Avatar ~ The Real Story

What you will never hear from The Corporate Owned Main Stream Media

Consumers' right to file class actions is in danger

Consumers' right to file class actions is in danger -- latimes.com

Little by little The American people are losing more & more rights. Little by little we are losing what few consumer protections we have as The Big Corporations gobble us up.  God Bless The Corporate States of America, where freedom rings less and less.

Consumers' right to file class actions is in danger
If AT&T has its way before the Supreme Court, any business that issues a contract to customers would be able to prevent them from joining class-action lawsuits, taking away arguably the most powerful legal tool available to the little guy.

by
David Lazarus


It hasn't gotten a lot of press, but a case involving AT&T that goes before the U.S. Supreme Court next week has sweeping ramifications for potentially millions of consumers.

If a majority of the nine justices vote the telecom giant's way, any business that issues a contract to customers — such as for credit cards, cellphones or cable TV — would be able to prevent them from joining class-action lawsuits.

This would take away in such cases arguably the most powerful legal tool available to the little guy, particularly in cases involving relatively small amounts of money. Class-action suits allow plaintiffs to band together in seeking compensation or redress, thus giving substantially more heft to their claims.

The ability to ban class actions would potentially also apply to employment agreements such as union contracts.

Consumer advocates say that without the threat of class-action lawsuits, many businesses would be free to engage in unfair or deceptive practices. Few people would litigate on their own to resolve a case involving, say, a hundred bucks.

"The marketplace is fairer for consumers and workers because there's a deterrent out there," said Deepak Gupta, an attorney for the advocacy group Public Citizen who will argue on consumers' behalf before the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

"Companies are afraid of class actions," he said. "This helps keep them honest."

The case is AT&T Mobility vs. Concepcion. The basic question before the court is whether companies can bar class actions in the fine print of their take-it-or-leave-it contracts with customers and employees.

High courts in California and elsewhere have ruled that class-action bans are unconscionable and contrary to public policy.

At issue at next week's court hearing is whether the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 preempts state courts from striking down class-action bans. The federal law requires both sides in a dispute to take their grievance to an arbitrator, rather than a court, if both sides have agreed in advance to do so.

Vincent and Liza Concepcion sued AT&T in 2006 after signing up for wireless service that they'd been told included free cellphones. The Concepcions alleged that they and other Californians had been defrauded by the company because the phones actually came with various charges.

AT&T asked the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California to dismiss the case because its contract forbade class actions. The court declined, ruling that a class-action ban violates state law and is not preempted by the federal law.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower-court ruling last year. AT&T subsequently petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case.

William B. Gould IV, a professor emeritus at Stanford Law School and former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board under President Clinton, said the high court was clearly interested in extending the reach of the Federal Arbitration Act.

"This is a very important issue," he said. "And this Supreme Court has indicated a measure of hostility toward class actions."

Matthew Kaufman, a Los Angeles attorney who focuses on arbitration law, agreed with that perspective.

"This is a very conservative court that's pro-business, and class actions are not good for business," he said.

Marty Richter, an AT&T spokesman, said the company's arbitration agreement "includes fair, easy-to-use provisions" that reflect "an innovative and highly consumer-friendly dispute resolution process."

He noted that AT&T's arbitration clause allows for at least $5,000 in compensation and double attorneys' fees if the arbitrator awards the consumer more than AT&T offered to settle a dispute. "And we pay the entire cost of the arbitration, except the filing fee if a customer is claiming $75,000 or more," Richter said.

Be that as it may, why is the company so intent on denying customers the choice of joining a class action? Shouldn't consumers be allowed to decide what avenue to pursue in resolving a grievance?

"AT&T can offer the benefits of its consumer-friendly arbitration system only if the company is able to avoid the burdensome costs of lawyer-driven class actions, in which most of the money goes to lawyers — both plaintiff and defense lawyers — and class members get little," Richter replied.

In other words, the company says the only way it can be generous in arbitration is if customers give up the right to join others in suing. Otherwise, those "burdensome" legal costs will force AT&T to be a more hard-nosed negotiator.

AT&T earned $12.5 billion in profit last year.

Public Citizen's Gupta said consumers can expect similar treatment from other companies if the Supreme Court rules in AT&T's favor.

"If the court decides that the federal law trumps state law in this case, there's no limit to what companies could do," Gupta said. "All companies and employers would be able to put arbitration clauses in contracts that prevent people from joining class actions."

Briefs supporting the right to class actions have been filed by a number of consumer groups and civil rights organizations, including the Consumer Federation of America and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

On the opposing side — that is, backing AT&T's case — are other telecom companies, as well as such well-heeled corporate interests as the American Bankers Assn., the Financial Services Roundtable and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

This is a case you'll want to follow. You have a lot on the line.

David Lazarus' column runs Tuesdays and Fridays. He also can be seen daily on KTLA-TV Channel 5. Send your tips or feedback to david.lazarus@latimes.com.

Copyright © 2010, Los Angeles Times

The New Pledge of Allegiance

I pledge Allegiance to the flag

of The Corporate States of America

And to The Conglomerations,

For which they stand,

One Nation, under Corporate Gods,

Always divisible,

With Liberty, Justice and privileges to  only the wealthy.

The Corporation: A Documentary (VIDEO)

NOTE: Starts to get really interesting about 10 minutes into the video

The Corporation, Canada's most successful documentary in history, is the winner of 26 international awards and 10 Audience Choice Awards including the 2004 Sundance Film Festival.


The film charts the development of the corporation as a legal entity from its genesis to unprecedented legal protection stemming from creative interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, that is from its origins as an institution chartered by governments to carry out specific public functions, to the rise of the vast modern institutions entitled to some of the legal rights of a "person." One central theme of the documentary is an attempt to assess the "personality" of the corporate "person" by using diagnostic criteria from the DSM-IV; Robert Hare, a University of British Columbia Psychology Professor and FBI consultant, compares the modern, profit-driven corporation to that of a clinically diagnosed psychopath.

The Names of The House Democrats who decided to stand with wealthy corporations rather than stand up for The American People's interests.

74 Democratic members of Congress just sold you out to AT&T, Verizon and Comcast. I wonder how much money they each got? You'll find their names at the bottom of this post. Please call, write, email each and everyone of them asking them: 'How much money did it take for you to sell The American People out?'
Patty





CREDO Action:
They signed industry-backed letters telling the FCC to abandon efforts to protect Internet users by prohibiting big companies from blocking Internet traffic.

Not only is this letter an attack on net neutrality, but by signing the industry letter, they are attempting to drastically undercut the FCC's ability to make a fast, affordable and open Internet available to everyone in America. They are actually taking a position against the interests of rural and low-income communities.

This is unacceptable.

We need to make sure these members of Congress know that their constituents are paying attention and will hold them accountable when they undermine net neutrality protections.

Sign our petition to these representatives telling them that you're upset by their decision to side with the wealthy telecommunications corporations over their constituents.

What this comes down to is a principle known as "net neutrality." Net neutrality means that Internet users, not Internet service providers, should be in control. It ensures that Internet service providers can't speed up, slow down, or block Web content based on its source, ownership, or destination.

Of course broadband providers are insisting that we should just trust them and there's no need for consumers to be protected by net neutrality rules. But we cannot trust AT&T, Verizon and Comcast to protect a free and open Internet any more than we could trust BP to protect the oceans.

Without strong net neutrality rules, we might have to rely upon the good will of large telecoms to protect our access to the diversity of political perspectives. We might have to trust companies like Comcast, which actively and secretly interfered with users' ability to access popular video, photo and music sharing applications. We might have to trust companies like AT&T, which censored anti-Bush comments made by Pearl Jam's lead singer during a concert.

A free and open Internet is an important part of 21st Century democracy, but these 74 House Democrats signed a letter that undercut the efforts of the FCC to make sure the Internet stays free and open.

In other words, they decided to stand with wealthy corporations rather than stand up for your interests.

The simple fact of the matter is that powerful companies with a vested interest in this fight like AT&T have armies of lobbyists to push their agenda.

If these 74 House Democrats are going to get the message that it's unacceptable for them to sell out their constituents, it's only going to be because people like you speak up.

So take a minute right now to sign our petition.

The following Democratic members of the House signed the industry-backed letter:




Bobby Bright (AL-02), 
Mike Ross (AR-04), 
Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01),
Ed Pastor (AZ-04),
Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-8),
Dennis Cardoza (CA-18),
Jim Costa (CA-20),
Laura Richardson (CA-37),
Joe Baca (CA-43),
Loretta Sanchez (CA-47),
Allen Boyd (FL-02),
Corrine Brown (FL-03),
Alcee Hastings (FL-23),
Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24),
Sanford D Bishop, Jr. (GA-02),
John Barrow (GA-12),
David Scott (GA-13),
Leonard Boswell (IA-03),
Wally Minnick (ID-01),
Bobby Rush (IL-01),
Debbie Halvorson (IL-11),
Baron P Hill (IN-09),
Dennis Moore (KS-03),
Charlie Melancon (LA-03),
Frank Kratovil, Jr. (MD-01),
Dutch Ruppersberger (MD-2),
Elijah Cummings (MD-07),
Gary Peters (MI-9),
William Lacy Clay Jr (MO-01),
Russ Carnahan (MO-03),
Travis Childers (MS-01),
Bennie G Thompson (MS-02),
Gene Taylor (MS-04),
G. K. Butterfield (NC-01),
Heath Shuler (NC-11),
John Adler (NJ-3),
Albio Sires (NJ-13),
Harry Teague (NM-2),
Tim Bishop (NY-01),
Gregory Meeks (NY-06),
Joseph Crowley (NY-07),
Ed Towns (NY-10),
Yvette Clarke (NY-11),
Michael McMahon (NY-13),
Scott Murphy (NY-20),
Bill Owens (NY-23),
Michael Arcuri (NY-24),
Daniel Maffei (NY-25),
Steve Driehaus (OH-01),
Charlie Wilson (OH-06),
Marcia Fudge (OH-11),
Zachary T. Space (OH-18),
Dan Boren (OK-02),
Kurt Schrader (OR-05),
Robert Brady (PA-01),
Chaka Fattah (PA-02),
Kathleen Dahlkemper (PA-03),   <---My State,  wonder how much $$ They were promised?
Jason Altmire (PA-04),
Christopher Carney (PA-10),
Allyson Schwartz (PA-13),
Tim Holden (PA-17),
Lincoln Davis (TN-04),
John Tanner (TN-08),
Al Green (TX-09),
Ruben Hinojosa (TX-15),
Charlie Gonzalez (TX-20),
Ciro Rodriguez (TX-23),
Solomon Ortiz (TX-27),
Henry Cuellar (TX-28),
Gene Green (TX-29),
Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30),
Glenn Nye (VA-02),
Rick Larsen (WA-02),
Nick Rahall (WV-03)

No Protection From The Corporate Pilfering, Pillaging and Plundering Or Theft of Public & Private Land

Arrested on Public Land because Big Corporation Mining Volture, AKA, Rio Tinto is preparing for the pilfering, pillaging and plundering of sacred land.  The people of that region have been sold out by The Corporate Whores who hold Michigan State Office;  Find Them Here:  Governor of Michigan    Senators of Michigan     Representives      State of Michigan Government Agencies

By Cynthia Pryor

Sulfide Mining Campaign Director, Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve

Posted: May 7, 2010

Around the world, indigenous communities are defending their homelands and sacred sites from mining companies with more urgency than ever. With the fictional Avatar receiving so much media attention, it's important to realize that very real battles between indigenous communities protecting sacred sites and corporations infringing on them are happening in the real world. And not just in exotic corners of the world, but right here in America, in the Great Lakes, where millions get their drinking water.

Rio Tinto has from the beginning played out the role of the big bad mining company in its plans to mine nickel and copper in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. The project has been marred by a flawed approval process, with one expert hired by the state insisting the project could collapse on workers. Despite unresponsive regulators and politicians, a persistent grassroots movement has stalled the company plans by years already.

This seven-year battle between Rio Tinto and local citizens came to a head when I was arrested a couple weeks ago for "trespassing" on land the company wants to mine for nickel, copper and other precious metals. I was doing what I've been doing on a weekly basis for over a decade - walking with my dog to Migi Zii Wa Sin, or Eagle Rock, a sacred site to Anishinaabe tribes. Rio Tinto took my presence there as a threat and called local law enforcement to the scene. I was arrested and jailed for refusing to leave land the company still has no legal title to.

The important thing about my arrest is that it happened on public land. A couple years ago, Rio Tinto signed a land use lease with the State of Michigan to build surface facilities and a portal for their mine.

Under the Treaty of 1842 the Anishinaabe have retained all rights for fishing, hunting and gathering on public lands over a wide swath of land in Michigan and Wisconsin. By allowing Rio Tinto to mine a sacred site, the State of Michigan has disregarded these long-standing rights and dismissed Eagle Rock as a place of worship. Would Rio Tinto get away with blasting a mine into the floor of a Christian cathedral? I doubt it.

My arrest triggered three brave members of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (KBIC) to act in protecting their treaty rights and sacred site. They arrived at Eagle Rock the night of April 23 in a beat-up Geo Metro to "take a stand." The courage of these women, who were the first to occupy Eagle Rock, has inspired many more men and women - both native and non-native - to gather here to protect this place. 

"I am here because I am a woman and we protect our sacred water," Charlotte Loonsfoot (picture to left by Chauncey Moran), a member of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, told me about her initial decision to occupy Eagle Rock. "It is the bloodline of Mother Earth and if we pollute her blood, we will die."

"We have done ceremonies before recorded time until the Treaty of 1842 and our people's removal from our culture and our language. Our stand at Eagle Rock is not only to protect our water, but the spirit in Eagle Rock."
This place, while held sacred by the Anishinaabe, is also a place that is dear to the people living in the small remote communities surrounding Eagle Rock. Locals cherish the notion that America still has remote places where no industrial lights block out the stars, no industrial noise blocks out the wind in the pines, and where people may quietly enjoy these quality public lands held in trust for them by the State of Michigan.
Our state government has sold us out on this public land heritage by placing the wealth and profit of Rio Tinto over the health and welfare of the people it represents. Not only do they fail to recognize the sacred value of Eagle Rock and the rights of the Anishinaabe, they have allowed this company to proceed without federal approval while arresting citizens under absurd charges for getting in the way of Rio Tinto's plans. 

Rio Tinto is working now to fence off this public land and Eagle Rock and doesn't seem to mind moving forward without legal authority from the federal government. The Anishinaabe and their non-native supporters will not allow this to continue. We will peacefully stay here until the state recognizes our rights to public land, the sovereign rights of the Anishinaabe, and their right to their sacred land - right here at Eagle Rock.


Cynthia Pryor lives seven miles away from Rio Tinto's planned mine, near the Yellow Dog River, and has worked through the grassroots Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve since 1995.
Anyone interested in keeping up on this issue can find photos and more information at the blog for the Eagle Rock occupation, standfortheland.com.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cynthia-pryor/a-sacred-fire-is-burning_b_567652.html

BP Oil Deaths, Massey Energy Deaths Spur Calls for Criminal Prosecutions of Corporate Execs

Full Article: Democracy Now




Disasters in Gulf Coast, West Virginia Spur Calls for Criminal Prosecutions of Corporate Execs

From the Gulf of Mexico to the Massey mine of West Virginia, scores of workers have died. We speak to Corporate Crime Reporter editor Russell Mokhiber, who says corporate executives should be held criminally accountable for the disasters under their watch. Mokhber is involved with a group of citizen activists who have just launched a campaign calling on the state of West Virginia to prosecute Massey Energy for manslaughter in connection with the April 5th explosion at the Upper Big Branch Mine that claimed the lives of twenty-nine coal miners.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/26/disasters_in_gulf_coast_west_virginia

Chevron Has 5 Activists Arrested and Bars Entry to Global Victims of Its Practices at Annual Shareholders’ Meeting

Read Article: Democracy Now

Chevron has had five protesters arrested at its annual shareholders meeting in Houston and refused to allow another two dozen people from Chevron-affected countries around the world, like Nigeria, Ecuador and Burma. Those denied entry held legal shareholder proxies. The True Cost of Chevron Network says it organized the protest to call attention to Chevron’s human rights and environmental record. We speak to Antonia Juhasz, director of the Chevron Program at Global Exchange, who spent the night in jail after her arrest; and Emem Okon, an activist from Nigeria and the founder and executive director of Kebetkache Women Development and Resource Center in the Niger Delta.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/28/chevron_has_5_activists_arrested_and

America, from Sea to Corporate Owned Sea

 I find it incredulous that this Brit who's corporation is responsible for  the death of 11 people (who we hear nothing about because in Corporate America 'life' is cheap and meant to be exploited).  This Brit who's corporation (with the help of deregulation and The MMS)  is responsible for a polluted and dying Golf is on US land bullying The American Media (what little media that's not corporate owned).  America, from Sea to Corporate Owned Sea.

Patty

BP Is 'Big And Important': BP Chairman Strikes Out At Critics, CEO Scolds Photographer At Oil Spill Site (VIDEO)

Carl-Henric Svanberg, the chairman of BP, has struck out at critics of his company's response to the Gulf oil spill and told The Financial Times that BP is "big and important."

In an interview published Tuesday by FT, Svanberg painted the oil company's relationship with the U.S. as one that was mutually beneficial to both parties. "The US is a big and important market for BP, and BP is also a big and important company for the US, with its contribution to drilling and oil and gas production," Svanberg said. "So the position goes both ways."

Svanberg dismissed calls for a government takeover of the effort to plug the well and said that "if we do the right thing," BP's reputation may not suffer long-term damage.

The chairman's "big and important" assertions about his company came shortly after BP CEO Tony Hayward was recorded acting big and important around photographers covering the spill. 

While observing a beach covered in crude, Hayward took it upon himself to scold a photographer whom he thought was too close to the spill. 

"Hey, get outta there. Get outta there," Hayward barked to the photographer. "Get him out. Get him out." 

Hayward's orders came just before a BP press conference.