Sunday, August 30, 2009

The American Bar Association's Anti-Consumer Lawsuit You Never Heard About

After 1998 testimony from industry groups, the FTC agreed to self-regulating restrictions on access to credit reports information:

The [Federal Trade] Commission ... believes that consumer victims need to be formally recognized as crime victims, complete with rights of restitution.
As the real victims of identity theft (people) know, only nine states had identity theft laws on the books to recognize the consumer as a victim of this type of crime. All other states consider the creditor to be the victim because they incur most, if not all, of the financial loss. Law enforcement officials cannot even file a report on behalf of the consumer who has been victimized in states where there is no law against this crime. source.

So whose side is the ABA taking in its latest suit? The ABA suit takes the side of the deepest pockets (banks and credit issuers), of course.

Read about it here.

While you are at Lawyer Kickers pro bono you may be interested in big-time lawyers convicted or removed from office since 2008, in major felonies or corruption. See In the Public's Benefit - Installments 2009. So far, 2 of the convicts are Harvard Law grads.

The ABA sets academic standards for law schools, and formulates model ethical codes related to the legal profession. The ABA has 410,000 members. Its national headquarters are in Chicago, Illinois; it also maintains a significant branch office in Washington, D.C.

In 1995, the DOJ Antitrust division filed a suit against the ABA, which was settled with a consent decree. [8] In 2006, the ABA acknowledged that it violated the consent decree and paid a fine. [9]

Lets not forget what else the ABA does:

[T]he ABA has participated in the federal judicial nomination process by vetting nominees and giving them a rating ranging from "not qualified" to "well qualified." The process has been accused by some (including the Federalist Society) of having a liberal bias.[10][11][12] For example, the ABA gave Ronald Reagan's judicial nominees Richard Posner and Frank H. Easterbrook low "qualified/not qualified" ratings; later, the ABA gave Bill Clinton judicial nominees with similar resumes "well qualified" ratings.[3] Meanwhile, Judges Posner and Easterbrook have gone on to become the two most highly-cited judges in the federal appellate judiciary.[13]

This guy must be very happy with the ABA's lawsuit against the FTC:

Fast forward to 2009 RESULT: ID-Theft Ring Ensnares Even the Fed Chairman

Now, ask yourself why you missed news of the ABA's lawsuit against the FTC. The news media love lawyers for two very big reasons, both of which have escaped the notice of many citizen voters. Do any of you readers, btw, know what those reasons are?



Post a Comment

<< Home