Law for Real People - John Gear Law Office & Salem Consumer Law 503-339-7787

A suggested template for when you are fighting with a business on the phone

9/27/2014

A big problem for consumers is that the businesses that cause you problems are also the ones who wind up controlling all the contacts you have with them, and they like to do so in ways that make it hard for you to later prove that they told you A, B, or C when they claim to have told you X, Y, and Z.

Here's a suggested template for taking notes during and after phone calls with any business (a bank, a credit card servicer, a billing department, a mortgage lender, etc.). It's not a guarantee that you won't have problems, but it would sure help a lot if the company trying to screw you wasn't the only one with records of all your contacts.

1. On _________ (date) at about _________(time), (I called [company]/[company] called me) and I spoke with a representative of [company] who identified (him/her)self as __________________(name), ID number _____________. The number (I called/was called from) was __________________.

2. During the call, I expressed my concerns about account number _________________________ specifically concerning

a. (first concern) __________________

b. (second concern) __________________

(and so on -- as many different topics as you discuss)

3. About these concerns, ___________________ (company rep. name) told me that

a. (what they said) ___________________________

b. (what they said) ___________________________

(and so on -- as many different topics as you discuss)

4. (company rep. name) told me that :

a. (first one) I (should/must) do this: ___________________ no later than (time/date) _____________________

b. (second one) I (should/must) do this: ___________________
no later than (date) _________________________

etc.

5. I am sending you these call notes for your review and confirmation so that we may rely on them later.

Please review these notes and advise me immediately, by email to (address), with followup by US Mail to (address), if [company] believes there are any discrepancies between these notes and [company] call records.

Thank you,

John Gear Law celebrates 4th Birthday - Thanks to you

9/1/2014

Today marks John Gear Law Office's fourth birthday.

I am very grateful to all the clients who have trusted me with their problems and given me the opportunity to help them find solutions. Thanks to your trust and confidence, I have been able to meet my primary practice goal: Making a modest living with a "values-based Oregon law practice" -- where "values-based" means I don't represent the folks trying to take advantage of others, my clients are the ones wronged by those who do.

It's not the easiest area of law and it's definitely not the most lucrative, but I think it's the most satisfying. As the Mrs. works towards her M. Div. and ordination as a minister, I am able to have a practice that reflects, rather than conflicts with, the values of a ministry.

Pretty good guidance on buying a new car and trading yours in

8/18/2014

Two very good articles with lots of sound advice for helping you avoid the salesman over there on the left.

How to Buy A Car (LA TIMES)

How to Trade a Car (LA Times)

And if you are thinking about a used car, this next LA Times link is a MUST READ:
How to know if your car was recalled but not fixed.

Tell your Congresscritter: Don't Let Corporations Endanger Our Health and Safety with Secrecy Deals!

8/5/2014

We shouldn't let giant corporations keep hiding what they know about defective products when they settle lawsuits!

And there's a way to stop them -- it's called the Sunshine in Litigation Act, introduced in Congress by Sens. Blumenthal and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.

The bill would require judges to consider the impact on public health and safety before deciding whether to approve secret settlements.

With rare exceptions, sealing records "relevant to the protection of public health or safety" would be prohibited under the bill.

It passed the Senate Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support in 2011.
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-op-blumenthal-sunshine-in-litigation-act-20140804,0,606730.story

Why I do this work: A letter from a client's mom

6/25/2014

Hi John,

I want to add my thanks to J------'s for all your help with resolving the issue regarding the truck she bought. It was clear the entire time we worked with you that you were totally on the same page as we were. Not only did we want our money back but we wanted to put a crimp (if ever-so-small) in this guy's business operations.

You can be sure we will use you in the future, if it ever becomes necessary, and share your competence and compassion with our friends and family.

So, thanks again.

Why you need to call the police if your caregiver or employee steals from you

4/8/2014

I just had a call from a very nice person who needs caregivers around-the-clock, 365 days a year. One of these caregivers recently stole money from from my friend. My friend said it happened about six weeks ago, and that the person was no longer serving as a caregiver, so she was just going to let it go.

I had to explain to her why it was so important that she call the police:

Because other people looking to hire caregivers are going to look at the home-care workers' registry and look at the results of the criminal background checks, and if she doesn't file a police report about the theft, this caregiver will appear to have both a lot of experience and no problems in her background.

My friend felt uncomfortable; the caregiver is young, and my friend doesn't see herself as vindictive. Basically, she does not want to get the other person in trouble.

But of course, it's not my friend who is responsible for the trouble — the thief did that. My friend needs to report to protect others from this person and ultimately to protect herself by making sure that the system for background checks is reliable and complete. Someone who will steal from a disabled person getting 24 hour care is not someone who should be able to find work as a caregiver for other vulnerable people.

So you're not being kind by overlooking abuse or thefts like this. Consider what you're doing to the person's next victim.

My friend was also concerned that, because it would be her word against the caregiver's, she would not be able to prove that the theft occurred. I made two points about that:

one, it's not her problem to prove the case. That is a job of the police and the district attorney, not the crime victim.
Second, it turns out that the circumstances of the theft and what was stolen means that it is highly likely that the stolen property was fenced nearby, and it will be very memorable to whomever ended up with it -- meaning that it won't be that hard to prove that it was the stolen property in question.

Besides, punishing the thief isn't the issue here, or is at least not the main issue. The main issue is making sure that a person who preys on vulnerable people can't do so invisibly.

The situation is the same with nonprofits. Many times when nonprofits are ripped off, the tendency among the members as to keep it quiet and not make a big fuss about it. It's also very appealing for the board to say that they were partially at fault for allowing the thief to rip them off, and therefore they don't want the bad publicity to their organization etc. etc. The big problem with this logic is the same as in my friend's case: when crime victims don't report crimes, the criminals are allowed to find new victims and victimize them, because they have no reason to know about the person's past.

So, uncomfortable as it is, if someone rips you off, don't make it your job to help them cover it up. If someone abuses you or steals from you, whether you are an individual or as part of an organization, call the police. Let the police and the court system make the decisions on prosecution and any punishment that might occur if warranted.

Bottom line: don't help criminals victimize other people by failing to report past crimes.

UPDATE: A helpful assistant attorney general points out:
"Great points, John. You might also tell your friend and others that they can call the Medicaid Fraud Unit at the Oregon Department of Justice if the care occurs at home and the provider is paid by the State, or if the theft or financial exploitation occurred in a Medicaid-funded facility [note that nearly all nursing homes and assisted living facilities accept Medicaid funding - JMG] whether or not the victim is a Medicaid recipient."

Thanks, AAG! You can reach the Medicaid Fraud Unit (MFU) at 971-673-1971.

Historian shows how our "textualist" Supreme Court happily throws the Constitutional text overboard to serve corporate "citizens" and steal the 7th Amendment Right to Jury Trial from real citizens

3/31/2014

By Paul Bland:

http://publicjustice.net/blog/important-new-book-proves-federal-arbitration-act-badly-distorted-by-supreme-court

This post examines a recently published book by an extraordinary law professor, Imre Szalai, who has gone back through the papers of the three men who drafted and lobbied for and pushed the Federal Arbitration Act. In painstaking historical detail, reviewing all sorts of primary materials, he establishes convincingly that the FAA was never intended to (a) apply to employment contracts at all; or (b) apply to take-it-or-leave-it contracts. This book is an important development in the historical scholarship on the Act, and demonstrates conclusively that the FAA has been distorted and mis-shaped by the U.S. Supreme Court in recent decades. The Act now covers millions of people and transactions that it was never intended to address.

The advocates of forced arbitration are literally on the wrong side of history – the Court’s decisions fly in the face of what the authors and supporters of this statute had intended.

Paul Bland
Senior Attorney, Public Justice
Of Counsel, Chavez & Gertler
On Twitter @PblandBland

A letter just sent to a caller worried about a looming foreclosure

3/14/2014

Maybe the only thing I can think of that's worse than losing a house to foreclosure is squandering a lot of money first on phony foreclosure rescue scams: the scams run by people who say that they can review your loan documents and find you all these reasons that you'll be able to poke holes in the lender's foreclosure case. If you think you got a different loan than you were promised, or that your loan was not the same on paper as it was represented to you, or the lender did something shady at closing, consult an attorney. But first, please, remember, the HUD-Approved Housing Counselors are FREE. And there is no magic sauce that anyone else has that is better than what the HUD-approved counselors can offer you as far as finding resources to help you with the more usual problem, which is too much debt for the money at hand. So if someone approaches you and offers you "help" on your crushing debt or foreclosure issue, don't give them any money, and if they give you suggestions or ideas, run them past the HUD-approved folks to see what they think before you try any of them.

I just got a call from an Oregonian who has owned a home in a lovely part of Oregon for over 40 years, but the third refinance, from 2008, has turned out very badly for this person; monthly income under $600, monthly mortgage $1300. The only thing that could make this difficult situation worse, in my opinion, is wasting the few remaining dollars at hand on phony foreclosure rescue schemes (which also wastes the energy that should be used in preparing a transition to a more affordable situation, if the money needed to maintain the present home is not assured). Thus, the letter below.

         Thanks for your call to discuss the problems you are having maintaining payments on your refinanced home. I’m very sorry to hear of your situation, and I certainly wish I had a good suggestion for you; however, you told me that you had already exhausted assistance from the hardest hit funds and that your monthly income is far less than the monthly payment on your loan.

         I want to warn you again about people who prey on those facing foreclosure problems; they offer lurid tales of fighting off banks, but these success stories are always impossible to actually verify. Frankly, except for HUD-approved housing counselors (whom you have worked with at NEDCO in Springfield), my opinion is that people who offer to solve your debt/foreclosure problems in a way that doesn’t involve catching up the payments are shady or worse. So tread carefully, and know that, at the end of the day, if there was a way for ordinary people to keep houses for long without paying the mortgage notes, banks would have their minions in Salem and Washington DC fix that at warp speed. So if someone asks you for money to show you the inside secrets that are supposedly going to help you keep your house without making all the payments, I would call the Oregon Attorney General’s Consumer Protection hotline at 877-877-9392 (especially if they have taken money from you).

         In the meantime, this confirms that you called to consult with me but that you did not hire me, that we have not met, and that I am not your attorney and did not give you any legal advice. If you feel I can be of service to you in the future, I would be pleased to help you after discussing an engagement agreement at that time.

If you lose your income or are having problems paying your mortgage!

2/28/2014

People having trouble paying their mortgage or who maybe need to get mortgage loan modifications should see a HUD- certified housing counselor first!

While these folks are not lawyers, helping people hang onto their homes if they can is their job, so they are familiar with the programs for loan modification and their requirements.

And, because they are government-funded, they do not charge clients for their services. Click here to find one near where you live:
http://www.cbs.state.or.us/dfcs/ml/foreclosure/counselors.html.

A sad comment on the foreclosure "settlement" with the big banksters

2/28/2014

A consumer-rights leader and expert sends the following comment:

From http://ctblueblog.com/

Pam Martens covers all things Wall Street, and if you want to stay in a permanent state of despair about the country generally, and economic fairness specifically, you should read it religiously. She has been covering the Senate hearings on the foreclosure “settlement” and you won’t believe this:

http://is.gd/ilvmwP

Not to put too fine a point on it, it appears that the banks engineered a deal where they get to decide who they scammed, and then they get to call one dollar 500 dollars. (I wonder if I can repay my own mortgage using that kind of accounting?) For that matter, if they can find a million dollar mortgage out there they can convert a dollar into a thousand dollars. Plus, and why is this no surprise, they can get this rosy outcome by comforting the most comfortable among those they scammed (or decide that they scammed, and they are incentivized to decide they scammed the rich) while ignoring the most strained. What a great country.

LAWYERLY FINE PRINT:

John Gear Law Office LLC and Salem Consumer Law; John@JohnGearLaw.com and SalemConsumerLaw.com. My office is in the Security Building in downtown Salem at 161 High St. SE, across from the Elsinore Theater, a half-block south of Marion County Courthouse, just south of State Street. I'm in Suite 208B. There is abundant, 3-hour free on-street parking throughout downtown Salem, and three multi-story free parking ramps as well.

I am only licensed to practice law in Oregon. This site may be considered advertising under Oregon State Bar rules. I don't give legal advice on this site; don't interpret anything you read here as intended for your particular situation. Besides, I'm not your attorney unless we have met in person and you have hired me by entering into a representation agreement with me. While I do want you to consider me when you seek an attorney, you should not hire any attorney based on brochures, websites, advertising, or other promotional materials. All original content on this site is Copyright John Gear, 2010-2016.