new member mariemegge is up to no good...

sorry jason,but i gave her the benefit of the doubt.now it does seem she is here only to get business to her site.i would if i were you look at all her posts.there are two in particular.skydiver commented on one,and the other is regarding the BRACHFIELD LAW GROUP.both posts are absolutely ridiculous.again sorry,but i agree with skydiver on this one.warn her first via message.then we'll go from there.

Is there anyway we can come up with a set of guidelines for members posting signature links? If the firm is legit, I have no problems with that, but this is a classic case of what can happen if someone without the community's best interests at heart uses this benefit.

Business must be awfully slow....she is spending a lot of time here.....

Thanks for your feedback Mods'.

Paul we have sent her a message regarding this issue.

[QUOTE][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Times New Roman]Is there anyway we can come up with a set of guidelines for members posting signature links?[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] KS we ask them to register their company in our companies list section - http://www.debtconsolidationcare.com/companies/usa-listing/ and then tell them to use the url that they get from us in their signature say for e.g Marie's company - http://www.debtconsolidationcare.com/companies/donaldson-williams-inc/
As it is difficult to analyse their legitimacy we have added a feedback section where anyone can share their experience with a particular company - good or bad.

Jason

she went on the thread titled...served a summons now what?and basically took issue with skydiver over his dissecting of her post.i responded to define herself as she still has stupid notions on not only the collection industry,but the FDCPA,and our court system.this could get ugly people...stay tuned.

i ask for definitions and she pastes the FDCPA.she has to go.sorry,but i do think she is here to discredit this forum.i honestly can't believe she is advising a DV letter to a law firm that has already file a summons.btw she claims many have thanked her.i doubt that.sorry,but that's he way it is.

She wants to engage in debate here to promote herself and she does it well. Do not personally attack her posts but instead post in contrary without point at her. If you draw her into debate or post a long expanation of why you disagree it is not helping the person that need it because it all becomes muddled. You do not want to get those ego juices flowing or you will have a long drawn out war on your hands that benefits no one.
By the way I think that OP in the received a summons thread is trying to wiggle out of a debt that they know is theirs.

i still say this marie has to go.her original post in that thread was ridiculous and skydiver was right.if what you suspect is true then it will come to pass.however since when is hammering the same info considered articulate?btw i have no ego.i just defend my own,and this forum which has helped far more people than her i'm guessing.

Froggy,

You may well be right on this one. The OP may be trying to wiggle out of paying a debt. But my advice is the same regardless--even if you know the debt is yours, and you trust that the amount is legitimate, if you do not pay the right CA, you just flushed money down the crapper. My wife did this before we were married--she had an old debt from her first marriage. She paid it, it was only like $400. But the money went to a scam artist CA and they were not actually entitled to collect the debt. So, when the REAL CA came looking for payment, she had to pay it again. This is why I said ALL THREE of those conditions must be met before I will advocate that someone pay a third party CA. Suppose you know you owe an old debt, but arent sure of the amount? Should you blindly pay $5000 if you really only owed $1148? This is why this is so important.

I own a business. I am a businessman. If I do not keep proper records as to what exactly I am owed and who owes it, do I have any right to expect that those customers are simply going to pay me "because I told them so"? Why is it that ANYWHERE ELSE in the entire business world, this conduct would not be tolerated, but when it comes to debt collectors, people expect us to roll over and play dead when they cannot prove a thing? If I cannot show my customer that he owes me money, I have no business asking for it. The same goes for debt collection. I am not saying "dont pay your bills". I am saying "make them prove that you truly owe THEM and that you owe them that amount before you pay". Guys, this is simply good common sense, I do not understand why this is getting so much friction. I am advocating the same thing we always have here...

Paul, I was referring to her ego not yours! Sorry if it sounded that way.
I did not think my post from yesterday even got here because I got a weird message and got booted out.
If you are in court and in front of a judge the chances of it being the wrong CA are slim to none. If you do wind up paying you will have full documentation if a second claimant surfaces. If you have court papers that second claimant would have no case even if they were originally entitled to collect. Their fight would now be with the recipient of the court award. In short the court gave their money to someone else and that someone else committed fraud

Frog--

While what you are saying is correct, this entire industry banks on the fact that nearly the entire population has no idea what their rights are under the law, and therefore most people would not even know what to do. Think about it--if your logic was correct in this case, then no debt collector would ever break the law because consumers have at their disposal plenty of ways to deal with it. No debt collector would ever sue on a debt past the SOL because they would easily get caught. No debt collector would ever make threats of jail because consumers would know what to do about it. We have actually seen cases of debt collectors in recent times actually trying to collect debts that dont belong to the consumer they are harassing--and even when they knew it, they didnt care. Look at that one CA in New York that was shut down last year.....they didnt care who they called, their whole goal was to get money no matter who it came from. CAs like this ARE out there. So, it is not at all unreasonable that I would require such proof--and if you bring up this objection in a court and request discovery, the courts permit it specifically because it is a real concern. Debt collectors file frivolous suits every day--witness the rubber-stamping affidavit issues we are seeing these days--and this would simply be one more reason why a suit is frivolous. They file these suits, often several at a time, because they know that most people wont even show up to answer.....and then they have a default judgment. We all know it. So while what you are saying can be technically true, it has been done too many times already, so we still need to force them to prove their legal right to collect. As for "keeping records of who was paid", we did. The debt collector in question had simply vanished. Closed up shop. The company was a sham. And when it was learned, there wasnt much that could be done. Like I said, it happens. And even if it is the exception, it still needs to be an issue we consider and force proof about....that way, it stays the exception and not the rule.

EDIT--consider this thread:

http://www.debtconsolidationcare.com/collection-agencies/providian-defaulted.html

Going on right now, there are two CA's at the same time trying to collect on one debt. This is more common than you may realize. They both cannot legally have the right to collect....yet they both would take money from that guy at the same time if he sent it to them.

Jason,

This lady really needs to go. Now she's taken to sending me harassing PMs because she doesnt agree with what I post. Specifically, she complained about this thread:

http://www.debtconsolidationcare.com/collection-agencies/cleanup-wifescollection.html

In a nutshell, Asset Acceptance is trying to collect from this guy and his wife, on a supposed credit card she maintains she never had. OC was supposed to be WaMu, and she states that she never dealt with them. The account is also old--they claim it was under her maiden name, which places this debt over 9 years old as of now. I advised that he fight it because they have not validated the debt and because of this information. She sends me a PM and tells me this, word for word:

Quote:

Hi Skydvr

We told her not to create unnecessary misunderstandings in our forums thereby diverting OP's question and also asked her not to harass Moderators with PMs. In case of any disagreement we asked her to sort it out amicably so that good rapport is maintained among the community members.

Jason