8772143355

These idiots are (1 877 214 3355) calling from a Truck Driver job that wasn't exactly working out, Stevens Transport, And since the 1yr contract wasn't fulfilled they want around $8000 to stop bugging us...Alright then, if the recruiter would have been more honest & they wouldn't have tried to "extend" their 2nd part of "orientation" I would have been glad to stay a year, maybe even more...BUT, $350/ wk (minus taxes and $160/wk child support) for another 2 months was impossible...4 wks was promised by them for "part 2", they have saturated their co. w/ so many drivers that they screw the senior driver, and have a host of students at hand waiting for a truck that isn't really their because their fleet is now short, not enough trucks - way too many drivers.

These people are harrassing my mother & saying she guaranteed a loan for me when she didn't they are collecting on behalf of stevens transport, and want $$$ we don't have in order to stop. What now? Can't pay child support and feed my family on the payrate of their 2nd "orientation" and 4wks was initially promised from the recruiter, now its 7 wks long becasuse of so many students and not enough trucks, I am a proficient driver and just want to eat like everyone else, they shouldn't try to cockblock like that.  I might just have to blow the lid right off their whole operation, and send my logbooks to the DOT so they can in fact see how students are driving 10-12 hrs straight, no PTI's, etc. One trainer even had me drive from Laredo, TX to Georgia with a trailer tire completely flat! "Don't worry bout it so much, U just need to hammerdown."

Debt collectors cannot  arrest you, put you in jail etc. The most they can do is file a complaint against you in civil, not criminal court. You can then work out a payment plan or if judgment is in their favor they will garnish your wages.  
If they are that shady they won't give you their name then it is a scam.

Don't let them make you feel bad by calling you names like deadbeat.


To the person who they said they would take their nursing license: they are lying to you. If they filed a complaint like that with your state nursing board it would not even be acknowledged.

I called a rather rude sounding call from John Montgomery himself and portrayed himself as a lawyer.  I am in law school so did some research.  John Montgomery is not a lawyer, but is divorced and is being sued by his previous business partners.

What silver spoon have YOU been eating from?  People want to pay their bills.  They don't take out loans and buy things on credit with the expectation of not paying for them.  You obviously come from wealth because it sounds like you have never struggled a day in your life to pay your bills-- you've never known what it is like to live pay-check to pay-check, or to be told that your job is being restructured and you're force to accept a pay cut vs. standing in the unemployment line.  Normal people face these struggles but their bills don't decrease when their salary decreases.  Instead, people like you make it more difficult to stay honest, or to answer the phone.  We don't pick up the phone because our financial distress has put us into unsurmountable situations.  And people like you think its okay to double the amount we have to repay when we can't pay the original payback amount.  Normal people like us have financial struggles that we can't always forsee when we signed the dotted line 5 years ago.  Your pompous attitude shows the rest of us (the people that you are contracted to serve through good customer service) that you have no realist view of true Americans.  Don't kid yourself  You are not our saviour.

u r right, pay ur bills, i was contacted, scared me, i started paying them monthly, untill a detective called stating that the dept collector had stolen my idenity and used my credit card to pay his car payment for several month. after changing my card #, they started calling me again, funny thing is i ve never recived any collection notices from them, and i supposed to trust them again, or any who calls and says i owe them money. get a real job and stop acting like u better than everyone else

John Montgomery and John Essel, are one in the same. He is not a lawyer as he claims. The company he works for is Lockhart, Morris and Montgomery. Their website is LMMCOLLECTIONS.COM. Though, I've heard him use other names and research on the Web reveals others have had him misrepresent the company name (such as in this thread). If you've ever conversed with him, you will also notice his accent changes. From slight to thick Texas accent.

He will make all kinds of threats. Threats that you should be aware, he can not, will not follow through on.

Let me put it out there, right now. I DO owe a debt. However, I had a major medical emergency (13 hours of open heart surgery), late last year, that has left me disabled since. I can't work. So the only money I get, is disability. I was trying to keep up with my bills, but trucking school debt, was not high on my list. Putting food on the table, utilities, car payments... you know... essentials, came first.

So earlier this year, I start getting these calls and hangups on my voicemail in the morning, before I wake up. My ringer is off when I sleep and if you can't leave a message, then its obviously not important enough. One day, he called at a reasonable time, so I answered the phone. His name was John Montgomery, he was a lawyer (he claimed) and they were going to sue me, if I didn't pay them the money I owed my creditor. I politely told him my situation and offered to make a payment arrangement with him. No, he said... they want the full balance ($800.00) paid now! Again, I explained my situation and would be more than willing to set up some arrangement to send them what I could, every month. He became even more irate, went off on an angry rant for several minutes and again threatened to sue. At this I laughed, knowing damn well they weren't going to sue me for $800.00. So I started poking back. "You're a lawyer huh? Well, my uncle happens to practice law in Texas. Former Asst District Attorney, maybe you know him." At this point he started dancing around. He knew that he had been caught in his lie.

So our conversation was basically over. I told him, when he was ready to make arrangements, to call me back and we would talk, otherwise don't bother me and I hung up. He immediately called back and before he could get 2 words out of his mouth, I again told him, "Sue me or call back when you're ready to make payment arrangements". 4 months roll by and I get a call from a John Essel, real polite, warm southern drawl. He wants to set up some arrangement with me. He then however, tries to dictate the terms and insists on giving them my banking information... but don't worry, they'll only take out the set amount, every month. I told him straight up, what I was going to send, when I was going to send it and by no means, were they going to get my bank info. He said he needed to send me a copy of the agreement and asked if I had a fax. I told him to send it to my mailing address, which he already had. A week later, I receive a form from them, asking for my banking information. No payment agreement... just a form. For those of you that don't know. Don't EVER fill one of these out. They WILL attempt to take full payment out at once and its perfectly legal for them to do so. They instead, got a cashier's check sent to them the same day, to the address on the form.

Don't believe their lies, don't fall for their intimidation. They are not going to sue you, get your license revoked, destroy your career, etc. They aren't anything other than a collection agent. They aren't staffed with lawyers, they're staffed with people making a commission on a debt collection. Tell them the terms that are agreeable to you, that you can work with. If they can't live with that, at the time. Tell them to call back when they are ready.

Oh yeah... The REAL Collector... "Hi, John!"

Dear Mr COLLECTOR ("Hi, John!"),

Doing just a little research on the web, you all have been sued. However, your threats of suing people are hollow. You are not lawyers, you are debt collectors. You want your money and you will accept whatever amount people can afford to send you. You will accept their terms, to that agreement. Typing with your CAPS LOCK on, will not change that.

Have a nice day.

I got a call from "David Fisher" from Lockhart,Morris and Montgomery. This is a debt collector from The College Network. This individual tried to get $7000 from me stating I signed a contract with them for that amount. When I said I disbute that, not going to pay and that I want the information sent to me. He then goes and says its from attorney fees, court filing forms,etc...I informed him that I have not recieved any forms and that I would like to speak to his suprvisor for th unprofessionalism of their offices. He quickly changed his tune and said that he'll call me back in 2 weeks so I can "try" to come up with some form of money before they file with the city clerk to sue. This is a scare tatic that almost got me til I started asking questions and demanded to recieve copies of all the forms filed and to set up a date for the deposition since I'm going to be sued. I got was a good day and now He isn't answering my calls.

Not true I will take any calls any questions I  will take any calls and you will be provided with whatever you may need. It will all be provided for you. You know my number.

WELL  JUST PAY YOUR BILLS ON TIME AND NON OF THIS WILL HAPPEN

you claim to be a real collector is that why you got fire from there and you are just writing this cause you got fire from there

Called today with a message about a "claim."
After reading about them online, and the fact that I don't owe anyone anything sounds pretty sleazy/criminal.

A call back went straight to voicemail. I have no time for their fraudulent BS.

I'll ignore them. If they make any more noise I'll turn them in to my State Attorney General.
I suggest others do the same.

I got the same issue with this collection agency, which is caused by college network's scam and fraudulent. Never even got anything or start the program, tried to cancel the contract many times soon after sign it, unsuccessful. Then "John Hues from "collection agency" named Lockhart Morris & Mont
called saying they want to collect $9000 on behalf of college network, tried to explain to him that I've never start the program and tried to cancel it many times without success. But he would not even listen, and start yielding and threatening to sue me, I hang up on him. Then he called again a week later, stating they filed paper to county clerk already which I later found out it was LIE. These people nothing but punks, they are Scams, they want make easy money off somebody who's working so hard to make living.  By the way, I'm putting things together and consulting with attorneys, then I'm going to sue college network and this collection agency for their scam and fraud action. Good Luck to your end!

Idiots said my mother was driving my truck and they have a complaint against my cdl... she's 80 years old and has been in a nursing home since 2003.... maybe in her dreams... but its probably a debt collector... no work makes it hard to keep current on the bills... time to file for bankruptcy.... and be rid of them... but no need to call and harass me and my friends and neighbors.

September 14, 2010

DANETT HOLMES, PLAINTIFF,
v.
LOCKHART MORRIS MONTGOMERY, INC., DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Theresa L. Springmann United States District Court

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff's Application for Default Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(1) [ECF No. 7], filed on September 2, 2010, and the Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment [ECF No. 8], filed on September 13, 2010.

The Plaintiff filed a Complaint [ECF No. 1] on January 29, 2010, alleging that the Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq. The Plaintiff filed an executed Summons with Proof of Service [ECF No. 4] on May 5, 2010. The Clerk's Entry of Default [ECF No. 6] was entered on May 7, 2010, against Defendant Lockhart Morris Montgomery, Inc. The Plaintiff now seeks a default judgment in the amount of $3538.30 as follows: $1000.00 in statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A); $2113.30 in attorney's fees; and $425.00 in filing and service fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3). Along with her Motion for Default Judgment, the Plaintiff filed a billing statement (including a billing invoice), a receipt for the costs of serving process, data regarding billing rates, and declarations by the following individuals: Alicia Mandolini, Adam T. Hill, and Harry Bradley. These declarations attest to the amount of attorney's fees incurred on the Plaintiff's behalf in this matter. The remaining amounts sought do not require any declarations because they are statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A) and statutory fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3).*fn1

A court may only enter default judgment after the clerk's entry of default. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). In re Catt, 368 F.3d 789, 793 (7th Cir. 2004) ("There are two stages in a default proceeding: the establishment of the default, and the actual entry of a default judgment. Once the default is established, and thus liability, the plaintiff still must establish his entitlement to the relief he seeks."). Rule 55(a) directs the clerk to enter default "[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise." After the clerk enters default, the court may enter default judgment in the exercise of its sound discretion. O'Brien v. R.J. O'Brien & Assocs., Inc., 988 F.2d 1394, 1398 (7th Cir. 1993) ("decision to enter default lies within the district court's discretion.") (citing Merrill Lynch Mortg. Corp. v. Narayan, 908 F.2d 246, 250 (7th Cir. 1990)); Dundee Cement Co. v. Howard Pipe & Concrete Prods., Inc., 722 F.2d 1319, 1322 (7th Cir. 1983) (finding that the entry of default judgment is within the trial court's discretion). The party moving for default judgment must establish an entitlement to the relief sought. In re Catt, 368 F.3d at 793. Even when default judgment is warranted, allegations in the complaint regarding the amount of damages are not taken to be true. Id.; Dundee Cement Co., 722 F.2d at 1323. Instead, courts must ascertain with reasonable certainty the proper amount to award as damages to the prevailing party, based upon either an evidentiary hearing or from definite figures contained in documentary evidence or in detailed affidavits. In re Catt, 368 F.3d at 793; Dundee Cement Co., 722 F.2d at 1323.

The Plaintiff has satisfied Rule 55(a)'s requirements as evidenced by the Clerk's Entry of Default [ECF No. 6] entered on May 7, 2010. The Plaintiff's request for $1000.00 in statutory damages is reasonable and within the statutory limits in 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A). After considering the Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment and the attached supporting materials, the Court finds that the Plaintiff's request for $2113.30 in attorney's fees and $425 in filing and service fees is not fully supported the Plaintiff's evidence. The Court finds the billing invoice attached to the Motion for Default Judgment [ECF No. 8-2] only supports $1665.00 in attorney's fees and $415 in filing and service fees.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment [ECF No. 8]. The Plaintiff's filing of her Motion for Default Judgment renders her Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff's Application for Default Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(1) [ECF No. 7] moot, and it is DENIED as such. The Court ORDERS the Clerk of this Court to enter judgment in favor of Danett Holmes and against Defendant Lockhart Morris Montgomery, Inc. for $3,080.00, comprising of $1,000.00 in statutory damages, $1,665.00 in attorney's fees, and $415.00 in filing and service fees.

SO ORDERED on September 14, 2010

September 14, 2010

DANETT HOLMES, PLAINTIFF,
v.
LOCKHART MORRIS MONTGOMERY, INC., DEFENDANT.

The Plaintiff has satisfied Rule 55(a)'s requirements as evidenced by the Clerk's Entry of Default [ECF No. 6] entered on May 7, 2010. The Plaintiff's request for $1000.00 in statutory damages is reasonable and within the statutory limits in 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A). After considering the Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment and the attached supporting materials, the Court finds that the Plaintiff's request for $2113.30 in attorney's fees and $425 in filing and service fees is not fully supported the Plaintiff's evidence. The Court finds the billing invoice attached to the Motion for Default Judgment [ECF No. 8-2] only supports $1665.00 in attorney's fees and $415 in filing and service fees.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment [ECF No. 8]. The Plaintiff's filing of her Motion for Default Judgment renders her Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff's Application for Default Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(1) [ECF No. 7] moot, and it is DENIED as such. The Court ORDERS the Clerk of this Court to enter judgment in favor of Danett Holmes and against Defendant Lockhart Morris Montgomery, Inc. for $3,080.00, comprising of $1,000.00 in statutory damages, $1,665.00 in attorney's fees, and $415.00 in filing and service fees.

SO ORDERED on September 14, 2010

COMPLAINT
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, XXXXXXXXXX, by and through his attorneys, XXXXXXXXXX, and for his complaint against the Defendant, LOCKHART, MORRIS & MONTGOMERY, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff states as follows:
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. This is an action for actual and statutory damages for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (hereinafter “FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §1692, et seq.
II. JURISDICTION & VENUE
2. Jurisdiction arises under the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq., and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 and 28 U.S.C. §1337.
3. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b).
III. PARTIES
4. TIMOTHY LANGE, (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”) is an individual who was at all relevant times residing in Clinton Township, County of Macomb, State of Michigan.
5. The debt that Plaintiff allegedly owed was incurred for Plaintiff’s educational expenses.
6. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was a “consumer” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(3).
7. LOCKHART, MORRIS & MONTGOMERY, INCORPORATED, (hereinafter, “Defendant”) is a business entity engaged in the collection of debt within the State of Michigan. Defendant is incorporated in the State of Texas.
8. The principal purpose of Defendant’s business is the collection of debts allegedly owed to third parties.
9. Defendant regularly collects, or attempts to collect, debts allegedly owed to third parties.
10. During the course of its efforts to collect debts allegedly owed to third parties, Defendant sends to alleged debtors bills, statements, and/or other correspondence via the mail and/or electronic mail and initiates contact with alleged debtors via various means of telecommunication, such as the telephone and facsimile.
11. At all relevant times, Defendant acted as a debt collector as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(6).
12. At all relevant times, Defendant acted through its duly authorized agents, employees, officers, members, directors, heirs, successors, assigns, principals, trustees, sureties, subrogees, representatives, and insurers.
IV. ALLEGATIONS
13. On or about November 20, 2010, Plaintiff received a telephone call from a duly authorized representative of Defendant, who stated that he was calling to collect a debt allegedly owed by Plaintiff in the amount of $6,125.00.
14. Plaintiff told Defendant that because he was currently unemployed he was currently unable to pay for the debt he allegedly owed.
15. During the aforesaid telephone call, Defendant informed Plaintiff that it was aware that Plaintiff was receiving student loans.
16. Defendant then told Plaintiff that if he did not pay the debt then Plaintiff’s student loans would be frozen and he would be unable to access them.
17. Defendant’s representation, as delineated above, was false, deceptive and/or misleading given that, upon information and belief, Defendant had neither the power nor the authority to withhold Plaintiff’s student loans from Plaintiff.
18. Defendant further told Plaintiff that if he did not pay the debt then Plaintiff would not receive his federal income tax return.
19. Defendant’s representation, as delineated above, was false, deceptive and/or misleading given that, upon information and belief, Defendant had neither the power nor the authority to withhold Plaintiff’s income tax return.
20. During the aforesaid telephone call, Defendant further told Plaintiff that if he did not pay the debt he owed then Plaintiff’s financial accounts would be frozen.
21. Defendant’s representation, as delineated above, was false, deceptive and/or misleading given that, upon information and belief, Defendant had neither the power nor the authority to freeze Plaintiff’s financial accounts.
22. At no time during the course of the aforesaid telephone call did Defendant’s duly authorized representative provide Plaintiff with information regarding his individual identity.
23. On or about December 17, 2010, Mr. Drew Smith, a duly authorized representative of Defendant initiated a telephone call to Plaintiff and left Plaintiff a voicemail message.
24. Defendant stated that he was “calling regarding the claim that was due to be filed at the County Clerk’s Office.”
25. Defendant further stated that it required that either Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s attorney contact Defendant immediately.
26. Defendant then provided Plaintiff with a putative case number.
27. During the course of the aforesaid voicemail message, Defendant failed to advise Plaintiff that it was a debt collector, that it was attempting to collect a debt and that any information obtained would be used for that purpose.
28. At no time during the course of the aforementioned voicemail message left for Plaintiff did Mr. Smith provide Plaintiff with information relative to Defendant’s identity.
29. Defendant’s representation that a claim was due to be filed at the County Clerk’s Office had the effect of conveying to an unsophisticated consumer that the failure to immediately contact Defendant would result in Defendant filing a lawsuit.
30. On or about December 20, 2010, subsequent to having received the aforesaid voicemail message, Plaintiff initiated a telephone call to Mr. Smith.
31. During the aforesaid telephone call, Defendant informed Plaintiff that he owed a debt in the amount of $7,656.00.
32. Plaintiff asked Defendant why it was attempting to collect $7,656.00 from him given that Plaintiff was previously informed by Defendant, on November 20, 2010, that the debt he allegedly owed was for $6,125.00.
33. Defendant told Plaintiff that he owed additional funds for fees and for the processing of paperwork relative to Plaintiff’s account.
34. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff’s contract with respect to the debt he allegedly owed did not provide for Defendant to collect additional fees from Plaintiff.
35. Upon information and belief, Defendant attempted to collect a debt from Plaintiff that was in excess of the amount of the debt that Plaintiff allegedly owed.
36. Defendant, by attempting to collect a debt from Plaintiff that was in excess of the amount of the debt that Plaintiff allegedly owed, misrepresented the amount of the debt that Plaintiff allegedly owed.
37. During the aforesaid telephone call, Defendant asked Plaintiff “[w]hy do you not own up to the fact that you owe this money?”
38. Defendant further told Plaintiff that it could tell Plaintiff was not making an effort to obtain funds sufficient to pay the aforesaid debt.
39. Defendant then intentionally disconnected the telephone call with Plaintiff.
40. Immediately thereafter, Plaintiff initiated a telephone call to Defendant and requested to speak to Mr. Smith.
41. Defendant’s duly authorized representative answered the aforesaid telephone call and informed Plaintiff “[y]ou do not need to speak to him. You will deal with me now.”
42. Defendant then stated “[y]ou do not know how to pay your bills. Is that why you are calling us and harassing us?”
43. Defendant’s statements as delineated above are neither statements made in an effort to seek payment from Plaintiff nor statements made to further the collection efforts of Defendant.
44. The natural consequence of Defendant’s statements was to unjustly condemn and vilify Plaintiff for his non-payment of the debt he allegedly owed.
45. The natural consequence of Defendant’s statements was to produce an unpleasant and/or hostile situation between Defendant and Plaintiff.
46. The natural consequence of Defendant’s statements was to cause Plaintiff mental distress.
47. On or about January 6, 2011, Mr. John Edell, a duly authorized representative of Defendant initiated a telephone call to Plaintiff and left Plaintiff a voicemail message.
48. During the course of the aforesaid voicemail message, Defendant failed to advise Plaintiff that it was a debt collector, that it was attempting to collect a debt and that any information obtained would be used for that purpose.
49. At no time during the course of the aforementioned telephone call to Plaintiff did Mr. Edell provide information relative to Defendant’s identity.
50. During the course of the aforesaid voicemail message, Defendant stated it wanted to speak to Plaintiff to “identify whether this was something [Plaintiff] had an interest in resolving voluntarily or whether [Defendant] would need to get the help of the courts and the appropriate township involved.”
51. Defendant then stated “[t]he time is ten (10) o’clock central standard time on Thursday. I need you hear back from [Plaintiff] no later than noon tomorrow in terms of what [Plaintiff’s] intentions are.”
52. Defendant then told Plaintiff that if he failed to communicate with Defendant then Defendant would “move things forward.”
53. Defendant’s representations, as delineated above, had the effect of conveying to an unsophisticated consumer that if Defendant was not contacted by noon, on the next day, then Defendant would file a lawsuit.
54. Defendant has not filed a lawsuit against Plaintiff for the debt he allegedly owes.
55. Upon information and belief, at the time of making the aforementioned threats, Defendant had no intention of filing a lawsuit against Plaintiff for the debt he allegedly owes.
56. Upon information and belief, Defendant has no authority to file a lawsuit against Plaintiff for the debt he allegedly owes.
57. Upon information and belief, at the time of making the aforementioned threats, Defendant had no authority to file a lawsuit against Plaintiff for the debt he allegedly owes.
58. Defendant has not provided to Plaintiff, within five (5) days of its initial communication to collect the alleged debt, with written confirmation of the amount of the debt, the name of the creditor to whom the debt is allegedly owed or a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector.
59. In its attempts to collect the debt allegedly owed by Plaintiff, Defendant violated the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. §1692, in one or more of the following ways:
a. Engaged in conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692d;
b. Used obscene or profane language or language the natural consequence of which is to abuse the hearer or reader in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692d(2);
c. Placed a telephone call to a consumer without meaningful disclosure of the caller’s identity in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692d(6);
d. Used false, deceptive, misleading and unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect an alleged debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e;
e. Falsely represented the character, amount, or legal status of any debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e(2)(A);
f. Represented or implied that nonpayment of any debt will result in the arrest or imprisonment of any person or the seizure, garnishment, attachment, or sale of any property or wages of any person unless such action is lawful and the debt collector or creditor intends to take such action in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e(4);
g. Threatened to take action that cannot legally or is not intended to be taken in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e(5);
h. Used any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning the consumer in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e(10);
i. Failed to disclose in communications that said communication was from a debt collector and that any information obtained during the communication will be used for the purpose of collecting a debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e(11);
j. Used unfair and/or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect a debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692f;
k. Attempted the collection of funds from Plaintiff despite having no lawful authority to do so in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692f(1);
l. Failed to comply with the provisions of 15 U.S.C. §1692g(a); and,
m. Was otherwise deceptive and failed to comply with the provisions of the FDCPA.

this people must lured you in through the college network he do not no that if he used another incentive when calling besides the state board of nursing he might actually get apayment when he plat wit a nurses license it just piss us off...

why do we need to read stop hiding stuff and u are your victims would not have this problem