 This is the mice type from the postcard above. You basically need a Hubble telescope to read it. But that's the point - they don't want you to read it. They just want your brain to lock up on the word FREE! And the cute puppy. The local Dish TV folks are a great example of everything wrong with businesses today, and they deserve a resounding non-response from anyone unlucky enough to get their junk.
These guys not only mailed me their junk postcard at home (ignoring my vigorously expressed wish to not get junk mail, including listing our house and each adult in it on the Direct Marketing Associations "Do Not Mail" directory, and adamantly refusing to purchase anything from a junk mail solicitation).
They also had the gall to send me this incredibly deceptive "offer," with its gigantic FREE and the picture of the adorable puppy -- and an entire paragraph of mice type so small that I simply cannot read it; I'm not saying it's hard for me to read, I'm saying that despite my transition bifocals, there is no way I can physically resolve print that small, glasses or not.
By scanning the postcard and then blowing up the scanned image 300%, I was able to make out the following:
- There is a $17.50/mo early cancel penalty (meaning you are screwed if you lose your job or your apartment and have to move before you've paid for 24 months. If you only use it one month, you could have to pay $402.5 in cancel penalties);
- PLUS there's a one-time $99 setup fee -- that one is guaranteed to be "no-how, no way" for a refund, come hell or high water;
- Oh, and did you see the $10/mo in hidden -- well, ok, disclosed in 4-pt type -- equipment rental fees? So every price shown is BS by at least $10/month.
- Don't forget that the mice type also says that there are taxes and fees added --- Not that they could bother to tell you what they are before you sign up. After all, they only use huge computers to track the residents and consumer behavior of each and every person in some 100 million households in America in incredible detail; they couldn't possibly be expected to manage up to FOUR (gasp!) numbers on top of all that data. (Four? Yup -- the taxes and fees from (1) federal government; (1) one state government; and, at most, (1) county and (1) city government. Why, their little computer circuits would fry just thinking about being expected to manage all that complexity and having to tell consumers what the bill would be before they're on the hook for the early cancel fee!
- Best of all, the mice type also says "Prices subject to change." What the hell does that mean?? If they double the price and you decide you have to cancel, are you still on the hook for the $17.50/mo? Probably -- because they told you, right there in 4 point microscopic type!
Any business that markets this way is sending you a clear, simple message:
"We don't respect you. The only thing we care about you is how much money we can make off you.
Moreover, we think our service is so overpriced that we'd never sell any unless we use BS teaser rates and microscopic disclosures to screw you out of your hard-earned money. We'll hide some pretty important details in tiny mice type, and then play hardball when you have to cancel early because you can't afford the service after we've finished jacking up the fees and you see the government fees and taxes added on for the first time . . . with your first bill.
And since we don't respect you, or our offerings, or ourselves, we'll ignore all that and just put cute puppies and the word FREE in big, bold letters everywhere, and rake in the cash from people who are way too trusting of people like us."
As a consumer, you should print that red text and keep it next to your mailbox or the chair you use when reading your mail. Every time you get a postcard or letter that looks like Dish's flyer here, remind yourself of what that kind of advertising is really saying.
 | james_v_recontrust_mers_order_2-29-12.pdf | | File Size: | 2484 kb | | File Type: | pdf |
Download File
A tremendously important and even courageous decision by a federal judge in Oregon. The banksters are mobbing in Salem, desperately trying to make past illegal conduct OK. Call your representatives and tell them that you expect that they will stand up for Oregon, not for the big banks throwing people out of their homes after having been bailed out to the tune of billions and billions of dollars. TELL THEM: NO RETROACTIVE APPROVAL FOR THE MERS SCAM! BANKS AND MORTGAGE SERVICERS SHOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAW TOO!
The excellent "Consumerist" blog has this post that should be read by everyone who has ever been tempted by an online "free" offer. free for a fee FTC Pulls Plug On Sites That Made $359 Million On Bogus "Free" Offers
By Chris Morran on February 24, 2012 1:55 PM (Ninja M.)
If you're a Consumerist reader, you're probably the type of online shopper that would be wary of a website promising a "free trial" period. But every year, millions of Americans think they're getting something for nothing — only to end up much poorer because they didn't read the fine print.
The Federal Trade Commission has announced a settlement agreement with the operators of an Internet scheme that used bogus "free" product offers in order to deceive consumers by charging them for products and services they did not want or agree to purchase.
The 10 companies — all owned by the same person — targeted by the FTC complaint had been offering "free trials" for various products online, including acai berry weight-loss pills, teeth whiteners, and health supplements containing resveratrol, work-at-home schemes, access to government grants, free credit reports, and penny auctions.
Customers were required to give their credit card numbers to pay for small fees for shipping and handling, and also promised phony "bonus" offers just for signing up.
As a result, many of them ended up with recurring $79.95 fees. The sites claimed to offer money-back guarantees but the FTC found that customers had to jump through several hoops just to get any sort of refund, if they received one at all.
The settlement not only puts a stop to these businesses using "negative-option" marketing, wherein the seller interprets consumers' silence or inaction as permission to charge them, but the owner of these companies is ordered to repay $359 million.
To fulfill that penalty, the defendant is surrendering assets in his bank account, proceeds from the sale of his house, personal property, and corporate assets, including a Cadillac Escalade, fur coat, and artwork.
"The fact that almost four million consumers fell prey to the lure of these 'free trial' offers is a stark reminder that 'free' offers can come at a huge price," said David Vladeck, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection. "The FTC has stopped about $1 billion in online marketing fraud during the past two years by shutting down operations like this. But consumers still need to beware, because scam artists are constantly coming up with new ways to deceive people online."
To that end, the FTC has the following tips for anyone who is tempted by a free trial offer.
1. Do your research. Before signing up, do a search for the company online to see if there are complaints from other customers.
2. Uncheck any pre-checked boxes. If you see any pre-checked boxes during the ordering process, there's a good chance the site is trying to get you to opt into something that will cost you more in the long run.
3. Mark your calendar. If you do go through with the trial offer, be sure to mark your calendar so you know exactly when the trial period ends. It's best to end your trial several days before the end of that period, as some companies will claim it can take a few days to process your cancellation.
4. Read your credit card statements carefully. Even after you've cancelled, be sure to keep an eye on your credit card statements to make sure you're not seeing any new or phantom charges.
If you're having trouble cancelling or if phantom charges continue to show up on your card, you need to contact your credit card issuer to dispute the charges before they start adding up.
 Got a call this afternoon that proved the wisdom that I learned at age 15 (far too long ago): NEVER RELY ON THE SELLER'S ASSURANCES IN A USED CAR SALE IF THERE IS AN "AS IS" STICKER IN THE WINDOW! If there is an "As Is" sticker in the window, you should treat the salesperson as if they were wearing a sign that says "You cannot rely on a word that I say." You MUST take the car to your own trusted mechanic and have that mechanic do a thorough inspection, including a compression and timing check for all cylinders, checking for signs of undisclosed frame damage, suspiciously new components, etc. If you cannot afford this pre-purchase check, you can't afford the car anyway, so get away from there before you get ripped off. REMEMBER: There are no used cars being sold in Oregon that are too good to pass up. There are plenty of good used cars being sold every day for a fair price -- if you miss one, there will be plenty of others available when you've saved up a little more money. By the way, like many people, the caller thought that there was a 3-day right to return the car. Nope. If you sign on the line and drive away, you. are. stuck. So be sure before you do!
P.S. Never finance with the dealer. Arrange your financing before you shop with your credit union. (You are in a credit union, right?) Don't discuss financing at all until you have picked the car you like and your mechanic has done a thorough inspection. IF, at that point, you still want the car, negotiate with the dealer without disclosing that you already have financing. If the dealer quotes a price, ask if that is the best price and ask what the cash price is -- since you have your own financing arranged, you are the same as a cash buyer, which merits a discount.
I've reposted the below from David Sugerman's blog. As a nuclear engineer and nuclear submarine officer (before I was an attorney), I studied human errors intensively and am very well-acquainted with the research on human error tendencies in pressure-filled situations. The conclusion of that study? Nearly everything about how modern American medicine is organized is BAD for patient safety and INVITES DANGEROUS ERRORS that hurt people. NASA, the submarine force, the aerospace industry, and computer manufacturing are just a few example of where errors are systematically studied and analyzed and changes made TO PREVENT THE SAME MISTAKES FROM HAPPENING AGAIN AND AGAIN. But hospitals (especially) and medicine as a whole fight tooth and nail to resist all of the best practices designed to eliminate dangerous errors. There is a problem that high malpractice premiums highlight -- but that problem is a "system" that systematically ignores patient safety. Instead of focusing on reducing the harm from errors, they concentrate almost all efforts on preventing the victims of these systemic errors from trying to seek justice.
As an attorney who focuses on consumers, elders, and nonprofits, I don't have a dog in this fight - I'm not writing as someone who brings claims over violations of patient safety. But as someone with a lot of training in identifying and managing high-risk operations safely, I know that I'm always floored when I go to hospitals and clinics by how absolutely primitive these places are in their (dis)organization, and how often it's just a matter of luck that even more people aren't hurt by their dealings with the medical system. Here's the original post:
Memo to the Oregon Legislature: Healthcare Transformation Starts with Patient Safety
The Oregon Legislature is back in session and grappling with proposed health care transformation. Yesterday, we learned that some legislators are more concerned about “defensive medicine” and putting an arbitrary limit on access to justice for Oregonians who are on the Oregon Health Plan or Medicaid rather than they are about keeping patients safe.
Did you know that more than 98,000 Americans die every year from medical errors? Here is some context: That number is equivalent to a 747 jet liner crashing every day of the year killing all on board. So when we talk about healthcare transformation, shouldn’t we really be talking about patient safety?
We need to focus on the real problem with health care delivery and that is keeping patients safe and informed. Recently, Legacy Emanuel participated in a national study where they implemented simple procedures and check lists for all hospital staff to follow. You know, things like washing your hands between each patient, making certain all medical equipment is accounted for before finishing a surgery, that the patient is the same person as the chart on the end of their bed.
According to the Oregonian’s report on that study, Legacy saved over $13 million in one year, cut down on medical errors and significantly lowered their infection and injury rates. Imagine the cost savings if these check lists and procedures were implemented in every Oregon health facility. Imagine the health improvement and lives saved from real health care transformation that starts with patient safety.
Instead of focusing on patient safety, we have legislators holding forth about something they call “defensive medicine,” They are using that label as a tool to put arbitrary monetary limits on patients’ rights. Here is a modest proposal: If we’re going to talk about things like this, let’s resolve to get the facts straight.
The label “defensive medicine” presumably refers to tests ordered by a provider for purposes of preventing or defending against a lawsuit. A provider who orders testing with no therapeutic value commits insurance fraud, violates Oregon law, and ignores the first rule of medical ethics to do no harm. The doctor who orders unnecessary tests puts the patient at risk by subjecting the patient to an unnecessary medical procedure. And legislators think that Oregon doctors routinely order unnecessary tests, committing Medicare or insurance fraud and putting patients at risk because what? To keep insurance premiums lower? Really?
In the same opinion piece there was a second solution to “the problem.” There is a reason for the quotes: No one has ever identified the problem. Even for lack of a problem, some Oregon legislators seek to impose a two-tier justice system. Under the plan that is a solution in search of a problem, the two-tier system would mean two levels of justice. The first tier is reserved for individuals with private insurance. The second tier is for patients on the Oregon Health Plan (OHP).
The new legislation would strip OHP patients a basic constitutional right to trial by jury and instead and would limit or cap how much OHP patients can sue for when they are injured due to negligent, substandard medical care. That’s right, under the solution to the non-problem OHP patients claims would be limited even when a provider gives care that is proven to be negligent.
The legislators pushing this agenda presumably are doing it in the name of lower doctor malpractice premiums. What they are not saying is that this solution to non-problem has been tried in other states. The result: No noticeable effect on doctor liability insurance premiums.
Under this emerging plan, if you have the good fortune to have your own insurance, you would be able to hold a negligent care provider accountable for substandard or negligent care. If a surgeon mistakenly amputates the wrong leg and you are on OHP, the two-tier system of justice would limit your access to justice, no matter how egregious the negligence, no matter how high your lifetime medical costs, no matter your life situation. And this limit would take the form of a fixed limitation set by the Oregon Legislature. Because those who believe that their solution is necessary are also dead certain that the Oregon Legislature is better able to set damages in all cases than a jury that decides each case on the evidence.
It’s time that the political agenda of the few take a back seat to patient safety. It is time to make certain that health care transformation puts patient safety first.
 This is a very good example of how to do it right when you try to alert customers or stakeholders about a "phishing" attempt.
"Phishing" is where the scam artist dangles a lure and tries to lure you to bite on what appears to be a safe-looking link that actually leads you to a specially-disguised website, where they get you to give them your private data, all while making it appear that they are helping you).
Willamette Valley Bank is a local institution, and this email (complete text below, image above) is a well-done warning. Some phishing warnings are so poorly planned that you can't tell whether it's a genuine warning or more phishing. The text of the WVB warning:
Dear Client & Friend,
We recently received a communication alerting us to the fact that there may be an attempted phishing attack in progress. Because we care about the safety of our clients, we are providing you with information and steps to take if you receive this fraudulent email.
Phishing is a form of fraud that is used as an attempt to acquire personal information such as usernames, passwords, and credit card details. The most common way this is attempted is through email.
Emails have been received that reference the "eNFact" product. These emails have been directing recipients to click on a link (shown in the e-mail sample below) which will take them to a mock-Fiserv site which is believed to be installing malicious software onto computers.
The phishing attack will come in an email similar to the one that follows:
[see image above]
1. Do not open the email;
2. Do not click on the link contained in the email; clicking on any of the links contained in the email may install malicious software on your system;
3. If a link is clicked, steps should immediately be taken to protect your computer and/or network;
4. Delete the email from your "Inbox" and "Sent Items.
Please rest assured that your personal information stored on Willamette Valley Bank computers is secure and this threat does not compromise that information. If you have any questions about this at all feel free to contact us:
_Translation: When some big company violates the federal laws limiting telephone nuisances, you can go into federal or state court as you prefer; the company doesn't get to waste your time and money trying to force you to file in the other system, regardless of which court you chose.Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC
Ginsburg, J., writing for the unanimous Court
Full Text Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1195.pdfCIVIL PROCEDURE: (Federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over private suits arising under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.)
In response to consumer complaints, many states enacted statutes restricting telemarketing and other “abuses” of telephone technology. Recognizing that telemarketers were evading state-law prohibitions by operating interstate, Congress passed the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), which banned certain practices telemarketers were using (e.g., automatic telephone dialers, use of prerecorded messages, and use of caller ID manipulation) and directed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to implement regulations. The TCPA also provided for private parties to bring civil actions “in an appropriate court of that State” and authorized State Attorneys General to bring civil actions on their residents’ behalf with exclusive jurisdiction being given to the Federal District Courts.
Petitioner (Mims), a private party, invoked federal question jurisdiction and filed a claim against Arrow Financial Services (Arrow) in federal District Court seeking declaratory relief, a permanent injunction and damages for Arrow’s willful and knowing violation of the TCPA. The District Court dismissed Mims’ complaint stating that federal question jurisdiction was unavailable “because Congress vested jurisdiction over [private actions under] the TCPA exclusively in state courts.” The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed and the Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split regarding which courts had jurisdiction over private actions brought under the TCPA.
In a unanimous decision, the Court held that because district courts possess federal question jurisdiction for claims arising under federal law and since Mims’ TCPA claim is based on a private right of action created by federal law, the lower court erred in dismissing his case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and that private TCPA claims may be brought in either state or federal court.
 _To the left is a pretty extensive laundry list of lawbreaking committed by a Georgia debt collector against consumers in that state. These guys broke the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) in just about as many ways as they could.
Keep this list in mind -- if a debt collector ever does any of this to you or anyone you know, contact a consumer attorney immediately. Keep all phone messages, voice mails, and every bit of correspondence you get from the debt collectors, and make a record of when they call, their names, and numbers.
If you are in Oregon and you know of anyone who has experienced any of these violations, I would be glad to assist. Courts can and have hit debt collectors with "statutory damages" of up to $1,000 for each individual violation committed against a consumer, PLUS making the debt collector pay the attorney fees for the consumer bringing the action.
Two of Oregon's premier consumer attorneys are helping consumers being ripped off by British Petroleum, the company whose negligence led to countless hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil dumped into into the Gulf of Mexico. The suit alleges that, by slipping debit card charges in on top of the gas purchase, BP has failed to follow the plain language of Oregon law requiring that posted price signs be truthful.
If you have purchased gas from a BP ARCO or AM/PM station, you should go check it out.
_ I have been working for months now on a project that has the potential to provide ample, sustainable, non-general-revenue funding for legal aid services so desperately needed by ordinary folks in Oregon these days, as Oregon and the feds keep cutting their support, and more and more people are ground up by the legal system simply because there is nowhere for them to turn. Imagine if the $13 BILLION that the big banks made reinvesting money lent to them at near-zero interest by the Feds had gone to support legal aid services. (That's right, banks got huge piles of free money from the Feds at the Federal Reserve discount windows and then turned around and LENT that same money back to the federal government at interest, using the profits to pay bonuses that already exceed the pre-crash-year bonuses of 2007 and 2008. Whoever said there is no free lunch meant "for real people" -- because the banks sure as hell have enjoyed a lavish free endless banquet at our expense.) Stay tuned here this year, I hope to have good news on this front in 2012. Meanwhile, a good essay by a top consumer lawyer. Equal Justice under the Law An Essay by O. Max Gardner III - As consumer lawyers, we are trained to believe that our legal system should be fair - equal justice under the law - yes, the same law and the same order for all of us. But, for those of us in the trenches doing mortgage defense litigation or representing consumers in bankruptcy cases, we all know that there has been one set of rules for us and another set of rules for the banks and the law licenses they rent. . . .
The truth of the matter is that we have been playing on a field that has been tilted about 90 degrees in favor of the financial institutions for decades. But, the truly astounding fact is that we are still playing. We are still in the game. And, somehow, someway, we score a few touchdowns now and then, hit a few field goals once in a while and sack the quarterback once in a while. In fact, we have scored more points in the last year than in the last five years combined. So, the bottom line for us as this year comes to a close is that there is hope. We have made some real progress. We have opened the eyes of many judges and many more trustees. We have taken our true facts to the media and many reporters have seen the true light and have written about it. David J. Stern is no longer in business and a lawyer by the name of Baum no longer has his truly scary foreclosure mill in New York. And, we have accomplished all this while running either uphill or downhill on every single play.
But the truly sad and indeed bad news for our system of justice is not directly related to us but to the hundreds of thousands of Americans who do not have any level of legal representation. It is not fair and there is really no hope when an untrained and non-represented consumer must go into court alone. As hard as the battle is for us, the trained lawyers, what about the family that goes before a judge alone in an effort to avoid a foreclosure on their home? I mean these folks don't have chance in hell of winning. I have a better chance of winning the Mega Millions or the Powerball lottery than these consumers have of avoiding the demurrer or the motion to dismiss. The bottom line is that the right to have your day in court should not depend on whether those in need can afford to retain an attorney. But this is how it is in our America. Money talks and the rest of us walk right out of the courtroom with a signed dismissal order. Civil legal assistance to low-income people has been available in the United States since 1967 but always with shoestring resources.
For many years, any mode of representation for the less affluent has fallen on our legal services programs. But, the second Great Depression has hit beyond the families that legal aid organizations serve - it has also struck a severe blow to the organizations themselves and the funding they must have to do their work. On November 15, 2011, the United States Congress cut $56 million from the Federal Legal Services Corporation for next year. As a result, federal support for the specific purpose of providing legal services to low-income people will drop by 15 percent in 2012. But, the full picture is even worse. Federal legal services funds for all programs were already cut by hundreds of thousands of dollars this year....
And, remember, this is not just about the unrepresented consumers or about the judges and trustees we deal with every day but about saving our system of justice and due process from the unprecedented level of fraud and the endless lies of the creditors and their lawyers. In short, it is time for us to clean up the biggest national crime scene in the history of these United States of America. Law and Order must be restored and our system of just must be preserved. The torch is in the air and like it or not we are the only ones left to catch it!
|
RSS Feed
John Gear Law Office LLC; 503-339-7787; John@JohnGearLaw.com. My office is in Suite 208B of the Security Building in downtown Salem. That's at 161 High St. SE, across from the Elsinore Theatre, just a block south of Marion County Courthouse. There is abundant, free, 2-hour on-street parking throughout downtown. #### #### #### Lawyerly fine print: Licensed in Oregon. This site may be considered advertising under Oregon State Bar rules. There is no legal advice given or intended on my site. I'm not your attorney unless we have met in person and entered into a representation agreement; while I hope you will consider me when you seek an attorney, you should not hire any attorney based on brochures, websites, advertising, or other promotional materials.