Des Moines Personal Injury Lawyer - Rants and Raves

Backing up your hard drive - Red Tape Chronicles

Steve Lombardi — Mon, 12 May 2008 00:00:34 GMT

Raelyn Campbell's lawsuit against Best Buy demonstrates another problem with Apple's iTunes back-up system. Just like Best Buy's extended warranty, the iTunes back-up system is designed to fail and they know it so they hit you with that warning to back up on CD's because when it fails they intend to blame the consumer.

Interesting situation reported on the Red Tape Chronicles website. In 2006 Raelyn Campbell of Washington, D.C. buys her computer at Best Buy for $1,100.00. At the time of the sale the store clerk talks her into an extended warranty for another $300.00. She uses this computer a lot and has her tax returns and music on it. Although not clear it appears she uses no backup system to protect her files. About a year later the on/off switch breaks so she uses the extended warranty and returns the computer to the Best Buy store where she bought it. She's told repairs will take about six weeks. They lose her computer, mislead her into believing it will be ready shortly, and then when she finds out the truth they offer her $900.00, not in cash, but in store coupons.

Sort of like a lawyer committing malpractice by allowing a client's case to not be filed before the statute of limitations runs and then to "make things right" offers the client a discounted fee on another lawsuit.

At the point where they lost her computer, Campbell became a problem rather than a customer. That is a problem for BB's business model. There is a glaring hole in the system. Why in the first place did BB place the customer in a position where she has to file a lawsuit? In this case it seems the only way to get this mega corporation's attention is with a lawsuit and a demand for compensation that commands respect. What the heck if Campbell is going to be forced to file suit she might as well answer the question: How many other people have you done this too? Without the lawsuit they weren't taking her claim seriously. As a consumer her bargaining power with BB is zero. But-for the court system, consumers would be treated as if they were illegal aliens in a foreign country. Why would BB offer her such a paltry sum? It was shameful and insulting.

Now the question is what did she sign when she brought it into the store for repair?
What type of backup system did she employ?
If she didn't use a backup system then does comparative fault apply and how much will be applied to her?

No matter what backup system she used or didn't use the repair process is faulty. My guess is BB doesn't even repair computers in-house. They probably outsource the repair work and were arguing with the repair shop over who should be liable for the loss. Probably neither knew who last had her computer. If they had been truthful about the situation Campbell may have reacted differently.

This case also points out a weakness in Campbell's system - she needed a backup of her data; including the music which she estimates her cost at several thousand's of dollars to purchase. This case demonstrates another corporate business model that is faulty - the iTunes back-up system.

I'm going to assume its iTunes music, it's nearly impossible to back up the iTunes music if you follow their instructions. If you buy thousands of songs from them how many CD's will it take to back it up and how much time? Who in their right mind would ever take the time to back up iTunes music as Apple instructs? You'd have to be nuts and they know it. It appears that entire back up system is designed to fail and cause the consumer to re-purchase all the same music while allowing iTunes to blame the consumer. Certainly iTunes has a record of all the songs you've already purchased. So why not allow the user to download the same songs at no additional cost? Why design the system to purposefully fail and then blame the consumer? The answer is in Apple's bottom line.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

House and Senate Bills Creating New CPSC Powers is Long Overdue

Steve Lombardi — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 00:00:49 GMT

Editorials like one appearing in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 are examples of irresponsible journalism. Just as the public tired of "liberal media" so are they sick and tired of the other extreme form of journalism that adds nothing to solving problems. The editorial board should go back to the basic foundation of good solid journalism and save their opinions for personal gatherings. I have one further suggestion. They should sharpen the lead in their pencils and as their mothers surely warned them, keep it out of your mouth.

In the Tuesday, March 4, 2008 edition of the Wall Street Journal there is an editorial titled "Lawyers 'R' Us. It discussed the house and senate versions of bills trying to strengthen the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Included in the editorial are claims that both bills include provisions that would "more than double the agency's budget by 2015...", increase "civil penalties faced by companies in violation of consumer safety rules.", a "whistleblower provision", "distribute enforcement power among the nation's dozens of state Attorneys General", allow the AG's the right "to file lawsuits and enforce rules against manufacturers"; "making matters worse, the Senate bill would create a new product safety database to provide "disclosure" of safety complaints - ostensibly for the benefit of consumers.", and lastly, "complaints from consumers would be listed on an official CPSC searchable database without any requirement to verify the claim or alleged defect."

At first glance I thought they were trying to be funny. In light of what we've recently experienced with lead paint on toys and how that affected the Christmas spending by consumers it appeared completely off the mark. But reading it again didn't shed any further light on the point of this editorial. The title suggests envy about what the editorial board perceives lawyers earn. If you don't like what your job pays then by all means get a new one. But don't throw your ethics away just to sell newspapers. Let's analyze each point the editorial makes to see if there's lead in the editorial staff's pencils. In considering each point they make and reflecting on current stories of toys covered in lead paint it's difficult to appreciate how anyone on the editorial board would consider this to be responsible journalism. Not even if they own stock in Mattel does this make sense to criticize. Let's examine each point they make and ask ourselves if this is a reasonable response to the proposed legislation.

WSJ COMPLAINT #1: Included in the editorial are provisions that would "more than double the agency's budget by 2015..."

RESPONSE #1: From all appearances the CPSC has been underfunded and is incapable of carrying out its legal mandate. So what is that mandate? On the website the mission is stated as:

"The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of serious injury or death from more than 15,000 types of consumer products under the agency's jurisdiction. Deaths, injuries and property damage from consumer product incidents cost the nation more than $800 billion annually. The CPSC is committed to protecting consumers and families from products that pose a fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazard or can injure children. The CPSC's work to ensure the safety of consumer products - such as toys, cribs, power tools, cigarette lighters, and household chemicals - contributed significantly to the 30 percent decline in the rate of deaths and injuries associated with consumer products over the past 30 years. "

And in its annual report to the Congress the mission is described as follows: "CPSC's mission is to protect children and families against unreasonable risk of injury and death from over 15,000 types of consumer products. It is the only Federal agency that both identifies and acts on a wide range of product hazards. Our work ensures a uniform level of safety for the nation's families and provides businesses with a national level playing field for domestic and imported consumer products. CPSC addresses consumer product hazards through: the voluntary standards process; consumer information; safety guidelines; cooperative product recalls and corrective actions; and as a last resort, mandatory rulemaking and litigation. We operate advanced hazard identification systems, including a national hospital emergency room injury reporting system and provide safety information to the public through a toll-free telephone hotline, a clearinghouse, and a web site."

Whatever the budget may be in 2015 is anybody's guess but in light of the recent spate of defective toys coming into this country from abroad the one for 2008 seemed to be reasonable and realistically geared towards identifying and correcting current problems. For 2008 the CPSC requested $63,250,000. That amount represents a net increase of $880,000 over the 2007 funding level. That's an increase of 1.39%. Considering the CPSC deals with defects that are a fire hazard, those that can cause carbon monoxide poisoning and those concerning the safety of children's toys a 1.39% increase appears reasonable.

The 2009 Performance Budget Request includes the provision of $6,000,000 remaining available through 2011 for costs associated with the relocation of CPSC's laboratory to a modern facility and the upgrade of laboratory equipment. The 2009 request increases its budget to $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2009. This is in line with the goals set by Congress to enhance import safety and product testing capabilities. Simply put, if the manufacturers won't do the testing then we will.

WSJ COMPLAINT #2: Increase "civil penalties faced by companies in violation of consumer safety rules." The CPSC has been a commission seeking voluntary solutions to product hazards.

RESPONSE #2: What's wrong with putting teeth into enforcement? If after you warn the delivery boy about throwing the newspaper through your window, but continue to buy the newspaper he'll never stop. We've known for centuries how little we can trust the word of the Chinese government. Why then not make penalties real? As it is the CPSC is too nice.

Here is what I'm referring:

Whenever possible, the Commission seeks a voluntary solution to product hazards. This voluntary approach is demonstrated by our high ratio of voluntary to mandatory safety standards (almost ten-to-one since 1990) and our success at getting voluntary recalls (100 percent in 2006). (Page 9 of the report.)
HOW WE REDUCE HAZARDS -
The Commission uses a number of strategies to reduce the risks associated with hazardous consumer products. These strategies include (1) participating in the voluntary standards process or developing mandatory safety standards; (2) conducting compliance activities such as recalls, corrective actions, and enforcement of existing regulations; and (3) alerting the public to safety hazards and informing them about safe practices. We also recently developed an international program to focus on reducing hazards from imported products. The agency bases its actions to reduce the risks from hazardous consumer products on information developed from its extensive data collection systems that assess the causes and scope of product-related injuries.

Consumers already think it's the fox watching the henhouse. Maybe if consumers read about a few large fines, consumer confidence would improve and it's consumer confidence that drives this economy.

WSJ COMPLAINT #3: A "whistleblower provision".

RESPONSE #3: If the manufacturer isn't doing anything wrong they have nothing to fear from those working in the manufacturing process.

"Staff participates in the development of voluntary standards at a number of steps in the process. Staff first submits recommendations for new standards, or modifications of existing standards, to voluntary standards organizations. On acceptance of our recommendations, the organizations complete technical work to support the requirements, publish a proposal for public comment, receive and evaluate comments, and publish a standard. This process may take months or several years. Staff participates in the process by providing expert advice, technical assistance, and information based on data analyses of how deaths, injuries and/or incidents occurred. Our voluntary standards policy does not permit us to vote on proposed changes or new standards. However, our comments are considered throughout the process."

It's been reported that whistleblowers attempting to report safety issues face an uphill battle just trying to keep their jobs.

"Whistle-blowers have faced hostility not only under Republican administrations. During President Clinton's tenure, Bogdan Dzakovic, an undercover security agent with the Federal Aviation Administration, suffered retribution for speaking out about weak airport security -- three years before Sept. 11, 2001. Dzakovic was passed up for promotion time and again, and today, he says, he remains consigned to data entry duties for the Transportation Security Administration.
But a six-month investigation by the Center for Investigative Reporting, in collaboration with Salon, has found that federal whistle-blowers almost never receive legal protection after they take action. Instead, they often face agency managers and White House appointees intent upon silencing them rather than addressing the problems they raise. They are left fighting for their jobs in a special administrative court system, little known to the American public, that is mired in bureaucracy and vulnerable to partisan politics."

And so the fox stretched and yawned... and was heard to mutter, "Will they ever learn?"

WSJ COMPLAINT #4: "[D]istribute enforcement power among the nation's dozens of state Attorneys General", allow the AG's the right "to file lawsuits and enforce rules against manufacturers"

RESPONSE #4: The CPSC is stretched thin and including state AG's in the process would go a long way to enforcing product standards. Spreading out the duties would reduce the CPSC's workload. The state AG's already assist as a valuable and credible enforcement arm so why be concerned about them lending a hand? Is there a specific complaint the editors have to present or is this just more whining?

WSJ COMPLAINT #5: "[M]aking matters worse, the Senate bill would create a new product safety database to provide "disclosure" of safety complaints - ostensibly for the benefit of consumers."

RESPONSE #5: You're kidding me right? You're whining about consumers telling each other what's wrong with the toys they buy for their kids? The Commission does this already and the manufacturers have input into any rules that may apply. What's wrong with a mother telling other mothers and fathers that a certain toy has been found to have lead in it? If you're worried about false reports then allow the CPSC to add editorial comment or for that matter let the manufacturers add comments.

"Safety standards may also be developed through mandatory rulemaking. If a voluntary standard exists, by law, we may issue a mandatory standard only when we find that the voluntary standard will not eliminate or adequately reduce the risk of injury or death or it is unlikely that there will be substantial compliance with the voluntary standard.

Generally, our statutes require us to go through a three-step rulemaking process (an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, a notice of proposed rulemaking, and a final rule). During this process, we seek input from all interested parties, including consumers, industry and other government agencies. We usually develop performance standards, rather than design standards, to give manufacturers the most flexibility in meeting our requirements. Examples of mandatory standards are requirements for child-resistant lighters and for bunk beds. We may initiate rulemaking based on petitions from outside parties or based on our own internal staff work."

WSJ COMPLAINT #6: "[C]omplaints from consumers would be listed on an official CPSC searchable database without any requirement to verify the claim or alleged defect."

RESPONSE #6: Why would a supposedly objective third-party see a downside to making complaint information readily available to end users? To some extent this is already occurring. By creating a portal with the CPSC it would funnel to the very agency responsible for enforcement.

"CPSC warns the public about product-related hazards through print and electronic media, our hotline and the Web sites (www.cpsc.gov, www.recalls.gov and www.atvsafety.gov) and other outreach activities such as the Neighborhood Safety Network (NSN). The NSN is a grassroots outreach program that provides timely, lifesaving information to 5,000 individuals and organizations who, in turn, share our safety posters and news alerts with underserved consumers who would have otherwise never heard or received the information from CPSC. Additionally, we develop and provide safety information for the public through safety and recall alerts, print and video news releases, public service announcements, publications, national and local television appearances, and hotline messages. When knowledge of a hazard requires immediate warnings to the public, such as the recall of a playpen that caused the death of a baby, we rely heavily on the media (newspapers, radio, TV, news wire services) to disseminate our message. For warnings that need to be repeated -- and most do
-- we often rely on outreach by partnering with other organizations and developing programs, such as the NSN, to more rapidly disseminate important safety information."

Allowing citizens to participate in safety issues will benefit everyone. Secrecy aids nothing but adds to the injured children. If you want to reduce the number of legal claims for personal injury then this is a perfect way to achieve that goal. Let citizens warn each other and you will reduce the number of unsuspecting children who are injured. Do that and you keep the parents put of the trial lawyer's office.

WSJ COMPLAINT #7: Another complaint of the WSJ editorial staff is that small manufacturers will be put at a disadvantage due to costs associated with enforcement.

RESPONSE #7: This doesn't seem to be a legitimate assumption. First of all we already are at a disadvantage with Chinese labor costs. Second, a disadvantage is not a legitimate reason to poison our children with lead paint. It may cost American manufacturers more to do business but it will equally impact the imported toys. The Commission is sensitive to the disparity across markets and tries to do what it can to work with manufacturers on a voluntary basis.

"We use a Small Business Ombudsman to help small firms comply more easily with product safety regulations and guidelines by providing them with a single point of contact for assistance and information. The Ombudsman coordinates a clear and understandable response from our technical staff so that firms receive the information they need within three business days.

In 2003, we initiated the creation of www.recalls.gov, an innovative "one-stop shop" for all federal product recalls, in partnership with five other federal health and safety regulatory agencies. This Web site is an easy-to-use portal to all federal agencies that have the authority to conduct safety recalls. In 2006, there were 1.2 million visitors to the site. The hotline receives consumer complaints and provides information on product hazards and recalls to the public. The National Injury Information Clearinghouse provides injury data to our staff and the public and provides manufacturers with consumer complaints, reported incidents, and investigations involving their products."

The editorial makes it seem as if this is an agency that is out of control, interfering with the business of making toys and one that has gone too far. In reality that's just not true.

"For 2006 and 2007, we reduced resource levels and reduced some annual performance targets to reflect resource reductions, as appropriate. In 2008, we set ambitious targets given the proposed reduction in staff. After further analysis by the Commission, and based on actual funding, targets may have to be adjusted in the 2008 Operating Plan."

CONCLUSION: Editorials like the one appearing in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 are examples of irresponsible journalism. And just as the public grew tired of the "liberal media" so too have they become sick and tired of the other extreme flavor of journalism that adds nothing to solving problems. The editorial board should go back to the basic foundation of good solid journalism and save this baseless opinion for personal gatherings. I have one further suggestion. They should sharpen the lead in their pencils and as their mothers surely warned them, keep it out of your mouth.

http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PUBS/REPORTS/2008plan.pdf

http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PUBS/REPORTS/2009plan.pdf

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Crawford County - Stop being mad, you make us all look bad. It's time to step into this Century. Start thinking and getting better legal advice.

Steve Lombardi — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 00:00:08 GMT

Crawford County - Stop being mad, you make us all look bad. It's time to step into this Century. Start thinking and getting better legal advice.

To set this up let's review the facts. A bike rider in RAGBRAI is allowed to ride and he hasn't signed the required waiver. He enters Crawford County, rides on their roads, hits a hole, flips and ends up dying. His widow sues Crawford County and gets a judgment for wrongful death. No one should blame the widow and orphans. It's nothing they did that was wrong. Stop blaming those following the law. Instead blame Crawford County and most of all blame RAGBRAI. If the RAGBRAI group was supposed to make sure every rider signed a waiver, and in this case didn't; then isn't it they who were wrong? Instead of being mean to the widow how about taking a step back and doing what you were elected to do? It's called govern. Learn from your mistake. Instead of banning RAGBRAI why doesn't each county require RAGBRAI to sign an indemnification agreement and to provide liability insurance?

This is a perfect example of why good solid legal advice is a requirement of good governance. There are large law firms' downtown that can provide solid legal advice and can structure this whole thing to pass the cost of insuring the risk onto those participating. Don't get mad, just get smarter. Live and learn I guess.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

RAGBRAI and the Crawford County double standard - The ultimate mixed message.

Steve Lombardi — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 00:00:04 GMT

Crawford County double standard. We've all said it to our children, "Take responsibility for your actions." And then there is the often quoted word to the wise normally stated after trouble has occurred, "There are consequences to your actions."

We've all said it to our children, "Take responsibility for your actions." And then there is the often quoted word to the wise normally stated after trouble has occurred, "There are consequences to your actions."

And then there is Crawford County, who invited the RAGBRAI riders into their county to make a buck off of the riders but when one rider was injured the County wanted no part of being financially responsible. We needn't wonder why the youth of today are disgruntled to follow our lead. Look no further than the actions of those older adults around them to see why they are disgruntled. Actions speak louder than words. Don't do as I do, do as I say for you do. Confused? So are they.

Crawford County isn't necessarily stuck with financial responsibility they just don't appreciate legally how to indemnify themselves. Come back tomorrow and maybe the counties will figure out it's time for some solid legal advice.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Trial Lawyers - Evidence Based Medicine

Steve Lombardi — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 00:00:31 GMT

We've heard all about the necessity of expert witnesses using evidence based medicine to formulate opinions in law suits. Of course many of us have not bought into "evidence based medicine" as the cure for what some characterize as "fairer judicial decisions". We've been around too long and heard it previously suggested that the jury system needs to be fixed by those with a financial interest in the outcome of trials.

The New England Journal of Medicine (Volume 358:252-260, January 17, 2008, Number 3) astutely points out the fallacy that can exist behind this testimonial concept. If the evidence base is complete and unbiased the theory is that evidence based medicine as a concept works. I'm not buying any of it. What this concept does is simply create one more hurdle for common people to obtain a fair trial to obtain adequate compensation for injuries caused by the medical and pharmaceutical industries. The two most effective weapons against unfair trial results remain. They are common sense and cross examination.

Trial lawyers and Judges should not be fooled into believing the doctors know more about trial work and the rules of evidence. They don't and this evidence based medicine concept is nothing more than an old trick to fool us into one more attempt at intellectualization of what should be a common sense approach to society's decision making process. There is nothing wrong with the jury system or lay people making difficult decisions. As my father once said to me, "Never try to bullshit a bullshitter." In the wrong hands evidence based medicine is a sham.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

It's no wonder so much money is being spent to vilify the trial lawyer.

Steve Lombardi — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 00:00:00 GMT

Doesn't it seem like the fox is watching the hen house? Now you have to ask yourself:
Question: Who is watching out for your family?
Answer: Certainly not the drug companies and absolutely not the FDA.
Question: Why is the FDA allowing all of this advertising directly to the consumer? Why is this relationship between the FDA and the pharmaceutical companies so cozy?
Answer: ?????

According to The New England Journal of Medicine the effectiveness of dozens of widely prescribed and seemingly popular antidepressant drugs have been and are being exaggerated. It's being accomplished through selective publication of favorable results. The Wall Street Journal, a very conservative news source is even covering the story.

As a result, doctors and patients are getting a distorted view of how well blockbuster antidepressants like Wyeth's Effexor and Pfizer Inc.'s Zoloft really work; researchers asserted in this week's New England Journal of Medicine.

Drugs mentioned include: Bristol-Myers Squibb's Serzone; Wyeth's Effexor, Pfizer Inc.'s Zoloft, Schering-Plough Remeron, GlaxoSmithKline's Wellbutrin SR along with Paxil, Eli Lilly's Cymbalta among others.

Believe it or not, pharmaceutical companies are under no obligation to publish the studies they sponsor and submit to the FDA. The researchers they hire apparently have no ethical obligation to publish the studies or comment on claims made about the drugs in advertisements. The FDA, the agency charged with protecting the public has no compulsion to do publish.

"A total of 74 studies involving a dozen antidepressants and 12,564 patients were registered with the FDA from 1987 through 2004. The FDA considered 38 of the studies to be positive. All but one of those studies was published, the researchers said.

The other 36 were found to have negative or questionable results by the FDA. Most of those studies -- 22 out of 36 -- weren't published, the researchers found. Of the 14 that were published, the researchers said at least 11 of those studies mischaracterized the results and presented a negative study as positive."

It's a safe assumption that if the trial lawyer is a problem a few hundred million dollars in could easily be spent to eliminate their effectiveness with juries to preserve the cash flow of the multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry.
In this week's study, the researchers found that failing to publish negative findings inflated the reported effectiveness of all 12 of the antidepressants studied, which were approved between 1987 and 2004. The researchers used a measurement called effect size. The larger the effect size, the greater the impact of a treatment.

"The average effect size of the antidepressant Zoloft rose 64% by the failure to publish negative or questionable data on the drug, the researchers found."

Now you have to ask yourself: Who is watching out for your family?
Answer: Certainly not the drug companies and absolutely not the FDA.
Question: Why is the FDA allowing all of this advertising directly to the consumer? Why is this relationship between the FDA and the pharmaceutical companies so cozy?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Profit Rises 47% For World's Largest Oil Services Company

Steve Lombardi — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 00:00:25 GMT

With the continuing increase in energy prices, the demand for products from companies such as Schlumberger Ltd. has also increased. Schlumberger is the world's largest oil services company and has recently reported that its second-quarter profit rose 47%.

Net profit for the Houston-based company rose to $1.26 billion, or $1.02 cents per diluted share, from $857 million, or 69 cents, a year earlier.

However, Schlumberger claims that their short-term outlook is uncertain because of "record imports of liquefied natural gas and weakness in Canada."

Huh? Weakness? Record imports seems to equate to a lot of profit.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

On behalf of the Red Sox Nation, I'd like to thank his Holiness.

Steve Lombardi — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 10:00:00 GMT

Red Sox versus the Yankees - the ultimate courtroom drama.

Once again there is proof in the pudding that even God is a Red Sox fan. There is near overwhelming evidence that Pope Benedict XVI is a Red Sox fan.

While the Yankees lament yet another kink in their armor, there is little disagreement that Pee-Bee is a member of the Red Sox Nation. With the Pope scheduled to say holy mass at Yankee Stadium on April 20th the Yankees are turned into gypsies for almost three whole weeks. It leaves me wondering what will become of all of this high drama that is nothing more then one huge distraction for the Yankees. With Hank Steinbrenner in charge and the Pope doing his best to upset the Big Apple cart things aren't looking any better for Jeter-the-alleged-tax-cheater or Roger please-don't-asterisk-me Clemens.

And although this answers our question about God being a Red Sox fan, it still leaves me pondering several questions with legal implications.

For starters does the Pope have a beanie with the signature "B" on the front?

Does the Pope get himself psyched up for a big mass by watching game 4 of the 2004 ALCS?

What are the terms of the deal Jeter struck with New York Tax enforcement?

Should Clemens be charged with perjury for saying "Yes" to being a member of the 1984 to 1996 Boston Red Sox teams?

Is it a defamation of my name for someone also named Steve Lombardi, not me, to have a blog about being a Yankee fan?

It's great to be a founding member of the Red Sox Nation! Go Sox!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Mortgage Scams Come in All Sorts of Presentations

Steve Lombardi — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 00:00:26 GMT

Learn how to recognize some of the more popular lending schemes that amount to nothing more than fraud.

If you've got mortgage problems don't compound them by taking the bait on another flavor of financial chicanary that can lead to a worse situation. There are several short video clips on YouTube explaining various forms of fraud being perpetrated on unsuspecting home owners with mortgage problems. Like my mother was fond of saying, "If the deal seems too good to be true, it probably is."

Learn how to recognize lender fraud while increasing your financial intelligence.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

The Hidden Dangers of the LISTSERV - Ears that listen.

Steve Lombardi — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:00:02 GMT

What's right is not always what is fair. I'm really not feeling the LOVE.

Big brother is listening! Or, so warned Orwell of the society of 1984. Like the Mayor in Any Given Sunday, let me show you the love. I love the power of the LISTSERV. I would be blood brothers with a Plaintiffs' LISTSERV if it could bleed. But it can't, won't and doesn't. In Iowa our trial lawyers association is one of trial lawyers. Hmmm... "Trial lawyers", what does that mean? That means it is made up of those representing the insurance industry as well as those for the injured. And that my friend is where the love ends. For to speak freely can spell trouble. So when my brethen in Austin discuss the benefits of the Austin, Texas LISTSERV that may not apply to the LISTSERV that other attorney's post.

In point of fact our LISTSERV is even more porous. To be a LISTSERV member you agree not to show posts to non-ITLA members, but you can allow ITLA members who are not LISTSERV members to read posts. And those non-ITLA LISTSERV members are not obligated by LISTSERV rules. Ouch! My "complaints" are warnings to one and all to know who you're talking too before you open up about your client's case.

Now come on you insurance defense lawyers; how about showing me some LOVE! Let me be a member of the defense bars LISTSERV. I'm waiting....

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi