Collection Robosigners. Let's play a guessing game....

[Jen23514]

Using Encore and Midland interchangeably (see attached suit), let's guess the following.

 

MCM/MCMI/ECG employees sign (with no first hand knowledge of the account ) how many affidavits a day to prepare for suit?

 

A) 1-99

100-500

C) 500-1500

D) 1500+

 

Before I give the answer - please be aware of a pending (relatively newly filed) class action suit against MCM/ECG in WA which is quite enlightening on the business practices of this group.

 

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/15/Encore.pdf

 

Some of this I was aware of. Some of it surprised me. I will definitely follow and update this thread.

 

Now, back to the quiz.... and the answer is hidden in the following allegations by the plaintiffs:

 

Instead of providing actual admissible evidence of the proof required in a

breach of contract lawsuit, the Encore defendants (with the knowledge of the

Suttell attorney defendants) hire collection agency employees as “Robo-signers”.

 

The Robo-signers sign several hundred affidavits a day falsely claiming that they

are a business records custodian with personal knowledge of the facts, They falsely

claim in the affidavit knowledge of the assignment(s) of the debt, the amount of the

debt, the interest rate, the default of the debt, the alleged credit card terms and

conditions, and the record keeping procedures of every bank in America.

 

Each affidavit is generated by computer software which merges the data

received in the portfolios of defaulted debt into an electronic form

affidavit which is then printed.

 

The affidavit is printed on a printer at the desk of a randomly selected

MCMI employee,

 

The person selected to sign the affidavit is based upon when the affidavit

comes off the printer and which printer rather than any personal

knowledge of the affiant of the account being collected.

 

Midland Credit calls the affiants a “legal specialist” or “specialist”.

 

Generally each day the Encore Defendants assign approximately ten (10)

to twelve (12) employees as a “legal specialist” or “specialist” to sign

affidavits.

 

Each affiant (“legal specialist” or “specialist”) signs between One

Hundred (100) to Four Hundred (400) affidavits a day.

 

Each affiant (“legal specialist” or “specialist”) signs each affidavit

without personal knowledge of the facts and statements contained in the

affidavits.

 

Which affiant (“legal specialist” or “specialist”) signs which particular

affidavit is randomly determined based on when the affidavits are printed

rather than any knowledge of the account that is being verified.

[radi8]

Then there's Martha Kunkle.

 

 

In 2008, Portfolio Recovery Associates Inc. was sued for fraud after affidavits were submitted bearing the name of Martha Kunkle, who died in 1995.

 

It appears that Martha Kunkle has come back to life. Last July, lawyers for Portfolio Recovery Associates sought judgment in a lawsuit against a Seattle woman for $2,892.10 in credit-card debt and interest that she allegedly owed. It was a fairly standard debt-collection case except that Portfolio included an affidavit signed by Martha Kunkle to vouch for the debt’s validity.

http://www.creditlaw.com/debt-collection-methods/deceased-womans-name-was-robo-signed-on-thousands-of-affidavits/

[Jen23514]

Then there's Martha Kunkle.

 

 

In 2008, Portfolio Recovery Associates Inc. was sued for fraud after affidavits were submitted bearing the name of Martha Kunkle, who died in 1995.

 

It appears that Martha Kunkle has come back to life. Last July, lawyers for Portfolio Recovery Associates sought judgment in a lawsuit against a Seattle woman for $2,892.10 in credit-card debt and interest that she allegedly owed. It was a fairly standard debt-collection case except that Portfolio included an affidavit signed by Martha Kunkle to vouch for the debt’s validity.

http://www.creditlaw.com/debt-collection-methods/deceased-womans-name-was-robo-signed-on-thousands-of-affidavits/

 

even better.

[BeachDweller]

From "Friend of the Court" over at the enemy's board, though the poster isn't a collector....

 

"Let me start with the answers to the ones that can be answered quickly.

 

The problem with the 72000 affidavits a day is real. The robo-signer has been exposed more than just a few times as has the non-existent robo-signer that we all know and love as Allison B. Moon. Happens in collectors and creditors' offices every day; the rent-a-shingle lawyer is famous for these things.

 

The debtor has every right to seek proof in a lawsuit, just as we have every right to seek proof when they sue us. You are not going to change the underlying principles of the Rules of Procedure, so you really need to suck it up and face the problem with solutions that work.

 

Now, how does one destroy an affidavit. A number of ways:

 

– Attack the affiant. If the affiant is an employee of the collector, the affiant's FIRST HAND knowledge of the account, its creation, and its maintenance do not exist. The attacking lawyer starts with the question: "What company's name is on the paycheck you receive?" If it is not the ORIGINAL creditor's, the affidavit is on a quick way down.

 

– Attack the affiant's workload. If the affiant is found to be signing a 10,000 or more a day (hyperbole used to illustrate the point), it is easy to prove that a due-diligence review was not conducted. (See FL robo-signer case).

 

– Attack the signature of the notary. If the notary lives 700 miles away (again hyperbole to illustrated point) or doesn't exist, the affidavit has problems. Comparisions of a known copy of the notary's signature with that on the affidavit can lead to some pretty laughable transcations between the offering attorney and the court.

 

– Attack the underlying data. By the time a debt as gone around two or three times, the attachment to the actual data that proves the case is often long gone. Even then, it may not be supportive of the amount that you are actually trying to collect. A good consumer attorney is going have your affiant, mumbling "yes, sir" or "no, sir" to some questions that may be very damaging to the document, and more pointedly to the case that you are trying to bring. (You are not going to get to collect $100,000 on $10 debt).

 

The collection industry's legal model is based, essentially, on the defendant NOT GETTING a fair hearing of his issues either because he doesn't show up (the default judgment) or he doesn't know where to attack (poor defense). The courts have gone along with it because their job is not to dispense reasonable resolution but to clear their docket for the day. Throughput is the measure of the civil court system, not justice, not fairness. It is a paper-shuffling operation.

 

That day may well be coming to an end as more and more of the abusive practices (perjury, actually) get exposed and the courts, for both legal and public relations reasons, give more scrutiny to the paper being offered as evidence. The industry's hall pass may expire soon.

 

If your agency gets caught producing bogus affidavits in a jurisdiction on a regular basis, do not think that that fact won't filter through to all of the judges and magistrates in that jurisdiction. And don't think that the observation of the fraud will not leak into neighboring jurisdictions or into the appellate courts or federal courts, too.

 

I am aware of one pro se case recently that was so well written and so well documented, and the collector so notorious that the FEDERAL JUDGE argued the consumer case to the collector's attorney at the SCHEDULING HEARING without the consumer having to say a word. The collector's case was that poor. The judge suggested that the collector come to a settlement agreement forthwith. To his credit, he did. But another mark was made on his reputation for bringing not-so-reasonable cases before the court.

 

With the day and age of the scanned image and the overabundance of raw storage capacity, there is no reason the hard disk cannot become yesterday's micorfiche. Requirement only is that the industry become electronic pack rats. I am surprised more are not using the technique.

 

But that still will not alter the problems for the bogus affidavit and implications that an inadequate or perjerous affidavit will have on the collector's case."

Edited February 17, 2011 by BeachDweller

[Jen23514]

A good read if you're being sued by Midland

[JunkBuyersWorstNightmare]

ttt

[Jen23514]

ttt

 

hey stranger!

[Texastarz]

A good read if you're being sued by Midland

 

I'm not being sued by Midland, but I am trying to get them off my reports...the fight continues...

[JunkBuyersWorstNightmare]

ttt

 

hey stranger!

 

Hey there!