Author Topic: Marval and Associates: Is there a lower lifeform?  (Read 25833 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LUEser

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 819
  • The Penultimate Answer
    • LUE's Repository of Credit Card Agreements
Marval and Associates: Is there a lower lifeform?
« on: December 10, 2009 07:04:09 AM »
I have a feeling I'll be contributing a lot to the wall of shame over the next couple of months.

These guys specialize in Zombie and Phantom Debt.

First things first: Who is Marval and Assocates? For search purposes, I'll add the tags Marvel and Marvell for those to find this thread later. Anyway...

The numbers they call from are out of Buffalo, NY. (716-932-7408) is the one I got, but there may be more.
However, a NY SoS search of Business entities shows that these guys aren't even registered to do business in NY.

In fact, they are a Delaware company. The Delaware SoS has this listed for them.

Quote
File Number: 4634800
Entity Name: Marval and Associates, LLC
Entity Kind: Limited Liability Company (LLC)
Residency: Domestic
Incorporation/Formation Date: 12/17/2008
Entity Type: General
Stae: DE
Registered Agent Information (For you to sue them, as you probably will if you ever have to deal with them

Quote
Name: Business Filings Incorporated
Address: 108 West 13th Street, Wilmington, DE, 19801
County: New Castle
Phone: 800-981-7183

If you look on their website, you'll see the following information
website: http://marvalandassociates.com/
Quote
Address:
Marval & Associates, LLC
PO Box 974
Getzville, NY 14068

Email: info@marvalandassociates.com
Call Toll Free: 877-252-0491
Office Phone: 716-923-7408
Fax: 716-923-7409

That's the information I have on them to date. In the next post I'll outline their collection tactics.
--
*I'm not a lawyer, just a consumer rights advocate.

LUEser

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 819
  • The Penultimate Answer
    • LUE's Repository of Credit Card Agreements
Re: Marval and Associates: Is there a lower lifeform?
« Reply #1 on: December 10, 2009 08:29:42 AM »
Collection Tactics:

If they can't get ahold of you, they will leave you voice mails. I have yet to receive an automated voicemail, so I can't say whether or not they're using autodialers at this time. But that's not important in lieu of what the voicemails actually say.

In one particular voicemail, an agent who identified herself as Mrs. Carter stated:
1. She was in the "Pre-Legal" department
2. Was notifying the debtor that she was under investigation here in this office.
3. That they have obtained documentation from the sheriff of the county (which county may I ask?)
4. This [complaint?] (it was unintelligible) is brought for attempting to defraud a financial institution
5. They asked that debtor call back and that failure to comply would result in a subpoena to be issued out for the debtor in a timely manner (again, subpoena for what and to where?)
6. No mini-miranda was given, nor any mention that this was an attempt to collect a debt.

That was just the voicemail. So I decided to call back, and try to sort things out. After going through the proper protocol and getting my PoA on file I was able to speak to these people on behalf of the debtor.

Here is the call and the problems herein:

Employee 1:

I was given a run down of what the debt was about the original credit was Cardinal Management. No problems there.
Was told that Marvel was looking to pursue it in court for a balance of XX. Still no problems.
I was asked how I was willing to help the debtor our or what I was looking to do. Hmm...
1/2 settlement was offered.
Then it was my turn. "Here are my questions," They hate to hear that.

1. The voicemail was from Mrs. Carter. Are you Mrs Carter?
A: No
2. The voicemail said the charge was for defrauding a financial institution. Is that what grounds you are proceeding on?
A: I am proceeding on a reference to her loan. She has a case in our office, didn't pay loan back, blah blah blah reiteration of earlier points.
3. Look, what I'm saying is that she's being accused of defrauding a financial institution, I don't know what subpoena or what county she is being investigated in.
A: Are you her attorney, are you representing her?
4. No. I'm her power of attorney with the ability to talk to her creditors and her creditors' assigns.
A: Ok So What are you trying to do?
5. I'm trying to find out, one, are you attempting to collect this debt?
A: Hold on Sir....we sent you over to the legal department, ok? (I was transferred)

Employee 2 (2 minutes later): 
Steve: Hi this is Steve [Berevis] (it was unintelligible) Speaking. I was just briefed, you're representing the debtor?
Me: No, I'm her power of attorney.
Steve: Ok, I'll go over more detail, the contract with Cardinal Management has been breached. We've been in the process of drafting a civil petition. (Hmm, contradictory to the criminal claims made in the voicemail, no?) I can outsource it to a local attorney to XX County.
...
Steve: On the 18th I plan on sending that Portfolio out. "Debtor's" case if part of that large portfolio. The case was drafted off the legal liability of XXX dollars per the terms of the Cardinal Management contract.
She was assessed with attorney's fees, court costs, all the applicable interest, penalties for breaching the original agreement, a process server fee, that amounts to 3x XXX dollars before filing. However per the creditor we're inclined to accept the settlement of XXX. (yeah right... ::) )

Now here's where it gets really interesting, the OC magically changes into a different entity, I felt like I was doing a deposition

Me: If you don't mind, let me reiterate to you exactly what I heard.

Me:  Cardinal Management was the original lender, is that correct?
Steve:  That's correct
Me:  And Cardinal Management sold a portfolio of debt to whom?
Steve:  Sold this contract to my Client which is Debt Management Partners; they're legally on the chain of title (looks like he's been reading the Method, lol).
Me:  So Debt Management Partners now legally owns the debt?
Steve:  That's correct
Me:  And Debt Management Partners retained your firm as:
Steve:  "We're the hired mouthpiece of Debt Management."
Me:  Right, so they retained your firm. Did you--actually, are you attempting to collect this debt solely through litigation?
Steve:  No, if that was the case I wouldn't be on the telephone with, ya. (I know stupid question, stupid answer, just covering all the bases).
Me:  Correct. So If that's the case, then you are familiar with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, is that correct?
Steve: I am and I don' need to be recited to. Obviously "Debtor" we're giving her the opportunity to pay what she owes. We can part on friendly terms, no hard feelings. If the case go forward it's very simple.
Me: Oh I understand the simplicity of how things will work logistically.
(He's getting mad at this point)
Steve: Ok, so, so, we can simplfy this. Does "Debtor" not intend on paying back what she owes? We don't need to waste either one of our times
Me:  Um, of course not (hopefully this can be taken in the context of me agreeing that we don't need to waste time).
But we do need to figure out whether or not your firm is acting as a debt collector or if your firm is acting as a law firm.
Steve: Does "Debtor" intend on paying XXX dollars?
Me: Well "Debtor" has the right to ask for validation, correct?
Steve: Absolutely. And I have the right to hang up this telephone. I've certainly fulfilled my obligation of legally notifying "debtor" as to see we're not "backdooring" her and move forward with the complaint. No hard feelings.
Me: Sure, sure. So...I'm going to go ahead and--(interrupted)
Steve: I, I, I can be garnishing "debtors" wages within the next 45 days, it's very simple. If need be we'll use forceful recovery tactics going forward but I had to afford her the opportunity to resolve the issue of what she owes, which is what we're attempting to do. Now if you're trying to circumvent the process or make things more difficult than they are...It's not gonna end here, I can assure you. (Oh buddy, so can I  :vbrofl: )
Me: My only question that I've not had answered is, Marval and associates--are they acting as a debt collector in regards to this account?
Steve: Yes, we are attempting to collect the debt, yes.
Me: That's all I needed to hear.
Steve: I've answered that question three times already...
Me: Not in those explicit terms.
Steve: LUE, that's a stupid question.
Me: Alright, you can insult my questioning all you want. All I--For purposes of the FDCPA I needed to know whether or not Marval and Associates is a debt collector.
Steve: Do you know what the FDCPA is?
Me: I absolutely do, I've studied it extensively.
Steve: You do? Because the way, the way you're using your language or what have you--FDCPA is not an entity. You understand that right?
Me: No, it's a legal statute.
Steve: No it isn't. (I lost it here, BTW). 
Me: The FDCPA codified 15 U.S.C. 1692
Steve: Again, I'm not going to butt heads with you Mr. Lue. And we'll cut this conversation short. We'll notate the case, it's certainly not an account anymore, and "debtor" will be contacted by my process server to appear in civil court.
Me: Do as you wish sir, I invite you to.
Steve: Have a good day.

So if you bothered to read that transcript, then you'll see how little this company know about the FDCPA. I'll post the violations I've found in the next post.


--
*I'm not a lawyer, just a consumer rights advocate.

LUEser

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 819
  • The Penultimate Answer
    • LUE's Repository of Credit Card Agreements
Re: Marval and Associates: Is there a lower lifeform?
« Reply #2 on: December 10, 2009 08:47:46 AM »
My short list: It's currently 10 counts of violation.

Counts 1 and 2. 1692e(a)11- Failure to identify themselves as debt collectors in either in the voicemail and in the subsequent conversation with Steve, until I had to force it out of him.

Count 3: 1692e(a)(4)- alleging "defrauding financial institution" in voicemail, implying non-payment is criminal acticity

Count 4: 1692e(a)(4)- threatening that wages could be garnished within 45 days even though they don't have a judgment.

Count 5: 1692e(a)(5)- saying that wages cold be garnished within 45 days is an action that cannot be legally taken.

Count 6: 1692e(a)(11)- failure to identify themselves as debt collectors generally, when LUE spoke with first representative.

Count 7: 1692e(a)(2)(A)- claiming fees not legally entitled to (lawyers fees, court costs, process server fee, interest). BTW the interest alone is probably usurious and unlawful, thus making the amount claimed incorrect.

Count 8: 1692e(a)(2)(B)- requesting compensation in connection with a collection of a debt that is a false representation of the compensation Marval is entitled to.

Count 9: 1692f(a)(1)- claiming fees not authorized by law or agreement.

Count 10: 1692g(a)- failure to send out notice of right to validate within 5 days. (I'll give it time, but I don't expect it).

Possible count 11- failure to be licensed in TN, thus collecting illegally, 1692e(a)(5).

Feel free to add any others. Guess what their x-mas present will be :)

--
*I'm not a lawyer, just a consumer rights advocate.

LUEser

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 819
  • The Penultimate Answer
    • LUE's Repository of Credit Card Agreements
Re: Marval and Associates: Is there a lower lifeform?
« Reply #3 on: December 10, 2009 08:52:25 AM »
Of course I sent a VoD anyway, and a nice settlement offer of 1000.42 cents. The LUE in my name does have a special relationship with the number 42.

I don't expect these clowns to settle, but it should be easy litigation none the less.
--
*I'm not a lawyer, just a consumer rights advocate.

Kitten

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 1992
    • MCSD
Re: Marval and Associates: Is there a lower lifeform?
« Reply #4 on: December 10, 2009 04:27:44 PM »
Let's see what Santa has in his bag today.
For Mrs. Carter, for impersonating law enforcement:
http://www.avatarsplus.com/d/14134-1/handcuffs.gif
(we need a handcuff smiley)

For Steve, who brought multiple FDCPA violations to the point where his employer has no hope of avoiding partial summary judgment:  11512

 :vbrofl:

NotBonJovi

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 1409
  • No. I'm really NOT dead.
Re: Marval and Associates: Is there a lower lifeform?
« Reply #5 on: December 10, 2009 05:18:02 PM »
Who would dare skip over that transcript?! It's awesome!!  :vbrofl:

I love watching these adventures unfold.... :vbpopc1:
Helpful Links:
Abbreviations / Search Whole Board / The Flyingifr Method

There are some that push you to fail, but some who push you to succeed. Few realize or know the difference.

Rottweiler

  • "SIT!" "Stay!" "Watch OUT!"
  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 6022
  • Talent does what it can; genius does what it must
    • Debtor Talk:  "Tough Love" for the Collection Industry.
Re: Marval and Associates: Is there a lower lifeform?
« Reply #6 on: December 10, 2009 05:30:55 PM »
Thank you for keeping me busy, LUEser, by bringing up these...eh..losers.

I.) I believe this--AHEM!--"Steve Whomever" is asking for something more from Santa:  Being dragged before the Bar in NY AND a visit from Law Enforcement on the way to court for the Unauthorized Practice of Law and impersonating an officer of the court (which an attorney is). I am not joking;the impression anyone would get from his convo with you--including being "briefed" on the matter by the first CSR in two minutes flat?--can be only one thing (key selection below):

Quote
Steve: Hi this is Steve [Berevis] (it was unintelligible) Speaking. I was just briefed, you're representing the debtor?
Me: No, I'm her power of attorney.
Steve: Ok, I'll go over more detail, the contract with Cardinal Management has been breached. We've been in the process of drafting a civil petition. (Hmm, contradictory to the criminal claims made in the voicemail, no?) I can outsource it to a local attorney to XX County.
...
Steve: On the 18th I plan on sending that Portfolio out. "Debtor's" case if part of that large portfolio. The case was drafted off the legal liability of XXX dollars per the terms of the Cardinal Management contract.
She was assessed with attorney's fees, court costs, all the applicable interest, penalties for breaching the original agreement, a process server fee, that amounts to 3x XXX dollars before filing. However per the creditor we're inclined to accept the settlement of XXX. (yeah right... ::) )

Now here's where it gets really interesting, the OC magically changes into a different entity, I felt like I was doing a deposition

Me: If you don't mind, let me reiterate to you exactly what I heard.

Me:  Cardinal Management was the original lender, is that correct?
Steve:  That's correct
Me:  And Cardinal Management sold a portfolio of debt to whom?
Steve:  Sold this contract to my Client which is Debt Management Partners; they're legally on the chain of title (looks like he's been reading the Method, lol).
Me:  So Debt Management Partners now legally owns the debt?
Steve:  That's correct
Me:  And Debt Management Partners retained your firm as:
Steve: "We're the hired mouthpiece of Debt Management."
Me:  Right, so they retained your firm. Did you--actually, are you attempting to collect this debt solely through litigation?
Steve:  No, if that was the case I wouldn't be on the telephone with, ya. (I know stupid question, stupid answer, just covering all the bases).
Me:  Correct. So If that's the case, then you are familiar with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, is that correct?
Steve: I am and I don' need to be recited to. Obviously "Debtor" we're giving her the opportunity to pay what she owes. We can part on friendly terms, no hard feelings. If the case go forward it's very simple.

"Marval and Associates" (alt. "Marvell (Marvel) and Associates") is holding themselves out as a LAW FIRM. 

Are they?  No way; I have found, so far, no record of such a firm in NY or anywhere.

Their website indicates nothing of the sort, either: 

Paralegals are NOT attorneys and their website lists exactly ZERO (0) attorneys in the home offices.  Or in the firm at all, come to think of it, since they said that the case would be outsourced to an attorney.

II.) If there is a case at all: 

Somehow, the term "portfolio"--and a large one at that--does not exactly state "lawsuit".  Rather, I would get another picture.  One of a bunch of collection files that, if they don't pay off soon, will be reassigned to another collector (likely sold here).

If they were a law firm?  They would refer to the individual file and never mention a mass assignment because that would constitute a breach of legal ethics, I should think.

III.) They do have the "threaten" part down cold, though, along with misinformation-in-brief (the links that allegedly go to other pages which should have been longer articles often either redirect to the origin page or bring up a '404' error).  Misinformation about such topics as:

1.)  Bankruptcy:  This one is covered in more depth,and quite accurately (those links work). But would an LSC read those pages after seeing this?

http://marvalandassociates.com/bankruptcy.php

Quote
Filing for bankruptcy is not a "get of jail free" card like most will say. Your assests will be liquidated to pay your creditors, which includes us too.

The implication is "the BK Court will take it all away and we will get paid anyway...and you may end up doing time too".

2.)  "Fraud", particuarly "bad checks":  All those pages which SHOULD explain the law are '404' dead ends.  This is the only thing one would see on the topic:

http://marvalandassociates.com/fraud.php

Quote
Our fraud specialists combine and apply years of experience with relentless determination to find, prosecute and take down frauds. Once we have our assets, it's up to the court system to decide whether you will go to prison or not. That's real.

And that's...quite rare.  Merely not paying a debt does not equal criminal fraud!  And can't, since a key element--intent to defraud--is missing.  It's clear that this "pro" in debt collection does not get that legal concept, despite admitting that any action taken would have to be civil in nature (breach of contract).

IV.) The constant harping on "bad checks" on this Web Disaster of a site indicates a major part of the business this JDB--in all its permutations and combinations--does.  I wonder how many of those alleged "bad checks" were ID Theft?  Or payday loans gone bad?

Well...Google is your friend:

http://phoneowner.info/Number.aspx/7169237408

Quote
Trinnity - 18 Jun 2009

Investigator Mark Sehwar called me just over two weeks ago and told me that I had two weeks to pay my debt off in full or he was going to send the paper work to the County Court for defrauding a financial institution.  I took out the payday loan from Cashnet USA in August of 2008... After calling me on one occasion, he then called my grandmother and told her that she needed to pay the bill for me...  And he told her the amount and that I had bounced a 1600 + dollar check.  ... I gave him information to take 200 out of my checking account but was unable to come up with that money... he then proceeded to try to take out the 1400 + that I was trying to come up with without calling me first to inform me that the other check had not gone through. ... Investigator Sehwar proceeded to tell me this morning that he knows my husband and I both working and that he doesn't care that I had to pay rent to keep a roof over my head because all he cares about is getting paid by me so he gets paid by the company he works for. ...  He called my home at 6:30 in the morning on Monday 6/15/2009.  ...  So, he is now giving me until 3pm EST today (6/17/2009) to call him back with full payment or he is going to send the paperwork to riverside `so fast that my head will spin` and those were his exact words.  He also told me that the day my husband spoke with him when he called that the judge was going to laugh because my husband cursed at him numerous times.  Well, that was because Investigator Sehwar would not let my husband speak and kept on cutting him off...I also called him and asked him for his license number since he claims he is an investigator and he told me that he doesn't have one and that he isn't really an investigator and that he works for a bank, but when my husband talked to him... he told my husband that it didn't matter and that he was an investigator and doesn't work for a bank ... .  My husband asked for his license number and he told him that didn't matter.  ... I took this loan out when I was living in Utah.  Not here in California. ... Investigator Sehwar also told me that I took the loan out in 2008 and my husband believes he told him 2007...

Caller ID: 7169237408
Caller: Marval and Associates
Caller Type: Collection Agency

Aha!  Payday loan collector, perhaps tied to whatever lender(s) use the Internet portal (yes, Internet loans; keep reading).

This post--one of how many in this one thread?--illustrates their tactics.  Note the constantly-changing deadlines, which would not happen if this person were being chased down for fraud.  Nor would they even know until Law Enforcement showed up with a warrant. Also note the tactic of telling third parties they need to pay a debt incurred by someone else.

And the "Inspector's" oh-so-polite phone manners and (lack of) "honesty" about their role at the firm, and...

The fact they will try to empty out a bank account.

And that...their investigative methods include using EX credit reports (see Marval's website)?  If this had been a real investigator? Not only would he have that license and know who he was working for, they could have found out where the alleged debtor worked and that hubby is unemployed.  ;)  Nice of the "Inspector", though, to admit they won't get paid unless they collect.

That's a contingency collection firm's M.O...

V.) As for the "creditor"?  The alleged OC, "Cardinal Management"--not to be confused with a number of real estate management firms and the like--is a payday lender!  One that appears to be operating illegally through a firm named "B & L" (no information on who they are yet) through a web portal by the name of Pack Management (866-943-6712, their fax # is 866-943-6714, e-mail:  packcustomerservice AT blmsinc DOT com [no direct contact via. the URL alone, gets a '404'] a.k.a "JD Marketing Group" a.k.a....well:

http://www.debtconsolidationcare.com/forums/showpost.php?s=428e84f8ba035e60b050a693005ce7e5&p=337808&postcount=48 )

According to "Anonymous" who posted 7-28-2008 at the Debt Consolidation Care forums:

Quote
I have had the worse experience dealing with the following company (s) B&L marketing , DJR Group , and their ( REP ) can not' - or will not answer your question, if you should be so lucky to talk with someone...

Be carefull of the collection agency called. ACCOUNT RECEIVABLE TECHNOLOGIES they are very unprofessional and have little or no knowledge the loan company that they represent.

I am not surprised that a collector for them would have no information since this outfit serves a number of slimy (and usually illegal) Internet payday loan operations; a street address has not yet been found for them.  This is not unusual in such cases.

Or, maybe it has...and guess who is or was associated with it?

FIRST CREDIT SERVICES INC.
1 Woodbridge Center, Suite 410
Woodbridge, NJ 07095

800-392-4029

A Debt Consolidation Care user reported a few years ago they were collecting for Ellis, Crosby and Associates. 

Yes THAT Ellis, Crosby shut down in Florida in 2008 and is reputed to still be operating under different names.  Including the India-based collection scam we are hearing a lot about lately.  And this operation out of Tulsa, OK (with the most annoying--and creepy--animation of a baby's face on the home page one would ever want to see):

http://www.firstcreditservices.com/

First Credit Services
4530 S Sheridan Rd Suite 101, Tulsa Oklahoma
(877) 817-7200. (918) 270-7201

Things get curioser and curioser... :lildevil:


“This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice."
~ Olver Wendell Holmes

Leao

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 161
Re: Marval and Associates: Is there a lower lifeform?
« Reply #7 on: December 10, 2009 05:47:11 PM »
I love watching these adventures unfold....

Unadulterated entertainment  :vbrofl:

 :vbpopc1:

NotBonJovi

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 1409
  • No. I'm really NOT dead.
Re: Marval and Associates: Is there a lower lifeform?
« Reply #8 on: December 10, 2009 06:16:49 PM »
Employee 2 (2 minutes later): 
Steve: Hi this is Steve [Berevis] (it was unintelligible) Speaking. I was just briefed, you're representing the debtor?
Me: No, I'm her power of attorney.
Steve: Ok, I'll go over more detail, the contract with Cardinal Management has been breached. We've been in the process of drafting a civil petition. (Hmm, contradictory to the criminal claims made in the voicemail, no?) I can outsource it to a local attorney to XX County.

Just out of curiosity, why would a supposed law firm "outsource" their case to another attorney? Is that a common occurrence or was this a bulls**t comment on its face?
Helpful Links:
Abbreviations / Search Whole Board / The Flyingifr Method

There are some that push you to fail, but some who push you to succeed. Few realize or know the difference.

Rottweiler

  • "SIT!" "Stay!" "Watch OUT!"
  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 6022
  • Talent does what it can; genius does what it must
    • Debtor Talk:  "Tough Love" for the Collection Industry.
Re: Marval and Associates: Is there a lower lifeform?
« Reply #9 on: December 10, 2009 06:22:32 PM »
Just out of curiosity, why would a supposed law firm "outsource" their case to another attorney? Is that a common occurrence or was this a bulls**t comment on its face?

It could be either situation:

If a law firm does not have an attorney licensed in the jurisdiction, they will outsource.

If they do?  They would not bother.

The clue that this is not a law firm?  The terminology and behavior!  They would not refer to any case as being part of a "portfolio"; they would refer to the "file" or "case file" (though fakers often abuse that, too).  They also would not bother to mention that they were about to file a lot of cases to just anyone.

In addition, an attorney would not talk to a potential defendant (opposing party) before the court had jurisdiction over them.

“This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice."
~ Olver Wendell Holmes

itsmeagain

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 1488
  • No Fear
Re: Marval and Associates: Is there a lower lifeform?
« Reply #10 on: December 10, 2009 06:32:27 PM »
LUEser . . . . maybe after you collect, you could use this as your avatar . . . . http://www.firstcreditservices.com/baby.gif

dls7406

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 1149
  • Bernie Madoff with all the money.
Re: Marval and Associates: Is there a lower lifeform?
« Reply #11 on: December 10, 2009 06:43:29 PM »
Please don't. I don't want to hate someone just because of what they make me stare at on DB.

NotBonJovi

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 1409
  • No. I'm really NOT dead.
Re: Marval and Associates: Is there a lower lifeform?
« Reply #12 on: December 10, 2009 07:07:56 PM »
It could be either situation:

If a law firm does not have an attorney licensed in the jurisdiction, they will outsource.

If they do?  They would not bother.

The clue that this is not a law firm?  The terminology and behavior!  They would not refer to any case as being part of a "portfolio"; they would refer to the "file" or "case file" (though fakers often abuse that, too).  They also would not bother to mention that they were about to file a lot of cases to just anyone.

In addition, an attorney would not talk to a potential defendant (opposing party) before the court had jurisdiction over them.

Thanks..this is an extremely handy thing to know. I'm guessing this is why he sort of evaded LUE's questioning here:

Quote
Me:  And Debt Management Partners retained your firm as:
Steve:  "We're the hired mouthpiece of Debt Management."
Me:  Right, so they retained your firm. Did you--actually, are you attempting to collect this debt solely through litigation?
Steve:  No, if that was the case I wouldn't be on the telephone with, ya. (I know stupid question, stupid answer, just covering all the bases).

I'm guessing he was trying to cover up his legal ruse with non-specific answers followed by a non-specific denial.

I don't want to hate someone just because of what they make me stare at on DB.

Really, guy? Really?? Does Rick-Rolling count?!  :vbrofl:
Helpful Links:
Abbreviations / Search Whole Board / The Flyingifr Method

There are some that push you to fail, but some who push you to succeed. Few realize or know the difference.

dls7406

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 1149
  • Bernie Madoff with all the money.
Re: Marval and Associates: Is there a lower lifeform?
« Reply #13 on: December 10, 2009 07:11:57 PM »

Really, guy? Really?? Does Rick-Rolling count?!  :vbrofl:

touche.

At least the one in my sigline is worth the watch.

Rotty: It doesn't get said enough:

THANK YOU for all the research and commentary you do on these firms. It is appreciated.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2009 07:13:50 PM by dls7406 »

NotBonJovi

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 1409
  • No. I'm really NOT dead.
Re: Marval and Associates: Is there a lower lifeform?
« Reply #14 on: December 10, 2009 08:52:38 PM »
touche.

At least the one in my sigline is worth the watch.

Sorry, couldn't resist!  ;)

Rotty: It doesn't get said enough:

THANK YOU for all the research and commentary you do on these firms. It is appreciated.

Here, here!  :drinking:
Helpful Links:
Abbreviations / Search Whole Board / The Flyingifr Method

There are some that push you to fail, but some who push you to succeed. Few realize or know the difference.

 

credit