• 2010 Credit Suit
• Liars & Cheats
• CreditFactors
• Fight Back!!!
• RESISTANCE
• TRADO
• News Releases
• Contact

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

2nd shipment of OfficeMax file cabinet: BROKEN again and not functional

This is so incredibly frustrating, I actually decided not to complain about it and keep their crap.  I’m just too busy.

But now the damn thing is in my way and it’s just not usable.  So I’m taking the time to do my civic duty and let everybody else know how bad Office Max sucks.  Longtime readers might recall that Office Depot couldn’t ship to the right address if their life depended on it, so I’ve tried Office Max.

They shipped to the right address ok, but the first time the file cabinet was broken on the top.

HUGE hassle, pack everything up again, call, bla bla bla and waste my time, wait for the delivery, mark the old package for return, hassle hassle hassle.

Got the new delivery and was very excited to finally have a file cabinet with rollers for my garage.  Since I’m still working on umpteen projects it’ll have to be moved a lot, but I got all these appliance, tool and whatever instructions and warranties that HAVE to be filed.

Of course the damn thing is broken again.  Thought I’d duct tape it, just to have something for all these papers that are driving me crazy.

The million dollar question:

How are those wheels supposed to fit?

Am I having my stupid month? 

There are no other parts, no instructions, and the wheels obviously fall right out of those slots.

HUH?

Here’s a larger picture, maybe the rocket scientist readers can help me out:

12-06_Office_Max_file_cab-lg.jpg

My email to OfficeMax:

I posted about my problems with the file cabinet at [this URL].  I’d really like to know what to do with those wheels, I hope the pictures are helpful.

Christine Baker

The court sent the summons and more on the “clerical error” re. assignment of judge

I got a mailing from the court yesterday with the summons for all the defendants.  That’s really nice, you USED to have to provide your own summons.

They also included a printout of that strange docket entry regarding the assignment of judge Mathis being changed to judge Wake.

And I received my prepaid priority mail envelope yesterday with the filed copy of my complaint.  It’s odd that they filed it on the 6th, but then apparently held my copy for at least a day and you can see that they whited out the initials for judge Mathis and changed it to NVW.

Don’t know what to think of this, haven’t filed enough suits to know whether I’m getting special attention or how these “errors” happen.

HUMOR: How to prank a telemarketer

How to prank a telemarketer

I needed a laugh and that’s pretty funny.

Monday, December 11, 2006

Democrats will really DO something for consumers?

Pocketbook issues may get higher profile under new leadership

11:56 AM CST on Monday, December 4, 2006
By PAMELA YIP / The Dallas Morning News

When Democrats assume control of Congress in January, critics who’ve accused Congress of ignoring the pocketbooks of average Americans may feel that the cavalry has finally arrived.

“You’ll see more ordinary consumer issues,” predicted Michael Townsend, vice president of public policy at Charles Schwab & Co.

Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has promised to bring legislation to the floor within the first 24 hours of the new Congress to boost the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour from the current $5.15. It would be the first raise in a decade.

“The Bush economy has not been kind to working Americans,” the Democrats said in their list of legislative priorities. “Health care costs, gas and energy prices, and rising college tuition costs are forcing families across the country to make difficult choices. This burden has been especially heavy on those who rely on a minimum wage to support themselves and their families.”

Democrats also want to help workers protect the money they’ve earned.

“You’re going to see a lot of attention paid to consumer protection issues,” Mr. Townsend said.

...

Imagine a cardholder who begins a billing cycle with a zero balance, charges $500 on his or her credit card and makes an on-time payment of $490,” Mr. Levin said. “In the next billing cycle, he or she would be charged interest on the full $500, rather than on only the $10 that is still owed. That is a dishonest way to squeeze a few extra bucks out of the pockets of a responsible consumer.”

I’m not even aware of this practice.  I thought they use the average daily balance.

I will submit the problem with Cap One charging PURCHASE interest rates for SPECIAL OFFERS:

Finance charge rate on special low rate check, 12.9% instead of 5.99%

That has to be as illegal as it gets.  Interest is NOT a purchase.

KEY ISSUES

Among the pocketbook issues congressional Democrats are expected to address next year:

• Confusing and abusive credit card policies

• Predatory mortgage lending

• Abusive debt collection practices

• Student loan interest rates and grant levels

• Excessive 401(k) fees

I sure hope that the first FIRST thing they do is demand ENFORCEMENT by regulators and provide assistance to consumers who sue. 

Cautious optimism

Consumer advocates are cautiously optimistic that Democrats will give their concerns a serious forum.

“We are hopeful that the Democratic majority will be inclined to look at consumer abuses in the financial services marketplace,” said Mr. Plunkett of the Consumer Federation of America. “How far they go is anybody’s guess. 2008 is an election year, and virtually nothing happens in Washington during an election year.”

That’s odd.  Why would they think they’d get re-elected if they do NOTHING?

But of course I’m concerned that it’s all talk and no serious action—as always.  I’m very worried that they’ll create more idiotic and even unnecessary legislation that won’t be enforced anyway, with no private right of action and no statutory minimum damages.

I hope I’m wrong.

Sunday, December 10, 2006

California Supreme Court rules to protect free speech

Calif. court ruling seeks to protect bloggers, Web publishers

In a victory for bloggers, newsgroup participants and other Web publishers, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday that individual Internet users cannot be held liable for republishing defamatory statements written by others.

The unanimous ruling appears to be the first to make clear that a 1996 law called the Communications Decency Act protects not only providers, but also users of online services who redistribute content. Earlier court rulings had established that Section 230 of that statute shields companies such as AOL and eBay from such liability, provided that they make good faith efforts to restrict access to material that could be considered “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.”

By passing that law, Congress “has comprehensively immunized republication by individual Internet users,” intending “to protect online freedom of expression and to encourage self-regulation,” the justices concluded in their majority opinion (click for PDF) penned by Associate Justice Carol Corrigan.

The justices acknowledged that “recognizing broad immunity for defamatory republications on the Internet has some troubling consequences.” But unless Congress revises the law, anyone who claims to be defamed by an Internet posting may seek damages only from the “original source of the statement,” they wrote.

That protection should not extend, however, to users who conspire with the originators of libelous content, Associate Justice Carlos Moreno wrote in a concurring opinion.

“One engaged in a tortious conspiracy with the original information content provider is hardly one of the neutral ‘intermediaries’ that Congress intended to absolve of liability,” he wrote, adding that he did not believe that sort of activity took place in the case at hand.

...

I haven’t heard of any webhosts changing their terms.

I recently checked out servers in the states again and found the same old terms:  your entire server gets shut down if you don’t comply with removing “defamatory” statements upon notice and usually they give you only a day or two and it’s NOT anything that’s negotiable—unless you’re paying them at least several thousand dollars a month.

The web hosting industry is about as pro corporate and anti free speech as it gets.  And as the dollar keeps falling, my server rental keeps going up.