Dr. Lahm, a rabble rouser gets his account reset.

Anna, the quiet one, does not. Peggy, a loud, complaining one, does not.

It’s a mystery!

Probably correct. I am a “quiet compliant customer,” and Chase didn’t reset the original terms. But we don’t know …

RE #1: “Was it the rebel-rousers or the quiet compliant customers, or maybe getting a balance under a certain dollar figure?”

Since I was one of the cardholders whose account was reset because Chase (supposedly) “incorrectly” sent a change in terms notice, it is certainly logical to wonder if raising a ruckus may have helped.

I don’t think I qualify as being a “quiet compliant”-type any longer (it would have been nice if Chase had simply heeded my warning to Dimon in 2006 — I told him then that they were creating an advocate).

However, I can’t be sure of Chase’s criteria in the first place, and I think it’s going to take the process of legal discovery in the class action lawsuits to find out which account holders Chase actually “aimed at,” and why, as well as which account holders received a retraction, and why.

The whole “making little progress” portrayal in the media was a smokescreen, for instance, with respect to numerous accounts. I’ve written many times about people (me included) paying more than the minimum (and that was irrelevant, anyway, as long as they were meeting their payment obligations — thus it was also a defamatory portrayal).

Keep in mind one other thing about my particular case: I had already established an extensive documentation trail (all of which is posted on the site on the right hand side navigation links under “Correspondence”).

I’ve spoken with a lot of lawyers (I know many of them through academia, and more through the class actions), and when Chase Executive Offices wrote back to me on October 10, 2006, they actually put the 3.99% will remain unless I went over the limit or missed a payment assurances in their letter; the letter was copied to a Senior VP, and a VP. In 2008, the same two persons, the Senior VP and the VP, were copied on the letter that rejected my assertion that Chase had violated its commitment as was stated in the 2006 letter. Then, I reminded them of the paper trail.

Then Chase (foolish to put that in writing as it was) tried to act as though the “fee” was not a “finance charge,” which I followed up with a letter outlining the ridiculousness of such a position, and told them it constituted evidence of obstruction that I did not think anyone would appreciate (hinting at the fact that it could become legal evidence, especially if Chase did not quit playing games with me).

So, was it raising hell on this site, the documentation trail, my message to the OCC that if it wanted to ignore these facts and prove that it was irrelevant and not meeting its obligations, my academic work and testimony about small businesses and credit cards, the fact that at that point in time I was already speaking to the press and organizing resources to mount a resistance (I have seen a few instances where people have contacted Chase’s affinity partners, and people spreading the word with site tools like the eBooks and graphics, but not nearly enough, by the way), or “all of the above”?

Since I don’t know for certain, I’m going to stick with “all of the above,” and even though Chase backed down on my particular account, I will continue to declare the mantra regarding a retraction with respect to all of the accounts Chase “aimed at”:

“If Chase wants peace, it can issue a press release.”

P.S. Regarding the OCC and “laughable”: that’s the exact kind of conversation that needs to be tape recorded, and broadcast. I think that Comptroller Dugan’s attitude is the problem (as I said in my December 3, 2008, letter to Gordon Smith, which was copied to Dugan). All roads lead to the OCC, but it is evidently an absolute dead-end for consumers — that’s the only reason the Chase lawyer would have something to laugh about. This is why I remain convinced that the “weapon of choice” is to de-market the credit card companies (the legal and regulatory game has been rigged for a long, long time).

http://www.daily-protest.com

Mine is just a little bigger but also the no wheel job.

————————————

My left pinkie is still numb from using the various rakes and hoes yesterday.

I am still supposed to hoe another part of the yard so we can plant tomatoes.

I used to think tingling or numb fingers were related to my back and my weight, but I’ve actually lost weight from the protesting and taking care of my father before he passed.

I’m not looking forward to my next round in the yard with that stupid roto tiller just standing by and watching me.

http://www.Daily-Protest.com

If I had the time I would make either Daily-Protest postcards or small posters and start asking local businesses to put them in their windows. I may have to take more time off so I can upscale my protest.

Even when I stand by a busy intersection and raise awareness, that still pales than having 10 well placed signs in peoples store front windows.

Maybe I should work a deal with all the places that are available for lease, plenty of them are out there right now.

Given the rototiller fiasco, are you going to diversify your protest?

Your signs have two sides do they not?

I believe if we get storeowners to put Daily-Protest.com signs in their storefronts, that eventually the credit card companies would have to acknowledge Robert and myself as leading OUTSIDER advocates who must be made part of the process.

http://www.Daily-Protest.com