenge, suing you personally is a rather smart choice. Afterall, they know you would have to hire an attorney in California where they would sue you, or count on you doing nothing, in which case they will get a default judgment. Perfected revenge.

The extent of damages that the plantiff can prove will determine how costly the lawsuit will be. But, even if they can't prove damages, if they can prove a violation occurred, you'll end up footing their legal expenses as well as your own.

There's no such thing as a "minor infringement". Either you violated the law or you didn't. What did this "minor infringement" consist of?

Edited by E. Normis on January 15 2005 at 11:19am

Enormis can't figure it out as usual.

This blog is dedicated to exposing the lies about creditwrench promoted by a debt collector's blog who calls himself "CREDITWRENCHSCAM" and is also known as "Enormis", "Enormis Debtor", "Uncle Normie" and any other false screen name he can think of.

E. Normis
Expert Member



Joined: October 12 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 460

Posted: January 15 2005 at 4:39am | IP Logged

The CA can't represent the collector in a lawsuit, although they may offer to cover the cost of the lawsuit. Don't know why they would only sue the collector rather than the agency; they should be suing both.

What do you mean by a minor infringement? Violation of Federal, and probably State law?

I'm amazed at the number of CA's/collectors who think a violation is only gonna cost them $1000. I'm even more amazed at consumers who settle for it.

In June this past year, just 4 phone calls to an individual cost the CA-collector co-defendents over $100,000 in a FDCPA suit in federal court. The plantiff was awarded $15,000 the plantiff's attorneys $90,000.

The case was in the 10th District and is Caputo v. Marzulli and Professional Recovery. Here is what the court deemed reasonable attorney fees that had to be paid by the collector and his agency:

FEES

Person/Position Hours Rate Total

Fred Schwinn 388.1 $150.00 $58,215.00

James Heathman 143.85 $175.00 $25,173.75

Assoc. Attorney .1 $140.00 $ 14.00

Law Clerks 260.3 $ 60.00 $15,618.00

Legal Assistant 5.6 $ 40.00 $ 224.00

Document Clerk 4.3 $ 25.00 $ 107.50

TOTAL $99,352.25

Downward Adjustment by 20% -19,870.45

REASONABLE FEES $79,481.80

COSTS AND EXPENSES

Total Request appearing in ¶ 14 of Affidavit $14,912.51

Less costs awarded in Bill of Costs -2,414.95

Less photocopying costs -4,233.00

REASONABLE COSTS AND EXPENSES $ 8,264.56

TOTAL OF REASONABLE FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES

AS DETERMINED BY THE COURT $87,746.36

Edited by E. Normis on January 15 2005 at 5:05am

Creditwrench helps teach strategy.

This blog is dedicated to exposing the lies about creditwrench promoted by a deadbeat's blog who calls himself "CREDITWRENCHSCAM" and is also known as "Enormis", "Enormis Debtor", "Uncle Normie" and any other false screen name he can think of.

E. Normis Expert Member Joined: October 12 2004 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 458	Posted: January 15 2005 at 5:59am | IP Logged Aw, wrenchie, you're too modest. Why just a couple of months ago you said: "You may have to do it pro se which is one of the things that I teach how to do, file your own lawsuits and win. My students have won almost $19 million by doing it themselves so far that I know of and most likely more that I don't know about"