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

<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>