NAMI SCC Website

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Home
About
Links
Search
Advocacy
Editorial
Experiences
News
Newsletters
People
Recovery
Research
Santa Cruz
Site Map
Guest Book

 

 

Children's Mental Health Site of the Month

 

 

 

Lonnie J. Rigsby 

Thursday, October 03, 2002

Mr. President,
Honorable Congressmen and Senators, & Members of the Media,

I am writing this letter on behalf of Lonnie J. Rigsby.

Mr. Rigsby is a United States Citizen, age 56.

Mr. Rigsby is mentally retarded, with an IQ of 60 to 70, as diagnosed by a psychiatrist appointed by the Social Security Administration. The SSA granted him a fully favorable decision, on August 10th 1999. As entitled to Social Security Disability Benefits. He is totally and permanently disabled: diagnoses include, but are not limited to:

1. Mental retardation.
2. Antisocial and Personality disorders.
3. Psychotic Disorder.
4. Lumbar degenerative disease with spurring.
5. Degenerative Arthritis
6. Chronic Pain syndrome.

As there is no cure for any of the above, therefore the permanency of his illness is beyond question.

Mr. Rigsby feels that his Organic Civil Rights have been violated, for the following reasons, but not limited thereto;

In 1988, Mr. Rigsby accepted a student loan to attend truck-driving school. Part of the requirements of that course was to obtain a GED, which he was not able to accomplish, because of his retardation. The school is no longer in business.

Mr. Rigsby acquired one job as a truck driver, which lasted three months or less. He worked as a janitor and as common labor, from that time until he became physically disabled in 1997. During that time he paid $5.00(Five Dollars), per month on his student loan. When he could no longer work, he became dependent upon the charity of local churches for his needs, and could no longer pay the $5.00(Five Dollars) every month, as was his habit.

The Loan was then assigned to Nationwide Credit, Inc. for collection. Nationwide Credit, Inc has twice paid civil penalties, In 1992 of $100,000, and a record setting $1,000,000 in 1998, in cases brought by the Federal Trade Commission, alleging numerous, violations of consumers rights and violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act :

“Nationwide Credit, Inc., of Atlanta, Georgia, has agreed to pay a $1 million civil penalty as part of a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission to resolve allegations that the company violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The $1 million civil penalty is the largest ever in a debt collection case.

According to the FTC, Nationwide's debt collectors harassed consumers, made false and misleading representations, failed to send required validation notices, failed to verify debts when requested to do so by consumers, and made impermissible third party contacts regarding consumers' debts. Many of these allegations are the same as charges the FTC made against Nationwide in 1992. The consent filed in 1992 also prohibited violations of the FDCPA and required Nationwide to pay a $100,000 civil penalty…

According to the FTC's complaint detailing the charges, Nationwide's collectors, on numerous occasions: called consumers at work when they knew the consumers' employers prohibited such calls; talked with third parties, including neighbors, children, and employers, for purposes other than acquiring location information about consumers, without consumers' consent; used obscene or profane language; caused the telephone to ring, or engaged a person in telephone conversations, repeatedly or continuously, with the intent to annoy, abuse, or harass a consumer; falsely implied that failure to pay the debt could result in arrest, imprisonment, or garnishment of wages; threatened to take action -- such as filing a lawsuit -- when they did not intend to do so; called consumers at times or places that they knew or should have known were inconvenient; failed to notify consumers of their right to dispute and obtain verification of their debts, and to obtain the name of the original creditor; and continued to try to collect debts after consumers disputed them in writing, and before Nationwide verified the debts.”

When Mr. Rigsby applied to have his student loan set aside because of his disability, as he is entitled to under law, Nationwide Credit, Inc., had his Social Security check garnisheed, on 3-1-02, before he could return the required Drs. Report (filled out and dated) 3-15-02. On the 4-17-02, Mr. Rigsby was informed that his request was denied because his application was not certified by a MD or DO. However the Dr. signing Mr. Rigsby’s application, plainly stated that the Dr. was a doctor of medicine and gave his professional licensee number. Mr. Rigsby then called the Dept. of Education, number as stated upon the papers received. He was told he had no recourse to the decision.

That Nationwide Credit, Inc., had a review board, and that even though, there was no Doctor on that Review board, its decision was final. That he could not have a hearing. He was told his only recourse was to Call Nationwide Credit, Inc. Dispite all laws and precedents, he was denied any right to due process, etc. Mr. Rigsby has appealed to his local congressman to no avail. And has exhausted all avenues of recourse available to him. He now goes public with his plea for justice and your help.


Thank You,
Lonnie Joe Rigsby
Thursday, October 03, 2002

LR/lr

Related links on the Nationwide Credit settlements:

Last Updated on 11/29/04   webmaster@namiscc.org

 

 

Home About Links Search Advocacy Editorial Experiences News Newsletters People Recovery Research Santa Cruz Site Map Guest Book

 

Opinions expressed in this web site do not necessarily reflect the views of NAMI Santa Cruz County, NAMI California or any affiliated organizations.  We attempt to present a balanced perspective on issues by presenting multiple viewpoints.

Copyright 2004, 2005 National Alliance for the Mentally Ill Santa Cruz County, All Rights Reserved.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (©) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml  If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.