|
Corporate Crimefighters of America Archives Index
|
Subscribe
|
|
| << March11, 2004 - Corporate Crimefighters of America |
March21, 2004 - Corporate Crimefighters of America >> |
|
CORPORATE CRIMEFIGHTERS OF AMERICA -- March 19, 2004 ====================================================== After you have read a few issues, please consider paying for the Subscription To Keep Our Work Going -. P.O. Box And Paypal Link At Bottom: ====================================================== DRIVING THEM MAD Dear Sirs: I am a clinical social worker who specializes in working with people coping with disabilities. I have had three cases in the past year who have been severely stressed by UNUM's shenanigans which you so graphically describe. One individual is facing bankruptcy, and despite a clear cut case, the involvement of the Insurance Commissioner in Kansas, and an attorney, may cave to a "settlement" with UNUM to survive financially - it has been three years. The second lost her car, faced forclosure on her house, and finally received some benefits. However, she has now been sued by UNUM to get back the money they paid her. The third has lost her home, is facing bankruptcy, and is profoundly depressed, with suicidal ideation. It is obscene and unethical in my opinion what has happened to them, and I have no doubt many others like them. And, they are not in the category of thousands per month as in some of the examples you gave. Name Withheld due to Official Position ====================================================== UNDELIVERABLES Good Lord - my "undeliverable" newsletters are increasing at an exponential rate. This is not unsubs, but simply mail that cannot reach a sender who wants it, for some inscrutable Internet reason. I've lost well over 300 people. That is both depressing and upsetting. I really, really need to buy the software to send out and monitor the undeliverables personally so I can see if they've really disappeared or it's temporary net congestion. Unfortunately, that is a few hundred dollars for the Postcast mailer and server and automation software, which I don't have at the moment (unless the Lord provides, of course.) And that software works a lot better with high speed Internet, another unaffordable that is really slowing my work. Believe it or not, doing this against a multibillion dollar industry is neither cheap nor free in time or money. I know Batman fights crime with his personal fortune, but most of us corporate crimefighters are not similarly situated ;') I think a lot of undeliverables are due to larger ISPs doing wrong things to try to block spam, but instead blocking wanted email. I've had that problem with AOL a lot and now Earthlink is doing it. However, the software I mentioned uses various tricks to get around this, and is always updated to keep ahead of the ISPs stupid "blocking" of what is actually desired mail. But if my attrition continues at this rate it will soon not be worthwhile to send out this newsletter or take the effort to write it. And my cut and paste program just died for some Windoze reason. Oh, for a Mac G5. This "shoestring" business gets really old at times. CD sales have dropped to nothing since I think lawyers are just copying to each other instead of referring to us, as I ask on the CD so that this effort can be supported. It's shortsighted to scuttle the fighters who are covering your back, politically and PR-wise, but that's the way the world is. People don't think farther than their nose. If anyone out there has simply copied the CD to others you are not helping. The main information was originally procured at great cost by an angel to support this work. Actually, The main reason I am bothered by shoestringing is that I could be Much more effective and I think I'm damn effective with nothing. But I really feel it is time to ramp this up, not be losing subscribers. At a certain point I will wonder if I am wasting my time. We couldn't keep Joey alive and poor, exhausted Dr. Judy still can't get a lawyer. That last one really P***es me off. Dr. Judy has helped and inspired thousands of people with her advice, given free - where is the help back? Let's hope it's just a crummy astrological conjunction this month and things will turn better ;') Thankfully, the newsletter service has retained the undeliverables and may either work something out or I will try to contact all 400 or so when I get the chance. But since they may be ISP blocked, doing that manually will be both time consuming and tricky. It involves sending in small batches since ISPs block volume sends, and sending from different mail servers or addresses. To automate that involves tricky old PHP programming I forget and really don't want to waste time with if I can buy the software. I am here to network and unite people - not be a programming guru. Lots of people do that and it really doesn't help anyone. More to the point, I think it wastes my real talent, which is putting people together. Okay, enough whining - we need professionals to expand - PR and Marketing people - we need money to expand. Pure and simple. I'm asking folks to step up to the plate. If you can't, and I Definitely understand that, given Unum, do you know someone who can? If so, write them explaining what we do, how we have helped, then send the experts to Michelle for the volunteer database (see note below) or send the angels to me. I think this work is worthwhile and deserves the help. I've said the Devil is the best paymaster and hires all the best talent, but it is time that ended. Besides, our talent has much more heart and fire than their bought villians. ====================================================== WE CAN ONLY HOPE AND PRAY Here is more grist for your mill. The Supreme Court is going to hear arguments on another ERISA pre-emption case. If the Court re-empowers state courts and the damages available under state law before ERISA came a long, it will do more for your cause than you can imagine. Try this URL: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/8193315.htm Dugan Barr Posted on Mon, Mar. 15, 2004 ************************* Texas Lawsuits Could Drag HMOs into State Court By Maria M. Perotin, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Texas Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News Mar. 15 - Ruby Calad vividly remembers a few details about the hours after her hysterectomy in 1999: The pain. And the moment when her doctor angrily revealed that Cigna HealthCare of Texas was refusing to pay for more than 24 hours of recuperation in the hospital. Calad couldn't afford $1,500 to cover another night's stay herself. So she went home. A few days later, she returned to the hospital's emergency room -- suffering from complications that she blames on the brief recovery period. "I was in no condition to leave. I was in so much pain I could not walk," said the Sugar Land woman, who subsequently sued Cigna. More than four years later, Calad's treatment is at the center of a complex legal dispute that the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear next week. The outcome is expected to have nationwide implications for consumers, determining whether they have the right to sue for monetary damages when their managed health plans refuse to pay for doctors' recommended medical care. Lower courts across the country have sent mixed signals on that issue in recent years as patients and insurers have clashed over where lawsuits against health maintenance organizations and other managed plans should be heard. Now the high court is poised to decide: Should patients be allowed to sue their insurers in state courts, where juries can award big damages? Or does a 30-year-old federal law trump state laws, such as Texas' "patients' bill of rights"? Calad's lawsuit against Cigna -- as well as a related suit against Aetna by Juan Davila, a Denton post-polio patient -- was brought under the 1997 law that made Texas the first state to give patients the right to sue managed care organizations. Their Fort Worth lawyer, George Parker Young, wants to force the health plans into a showdown in state court. But the insurers contend that the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which sets standards for private employers' pension and health plans, takes precedence over state laws. In effect, their stance would push patients' suits into federal courts. There patients can collect only the cost of whatever medical service a health plan denied -- typically no more than a few thousand dollars. That frustrates Calad, now 49, who said she believes that her insurer inappropriately overrode her doctor's decision. "It's the principle of the matter," she said. "They're looking at the benefit instead of the illness of the person. And somebody needs to be a voice for these little people who can't be heard." ERISA, the 1974 federal law, covers workers and their dependents whose health benefits are provided by a private employer. Government employees and people whose insurance isn't sponsored by an employer don't fall under its purview. Although few statistics are available about how many people fall under the scope of ERISA regulations, Young estimates that it covers about 55 percent of insured Texans. Mark Hall, a professor at Wake Forest University's School of Law and School of Medicine, said a Supreme Court ruling could settle definitively whether those health plan members are entitled to their day in state court. "Up until now, it's been difficult or impossible to sue an HMO or any kind of health insurer if it's provided through employment," Hall said. "Lower courts have begun to find ways around ERISA pre-emption in some parts of the country but not in others. And there's inconsistency and uncertainty." William Sage, a Columbia University law professor who specializes in health law, said a broad ruling could change the landscape of HMO litigation. "In practical terms, it is very important simply because defendants in these cases have felt quite comfortable in federal court," Sage said. "Once the case gets back to state court, there's a lot of pressure to settle the case." Since the mid-1990s, 10 states, including Texas, have enacted laws that provide for some kind of managed care liability, according to a study published last year in the journal Health Affairs by Wake Forest's Hall and a colleague from the University of North Carolina. Although no agency tracks lawsuits filed under those laws, the authors estimated that barely more than a dozen such cases exist in Texas. Without ERISA's pre-emption of state laws, health plans insist, the threat of expensive lawsuits would make it more costly for employers to provide health benefits to their workers, said Susan Pisano, spokeswoman for America's Health Insurance Plans, the national trade association for health insurers whose membership includes Aetna and Cigna. She noted that businesses already have been grappling with soaring health care premiums for several years. "Health care becomes unaffordable if every question about the scope of an individual's coverage can be turned into a costly lawsuit," Pisano said. "I think there's a tendency for people to think the costs are borne by insurance companies. Really, health care costs are paid by employers and consumers." Young counters that the possibility of litigation is needed to hold health plans responsible for their coverage decisions. "The HMO makes more money the less care it provides," he said. "So there's a huge incentive for the HMO to cut corners." If members are allowed to sue their health plans, Young said, insurers will be less willing to second-guess physicians. And although the case before the high court focuses on decisions made by HMOs, Young said a ruling could apply to all managed care plans -- including preferred provider organizations that traditionally are controlled less tightly than HMOs. "It will mean that they can hold their HMOs accountable," the Fort Worth lawyer said. "And frankly, it will be easier to get care from their HMOs or PPOs." In Calad's case, Young attributes her ongoing medical complications to Cigna's refusal to pay for a longer hospital stay after her surgery. Davila's lawsuit, which was consolidated with Calad's suit for the Supreme Court's consideration, makes a similar claim. In 2000, Davila was prescribed the painkiller Vioxx for his arthritis pain by his doctor, because it was less likely to cause stomach problems such as bleeding and ulcers. Aetna insisted that he first try two other medications before it would cover the drug. After three weeks on a cheaper prescription, Davila was rushed to the emergency room with bleeding ulcers. Since then, he has been unable to take any pain medicines that are absorbed through the stomach, according to his suit. Both Aetna and Cigna declined to discuss specifics of the cases, although the insurers offered brief written statements. Aetna said employers' reliance on coverage by the federal regulations helps them provide affordable health care to their workers. "This case is fundamentally about the scope of coverage under one individual's health plan. Unfortunately, rather than using existing avenues to review or appeal his coverage, a lawsuit was filed," Aetna spokeswoman Rachelle Cunningham said in the statement. "To allow more lawsuits such as this, which would be the result of overturning ERISA, would only drive up health care costs for everyone." Cigna also noted in its statement that the health plan offers participants an appeal process for coverage decisions. "ERISA pre-emption of state law causes of action helps to ensure access to affordable, quality health care and to provide employers and insureds with quick and responsive remedies to avoid often difficult, costly and lengthy litigation," spokeswoman Tania Graves said in the company's statement. Hall is dubious about the effect of potential litigation on consumers' overall health care costs. "They'll go up some, but not a whole lot," Hall said. PATIENTS, HMOS BEFORE HIGH COURT --What: The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a pair of Texas cases that could determine whether consumers nationwide have a right to sue their HMOs in state court. --When: Oral arguments are set for March 23. A ruling isn't expected until at least summer. --Key players: Aetna and Cigna HealthCare of Texas, who oppose state lawsuits; and Fort Worth lawyer George Parker Young, arguing to allow the suits. This will be his first appearance before the high court. --The issues: Young wants consumers to be able to sue managed health care plans in state court, under Texas' 1997 "patients' bill of rights." There, juries can award monetary damages of more than $100,000. Insurers contend that those cases belong in federal court, where awards rarely amount to more than a few thousand dollars. --The stakes: Millions of Americans and their families who receive health benefits from employers could win the right to challenge their plans' decisions in state court. ----- To see more of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.dfw.com Depends not only on our rightwing, pro-corporate USSC doing the right thing but on how narrowly they construe it - since it relates to Texas' "Patients Bill of Rights". Few other states have one like that. Wow, amazes me that regressive Texas, home of some of the rottenest and most backward procorporate politics in the nation, has such a law. Then again, I guess they needed it ;') Okay, before I get a lot of Texas unsubs, I'm not insulting Texans, only your corrupt, dimwit politicians, and I notice that most Texans also do that nearly all the time ;') It mystifies me why a state with such a beautiful environment and friendly people regularly elects some of the worst troglodytes in American politics. Maybe in compensation for being blessed, they figure they should be cursed in their statehouse. ====================================================== ANOTHER ROTTEN FRAUD OF TORT "REFORM" The Administration's "corporate front men" are launching the most bizarre attack yet on citizen's right to litigation by seeking to tie lack of "tort reform" to lack of jobs! This press release uses blatant deception: ""America's civil justice system is the world's most expensive, with a total cost of $233 billion to our economy," it reads. Yet it fails to mention that this includes the TOTAL cost of running our legal system, as a complete act of statistical deception to justify robbing us of our rights. http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=137-03172004 ====================================================== THE CONTINUED CALL FOR TALENT We need a PUBLICIST - a real one - with professional experience. Surely, with all the professionals Unum screws there is one out there. If they don't get the newsletter maybe you know of one or can ask around among your professional acquaintances. As usual, the pay is nonexistent and the work is hard - at least for now. Maybe someday the forces of good will get paid like the forces of evil, but not today anyway. Which is as it usually is with those who help the public as opposed to those who hurt them. CD sales have dropped off and I'll be digging into my own thin pocket to just pay the server every month. Unum, of course, has millions to bribe networks into not carrying bad news about them. Say what you will about the devil, he's a damn better paymaster than the Heavens ;') We could also use a MARKETING GENIUS. I just know that with the tens of thousands of brilliant, self-employed professionals out there that Unum has cheated on "own insured" policies there has to be two people to fill these positions. If you aren't but know of someone, send them to us. Actually, send them to Michelle: Michelle Valenti michellev2004@yahoo.com And as I mentioned I need some money for software to ensure my members are getting the newsletter or we will soon only be sending it to five people in Idaho. ====================================================== GRAB 'EM WHILE THEY'RE HOT Thought you might want to get a copy of some of thease documents in case they dissapeared, as they might if UNUMProvident sees they are too available. Dave All of the court documents on UNUMProvident nationally consolidated Federal cases: http://www.tned.uscourts.gov/cases/MDL/unum_provident.htm Below the amended complaint for the class action ERISA Benefit suit http://www.tned.uscourts.gov/cases/MDL/0227cmplnt.PDF ====================================================== RICK NEEDS DEPOSITION ADVICE Hi, my name is Rick. I am 58 years old and have been practicing dentistry for 27 years. A number of years ago I developed osteoarthritis in the joints at the base of the thumbs on both hands. I continued to practice, in pain, until it got so bad that I was sending out all but the simplest procedures. Finally and reluctantly I consented to surgery. The main reason I had not done so before was I would have to be off work for three months. Those who are self employed and run a small business know how devastating that can be. I purchased a disability policy when I graduated from Dental School in 1977 from what was then UNUM Mutual. I paid premiums on this policy, not missing even one, for 22 years. I purchased this policy through an agent, specifically because it stated that they would pay me benefits if I could not practice General Dentistry, even though I may be working in another related field. This was important to me since dentistry was all I was trained to do. Upon scheduling my first surgery, I notified what is now UNUM Provident. I had a 30 day exclusion period and therefore wanted to get the paper work rolling. UNUM was nice and even said they were "sorry for my illness". This is a small policy, principally because I never increased the monthly benefits, as so many of us have a tendency to do. The rest, as they say, is history. After 3 months, I returned to work on a very limited basis, thinking I could work up to my old speed. Try as I might, I could never regain the skills I once enjoyed. Using the typical pin grasp and pinch grip necessary for the precision my work demands, only resulted in pain, fatigue and tremor after the most simple of procedures. I was getting no place fast, and loosing money faster. I had no other choice than to accept another surgical procedure. Note: both surgeries were on my right thumb, and I am right hand dominate. I again began the 3 month down time and resumed minor duties afterward. But, alas, to no avail again. UNUM paid my benefits for 34 months, six of which were indisputable due to surgery recovery and physical therapy. After each recovery period UNUM would get more and more demanding in regards to, when I was going back to work, why my Physician wasn't doing more, why he did not respond to them "immediately" as one claim rep. demanded, and what kind of work I was doing. Finally, in Sept. 2002, after many heated arguments and reporting them to the State Department of Insurance, they cut me off cold. Not only that, but I am still, on advise of attorney, paying premiums to keep the policy in force. Everything I have read in your news letter and individual accounts that UNUM had done to others: they have done to me. I have even went so far as to volunteer for an IME, which they have not agreed to as yet. Consequently, in March of last year, 2003, I filed suit against them for Bad Faith. The trial is scheduled for September this year, and I am to be deposed by them in a little less than two weeks. If there are any of you out there who believe they could be of benefit to me either by testimony or other means, please write to me at the above address. Also, if any of you could help me as to what to do, or not do, in the deposition, please let me know. Thanks for reading this. Another UNUM Bufoon Richard W. Phelps, DMD Richard Phelps Richard_6858@msn.com Webmaster's comments: As usual, if you have help, contacts or advice, please contact Rich at the address above, and CC me if the advice would be of general help to all. ====================================================== DON'T WAIT I like to remind people of this from time to time - you should never, ever hold up your life, plan your life, or allow anything to wait on an insurance settlement. That way lies madness. I know some things Must wait but whatever you can do for yourself, perhaps replacing money with cleverness, do. To wait on an insurer is like refusing to get out of bed every day because you didn't win the lottery - since your chances of beating them are often similar. Sure, you may win some day, but it may not match the years of bitterness if you wrap your lives around them. Yes, you must fight your case, but in a steady and nonemotional manner, always taking time to just forget it and do other things important to you. Get whatever enjoyment you can out of each day and each tiny thing because the insurer Wants you to be miserable. They know that a miserable, upset person is weakened and more likely to give up or die or just go away. So don't play Their waiting game. Go on with your life. And yes, I know there will be a thousand, "Is Jim Nuts?" thoughts regarding this. But put them away. Trust me, I'm odd but I'm not nuts ;') I know there are some things that can't be done until there is a settlement. But there are many that can and few that are Totally changeless. And a change in your own heart is Always within reach ====================================================== PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL (Since my cut and paste software just died I'm leaving those dumb >> in, which it usually removes automatically. I don't feel like removing them by hand this morning ;') > You guys have this backward. Piercing the corporate veil means going > through the fictitious person of the corporation to get to the assets > of the owners of the corporation. One of the purposes of a corporation > > is so that the owners can limit their exposure to liability to the > assets of the corporation. Sometimes, people will set up a holding > company that has all of the assets and then do the operations that > create liability through a relatively penniless subsidiary. > Successfully getting to the holding company would be piercing the > corporate veil. > > Agents of a corporation are always liable for their own torts. If the > President of General Motors runs over you with his car, he is always > liable. If he is in the course and scope of his employment at the > time, he is still liable and so is GM. The same is true here. If you > can identify who is doing you wrong, you can sue that individual. But > it may be easier to collect from UNUM. > > Dugan Barr ====================================================== SOMEONE SENT IN A TIP If you look closely at these dubious companies and you may find thay have one thing in common.,the contractor Allmerica financial. These are the boys thad do the dirty work. Webmaster's comments: Although I've heard of this I don't have time to research it. Just passing it along to those of you who are connect-the-dotters. ====================================================== THE POOR PAY MORE The insurance companies continue to be deceitful (Surprise!). This thinly disguised article is actually saying that the insurance companies are banding together in order to make their own agreed upon rules to facilitate discrimination against the poor. http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2004/03/12/40064.htm Credit-Based Scoring Tops AIA Agenda at Spring NAIC Gathering March 12, 2004 The issue of credit-based insurance scoring will once again reportedly be the subject of much discussion and attention during the spring meeting of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) in New York, which begins this weekend, the American Insurance Association said this week. Other topics of importance to be addressed include regulatory modernization through the consideration of NCOIL's (National Conference of Insurance Legislators) market conduct model law, and the reduction of foreign reinsurance collateral requirements. Credit-Based Insurance Scoring The Credit Scoring Working Group (CSWG) meets on Sunday, March 14 from 3:30 p.m. to 5 p.m., and there are several topics of concern to AIA expected to be on the agenda, including the establishment of "best practices," a report on the group of 10 states pursuing their own studies on credit-based insurance scoring, and the Missouri Insurance Department's recent study. "There is no precedent for establishing 'best practices' by the NAIC or any subset of its members," said David Snyder, AIA vice president and assistant general counsel. "The 'best practices' that the CSWG is considering will undercut the laws and regulations on this issue that have already been enacted in more than 30 states. Further, this could pose a threat by potentially imposing standards on insurers in litigation that are not found in existing laws and/or regulations." "The CSWG began this effort as a process to develop uniform interpretations of existing terminology, where certain similar legislative and regulatory language was used in the states. It has now ballooned into trying to define industry 'best practices' without regard for any model or for any particular set of laws. It appears the CSWG is taking a back door approach to developing its own model law and regulation on this issue," said Snyder. AIA advised the NAIC that, if this project is to move forward, it should be done as initially described (as uniform interpretations) and should: 1) ascribe similar meanings only to legislative language that is the same; 2) interpret the terms in a manner consistent with the actual legislative language; 3) not encroach on legislative authority; and, 4) not be inconsistent with applicable federal law or the laws of one or more states. The CSWG is also expected to hear a report on the group of states pursuing their own studies on credit-based insurance scoring. "This group is operating in secret, totally outside the auspices of the NAIC," noted Snyder. "There is no transparency here and no opportunity for input from insurers or anyone else the group chooses to exclude. As a result, our biggest concern is that this group could inadvertently develop a flawed methodology for studying the use of credit information by insurers," said Snyder. "For example, the study recently done by the Missouri Department of Insurance ignores important actuarial concepts, legal standards, and existing research. Using this methodology in other states would only lead to equally flawed results," said Snyder. Reportedly, the Missouri study completely fails to take into account the legal and actuarial standards contained in Missouri rating law, as well as a new Missouri law restricting insurer use of credit that took effect July 1, 2003. According to an independent, expert analysis by LLC, an actuarial and financial risk management firm, this study is reportedly biased and deeply flawed. "In essence, this report is a set of conclusions waiting for a study. The Missouri report delivered highly controversial conclusions and described the results of some statistical analysis. Unfortunately, there is precious little, if any, connection between the conclusions and data analysis," said Michael Miller, a principal of EPIC Consulting. AIA, the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC) and the Property-Casualty Insurance Association of America (PCIAA) commissioned the critique by EPIC. Market Conduct Model Law AIA is urging the NAIC to adopt the market conduct model law that NCOIL unanimously adopted during its spring meeting last month. "This model includes some of the important market conduct reforms that the NAIC has developed, such as market conduct analysis, state coordination and uniformity in procedures. This new model law addressing these three areas will go a long way toward solving many of the problems plaguing the current market conduct system," said Laura Kersey, assistant vice president, AIA Northeast Region. "While we support the model as an improvement to the current state market conduct structure, it is important to note that it still needs work in certain areas ??“ most notably, domestic deference ??“ to ensure that the number of state market conduct examinations is held to a minimum. Further, issues such as domestic deference will need to be resolved at the federal level before this model can be seriously considered as a federal standard," explained Kersey. "We have pledged to work with our industry colleagues and federal legislators to ensure that any market conduct provisions that are considered provide a workable solution for legislators, regulators, industry, and, most importantly, consumers," said Kersey. The NAIC's Market Regulation & Consumer Affairs (D) Committee met this week via conference call and decided to forward the model for consideration during the NAIC's Joint Executive Committee / Plenary session during the upcoming New York meeting. Reduction in Foreign Reinsurance Collateral One other issue of concern to AIA is a proposal from foreign reinsurers to reduce their collateral requirements, which the NAIC's Reinsurance Task Force has been considering for some time. In lieu of submitting to the same U.S. regulatory structure imposed upon U.S. reinsurers, foreign reinsurers must deposit assets in domestic institutions to collateralize the liabilities they assume. Cedant insurers can make claims against the collateral if the foreign reinsurer fails to satisfy claims under the reinsurance contract. "Last summer, AIA joined with several other trade associations to oppose the collateral reduction," said Phillip Carson, AIA counsel. "At the December 2003 NAIC meeting, domestic insurers were asked to provide examples in which cedant carriers have encountered difficulties in collecting from foreign reinsurers. AIA, along with several other trade organizations, has submitted the requested examples, which we expect to be a topic of discussion at the Task Force's meeting on Saturday, March 13, from 12:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.," said Carson. Webmaster's comments: NCOIL is corrupt - the National Conference of (bribed) Insurance Legislators. And don't count on the NAIC, which is Funded by the insurance industry. BTW, Maine refused to be part of the 45 state task force investigating Unum, and is another example of regulatory corruption. ====================================================== Please Pay For The Subscription To Support Our Cause - $15/Yr Minimum, More If You Feel This Is Important Work. Send subscription fees or donations for our work to: James Mooney PMB # 106 4495-304 Roosevelt Blvd Jacksonville, FL 32210-3381 OR Via Paypal at: https://www.paypal.com/affil/pal=cybervigil@earthlink.net Jim Mooney, webmaster: www.micethatroar.com www.corporatecrimefighters.com UNUM'S SECRET "DESTROYED" CLAIMS MANUALS NOW AVAILABLE - Email manuals@micethatroar.com for details. THE UNFINISHED TASK "Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day." Theodore Roosevelt, April 19, 1906 |
|
| << March11, 2004 - Corporate Crimefighters of America |
March21, 2004 - Corporate Crimefighters of America >> |
|
Corporate Crimefighters of America Archives Index
|
Subscribe
|
|
|
Archives powered by Zinester's Mailing List Service
Details on Corporate Crimefighters of America |
Browse for more newsletters at Zinester's Ezine Directory
Managed by Zinester's Mailing List Management |