Corp Reform - Not Tort Reform

FreeCreditReport.com Scam

As I mentioned briefly before, I visited freecreditreport.com to view a copy of my credit report. After entering my personal information - including a credit card number - the site told me that they were unable to verify my identity, and that I would not be charged.

Weeks later, I get a bank statement, and it turns out they charged me $79.95 to enroll me in their credit check credit monitoring service. Additionally, the unauthorized charge caused me to pay overdraft fees of $150.00 to Bank of America. Thankfully, BofA credited my account for both the charge and the overdraft fees.

Of course, I sent a letter to Consumerinfo.com (the company that owns Freecreditreport.com) and requesting a refund of both the $79.95, and the $150.00 in overdraft fees. Over a month later, I got a letter back from them stating that they would give me a pro-rated refund of $61 and change. This is completely unacceptable.

Their "pro rating" is predicated on the false belief that I was in fact a member of the credit check service. I was not. They never sent me any login information to access the site, and of course, I never did use the service.

I'm curious as to whether anyone else has had this happen to them. If so, please drop me a line or post a comment. I'd like to know what resolution, if any, you came to with consumerinfo.com. If this is their standard procedure, I'll most likely file a suit against them in small claims court.

Linking Policy

I've got a "Reciprocal Links" Typelist now. Coxwell & Associates asked me if they could quote some of my content and link to me, and my answer was yes. If anyone else wants to link to me or quote me, the odds are I'll have no problem with it. I just ask that you let me know who you are and where the content/links will be.

No More Tax Break on Punitive Damages?

My news letter from RDBLaw.com arrived in my inbox this morning, and carried this little tidbit:

Senate Bill Seeks To Abolish Tax Deduction For Punitive Damage Judgments

Corporations would be prohibited from deducting punitive damages award payments from their taxes under Senate tax bill - "The Jumpstart Our Business Strength Act, S.1637." Business Insurance reports that the bill includes tax incentives that business likes, but the provision abolishing deductions for punitive damages has generated considerable controversy within the business community. According to Business Insurance, policy experts and congressional observers believe that legislators ultimately may remove the punitive damages language because of the claimed adverse effect on businesses who have historically relied on the deduction.

Of course, since this is to "Jumpstart Our Business Strength", I'm sure they'll yank this out. But, I certainly think it would be a damned fine idea to disallow tax deductions on punitive damages.

What I found most disturbing was the last part of the last sentence: "businesses who have historically relied on the deduction." Isn't there a problem if a business relies upon this? My thinking here is that a more massive award of punitive damages against those businesses might actually get them to clean up their acts.

Empowerment

I've been busy drafting and filing a lawsuit against a collection agency. Turns out this collection agency has refused to take a derogatory item off of my credit report that they know belongs to someone else, and not me.

Few things are as empowering as knowing that no matter how large a company may be, one man can still call them on the carpet and force them to answer for their misdeeds. This collection agency is a multimillion dollar operation with hundreds of employees. I'm just a guy going to college.

Yet, thanks to our Constitution, I have the power to make this company follow the law. And I guess that's the best reason not to support tort reform. Some tort reformers want to see mandatory "Alternative Dispute Resolution" (ADR) meetings before you can sue a company. If I had to go through an ADR, I'd have to spend money to attend a meeting to try and resolve this matter out of court. The whole point of an ADR is to encourage plaintiffs to settle their case. ADR's are usually confidential. So, if I had to go through an ADR, no one would ever know that this collection agency sent me a copy of the contract in question, which did not have my name or signature on it, and demanded I pay $1100+ to the company that is owed the money.

I'm elligible for punitive damages in my case. If tort reform were fully completed, I wouldn't be, and the company in question could just settle this quietly and I'd never get my day in court.

The older I get, the more I realize that corporations don't want to do the right thing. I sent this collection agency several letters asking them to remove this from my credit reports. They refused, or simply didn't respond. Why? Because they count on the ignorance and apathy of the general public.

At one point in my life, I threw up my hands over this same collection agency (it's been on there for years) and figured that they're just a "big corporation" and I was but one man. But, I became informed of my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and I decided to stand up for myself; I sued them.

Big companies count on our apathy in the same way the Nazi's did of the prisoners in the concentration camps: 50 armed soldiers couldn't have stopped 5,000 unarmed prisoners, if those prisoners all stormed the gates.

The next time you think you have no recourse against a big corporation, remember the words of John Quincy Adams: "Courage and perseverance have a magic talisman, before which difficulties disappear and obstacles vanish into air."

The Ephedra Ban

As many of you know, the FDA has decided to ban Ephedra, citing numerous deaths and side effects to this "dangerous drug." Let's take a look at what I believe is the real reason ephedra was banned.

According to this article, sales of ephedra were over 1 billion dollars in 2002, and down to about half a billion in 2003. The decline is attributed to the bad press surrounding the death of Steve Bechler, the Baltimore Orioles baseball player.

The pharmaceutical companies see $1+ billion dollars a year in supplement sales that they feel should go into their pockets, instead. So, they're pushing for legislation that makes it very difficult - if not impossible - for supplement companies to market weight loss products that compete with the safe products pharmaceuticals make, like Fen-Phen.

This article sums it up well.

However, I'd like to talk a little bit more about the comparison they make with Ritalin. Ritalin's real name is methylphenidate. That sounds like a methamphetamine because it basically is. There's a huge problem with kids snorting Ritalin, or selling Ritalin because it gives a high very similar to cocaine. In fact, in studies, cocaine addicts have been unable to tell if they were given Ritalin or coke. Check this article for more info on that.

Ritalin is such a dangerous drug, in fact, that it's a class 2 controlled substance. Check out what the DOJ has to say about it:

"Yes, abusing Ritalin is illegal. Ritalin is a Schedule II substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Schedule II drugs, which include cocaine and methamphetamine, have a high potential for abuse. Abuse of these drugs may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence."

In fact, Sweden banned Ritalin in 1968. Many other countries look unfavorably on Ritalin; 90% of its sales are in the United States.

In this country, it's ok for parents to give a controlled substance very similar to cocaine to their children, but it's not ok for an informed adult to purchase a naturally occuring substance to lose weight. The difference between the two drugs, apparently, is that the pharmaecutical companies have more money than the supplement companies.

It seems you can sell anything to the American public if you do it under the guise of SAFETY. I believe Benjamin Franklin said it best, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I guess the overweight can just look forward to another wonder drug from a major pharmaceutical. Maybe the new drug will erode your liver, chew up your heart valves, cause impotence, and lead to depression. Then, people who took that drug will need to spend more money on prozac, viagra, and anti-rejection drugs for their transplants. Wouldn't that make the pharmaceuticals happy?