If you have a JC Penney or other credit card in default or if you are receiving dunning letters or if you are you being sued or taken to the National Arbitration Forum by Tate and Kirlin Associates, you may have a defense to the lawsuit and/or a claim against them.
Tate and Kirlin Associates, is a large national law firm of approximately 100 employees, in the practice of debt collection for large national retail credit and banking clients.
Tate and Kirlin Associates
2800 S. Hampton Road
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19154
Debt Collection Agencies, Debt Buyers, & Collector- Attorney - Law Offices!
These debt collectors and attorneys have demonstrated they care only about money; consumer rights and obeying the law are not as important as being paid. I consider them disgusting law-breakers who deserve to feel the full wrath of the laws enacted to protect you. Use the FREE Cease-Communication letter and contact us for greater assistance in dealing with them.
Just because a Tate and Kirlin Associates, sues you does not mean that they are automatically entitled to a judgment. They still have to prove their case, and you can have a trial, even a jury trial. The key is to answer their letters and arbitration threats and/or lawsuit in a timely manner. If you answer in time you can successfully defend your case. You may win, and have a judgment in your favor entered stating that you owe nothing.
There is No Contract:
Consumers can choose not to contract for arbitration in accordance with Hale vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906) and can reject any and/or all correspondence, claims, or any other documents implying they have contracted with them for arbitration in any manner, shape or form.
A lawsuit can be brought against Tate and Kirlin Associates, for willful and intentional fraud and racketeering which will be prosecuted for treble damages for commercial injury pursuant to racketeering under Title 18, Chapter 96 of the U. S. Code.
Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, 2d Cir., No. 02-7017, 2/25/03
In the case of Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, 2d Cir., No. 02-7017, 2/25/03, retailer Lord & Taylor referred a debt to the Wolpoff & Abramson law firm for collection. After reviewing the alleged past due account and the retailer’s efforts at collection, partner Ronald Abramson sent a debt collection letter to the credit card holder, Arthur Miller. Miller did not respond to the letter. Thereafter, Abramson referred Miller’s file through the National Attorney Network (a debt collection referral service) to a second law firm, Upton, Cohen & Slamowitz. This firm filed suit against Miller seeking recovery of the credit card debt as well as attorney’s fees. Miller countered with his own lawsuit alleging that the law firm violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 18 U.S.C. §1692, by sending debt collection letters on attorney letterhead without meaningful review of the circumstances of the alleged debt by any attorney. Additional counts were listed in the complaint, but this is the issue on which we will focus on. The district court granted summary judgment on all counts. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the summary judgment stating that it was “premature” because the lawyers’ affidavits contained too little information. The affidavits stated only that Lord & Taylor reported the debt was due for collection and that Abramson had exercised “independent professional judgment” prior to authoring a collection letter.
According to Miller, Wolpoff & Abramson averages 55,000 new collection accounts monthly. Judge Sonia Sotomayor indicated that firms may be liable under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act if they handle a large volume of accounts, receive limited information about the accounts, review the collection files with such speed that no independent judgment could be found to have been exercised, and issue form collection letters “with a push of a button.” The court advised that a lawyer may not act solely on the client’s word that a valid debt is due and owing. The court, however, refused to delineate steps that a firm must take prior to sending out collection letters on firm letterhead.
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act "meaningful review"
What does the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act’s requirement of “meaningful review” mean anyway? This court stated that “merely being told by a client that a debt is overdue is not enough.” Clearly, a lawyer must do something other than rely upon a client’s word. Some amount of research and review of the individual account must take place. Implicit in this case was the court’s concern about the large number of collection accounts that the firm received each month. Was the court implying that there might be a potential issue of unauthorized practice of law? The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act requires a meaningful review by an attorney of the circumstances surrounding an alleged debt (emphasis added). Let’s say for the sake of argument that a firm lands a big account and receives in excess of 50,000 files for collection per month. Having a paralegal review, for example, the debtor’s payment history and credit report may enable the attorney to process the files in a more efficient and timely manner. However, the attorney still has a duty to ensure that the information provided by the paralegal is accurate. In other words, rubber stamping of another’s work product does not reduce the risk of a malpractice claim or of an ethical complaint. The court in Miller did not set out a list of do’s and don’ts. However, it makes good sense for a collection practice to have a set of guidelines or procedures in place to demonstrate that 1) the alleged overdue account was meaningfully reviewed and 2) that an attorney was involved in the review.
Case Law (continued)
United States District Courts and Supreme Court Rulings in Mile High Industries v. Cohen, Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, Szetela v. Discover Bank, Toppings v. Meritech Mortgage Services, Inc., Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto, Vermont v. New Hampshire, Casteel vs. Clear Channel Broad., Inc., Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. vs. Gaskamp, Stout vs. Byrider, Myers vs. MBNA America and North American Capitol Corporation, Georgia v. South Carolina, Hale vs. Henkel, Erie Railroad Company v. Tompkins, Trinsey v. Pagliaro and Adickes v. Kress & Co.
In The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas No. 94,380
MBNA America Bank, N.A. v. Loretta K. Credit (yes that is her name)
Note: Loretta is a pro se litigant
Many consumers who have chose not to continue paying their credit card bills for what ever reason they had, found themselves getting an Arbitration Award rendered against them. By far most were arbitrated by a company called National Arbitration Forum. We have known for years the connection between National Arbitration Forum and Wolpoff and Abramson. We have known for years that as a consumer, you would not have any chance of winning your arbitration. Their clear biased decisions were clear evidence that you as a consumer could not possibly win.
For years National Arbitration Forum advertised to banks telling them they could "protect" them from class action suits brought against them by consumers who have gone through the arbitration process. They have thrown huge and lavish parties inviting all the big names in the banking industry. This all done in an attempt to gain new "customers".
With all the parties and seminars with banks, how could NAF not be biased? If they ruled against the bank, the bank would no longer want to use them as their "exclusive" arbitration forum! However, for many years, the courts have turned a blind eye to the injustice that American's are facing everyday by this corrupt and biased system. UNTIL NOW!
Finally a court has decided to do their job and protect the American Citizen from this abuse. We proudly stand up and applaud the Kansas Supreme Court. This honorable court has now ruled that an Arbitration Award CANNOT be confirmed without showing a "signed" Arbitration Agreement between all parties involved. This is a landmark decision for consumers. See the ruling here.
There are many other Procedures, Rules and codes that may be used against Tate and Kirlin Associates,.
If you have ever had and arbitration award rendered against you by Tate and Kirlin Associates,, call us as soon as possible. You may be able to stop them from getting a judgment against you.
Debt Terminators is a solution oriented firm that prides itself on unparalleled service and performance. We are committed to providing unbiased coaching and prudent strategies for eliminating debts legally. Our services are always tailored to your unique needs. We provide education and document preparation that will assist you in:
This process may allow you to eliminate existing debt(s) and prevent collection agencies from taking your assets now and in the future.
Contact Debt Terminators and find out How you can collect money damages from the debt collector who has contacted you. Go Here: http://creditcarddebtterminators.com/
For More information or to contact a Debt Collector Defense Specialist click here.