Arthur Miller v Cohen & Slamowitz: UNFAIR PRACTICES!!!

Posted on July 12th, 2010 by Christine

I just posted in great detail:

Arthur Miller v. Cohen & Slamowitz: attorney’s failure to conduct meaningful review violates FDCPA

On 9/30/09, the judge ruled that they violated the FDCPA because they did not conduct proper attorney reviews prior to suing consumers.

In NOVEMBER 2009, I was told by Cohen & Slamowitz’s Ms. Spivack that attorneys are NOT assigned to active lawsuits until an answer has been filed.

Presumably, if NO answer is filed as in MOST debt collection litigation against consumers, no attorney ever gets involved and the paralegals handle everything.

While the lawsuit had been filed several months earlier, I was unable to contact any attorney.

Cohen & Slamowitz actually sent an attorney from ANOTHER firm to a hearing and he had NO idea what was going on.  He assured my client that he would not appear on their behalf again.

To date, we have NOT received any answers to our questions or ANY communicati0ns from Cohen & Slamowitz outside court.

One major issue:

Will Citibank pursue Mark Cella (FDRS) to recover at least part of the loot?

Last year I notified Citi (through another collection attorney) of the FDRS fraud and I notified them of the Chase litigation against scammers engaging in similar fraud and they recovered MILLIONS and Chase forgave the debts and deleted the accounts from the credit reports.

I suppose Citi finds it more PROFITABLE to hire collection thugs like Cohen & Slamowitz to sue the defrauded consumers.

I already started on the new Citi blog and the first post is about the CRIMINAL citi executives who get paid huge bonuses funded through THEFT — according to the California attorney general.

It’s not surprising that Citi chooses to pursue the victims instead of the criminals and there’s nothing we can do about Citi.  As I’m sure you know, they’re “too big to fail.”

So I’ll focus on Cohen & Slamowitz and hopefully they’ll soon join the ranks of BANKRUPT collection laywers like Wolpoff & Abramson and Mann, Bracken.

No Comments »
Filed under: Litigation against Cohen & Slamowitz tagged , ,

Motion to dismiss denied, time to file complaint with AG Cuomo

Posted on July 5th, 2010 by Christine

I just posted the order and essentially, the judge doesn’t think that it matters WHEN a defendant was served and that the debtor failed to establish that the process server’s affidavit was false.
I find that odd, although maybe he should have added to his declaration that the documents were NOT posted to the door of his apartment when the server CLAIMED to have served him on 10/3/09.   He did find the papers posted to his door a week later, on the 10th.

Apparently the judge concluded that he must have been out of town for a week and THAT is why he didn’t find the papers until the 10th.

So next is the complaint about the server to AG Cuomo.

And the million dollar question is what to do regarding this suit.

I’ll be posting about a lawsuit by Arthur Miller against Cohen & Slamowitz shortly as judge Mauskopf in FEDERAL court ruled against them.  In light of that ruling last September, it is incredible that C & S CONTINUED to engage in conduct far more outrageous than in that case.  To date, my client has NOT received any response to his 3/22/10!

And it’s about time we submit the complaint about Cohen & Slamowitz to the AG.

We have to find an attorney to file FDCPA counterclaims against C & W and to pursue Mark Cella and FDRS for the debt elimination fraud.  I recently received a lot more information about Mark Cella and even his picture.

I suppose we’ll write the AG complaints first and then consumer attorneys can review those complaints.

Stay tuned …

No Comments »
Filed under: General

My 3/10/10 notice of publication to Cohen & Slamowitz

Posted on March 11th, 2010 by Christine

I posted my 5-page fax to Cohen & Slamowitz attorney Carol Van Houten with many questions, assumptions and conclusions:

3/10/10: My Notice of Publication to Cohen & Slamowitz

I can’t MAKE them communicate with me, but I’ll do my best to spread some TRUTH about these notorious collection attorneys with no morals or ethics.

I will update with the response if they finally stop ignoring me.

The regulatory complaints are next.

No Comments »
Filed under: Communications tagged ,

Cohen & Slamowitz and Citibank pursue judgment-proof defrauded debtor INSTEAD of criminals

Posted on March 8th, 2010 by Christine

Today I finished the ABOUT page and I hope it makes sense.

My head is spinning as I’m trying to figure out what’s going on.  The process server Mark McCumber with Rondout Legal apparently FALSIFIED the affidavit of service because he thought that the ACTUAL service date would be more than 120 days after the filing of the complaint.

We don’t even know WHEN the complaint was filed as my client has yet to receive a copy with the court’s filing date.

We DO know that Cohen & Slamowitz engages in unfair and deceptive collection practices and that they couldn’t care less whether an affidavit of service was falsified.  And that’s DESPITE being name last year in a HUGE investigation resulting in an order vacating over 100,000 default judgments due to improper service.

Of course the BIG issue is that my client had paid Federal Debt Relief System (FDRS) and this was one of the enrolled accounts.

Citibank and Cohen & Slamowitz couldn’t care less and did not even ACKNOWLEDGE the dispute.

For details please read: FDRS and Mark Cella Debt Elimination SCAM

I’ll be drafting the complaint with regulators and of course we’ll try to find an attorney to file counter claims against Cohen & Slamowitz and to join Mark Cella (FDRS owner) and other key personnel.

2 Comments »
Filed under: General tagged , , , ,