Share post
Debt Consolidation Forums Collection agencies and creditors forums

Me again dirt on Norfolk Financial corp.

member profile picture

I did a lot of research on this company who is suing

His name is Daniel W. Goldstone. He was disbarred in
2006 by the Supreme Judicial Court and can't practice
law for the next 8 years. He is not licensed to collect in the state of Massachusetts. He was sued by sears for $945,409 and dodged them for 5 years and eventually paid them only $89,000 according to the Supreme Judicial
Court ruling.

I found it funny that he has an employee who's name
is Maureen. I don't know her last name yet.
His lawyer is Maureen Forsyth, I don't know if there
is any relation.

all this information about him is here if anyone has
problems with this company.

If you do a search on his name or go to and do a search on Norfolk Financial Corp, you will find a load of information.

Are you kidding me? They "Honestly" dont know if the debt is theirs or not???????

I honestly dont know how someone cannot know whether it is their debt or not. Do they have sooo much debt that they cant remember? or did they take their credit so lightly that they didn't even deem it important enough to keep records?

Because of their irresponsibility, it is now everyone else's responsibility to prove that it is their debt?

It sounds like procedures that were put in place to legitmately protect people, like real victims of id theft, are now being used by people who just want to get out of paying their debts...things like this is indicitive of what kind of people they are....why do you think employers check potential new hires credit reports?????

Sub: #51 posted on Sun, 08/24/2008 - 05:27


OK, troll. You've said your bit, now shuffle off.

Point of fact: Federal law says that the CA is required to produce documentation on demand. Period. End of discussion. It doesn't say they can if they feel like it, or only in certain circumstances.

I can see several scenarios where a person may not know if a debt is theirs or not. So they demand validation, as is their right.That doesn't make them dishonest, only prudent and cautious. Would you send me money just because I sent you a bill, or would you want to see proof of my claim? That's what I thought.

If I were you, I'd either sweeten up, or toddle on back to my cubicle at the collection agency. We don't much like your kind around here.

Sub: #52 posted on Sun, 08/24/2008 - 05:41

unclewulf unclewulf
(Posts: 3172 | Credits: )

It sounds like you are spending an awful lot of time trying to get out of paying your debt, rather than expending that energy on trying to PAY your debt. You have not once said that you DONT OWE the debt.

You cannot file a motion to dismiss based on improper venue, because as you stated that IS WHERE YOU RESIDED when you were sued.

Just settle or set up a payment plan, trying to come up with violations that do not exist could end up backfiring on you. You would have spent $$ on filing fees and time in Court, and you lose, you may also end of paying their attorney fees and end up further in debt than you were when you started.

Why do I think this? Well I cannot find anywhere in your posts what the alleged violations were....if you cant think of them to post here, then you will have a hard time putting them in a complaint and PROVING them. JCEMT doesnt sound like he is giving you sound advice when he didnt point out the obvious that you lived in the venue which you were sued and MOVED after the fact....

Sub: #53 posted on Sun, 08/24/2008 - 05:42


SO typical... are u kidding me. Listen, I dont work for a collection agency. I didint say that they didnt have a right to verification, I said that verification is NOT what they believe it to be. It is what I said it was. You don't like people on these forums with a brain.... that are logical and tell it like it is. These sites were set up to help people figure out their debt and it has morphed into a site where people who owe credit card debt can complain and whine and get inside information how to get around paying it.

You obviously were successful at it and judging by the number of your posts, you like to spread mis-information

Sub: #54 posted on Sun, 08/24/2008 - 05:49


Hey, I asked you to watch your manners. Don't make the mistake of thinking I'm kidding.

Sub: #55 posted on Sun, 08/24/2008 - 05:51

unclewulf unclewulf
(Posts: 3172 | Credits: )

and what exactly offended your sensibilities in my post....?

Sub: #56 posted on Sun, 08/24/2008 - 05:53


I think, after re-reading your so-called response, it doesn't say anything about manners...

Sub: #57 posted on Sun, 08/24/2008 - 05:55


Are you "moderator" so you can kick people off that tell the truth and give out CORRECT information....

Sub: #58 posted on Sun, 08/24/2008 - 05:57


Is that picture of what you want people to think you look like....

Sub: #59 posted on Sun, 08/24/2008 - 05:58


The silence is deafening.....

Sub: #60 posted on Sun, 08/24/2008 - 06:01


More information
  • Files must be less than 500 MB.
  • Allowed file types: txt pdf jpg jpeg png.

Page loaded in 2.498 seconds.