Report of actions of Smith, Dean & Associates towards Ian Douglas Eastmond

To whom it may concern,

On Friday November 13th 2009, between 2:30pm and 3:30pm PST I received a voicemail message from Angie Smith, from Smith, Dean & Associates, stating that she was an investigator from their fraud department and that she needed to speak with me about papers being served regarding a check-cashing scam, that I had to call her at 904-721-3705 ext. 212 immediately or if I had an attorney to have them contact her, and that if I would not contact her she would "send the papers on down to county".  My phone was off at the time so I don't know the exact time she called, but at the same time she had left the same message on my mother's home phone and also called the cell phone of someone I had lived with over 3 years ago and left the same message. 

I consulted my attorney, Mark Peplowski, who told me that I could call them and give them his office number so that they could call it to get an address to send the alleged service of process to.  At around 5pm PST 11/13/2009 I called the number Angie Smith had left on my voicemail, 904-721-3705, and received the office voicemail stating I had reached Smith, Dean & Associates after hours and to leave a detailed message and a case number if I had one.  I left a detailed message stating that my name was Ian Eastmond, and that I was returning Angie Smith's voicemail message and that she could contact my attorney's office and get the address she could serve process at from the receptionist. 

The following day, on ..11/14/2009.., the family members and friends who had been contacted by Angie Smith called me, concerned as she had left messages stating I had committed check-cashing fraud and that I was being investigated by the Nevada Attorney General.  I advised my mother and ex-roommate about the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and that any collection agency (as I was suspecting they were) were only allowed to contact a place I did not live at one time only, and then after that if they were contacted again they could tell the collection agent that they would file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, and advised that they do so if they continued receiving calls from Smith, Dean & Associates.

On Monday, November 16th 2009, at 3:10pm PST I received a voicemail message from Jason James from Smith, Dean & Associates from phone number 904-721-3711 (missed call as my ringer is off at work), stating that he had to speak to me about people who would be coming to my home, my family's house, and my place of employment to speak to me about a fraud charge and that I needed to contact him immediately at 904-721-3705 ext. 203.  I was not happy, as I had left instructions on their company voicemail when I returned Angie Smith's call about what phone number they were to call to contact my attorney, and if they were a collection agency that they never stated that their calls were an attempt to collect a debt as is required under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  After I got off of work at 3:45pm I called Jason James, and told him that I had received Angie Smith's call and asked if he had received my voicemail message, he said they received no message from me, I told him that I needed to give him the phone number to call to contact my attorney and he told me to "shut up and stop right there because I'm going to tell you what is going on."  He then proceeded to tell me that I had committed a felony by willfully writing a bad check to Cash Plus and that I was on camera in their office on December 21st cursing and yelling at them when they were trying to collect a debt from me, and that the check I had written them for $721 came back insufficient funds from my Bank of America account, and that he was an investigator with the fraud department of Smith, Dean & Associates and he had contacted the Attorney General of Nevada, and that according to Nevada law I was guilty of check fraud which is a felony, I cut him off and told him that if he has papers to file, he needs to contact my attorney, and he rebutted stating that there were no papers being filed, that someone from the Sheriff's office was going to come and arrest me and take me to jail immediately, I told him that he needed to call my attorney, Jason asked me "is it a criminal attorney" to which I answered yes, he then said, "have your attorney call me right away."  I verified the phone number that my attorney was supposed to call was 904-721-3705 ext. 203 and Jason James confirmed that phone number and extension, and I told him that I would have my attorney contact him immediately.

I called my attorney Mark Peplowski, and told him what had just occurred. Mark Peplowski called the phone number I had given him and was sent to voicemail, and left a voicemail stating that he was an attorney and that they needed to contact him immediately. He then called me back and told me not to speak with anyone from Smith, Dean & Associates ever again, and to not answer any phone calls from them, and that he had left a message asking them to contact him so he could get a fax number to send over a cease and desist letter.

That night I did some research on the internet and found out that Smith, Dean & Associates was a collection agency that uses empty threats and strong-arm tactics to collect debts from people who owe on payday loans by threatening them with immediate arrest and by harrassing their family and employers and telling 3rd parties personal information about the people they are collecting from, and that they used to be called United Processing, Inc. and that the Illinois Attorney General had filed suit against them barring them from doing any business in the State of Illinois due to their unlawful business practices.  I have included pertinent links to websites and press releases about this company as well as their company information at the end of this report for reference.

In my opinion, this company violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by attempting to collect a debt from me through extortion and scare tactics instead of operating in the proper and legal fashion as is outlined in that act, and in doing so caused me great emotional distress by threatening to have me arrested immediately over a payday loan I took out around two years ago in good faith that I would pay it back.  Since then I have been in financial hardship as I lost my job shortly after taking out the loan and have not been gainfully employed from ..3/6/2008.. to ..11/2/2009.. and recently began a new job, which I was in terror of losing when I heard Jason James's threats.  According to the FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT 2008: FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT:

"THREATENING DIRE CONSEQUENCES IF CONSUMER FAILS TO PAY: The FDCPA bars debt collectors from making threats as to what might happen unless the collector has the legal authority and the intent to take the threatened action. Among other things, collectors threaten to initiate civil suit or criminal prosecution, garnish salaries, seize property, cause job loss, have a consumer jailed, or damage or ruin a consumer’s credit rating...

REVEALING ALLEGED DEBT TO THIRD PARTIES: The FDCPA generally prohibits third-party contacts for any purpose other than obtaining information about the consumer’s location. Collectors calling to obtain location information also are prohibited from revealing that a consumer allegedly owes a debt.

Improper third-party contacts typically embarrass or intimidate the consumer who allegedly owes the debt and are a continuing aggravation to the third parties. Contacts with consumers’ employers and co-workers about consumers’ alleged debts also jeopardize continued employment or prospects for promotion. Relationships between consumers and their families, friends, or neighbors also may suffer from improper third-party contacts. In some cases, collectors reportedly have used misrepresentations as well as harassing and abusive tactics in their communications with third parties, or even attempted to collect from the third party."

Also, according to an outline of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act from Wikipedia:

"Prohibited conduct:

• Hours for phone contact: contacting consumers by telephone outside of the
  hours of ..8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m... local time^[2]
  
  
  
• Failure to cease communication upon request: communicating with
  consumers in any way (other than litigation) after receiving written notice that said consumer wishes no further communication or refuses to pay the alleged
  debt, with certain exceptions, including advising that collection efforts are
  being terminated or that the collector intends to file a lawsuit or pursue other
  remedies where permitted^[3]
  
  
   
• Causing a telephone to ring or engaging any person in telephone
   conversation repeatedly or continuously: with intent to annoy, abuse, or
   harass any person at the called number.^[4]
  
  
   
• Communicating with consumers at their place of employment after
   having been advised that this is unacceptable or prohibited by the employer^[5]
  
  
   
• Contacting consumer known to be represented by an attorney^[6]
  
  
  
• Communicating with consumer after request for validation:
   communicating with the consumer or the pursuing collection efforts by the
   debt collector after receipt of a consumer's written request for verification of
   a debt (or for the name and address of the original creditor on a debt) and
  before the debt collector mails the consumer the requested verification or
  original creditor's name and address^[7]
  
  
  
• Misrepresentation or deceit: misrepresenting the debt or using deception
  to collect the debt, including a debt collector's misrepresentation that he or
  she is an attorney or law enforcement officer^[8]
  
  
  
• Publishing the consumer's name or address on a "bad debt" list^[9]
  
  
  
• Seeking unjustified amounts, which would include demanding any amounts
  not permitted under an applicable contract or as provided under applicable
  
  law^[10]
  
  
  
• Threatening arrest or legal action that is either not permitted or not
  
  actually contemplated^[11]
  
  
  
• Abusive or profane language used in the course of communication related
  
  to the debt^[12]
  
  
  
• Communication with third parties: revealing or discussing the nature of
   
  debts with third parties (other than the consumer's spouse or attorney) ^[13]
  
  
  
• Contact by embarrassing media, such as communicating with a consumer
   regarding a debt by post card, or using any language or symbol, other than
  the debt collector’s address, on any envelope when communicating with a
  consumer by use of the mails or by telegram, except that a debt collector may use his business name if such name does not indicate that he is in the debt
  collection business ^[14][15]
  
  
  
• Reporting false information on a consumer's credit report or
  
  threatening to do so in the process of collection^[16]
   
  
  

[edit] Required conduct

• Identify themselves and notify the consumer, in every communication,
   that the communication is from a debt collector, and in the initial
  communication that any information obtained will be used to effect collection
  of the debt^[17]
  
  
  
• Give the name and address of the original creditor (company to which
  the debt was originally payable) upon the consumer's written request made
  within 30 days of receipt of the §1692g notice;^[18]
  
  
  
• Notify the consumer of their right to dispute the debt, in part or in full,
  with the debt collector. This so-called 30-day "§1692g" notice is required to
  be sent by debt collectors within five days of the initial communication with
  the consumer, though in 2006 the definition of "initial communication" was
  amended to exclude "a formal pleading in a civil action" for purposes of
  triggering the §1692g notice, ^[19] complicating the matter where the debt
  
  collector is an attorney or law firm. The consumer's receipt of this notice
  starts the clock running on the 30-day right to demand verification of the debt from the debt collector. ^[20]
  
  
  
• Provide verification of the debt^[21] If a consumer sends a written dispute
  
  or request for verification within 30 days of receiving the §1692g notice, then
  the debt collector must either mail the consumer the requested verification
  information or cease collection efforts altogether. Such asserted disputes must also be reported by the creditor to any credit bureau that reports the debt.
  Consumers may still dispute a debt verbally or after the thirty-day period has
  elapsed, but doing so waives the right to compel the debt collector to
  produce verification of the debt. Verification should include at a minimum the
  amount owed and the name and address of the original creditor. ^[22]
  
  
  
• File a lawsuit in a proper venue - a debt collector may file a lawsuit, if at
  all, only in a place where the consumer lives or signed the contract^[23] "
  
  
  
  

As Smith, Dean & Associates has grossly violated this act in contacting me over the last few days I am writing this report for my attorney, Mark Peplowski, to take appropriate action as necessary under the law.

Sincerely,

Ian Douglas Eastmond

Tuesday, November 17th 2009

Public information about the company I am complaining about in this report:

Smith, Dean & Associates (formerly United Processing, Inc.)
101 Century 21 Dr #107

Jacksonville, FL 32216
Phone: 904-721-3705

"Restraining order issued in Wabash County Circuit Court halting collection agency’s actions in Illinois.

By BOB LIVINGSTON — staff writer

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan has filed a lawsuit in Wabash County Circuit Court against a Jacksonville, Fla. collection agency for allegedly employing deceptive collection practices and using threatening and abusive language while attempting to collect alleged debts on behalf of payday loan companies.

Associate Judge Joe Harrison of Wayne County has set an hearing on Wednesday, Jan. 28 at 11 a.m. in the Wabash County Circuit Court concerning a Jan. 21 restraining order, which halts a Jacksonville, Fla.-based collection agency from doing business in Illinois.

The order is part of a lawsuit brought against the collection agency, Smith, Dean and Associated, formerly known as United Processing, by Attorney General Madigan. The action also names Lisa Waters Smith, individual and as president an director of Smith, Dean and Associates, and United Processing.

The suit alleges that United Processing, as well as Smith, Dean, sold and distributed debt collection services to Illinois creditors seeking to recover debts from Illinois residents who were residing in the state at the time of the collection attempt.

Madigan’s suit alleges that between Jan. 1 and July 31, 2008 United represented itself as having the ability to act on behalf of creditors in Illinois, but that statement is untrue. At least five Illinois residents filed an affidavit concerning United’s practices in attempting to collect debts.

Attorney General Madigan said about the case, “These defendants used malicious tactics to bully alleged debtors, their family members and even their employers. This case in an egregious example of the unscrupulous methods often used to collect debts. These methods violate consumers’ rights and certainly will not be tolerated in Illinois.”

Madigan is asking the court to enter a permanent injunction preventing the defendants from engaging in debt collection services in Illinois. The suit also seeks to have the court order the defendants to pay fees, franchise taxes and penalties for their failure to obtain approval to operate in Illinois as an out-of-state corporation and file the legally-required documents.

Madigan is also asking the court to order the defendants to pay a civil penalty of $50,000, additional penalties of $50,000 for each act committee with intent to defraud, and costs for the investigation and prosecution of the case.

The suit alleges, also, that United representatives, as well as Smith, Dean representatives, used abusive language in its efforts to intimidate alleged debtors, that it used profane and abusive language to persons not the debtor and disclosed to a person not the alleged debtor that the alleged debtor owed a debt and made this disclosure while the defendant was attempting to obtain location information about the alleged debtor.

The suit alleges these actions by Smith, Dean as well as United Processing, were in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and in violation of the Business Corporation Act.

Actions alleged by United Processing and Smith, Dean and Associated include disclosing private information about alleged debtors to persons that did not have the right to such information, such as employers who did not have a legitimate business need for that information; did not provide five days prior the written notice to the alleged debtor that United intended to communicate with the alleged debtors’ employer; and failed to obtain authorization by law or a court of competent jurisdiction to make such contact.

Other alleged actions, according to the suit, included the making of threats that included unless the alleged debtors paid the debt immediately the Department of Family Services would remove their children; threatened alleged debtors with arrest by the sheriff; threatened alleged debtors with criminal proceedings; and threatened the alleged debtors with two years in a federal prison.

The callers also represented themselves as attorneys, according to Madigan’s suit.

United, which voluntarily dissolved its existence in Florida on or about Oct. 22, 2008, was not authorized to do business in Illinois. It was also not licensed with any state having reciprocal licensing provisions with Illinois.

United changed its name to Smith, Dean and Associates on or about Nov. 10, 2008. However, there were no changes to its office numbers, management, address or in products or services.

United operated at least from July 7, 2007 in Illinois as a collection agency and attempted to collect alleged debts from Illinois residents.

http://www.tristate-media.com/articles/2009/0 ... /news/news4.prt

Caller ID: 904-721-3705

Caller: Smith, Dean and Associated

Caller Type: Collection Agency"

References / Links:

http://www.ftc.gov/os/2008/03/P084802fdcpareport.pdf

http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/pressroom/2009_01/20090122.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Debt_Collection_Practices_Act