This is Lynn Jenkins, she does not represent us
Need a loan? Lynn Jenkins doesn't. Her biggest contributor is QC Holdings. During the 2010 cycle they have given her more money than any other contributor. That's $12,500 from individuals associated with QC Holdings and $5,000 from their PAC. Why would QC Holdings want to give so much?
Maybe it's because they got their proverbial teat in the ringer back in 2007 and they need all the leverage they could get. Back in '07 several banks had to give the Pay Day Rip Off Company, QC Holdings a BAILOUT.
Yuppie Scum owners of QC Holdings, Jill & Darrin Andersen
When a business can't pay its bills and is needing to avoid a default on their loans and the banks RESTRUCTURE the debt, that's a private BAILOUT. That is something the people who are forced to use the legalized loan sharking business QC Holdings offers can't get from a bank.
QC Holdings is a Legalized Loan Sharking Enterprise
Back in '07, the Kansas City Business Journal reported that several banks reached an agreement with the legalized loan sharks to keep them from going belly up on a $45MILLION credit line.
Those banks were, Bank Midwest, Enterprise Bank & Trust, Bank of Oklahoma, and the National City Bank. Well, if a working slob can't get enough of a loan from one of these banks to see him or her to the next paycheck then why are these banks lending money to the legalized loan shark perpetuating the pain of working your keister off and not being able to make ends meet. Don't do business with these banks! They support evil.
How Evil, you ask? http://corporatecrime.wordpress.com/ Corporate Crime Daily, reports that QC Holdings was sued by the Arizona Attorney General. Here's their press release:
Phoenix, Ariz. - December 4, 2009) Attorney General Terry Goddard today filed a lawsuit alleging deceptive business and debt litigation practices against national payday lender Quik Cash (QC Holdings, Inc., and subsidiary QC Financial Services, Inc.).
The lawsuit seeks up to $5 million in restitution, asks the court to set aside hundreds of deceptively obtained court judgments against Arizona payday loan borrowers and seeks to stop the company from doing business in Arizona.
The suit, filed in Pima County Superior Court, alleges that Quik Cash engaged in a pattern of deceptive business and debt collection litigation practices against hundreds of Arizonans from across the state from 2007 through 2009. The Attorney General requested a Temporary Restraining Order to stop the payday lender from violating Arizona law by deceptively suing debtors in improper court venues.
“The deceptive business and debt litigation practices alleged in the complaint are outrageous and make a mockery of Arizona’s Justice Court system,” Goddard said. “The practices alleged in the complaint allowed the company to obtain a veritable assembly line of default judgments against borrowers who could not pay off their payday loans.”
Quik Cash is one of the largest publicly traded payday lenders in the country with 585 stores nationwide as of last year. Quik Cash has about 38 locations in 12 Arizona counties. In 2008, QC Holdings reportedly originated some $1.35 billion in payday loans and posted revenues of approximately $180 million in payday loan fees. In 2008, profit from its Arizona branches represented nearly 8 percent of its total revenues.
The complaint alleges that from 2007 through 2009, Quik Cash entered into payday loan agreements with consumers from across the state, promising that the agreements would be governed by Arizona law. However, the company then engaged in a widespread deceptive practice of suing hundreds of Arizona payday loan customers from outside of Pima County in the distant forum of Pima County Justice Court. These court filings were far from where the consumers lived or where the loans occurred in alleged violation of state law.
The complaint alleges that Quik Cash’s pattern of deceptive litigation tactics benefited the company by reducing its costs and making it more likely to obtain default judgments against Arizona consumers. After filing suit in the wrong court and county, Quik Cash pursued default judgments and wage garnishment actions in the same distant court venue.
The suit further alleges that Quik Cash deceptively advertised and represented that it follows “mandatory” industry standards requiring lawful methods of debt collection. The suit contends that Quik Cash began aggressive new collection strategies to counter the company’s increasing losses and decreasing collections.
The suit states that at least one Justice of the Peace in Pima County issued orders in several Quik Cash debt collection cases informing the company that it had sued in the wrong court and/or ordering the company to file in the correct county. Quik Cash even sued Nevada customers in Pima County, even though the customers had obtained their payday loans in Bullhead City, Ariz.
Arizona law requires lawsuits on small claims ($10,000 or less) to be filed in Justice Court and in the Justice Court precinct where the defendant lives or where the transaction occurred.
The lawsuit specifically alleges:
● Quik Cash misrepresented to customers that its payday loan agreements will be governed by Arizona law, when in fact the company knowingly violated Arizona law by filing debt collection lawsuits in the incorrect court venue.
● Quik Cash deceptively engaged in “distant forum abuse” by improperly filing lawsuits against Arizonans from across the state in Pima County Justice Court in violation of Arizona law, which increases the debt burden and makes it difficult for consumers to respond, thus increasing the likelihood of obtaining default judgments.
● Quik Cash deceptively filed related default judgments and garnishment actions against consumers in the same distant venue after having deprived consumers of their day in court at the outset of the debt collection litigation.
● Quik Cash deceptively advertised that it follows “mandatory” payday lender association standards requiring lawful collection methods.
The suit asks the Pima County Superior Court to:
Prohibit the defendants from engaging in deceptive or false business practices and advertising and from doing business in the State of Arizona.
Impose a penalty of up to $10,000 for each violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, which could be up to $5 million in this case.
Set aside the deceptively obtained default judgments against consumers.
Require the defendants to reimburse the Attorney General for costs of the investigation and reasonable attorneys' fees.
Assistant Attorney General Vince Rabago is prosecuting this case. For more information, please contact Steve Wilson at (602) 542-8351.
If you believe you have been a victim of fraud, please contact the Attorney General’s Office in Phoenix at 602.542.5763, in Tucson at 520.628.6504 or outside the Phoenix and Tucson metro areas at 1.800.352.8431. To file a complaint in person, the Attorney General’s Office has satellite offices throughout Arizona with volunteers available to help. Locations and hours are posted on the Attorney General’s Web site, www.azag.gov . An online complaint form is also posted on the Attorney General’s Web site.
So, when Lynn Jenkins says you need to grow up, pay your own bills, and fight your own battles, remind her that she takes more money from the sleaze at QC Holdings than from any other source.
Old Ben Franklin said it best: when you lay with dogs you get up with fleas. And baby that's an itch that 2,147% interest won't cure!
No comments:
Post a Comment