• Report: #661725

Complaint Review: Margolis, Pritzker, Epstein & Blatt, P.A.

Thank You

Read how Ripoff Report saves consumers millions.

  • Submitted: Sat, November 13, 2010
  • Updated: Sun, November 14, 2010

  • Reported By: Conned sumer — Washington District of Columbia USA
Margolis, Pritzker, Epstein & Blatt, P.A.
110 West Road, Suite 222 Towson, Maryland United States of America

Margolis, Pritzker, Epstein & Blatt, P.A. Stuart R. Blatt --Lawyer repeatedly breaks the law-- Towson, Maryland

*Consumer Comment: "BLAME IT ON A LAWYER"....

What's this?
What's this?
What's this?
Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

<p>The Federal Trade Commission has taken a keen interest in debt collectors involved in repeated violations of law, even to the point of requesting that US district courts shut them down and freeze their assets, as in the case of Capital Acquisitions and Management (CAMCO) in 2004, US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division, Case No. 04C50 147. The FTC should investigate this debt collection attorney, Stuart Blatt, who has yet to respond to my November 2007 allegations of the following violations: </p><br>


<p>Requests through a Cavalry Portfolio Services Statement of Disupte that victims of identity theft sign a release of usage or billing records relating to alleged debts. Signing such a document would seem to release Mr. Blatt from the federally mandated requirement of offering FACTA statements proving to the alleged debtor that the debt really exists: not alleged verification of debt but applications for accounts with the alleged debtors signature and all business transactions attributed to the alleged debtor, per Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, Subtitle B, Section 151 (a) amendment of the Fair Credit Reporting Act Section 609(e)(1).</p><br>


 <p>Attempts to avoid receiving and does not respond to letters alerting him to his violations of law and requesting such documentation.</p><br>


<p> Fails to provide such documentation as required by law within 30 days of receiving such a request by certified mail, return receipt requested.</p><br>


<p>Requests through said Statement of Dispute that victims of identity theft sign a statement that refers to them as a customer of the alleged creditor when they may never have never been a customer in the first place.</p> <br>


<p>Adds unexplained fees to alleged debts in direct violation of both DC Code 28-3814(g)(4), which precludes interest or other fees incidental to the principal obligation not expressly authorized in the agreement creating the obligation, and DC Code 28-3814(f)(8), by representing that an existing obligation of the consumer [the term consumer including alleged debtors] may be increased by the addition of attorneys fees, investigation fees, service fees, or any other fees or charges when in fact such fees or charges may not legally be added to the existing obligation.</p><br>


<p> Reports alleged but unsubstantiated debts (cases of mistaken identity or corporate fraud) to credit reporting agencies without informing the alleged debtor, in direct violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act section 623(A)(7) </p><br>


<p>Threatens alleged debtors with legal action rather than providing verification of alleged debts in response to written request from the alleged debtor, as federally mandated by FDCPA 809(b))</p><br>


 <p>Directs support staff to telephone (harass) alleged debtors after receiving written instructions to contact the alleged debtor only in writing, in direct violation of FDCPA 806(5) </p><br>


<p>Violates DC Code 28-3904(q), by failing to supply to a consumer a copy of a sales or service contract, lease, promissory note, trust agreement, or other evidence of indebtedness. and DC Code 28-3904(u), by represent[ing] that the subject of a transaction has been supplied in accordance with a previous representation when it has not: provides only a statement that a debt is owed rather than any evidence of any transactions.</p>


This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 11/13/2010 11:21 PM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Margolis-Pritzker-Epstein-Blatt-PA/Towson-Maryland-21204/Margolis-Pritzker-Epstein-Blatt-PA-Stuart-R-Blatt-Lawyer-repeatedly-breaks-the-l-661725. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.

Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.

Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on Margolis, Pritzker, Epstein & Blatt, P.A.

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Search Tips
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
0Author 1Consumer 0Employee/Owner
Updates & Rebuttals

#1 Consumer Comment

"BLAME IT ON A LAWYER"....

AUTHOR: Karl - (USA)

is available at this site.

*Just type in 269041 and it appears as 'Consumer Comment #3' at Ripoff Report #269041.

Thank You
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.