Paisola v CACH LLC and Attorney Melissa A Ferris - Florida - The Test of The Bank of America, CACH LLC , Unifund Junk Buying Machine, Robert Paisola Reports (Seeking Class Action Status)
Tomorrow we are going to court on a case that has wide spread implications for the large Debt Buying Company CACH LLC which is related to our case with UNIFUND LLC. It is also related to the robo-signing issue with Bank of America as described below. For this story former employees of Bank of America were interviewed and the results are tragic.
The Instant Matter is a Case is based in Florida and we discussed it in detail Here on the National Wire Services
The issue is this:
What is required of a 3rd Party Debt Collector to VALIDATE the claim that they are collecting on. If they happen to be "Junk Debt Buyers" , as is CACH LLC and Unifund, and then they SELL THE PAPER to a collection agency such as CACH LLC, a company in Florida and Colorado.
What do they have to provide in order to ensure that the debt is legal, valid, and collectible?
In the instant matter of CACH LLC v SCOTT MITCHELL, the attorney for CACH, Melissa A. Ferris in Florida, under the direction of Account Manager Joe Roberts. filed an action against Mitchell stating that he had a balance due to CACH LLC (A Bank of America Account) that had been purchased, for over TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS. Mitchell knew Nothing about this obligation, and immediately started searching for assistance, when he found the CEO of Western Capital, Robert Paisola.
Paisola has been battling Unifund and companies such as CACH LLC for over four years on this very issue, however, now it is in Court.
As Counsel for the Debt Buyer, Melissa A Ferris, provided the Honorable Judge George C. Richards of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court in Charlotte County Florida the following information to validate the alleged debt:
The issue of CAN I RECORD A TELEPHONE CALL has also been brought up:
As you know, we encourage all of our clients to record every call that you have with a debt collector, or their agents. This is the reason why:
Lets look at another case out of Florida (Video) This made national news!
The answer to this question is simple. Are you a one party state or a two party state. In this case we are calling from Salt Lake City Utah , so we check with our legal authorities at www.rcfp.org and under Utah law we find:
The FTC has stated that "Recording of Calls with Debt Collectors protects the Consumers Ability to Prove that they have been damaged by a violation of State or Federal Collection Laws"
So, do your research, and if you are calling from a One Party State Like Utah... Game On!
Both debt collectors and consumer groups stated that the taping of collection calls is beneficial to consumers and to the debt collection system. According to the ACA, a survey of its membership shows that in 2007, more than 40% of its debt collector members recorded calls.
Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. See definition of “oral communication,” Utah Code Ann. § 77-23a-3.
Unlawful interception of communication, including disclosure of the contents of a communication with reason to know of the illegal origin, is a felony—except that when the communication consists of the radio portion of a cellular telephone call, it is a misdemeanor. Civil liability for unlawful interception can include the greater of actual damages, mandatory damages ranging from $50 to $1,000, depending on whether it is a first or subsequent offense, $100 per day of violation, or $10,000. Equitable or declarative relief is also available under the statute. Civil actions are governed by a two-year statute of limitations. Utah Code Ann. § 77-23a-11.
Installing a hidden camera or audio recorder to tape a person in a “private place” without consent is a misdemeanor. Utah Code Ann. § 76-9-402. A “private place” is a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from intrusion or surveillance. Utah Code Ann. §76-9-401.
Now, the question is this: What does the creditor have to provide to "Validate the Debt"?
That question is being asked in Courts around the Country because of the sweeping financial changes under the Obama Plan. However recent law is on the Debtors Side:
What does a debt collector need to provide as debt validation?
Proof that the collection company owns the debt/or has been assigned the debt. (Bob is legally entitled to collect this particular debt from you.) This is basic contract law. It is very difficult to get a judgment without a direct contract between collection agency and the original creditor.
All certified account statements from the original creditor. If you really want to get sticky, you can pin them down on the amount of the debt by requiring complete payment history, starting with the original creditor. (How the heck did Bob calculate this debt?) In this instant matter with Mitchell, he is entitled to receive all data to support all charges from the alleged opening of said account (6/26/2004) Counsel did Not Provide this!
There are many cases in Court Right Now, and some Local Courts have been forced to vacate tens of thousands of judgments, where there was no signature.
This is the result of Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations push for debt collection reform.
Millions of Americans are being effected. Watch this story from KSL, here in Utah that describes "A Clogged Court System" that we have used to convince lawmakers that the system is under attack by debt collectors and vultures who label themselves as "Creditors Counsel" and "Debt Buyers" The game has changed and we are seeing more Federal Lawsuits filed daily on this issue.
If a Supposed Debtor can PROVE that the court or the courts "appoints" knew about the inability to grant judgments en masse without a debtors signature, then the consumer can sue the Court and the individuals who knew (Record Everything)
Portfolio Recovery Associates Responds To Zombie Robo-Signer Controversy
Portfolio Recovery Associates asserts that it was a “victim” of the Providian – Washington Mutual record keeping process and “not a participant in it as the article implies.”
Portfolio Recovery Associates and possibly other debt buyers discovered the defects of the “Martha Kunkle” affidavits no later than the January 2008 deposition of the live (daughter) “Martha Kunkle”. Did any of the debt buyers who purchased credit card accounts attempt to exercise their right to return the accounts to Providian, Washington Mutual, Bank America or Chase?
Portfolio Recovery Associates also points out that it purchased more than 24 million delinquent, charged-off and bankruptcy accounts during the past 15 years. Portfolio Recovery Associates estimates that it files lawsuits in order to collect slightly more than 2 percent of their accounts.
Portfolio Recovery Associates acknowledges that it “became aware” of these “defective” Providian affidavits during January, 2008.
Portfolio Recovery Associates’ letter continues :
“After we became aware of these defective Providian affidavits in January 2008, we immediately implemented a program to stop forwarding these Providian affidavits and to direct the law firms who represent PRA in collection cases to discontinue using them.” ***Portfolio Recovery Associates does not indicate whether it took any action to recall the “defective” affidavits or took any other actions to correct any problems created by its unwitting use of the “defective” Martha Kunkle affidavits.
Did Portfolio Recovery Associates notify any courts who accepted the “defective” affidavits; seek to vacate the judgments obtained through the use of the Martha Kunkle affidavits, or undertake similar actions to correct what some people may consider a defective or improperly obtained judgment.
Portfolio Recovery Associates explained that it had :
“no reason to believe that the Martha Kunkle, whose name appeared on Providian, Bank America and Washington Mutual affidavits is deceased, particularly in light of the fact that she was named as a defendant and an active participant in the litigation that resulted from the use of such affidavits. The article fails to mention disclose that the name of the living daughter is the same as the deceased mother. ***
[W]e do not view an isolated example of a third party law firm employee mistakenly including a Kunkle affidavit in a single Washington state collection lawsuit as being symptomatic of ‘corner-cutting’ or ‘sloppy and inaccurate documentation’.”
Portfolio Recovery Associates’ belief that its “affidavit process is as advanced as any in our industry” may well be correct but it avoids an important issue — Is the debt buying industry’s state of the art acceptable?
During a 2008 deposition, the “live” Martha Kunkle testified that numerous Providian employees signed the name “Martha Kunkle” to sworn affidavits.
Even assuming the Providian employees were signing the name “Martha Kunkle” intending for it to represent the signature of the “live” Martha Kunkle rather than the “dead” Martha Kunkle, the affidavits are still fraudulent.
Portfolio Recovery Associates’ assessment that “the ‘Zombie’ heading was sensational” is in correct in some respects. But it avoids an important question — what actions did Portfolio Recovery Associates take to ensure the authenticity of the Providian, Bank America and Washington Mutual affidavits before it distributed thousands of “defective” “Martha Kunkle” affidavits to lawyers so that courts throughout the United States would rely on them when entering judgments against credit card borrowers. Similarly, what actions did any of the other debt buyers take when they learned about the “defective” affidavits? The Court said "This is only the tip of the iceberg, we can see that millions of judgments will have to be vacated regardless of whether "Kunkle" signed the affidavit, as now the Courts are aware of the robo-signing that has been going on in the Providian, Bank America and Washington Mutual affidavits
The Wall Street Journal further reported that :
“In 2008, Judy Montoya, an employee at Portfolio Recovery Associates, testified in a debt-collection suit filed by the company that its ‘legal specialists’ sign as many as 200 affidavits in a day. The company’s spokeswoman said such employees sign an average of 100 affidavits a day and are guided by ‘a very rigorous set of policies and procedures’.”In order to execute 200 affidavits per an eight hour day, an “Authorized Representative”, “Records Custodian” or “Legal Specialist” would have to sign an affidavit an average of every 2.4 minutes. Such limited time hardly seems adequate to review credit card account records, review (nonetheless complete) an affidavit, take an oath and execute the affidavit.
At least a couple of Providian employees are known to have signed the Martha Kunkle affidavits. It is possible that, prior to January 2008, Portfolio Recovery Associates or other debt buyers had at least some reason to question whether the Providian affidavits were what they purported to be.
Obvious questions arise. How many of the tens of thousands of affidavits evidencing Providian credit card accounts bore the signature of anyone other than “Martha Kunkle”? Why do many of the “Martha Kunkle” signatures contain obvious differences in the handwriting?
Perhaps other state attorney generals will join Minnesota and investigate the credit and debt collection industry’s extensive reliance on robo-signers to obtain default judgments against consumers in credit card collection lawsuits.
Congratulations America, You Won!
|Accessed indicates the number of times your Categories have been accessed since this feature was activated on 11/24/2000. |
Displayed indicates the number of times your Listing has been displayed in a given directory category since this feature was activated on 6/27/2002.
Categories in red are categories that you were once listed under, but are no
If you have any questions about this feature, please contact
Click Here to Watch this video to see exactly how Western Capital and The Robert Paisola Team deal with Rogue Debt Collectors. Then call 1-877-517-9555
The Council held a brief session accessible to the public by webcast following a closed meeting. After a week that included news reports suggesting that some federal regulatory authorities had opposed the FDIC’s decision to adopt a sweeping new rule regarding depository institution securitizations without further coordination among the regulatory community, see FDIC Board Approves Final Rule Regarding Safe Harbor Protections for Securitiza-tions, and controversy in a Senate hearing regard-ing the timing for the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection to take binding regulatory actions, there was significant attention to how the fifteen-member Council would work together.
The Council members’ statements conveyed a sense that the Council would play a leading role in a cooperative effort to set the direction for financial services regulation as well as a sense that the Council needs to accomplish a large amount in a short period of time. The Council explained that its discussions would be conducted in public to the maximum extent possible, but noted that certain matters, such as those involving particular compa-nies, might have to be addressed in a closed session.
Designation of Significant Nonbanks
The Dodd-Frank Act provides only general guidance as to how the Council should determine whether a financial institution should be desig-nated as a Significant Nonbank. This has led to speculation as to whether the Council would de-velop some type of matrix of factors that it would consider in determining the treatment of particular institutions and whether such a matrix would be made available in some type of public process. It now appears that the Council intends to conduct a rulemaking process to adopt the criteria that it will use. As the first step in the process, the Council announced that it will be issuing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (“ANPR”) regarding the designation process. The ANPR will consist of 15 questions and will have a 30-day comment period. The Council expects to follow the ANPR with a pro-posed regulation to be issued by the end of the year, with a final regulation targeted for adoption by March 31, 2011.
This rulemaking process will be of great importance to many non-banking financial services firms that may be-come subject to comprehensive and strict federal regu-lation if designated as a Significant Nonbank.
Volcker Rule Study
As has been widely observed, the Volcker Rule raises a wide range of critical issues that should be clarified be-fore it becomes effective. See Dodd-Frank’s Limitations on Risk Taking: An Analysis of the Volcker Rule’s Re-strictions on Proprietary Trading and Investments In and Sponsorship of Hedge Funds and Private Equity Funds.
The Volcker Rule requires the Council to conduct a study and make recommendations (“Study”) regarding the implementation of the Rule that addresses, among other matters, (i) minimizing the risk that insured de-pository institutions and their affiliates will engage in unsafe and unsound activities, (ii) reducing the conflicts of interest between the self-interest of banking entities or Significant Nonbanks and the interests of their cus-tomers, and (iii) limiting activities that have caused or may cause undue risk or loss to banking entities and Significant Nonbanks. The Dodd-Frank Act requires that the Study be completed by January 22, 2011. Following completion of the Study, specified federal financial regu-latory agencies are generally given nine months to adopt rules implementing the Volcker Rule.
The Council announced that it will publish a request for public input in connection with the Study. The request will have a 30-day comment period following its publication in the Federal Register. This notice will offer an im-portant opportunity for parties potentially impacted by the Volcker Rule to identify inconsistencies and unin-tended impacts of the Rule that should be addressed and resolved in the rulemaking process.
Dodd-Frank Implementation Roadmap
In what may be a signal that the Council intends to per-form a coordinating role across agencies as the Dodd-Frank implementation process proceeds, the Council published a 20-page Integrated Implementation Road-map that outlines a wide range of rulemakings, studies and other actions that will be undertaken under Dodd-Frank, with anticipated timeframes.
DBA International, The Debt Buyers Association, strenuously fought this law and issued this statement:
DBA International Responds to Consumer Advocates' Call to Restrict Debt Buyers
Greater restrictions on selling debt would cause primary lenders to choke off credit and limit their lending to only the best qualified so they can avoid the bad debt risk. Those who will suffer are the very people these organizations are seeking to protect.
And while these organizations identify individual stories about people for whom the system did not work, they are the exception and not the rule. An overwhelming majority of Americans repay their debts on time, and most of those who are delinquent make arrangements to pay their lenders. The small remainder becomes the responsibility of the debt's owner and their collectors. When errors occur, existing laws protect consumers and give them recourse. We don't need to add more layers to an already complex system.
It is very easy to paint the little-known debt buying industry negatively. But the work that our members do on a daily basis is a vital part of the American credit economy. Limiting their practices could have tremendous unintended consequences.
Naturally companies such as Unifund and CACH LLC want nothing to do with this agency and highly prefer to be governed by the FTC. However that is not going to happen.
How does this apply to debt collectors? In cases such as the one that we are working on in Florida, the transfer of the portfolio of Bank of America Accounts to CACH LLC and then to Attorney Melissa A Ferris is essentially illegal, unless the ORIGINAL CREDITOR, Bank of America, Provides the chain of custody AND a fully signed application with the debtors signature indicating acceptance of the agreement. BOA says this is impossible to provide, therefore the claim by CACH LLC must be dismissed.
This puts Courts like the one that we are dealing with in Florida, presided over by The Honorable George C. Richards with limited options. He is now required to STOP THE DEBT COLLECTION AGENCY CHURN MACHINES that issue default judgments.
Back to Unifund:
| Unifund, with David Rosenberg as its majority owner, has clients as big as Citibank and American Express.|
(Tony Jones photo)
What can you do about it?
If the creditor has not been advising you as above, you may have a right to sue.
Not even two weeks after the $4,500 payment, the same client was contacted by Creditor's Interchange, Inc., ("CI") a debt collection outfit in Buffalo, NY. The collector calls this office and this is what transpires: A collection agent by the name of Richard Kerns who says he works for CI calls.
- Stress related injuries:
- Heart attack, angina, chest constrictions;
- Ulcers, diabetic flare-up;
- Loss of appetite;
- Nightmares; insomnia, night sweats;
- Emotional paralysis;
- Inability to think or function at work;
- Shortness of breath;
- Anxiety, nervousness; fear and worry;
- Hypertension (elevation of blood pressure);
- Stress to children;
- Embarrassment, humiliation;
- Indignation and pain and suffering.
Because of all of the Financial Reform put in place by the Obama Administration, Senator Carl Levin has now established a Permanent Committee on Investigations at :
Levin: GAO Report on Credit Card Debt Collection Problems Highlights Need for Consumer Financial Protection Agency
|WASHINGTON - Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, today released a U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on credit card debt collection practices. The report describes the increasingly complex debt collection industry; indicates that the key federal law, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), is outdated and ineffective; and demonstrates that consumer protections against abusive debt collection practices need to be modernized and strengthened. |
The report, Credit Cards: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Could Better Reflect the Evolving Debt Collection Marketplace and Use of Technology, [PDF] was requested in 2008 by Levin, then-Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., former ranking minority member, and Sen. Claire McCaskill, D- Mo. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., current ranking minority member, joined in requesting the report this year.
“With the economy in crisis and many people struggling to pay their bills, debt collectors have responded by becoming more aggressive,” said Levin. “The Federal Trade Commission receives more complaints about the debt collection industry than any other industry, logging in about 79,000 complaints on third-party debt collectors last year, which is almost 19 percent of all of the complaints it received. Ongoing abusive practices include trying to collect debt that isn’t owed or is beyond the statute of limitations, making harassing phone calls, threatening to make arrests that the debt collector has no authority to make, and collecting debt discharged in bankruptcy.”
Levin continued, “The GAO report released today makes it clear that the 1977 Fair Debt Collection Practices Act hasn’t aged well and is poorly enforced. The law was written before the advent of email, cell phones, and even fax machines, and doesn’t address modern problems. GAO also found that, despite receiving thousands upon thousands of complaints, federal agencies took only 32 formal enforcement actions over the last decade related to abusive debt collection activities. Debt collection abuses are not getting the attention they should.”
Levin said the report highlights the need for a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. “In today’s complex financial world, consumers need a federal regulator that is looking out for their interests, rather than the interests of the financial industry. As this GAO report shows, even well-intentioned laws like the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act can erode over time and offer less and less protection to consumers,” said Levin. “A Consumer Financial Protection Agency would have the authority to modernize consumer protections against unfair debt collection practices, monitor compliance, and take enforcement action to stop abusive debt collectors.”
Findings of the GAO report include the following:
The Government Accountability Office is the investigative arm of Congress. The report, Credit Cards: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Could Better Reflect the Evolving Debt Collection Marketplace and Use of Technology, [PDF] is available online today.
WASHINGTON -- No tricks. Less fine print. Clearer agreements.
That's how banks should market products to consumers, says Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard law professor in charge of setting up a new federal agency that will police credit cards, mortgages and other financial services.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created as part of the sweeping overhaul of financial regulations last year known as the Dodd-Frank Act. Proponents said such an agency could have sounded an early warning for the abusive lending practices that precipitated the economic meltdown.
It's not clear when a permanent head will be named to lead the new agency. Warren, a vocal consumer advocate who first championed the creation of the agency, is a possibility but is regarded as a contentious choice. President Barack Obama did not need Senate confirmation when he named her in September as a special adviser to help oversee the agency's creation.
The bureau won't be able to exercise its rule-making powers until July 21. In the meantime, Warren has been making key appointments and meeting with banking executives and consumer groups to get the agency up and running.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Warren said one of the first goals will be to make the true cost of financial products easier to understand. She said that should eventually drive down prices for consumers.
Here is an excerpt:
You've said improving the disclosure of credit-card terms is going to be a top priority. How is the bureau going to change what's provided to consumers?
Think about how long a credit-card agreement has become -- it's become pages and pages and pages of largely incomprehensible fine print. In effect, it's paperwork that says, "Don't read me," and that's a real problem. Because hiding in that fine print can be anything.
So one of the things we want to push toward is trying to clear out that kind of shrubbery. So that if there are real changes that a company is proposing, they stand out. They're not camouflaged by all those other words.
And what's the timetable for when consumers can expect to see such changes?
I think people are starting to see somewhat clearer disclosures. For example, there are a couple of major credit-card issuers who -- following our early conversations last fall -- went back and voluntarily rewrote their own credit agreements and began to shrink them down. There have been others who've advertised their credit products along the lines of "no tricks," "less fine print," "clearer agreements."
This agency, even before it has its full legal authority, has driven a conversation and driven a direction for the industry. And it's toward a better-informed customer who can make apples-to-apples comparisons among products.
In terms of the required disclosures -- do you see new forms replacing the Schumer box, which is already intended to clearly lay out the APR, fees and other terms for a credit card?
We're having conversations with credit-card issuers right now and talking through what the Schumer box does and how it might be improved. You know, even the Schumer box has gone from smaller and skinnier to longer and more complicated. So I will readily admit it's an uphill walk to try to get there. But I think we're developing a path in working with the companies.
We won't have legal authority to do anything by way of rule-making authority until after July 21. But we've started now with the industry and with consumer groups and with other stakeholders, investors -- talking with them, showing them what we have in mind, asking for their input, asking for their data, asking for information.
More banks began to cut back on free checking last year in response to new regulations. Do you think further regulation by the bureau will drive up the price of banking?
If the consumer knows the price of a good, the risk associated with it, and can make apples-to-apples comparisons, that's what makes markets work for consumers.
They can figure out who's offering the most expensive product and who's offering the cheapest product. And I'm of the belief that over time, that's going to make financial products cheaper for consumers, not more expensive.
Online banking is top-of-mind right now. With so many new mobile and online banking options, is the bureau dedicating a team to ensure these options are safe?
We've organized the new consumer agency to be market facing. That means that we have divisions dealing with (1) revolving debt and credit cards, (2) mortgages and installment loans, like student loans (3) payments and deposits and (4) credit reporting and (5) debt collection.
We want to be a very data-driven agency around those five markets. Technology and innovation is hitting all of them. And so a big part of what we're doing is hiring people who are technology savvy and actually deeply interested in it.
Another area the bureau will be reviewing is services for people who don't have a bank account. How do you regulate services like payday loans and still ensure people have access to small loans?
Well you know, access to small-dollar loans is critical to many families. The notion that we somehow try to eliminate that, it's just not going to happen.
It can force people into unregulated markets, including "Jimmy the Leg Breaker," which is not where we want people to be.
So it is important from a regulatory standpoint that people are not at the mercy of lenders who build business models around fooling people. They're drawn in the front door thinking they're going to pay one price and then beat about the head and ears, financially speaking, so that they're paying much, much more.
On the other hand, there's a real problem. And that is how to get good, small-dollar lending started in areas where there's great need.
Sometimes that's going to be by community banks. Sometimes it's going to be by nonbank lenders and sometimes it's going to be innovations and new technology that's going to open up markets for the currently underserved population.
I anticipate a lot of change in this area.
Why? In Court Documents Obtained by ABC News, an employee for Bank of America, Wendy Parnell stated:
"2. That the original contract in this matter has been destroyed, or is no longer accessible to Affiant and that this Affidavit is to be treated as THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT for all purposes"
Congratulations Mr. Mitchell and America, Your Voice has been heard.
We will be following this case closely and will keep you updated.
Need Help? See www.WesternCapitalVIP.com and call 1-877-517-9555
About Your Author, Robert Paisola: From Wikipedia
, FDCPA Law and FCRA Law Debt Collection Agency Expert Witness, International Author, International Journalist and CEO of The Western Capital Group of Companies and The Robert Paisola Foundation International
Robert Paisola is driven by a passion for people--motivating them to reach for the highest standards of success. As founder and president of many International Corporations including Western Capital and The Success Training Network, and now, Western Capital Multimedia, the parent company of Rene Magazine located at www.ReneMagazine.net , Robert trains sales and marketing professionals who want to strive to get to the top...and stay there.
He is a Nationally Recognized Criminal Rights Activist and is very involved with assisting inmates and their families who have been abused by the justice system. See www.PrisonPartners.com and www.westerncapitalfoundation.com
His innovative, no-nonsense approach is based on applying what he has observed in his fifteen-plus years in sales, motivational speaking and debt collection training, thus revealing the common business habits of the top 20% of sales performers in all organizations.
While in Mexico, he uncovered a large time share "fractional sales" scam at the Playa Del Sol Grand Hotel. His report is located at:
He is also a noted authority on ethics in the Time Share Industry, as evidenced by The Timeshare Chronicles at www.TimeshareChronicles.com
Robert's unique approach to solving complex corporate problems works...that's why New York-based Success Magazine has rated Robert Paisola as one of the top-five most effective sales-training professional in the market today.
Robert Paisola's newest book was just released and is available on Amazon.com. CONVERSATIONS ON SUCCESS was co-authored with famed author Dr. John Gray and Mr. Tom Hopkins. His newest book, BLUEPRINTS ON SUCCESS is scheduled for release in 2009
Robert Paisola speaks on an International Basis to support his foundation, The Western Capital Foundation. He is also a noted speaker on the topic of Group Dynamics, Change Management, Investing, Real Estate, Asset Protection and Stock Investments.
Routinely Distinguished by The National Speakers Forum, Robert is also a regular contributor to Business Week Magazine, XM Satellite Radio, The Wall Street Journal, Telemundo International, National Public Radio and many other organizations. Robert Paisola is also an International Travel Writer and Certified Expert for magazines such as Conde Nast Publications and The National Geographic Society. His award winning investigative reporting articles have gained him worldwide recognition.
He remains at Western Capital as a part-time, non-executive chairman.
Paisola is available to assist victims of companies such as Unifund and CACH LLC on a temporary basis : See www.WesternCapitalVIP.com
Call Toll Free 1-877-517-9555