Bill Bartmann, Rogue Blogger

When not hobnobbing with Oklahoman law makers or reminiscing about that time Mother Theresa said he was cool, Bill Bartmann’s been blogging for the Huffington Post — a site that’s only just a step up from Yahoo!Answers in terms of relevancy, accuracy, and legitimacy.

What’s Bill saying on the Internet this time around? Oh, the usual: “A Candy Store for Criminals: The Debt-Collection Business.”

Guys, he really doesn’t like you. At all.

It’s probably still too early in the morning to entirely parse out the irony of allegations from a man whose first business was (allegedly) shut down for (alleged) fiscal crimes. And sure there are nuances in the CFS I case that should be considered — foremost among them is the fact that Bartmann himself was eventually found “not guilty” (though not “innocent”) of the charges.*

[* This is similar, at least in my mind, to a driver suggesting that he couldn't be at fault for the accident because he wasn't paying attention at the time -- but that's just me.]

Bartmann’s current piece starts out reiterating his thesis: all debt collectors except for his debt collectors are criminal debt collectors because there is no legitimate way to recoup money for businesses from consumers.

But!

Then he goes on to point out that some collection agencies hire literal criminals: “The debt-collection business has become a career of choice for criminals.”

Bartmann then lists hysterical (as in “excitable” not as in “funny”) example after hysterical example of criminals that were hired by collection agencies. He hangs his hat on this argument: collection agencies are run by criminals who hire criminals, and it’s not just a few bad apples because of Massachusetts or something.

Bartmann doesn’t take the time to consider that many people with criminal backgrounds apply for jobs all the time — and not just in the collection industry. They get hired, too. Bartmann can’t entertain this wider argument, though, because it weakens the point he wants to make in his blog.

But then logical consistency isn’t necessarily what he’s hoping for. Getting his name out there as some sort of Robin Hood for the collection industry is more in line with his current game plan.

I’d like to quote from the end of his piece:

“Does the act of a criminal employee make the company a criminal itself? It does when the company doesn’t take its responsibilities seriously to screen carefully, train fully, monitor constantly, and fix problems immediately.”

While reading that, it might be helpful to keep in mind that it was Bartmann’s business partner, Jay Jones, who ultimately took the fall for the fiscal malfeaseance in CFS I. And one might find oneself wondering how Bartmann would answer his own hypothetical question: “Does the act of a criminal employee make the company a criminal itself?”