Complaint Review: Camco - Rockford Illinois

In Feb 2004 Camco contacted me. This was about a discover card account back in 1996. I asked tham how did you get my number well that is the number jose gomez gave to us which was a crock of bullskit. The Black lady yelled and scramed at me to the pont they really got me hot. So I called them back from several payphones and made death threats to them and left them threating voice mail messages. The break law I break law F coporate america and george bush. It gets better I cussed out Jonathan Jones. Melissa Lomez and an old white man who sounded like he owned haliburton. Everytime I called their 800 number from payhones it charged them 30 cents a call multply that per 1000. 30 cent payphone surcharge to compensate payphone owners 1996 Telecom Act source FCC. So they sent rockford detecive Estaban Martinez to my neighbours house because my address was sooo fe-up with the phone company of course that was after I cussed him out over the phone back in March. My neighboor lied in his face.... I want everyone who gets harrassed by this camco agency to do the same thing I did. Ask them did they catch the JoseGomez that made several death threats to them. Ask for Melissa Lomez, Jonathan Jones or they white guy who sounds yankee. Call and jamm their lines up by payphone. make terrorist and death threats to them. Bomb threats are really my favorite. Jump from pay phone to payphone and Invite several friends to follow suit.

mark, read the other posts & you'll probably figure out how best to deal with these bottom feeder debt collectors. and despite their lack of info (correct or otherwise) they will try to shake some money out of you. using scare tactics are about the only way camco gets money out of anyone. and here's what's posted on the FTCs website: FTC Alleges CAMCO, RM Financial, and their Principals Violated Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Companies that the Federal Trade Commission alleges have threatened and harassed thousands of consumers to get them to pay old, unenforceable debts or debts they did not owe have agreed to settle charges that their abusive and deceptive collection practices violated federal law. The settlement prohibits the companies' alleged abusive debt collection practices in the future, require disclosures to consumers of their rights in the companies' collection notices and communications with consumers, and requires the companies and their principals to pay a $300,000 civil penalty. The FTC charged that Capital Acquisitions and Management Corp. (CAMCO), its subsidiary, RM Financial Services, Inc., and four principals, engaged in systematic and widespread violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The FTC charges that the principals of the companies were directly involved in the alleged law violations. CAMCO is a debt buyer a company that buys old debts well past the statute of limitations and attempts to collect them. Most of the debts are unenforceable in court and are also so old that they are beyond the reporting periods allowed under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Some of the debts CAMCO allegedly attempted to collect were already discharged in bankruptcy or had been paid. The FTC charged that in their attempt to collect these debts, the companies engaged in abusive and deceptive collection practices, including: Harassing consumers at their workplaces; Discussing consumers' debts with third parties; Continuing to communicate with consumers after consumers had notified them that they did not owe the money and did not wish to be contacted again; Using obscene or profane language; Calling consumers continuously with the intention of annoying and abusing them; Falsely representing the amount and legal status of the debts; Misrepresenting themselves as attorneys; Threatening imprisonment, seizure, garnishment, attachment or sale of property or wages with full knowledge that such action could not legally be taken; Threatening to take action that could not be legally taken, including threatening to disclose the debts to consumers' employers and threatening to report the debt to consumer reporting agencies even though the debts are past the credit reporting periods; and Ignoring consumers disputes of the charges and continuing to harass them after consumers requested verification of the debts.