Howard Schiff Howard Lee Schiff, P.C.Howard Lee Schiff Howard Schiff issues fake subpoenas, violates Fair Debt Collection Practices Act East Hartford Connecticut

Fake Subpoena and the goal of default

I recently received a document sent by Schiff purporting to be a summons to appear in court. The document certainly would make a reasonable person believe that they were specifically being summoned to a particular court. The document appeared to be from a Mr. Howard Schiff’s office. The document was blank as to allegations and was served from a court in another jurisdiction. This led me to do some investigating.

There was no date or time to appear listed on the document.

The pleading (if it was meant to be one—and not just an appearance of one) is fatally flawed, as it was filed in the wrong (or multiple jurisdictions) and contains an improper party, and does not contain a time and date to appear. If the document was only meant to appear as a summons (for nefarious reasons) to the victim, then it is also in violation of several federal and state laws.

 Furthermore, this collection syndicate may be filing documents in incorrect or multiple jurisdictions in order to use the courts to obtain easy defaults. This also generates vast amounts of money for the state.

Improper Party

Mr. Schiff’s enterprise reportedly accepts farmed-out “portfolios” from an out of state 3^rd party syndicate known as TSYS. That company reportedly funnels zombie debts, unverified debts, debts based on false/no affidavits, and other debts to willing lawyers through use of the NAN (National Attorney Network) computer software program. The NAN software (or access to the data) is provided by the true clients—TSYS.

Methodology

A recent online article noted the following regarding the methods used by the below-named company and the affiliated farm-out lawyers (through use of IOLTA’s):

“Capital One is famous for having TSYS of Georgia do their collecting for them. TSYS has a subsidiary company known as NAN (National Attorney Network) TSYS sends the debt to the NAN office which is at the same address as TSYS.” NAN seeks out willing lawyers in the victim’s jurisdiction, and provides information to the attorney. The lawyer provides a buffer to the third party and helps to prevent the problems that arise when the third party sends out letters that appear to be from an attorney—although the simulated summons serves the same purpose at present.

 The victim “is then sued under CAP1 as plaintiff, when TSYS is the actual plaintiff. TSYS is not alone in utilizing this method.

 Reasons

Third parties may be using the courts in this way for a few reasons:

• The method has been a convoluted success.
• In the past, collectors would simply send out letters with simulated attorney letterheads in order to dupe victims into thinking they were being sued or losing their jobs. The letters were used as a scare tactic to obtain as much cash and information from the victim as possible, regardless of verification laws.
• Although lawsuits have somewhat thwarted collection syndicates from utilizing the “letter method,” they have modified their approach to include lawyers and the accompanying IOLTA’s---at least enough to perhaps buffer the enterprise from threats of potential suits.

 The Operation 

Some collection syndicates now insulate their activities by using the NAN program to farm-out debts and use attorneys, IOLTA’s, and the courts.

 A supposed summons letter is sent to the victim with what appears to be an “original” creditor listed as plaintiff. In actuality, the “debt” may have been sold, bundled and hedged many times over. Neither a date, nor a time is printed on the summons—so it is not a summons at all. It has the same purpose as the non-attorney letter as discussed earlier. Also, the summons letter may, or may not, reach the victim. The goal of the syndicate is to obtain a “legal default.”

 The motion for default and accompanying execution is affected from the court in due course. To further confuse the victim, the collection syndicate may send out collection letters or other correspondence before default. The victim may either respond (or not) to those inquiries in lieu of legal appearances—where the location and times are already ambiguous.

 Collection then continues from multiple angles with little or no recourse for the victim, as the court has placed its stamp of approval on the default motion by the syndicate.

As stated earlier, TSYS/CAP1/Schiff are not alone in using this new methodology. TERI (Education Loan Services) uses the same scheme. TERI went bankrupt in 2008 and is presently owned by elements of Goldman Sachs and First Marblehead. TERI is listed as plaintiff in their suits (an improper party) and even goes so far as to claim status under the federal loan program—although they are private. TERI attempts to collect on zombie debts, unverified debts, and bundled-hedged debts sold many times over. Although the office of the New York Attorneys General has investigated many private loan schemes, several entities still thrive in other states.

 I suspect that a quick default will also be sought in the present case.