Here is one victim's view of consumer arbitration:
http://judiciary.house.gov/OversightTestimony.aspx?ID=983
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Another dismal American Express customer experience
An unverified complaint against American Express from an obviously unhappy customer:
My husband and I just had a horrible experience with American Express and we found you online as the lawyer who is suing them. My husband applied for a Costco/Amerex card that is both a Costco membership card and an American Express card. He used the standard printed application that Costco provided to apply for the credit card. He got it in the mail last month, called the number on it to validate it, the recording said his card had been validated properly at that time and he started using it right away. After about 3 charges, and within about a week of activating the card he started getting automated phone calls to call American Express that were difficult to even understand. And his card had already been "stopped" which he found out when trying to use it again to buy gas in the middle of the desert on vacation one week after it had been validated and used. The number that American Express gave him to call was 888-800-5234, but it had a recording directing him to call a 900 number (for a fee), 900-622-8000. Instead of calling that number and paying the fee, he called the American Express customer service number on his card, 888-708-8128.
Customer service was worse than useless. Even though he was able to give them his password, security information, social security number and everything else, they refused to discuss his account or re-activate it unless they could talk to him on a landline that was listed in his full name on the billing record. Since we are 300 miles from home, this was not possible. They have a recognition system of some sort that is linked with the billing names on phone number accounts. We had no idea that a particular landline would be involved in our card authorization, so we weren't aware that we should pay attention to what phones we used or listed when applying for the card or calling American Express (the phone account has to be in the person's name, a spouse will not do!) So a person could apply for a card and never end up getting to use it if they don't have a land-line telephone service account in their name. Cell phone accounts won’t work and if a spouses name is on the phone bill it won’t work.) They suggested we have somebody go to our house and pretend to be us –to have them call the American Express validation phone number from the proper phone of ours to make the new validation work. In other words, only by getting a phone call from any person under the sun who had the same name as my husband on the phone bill they were calling from would validate the card. It didn’t matter that it wouldn’t be my husband validating his own card!
When asked why they activated and then de-activated the card, they explained as follows:
1. They can’t discuss anything until the applicant can call them from that one particular phone number at the home where his name is listed on the billing. The said any phone with his name would work, but that’s the only land phone on the planet with his name on it so there were no other options for us.
2. It is common for the company to send out the card based on a person's credit rating, let them activate it, let them use it and then stop the card until they can do another "security check" that is more like "the real security check." They would not divulge if any sort of security flag had popped up on my husband's card. The rep said it happens to the new card owners all the time because they aren't really fully authorizing you to use the card as a regular account when they let you activate by phone, it's just like a courtesy account until they do some sort of additional phone authorization thing which is unexpectedly complex and not along the lines of using the security information they gather from you during the application process.
Obviously, American Express baits people into applying for the card, then sends one and lets customers activate one as if the card/account is fully authorized. After they have you they then start to screw the customer by making them call 900 numbers when their card gets stopped in the middle of their vacation and then refusing to help them even when they give all their security codes over the phone.
I used to have an Amerex Gold Card but cancelled it long ago because of the way they treated me with crap like this, despite being a long-time gold card member! I thought that in this case, being a Costco/American Express partnership,they would have everything worked out to provide decent service, or to just provide what they claim they are going to provide. Apparently not.
Jessie, Central California
My husband and I just had a horrible experience with American Express and we found you online as the lawyer who is suing them. My husband applied for a Costco/Amerex card that is both a Costco membership card and an American Express card. He used the standard printed application that Costco provided to apply for the credit card. He got it in the mail last month, called the number on it to validate it, the recording said his card had been validated properly at that time and he started using it right away. After about 3 charges, and within about a week of activating the card he started getting automated phone calls to call American Express that were difficult to even understand. And his card had already been "stopped" which he found out when trying to use it again to buy gas in the middle of the desert on vacation one week after it had been validated and used. The number that American Express gave him to call was 888-800-5234, but it had a recording directing him to call a 900 number (for a fee), 900-622-8000. Instead of calling that number and paying the fee, he called the American Express customer service number on his card, 888-708-8128.
Customer service was worse than useless. Even though he was able to give them his password, security information, social security number and everything else, they refused to discuss his account or re-activate it unless they could talk to him on a landline that was listed in his full name on the billing record. Since we are 300 miles from home, this was not possible. They have a recognition system of some sort that is linked with the billing names on phone number accounts. We had no idea that a particular landline would be involved in our card authorization, so we weren't aware that we should pay attention to what phones we used or listed when applying for the card or calling American Express (the phone account has to be in the person's name, a spouse will not do!) So a person could apply for a card and never end up getting to use it if they don't have a land-line telephone service account in their name. Cell phone accounts won’t work and if a spouses name is on the phone bill it won’t work.) They suggested we have somebody go to our house and pretend to be us –to have them call the American Express validation phone number from the proper phone of ours to make the new validation work. In other words, only by getting a phone call from any person under the sun who had the same name as my husband on the phone bill they were calling from would validate the card. It didn’t matter that it wouldn’t be my husband validating his own card!
When asked why they activated and then de-activated the card, they explained as follows:
1. They can’t discuss anything until the applicant can call them from that one particular phone number at the home where his name is listed on the billing. The said any phone with his name would work, but that’s the only land phone on the planet with his name on it so there were no other options for us.
2. It is common for the company to send out the card based on a person's credit rating, let them activate it, let them use it and then stop the card until they can do another "security check" that is more like "the real security check." They would not divulge if any sort of security flag had popped up on my husband's card. The rep said it happens to the new card owners all the time because they aren't really fully authorizing you to use the card as a regular account when they let you activate by phone, it's just like a courtesy account until they do some sort of additional phone authorization thing which is unexpectedly complex and not along the lines of using the security information they gather from you during the application process.
Obviously, American Express baits people into applying for the card, then sends one and lets customers activate one as if the card/account is fully authorized. After they have you they then start to screw the customer by making them call 900 numbers when their card gets stopped in the middle of their vacation and then refusing to help them even when they give all their security codes over the phone.
I used to have an Amerex Gold Card but cancelled it long ago because of the way they treated me with crap like this, despite being a long-time gold card member! I thought that in this case, being a Costco/American Express partnership,they would have everything worked out to provide decent service, or to just provide what they claim they are going to provide. Apparently not.
Jessie, Central California
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Andy Martin sues American Express in Illinois court
Chicago corruption fighter and consumer advocate Andy Martin takes on the credit card and consumer finance industry. His landmark lawsuit seeks to ban American Express from using mandatory arbitration in credit cards, consumer transactions.
ANDY MARTIN J.D.
BoycottAmericanExpress.blogspot.com
BoycottThePlumCard.blogspot.com
P. O. Box 1851
New York, NY 10150-1851
Tel. (866) 706-2639
LANDMARK LAWSUIT SEEKS TO BAN AMERICAN EXPRESS FROM USING MANDATORY ARBITRATION IN CREDIT CARDS, CONSUMER TRANSACTIONS
CHICAGO CORRUPTION FIGHTER AND CONSUMER ADVOCATE ANDY MARTIN TAKES ON THE CREDIT CARD AND CONSUMER FINANCE INDUSTRY
(CHICAGO)(June 5, 2008)(Exclusive) Legendary Chicago Internet columnist, muckraker and consumer activist Andy Martin today filed suit against the American Express Company accusing the iconic brand of systematically violating a series of federal consumer protection laws. Martin also charged the company with seeking to terrorize (“in terrorem”) its customers into submission.
“Like all neighborhood bullies, Kenneth Chenault likes his people to beat up on the little people” Martin said. “In punching me, they took on an adversary that has the heft to fight back.
“AmEx’s mandatory consumer arbitration program is a massive fraud. Even Amex ignores the provisions of their own documents. My consumer reform lawsuit filed today in DuPage County, Illinois Circuit Court is one of the most important consumer actions filed in recent years. I aim to shut down the credit card industry’s efforts to use ‘arbitration’ to exclude consumers from access to any remedies in customer-company disputes.
“AmEx treated me like dirt. Well, now the American people are going to throw a little dirt in Ken Chenault’s face and muddy up his bogus reputation as a corporate champion of responsible business policies.
“Arbitration is not a ‘quick, cheap and easy’ remedy as it is falsely presented by arbitration organizations. Arbitration can be costly, protracted and very expensive, which is why the consumer credit industry tries to use mandatory arbitration to deprive customers of judicial remedies,” Martin emphasized.
Since forming the Illinois Consumer Council in 1970 Andy Martin has been one of the United States’ toughest, most resourceful and creative consumer advocates. See AndyMartin.com.
Martin has started two blogs, BoycottAmericanExpress.blogspot.com and
BoycottThePlumCard.blogspot.com
to publicize his battle with Ameircan Express and to solicit similar consumer experiences.
“Mr. Chenault apparently has a problem with the English language,” Martin said in announcing his lawsuit. “He apparently doesn’t read letters addressed to him. He obviously does not respond to letters. Maybe the presence of a process server at his corporate headquarters in lower Manhattan on Monday will get his attention.”
Martin has sued the entire Board of Directors of AmEx, as well as apparently Arizona-based employees who harassed him. He will have process servers spanning out across the next week serving AmEx board members.
------------------------------------------
Chicago-based Internet investigative columnist, talk show host, broadcaster and media critic Andy Martin is the Executive Editor and publisher of http://www.ContrarianCommentary.com. © Copyright by Andy Martin 2008. Martin covers regional, national and world events with more than forty years of experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. Comments? E-mail: AndyMart20@aol.com. Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Columns also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS
IN CHANCERY
DOCKET NO. 2008 CH 2123
STATUS DATE: 10/2/08
ASSIGNED TO: 2005
ANDY MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
DANIEL AKERSON, CHARLENE
BARSHEFSKY, URSULA BURNS,
KENNETH CHENAULT, PETER
CHERNIN, JAN LESCHLY, RICHARD
C. LEVIN, RICHARD A. MCGINN,
EDWARD D. MILLER, STEVEN S.
REINEMUND, ROBERT D. WALTER,
RONALD A WILLIAMS, “MR.
GUNNING,” JUDY BISGARD,
AMERICAN EXPRESS CENTURION
BANK, AMERICAN EXPRESS
BANK, FSB,
Defendants.
____________________________/
COMPLAINT
Preliminary Statement
Over the past twenty years consumer credit and credit card companies have sought to bar customer access to the judicial process. Instead, mega-corporations have sought to impose burdensome and complex arbitration procedures on their customers. Congress has been virtually bribed to allow this unconscionable and abusive trend.
Congress has, however, developed an alternative series of consumer protection statutes: The Fair Credit Billing Act, the Fair Debt Collection Procedures Act, The Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Sadly, the American Express Company and its management appear to have developed systematic procedures to violate and ignore congressional enactments.
Usually, big companies such as American Express can “beat up” on their customers and customers lack the energy or resources to fight back. In this case, AmEx picked on a customer who had the means and experience to fight back. On information and belief this is the first state court to obtain jurisdiction over a lawsuit involving the mandatory arbitration provisions of AmEx’s customer contract. Thus, this Court’s decisions will lay the foundations for important new nationwide legal principles.
[COUNT ONE]
[ACTION TO INVALIDATE ARBITRATION CLAUSE OR COMPEL ARBITRATION]
1. Jurisdiction and venue
a. This court has general common law jurisdiction to hear and determine the matters presented.
b. Venue is proper in DuPage County. Plaintiff is based in Illinois, Florida, New York and worldwide, see AndyMartinWorldwide.com.
2. Factual allegations
a. The parties
A. Plaintiff has been a consumer advocate and public interest lawyer, although not a member of the Illinois Bar, who has exposed and fought corruption in Illinois politics and nationally for over forty years. Most recently, Plaintiff was a reform candidate for U. S. Senator. Plaintiff has been involved in important landmark consumer protection litigation, see Andymartin.com for a listing of important consumer precedents set by Plaintiff.
B. Defendants Akerson, Barshefsky, Burns, Chenault, Chernin, Leschly, Levin, McGinn, Miller, Reinemund, Walter and Williams are the senior managers of Amex.
C. Defendants “Gunning” (which may be a fictitious name used in violation of federal law) and “Bisgard” (which may also be a fictitious name used in violation of federal law) are allegedly AmEx employees in Arizona.
D. Defendants American Express Centurion Bank and American Express Bank are names disclosed by the defendants in the retaliation notices which they sent to Plaintiff on May 23, 2008 as “creditors” of Plaintiff.
b. The Facts Giving Rise to This Lawsuit
A. Plaintiff received a call from Gunning on or about May 13, 2008.
B. Gunning claimed that one of Plaintiff’s accounts was $21.14 past due, and that Gunning had suspended the account. Plaintiff was probably $21.14 past due, as he has been somewhat slow to write checks during his most recent period of political activity.
C. When Plaintiff protested, Gunning said words to the effect of “then I’ll cancel that account as well,” and cancelled all of Plaintiff’s accounts. Plaintiff has demanded a copy of the tape recording of the conversation, but defendants have refused to date to produce the tape between Gunning and Plaintiff.
D. Plaintiff uses Amex for automatic monthly billings on routine repetitive consumer transactions. The cancellation of Plaintiff’s account has caused chaos and disruption, and required Plaintiff to redo accounts.
E. Plaintiff wrote to Bisgard and Chenault on May 13, and again on May 20, 2008. Bisgard and Chenault ignored Plaintiff’s letters, thereby forcing the commencement of this lawsuit.
F. Plaintiff offered to pay his disputed balance into this Court’s registry account, so that there would be no question over Plaintiff’s ability and willingness to pay. Bisgard ignored that offer and sent Plaintiff a computer message threatening to destroy Plaintiff’s credit reputation.
G. American Express and its majordomo mandarin Chenault and his “board” of corporate cronies apparently do not respond to business letters. They require a lawsuit to be filed obtain their attention.
H. AmEx as imposed arbitration provisions on in its customers to deny them access to judicial remedies. I. Plaintiff invoked the arbitration provisions of the contract but AmEx and its employees have ignored the remedial provisions of their own contract.
3. Legal claim
a. Plaintiff invoked the arbitration clause prepared by AmEx, by sending demands to Chenault and Bisgard (a copy of the Chenault letter).
b. Chenault, Bisgard and the Amex Corporation have ignored and violated their own contract and refused to engage in arbitration over this dispute.
c. In effect, AmEx has imposed an arbitration procedure on its customers as a form of in terrorem corporate intimidation, ignoring the contractual procedure when it is invoked by customers such as Plaintiff and hoping they will “go away.”
4. Demand for judgment
Plaintiff sues and demands judgment as follows:
a. Declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to do complete justice between the parties.
b. Ancillary money damages in an amount not to exceed $60,000 on all counts, with the total recovery in this action limited to $60,000.
c. Plaintiff sues, in the alternative, as to the arbitration clause of the contract between the parties. Plaintiff asks the Court to invalidate AmEx’s arbitration clause so this lawsuit can proceed. Plaintiff believes mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts reflect contracts of adhesion and are contrary to federal and state public policy. In the alternative, if the court upholds the arbitration clause, Plaintiff asks the court to compel the defendants to proceed with arbitration and to reinstate his accounts pendente lite.
[COUNT TWO]
[BREACH OF THE COMMON LAW COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH]
1-2. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-2 of Count One and further pleads:
3. Legal claim
a. The common law of Illinois and New York implies a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in every contact.
b. The actions of Gunning, Bisgard, Chenault and the senior management of Amex reflect arrogance and contempt for customers.
c. Calling a customer and saying you have suspended his account because he is $21.14 past due, and then retaliating when the customer exercises his federally protected rights and protests, inflicting unnecessary chaos and disruption on the customer, reflect a gross absence of good faith and a clear violation of the common law covenant.
4. Demand for judgment
Plaintiff sues and demands judgment as follows:
a. Declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to do complete justice between the parties.
b. Ancillary money damages in an amount not to exceed $60,000 on all counts, with the total recovery in this action limited to $60,000.
[COUNT THREE]
[BREACH OF FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT, FAIR DEBT
COLLECTION PROCEDURES ACT, EQUAL CREDIT
OPPORTUNITY ACT, FAIR CREDIT BILLING ACT]
1-2. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-2 of Count One and further pleads:
3. Legal claim
a. Congress has enacted a comprehensive series of federal consumer protection laws. Those laws bar retaliation for the invocation and exercise of consumer rights. The tape recording of the conversation between Gunning and Plaintiff will establish that Gunning called claiming he had suspended an account for a $21.24 past due amount. That was an obviously unbelievable claim.
b. It appears that Amex had obtained credit information about Plaintiff surreptitiously, in violation of federal law, and has to date failed to comply with federal law. AmEx appears to have systematic policies and procedures in place to knowingly and intentionally violate federal law in the manner in which Plaintiff was attacked and terrorized.
c. When Plaintiff exercised his rights pursuant to federal law to protest, Gunning immediately retaliated by canceling all of Plaintiff’s accounts. Such retaliation is prohibited by and violated federal law. The defendants have failed to train and properly supervise Bisgard and Gunning to obey and comply with federal consumer protection statutes.
4. Demand for judgment
Plaintiff sues and demands judgment as follows:
a. Declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to federal law as may be necessary to do complete justice between the parties.
b. Ancillary money damages in an amount not to exceed $60,000 on all counts, with the total recovery in this action limited to $60,000.
Dated: June 5, 2008
Respectfully submitted,
ANDY MARTIN
SERVICE OF NOTICES IS RESPECTFULLY
REQUESTED BY FAX OR E-MAIL
30 E. Huron St., Suite 4406
Chicago, IL 60611-4723,
and
P. O. Box 1851
New York, NY 10150-1851
(please serve both addresses)
Toll-free tel. (866) 706-2639
Toll-free fax (866) 707-2639
E-mail: andymart20@aol.com (text only)
ANDY MARTIN J.D.
BoycottAmericanExpress.blogspot.com
BoycottThePlumCard.blogspot.com
P. O. Box 1851
New York, NY 10150-1851
Tel. (866) 706-2639
LANDMARK LAWSUIT SEEKS TO BAN AMERICAN EXPRESS FROM USING MANDATORY ARBITRATION IN CREDIT CARDS, CONSUMER TRANSACTIONS
CHICAGO CORRUPTION FIGHTER AND CONSUMER ADVOCATE ANDY MARTIN TAKES ON THE CREDIT CARD AND CONSUMER FINANCE INDUSTRY
(CHICAGO)(June 5, 2008)(Exclusive) Legendary Chicago Internet columnist, muckraker and consumer activist Andy Martin today filed suit against the American Express Company accusing the iconic brand of systematically violating a series of federal consumer protection laws. Martin also charged the company with seeking to terrorize (“in terrorem”) its customers into submission.
“Like all neighborhood bullies, Kenneth Chenault likes his people to beat up on the little people” Martin said. “In punching me, they took on an adversary that has the heft to fight back.
“AmEx’s mandatory consumer arbitration program is a massive fraud. Even Amex ignores the provisions of their own documents. My consumer reform lawsuit filed today in DuPage County, Illinois Circuit Court is one of the most important consumer actions filed in recent years. I aim to shut down the credit card industry’s efforts to use ‘arbitration’ to exclude consumers from access to any remedies in customer-company disputes.
“AmEx treated me like dirt. Well, now the American people are going to throw a little dirt in Ken Chenault’s face and muddy up his bogus reputation as a corporate champion of responsible business policies.
“Arbitration is not a ‘quick, cheap and easy’ remedy as it is falsely presented by arbitration organizations. Arbitration can be costly, protracted and very expensive, which is why the consumer credit industry tries to use mandatory arbitration to deprive customers of judicial remedies,” Martin emphasized.
Since forming the Illinois Consumer Council in 1970 Andy Martin has been one of the United States’ toughest, most resourceful and creative consumer advocates. See AndyMartin.com.
Martin has started two blogs, BoycottAmericanExpress.blogspot.com and
BoycottThePlumCard.blogspot.com
to publicize his battle with Ameircan Express and to solicit similar consumer experiences.
“Mr. Chenault apparently has a problem with the English language,” Martin said in announcing his lawsuit. “He apparently doesn’t read letters addressed to him. He obviously does not respond to letters. Maybe the presence of a process server at his corporate headquarters in lower Manhattan on Monday will get his attention.”
Martin has sued the entire Board of Directors of AmEx, as well as apparently Arizona-based employees who harassed him. He will have process servers spanning out across the next week serving AmEx board members.
------------------------------------------
Chicago-based Internet investigative columnist, talk show host, broadcaster and media critic Andy Martin is the Executive Editor and publisher of http://www.ContrarianCommentary.com. © Copyright by Andy Martin 2008. Martin covers regional, national and world events with more than forty years of experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. Comments? E-mail: AndyMart20@aol.com. Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Columns also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS
IN CHANCERY
DOCKET NO. 2008 CH 2123
STATUS DATE: 10/2/08
ASSIGNED TO: 2005
ANDY MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
DANIEL AKERSON, CHARLENE
BARSHEFSKY, URSULA BURNS,
KENNETH CHENAULT, PETER
CHERNIN, JAN LESCHLY, RICHARD
C. LEVIN, RICHARD A. MCGINN,
EDWARD D. MILLER, STEVEN S.
REINEMUND, ROBERT D. WALTER,
RONALD A WILLIAMS, “MR.
GUNNING,” JUDY BISGARD,
AMERICAN EXPRESS CENTURION
BANK, AMERICAN EXPRESS
BANK, FSB,
Defendants.
____________________________/
COMPLAINT
Preliminary Statement
Over the past twenty years consumer credit and credit card companies have sought to bar customer access to the judicial process. Instead, mega-corporations have sought to impose burdensome and complex arbitration procedures on their customers. Congress has been virtually bribed to allow this unconscionable and abusive trend.
Congress has, however, developed an alternative series of consumer protection statutes: The Fair Credit Billing Act, the Fair Debt Collection Procedures Act, The Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Sadly, the American Express Company and its management appear to have developed systematic procedures to violate and ignore congressional enactments.
Usually, big companies such as American Express can “beat up” on their customers and customers lack the energy or resources to fight back. In this case, AmEx picked on a customer who had the means and experience to fight back. On information and belief this is the first state court to obtain jurisdiction over a lawsuit involving the mandatory arbitration provisions of AmEx’s customer contract. Thus, this Court’s decisions will lay the foundations for important new nationwide legal principles.
[COUNT ONE]
[ACTION TO INVALIDATE ARBITRATION CLAUSE OR COMPEL ARBITRATION]
1. Jurisdiction and venue
a. This court has general common law jurisdiction to hear and determine the matters presented.
b. Venue is proper in DuPage County. Plaintiff is based in Illinois, Florida, New York and worldwide, see AndyMartinWorldwide.com.
2. Factual allegations
a. The parties
A. Plaintiff has been a consumer advocate and public interest lawyer, although not a member of the Illinois Bar, who has exposed and fought corruption in Illinois politics and nationally for over forty years. Most recently, Plaintiff was a reform candidate for U. S. Senator. Plaintiff has been involved in important landmark consumer protection litigation, see Andymartin.com for a listing of important consumer precedents set by Plaintiff.
B. Defendants Akerson, Barshefsky, Burns, Chenault, Chernin, Leschly, Levin, McGinn, Miller, Reinemund, Walter and Williams are the senior managers of Amex.
C. Defendants “Gunning” (which may be a fictitious name used in violation of federal law) and “Bisgard” (which may also be a fictitious name used in violation of federal law) are allegedly AmEx employees in Arizona.
D. Defendants American Express Centurion Bank and American Express Bank are names disclosed by the defendants in the retaliation notices which they sent to Plaintiff on May 23, 2008 as “creditors” of Plaintiff.
b. The Facts Giving Rise to This Lawsuit
A. Plaintiff received a call from Gunning on or about May 13, 2008.
B. Gunning claimed that one of Plaintiff’s accounts was $21.14 past due, and that Gunning had suspended the account. Plaintiff was probably $21.14 past due, as he has been somewhat slow to write checks during his most recent period of political activity.
C. When Plaintiff protested, Gunning said words to the effect of “then I’ll cancel that account as well,” and cancelled all of Plaintiff’s accounts. Plaintiff has demanded a copy of the tape recording of the conversation, but defendants have refused to date to produce the tape between Gunning and Plaintiff.
D. Plaintiff uses Amex for automatic monthly billings on routine repetitive consumer transactions. The cancellation of Plaintiff’s account has caused chaos and disruption, and required Plaintiff to redo accounts.
E. Plaintiff wrote to Bisgard and Chenault on May 13, and again on May 20, 2008. Bisgard and Chenault ignored Plaintiff’s letters, thereby forcing the commencement of this lawsuit.
F. Plaintiff offered to pay his disputed balance into this Court’s registry account, so that there would be no question over Plaintiff’s ability and willingness to pay. Bisgard ignored that offer and sent Plaintiff a computer message threatening to destroy Plaintiff’s credit reputation.
G. American Express and its majordomo mandarin Chenault and his “board” of corporate cronies apparently do not respond to business letters. They require a lawsuit to be filed obtain their attention.
H. AmEx as imposed arbitration provisions on in its customers to deny them access to judicial remedies. I. Plaintiff invoked the arbitration provisions of the contract but AmEx and its employees have ignored the remedial provisions of their own contract.
3. Legal claim
a. Plaintiff invoked the arbitration clause prepared by AmEx, by sending demands to Chenault and Bisgard (a copy of the Chenault letter).
b. Chenault, Bisgard and the Amex Corporation have ignored and violated their own contract and refused to engage in arbitration over this dispute.
c. In effect, AmEx has imposed an arbitration procedure on its customers as a form of in terrorem corporate intimidation, ignoring the contractual procedure when it is invoked by customers such as Plaintiff and hoping they will “go away.”
4. Demand for judgment
Plaintiff sues and demands judgment as follows:
a. Declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to do complete justice between the parties.
b. Ancillary money damages in an amount not to exceed $60,000 on all counts, with the total recovery in this action limited to $60,000.
c. Plaintiff sues, in the alternative, as to the arbitration clause of the contract between the parties. Plaintiff asks the Court to invalidate AmEx’s arbitration clause so this lawsuit can proceed. Plaintiff believes mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts reflect contracts of adhesion and are contrary to federal and state public policy. In the alternative, if the court upholds the arbitration clause, Plaintiff asks the court to compel the defendants to proceed with arbitration and to reinstate his accounts pendente lite.
[COUNT TWO]
[BREACH OF THE COMMON LAW COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH]
1-2. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-2 of Count One and further pleads:
3. Legal claim
a. The common law of Illinois and New York implies a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in every contact.
b. The actions of Gunning, Bisgard, Chenault and the senior management of Amex reflect arrogance and contempt for customers.
c. Calling a customer and saying you have suspended his account because he is $21.14 past due, and then retaliating when the customer exercises his federally protected rights and protests, inflicting unnecessary chaos and disruption on the customer, reflect a gross absence of good faith and a clear violation of the common law covenant.
4. Demand for judgment
Plaintiff sues and demands judgment as follows:
a. Declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to do complete justice between the parties.
b. Ancillary money damages in an amount not to exceed $60,000 on all counts, with the total recovery in this action limited to $60,000.
[COUNT THREE]
[BREACH OF FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT, FAIR DEBT
COLLECTION PROCEDURES ACT, EQUAL CREDIT
OPPORTUNITY ACT, FAIR CREDIT BILLING ACT]
1-2. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-2 of Count One and further pleads:
3. Legal claim
a. Congress has enacted a comprehensive series of federal consumer protection laws. Those laws bar retaliation for the invocation and exercise of consumer rights. The tape recording of the conversation between Gunning and Plaintiff will establish that Gunning called claiming he had suspended an account for a $21.24 past due amount. That was an obviously unbelievable claim.
b. It appears that Amex had obtained credit information about Plaintiff surreptitiously, in violation of federal law, and has to date failed to comply with federal law. AmEx appears to have systematic policies and procedures in place to knowingly and intentionally violate federal law in the manner in which Plaintiff was attacked and terrorized.
c. When Plaintiff exercised his rights pursuant to federal law to protest, Gunning immediately retaliated by canceling all of Plaintiff’s accounts. Such retaliation is prohibited by and violated federal law. The defendants have failed to train and properly supervise Bisgard and Gunning to obey and comply with federal consumer protection statutes.
4. Demand for judgment
Plaintiff sues and demands judgment as follows:
a. Declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to federal law as may be necessary to do complete justice between the parties.
b. Ancillary money damages in an amount not to exceed $60,000 on all counts, with the total recovery in this action limited to $60,000.
Dated: June 5, 2008
Respectfully submitted,
ANDY MARTIN
SERVICE OF NOTICES IS RESPECTFULLY
REQUESTED BY FAX OR E-MAIL
30 E. Huron St., Suite 4406
Chicago, IL 60611-4723,
and
P. O. Box 1851
New York, NY 10150-1851
(please serve both addresses)
Toll-free tel. (866) 706-2639
Toll-free fax (866) 707-2639
E-mail: andymart20@aol.com (text only)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
