Did “doofus” Kenneth Chenault sink American Express? Internet Powerhouse Andy Martin blames Kenneth Chenault for American Express’ collapse. Martin’s consumer boycott begins to bite, as he and AmEx law firms square off in court over a $20 payment. Martin vows to topple the AmEx leader despite fears of a racial backlash form the Obama administration: “Chenault has to go,” says the Internet Powerhouse.
Internet Powerhouse Andy Martin says Kenneth Chenault should be ousted as American Express head
Andy says fear of a racial backlash from the Obama administration is the only factor keeping Chenault at the helm of AmEx
ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com
“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
How African-American “Arm Candy” destroyed American Express
How poor customer service in the Internet age is destroying major American businesses
Do AmEx leaders, including Democratic Party majordomo Charlene Barshefsky, fear a racial backlash if Chenault is fired?
(NEW YORK)(April 24, 2009) When Morton’s Steak House charged business columnist Dan Dorfman $2.50 for a drink “on the rocks,” Dorfman’s response created a media firestorm that cost Morton’s millions of dollars in bad publicity.
When an abusive American Express (AmEx) customer service employee berated and harassed me over what he claimed was a $20 late payment, I began to investigate abusive customer service at AmEx. As a result, I am convinced that American Express is being run by an incompetent leader who should be removed: Kenneth Chenault.
Chenault represents a new risk factor in corporate leadership; African-American “arm candy.”
For those of a certain age and social background, American Express will always be an iconic firm. We picked up our mail at AmEx in London or Paris. The very name American Express meant “service.”
Today AmEx is being run with gang banger tactics. The result is that the firm is slumping, and U. S. taxpayers are likely to take a hit. A former head of AmEx was my neighbor. I am sure he is as mortified as I am at what Chenault has done to the firm.
Why is all this happening?
When Kenneth Chenault was appointed to lead AmEx the economy was booming. The fact that Mr. Chenault was a failed lawyer who shifted to corporate work and surfed the wave of “affirmative action” to senior management at AmEx was not a critical matter. With Chenault, AmEx would have a chief executive who portrayed an inclusive, progressive, African-American image to the business community and customers around the world.
But Mr. Chenault turned out to be a corporate doofus who is running AmEx into the ground:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/23/
news/companies/american_express/
?postversion=2009042317
Customers are deserting a company that has become known for abusive customer service or no service at all:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124051776104649423.html#mod=testMod
And in the midst of AmEx’s collapse, the firm’s lawyers and I continue to face off in federal and state courts in an increasingly nasty confrontation over a dispute triggered by a phone call over a $20 bill:
http://www.boycottamericanexpress.blogspot.com/
http://www.boycotttheplumcard.blogspot.com/
As Dan Dorfman would say, with or without his $2.50 Morton’s ice cubes, “I’ll drink to that.”
How could Chenault destroy one of American business’ legendary franchises? Good question. When some goon in Phoenix customer service calls up a large customer and starts berating the customer over an alleged $20 shortfall, and holy war breaks out, the firm is at fault, not the customer.
No one at AmEx management has ever apologized to me. Instead, they hired convicted swindler Jack Abramoff’s law firm to harass me with baseless litigation. Now AmEx is using a second scumbag “law firm" in New York to intimidate me. It’s all there in the court pleadings to see (see blogs above). Needless to say, neither Dan Dorfman nor I are the type to be intimidated.
In the Internet age, beating up on your customers is a prescription for failure, not success.
And in the meantime, no one is saying what needs to be said: Chenault has to go. The AmEx board fears a racial backlash from the Obama administration (more of that in a subsequent column). AmEx director Charlene Barshefsky, a longtime Democratic Party wheel horse in Washington, no doubt knows what would happen if Chenault was dumped for incompetence: the Federal Reserve Board’s bailout spigot would be turned off. AmEx had to seek a federal bailout because of Chenault’s incompetence:
http://home3.americanexpress.com/
corp/pc/2008/bhc.asp
And while customers are deserting AmEx, and AmEx customer service vanishes and is replaced by rapper-style tactics, Chenault continues to defraud both his stockholders and American taxpayers with his lavish compensation plan:
http://people.forbes.com/profile/
kenneth-i-chenault/4704
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/
news/0904/gallery.biggest_ceo_paychecks/4.html
Racial profiteering: ain’t it great? Sadly, AmEx’s attempt to take advantage of African-American arm candy in 2001 may sink the firm today. Kenneth Chenault, however, will sail into the sunset with tens of millions of American taxpayer dollars. Today we not only have companies “too big to fail;” we have executives too dangerous to fire for incompetence. Kenneth Chenault is exhibit #1.
America: leave home without it. American Express left us long ago.
COMING: Another racial profiteering scandal; another possible racial backlash from the “Big Man Obama.”
NOTE: Andy Martin was the author of the trend-setting 2005 column, “GM Should File for Bankruptcy,” that presaged the automaker’s future collapse, see:
http://www.pr-inside.com/general-motors-should-file-for-bankruptcy-r904367.htm
FOOTNOTE: A tip of the hat to the University of Illinois Economics Department, and UI College of Business, for training yours truly in business and economic analysis (consumer sampling). They taught me well.
------------------------------
Readers of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, say the book is still the only gold standard and practical handbook on Barack Obama's unfitness for the presidency. Buy it.
Book orders: Amazon.com or http://OrangeStatePress.com. Immediate shipment from Amazon.com or signed copies (delayed for signing) from the publisher are available.
------------------------------
Andy Martin is a legendary Chicago muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. He has over forty years of radio and television experience and is the informal “dean” of Illinois media and communications. He is currently promoting his best-selling book, Obama: The Man Behind The Mask and producing the new internet movie Obama: The Hawai’i Years. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of www.ContrarianCommentary.com.
Martin comments on regional, national and world events with more than four decades of experience. He holds Economics and Juris Doctor degrees from the University of Illinois and is a former adjunct professor of law at the City University of New York. He is an announced candidate for Barack Obama’s former U. S. Senate seat.
UPDATES: www.twitter.com/AndyMartinUSA
His columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com.
[NOTE: We frequently correct typographical errors and additions/subtractions on our blogs, where you can find the latest edition of this release.]
MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or CELL (917) 664-9329 (not always on)
E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com
© Copyright by Andy Martin 2009.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
The latest sleazy tactics by American Express
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Case No. 08 CV 3812
Judge Pallmeyer
ANDY MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DANIEL AKERSON, et al.,
Defendants.
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO FURTHER STAY PROCEEDING
AND FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
Plaintiff hereby states under penalty of perjury in support of his pending motion:
1. Defendant American Express and its various and divers law firms appear intent on making this Court look silly.
2. Earlier this week, Plaintiff submitted a pending motion to this Court. As if on cue, almost immediately thereafter another law firm for American Express (i.e. not counsel of record in this Court) contacted Plaintiff to make collection demands and to threaten new legal action. While Plaintiff asked new counsel for faxed material, opposing counsel only agreed to mail the material to Plaintiff. His package is apparently in the mail, somewhere. (Plaintiff is currently producing a movie so he is on the road.)
3. American Express’ latest law firm claims to be “Mitchell & Kay, 710 Penn Plaza 15th Floor, New York, NY 10001.” For a brief search of that law firm’s reputation and professional practices, see attached. The company or “law firm” apparently operates under false pretenses. Another lawsuit? Could be.
4. Giving this Court the benefit of the doubt, the Court may have erroneously believed that its “order” last October would be the final word on the dispute between the parties. Obviously that was not the case. American express is paying "big firm" litigation fees to needy attorneys to aggressively pursue Plaintiff and to inflict damage on his credit, as well as threatening new litigation. Just as aggressively Plaintiff is defending himself.
5. Thus, the claim by the esteemed local law firm (Greenberg) for American Express that the law firm wishes to “rely” on this Court’s prior ruling to harass and pursue the Plaintiff while the Plaintiff is barred (enjoined) from defending himself and counterattacking, is frivolous. Both parties have equal rights to attack and defend. Common sense, let alone the law, mandates no less.
6. The Court can now see why American Express counsel is wasting this Court’s time with requests for relief that are contradicted by the firm’s own litigation strategy in continuing to attack Plaintiff. This Court should allow the state court to proceed, and deny American Express any prospective relief in this forum.
7. All of the current infighting arises after this Court's October ruling and thus neither res judicata nor collateral estoppel can apply to new actions. Montana v. U.S., 440 U.S. 147, 99 S.Ct. 970 (1979)
8. In law school, they teach that those seeking equity must come with “clean hands.” A party that is attacking (AmEx) and seeking an equitable remedy from this Court hardly comes before the Court with clean hands when it wants the Court to enjoin the Plaintiff herein from defending himself against AmEx’s continuing predatory behavior.
9. Coda: This litigation has been going on for almost a year. The undisputed fact is that the controversy was triggered by an AmEx customer service rep being abusive to a substantial customer who was alleged to be behind $20 on a bill. The Court can now glean from the disorganized response of AmEx law firms that AmEx’s abysmal customer service extends to pathetic litigation management as well. It is time for this Court to tell American Express to “leave home without it” and leave this Court alone. Otherwise, the Court risks looking as inept and biased as AmEx counsel.
Executed April 23, 2009
I certify the foregoing is true under penalty of perjury, 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
Respectfully submitted,
ANDY MARTIN
P.O. Box 1851
New York, NY 10150-1851
Tel. (866) 706-2639
Fax (866) 707-2639
E-mail (text only):
AndyMart20@aol.com
with courtesy copy to:
Suite 4406
30 E. Huron Street
Chicago, IL 60611-4723
Certificate of service
I certify I have served counsel for the defendants, Ruth Bahe-Jachna, Greenberg, Traurig, 77 W. Wacker Dr., Suite 2500, Chicago, IL 60601 by fax to (312) 456-8435 on April 23, 2009.
ANDY MARTIN
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Case No. 08 CV 3812
Judge Pallmeyer
ANDY MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DANIEL AKERSON, et al.,
Defendants.
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO FURTHER STAY PROCEEDING
AND FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
Plaintiff hereby states under penalty of perjury in support of his pending motion:
1. Defendant American Express and its various and divers law firms appear intent on making this Court look silly.
2. Earlier this week, Plaintiff submitted a pending motion to this Court. As if on cue, almost immediately thereafter another law firm for American Express (i.e. not counsel of record in this Court) contacted Plaintiff to make collection demands and to threaten new legal action. While Plaintiff asked new counsel for faxed material, opposing counsel only agreed to mail the material to Plaintiff. His package is apparently in the mail, somewhere. (Plaintiff is currently producing a movie so he is on the road.)
3. American Express’ latest law firm claims to be “Mitchell & Kay, 710 Penn Plaza 15th Floor, New York, NY 10001.” For a brief search of that law firm’s reputation and professional practices, see attached. The company or “law firm” apparently operates under false pretenses. Another lawsuit? Could be.
4. Giving this Court the benefit of the doubt, the Court may have erroneously believed that its “order” last October would be the final word on the dispute between the parties. Obviously that was not the case. American express is paying "big firm" litigation fees to needy attorneys to aggressively pursue Plaintiff and to inflict damage on his credit, as well as threatening new litigation. Just as aggressively Plaintiff is defending himself.
5. Thus, the claim by the esteemed local law firm (Greenberg) for American Express that the law firm wishes to “rely” on this Court’s prior ruling to harass and pursue the Plaintiff while the Plaintiff is barred (enjoined) from defending himself and counterattacking, is frivolous. Both parties have equal rights to attack and defend. Common sense, let alone the law, mandates no less.
6. The Court can now see why American Express counsel is wasting this Court’s time with requests for relief that are contradicted by the firm’s own litigation strategy in continuing to attack Plaintiff. This Court should allow the state court to proceed, and deny American Express any prospective relief in this forum.
7. All of the current infighting arises after this Court's October ruling and thus neither res judicata nor collateral estoppel can apply to new actions. Montana v. U.S., 440 U.S. 147, 99 S.Ct. 970 (1979)
8. In law school, they teach that those seeking equity must come with “clean hands.” A party that is attacking (AmEx) and seeking an equitable remedy from this Court hardly comes before the Court with clean hands when it wants the Court to enjoin the Plaintiff herein from defending himself against AmEx’s continuing predatory behavior.
9. Coda: This litigation has been going on for almost a year. The undisputed fact is that the controversy was triggered by an AmEx customer service rep being abusive to a substantial customer who was alleged to be behind $20 on a bill. The Court can now glean from the disorganized response of AmEx law firms that AmEx’s abysmal customer service extends to pathetic litigation management as well. It is time for this Court to tell American Express to “leave home without it” and leave this Court alone. Otherwise, the Court risks looking as inept and biased as AmEx counsel.
Executed April 23, 2009
I certify the foregoing is true under penalty of perjury, 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
Respectfully submitted,
ANDY MARTIN
P.O. Box 1851
New York, NY 10150-1851
Tel. (866) 706-2639
Fax (866) 707-2639
E-mail (text only):
AndyMart20@aol.com
with courtesy copy to:
Suite 4406
30 E. Huron Street
Chicago, IL 60611-4723
Certificate of service
I certify I have served counsel for the defendants, Ruth Bahe-Jachna, Greenberg, Traurig, 77 W. Wacker Dr., Suite 2500, Chicago, IL 60601 by fax to (312) 456-8435 on April 23, 2009.
ANDY MARTIN
Monday, March 16, 2009
Chicago News Conference: Internet Powerhouse Andy Martin to call for the ouster of American Express management Tuesday
Andy Martin and American express face off, again, in an Illinois court Tuesday. A federal judge clears the way for an American Express default in consumer controversy. Martin charges that American Express is being destroyed by chief executive Kenneth Chenault.
ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com
“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEWS CONFERENCE:
INTERNET POWERHOUSE ANDY MARTIN TO CALL FOR THE OUSTER OF AMEX MANAGEMENT TUESDAY
(NEW YORK)(March 16, 2009) When credit card “Goliath” American Express took on consumer activist “David” Andy Martin, in response to Martin’s reaction to a boorish AmEx customer service employee in Phoenix, AmEx lawyers probably expected to trounce the Illinois consumer champion. They didn’t realize until much later they were tangling with the aggressive “Internet Powerhouse” who is committed to consumer protection.
What began as a dispute over a $20 bill is costing American Express tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and million in lost goodwill. The $20 controversy continues, and continues to grow in scope and intensity.
Friday the 13th a federal judge in Chicago cleared the way for Martin to seek a default ruling from an Illinois state court in the Martin/AmEx dispute.
“This is the most amazing corporate public relations disaster that one can imagine,” Martin stated in announcing a Chicago news conference where he will call for the ouster of AmEx management. “Some jerk working at AmEx Phoenix called and abused me over an alleged $20 past due bill. Instead of being polite to a customer with a substantial history with AmEx, AmEx’s employee became abusive. He then retaliated against me. Big mistake.
“We have now been back and forth in federal court and state courts and we are heading shortly for the Federal Reserve Board now that AmEx is a bank holding company.
“Why would any company abuse its customers this way? In an editorial column later today, I believe I will provide the answer: Kenneth Chenault has destroyed American Express. Chenault and his management team should be removed. Any bunch of corporate employees who take on a battle with a substantial customer over $20, and then get needlessly embroiled in federal and state courts, spending tens of thousands of dollars with Jack Abramoff’s corrupt law firm, is mismanaging the company’s and the shareholders’ business.
“American express has also been devastated by media reports that it is paying is customers to ‘go away.’ What kind of a business is that? ‘I’m from American Express customer service, and I’m here to ask you to get lost.’ AmEx is on the verge of becoming a laughingstock. Maybe they should merge with AIG.
“It is time for Kenneth Chenault to be removed by either the AmEx board, or by the shareholders.
“Tuesday I will ask the state court judge to enter a default. Most likely, he will give AmEx more time. AmEx’s besieged lawyers have filed the same motion over and over again three times.
“I am fighting for consumer justice, and for fair treatment for AmEx customers,” Martin states.
The dispute, as well as other customer complaints that Martin is collecting, can be followed at:
http://boycottamericanexpress.blogspot.com/
http://boycotttheplumcard.blogspot.com/
NEWS CONFERENCE DETAILS:
WHO:
Internet Powerhouse and Author/Editor/Columnist Andy Martin
WHAT:
Andy Martin calls for the ouster of Kenneth Chenault and the American Express management team
WHERE:
Southeast corner of Huron and Wabash Streets, Chicago
WHEN: Tuesday, March 17, 2009; 2:00 P. M.
MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639; CELL (917) 664-9329
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Readers of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, say the book is still the only gold standard and practical handbook on Barack Obama's unfitness for the presidency. Buy it.
Book orders: Amazon.com or http://OrangeStatePress.com. Immediate shipment from Amazon.com or signed copies (delayed for signing) from the publisher are available.
----------------------------------------
Andy Martin is a legendary Chicago muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. He has over forty years of broadcasting experience in radio and television and is the dean of Illinois media and communications. He is currently promoting his best-selling book, Obama: The Man Behind The Mask. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of www.ContrarianCommentary.com.
Martin comments on regional, national and world events with over four decades of experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law and is a former adjunct professor of law at the City University of New York. He is an announced candidate for Barack Obama’s former U. S. Senate seat in 2010, www.AndyforUSSenator.com.
His columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com.
Updates: www.twitter.com/AndyMartinUSA
MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or CELL (917) 664-9329 (not always on)
E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com [NOTE: We frequently correct typographical errors and additions/subtractions on our blogs, where you can find the latest edition of this release.]
© Copyright by Andy Martin 2009.
Andy Martin and American express face off, again, in an Illinois court Tuesday. A federal judge clears the way for an American Express default in consumer controversy. Martin charges that American Express is being destroyed by chief executive Kenneth Chenault.
ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com
“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEWS CONFERENCE:
INTERNET POWERHOUSE ANDY MARTIN TO CALL FOR THE OUSTER OF AMEX MANAGEMENT TUESDAY
(NEW YORK)(March 16, 2009) When credit card “Goliath” American Express took on consumer activist “David” Andy Martin, in response to Martin’s reaction to a boorish AmEx customer service employee in Phoenix, AmEx lawyers probably expected to trounce the Illinois consumer champion. They didn’t realize until much later they were tangling with the aggressive “Internet Powerhouse” who is committed to consumer protection.
What began as a dispute over a $20 bill is costing American Express tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and million in lost goodwill. The $20 controversy continues, and continues to grow in scope and intensity.
Friday the 13th a federal judge in Chicago cleared the way for Martin to seek a default ruling from an Illinois state court in the Martin/AmEx dispute.
“This is the most amazing corporate public relations disaster that one can imagine,” Martin stated in announcing a Chicago news conference where he will call for the ouster of AmEx management. “Some jerk working at AmEx Phoenix called and abused me over an alleged $20 past due bill. Instead of being polite to a customer with a substantial history with AmEx, AmEx’s employee became abusive. He then retaliated against me. Big mistake.
“We have now been back and forth in federal court and state courts and we are heading shortly for the Federal Reserve Board now that AmEx is a bank holding company.
“Why would any company abuse its customers this way? In an editorial column later today, I believe I will provide the answer: Kenneth Chenault has destroyed American Express. Chenault and his management team should be removed. Any bunch of corporate employees who take on a battle with a substantial customer over $20, and then get needlessly embroiled in federal and state courts, spending tens of thousands of dollars with Jack Abramoff’s corrupt law firm, is mismanaging the company’s and the shareholders’ business.
“American express has also been devastated by media reports that it is paying is customers to ‘go away.’ What kind of a business is that? ‘I’m from American Express customer service, and I’m here to ask you to get lost.’ AmEx is on the verge of becoming a laughingstock. Maybe they should merge with AIG.
“It is time for Kenneth Chenault to be removed by either the AmEx board, or by the shareholders.
“Tuesday I will ask the state court judge to enter a default. Most likely, he will give AmEx more time. AmEx’s besieged lawyers have filed the same motion over and over again three times.
“I am fighting for consumer justice, and for fair treatment for AmEx customers,” Martin states.
The dispute, as well as other customer complaints that Martin is collecting, can be followed at:
http://boycottamericanexpress.blogspot.com/
http://boycotttheplumcard.blogspot.com/
NEWS CONFERENCE DETAILS:
WHO:
Internet Powerhouse and Author/Editor/Columnist Andy Martin
WHAT:
Andy Martin calls for the ouster of Kenneth Chenault and the American Express management team
WHERE:
Southeast corner of Huron and Wabash Streets, Chicago
WHEN: Tuesday, March 17, 2009; 2:00 P. M.
MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639; CELL (917) 664-9329
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Readers of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, say the book is still the only gold standard and practical handbook on Barack Obama's unfitness for the presidency. Buy it.
Book orders: Amazon.com or http://OrangeStatePress.com. Immediate shipment from Amazon.com or signed copies (delayed for signing) from the publisher are available.
----------------------------------------
Andy Martin is a legendary Chicago muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. He has over forty years of broadcasting experience in radio and television and is the dean of Illinois media and communications. He is currently promoting his best-selling book, Obama: The Man Behind The Mask. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of www.ContrarianCommentary.com.
Martin comments on regional, national and world events with over four decades of experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law and is a former adjunct professor of law at the City University of New York. He is an announced candidate for Barack Obama’s former U. S. Senate seat in 2010, www.AndyforUSSenator.com.
His columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com.
Updates: www.twitter.com/AndyMartinUSA
MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or CELL (917) 664-9329 (not always on)
E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com [NOTE: We frequently correct typographical errors and additions/subtractions on our blogs, where you can find the latest edition of this release.]
© Copyright by Andy Martin 2009.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
NEW YORK POST: American Express beats up on its best customers
AMEX ILLS OF THE VERY WELL HEELED
By JAMES FANELLI
January 4, 2009 --
Even New York professionals raking in six-figure incomes have been sideswiped by the recent credit crunch, with some having their American Express cards unexpectedly canceled.
One jewelry-company exec saw her AmEx credit lines dwindle down even though she had never fallen behind on payments.
Ronnie Dobkin, a card holder since 1997, was embarrassed when her platinum card was declined at a fancy dinner.
"It was totally shocking," Dobkin, 53, told The Post.
About a month ago, Dobkin had taken out a $633,000 mortgage condo. The financing temporarily dropped her credit rating.
According to consumer groups, credit-card issuers have grown tightfisted. "We're always evaluating our risk-management strategies and making changes as needed," said AmEx spokeswoman Lisa Gonzalez.
By JAMES FANELLI
January 4, 2009 --
Even New York professionals raking in six-figure incomes have been sideswiped by the recent credit crunch, with some having their American Express cards unexpectedly canceled.
One jewelry-company exec saw her AmEx credit lines dwindle down even though she had never fallen behind on payments.
Ronnie Dobkin, a card holder since 1997, was embarrassed when her platinum card was declined at a fancy dinner.
"It was totally shocking," Dobkin, 53, told The Post.
About a month ago, Dobkin had taken out a $633,000 mortgage condo. The financing temporarily dropped her credit rating.
According to consumer groups, credit-card issuers have grown tightfisted. "We're always evaluating our risk-management strategies and making changes as needed," said AmEx spokeswoman Lisa Gonzalez.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Mandatory Arbitration for Consumers? Be Warned.
Here is one victim's view of consumer arbitration:
http://judiciary.house.gov/OversightTestimony.aspx?ID=983
http://judiciary.house.gov/OversightTestimony.aspx?ID=983
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)
