CCDN Scam

Jury returns $13.8 Million Verdict against The Credit Card Solution

Admin — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 01:14:56 +0000

Robert Lindsey once again came face to face with a Texas Jury who returned a several million dollar Verdict against Robert Mitchell Lindsey and his fraudulent organization, Jubilee Financial Solutions dba The Credit Card Solution.

The verdict came after charges brought against the company by the Texas Attorney General’s Office and several attempts by Mr. Lindsey to sweep his deceitful actions under the rug. His claims to erase credit card debt and help pull debt ridden consumers out of the red did nothing more than leave these consumers with more debt then when they started.

HOUSTON – A Harris County jury has returned a $13.8 million verdict against a credit repair business and its owner, finding they defrauded indebted Texans and failed to register with authorities in violation of state law. The jury found that Jubilee Financial Management LLC, The Credit Card Solution (TCCS), Freedom from Debt Alliance and Robert M. Lindsey used illegal “debt invalidation” schemes that purported to help financially struggling Texans.

According to the State’s enforcement action, the defendants assured customers that they could eliminate their credit card debts and restore their credit ratings. The defendants claimed they could help debtors exploit loopholes in the credit reporting system and pursue litigation against debt collectors for violations Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Simply filing lawsuits, the defendants falsely claimed, would allow their customers to erase their debts and reap thousands of dollars in court-awarded damages from debt collectors.

More than 700 people paid an average of $3,000 for the defendants’ fraudulent services. Because the defendants offered nothing of value – and charged thousands of dollars for the purported services – already struggling customers were worse off financially after paying TCCS. Once a customer paid TCCS, the defendants promised to help customers send “form letters” to debt collectors and credit reporting agencies. The defendants claimed that the form letters would put the recipient on notice, which TCCS claimed would ultimately benefit customers financially.

After a week-long trial, the jury found that all four defendants violated both the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the Texas Credit Services Act. The jury also found that Lindsey and TCCS violated the Texas Business Opportunity Act. The latter violations stemmed from the defendants’ attempt to use customers to sell its fraudulent services to other financially strapped Texans. Under state law, multi-level marketers must register with the Texas Secretary of State and obtain surety bonds in order to lawfully operate in the state, but the defendants failed to do so.

Assistant attorneys general Scot Clinton and Rick Berlin represented the State of Texas in the trial. The Office of the Attorney General will continue working to identify and seize assets that will be used to satisfy the jury award.

Texans who believe they have been misled by similar practices are encouraged to call the Office of the Attorney General’s toll-free complaint line at (800) 252-8011 or file a complaint online at www.texasattorneygeneral.gov.

Final Judgment & Permanent Injunction Charge of the Court (Jury Verdict)

IARDC Files Complaint; Robert Lock, Jr

Admin — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 07:43:40 +0000

The Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Ilinois has voted to file a formal complaint and launch an investigation in the work ethics of Atty Robert Kenneth Lock, Jr. The ARDC act as a prosecuting body and act upon the information and complaints submitted against an Illinois licensed attorney. Although CCDN is a nationwide program with a network of attorneys across the country, Mr. Lock is registered to practice law in the state of Illinois, thus the reason for the investigation coming from the Illinois ARDC. See below is the complaint filed by the ARDC on November 4, 2010.

The mission of the ARDC is to promote and protect the integrity of the legal profession, at the direction of the Supreme Court, through attorney registration, education, investigation, prosecution and remedial action.

BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD
OF THE
ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION
AND
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

In the Matter of:

ROBERT KENNETH LOCK, JR.,
Attorney-Respondent,
No. 6202454

Commission No. 2010PR00164
FILED – November 4, 2010

COMPLAINT

Jerome Larkin, Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, by his attorney, James A. Doppke, Jr., pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 753(b), complains of Robert Kenneth Lock, Jr., who was licensed to practice law in Illinois on November 9, 1989, and alleges that Respondent has engaged in the following conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute:

COUNT I
(False statements regarding the operation of Phase I of the Debt Reconciliation Program of the Credit Collections Defense Network)

1. Between 2005 and 2010, Respondent and Philip Manger, an attorney licensed in New York and residing in Connecticut, were the two members of the Credit Collections Defense Network (“CCDN”), a Nevada limited liability corporation. Manger, who was not licensed to practice law in Illinois, was the managing member of CCDN.

2. Between 2005 and 2010, Respondent and Manger together operated CCDN as an entity providing legal services to consumers nationwide relating to consumer credit card debt and other debt collection matters.

3. Specifically, CCDN offered its potential clients the opportunity to use its “Debt Reconciliation Program” in order to validate existing consumer debts; restore their credit; and, where applicable, seek redress for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

4. Between 2005 and 2010, CCDN conducted its operations at several different locations, including, between approximately 2005 and 2009 a residence in Cattaraugus, New York, which it designated as the “CCDN Support Center.” Between approximately 2009 and 2010, the “CCDN Support Center” was located at an office suite in Brick, NJ. Further, various promotional materials created by Respondent or Manger for CCDN gave the address for CCDN’s headquarters as 7144 North Harlem Ave, Suite 323, Chicago, which was a private mailbox located at a UPS Store.

5. Between 2005 and 2010, CCDN had several employees, including two paralegals who worked from their home in Ohio, and a manager of the “CCDN Support Center” who had, prior to being employed by CCDN, owned and operated a lawn-care service in Florida.

6. Between 2005 and 2010, CCDN received payments in amounts between $2,500 and $4,800 from at least 2,219 clients seeking its assistance with relation to credit card debts and other debt collection matters, including, but not limited to, CCDN’s assistance in communicating with original creditors in relation to validation or invalidation of debts.

7. Between 2005 and 2010, Respondent, together with Manger, drafted and revised materials given by CCDN’s agents or employees to its clients relating to the Debt Reconciliation Program, including a document entitled “Debt Reconciliation Program Enrollment Manual” (“the Enrollment Manual”).

8. Respondent knew that the Enrollment Manual stated, inter alia, that the Debt Reconciliation Program purported to involve three phases: Phase I (Credit Restoration); Phase II (Reconciliation); and Phase III (Federal Lawsuit). Respondent further knew that the Enrollment Manual stated that the Debt Reconciliation Program was to continue for 24 months after the customer or client began participating in the program.

9. Between 2005 and 2010, the sole “credit restoration” service CCDN provided to its clients was to refer its clients to The Fulfillment Center, a Delaware business entity in which neither Respondent nor Manger participated. At no time during Respondent’s participation in the operation of CCDN did CCDN take action to challenge any information on its clients’ or clients’ credit reports, or otherwise “monitor” any such reports.

10. Between 2005 and 2010, Respondent caused, or participated in causing, the Enrollment Manual to contain the following description of Phase I of CCDN’s purported Debt Reconciliation Program:

Phase I Credit Restoration

Credit Restoration begins as soon as you enter our program and will continue for 24 months thereafter. Our experience is the majority of negatives will be removed from a typical clients [sic] credit reports within the first 4 to 6 months of this process, but we will continue to challenge unverified information and monitor all clients’ credit reports for the full 24 months.

Once your paperwork is received at the CCDN Support Center, the support team will send your credit restoration application to The Fulfillment Center within two weeks. Following submission of your application, The Fulfillment Center will then begin the process of credit restoration with you by contacting you by e-mail. [?]

11. As Respondent knew, the statement that CCDN or its employees would “continue to challenge unverified information and monitor all clients’ credit reports for?24 months” was false. At no time during Respondent’s participation in the operation of CCDN did CCDN take action to challenge any information on its clients’ or clients’ credit reports, or otherwise “monitor” any such reports.

12. By causing the statement referred to in paragraph 10, above, to be contained in the Enrollment Manual, Respondent intended to, and did, mislead clients and potential clients of CCDN into believing that CCDN would take action challenge information on their credit reports on their behalf, or otherwise to remove negative items from any such reports.

13. By reason of the conduct described above that occurred before January 1, 2010, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990); and
conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice, or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute, in violation of Supreme Court Rule 770.

14. By reason of the conduct described above that occurred on or after January 1, 2010, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the 2010 Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and
conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute in violation of Supreme Court Rule 770.

COUNT II
(False statements regarding the operation of Phase II of the Debt Reconciliation Program of the Credit Collections Defense Network)

15. The Administrator repeats and realleges paragraphs one through 12, above, and incorporates the same herein.

16. Between 2005 and 2010, CCDN took no action to contact any creditors on behalf of its clients with respect to validation of the consumer debts incurred by its clients. Instead, as part of its services, CCDN provided to its clients copies of form letters requesting validation of a debt, and advised the clients to complete the form letters and send them to their creditors in order to obtain validation of their debts.

17. Between 2005 and 2010, Respondent caused, or participated in causing, the Enrollment Manual (referred to in paragraph seven, above) to contain the following description of Phase II of CCDN’s purported Debt Reconciliation Program:

Phase II Reconciliation

Validation and Reconciliation also begins as soon as your paperwork is processed.

The purpose of this phase is to create an administrative record and establish as much information as possible as to the ownership and validity of the alleged debt.

The process works through two levels. First, we send out a series of proprietary letters at specific times to either the original creditor (OC) or the third party debt collector (3PDC) in an attempt to have the OC or 3PDC provide validation of the alleged debt. If they are unable to do so, we demand that they zero out our customer’s account and mark it “paid as agreed.”

Second, these letters are used to expedite the transfer of the account from the OC to the 3PDC at which time our correspondence is used to enhance our compliance audits in Phase Three.

Phase Two usually takes from 3 to 8 months depending on the status of the accounts when the individual enters the program and the speed at which the various OCs and 3PDCs respond to our correspondence.

When you stop paying the creditors, they will begin their collection efforts. These efforts include phone calls and letters. You will have to keep a log of the calls (we will provide you with a form) and fax any collection items or letters you receive in the mail to the Support Center ASAP so we can send you the proper response. The same applies to all 3PDCs as well.

Also included in this program, [sic] is the education and the support documents to aid our Clients against unlawful attacks of third party debt collectors. As CCDN does not work in the State court level, only the Federal level, the client will use these documents to protect themselves from these unlawful attacks with the goal of preventing State legal action and potential judgments.

The creditors, and especially third party debt collectors, typically violate several laws designed to protect the consumer. To learn more about how collectors work, visit our web site at www.ccdnlaw.com, click on the Education tab at the top and read the articles “How Debt Collectors Work” and “Abusive Debt Collectors” Also, familiarize yourself with the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, Fair Credit Billing Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act found in the Education Section on our web site, as well.

18. As Respondent knew, the statements in the Enrollment Manual to the effect that CCDN or its employees would “send out a series of proprietary letters at specific times to either the original creditor (OC) or the third party debt collector (3PDC) in an attempt to have the OC or 3PDC provide validation of the alleged debt,” or that CCDN or its employees would “demand that the [creditor] zero out our customer’s account and mark it ?paid as agreed,’” were false, because at no time between 2005 and 2010 did CCDN take action to contact any creditors on behalf of its clients in order to validate of the consumer debts incurred by its clients, in order to demand that the creditor zero out an account and mark it “paid as agreed,” or for any other reason.

19. By causing the statements referred to in paragraph 17, above, to be contained in the Enrollment Manual, Respondent intended to, and did, mislead clients and potential clients of CCDN into believing that CCDN would take action to contact their creditors regarding the validation or invalidation of debts on their behalf, or otherwise to contact their creditors directly.

20. By reason of the conduct described above that occurred before January 1, 2010, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990); and
conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice, or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute, in violation of Supreme Court Rule 770.

21. By reason of the conduct described above that occurred on or after January 1, 2010, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the 2010 Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and
conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute in violation of Supreme Court Rule 770.

COUNT III
(False statements on Credit Collections Defense Network website)

22. The Administrator repeats and realleges paragraphs one through 19, above, and incorporates the same herein.

23. As part of his participation in the operation of CCDN, Respondent maintained, or participated in maintaining, a website pertaining to CCDN (www.ccdnlaw.com).

24. In or about 2009, Respondent participated in drafting or revising a portion of the CCDN website entitled “FAQ” (“Frequently Asked Questions”), including by causing the FAQ to include the following text:

SECTION 2: HOW DOES THE CCDN DEBT RECONCILIATION PROCESS WORK?

8 ) How do you eliminate my debt?

Please understand that this is not a “Debt Elimination” process. If you are looking for a way to avoid your legal obligations under contract, you have found the wrong place. We have seen all of the processes out there, from UCC Redemption to Ultra Vires to Bonding to foreign mail drops coupled with lawsuits and liens, and everything in between. While some may work for a time, they all ultimately suffer the same fate? Failure? and in more and more cases, Sanctions.

The CCDN uses a proprietary set of tools and strategies developed by certified paralegals and licensed attorneys to validate unsecured debt claims, and then identify, develop and litigate consumer claims for violations of state and federal consumer protection laws. In all circumstances, the CCDN will endeavor to secure validation of the underlying debt from an original creditor and any subsequent owners or holders of the unsecured debt account. During the process, some debts may be invalidated. A debt that is proven to be invalid must be forgiven and removed from the credit report and the records of the financial institution. Other debts may be subject to negotiation and settlement. Still others may be litigated. From our experience and research, rarely do any of these federal claims go to trial. [?]

25. As Respondent knew, the statement that “[i]n all circumstances, CCDN will endeavor to secure validation of [an] underlying debt from an original creditor and any subsequent owners or holders of the unsecured debt account” was false. At no time during Respondent’s participation in the operation of CCDN did CCDN take action to validate debts owed by its clients, or otherwise to communicate directly with its clients’ creditors with respect to validation of debts. Instead, as part of its services, CCDN provided to its clients copies of form letters requesting validation of a debt, and advised the clients to send complete the form letters and send them to their creditors in order to obtain validation of their debts.

26. By causing the statement referred to in paragraph 24, above, to be contained in the FAQ on the CCDN website, Respondent intended to, and did, mislead clients of CCDN, or potential clients of CCDN, into believing that CCDN would take action to validate or invalidate debts on their behalf, or otherwise to contact their creditors directly.

27. Between 2005 and 2010, CCDN did not take any action to remove any negative items from its clients’ credit reports; monitor its clients’ credit reports; or contact any original creditors of any of its 2,219 clients in order to secure validation of any of those clients’ debts, or for any other purpose.

28. In or about 2010, CCDN ceased its operations, and it ceased maintaining the website previously located at http://www.ccdnlaw.com.

29. By reason of the conduct described above that occurred before January 1, 2010, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

making a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services, in violation of Rule 7.1 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990);
engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990); and
conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice, or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute, in violation of Supreme Court Rule 770.

30. By reason of the conduct described above that occurred on or after January 1, 2010, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

making a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services, in violation of Rule 7.1 of the 2010 Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;
engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the 2010 Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute in violation of Supreme Court Rule 770.

COUNT IV
(Payment of improper referral fees and dividing legal fees with nonlawyer Robert Lindsey)

31. In or about February 2007, Respondent, on behalf of CCDN and Robert K. Lock and Associates (“RKLA”), an Illinois business entity owned or operated by Respondent, entered into a written referral agreement with Robert Lindsey, a/k/a Bob Lindsey (“Lindsey” or “BL”). At that time, Lindsey was the operator and sole proprietor of The Credit Card Solution (“TCCS”), a business entity located in Texas.

32. As of February 2007, Lindsey was neither an employee of Respondent’s law firm nor a lawyer licensed to practice law.

33. As part of the agreement referred to in paragraph 31, above, Respondent, on behalf of RKLA and CCDN, caused the agreement to recite that “BL and RKLA/CCDN desire[d] to establish a mutually beneficial relationship whereby BL refers clients in need of the legal services offered by RKLA/CCDN, and RKLA/CCDN utilizes the marketing support services of BL to support its provision of high quality legal services to its client base.”

34. As part of the agreement referred to in paragraph 31, above, Lindsey agreed to provide referrals of clients seeking legal services to CCDN.

35. As part of the agreement referred to in paragraph 31, above, Respondent and Lindsey agreed that Lindsey would solicit clients to participate in CCDN’s Debt Reconciliation Program.

36. As part of the agreement referred to in paragraph 31, above, Respondent and Lindsey agreed that Lindsey would charge clients seeking to participate in CCDN’s Debt Reconciliation Program up to $5,900, and that Lindsey would remit at least $2,800 of each payment he received from a customer or client to Respondent or CCDN.

37. Respondent allowed Lindsey to retain a portion of the funds he collected from clients of CCDN as compensation for Lindsey’s having recommended that those clients employ RKLA or CCDN in order to provide legal services relating to credit card debts or other debt collection matters.

38. Between 2007 and approximately 2009, Lindsey promulgated advertising and other promotional materials in which he recommended that persons seeking assistance with credit card debts employ his services as the operator of TCCS. As part of those materials, Lindsey described the services that CCDN would purportedly provide, and claimed that those services would be successful in assisting with credit card debt issues and raising clients’ credit scores.

39. Between 2007 and approximately 2009, Lindsey solicited, and referred to Respondent or CCDN, at least 243 clients, pursuant to the agreement referred to in paragraph 31, above. Neither Lindsey nor TCCS provided any services to Respondent, CCDN, or CCDN’s clients other than the advertising services referred to in paragraph 38, above, and the referral of the client to Respondent or CCDN.

40. The 243 clients solicited by Lindsey were not relatives or close friends of Respondent, and neither Respondent nor CCDN had had professional relationships with those clients prior to the times that the clients retained the services of TCCS, RKLA, or CCDN.

41. Pursuant to the agreement referred to in paragraph 31, above, Lindsey was required to remit at least $2,800 to CCDN for each of the 243 clients he referred to CCDN, or a total of at least $680,400. Between 2007 and approximately 2009, Lindsey remitted approximately $211,365 to Respondent or CCDN. In addition to retaining any amounts in excess of $2,800 that he received from the clients he referred to CCDN, Lindsey retained at least the remaining $469,035 that he was required to remit to CCDN, and used it for his own purposes.

42. By reason of the conduct described above that occurred before January 1, 2010, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer, in violation of Rule 5.4(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990);
giving something of value to a person for recommending or having recommended the lawyer’s services, in violation of Rule 7.2(b) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990);
through a representative, soliciting professional employment from a prospective client who is neither a relative, close friend of the lawyer, or a person with whom the lawyer or the lawyer’s firm has had a prior relationship, in violation of Rule 7.3 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990);
conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute, in violation of Supreme Court Rule 770.

43. By reason of the conduct described above that occurred on or after January 1, 2010, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer, in violation of Rule 5.4(a) of the 2010 Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;
giving something of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services, in violation of Rule 7.2(b) of the 2010 Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;
soliciting professional employment from a prospective client who is neither a lawyer nor a person with a family, close personal, or prior professional relationship with the lawyer, in violation of Rule 7.3 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990);
conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute, in violation of Supreme Court Rule 770.

WHEREFORE, the Administrator requests that this matter be assigned to a panel of the Hearing Board, that a hearing be held, and that the panel make findings of fact, conclusions of fact and law, and a recommendation for such discipline as is warranted.

James A. Doppke, Jr.
Counsel for Administrator
One Prudential Plaza
130 E. Randolph Drive, Suite 1500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Telephone: (312) 565-2600

Respectfully submitted,
Jerome Larkin,
Administrator
Attorney Registration
and
Disciplinary Commission

By: James A. Doppke, Jr.

IARDC Formal Complaint - Robert K Lock, Jr

CCDN: “Comments on the Internet”

Admin — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 02:25:19 +0000

I find it greatly humorous every time I read CCDN’s website, www.ccdnlaw.com. Amongst the pages and lies, you’ll find a page which they’ve posted in an effort to discredit the massive amounts of truths, stories and facts posted on the internet regarding the CCDN scam. One of the largest sites which contains hundreds of comments regarding the scam is the Rip Off Report. Mr. Lock and Mr. Manger felt it necessary to create a page, http://www.ccdnlaw.com/index.php?D=33 (now inactive) to “explain” their feelings regarding their exposure on the internet.

CCDN – To check out the CCDN and their Better Business Bureau rating, please go to http://chicago.bbb.org/WWWRoot/Report.aspx?site=46&bbb=0654&firm=88258766. You will find the listing for CCDN and see that CCDN has had very few complaints over the past 36 months (their standard reporting period). During this time they have serviced over 3,000 clients with an average of over 5 credit accounts each or close to 15,000 accounts. Thousands of satisfied customers and hardly any complaints. This fact alone should more than speak to the success of the program.
We would also encourage you to research the Attorney Generals Office in your state, the Federal Trade Commission and any other consumer protection agencies you can think of. Listed below are their web locations.

US State Attorney Generals Offices’: http://www.naag.org/attorneys_general.php
Federal Trade Commission: www.ftc.gov.

After doing your proper research, we believe that you will be confident about the CCDN. The CCDN has dedicated itself to providing the best in debt reconciliation services available for over 4 years and will continue to do so for years to come. If you are satisfied by this information, then do not wait any longer to get the second chance you deserve to become debt free.

The above was taken directly from their “rebuttal” page on their company website. Let’s take a look at a few items noted above. Firstly, their BBB profile mentioned. Although the link posted on their site doesn’t work (for good reason), you can view their BBB profiles here:

http://www.bbb.org/chicago/business-reviews/debt-negotiation-settlement-companies/credit-collections-defense-network-in-chicago-il-88258766

As you will find, it’s a shock that they even MENTION the Better Business Bureau on their rebuttal page. It seems they are hoping someone won’t make the attempt to find their BBB profile just because they mentioned it on their page. This is the same thinking they use when hoping the consumer won’t research the laws and ideas CCDN tries to pass off like a magic wand.

If you’d like to take a gander at the RipOffReport complaints regarding CCDN, visit this page. Be warned, you will need about 3 hours to review all the complaints. No surprise.

Justice Debt Relief

Admin — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 05:42:16 +0000

What do you do when your debt relief company scam get exposed to the Attorney General in your state, and they prevent you from doing business? Well…apparently the best idea Robert Lindsey had when the Texas Attorney General shut down his operations in Houston was to open a new scam company under the name Justice Debt Relief in the state of Wyoming. I must say…that is a fairly nice website you have there Mr. Lindsey. Keeping it active much longer? I don’t think it will ever fail to amaze me what tactics these guys think they will succeed with. http://www.justicedebtrelief.com/

CCDN Employees run Debt Settlement Company

Admin — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 01:34:09 +0000

Well, it appears that a couple of our buddies from CCDN, Jean Glagola & Tom Roberts, have been running a debt settlement company located at www.creditcarddebtnegotiator.com. Although running a debt settlement business doesn’t mean that they are doing anything wrong, nor is it illegal, you should probably know a couple things about the people who are “settling” your debts and hopefully improving your situation.

One…Yes, they are involved with CCDN. That’s probably the biggest and really goes without saying that this would be a large red flag.

Two…some of the people who will be settling your debts…appear to be teenagers. It seems Mr. Roberts (Facebook screenshot above) has a couple of his kids working with your creditors and financial information. A simple view of his Facebook shows two children, who also appear on the companies website (first screenshot above).

Three…Take notice of Jean Glagola’s Facebook screenshot. Notice the website address of www.brokenchinajewels.com? I ran a quick search through the registry of this domain (the owner of the web address) and the results are…

Registration Service Provided By: MeZine Inc.
Contact:
Domain name: brokenchinajewels.com
Registrant Contact:
jen devine ( jdevine2@insight.rr.com )

Fax:
PO Box 427
Etna,
US

Administrative Contact:
jen devine ( jdevine2@insight.rr.com )
+1.6044304588
Fax:
PO Box 427
Etna,
US

Technical Contact:
jen devine ( jdevine2@insight.rr.com )
+1.6044304588
Fax:
PO Box 427
Etna,
US

Status: Locked
Name Servers:
ns1.domaincityservers.com
ns2.domaincityservers.com
Creation date: 31 Jul 2005 07:54:02
Expiration date: 31 Jul 2010 07:54:02

Well hello there Jen Devine! CCDN’s “Lead Paralegal” seems to be a jack of all trades! I’d suggest sticking to the broken china jewel business. I doubt you’d manage to ruin someone’s life by selling bits of broken plate. Good luck with that.

This industry will just about amaze anyone.

MBNA America Bank v. Robert K Lock, Jr

Admin — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 03:33:30 +0000

Apparently Mr. Lock didn’t have the skills necessary to defend against judgements when he and his wife were sued by MBNA America Bank in 2005. See the attached court docket for details on this suit. It’s great to know that he pushes a service to people who are in need of assistance with their out of control debt, but Mr. Lock fails to control his own.

CCDN’s own S. John Hagenstein Files for Bankruptcy

Admin — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 01:10:44 +0000

“The CCDN or the Credit Collections Defense Network was formed to help anyone with financial difficulties and credit delinquencies. We offer a source of relief and peace of mind for people who have an unmanageable amount of unsecured debt and just need help. Our process is recommended for people who do not want to file bankruptcy or attempt a debt consolidation or debt reduction process, and just want to put an end to the abuse of the debt collection industry and the harassment that follows with their contacts.” – S. John Hagenstein

The above quote was taken directly from a recorded audio session put together by S. John Hagenstein of CCDN. Mr. Hagenstein is CCDN’s Marketing Director and was thoughtful enough to pitch CCDN’s “no bankruptcy” idea to helpless individuals who had found themselves in deep debt, but doesn’t take his own “advice” and files for bankruptcy in the District of Minnesota United States Bankruptcy Court.

State of Texas sues The Credit Card Solution

Admin — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 01:26:31 +0000

HOUSTON – Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott today charged a Houston-based credit repair firm with violating the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The state’s enforcement action names Jubilee Financial Solutions LP, also known as The Credit Card Solution (TCCS) – a self-proclaimed “debt invalidation” business – its parent company, Jubilee Financial Management LLC, and the companies’ owner, Robert Mitchell Lindsey.

Court documents filed by the attorney general requested an asset freeze, which was granted by a Harris County district judge. The state sought the asset freeze because investigators believe the defendants are improperly withholding $500,000 in customers’ payments that should have been applied to debt relief services.

Through various Web sites – including www.thecreditcardsolution.com – the defendants claimed they could eliminate credit card and other debts by helping customers fight credit reporting agencies, dispute debts and sue debt collectors. The defendants also promised access to legal services, which they claimed could yield monetary damages from lawsuits against debt collectors.

Marketing materials obtained by state investigators shows the defendants claimed their “debt invalidation” program can eliminate customers’ debt in as little as 12 to 18 months by relying upon federal consumer protection laws. In videos on the defendants’ Web site, Lindsey claims that TCCS has “gotten rid of $150 million of credit card debt.”

According to the state’s enforcement action, the defendants are unlawfully operating an unregistered credit services organization (CSO). Under the Texas Credit Services Organization Act, CSOs must register with the Secretary of State and obtain a surety bond or surety account. The defendants have done neither.

TCCS also offers an Affiliate Information Package online, which gives interested individuals the opportunity to market and sell the defendants’ services. However, court documents filed by the state indicate the defendants’ affiliate program is subject to the Texas Business Opportunity Act, which requires vendors to register with the Secretary of State and obtain surety bonds or surety accounts. The state’s enforcement action charges TCCS with failing to comply with those requirements.

The state’s enforcement action also charges the defendants with multiple Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) violations, including not providing services as advertised and withholding information about goods or services when entering into a transaction.

The state seeks penalties of up to $20,000 per violation of the DTPA, restitution for Texans harmed by the defendants’ business practices, and attorneys’ fees. Texans who believe they have been deceived by similar fraudulent business practices may call the Office of the Attorney General’s toll-free complaint line at (800) 252-8011 or file a complaint online at www.texasattorneygeneral.gov.

Robert K Lock, Jr enjoined from business in West Virginia

Admin — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 00:46:23 +0000

Illinois Attorney Enjoined From Continuing Debt Settlement Business Until He Complies With Attorney General’s Investigation

Illinois attorney, Robert K. Lock, Jr., and his company, Credit Collections Defense Network, have been temporarily enjoined from settling consumers’ debts until they comply with an investigation under way by Attorney General Darrell McGraw as the result of an order signed by the Circuit Court of Kanawha County on March 30, 2009.

Credit Collections Defense Network of Chicago, with additional offices in Cattaraugus, New York, and Robert Lock of Chicago, claim to assist consumers who are struggling financially to make payments to their creditors. This increasingly common, and sometimes controversial, business of debt settlement has arisen as consumer credit card debt has ballooned in the past few years. Debt settlers such as Credit Collections Defense Network make repayment plans to help consumers repay outstanding debts, at a deep discount, to avoid being sued or filing for bankruptcy. Monthly payments are then made by consumers to the debt settlers in turn for which the debt settlers claim to negotiate with creditors to reduce the amount of debt owed.

Although debt settlement services are unrestricted in some states, West Virginia’s law regarding debt settlement only permits for-profit companies to charge a monthly service fee of two percent of the payments made by consumers. In his petition, Attorney General McGraw is alleging that Credit Collections Defense Network was charging more than the two percent fee allowed by state law and not settling debts.

Attorney General McGraw said, “Although the debt settlement approach to debt relief may work for some persons, the service has legal consequences and should only be offered by persons licensed to practice law in West Virginia. My office will continue to scrutinize the debt relief industry in an effort to protect consumers who are already facing dire financial circumstances from paying excessive fees for services that may leave them in worse shape than before.”

Anyone wishing to file a complaint about a consumer matter or to let the Attorney General know about unfair or deceptive practices may do so by calling the Consumer Protection Hotline at 1-800-368-8808 or by obtaining a complaint form from the Consumer web page at www.wvago.gov.

CCDN Smacked with RICO Class Action Lawsuit

Admin — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 04:20:01 +0000

On November 10, 2009 in Wilmington, NC Federal Court, a RICO Class Action lawsuit was brought against CCDN, Legal Debt Cure, The Credit Card Solution, their owners and operators and many others.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CASE NO.: 7:09-CV-183-FL

____________________________________

Chris W. TAYLOR;

William G. HARRISON, Sr.;

Linda Sheryl LUCAS;

Cathy Horton HUNT;

Sharon SOUTHWOOD; and

Dorman and Brenda BEASLEY,

for themselves

and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs

v.

Lee W. BETTIS, Jr., Esq.;

Pat Leigh PITTMAN, Esq.;

Joanne K. PARTIN, Esq.;

Robert L. EMANUEL, Esq.;

Stephen A. DUNN, Esq.;

Raymond E. DUNN, Jr., Esq.;

EMANUEL & DUNN, PLLC,

a North Carolina professional

limited liability company and

18 U.S.C. § 1961(4) association-in-fact;

BETTIS DUNN & DUNN,

a North Carolina general partnership and

18 U.S.C. § 1961(4) association-in-fact;

Richard Jude WASIK, Esq.;

BARRISTER LEGAL SERVICES, P.C.,

an Illinois corporation and

18 U.S.C. § 1961(4) association-in-fact;

W. Andrew ARNOLD, Esq.;

THE LAW OFFICES OF W. ANDREW ARNOLD, P.C.,

a South Carolina corporation and

18 U.S.C. § 1961(4) association-in-fact;

CCDN, LLC,

a Nevada limited liability company and

18 U.S.C. § 1961(4) association-in-fact;

LEGAL DEBT CURE, LLC,

a Nevada limited liability company and

18 U.S.C. § 1961(4) association-in-fact;

R.K. LOCK & ASSOCIATES,

an Illinois sole proprietorship and

18 U.S.C. § 1961(4) association-in-fact

doing business as CCDN or the Credit

Collections Defense Network;

Jen DEVINE;

Robert K. LOCK, Jr., Esq.;

Colleen Tomasino LOCK;

Philip M. MANGER, Esq.;

S. John HAGENSTEIN;

Tracy WEBSTER;

Richard D. RUSS;

Ernest Greg BRITT, Jr.;

R&G MARKETING,

a Florida general partnership and

18 U.S.C. § 1961(4) association-in-fact;

EXCELL MARKETING, LLC,

a Florida limited liability company and

18 U.S.C. § 1961(4) association-in-fact;

THE CREDIT CARD SOLUTION,

a Texas sole proprietorship and

18 U.S.C. § 1961(4) association-in-fact;

Robert Mitchell LINDSEY;

Rodney Emil BRISCO, Esq.;

AEGIS CORPORATION,

a Missouri corporation and

18 U.S.C. § 1961(4) association-in-fact;

DEBT JURISPRUDENCE, INC.,

a Missouri corporation and

18 U.S.C. § 1961(4) association-in-fact;

M. David KRAMER; and

Marcia M. MURPHY,

Defendants.

____________________________________

To view the complete lawsuit, Taylor v. Bettis et al 7-09CV183, see the document below under attachments.

If you have been a victim of this scam, please contact:

Christopher W Livingston, Esq

2154 Dowd Dairy Road

White Oak, NC 28399

Landline and fax 910.866.4948

Cell 910.876.7001

chris@fairdebtlawyer.com

09CV00183 Taylor v. Bettis et. al.