Mrs. Schnauzer and I recently took a walk down memory lane by attending a Three Dog Night concert in Birmingham. It turned out to be more than a musical adventure; it also helped put the modern American economy in perspective.
The concert was at the Alys Robinson Stephens Performing Arts Center on the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) campus. UAB is my former employer, and I hate to give the impression that I support anything there while it is run by President Carol Garrison's corrupt administration.
But Three Dog Night is one of my favorite bands from the late 1960s and early 70s, and the four remaining original members are all entering their mid 60s, so I figured I might not have too many more chances to see them.
Since Mrs. Schnauzer and I both have been cheated out of our jobs by political/corporate forces in Alabama, we thought long and hard about spending money for concert tickets. But we decided it would be OK to merge several years' worth of birthdays, anniversaries, Valentine's Days, and other special occasions into one concert--which was at a very nice venue by the way; some of the people running UAB suck, but the Stephens Center is a mighty fine place to watch a concert. Like almost all of the many good things about UAB, it has nothing to do with the Garrison administration--although I'm sure they'll try to figure out some way to screw it up.
I should report that Mrs. Schnauzer was being an awfully good sport about our special evening out. Before we met, she didn't give a rip about Three Dog Night--although she did associate them with that "strange song about a bullfrog." Her pop sensibilities run toward Aretha Franklin, Barbra Streisand, The Alan Parsons Project, and (ahem) The Village People. She's also into high-brow stuff like Bach and Beethoven and Celtic folk songs--material that goes right over my head. If it wasn't on Casey Kasem's American Top 40, I probably don't know about it.
Anyway, I've turned Mrs. Schnauzer onto Three Dog Night over the years, so she put up a good front about being happy to go to the show. I think I hooked her by pointing out that two songs Birmingham's Taylor Hicks sang on American Idol--"A Change is Gonna Come" and "Try a Little Tenderness"--were originally covered by Three Dog Night, with Cory Wells on lead vocals.
The concert was good, and the sound in the Stephens Center is excellent. At 1 hour and 15 minutes, the show was way too short for my taste. Three Dog Night could have played for four hours and still not covered all the songs I wanted to hear. But hey, the guys are getting creaky, so I understood we couldn't have a marathon.
How did our concert turn into an economics lesson? Well, a few days after the show, I was inspired to pull out one of my cherished vinyl discs--Three Dog Night, Captured Live at the Forum--which was recorded on September 12, 1969, in Los Angeles.
Folks who now consider the Dogs an oldies act might not realize how seriously these guys could rock in their heyday. The eerie keyboard intro and the driving guitars and percussion on the live version of "Chest Fever" should be enough to please any headbanger.
During one break between songs on the live album, some fans near the back of the arena yell out that they are having trouble hearing. "You can't hear back there?" says one of the Three Dog Night singers. "See, you should have bought the $5.50 tickets in the front."
The crowd laughs, and the Dogs assure the folks in the nose-bleed seats, "We'll have some technicians check on that, OK?"
My immediate thought? Front-row seats were $5.50? At the Los Angeles Forum? For one of the biggest bands in America at the time?
Heck, you can't get a drunk to vomit on you for $5.50 at a major concert these days.
And we're not talking about a story your grandmother might tell about the Great Depression. I was 12 years old when that concert was recorded. Yes, I'm getting up there, but 1969 is not ancient history. Wilt Chamberlain and Warren Beatty, combined, had only slept with about 15,000 women at that point. And Warren's still going strong. (Wilt, we're sorry to report, has gone to that great STD clinic in the sky.)
In 40 years time, the price of a major concert ticket has increased by . . . 1,500 percent or so (assuming my math is correct).
No wonder we need Xanax in the water supply these days.
Think I'll put on the headphones, crank up Three Dog Night, and drift back to 1969.
Reality really does bite.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Spokesman For Alabama Governor Takes Hypocrisy To New Levels
A spokesman for Alabama Governor Bob Riley decried what he called "low-road tactics" when a pro-bingo crowd shouted down the governor and his wife during an anti-bingo rally last week on the State House steps.
Hypocrisy among Republicans is so blatant that it takes a lot for one example to stand out. But Riley spokesman Jeff Emerson definitely managed to stand out with his latest whopper. That's partly because it came roughly on the heels of a report here at Legal Schnauzer about a Riley associate threatening a Christian Coalition leader over gambling issues.
Here is what Emerson said after last week's showdown on the State House steps:
Notice that Emerson seems to be oblivious to threatening tactics that go in the other direction. One example came in our report on Friday about Dax Swatek, Riley's campaign manager in 2006, who threatened Dr. Randy Brinson because the Christian Coalition leaders supports efforts to tax and regulate gambling in Alabama, with proceeds going to boost the state's Medicaid program.
Here is how a 2007 lawsuit described Swatek's actions:
So you see, the Riley crowd has no problem with low-road tactics--when they are the ones using them.
Speaking of threats, we know a thing or two about them. In the weeks before I was unlawfully terminated from my job at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), I received numerous anonymous comments of a threatening nature on this blog. One specifically threatened my job, and I was fired roughly a month later.
Evidence strongly suggests that those anonymous threats came from someone with ties to the Riley administration. When I file a lawsuit against the University of Alabama Board of Trustees and UAB officials acting in their individual capacities--and that will come in the next six weeks or so--discovery should show conclusively who sent those e-mails.
And I'm hardly alone in being the victim of unlawful treatment at UAB, while Bob Riley has served as ex oficio president of the board. We've written about numerous other cases that involve discrimination or other unlawful acts at UAB.
Has Bob Riley spoken a word about any of those cases? Not that I'm aware of. He only seems to be concerned about the law when it involves bingo.
Isn't that curious?
Hypocrisy among Republicans is so blatant that it takes a lot for one example to stand out. But Riley spokesman Jeff Emerson definitely managed to stand out with his latest whopper. That's partly because it came roughly on the heels of a report here at Legal Schnauzer about a Riley associate threatening a Christian Coalition leader over gambling issues.
Here is what Emerson said after last week's showdown on the State House steps:
“Threatening tactics, intimidation, shouting down ministers, the use of profanity, all at a peaceful gathering designed to let people who oppose casinos to voice their concerns,” Emerson said. “Alabamians need to pay attention to the low-road tactics they use to attack those who dare disagree with them and their plans to get a no-bid casino bill through the Legislature.”
Notice that Emerson seems to be oblivious to threatening tactics that go in the other direction. One example came in our report on Friday about Dax Swatek, Riley's campaign manager in 2006, who threatened Dr. Randy Brinson because the Christian Coalition leaders supports efforts to tax and regulate gambling in Alabama, with proceeds going to boost the state's Medicaid program.
Here is how a 2007 lawsuit described Swatek's actions:
Not only have negative comments been made about Brinson and the Coalition in the news media, Brinson recently received a personal threat from Dax Swatek during a phone conversation after the April 10, 2007, press conference held by Rep. Marcel Black concerning HB 527. In the conversation Swatek told Brinson he'd "better back off," and said it in a threatening manner sufficient to alarm Brinson. As Swatek represents a powerful gambling interest with an enormous interest in controlling the state's gambling laws, Brinson has taken Swatek's threat seriously.
So you see, the Riley crowd has no problem with low-road tactics--when they are the ones using them.
Speaking of threats, we know a thing or two about them. In the weeks before I was unlawfully terminated from my job at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), I received numerous anonymous comments of a threatening nature on this blog. One specifically threatened my job, and I was fired roughly a month later.
Evidence strongly suggests that those anonymous threats came from someone with ties to the Riley administration. When I file a lawsuit against the University of Alabama Board of Trustees and UAB officials acting in their individual capacities--and that will come in the next six weeks or so--discovery should show conclusively who sent those e-mails.
And I'm hardly alone in being the victim of unlawful treatment at UAB, while Bob Riley has served as ex oficio president of the board. We've written about numerous other cases that involve discrimination or other unlawful acts at UAB.
Has Bob Riley spoken a word about any of those cases? Not that I'm aware of. He only seems to be concerned about the law when it involves bingo.
Isn't that curious?
Lies of Debt Collectors "Shock the Conscience"
Mrs. Schnauzer and I have a couple of veteran attorneys, Darrell Cartwright and Allan Armstrong, handling our lawsuit against unethical debt collectors.
We suspect that Cartwright and Armstrong have been around long enough to encounter quite a few people who have a serious problem telling the truth. But even long-time lawyers have been taken aback by the disinformation generated by the defendants in our lawsuit--Pennsylvania-based NCO and Birmingham-based law firm Ingram & Associates.
We allege multiple violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA), plus various state-law claims, and our lawyers say it "shocks the conscience" to see how defendants twist the truth in an effort to cover up their wrongdoing.
NCO and Ingram & Associates have a problem trying to squirm out of this case because we tape recorded several conversations with their representatives. The evidence of unlawful actions cannot be denied, but employees of the defendants try to deny it anyway.
Write Cartwright and Armstrong in court documents:
Two examples come from the affidavit of Jann Blalock, an Ingram & Associates manager with whom I spoke about a debt I allegedly owed to American Express.
In her affidavit, Blalock says that "it was not and is not the practice of Ingram to make any statements or threats to levy upon or threaten to sell the property of a debtor."
So how does that explain Blalock's statement in a recorded conversation that "they attach assets" and they can "take any money that you put into a bank account"?
How does that explain the statement by Blalock's colleague Tracy Mize, which my wife testified to in a deposition, that Ingram could "sell our house on the courthouse steps"?
When confronted with that statement on the tape recording, Blalock says, "We didn't say the house, we said the deed to the house." Oh, I guess that's different.
So Blalock's affidavit indicates she didn't threaten our property, but the tape recording has her admitting that they threatened to sell the deed to our house on the courthouse steps.
In her affidavit, Blalock says she heard Tracy Mize refuse to give information to my wife about why she was calling me. But in the tape recordings, Blalock acknowledges that Mize talked with my wife for roughly an hour and took 14 pages of notes about the conversation. What was Mize talking to my wife about? The upcoming season of Lost?
See what our lawyers mean about shocking the conscience?
And that's hardly all. Defendants state under oath that they never spoke with my wife about the debt--which did not involve her, by the way; the card was in my name. But the recorded conversation they had with me indicates they spoke at length with my wife. Write Cartwright and Armstrong:
Representatives from Ingram and NCO stated that courts always rule in their favor, that "there's not much of any way around that." They made this statement, even though they now have admitted that they have no documents from American Express indicating I even had a cardholder agreement, much less that I owed a debt.
We're just getting warmed up with the actions and statements from these debt collectors, and their attorneys, that shock the conscience. There is much more to come. In fact, we are about to show you how we caught lawyers for Ingram and NCO in a lie that boggles the mind . . . while it shocks the conscience.
It boils down to attempted fraud on the court and probably should result in the disbarment, or at least the suspension, of several opposing lawyers. Of course, given the Alabama State Bar's pathetic record for managing its troops, that is unlikely to happen. But what you soon will be reading at Legal Schnauzer is a disgrace to the so-called legal "profession"--and it shows just how desperate these debt collectors are to obscure the truth.
For now, you can check out the affidavit from Jann Blalock, which was given under oath:
Jann Blalock Affidavit
We suspect that Cartwright and Armstrong have been around long enough to encounter quite a few people who have a serious problem telling the truth. But even long-time lawyers have been taken aback by the disinformation generated by the defendants in our lawsuit--Pennsylvania-based NCO and Birmingham-based law firm Ingram & Associates.
We allege multiple violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA), plus various state-law claims, and our lawyers say it "shocks the conscience" to see how defendants twist the truth in an effort to cover up their wrongdoing.
NCO and Ingram & Associates have a problem trying to squirm out of this case because we tape recorded several conversations with their representatives. The evidence of unlawful actions cannot be denied, but employees of the defendants try to deny it anyway.
Write Cartwright and Armstrong in court documents:
Employees of the co-defendants have submitted sworn affidavits in this case that directly, and irreconcilably, conflict with their own recorded telephone conversations. It shocks the conscience to see how violently the Affiant's own written words collide with their recorded voices.
Two examples come from the affidavit of Jann Blalock, an Ingram & Associates manager with whom I spoke about a debt I allegedly owed to American Express.
In her affidavit, Blalock says that "it was not and is not the practice of Ingram to make any statements or threats to levy upon or threaten to sell the property of a debtor."
So how does that explain Blalock's statement in a recorded conversation that "they attach assets" and they can "take any money that you put into a bank account"?
How does that explain the statement by Blalock's colleague Tracy Mize, which my wife testified to in a deposition, that Ingram could "sell our house on the courthouse steps"?
When confronted with that statement on the tape recording, Blalock says, "We didn't say the house, we said the deed to the house." Oh, I guess that's different.
So Blalock's affidavit indicates she didn't threaten our property, but the tape recording has her admitting that they threatened to sell the deed to our house on the courthouse steps.
In her affidavit, Blalock says she heard Tracy Mize refuse to give information to my wife about why she was calling me. But in the tape recordings, Blalock acknowledges that Mize talked with my wife for roughly an hour and took 14 pages of notes about the conversation. What was Mize talking to my wife about? The upcoming season of Lost?
See what our lawyers mean about shocking the conscience?
And that's hardly all. Defendants state under oath that they never spoke with my wife about the debt--which did not involve her, by the way; the card was in my name. But the recorded conversation they had with me indicates they spoke at length with my wife. Write Cartwright and Armstrong:
"They discussed payment options, executions on judgments that have not been obtained, and likely never could be obtained, and much more."
Representatives from Ingram and NCO stated that courts always rule in their favor, that "there's not much of any way around that." They made this statement, even though they now have admitted that they have no documents from American Express indicating I even had a cardholder agreement, much less that I owed a debt.
We're just getting warmed up with the actions and statements from these debt collectors, and their attorneys, that shock the conscience. There is much more to come. In fact, we are about to show you how we caught lawyers for Ingram and NCO in a lie that boggles the mind . . . while it shocks the conscience.
It boils down to attempted fraud on the court and probably should result in the disbarment, or at least the suspension, of several opposing lawyers. Of course, given the Alabama State Bar's pathetic record for managing its troops, that is unlikely to happen. But what you soon will be reading at Legal Schnauzer is a disgrace to the so-called legal "profession"--and it shows just how desperate these debt collectors are to obscure the truth.
For now, you can check out the affidavit from Jann Blalock, which was given under oath:
Jann Blalock Affidavit
Monday, March 1, 2010
Josef Stalin's Spirit Lives on Through the Paul Minor Case in Mississippi
Is America a country of colossal contradictions?
Consider that, a little more than a year ago, we elected our first African-American president, a step many people would consider a sign of progress. But at the same time, the spirit of Russian dictator Josef Stalin lives on in America--and evidence of that came last week with the latest ruling in the Paul Minor case.
Stalin, of course, was known for sending his political opponents to prison camps. The U.S. Justice Department, under George W. Bush, adopted a similar strategy. And its victims included Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and three men in Mississippi--attorney Paul Minor and former state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield.
The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a petition for an en banc hearing last week in the Minor case, indicating that it is willing to help cover up the Stalinesque tactics of the Bush regime.
Is anyone in the Obama Justice Department paying attention? Is Congress willing to exercise its oversight authority over a justice system that is hopelessly off track? We've seen no signs of it.
What does last week's Fifth Circuit ruling mean? In December, a three-judge panel of the appellate court overturned the bribery convictions against the Minor defendants but allowed several fraud-related convictions to stand.
That ruling, while welcome to an extent, was preposterous on the whole because the fraud convictions were based on jury instructions that were not even close to being correct under the law. That's because U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate, who should be the subject of a federal investigation, issued jury instructions that he had to know were bogus.
Here's how we described it in an earlier post:
Minor's attorneys note that the U.S. Supreme Court already is questioning the constitutionality of the honest-services fraud statute at issue in the case. But the Minor appeal shouldn't come down to that.
Wingate ensured that the defendants would be convicted for a "crime" that doesn't exist. Imagine that you get convicted of "fraud" in a federal courtroom because you once ate an ice-cream cone. "But eating an ice-cream cone isn't illegal!" you would understandably say. What the Minor defendants were alleged to have done, even if taken as true, isn't a crime either. But a corrupt judge used faulty jury instructions to concoct a "crime" out of thin air.
Because of that, Paul Minor has served almost four years in federal prison already. And while his sentence might be reduced with the bribery convictions overturned, Wingate still is in charge of the case--so there is no reason to think the law will be correctly applied at this late stage.
Why did the full Fifth Circuit refuse to hear the Minor case? We can think of three reasons:
* The appellate judges, Republican and Democratic nominees alike, have a vested interest in perpetuating the myth that our courts are honest. They are, we suspect, covering for a corrupt district judge. In other words, they are more concerned about protecting the legal profession, and their lofty positions in it, than they are about justice.
* The judges probably hope the Minor defendants will die in prison, so they are never able to get out and tell the truth about what happened in their case;
* The judges know that if the convictions are totally overturned, the Minor defendants will be released from prison and probably will file lawsuits seeking justice in the civil arena for the massive injustices they have suffered in criminal courts. Such lawsuits could lead to all kinds of uncomfortable moments for people like Karl Rove, George W. Bush, and their many Deep South acolytes.
That third factor, we suspect, is the big key. And we suspect that's the reason the Don Siegelman convictions were not totally overturned by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Interestingly, the 11th Circuit, in Siegelman, did just the opposite of what the Fifth Circuit did in Minor: It overturned the fraud convictions but left the bribery convictions in place. Almost sounds like a fix was in across the circuits, doesn't it?
As long as some legitimacy is attached to the Minor and Siegelman convictions, it makes it harder for the defendants to ever seek justice for the unconscionable civil wrongs that have been committed against them.
Meanwhile, our first African-American president seems to think that our citizens cannot be distracted by minor matters regarding justice.
How's that for irony? I wonder what Martin Luther King, who dealt with a few minor matters regarding justice, would think about that. I suspect he would be ashamed--and I bet he would be deeply fearful that much of his work, for which he gave his life, would wind up in vain.
Can you imagine our first black president allowing the spirit of Josef Stalin to flourish in America? Can you imagine our first black president allowing Martin Luther King's legacy to be tarnished by essentially saying, "Matters of justice aren't worthy of our attention at this time"?
Contradictions, indeed.
Consider that, a little more than a year ago, we elected our first African-American president, a step many people would consider a sign of progress. But at the same time, the spirit of Russian dictator Josef Stalin lives on in America--and evidence of that came last week with the latest ruling in the Paul Minor case.
Stalin, of course, was known for sending his political opponents to prison camps. The U.S. Justice Department, under George W. Bush, adopted a similar strategy. And its victims included Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and three men in Mississippi--attorney Paul Minor and former state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield.
The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a petition for an en banc hearing last week in the Minor case, indicating that it is willing to help cover up the Stalinesque tactics of the Bush regime.
Is anyone in the Obama Justice Department paying attention? Is Congress willing to exercise its oversight authority over a justice system that is hopelessly off track? We've seen no signs of it.
What does last week's Fifth Circuit ruling mean? In December, a three-judge panel of the appellate court overturned the bribery convictions against the Minor defendants but allowed several fraud-related convictions to stand.
That ruling, while welcome to an extent, was preposterous on the whole because the fraud convictions were based on jury instructions that were not even close to being correct under the law. That's because U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate, who should be the subject of a federal investigation, issued jury instructions that he had to know were bogus.
Here's how we described it in an earlier post:
How on earth did a jury convict three men for a crime they clearly did not commit? It happened because Judge Henry Wingate presented the jury with instructions that did not come close to matching the actual law.
In an earlier post, we cited this critical portion of Wingate's jury instruction on honest-services fraud:
"You may find specific criminal intent even though you may find that the rulings were legal and correct, that the official conduct would have been done anyway, that the official conduct sought to be influenced was lawful and required by law, and that the official conduct was desirable or beneficial to the public welfare."
There's only one problem with that jury instruction: It isn't correct under the law, not even close. Henry Wingate simply pulled it out of his . . . well, you get the idea.
Minor's attorneys note that the U.S. Supreme Court already is questioning the constitutionality of the honest-services fraud statute at issue in the case. But the Minor appeal shouldn't come down to that.
Wingate ensured that the defendants would be convicted for a "crime" that doesn't exist. Imagine that you get convicted of "fraud" in a federal courtroom because you once ate an ice-cream cone. "But eating an ice-cream cone isn't illegal!" you would understandably say. What the Minor defendants were alleged to have done, even if taken as true, isn't a crime either. But a corrupt judge used faulty jury instructions to concoct a "crime" out of thin air.
Because of that, Paul Minor has served almost four years in federal prison already. And while his sentence might be reduced with the bribery convictions overturned, Wingate still is in charge of the case--so there is no reason to think the law will be correctly applied at this late stage.
Why did the full Fifth Circuit refuse to hear the Minor case? We can think of three reasons:
* The appellate judges, Republican and Democratic nominees alike, have a vested interest in perpetuating the myth that our courts are honest. They are, we suspect, covering for a corrupt district judge. In other words, they are more concerned about protecting the legal profession, and their lofty positions in it, than they are about justice.
* The judges probably hope the Minor defendants will die in prison, so they are never able to get out and tell the truth about what happened in their case;
* The judges know that if the convictions are totally overturned, the Minor defendants will be released from prison and probably will file lawsuits seeking justice in the civil arena for the massive injustices they have suffered in criminal courts. Such lawsuits could lead to all kinds of uncomfortable moments for people like Karl Rove, George W. Bush, and their many Deep South acolytes.
That third factor, we suspect, is the big key. And we suspect that's the reason the Don Siegelman convictions were not totally overturned by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Interestingly, the 11th Circuit, in Siegelman, did just the opposite of what the Fifth Circuit did in Minor: It overturned the fraud convictions but left the bribery convictions in place. Almost sounds like a fix was in across the circuits, doesn't it?
As long as some legitimacy is attached to the Minor and Siegelman convictions, it makes it harder for the defendants to ever seek justice for the unconscionable civil wrongs that have been committed against them.
Meanwhile, our first African-American president seems to think that our citizens cannot be distracted by minor matters regarding justice.
How's that for irony? I wonder what Martin Luther King, who dealt with a few minor matters regarding justice, would think about that. I suspect he would be ashamed--and I bet he would be deeply fearful that much of his work, for which he gave his life, would wind up in vain.
Can you imagine our first black president allowing the spirit of Josef Stalin to flourish in America? Can you imagine our first black president allowing Martin Luther King's legacy to be tarnished by essentially saying, "Matters of justice aren't worthy of our attention at this time"?
Contradictions, indeed.
Dear Abby and Flatulence: A Can't-Miss Combination
The newspaper industry is struggling, but don't count me among those bloggers who seem to almost look forward to the death of dailies.
I got into reading and writing because of a love for newspapers. That led to a 30-year career in journalism, and I want to see the "old gray ladies" stick around.
I've been reading newspapers cover to cover for years. But I originally was drawn to them by two factors--the sports section and the advice column. A recent item in Dear Abby reminded me why I remain enthralled by advice columns, to this day. It's a dandy that bears repeating here at Legal Schnauzer.
My infatuation with newspapers goes way back. When I was about eight years old, my older sister and I would hide at either corner of our house and wait for the afternoon Springfield News-Leader to plop in the front yard. We would race to get it and then fight over who got to read which section first. (There wasn't much to do in our town back then.)
I already was a regular listener to St. Louis Cardinals baseball broadcasts, featuring the Hall of Fame team of Harry Caray and Jack Buck, so the sports page was a natural. But I got into advice columns from listening to my mom talk about this woman named Ann Landers, who seemingly could solve any problem in a few column inches of newspaper space.
I was instantly hooked and became even more entranced when I learned that Ann had a twin sister named Dear Abby who wrote advice columns for newspapers in other, far-off cities. How could two sisters know so much, I wondered?
Ann has gone on to the great free-advice booth in the sky, and Abby retired after the onset of Alzheimer's disease. But Abby's daughter, Jeanne Phillips, is carrying on the family tradition. And she ran a recent item that made me laugh until tears ran down my cheeks. Here it is:
Abby managed to produce this reply, seemingly with a straight face:
Abby obviously understands the first rule of comedy: You can never go wrong with a fart joke.
You also have to admire the husband's way with words in the letter. First, he provides some inside scoop about the energy that drives the trucking industry. Then, on the home front, he wants to get "frisky" but gets turned off when his wife turns on the "trumpet sounds." I can't wait to read more letters from this guy.
Finally, we can't help but appreciate the irony that is present in the husband's missive. My understanding is that it's usually the wife who has to put up with a "tooty" partner. (I have no firsthand knowledge about this, of course; I'm just going on anecdotal evidence.) But having the complaining party be a dude turns this into a Dear Abby column for the ages.
And I speak with a certain authority, having been an advice-column aficionado for roughly 45 years now.
No matter what might happen with health-care reform, with our hemorrhaging economy, with Afghanistan . . . it's somehow comforting to know that Dear Abby's still got it.
I got into reading and writing because of a love for newspapers. That led to a 30-year career in journalism, and I want to see the "old gray ladies" stick around.
I've been reading newspapers cover to cover for years. But I originally was drawn to them by two factors--the sports section and the advice column. A recent item in Dear Abby reminded me why I remain enthralled by advice columns, to this day. It's a dandy that bears repeating here at Legal Schnauzer.
My infatuation with newspapers goes way back. When I was about eight years old, my older sister and I would hide at either corner of our house and wait for the afternoon Springfield News-Leader to plop in the front yard. We would race to get it and then fight over who got to read which section first. (There wasn't much to do in our town back then.)
I already was a regular listener to St. Louis Cardinals baseball broadcasts, featuring the Hall of Fame team of Harry Caray and Jack Buck, so the sports page was a natural. But I got into advice columns from listening to my mom talk about this woman named Ann Landers, who seemingly could solve any problem in a few column inches of newspaper space.
I was instantly hooked and became even more entranced when I learned that Ann had a twin sister named Dear Abby who wrote advice columns for newspapers in other, far-off cities. How could two sisters know so much, I wondered?
Ann has gone on to the great free-advice booth in the sky, and Abby retired after the onset of Alzheimer's disease. But Abby's daughter, Jeanne Phillips, is carrying on the family tradition. And she ran a recent item that made me laugh until tears ran down my cheeks. Here it is:
Dear Abby: My wife is constantly passing gas. She does not care where she is or who is around. I have worked in the trucking industry for almost 30 years and never ran across anyone as flatulent as she is. She is young and attractive, but there is nothing less appealing than feeling “frisky,” getting into bed and hearing the trumpet sounds. I have recommended she see a doctor, but she laughs it off and says, “Everyone does it.” I can’t believe I’m the only one with this problem.
—Blown Away in Alliance, Ohio
Abby managed to produce this reply, seemingly with a straight face:
Dear Blown Away: Everyone may do “it,” but perhaps not to the extent that your wife does. There are over-the-counter products that can lessen the problem, which may be related to her diet. However, if her flatulence persists, then I’m recommending you not let your wife “laugh off” the idea of consulting a physician, because her problem could be a symptom of something that needs to be checked out—and that’s no joke.
Abby obviously understands the first rule of comedy: You can never go wrong with a fart joke.
You also have to admire the husband's way with words in the letter. First, he provides some inside scoop about the energy that drives the trucking industry. Then, on the home front, he wants to get "frisky" but gets turned off when his wife turns on the "trumpet sounds." I can't wait to read more letters from this guy.
Finally, we can't help but appreciate the irony that is present in the husband's missive. My understanding is that it's usually the wife who has to put up with a "tooty" partner. (I have no firsthand knowledge about this, of course; I'm just going on anecdotal evidence.) But having the complaining party be a dude turns this into a Dear Abby column for the ages.
And I speak with a certain authority, having been an advice-column aficionado for roughly 45 years now.
No matter what might happen with health-care reform, with our hemorrhaging economy, with Afghanistan . . . it's somehow comforting to know that Dear Abby's still got it.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Riley Aide Threatens Christian Coalition Leader Over Gambling
An associate of Alabama Governor Bob Riley threatened a Christian Coalition leader over gambling issues, according to a lawsuit filed in Montgomery County Circuit Court in May 2007.
Dr. Randy Brinson, chairman of the Christian Coalition of Alabama, states in the lawsuit that he supported a bill in the Alabama House of Representatives that would tax and regulate gambling and help fund Medicaid. Brinson's support for the bill, sponsored by Rep. Marcel Black (D-Tuscumbia), drew heavy fire from Riley allies.
The most alarming fire came from Dax Swatek, who was Riley's campaign manager in 2006. The lawsuit says Swatek had become a lobbyist for Jones Group LLC, a Montgomery-based public affairs consultant registered to lobby on behalf of Greenetrack Inc., an Alabama gaming facility, among others.
Swatek apparently was more than happy to take money from gambling interests. But he must not have liked the bill that Brinson supported. The lawsuit states:
Brinson and the Christian Coalition filed the lawsuit against Swatek, John Giles, and a number of other parties, claiming the defendants unlawfully seized the organization's Web site and member lists and interfered with its business relations.
Giles was chairman of the Christian Coalition of Alabama for about eight years until he was forced to resign in August 2006. Brinson became the new chairman, and Giles went on to form a group called Christian Action Alabama.
Under Giles' leadership, the Christian Coalition of Alabama was steadfastly opposed to gambling. But the lawsuit notes that a 2005 Boston Globe article quotes conservative leader Grover Norquist saying that his organization, Americans for Tax Reform, gave $850,000 to the Alabama Christian Coalition, and the money came from an Indian casino in Mississippi.
The lawsuit goes on to note Bob Riley's connections to gambling interests in Las Vegas and Mississippi--and to the money laundering operation of GOP felon Jack Abramoff.
The two sides evidently reached a quick settlement, and the lawsuit was dismissed roughly one month after it was filed. But the 20-page document offers a fascinating look at the seamy intersection between Republican Party politics, religion-based organizations, big-money gaming interests, and criminal enterprises.
We will be examining the lawsuit closely because it speaks volumes about the political climate in Alabama and other conservative strongholds.
Regular readers know that Dax Swatek is a major player in my personal story, largely because his father, Pelham attorney William E. Swatek, filed the bogus lawsuit that started my legal headaches. Evidence strongly suggests that the Swateks, or someone else with close ties to Riley, played a major role in my unlawful termination at UAB. And evidence also suggests they might have played a role in my wife's unlawful termination at Infinity Property & Casualty.
A number of sources have told me that the Riley crowd is famous for such skulduggery. You can rest assured that will be a major line of inquiry when my wife and I file lawsuits against the entities and individuals who cheated us out of our jobs.
Here is one of many posts I've written that says a lot about the Swateks longstanding connections to sleaze. And we have addressed before the Riley crowd's tendency to threaten those they see as opponents.
Consider this from a post I wrote last November:
Isn't it interesting to learn now that Dax Swatek resorted to issuing threats against Randy Brinson and the Christian Coalition? And how do people like Dax Swatek and Bob Riley reconcile such threats with their efforts to garner the support of Christian voters.
"You'd better back off"? That sounds like mighty fine Christian language doesn't it. But that's how Bob Riley's henchmen talk--and that's how they act.
The Brinson lawsuit is perhaps the most insightful document we've seen about the Republican Party's depravity during the eight-year reign of terror under George W. Bush. And GOP immorality continues to reign, partly because the Obama Department of Justice refuses to expose it.
Legal Schnauzer, however, is not afraid to expose it. We will be publishing the entire lawsuit and examining its contents closely.
Dr. Randy Brinson, chairman of the Christian Coalition of Alabama, states in the lawsuit that he supported a bill in the Alabama House of Representatives that would tax and regulate gambling and help fund Medicaid. Brinson's support for the bill, sponsored by Rep. Marcel Black (D-Tuscumbia), drew heavy fire from Riley allies.
The most alarming fire came from Dax Swatek, who was Riley's campaign manager in 2006. The lawsuit says Swatek had become a lobbyist for Jones Group LLC, a Montgomery-based public affairs consultant registered to lobby on behalf of Greenetrack Inc., an Alabama gaming facility, among others.
Swatek apparently was more than happy to take money from gambling interests. But he must not have liked the bill that Brinson supported. The lawsuit states:
Not only have negative comments been made about Brinson and the Coalition in the news media, Brinson recently received a personal threat from Dax Swatek during a phone conversation after the April 10, 2007, press conference held by Rep. Marcel Black concerning HB 527. In the conversation Swatek told Brinson he'd "better back off," and said it in a threatening manner sufficient to alarm Brinson. As Swatek represents a powerful gambling interest with an enormous interest in controlling the state's gambling laws, Brinson has taken Swatek's threat seriously.
Brinson and the Christian Coalition filed the lawsuit against Swatek, John Giles, and a number of other parties, claiming the defendants unlawfully seized the organization's Web site and member lists and interfered with its business relations.
Giles was chairman of the Christian Coalition of Alabama for about eight years until he was forced to resign in August 2006. Brinson became the new chairman, and Giles went on to form a group called Christian Action Alabama.
Under Giles' leadership, the Christian Coalition of Alabama was steadfastly opposed to gambling. But the lawsuit notes that a 2005 Boston Globe article quotes conservative leader Grover Norquist saying that his organization, Americans for Tax Reform, gave $850,000 to the Alabama Christian Coalition, and the money came from an Indian casino in Mississippi.
The lawsuit goes on to note Bob Riley's connections to gambling interests in Las Vegas and Mississippi--and to the money laundering operation of GOP felon Jack Abramoff.
The two sides evidently reached a quick settlement, and the lawsuit was dismissed roughly one month after it was filed. But the 20-page document offers a fascinating look at the seamy intersection between Republican Party politics, religion-based organizations, big-money gaming interests, and criminal enterprises.
We will be examining the lawsuit closely because it speaks volumes about the political climate in Alabama and other conservative strongholds.
Regular readers know that Dax Swatek is a major player in my personal story, largely because his father, Pelham attorney William E. Swatek, filed the bogus lawsuit that started my legal headaches. Evidence strongly suggests that the Swateks, or someone else with close ties to Riley, played a major role in my unlawful termination at UAB. And evidence also suggests they might have played a role in my wife's unlawful termination at Infinity Property & Casualty.
A number of sources have told me that the Riley crowd is famous for such skulduggery. You can rest assured that will be a major line of inquiry when my wife and I file lawsuits against the entities and individuals who cheated us out of our jobs.
Here is one of many posts I've written that says a lot about the Swateks longstanding connections to sleaze. And we have addressed before the Riley crowd's tendency to threaten those they see as opponents.
Consider this from a post I wrote last November:
I've called the GOP tactics financial terrorism. And I've experienced them personally. I've received more threatening anonymous comments on my blog than I can count. And they have not been idle threats.
After a February 2008 post about connections between U.S. Attorney Alice Martin and Alabama GOP political consultant Dax Swatek, we received an anonymous comment: "Nut case, yours is comong (sic)."
After an April 2008 post, we received an anonymous comment claiming that I was blogging at work, and my employer, UAB, needed to be notified. On the date in question, I was taking a vacation day, so I was not blogging at work--then or any other time.
Roughly a month later, I was fired at UAB, after 19 years on the job, amid vague allegations that I was blogging at work. For the record, UAB's own IT expert testified at my grievance hearing that those allegations were not true. But did someone with GOP political ties get in the ears of UAB leaders and pressure them to unlawfully fire me? Sure looks that way. And evidence suggests it was all because I was writing a blog that was critical of the Bush Justice Department and it's handling of various political prosecutions, including the Siegelman case.
Isn't it interesting to learn now that Dax Swatek resorted to issuing threats against Randy Brinson and the Christian Coalition? And how do people like Dax Swatek and Bob Riley reconcile such threats with their efforts to garner the support of Christian voters.
"You'd better back off"? That sounds like mighty fine Christian language doesn't it. But that's how Bob Riley's henchmen talk--and that's how they act.
The Brinson lawsuit is perhaps the most insightful document we've seen about the Republican Party's depravity during the eight-year reign of terror under George W. Bush. And GOP immorality continues to reign, partly because the Obama Department of Justice refuses to expose it.
Legal Schnauzer, however, is not afraid to expose it. We will be publishing the entire lawsuit and examining its contents closely.
The Debt Collector's Creed: Lie Early and Lie Often
We have established that, based on my experience, debt collectors will target you even when they have little or no documentation to show that you owe the alleged debt. We also have established that debt collectors, when caught in the act and forced to account for their violations of federal and state laws, will go to great lengths to keep from disclosing information about how they do business.
Now we come to Lesson No. 3 about debt collectors: When you confront them with their nasty deeds, they will lie early and they will lie often in an attempt to get off. It's not a pretty sight. But we will show you how two debt-collection outfits--Pennsylvania-based NCO and Birmingham-based Ingram & Associates--practice the fine art of deceit.
We have many examples, but let's start with one of the most basic issues in our lawsuit against NCO and Ingram & Associates for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), plus multiple state-law claims.
In an effort to collect a debt that I allegedly owed to American Express, representatives of Ingram & Associates made a number of interesting representations via telephone. They said that:
* Ingram & Associates had been hired by American Express;
* Ingram & Associates had been hired by American Express to sue me;
* Angie Ingram, the law firm's principal, was American Express' attorney;
* Angie Ingram had a fiduciary duty to American Express.
There's only one problem with all of these representations. Evidence we've seen in our lawsuit indicates that they are not true.
Despite that, Angie Ingram goes to great lengths in an affidavit to make it sound like she was hired by American Express. Consider this statement from Ms. Ingram:
Contrast that with an affidavit from Gregory R. Stevens, vice president of customer contact management at NCO. Mr. Stevens states:
Stevens says NCO placed the account with Ingram & Associates. He says nothing about American Express hiring Ingram & Associates or Angie Ingram acting as American Express' attorney.
Even Ingram's own statement, stripped of all its deceitful language, admits she was hired by NCO, not American Express. And her employees' representations to me were lies.
Clearly, someone has a problem with the truth.
Why would Ingram & Associates tell me that they had been hired by American Express, when they had every reason to know that wasn't true? My guess is that kind of deceit works. Consumers hear that the giant and famed American Express is about to sue them, and they are likely to cough up money--even when the debt collectors don't have basic documents to show the consumer owes the debt.
Remember what we learned from Lesson No. 1 about debt collectors: When asked to produce documents it had from American Express regarding our alleged debt, Ingram & Associates responded that it didn't have any.
How can you be an attorney for American Express when you have no documents from American Express?
We're just getting warmed up with our series about debt-collector deceit. Many more posts are coming. For now, take an up-close look at the affidavit from Angie Ingram in our case:
Angie Ingram Affidavit
Now we come to Lesson No. 3 about debt collectors: When you confront them with their nasty deeds, they will lie early and they will lie often in an attempt to get off. It's not a pretty sight. But we will show you how two debt-collection outfits--Pennsylvania-based NCO and Birmingham-based Ingram & Associates--practice the fine art of deceit.
We have many examples, but let's start with one of the most basic issues in our lawsuit against NCO and Ingram & Associates for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), plus multiple state-law claims.
In an effort to collect a debt that I allegedly owed to American Express, representatives of Ingram & Associates made a number of interesting representations via telephone. They said that:
* Ingram & Associates had been hired by American Express;
* Ingram & Associates had been hired by American Express to sue me;
* Angie Ingram, the law firm's principal, was American Express' attorney;
* Angie Ingram had a fiduciary duty to American Express.
There's only one problem with all of these representations. Evidence we've seen in our lawsuit indicates that they are not true.
Despite that, Angie Ingram goes to great lengths in an affidavit to make it sound like she was hired by American Express. Consider this statement from Ms. Ingram:
NCO Financial Systems Inc. (NCO), as agent for American Express, hired Ingram & Associates LLC to represent American Express as its attorney to collect a debt owed to American Express by Roger Shuler. NCO regularly acts as an agent for American Express in hiring attorneys to collect debts/account balances owed to American Express.
Contrast that with an affidavit from Gregory R. Stevens, vice president of customer contact management at NCO. Mr. Stevens states:
10. On July 5, 2007, NCO referred the account to Ingram and Associates (Ingram) to file suit.
Stevens says NCO placed the account with Ingram & Associates. He says nothing about American Express hiring Ingram & Associates or Angie Ingram acting as American Express' attorney.
Even Ingram's own statement, stripped of all its deceitful language, admits she was hired by NCO, not American Express. And her employees' representations to me were lies.
Clearly, someone has a problem with the truth.
Why would Ingram & Associates tell me that they had been hired by American Express, when they had every reason to know that wasn't true? My guess is that kind of deceit works. Consumers hear that the giant and famed American Express is about to sue them, and they are likely to cough up money--even when the debt collectors don't have basic documents to show the consumer owes the debt.
Remember what we learned from Lesson No. 1 about debt collectors: When asked to produce documents it had from American Express regarding our alleged debt, Ingram & Associates responded that it didn't have any.
How can you be an attorney for American Express when you have no documents from American Express?
We're just getting warmed up with our series about debt-collector deceit. Many more posts are coming. For now, take an up-close look at the affidavit from Angie Ingram in our case:
Angie Ingram Affidavit
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Debt Collectors Scurry Into Cover-Up Mode
We've established, based on my experiences, that debt collectors will target you even when they have no documents to show you have a cardholder agreement--much less that you owe a debt.
So what happens when you catch on to the debt-collection scheme and file a lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)--and perhaps alleging fraud and other state-law claims? You can expect debt collectors, and their slimy lawyers, to immediately go into cover-up mode.
So here is Lesson No. 2 about debt collectors: The same dirt bags who have no qualms about repeatedly invading your private affairs--when they have no documents indicating that you owe them a debt at all--will tuck tail and run for the hills when the tables are turned.
Want proof? My wife and I filed a lawsuit against two debt-collection outfits--Pennsylvania-based NCO and Birmingham-based law firm Ingram & Associates--over a debt I allegedly owed to American Express. We've already shown that NCO and Ingram & Associates could not produce a single document proving that I even had an American Express card, much less that I owed a debt on one.
That's not all that NCO and Ingram & Associates can't produce. Darrell Cartwright and Allan Armstrong, our attorneys in the case, filed discovery requests seeking a number of basic documents related to efforts to collect what appears to be a phantom debt. And guess what? NCO and Ingram & Associates don't want to turn over much of anything that would reveal how they do business. What a surprise!
Here are a few examples, from our Request for Production of Documents from Ingram & Associates:
* Request No. 6 asks for any and all documents evidencing any communication or relationship between or among defendants (Ingram & Associates and NCO) and American Express.
Response: Ingram & Associates claims this is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (That by the way, is classic legal-stonewall language.)
* Request No. 23 asks for any and all e-mail and electronic transmissions between or among defendants, any creditors and any non-party that in any way relates to my wife and me.
Response: Ingram & Associates claims it would be cost prohibitive to provide this information. (We're not making this up, folks! They can hire a high-priced lawyer--in this case, Wayne Morse of Waldrep Stewart & Kendrick--to lie and scheme and defend the indefensible, but it's too costly to produce a few e-mails!)
Here are a few examples from our Request for Production of Documents from NCO. You will notice a familiar theme, an attempt to cover up at all costs:
* Request No. 32 asks for all documents between the defendants and any other person, persons, or entities regarding my wife and me and collection of an alleged debt.
Response: NCO claims that this request is overbroad and seeks information that might be protected by attorney-client and work-product privileges. More classic legal-stonewall language.
* Request No. 40 asks for copies of all documents that evidence an agreement between NCO and the original creditor, American Express.
Response: NCO will turn that over only with a confidentiality agreement in place. Hmmm, wonder what's in that agreement with American Express.
What do we learn from all of this:
* NCO and Ingram & Associates are extremely sensitive about any communication between each other.
* NCO and Ingram & Associates are extremely sensitive about any communications among themselves and American Express.
* NCO and Ingram & Associates are extremely sensitive about any documents regarding their relationship with American Express.
* NCO and Ingram & Associates are extremely sensitive about any communications they've had about us or our alleged account with any third parties.
Given that both my wife and I have been cheated out of our jobs in the wake of attempts to collect what appears to be a phantom debt, I bet there is a real good reason they don't want to share this information. Could it reveal communications they had with each other about plans to cheat one, or both of us, out of our jobs? Could it reveal communications they had with third parties--perhaps individuals with connections to the Alabama Republican Party--about plans to cheat one, or both of us, out of our jobs?
We've already established that my wife almost certainly was unlawfully terminated at Infinity Property & Casualty because of the lawsuit we filed against NCO and Ingram & Associates. But a growing body of evidence indicates that my termination at UAB might have been driven partially by efforts to collect what appears to be a phantom debt. We will have much more on that storyline coming soon.
But first, here is an up-close look at stonewalling by debt collectors and their lawyers. This is NCO's response to our discovery requests:
NCO Discovery Response
So what happens when you catch on to the debt-collection scheme and file a lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)--and perhaps alleging fraud and other state-law claims? You can expect debt collectors, and their slimy lawyers, to immediately go into cover-up mode.
So here is Lesson No. 2 about debt collectors: The same dirt bags who have no qualms about repeatedly invading your private affairs--when they have no documents indicating that you owe them a debt at all--will tuck tail and run for the hills when the tables are turned.
Want proof? My wife and I filed a lawsuit against two debt-collection outfits--Pennsylvania-based NCO and Birmingham-based law firm Ingram & Associates--over a debt I allegedly owed to American Express. We've already shown that NCO and Ingram & Associates could not produce a single document proving that I even had an American Express card, much less that I owed a debt on one.
That's not all that NCO and Ingram & Associates can't produce. Darrell Cartwright and Allan Armstrong, our attorneys in the case, filed discovery requests seeking a number of basic documents related to efforts to collect what appears to be a phantom debt. And guess what? NCO and Ingram & Associates don't want to turn over much of anything that would reveal how they do business. What a surprise!
Here are a few examples, from our Request for Production of Documents from Ingram & Associates:
* Request No. 6 asks for any and all documents evidencing any communication or relationship between or among defendants (Ingram & Associates and NCO) and American Express.
Response: Ingram & Associates claims this is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (That by the way, is classic legal-stonewall language.)
* Request No. 23 asks for any and all e-mail and electronic transmissions between or among defendants, any creditors and any non-party that in any way relates to my wife and me.
Response: Ingram & Associates claims it would be cost prohibitive to provide this information. (We're not making this up, folks! They can hire a high-priced lawyer--in this case, Wayne Morse of Waldrep Stewart & Kendrick--to lie and scheme and defend the indefensible, but it's too costly to produce a few e-mails!)
Here are a few examples from our Request for Production of Documents from NCO. You will notice a familiar theme, an attempt to cover up at all costs:
* Request No. 32 asks for all documents between the defendants and any other person, persons, or entities regarding my wife and me and collection of an alleged debt.
Response: NCO claims that this request is overbroad and seeks information that might be protected by attorney-client and work-product privileges. More classic legal-stonewall language.
* Request No. 40 asks for copies of all documents that evidence an agreement between NCO and the original creditor, American Express.
Response: NCO will turn that over only with a confidentiality agreement in place. Hmmm, wonder what's in that agreement with American Express.
What do we learn from all of this:
* NCO and Ingram & Associates are extremely sensitive about any communication between each other.
* NCO and Ingram & Associates are extremely sensitive about any communications among themselves and American Express.
* NCO and Ingram & Associates are extremely sensitive about any documents regarding their relationship with American Express.
* NCO and Ingram & Associates are extremely sensitive about any communications they've had about us or our alleged account with any third parties.
Given that both my wife and I have been cheated out of our jobs in the wake of attempts to collect what appears to be a phantom debt, I bet there is a real good reason they don't want to share this information. Could it reveal communications they had with each other about plans to cheat one, or both of us, out of our jobs? Could it reveal communications they had with third parties--perhaps individuals with connections to the Alabama Republican Party--about plans to cheat one, or both of us, out of our jobs?
We've already established that my wife almost certainly was unlawfully terminated at Infinity Property & Casualty because of the lawsuit we filed against NCO and Ingram & Associates. But a growing body of evidence indicates that my termination at UAB might have been driven partially by efforts to collect what appears to be a phantom debt. We will have much more on that storyline coming soon.
But first, here is an up-close look at stonewalling by debt collectors and their lawyers. This is NCO's response to our discovery requests:
NCO Discovery Response
Alabama Bingo Raids Coincide With Layoffs at Mississippi Casinos
Governor Bob Riley's campaign to shut down electronic bingo in Alabama started at about the same time a Mississippi Choctaw casino was laying off employees.
Do you see a connection? Bob Gambacurta, writing at the Montgomery Independent, sure does. And it shows that the story of disgraced GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff still resonates in the Deep South.
Gambacurta also raises a critical point about the Alabama Supreme Court's best-known ruling on bingo, the one that set out six standards defining the game. The high court, the same one that ExxonMobil loves so much, apparently violated its own procedures and made the ruling without having jurisdiction over the case.
The Independent article lays bare Riley's blatant hypocrisy on gambling. And it presents even more damning evidence about the governor's ties to Mississippi gambling interests, once represented by GOP felons Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon. Writes Gambacurta:
Chucky the Ground Squirrel, who spends his days happily digging holes in my backyard, could connect those dots. And Gambacurta doesn't stop with that:
Ah, where there is cash to be made in an underhanded way, you can rest assured a Riley family member will be nearby. And that mindset has been in play since Jack Abramoff evidently steered Mississippi gaming dollars into Alabama to help get Riley elected in 2002. It was all about hard, cold cash for Abramoff, and it appears to be about hard, cold cash for Bob Riley and his family members.
Maybe that's why Gov. Riley, in his best Don Corleone imitation, issued a threat about "getting too close to the families." Remember that one? Let's check it out:
Do you see a connection? Bob Gambacurta, writing at the Montgomery Independent, sure does. And it shows that the story of disgraced GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff still resonates in the Deep South.
Gambacurta also raises a critical point about the Alabama Supreme Court's best-known ruling on bingo, the one that set out six standards defining the game. The high court, the same one that ExxonMobil loves so much, apparently violated its own procedures and made the ruling without having jurisdiction over the case.
The Independent article lays bare Riley's blatant hypocrisy on gambling. And it presents even more damning evidence about the governor's ties to Mississippi gambling interests, once represented by GOP felons Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon. Writes Gambacurta:
Look at what happened during nine days, from December 29, 2008 through January 6, 2009 and connect the dots: Riley created his anti-gambling task force; the following week, the Poarch Creek Indians opened their $240 million Wind Creek casino and resort in Atmore featuring 1,600 electronic bingo machines; and the next day, the Mississippi Choctaws laid off 570 employees, the first of 700 employees to be cut loose at its Golden Moon casino in Philadelphia, Miss. Then they cut back casino operations to three days per week.
Chucky the Ground Squirrel, who spends his days happily digging holes in my backyard, could connect those dots. And Gambacurta doesn't stop with that:
Few people close to the gambling debate can look you in the eye and with a straight face deny that Bob Riley took Mississippi Choctaw Indian campaign contributions in his first run for governor in 2002 - whether it was $600,000 or $2.2 million. Nor can they deny Riley received campaign funds tied to Alabama's Poarch Creek Indian gaming interests for his reelection in 2006.
The governor's son, Rob Riley cannot honestly deny his own ties to the gaming industry through his associations with Paragon Gaming, his friend and business associate Robert Sigler and Sigler's Crimson Group companies which promote gaming interests in the United States and Canada.
It's a matter of record that Riley gave the Birmingham law firm of Bradley Arant a $600,000 state contract to advise his task force on electronic gambling. Riley's son-in-law Rob Campbell is a partner at Bradley Arant and ironically, the firm once advised another client in 2005 that electronic bingo in Macon County is legal and constitutional.
Ah, where there is cash to be made in an underhanded way, you can rest assured a Riley family member will be nearby. And that mindset has been in play since Jack Abramoff evidently steered Mississippi gaming dollars into Alabama to help get Riley elected in 2002. It was all about hard, cold cash for Abramoff, and it appears to be about hard, cold cash for Bob Riley and his family members.
Maybe that's why Gov. Riley, in his best Don Corleone imitation, issued a threat about "getting too close to the families." Remember that one? Let's check it out:
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Debt-Collection Fraud Starts With the Basics
We know that the debt-collection industry played a major role in electing Scott Brown to Ted Kennedy's U.S. Senate seat from Massachusetts, and that's largely because the industry opposes health-care and consumer-protection reforms.
So its appropriate that we take a critical look at an industry that is trying to flex its political muscle on the national stage. My wife and I have filed a lawsuit against two debt-collection outfits--Pennsylvania-based NCO and the Birmingham-based law firm Ingram & Associates--alleging multiple violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA), along with various state-law claims.
Waging that lawsuit has given us considerable insight into how the debt-collection industry operates. And over the next few weeks, we are going to be sharing our insights with Legal Schnauzer readers. We would encourage anyone who has a credit card, and that's a lot of folks, to tune in.
We will begin today with Lesson No. 1: Debt-collector fraud can begin with the most basic issues.
Our case started with a debt I allegedly owed to American Express. (The card allegedly was in my name.) Court documents indicate that AMEX placed the alleged debt with NCO, which made several collection efforts. NCO then placed the alleged debt with Ingram & Associates, a firm that is part of something called the "NCO Attorney Network."
Ingram & Associates made multiple phone calls to my wife and me, violating the FDCPA on multiple grounds--and we recorded these conversations for posterity on audiotape.
What do we mean by fraud "on the most basic issues"? Well, a rational person might think, "If I was going to try to collect a debt, I would make sure that I had documents in hand that proved the person actually owed the debt."
But that apparently is not the way debt collectors think. Based on our experience, they will try to collect a debt, even when they have no idea whether you owe it or not.
During the discovery process in the lawsuit, our attorneys (Darrell Cartwright and Allan Armstrong), made a number of simple requests that produced stunning replies from the defendants.
Our No. 1 request for production of documents from Ingram & Associates asks for the following:
In other words, just show us the documents you have that prove Roger Shuler owes the debt--and that Roger Shuler signed a cardholder agreement with American Express. Sounds simple, right? Here was the response from Ingram & Associates:
Now let's digest that for a moment. Ingram & Associates called me and repeatedly said they had "been hired by American Express" to sue me. They repeatedly said that I owed a debt, and they could garnish my wages or have our house sold on the courthouse steps to satisfy that debt. (You will be hearing audiotapes of these conversations.) They called my wife and talked to her for roughly an hour, even though she had nothing to do with the alleged debt. All of these are violations of the FDCPA.
But Ingram & Associates had no documents from American Express proving that I owed the debt! They didn't even have a cardholder agreement showing I ever had an American Express card, much less one for which I owed a debt!
Now let's consider NCO, the folks who hired Ingram & Associates. No. 28 in our request for production of documents from NCO reads as follows:
It couldn't be more simple. Just show us the documents upon which you base your allegation that Roger Shuler owes a debt to American Express. Here is the answer:
Now let's digest that for a moment. NCO sicced Ingram & Associates on us because I allegedly owed a debt to American Express. But when asked to produce documents from American Express that show I owed the debt, NCO says they don't have any.
I see two trends here:
* NCO and Ingram & Associates initiate debt-collection procedures when they have no proof that the target owes the debt or even has an agreement with the alleged cardholder.
* NCO and Ingram & Associates are determined not to produce any documents from American Express.
Hmmm, wonder why that is? Could it be that American Express and its surrogates practice such fraudulent tactics against consumers all over the country? Is it possible that these tactics unlawfully generate hundreds of millions of dollars every year for AMEX and its surrogates? Is that why NCO and Ingram & Associates appear to be trying to protect AMEX at all costs?
While we ponder those questions, here is a document that will give you an inside glimpse at the game of hide-and-seek that transpires when you try to get the truth out of a debt collector. It's a copy of Ingram & Associates response to our discovery requests:
Ingram Discovery Response
So its appropriate that we take a critical look at an industry that is trying to flex its political muscle on the national stage. My wife and I have filed a lawsuit against two debt-collection outfits--Pennsylvania-based NCO and the Birmingham-based law firm Ingram & Associates--alleging multiple violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA), along with various state-law claims.
Waging that lawsuit has given us considerable insight into how the debt-collection industry operates. And over the next few weeks, we are going to be sharing our insights with Legal Schnauzer readers. We would encourage anyone who has a credit card, and that's a lot of folks, to tune in.
We will begin today with Lesson No. 1: Debt-collector fraud can begin with the most basic issues.
Our case started with a debt I allegedly owed to American Express. (The card allegedly was in my name.) Court documents indicate that AMEX placed the alleged debt with NCO, which made several collection efforts. NCO then placed the alleged debt with Ingram & Associates, a firm that is part of something called the "NCO Attorney Network."
Ingram & Associates made multiple phone calls to my wife and me, violating the FDCPA on multiple grounds--and we recorded these conversations for posterity on audiotape.
What do we mean by fraud "on the most basic issues"? Well, a rational person might think, "If I was going to try to collect a debt, I would make sure that I had documents in hand that proved the person actually owed the debt."
But that apparently is not the way debt collectors think. Based on our experience, they will try to collect a debt, even when they have no idea whether you owe it or not.
During the discovery process in the lawsuit, our attorneys (Darrell Cartwright and Allan Armstrong), made a number of simple requests that produced stunning replies from the defendants.
Our No. 1 request for production of documents from Ingram & Associates asks for the following:
Each and every document relating to any debt, allegedly owed by plaintiffs to American Express or NCO, including, but not limited to, any cardholder agreements signed by the plaintiff.
In other words, just show us the documents you have that prove Roger Shuler owes the debt--and that Roger Shuler signed a cardholder agreement with American Express. Sounds simple, right? Here was the response from Ingram & Associates:
Ingram & Associates does not have any documents from American Express.
Now let's digest that for a moment. Ingram & Associates called me and repeatedly said they had "been hired by American Express" to sue me. They repeatedly said that I owed a debt, and they could garnish my wages or have our house sold on the courthouse steps to satisfy that debt. (You will be hearing audiotapes of these conversations.) They called my wife and talked to her for roughly an hour, even though she had nothing to do with the alleged debt. All of these are violations of the FDCPA.
But Ingram & Associates had no documents from American Express proving that I owed the debt! They didn't even have a cardholder agreement showing I ever had an American Express card, much less one for which I owed a debt!
Now let's consider NCO, the folks who hired Ingram & Associates. No. 28 in our request for production of documents from NCO reads as follows:
A copy of any and all documents which you allege create an obligation by the plaintiffs for the account you are attempting to collect.
It couldn't be more simple. Just show us the documents upon which you base your allegation that Roger Shuler owes a debt to American Express. Here is the answer:
NCO objects to this request to the extent plaintiffs are seeking documents outside NCO's custody or control. Notwithstanding said objections, none.
Now let's digest that for a moment. NCO sicced Ingram & Associates on us because I allegedly owed a debt to American Express. But when asked to produce documents from American Express that show I owed the debt, NCO says they don't have any.
I see two trends here:
* NCO and Ingram & Associates initiate debt-collection procedures when they have no proof that the target owes the debt or even has an agreement with the alleged cardholder.
* NCO and Ingram & Associates are determined not to produce any documents from American Express.
Hmmm, wonder why that is? Could it be that American Express and its surrogates practice such fraudulent tactics against consumers all over the country? Is it possible that these tactics unlawfully generate hundreds of millions of dollars every year for AMEX and its surrogates? Is that why NCO and Ingram & Associates appear to be trying to protect AMEX at all costs?
While we ponder those questions, here is a document that will give you an inside glimpse at the game of hide-and-seek that transpires when you try to get the truth out of a debt collector. It's a copy of Ingram & Associates response to our discovery requests:
Ingram Discovery Response
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)