I have some issues with the "facts" and the clearly slanted position of your article.
1/ Gurstel Chargo is a law firm not a collection agency.
2/ For you to blindly say that collection agencies illegally seize funds is not accurate, especially with the judgment debtor cited in your article. The funds were seized by a law firm not a collection agency which is the headline of your article. Please note there is a night and day difference between a collection agency and a law firm which collects debts. It's like saying the Tucson Weekly and the New York Times are newspapers.
3/ Mr. Lippman did not represent a collection agency, he represented a law firm.
4/ There was no reversal by the collection agency, as there was no collection agency involvement.
5/ There is a significant difference between falling behind on a bill and paying zero.
6/ I'm curious where you get your numbers to cite collection agencies experiencing a golden age, as I have found this to be further from the truth, and you cite nothing in support of your contention.
7/ What did she buy with the credit card, why is that missing from the story?
8/ Did you find out or ask why she hasn't file for bankruptcy protection?
Please note that I am not advocating the seizing of exempt funds from senior citizen judgment debtors, however, without knowing what really transpired between the judgment debtor and the law firm, my guess is more transpired than the simpleton way you decided to write this story, which always reads better with the big bad collection agency vs the elderly lady who's struggling to keep her house which she's not paying on either and is in foreclosure.
Tucson Weekly |
7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 |
(520) 797-4384 |
Powered by Foundation