Comments on: Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP: “A very reputable law firm that may be willing to initiate a class action suit in regards to this injustice.” http://www.changeinterms.com/2009/03/05/coughlin-stoia-geller-rudman-robbins-llp-a-very-reputable-law-firm-that-is-willing-to-initiate-a-class-action-suit-in-regards-to-this-injustice/ Now We're Coming After You Fri, 27 Aug 2010 18:50:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Dr Robert Lahm http://www.changeinterms.com/2009/03/05/coughlin-stoia-geller-rudman-robbins-llp-a-very-reputable-law-firm-that-is-willing-to-initiate-a-class-action-suit-in-regards-to-this-injustice/comment-page-1/#comment-469 Dr Robert Lahm Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:48:33 +0000 http://www.changeinterms.com/?p=971#comment-469 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 (<a href="http://www.changeinterms.com/2009/02/21/credit-card-act-has-been-re-introduced-to-not-walk-run-to-your-mailbox-phones-and-fax-machines/" rel="nofollow">such as this one</a>) that while "all roads lead to the OCC, it has done little or nothing for you, or for me." Take care. e 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

]]> By: Melanie Sauer http://www.changeinterms.com/2009/03/05/coughlin-stoia-geller-rudman-robbins-llp-a-very-reputable-law-firm-that-is-willing-to-initiate-a-class-action-suit-in-regards-to-this-injustice/comment-page-1/#comment-468 Melanie Sauer Fri, 06 Mar 2009 14:57:26 +0000 http://www.changeinterms.com/?p=971#comment-468 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 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. 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.

]]>