As many of you know, I receive communications from some people who want to/need to remain anonymous with respect to Chase. If I was not so concerned with the larger issues (such as small business and entrepreneurship and the impact that policies will have on those individuals), I would probably not want to take on Chase, either. I am sure that JP Morgan has the (seemingly unlimited, considering $25 billion in bail out money) resources to try to make me shut-up.
I also wonder if law firms would step forward to defend my right to free speech against a bully like Chase. I confess to having a fantasy that every law firm that is currently suing, i.e., pursuing plaintiff work against Chase, would sign off on a letter informing its lawyers that as long as I speak the truth, I am entitled to my opinion (hummm, we’re nearing a dozen that are suing Chase on the plaintiff side).
Meanwhile, here is yet another communication I have received about a firm that may be capable/exploring a class action lawsuit (name withheld for sender’s protection):
Dr: Lahm:
Chase has unilaterally changed my terms as well (charging the $120 annual fee/ 5% balance increase), and I have done nothing wrong like you and others here. I know a reputable class action law firm that could be of assistance for anyone seeking a class action suit against Chase regarding the November 2008 “change in terms” and subsequent offer to modify our low fixed rate balances. If someone is willing to be lead plaintiff (especially in the state of Florida) they should contact Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP. They have offices across the country and they are a very reputable law firm that may be willing to initiate a class action suit in regards to this injustice.
The firm’s website is:
P.S. thank you for expending so much effort on this site, I am outraged by what has occurred, I have contacted my representatives and every newspaper I could find. Please continue the good fight.
Loading ...
on Mar 6th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Dr. Lahm- I very much appreciate your efforts on behalf all of those affected. I have referred many government officials to your site as I could never convey my concerns as thoroughly as you have here. I know I read somewhere on the site that you welcomed us sharing the information.
I would like to hear from a constitutional lawyer regarding the TARP funding. Following is a copy of my letter to the OCC regarding this matter (which i also cc’s to President Obama):
February 25, 2009
Customer Assistance Group
Comptroller of the Currency
Administrator of National Banks
1301 McKinney St, Suite 3450
Houston, TX 77010-9050
RE: Case #853518
Chase Bank USA
Dear Sir/Madam:
I have received the written response from Marie Badgley at Chase Bank dated February 13, 2009 and although she was very nice, I still disagree with the outcome.
I specifically opted for their balance transfer advertisements which clearly expressed that the terms would be valid until the balance was paid in full. Many times (if not in every case) these offers were extended along with lower APR options with a specific time period restriction. I, in every case, opted for the higher interest APR options that were advertised as being valid until the balance was paid in full.
I have not accepted their current offer to offset the $10 monthly service charge by moving to a higher APR of 7.99%. “3.99% fixed” is not the same as 3.99% plus $10.00 per month (whether or not the consumer carries a balance). Chase themselves refer to the $10 per month fee as a finance charge. Plus, the 7.99% APR offer would only be “fixed” until January 2011. I consider this offer rather comical given their recent actions.
I can’t see how these practices by Chase do not represent a violation of the Truth in Lending Act, Breach of Contract, Violation of Business & Professional Ethics Codes and False Advertising. I wholeheartedly support the nine Class Action Lawsuits currently pending regarding this matter. There is a list of these lawsuits readily available at http://www.changeinterms.com.
I am disheartened by the unwillingness of our government to support consumers and hold corporate America to ethical standards. The Treasury should take back the billions of dollars of Taxpayer money paid out to JP Morgan Chase via the TARP plan since they instituted these unethical practices in November 2008. This TARP payment to Chase now represents a serious violation of the constitution due to conflict of interest. I can’t see how it is constitutional for the government to take sides in a civil dispute such as this. It is a disgrace.
Sincerely,
________________________________________________________
Again- thank you Dr Lahm for your efforts.
on Mar 6th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Hi Melanie,
I love your letter. One thing that is “comical” to me is that I am working on posts to announce even more class action lawsuits. I often hear about these suits before they are filed, sometimes from site visitors and friends, and at other times, from lawyers. I have a post now in “draft mode” to announce #11! Again, there are even more in the works.
Relative to President Obama, I think it’s great to send this information to any elected official. I might add that I believe it is extremely important to send the message to those who are working on the C.A.R.D. Act, and various Congressional Committees (such as this one) that while “all roads lead to the OCC, it has done little or nothing for you, or for me.” Take care.
e