| reply to Ender3rd
Re: [Scam] Card Services relentless phone calls revisited I found this news clip. It's good to know I'm not the only one getting these calls.
»www.kshb.com/dpp/news/political/···ne-calls |
|
| This I am also glad to hear.
From your link: said by »www.kshb.com/dpp/news/political/···ne-calls :
CINCINNATI (WCPO) - Millions of people have received calls from a Rachel or Kathy.
Peggy Werner told me last year these calls were driving her crazy.
At first, Peggy pressed “1” for an operator, assuming it was her bank calling. But it's not really your card company calling.
The Better Business Bureau says these calls from Kathy or Rachel at card services are really debt consolidation companies, that charge up to a $1,000 to help pay off your cards.
But their time may be running out.
Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller has just filed suit against a Largo, Florida company called "Consumer Credit Group LLC," that his investigators say appears to be the source of many -- if not all -- of these calls.
Peggy and many others would be thrilled if the suit finally puts Rachel out of work.
"I thought if I got on the Do Not Call registry they would stop. But they don't ever say they will take your name off the list, they just immediately hang up," Peggy said.
B
The worst part of these calls: they don't abide by the “Do Not Call” list. So telling them you are on the list accomplishes nothing...[snip]
Here's the link to the Indiana Attorney's press release of the lawsuit mentioned:
»www.in.gov/activecalendar/EventL···d=107077
I realize historically these lawsuits unfortunately rarely slow down these types of scammers, but just the fact that they are even being bothered with it one tasty piece of schadenfreude.
Thanks for posting that, EmmaM@bhn.net
-Jim |
|
 Doctor OldsI Need A Remedy For What's Ailing Me.Premium,VIP
join:2001-04-19
1970 442 W30
kudos:18
1 edit | said by JALevinworth :I realize historically these lawsuits unfortunately rarely slow down these types of scammers, but just the fact that they are even being bothered with it one tasty piece of schadenfreude.
Had to look that one up and all I can say is "wow, I must be living in a vacuum", so thanks for my breath of air today! Never had heard of a "loanword" before.
Hopefully all of the principles involved will all receive a "Roman holiday".
--
What’s the point of owning a supercar if you can’t scare yourself stupid from time to time? |
|
| reply to JALevinworth
Hello Billy Goates. It seems I am just a few steps behind you.
I have been maintaining a log of the calls from these shysters. So far I have received 130 calls from over 40 phone numbers. I have reported them to the FCC three times already and once with the FBI. I keep trying to get something from them so I can file with the appropriate state attorney general. However I think they're onto me now. Whenever I ask the first question, they hang up on me. Since they know I'm gunning for them, I am completely confounded that they don't simply take my phone number out of their stupid robo dialer. If any one can trick some verifiable information from these bastards, Please send it to me at scamhunter@flash.net. I am intent on shutting these people down! |
|
| reply to Doctor Olds
Re: [Scam] Card Services relentless phone calls revisited said by Doctor Olds:said by JALevinworth :I realize historically these lawsuits unfortunately rarely slow down these types of scammers, but just the fact that they are even being bothered with it is one tasty piece of schadenfreude.
Had to look that one up and all I can say is "wow, I must be living in a vacuum", so thanks for my breath of air to today! Never had heard of a "loanword" before. Hopefully all of the principles involved will all receive a "Roman holiday". ... and I just had to look up "loanword".
/TrueStory
Back at ya, Doc
-Jim  |
|
| reply to JALevinworth
In reference to the link mentioned about Indiana Attorney’s press release of the lawsuit-
www.in.gov/activecalendar/EventL···d=107077
Does anyone who perhaps owns a business know anything about the violations of not having a “surety bond”? Maybe more States AG’s could sue the robo-dialers on that basis. |
|
| reply to Jeff P
said by Jeff P :Hello Billy Goates. It seems I am just a few steps behind you.
[snip]
I keep trying to get something from them so I can file with the appropriate state attorney general. However I think they're onto me now. Whenever I ask the first question, they hang up on me. Since they know I'm gunning for them, [snip]
If any one can trick some verifiable information from these bastards, Please send it to me at scamhunter@flash.net. I am intent on shutting these people down!
I don't think you meant to reply to me, but my name is Jim. Curious who Billy Goates is though.
As for the rest of your post, hey good luck. The link posted previously to the ID attorney's press release on that state's suit has his name and office number. He most likely has the information you seek. Maybe you can contact your state attorney and ask them to contact him and also to join in the Indiana state's suit? More states the better!
-Jim |
|
| reply to JALevinworth
Calls have stopped for me also. What is puzzling - we are a cell only family. I'm the main account holder. I get the calls. If these idiots are using a robodialer, then why aren't the other numbers receiving calls?
I asked the rest of the family, and they don't seem to be bothered by spam calls.
I can't use SIT tones, so I just deleted voicemail. I didn't use it anyway. Too lazy, and there's always the missed call log. |
|
| said by carpetshark3:Calls have stopped for me also. What is puzzling - we are a cell only family. I'm the main account holder. I get the calls. If these idiots are using a robodialer, then why aren't the other numbers receiving calls?
I asked the rest of the family, and they don't seem to be bothered by spam calls.
I think it's assumed they are using "predictive dial", rather than just robo - but assumed is the operative word, although logical and anecdotal evidence suggest that thus far.
It would seem that since you are the main account holder, your name is associated somewhere that others on your account isn't. Who knows where they get their lists from, but the more people describe their experience, the more information out there to take into evidence.
What's good is that you aren't getting bothered anymore - at least for now.
-Jim |
|
| said by JALevinworth :Who knows where they get their lists from
I'll add that I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Card Services people didn't get their lists from the "Your Auto Warranty is About to Expire!" robo scam The FTC went after that you may remember.
*Went after as in a "24 million judgment against the defendants, which is suspended because of their inability to pay." - Don't get me started, but that group is banned from making auto warranty robo calls.
Of course exchanging call lists shouldn't be legal anyway (since they are legally banned from selling their phone lists, but these types aren't exactly ones who are bothered by little things like rules and laws nor gray areas liking giving away things either. /UselessSpeculation
At least it sparked new rules and regulations on robo calls (full text here):
»www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consume···162.shtm
Note: you have to opt-in via permission for telemarketers to call you now, and being on the do-not-call list isn't required for these rules to apply to you nor for you to file complaint at »www.donotcall.gov if a telemarketer is breaking these rules.
Also: quote:
How do I report improper robocalls?
If you receive prerecorded telemarketing calls but have not agreed to get them, file a complaint with the FTC at »www.donotcall.gov or by phone at 1-888-382-1222.
The FTC works to prevent fraudulent, deceptive and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop and avoid them. To file a complaint or get free information on consumer issues, visit »www.ftc.gov or call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357); TTY: 1-866-653-4261. Watch a video, How to File a Complaint, at »www.ftc.gov/video to learn more. The FTC enters consumer complaints into the Consumer Sentinel Network, a secure online database and investigative tool used by hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad.
The FTC press release on the Auto Warranty people states that 30,000 people on the do-not-call list made do-not-call list complaints about the Auto Warranty alone at »www.donotcall.gov. Flooding that agency's site too with complaints couldn't hurt, besides filing an FTC complaint too: »www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/ |
|
| So, how come the same “players” keep showing up time and again?
Looks like Roy M. Cox Jr. who did the auto warranty scam, is back at it again with "GenuTec".
»investing.businessweek.com/resea···23957705
The Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons or entities in active concert or participation with any of them are permanently restrained from violating TSR.
»www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0923193/index.shtm
“IV. Prohibitions Against Deceptive or Abusive Telemarketing Acts or Practices
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in connection with telemarketing, Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons or entities in active concert or participation with any of them who receive actual notice of this Order by personal service, facsimile transmission, email, or otherwise, whether acting directly or through any corporation, subsidiary, division, or other device are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from violating, causing others to violate, or assisting others who violate, any provision of the TSR, including, but not limited to:” |
|
| reply to JALevinworth
I'm just someone that has gotten fed up with the over 200 calls from these con artists (also tired of Microsoft overpriced licensing, hence the name Billy Goates). |
|
| reply to DeletedMedia
|
|
| reply to Billy Goates
Billy Goates,
Please understand, I had re-posted comments made by someone unknown, who is obviously unhappy on complaintwire.
The re-posting was my bad reaction to again being robo-dialed in general, and not a personal vendetta against any innocent companys, if it's true. However, the thing that concerns me, is that a CEO of a company that does Business Marketing says has never even heard of "Rachel, at cardholder services". Come on! |
|
| I know, but we must be careful that we don't end up with a liable suit. If he is not what he says he is, we will get him sooner or later.
By the way Chris, I may friend you on Facebook if I can get over your politics  (I'm and Independant). |
|
| reply to DeletedMedia
 By the way, I just got another call from "Rachael" as I was typing up my response. They won't even answer now when I press 1. |
|
| reply to Billy Goates
Thanks for the advice!, and OK with FB. |
|
| reply to Billy Goates
said by Billy Goates :I'm just someone that has gotten fed up with the over 200 calls from these con artists (also tired of Microsoft overpriced licensing, hence the name Billy Goates).
Ah ok, Thanks Billy. I missed a page in this thread and your earlier post. |
|
| reply to DeletedMedia
said by DeletedMedia:So, how come the same “players” keep showing up time and again?
Looks like Roy M. Cox Jr. who did the auto warranty scam, is back at it again with "GenuTec".
Sadly, the FTC is ineffective when dealing with criminals and the criminals know that. They can only levy fines and orders, not put them in jail.
There are years of so many well document examples all over this forum of scams and scammers that none of these actions stop. It's as MGD  said earlier, whack-a-mole:
said by MGD :Civil action by the FTC against such criminals is totally ineffective. All of those involved know that they are violating FTC regulations. The FTC prohibits unsolicited calls for any kind of debt / interest rate reductions which require up front fees, period, and that is what these robo calls are about. The FTC civil actions have been nothing more than whack-a-mole interference. Which is why numerous individuals are the subject of repeated actions, despite signing prior agreements that prohibit future involvement. The FTC levies huge fines, then rescinds them based on inability to pay. The FTC settles for the minimal cash on hand, and enjoins them from future "telemarketing". The criminals sign off, then go right back to business. The entire operations are clearly criminal, intent to defraud, etc, and should be dealt with in criminal court and not by civil actions. As evidence of this:
said by »www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/05/robocalls.shtm :
Some of the defendants used offshore shell corporations to try to avoid scrutiny, and a top officer in the telemarketing company bragged to prospective clients that he could operate outside the law without any chance of being caught by the FTC, the papers stated. This defendant also claimed that he makes 1.8 million dials per day and that he had done more than $40 million worth of dialing for extended warranty companies, including one billion dials on behalf of his largest client, according to the court papers filed by the FTC.
MGD in his earlier post, said he's going to do a write up of this whole mess. He's a busy guy, but one of the best scam busters around so I look forward to what he finds out.
-Jim |
|
|
|
