There is NO doubt, we have a major immigration problem on our hands at our southern boarder. This raises the serious concern of terrorists entering our nation. This is real. Take a look at this video where immigrants are using the SAME southern Arizona trail to enter the United States illegally. Terrorists can easily use this same trail.
BTW, this is one of the funnest pull-overs I have seen. It also exhibits how serious this problem is:
Even if we pass immigration reform, it will NOT stop this Northern migration. However, it will bring many out of the shadows. Nevertheless, the threat of possible terrorists entering our Nation via these southern routes will always be there. Security is an illusion.
How would you solve this major problem? Create a landmine zone between the U.S. and Mexico? How about shoot to kill like the Germans did with the Berlin Wall? It’s NOT easy is it?
Mr. Hillgardner is currently being sued in the New York Supreme Court, County of New York under caption Mehmet v. Hillgardner Index No. 103282/10.
The allegations in the lawsuit pertain to claims of aggravated harassment and defamation committed by Mr. Hillgardner against a mother and son. In one incident, Mr. Hillgardner sent harassing and annoying emails to the son. When the son demanded that Mr. Hillgardner stop sending him harassing emails or the Police would be called, Mr. Hillgardner sent the son another email that stated quote “You do not scare me”. Mr. Hillgardner also informed someone over the telephone that the mother “ should take a lesson from the Japanese and learn the meaning of unconditional surrender to [his] demands.”
Mr. Hillgardner was arrested for harassing a police officer who was giving another motorist a parking ticket near the apartment building occupied by the mother and son (Mr Hillgardner was dating a tenant within that building by the name of Ruth Baumann). See Mr. Hillgardner’s arrest here: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/13/nyregion/the-space-race-why-is-it-so-hard-to-find-a-parking-spot-in-manhattan.html?pagewanted=1
In a different incident, Mr. Hillgardner ran away from a parking officer before she could give him the parking ticket. He then sued the City of New York for the ticket on the grounds that the City failed to serve him with the parking ticket. His lawsuit was dismissed and his motion for re-argument was denied. See Mr. Hillgardner’s lawsuit against the City of New York filed within the New York Supreme Court, County of New York: Thomas J. Hillgardner v. Parking Violations Bureau Index# 114523/1997
Mr. Thomas J. Hillgardner was a top member of the Marijuana Reform Party (MRP) and he ran for Lt Governor of New York in and around 2002 under that MRP party. See 2002 NYC Ballot here: http://www.vote.nyc.ny.us/pdf/documents/boe/rfi/2009/30_AppendixC/App%20C%20NYC%202002%20General%20Election.pdf
The MRP calls for the legalization of the drug and the ceasing of drug testing in the work place. This is a guy who posted a delusional letter on the Internet to the President of the United States at 12AM that demanded the President engage in serious talks about the use and legalization of Marijuana. See Mr. Hillgardner’s “Open Letter” to the President of the United States here: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/grass-roots-lobby-games-obamas-town-hall/?apage=2
If you have any information pertaining to any bad conduct committed by Mr. Hillgardner on any innocent person, or any evidence of illegal activities. For example, harassment or the use of illegal drugs, please contact me, or post the information against him in this blog so it may be presented to the Judge against him.
If you have been victimized by Mr. Hillgardner, please contact me and I will put you in contact with someone who will help you remedy the situation.
It is alleged that the lottery agencies throughout the United States, including the New Jersey Lottery Agency, have been intentionally publishing false ODDS to the public on their websites.
On the following State lottery web pages, the State lottery agencies claim that the odds to win 6-Way Box is 1:168 and 3-Way Box is 1:333. This is incorrect. The following are a few States that have published incorrect odds:
New Jersey: http://www.state.nj.us/lottery/games/1-5-1_pick3.shtml
The actual odds are 6-Way Box 1:120 and 3-Way Box 1:90. Since a box game allows the numbers to be in ANY ORDER, the total combination in any 6-Way Box game is 120. 3-Way Box has 90 combinations. This error by the State lottery agencies may be due to their addition of duplicate numbers in different orders, which is NOT necessary since a win is possible in ANY ORDER.
However, the error may NOT be an error at all; but due to a sinister motive to mislead consumers and to prevent them from uncovering the actual count in the odds to win. By knowing the actual odds, a consumer can identify the total count of numbers necessary to win the lotto game and use it to assist them in identifying all such digits.
INVESTIGATION: Investigating multiple complaints against the New Jersey lottery agency concerning the manipulation of winning lotto numbers by manual and electronic means. The purpose of this manipulation is to increase the winning dollar amounts to cause more consumers to buy tickets, which in turn increases the lottery agency’s profits.
PROOF
The following links will prove to you without a doubt that the lotto agencies are publishing incorrect odds on their websites and in print. You will see all the ACTUAL digits to win. You will see how you can win by selecting only one (1) digit. Sounds unbelievable; but it is true. You will learn that for $110, you could win the Play 3 lotto every day.
Lotto TRUE odds:
If you only bet ALL the RED and BLACK digits, you will ALWAYS win the 6-Way and 3-Way lottery games:
http://www.badisse.com/images/play3chart.html
To prove to you that betting ALL the RED and BLACK digits will ALWAYS give you a win, go to the following New Jersey lottery website and choose ANY winning number and compare it with ALL the RED and BLACK digits in the chart above. You will find that every winning NJ lottery number is within those colored digits. RED colors include triples, which are actually part of a straight game - Total combinations of RED and BLACK are 220. This means that $110 will ALWAYS give you a lotto win. Thus, winning is NOT the problem. The problem is making a profit by taking on risk when you bet less numbers.
THIS WILL PROVE THAT THE LOTTERY AGENCIES HAVE BEEN PUBLISHING INCORRECT ODDS TO CONSUMERS:
I am going to show you something that is going to amuse you. First, view the following video then goto the following link and see how you can win every day in Play 3 (I have done this with Play 4 and I am working on Play 5). You will witness how the lottery pools that I have set up will produce a win every day. I GUARANTEE it and the proof is before you.
(DAC ABUSE” - Unfair, Deceptive and Unlawful Business Practices)
As a trucker, has the following ever happened to you?
You leave your trucking employer and start searching for a job with another trucking company; but no one wants to hire you because your previous employer filed a false DAC report against you. You are not only out of a job; but you have been black listed out of an entire industry.
Join This Class Action Lawsuit By Sending Your Request to: BADISSE@BADISSE.COM
Intentional and Malicious Conduct
There appears to be an enormous amount of evidence, which includes hundreds of witnesses, against multiple trucking companies showing that the companies have been engaging in a collaborative and malicious behavior against truckers for the pupose of retaliation for leaving their jobs with one trucking company for another. It appears that the trucking companies are utlizing the DAC report as their personal “Black List” against truckers who leave their company and to place fear in those who seek to leave because departures cause the company monetary loss. Furthermore, it is alleged that the administrator of the DAC report, which the trucking companies pay a fee to, is unfairly assisting the trucking companies in their malicious conduct against the truckers.
The potential outcome of this class action against the trucking companies and USIS is that you will recieve compensaton for your lost income and that your DAC record will be corrected. In addition, the trucking companies and USIS may be hit with large puntive damages for their intentional, reckless and malicious conduct (DAC Abuse).
Trucker v. Raven Transport, Inc. (Success Story)
Read how one truck driver fought back against Raven Transport Inc for DAC abuse and defeated their motion to dismiss his lawsuit. The transport company cannot hide behind a “qualified privilege” when it makes intentional false statements on the DAC report. The transport company will be held legally liable for such intentional and malicious conduct. Not only will the company be liable for compensatoy damages resulting from the truckers’ inability to obtain work; but its malicious coduct warrants punitive damages.
” Plaintiff is a pro se litigant pursuing a claim related to losing his job as a truck driver. …Plaintiff has accused Raven of making defamatory statements about him to the EEOC and the DOL as well as to a potential employer, D. Krutiak Trucking (“Krutiak”). Raven has also been accused of releasing defamatory statements in a DAC Report, an employment-history database for motor carriers. Raven has moved to dismiss on the grounds that the statements that they made were privileged and not subject to liability. Plaintiff claims that these statements were knowingly false and have made it difficult for him to secure other employment….. (a) An employer or any person employed by the employer who discloses information about a current or former employee’s job performance to a prospective employer is presumed to be acting in good faith; and unless lack of good faith is shown, is immune from civil liability for such disclosure or its consequences. For purposes of this section, the presumption of good faith may be rebutted upon a showing that the information disclosed by such employer was knowingly false, was deliberately misleading or was rendered with malicious purpose; or that the information was disclosed in violation of a nondisclosure agreement, or was otherwise confidential according to applicable federal, State or local statute, rule or regulation…….This privilege carries a rebuttable presumption of good faith. Qualified privilege will not attach to the DAC Report or Raven’s communications with Krutiak if they were knowingly false, deliberately, misleading, or rendered with malicious purpose……..Plaintiff has alleged that Raven’s statements were knowingly false and rendered with malice. Since this Court must assume that these allegations are true for the purposes of this motion…Plaintiff’s defamation claim for the DAC Report and for communications with Krutiak cannot be dismissed now…
Considering the foregoing, Raven’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED”
Eaton v. Raven Transport.
Not Reported in A.2d, 2009 WL 1277991
Del.Super.,April 2009.
The above case teaches that to hold the trucking company liable, the allegation MUST not only allege that the trucking company made a false report to DAC; but that there MUST be sufficient evidence showing that the trucking company knew their report to DAC was false when it was made to DAC.
Join This Class Action Lawsuit By Sending Your Request to: BADISSE@BADISSE.COM
I am a victim of false DAC reporting and I have tried to get the things removed but the trucking companies will not do it. Whatever I can do I will because it is not right that they can lie on us and to us and there is nothing we can do.
I had to temp come off road , father was hospitalized and when I tried to get another job, I found out they ruined my dac report.
DAC was meant for a good purpose but trucking companies abuse it by putting false information to keep drivers from leaving to another job. I feel because DAC has been proven to be inaccurate it should not be used against drivers to determine employment. I also feel it is unfair to pay to get information that has been said about me. DAC should be free at anytime to the driver to see. Also because DAC is ruining driver record it is ruining their carrier to get hired to another company. Thus cheaper for a company to hire an inexperienced vs experienced. This is dangerous to the public and criminal.
I agree this service should be illegal. I have had several untruthful comments put on my DAC when I did everything in my power NOT to burn bridges! The companies were just mad about losing another driver. It is not fair to put this false information about drivers on such a document!
I had a false report filed on me that cost me employment with a company.
DAC reports should be banned from the u.s. Companies use them for slander. (which is illegal)!!!
Negative reports,On my DAC have prevented me from gaining employment.
I too know this is being done also. It has happen to me and still fighting it with no results.
I am fighting with my company now as they stated that I abandoned my truck when in fact I asked for the weekend off to move to a new location in SC. The dispatcher knew I would soon be leaving the company so they left me first. While out of the truck, they picked it up & took it back to Ohio along w/ all of my personal belongings never paying me or anything & leaving me stranding in SC. They have ruined me for now on my MVR.
False reporting by Trucking Companies to DAC cost Drivers months to Years of unemployment that is unfair and costly with no recourse.
Join This Class Action Lawsuit By Sending Your Request to: BADISSE@BADISSE.COM
Bowser, et al v. Wachovia Bank, N.A. on the grounds of breach of contract [implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing], conversion, unfair and deceptive business practices.
We have received all the necessary plaintiffs to file the class action against Wachovia Bank and it will be filed in Federal Court shortly.
I have included enough information below to fully educate you on the bank overdraft scam and what is being done to stop it by Congress.
HAS THIS HAPPENED TO YOU OR SOMEONE YOU KNOW?
Did you ever wake up and check your bank account to realize that the available balance you had is gone and your account is in a negative status because of overdraft fees you didn’t cause? The true reason why you were assessed the additional overdraft fees that you did NOT cause is because Wachovia, as other banks, has used a creative accounting practice that can take a single overdraft you caused and multiply it by 2-8 or more times (Post delay, re-sequencing and paying debits from high to low). Thus, Wachovia’s accounting practice can take your one overdraft you caused and use it to wipe out your entire account balance. The bank then falsely accused you of being at fault for the additional overdrafts you didn’t cause by lying to you about having insufficient funds in your account to pay the remaining debits. In fact, without the pre-existing overdraft in your account (condition precedent), it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for Wachovia’s creative accounting practice to have assessed additional overdraft fees against you that you did not create. That is why Wachovia engages in tactics to make you overdraft your account. For example, Wachovia will NOT immediately post your correct available balance or Wachovia will drop a hold on your account to only apply it later to make you believe you have more available funds in your account then you do. Wachovia will not inform you when you are going into overdraft at point-of-sale or at an ATM. Wachovia will also split two pre-existing overdrafts created on the same date so it can create additional overdraft fees on two different posting dates instead of one. Wachovia will also charge you $35 on an over draft under $1.
H.R. 1456 “Consumer Overdraft Protection Fair Practices Act” (See vidoes of hearings below):
Wachovia Bank is NOT your Friend. It is Your Adversary:
First, you must understand that Wachova bank is NOT your friend. Wachovia bank is your adversary. And it will do anything it can to separate you from your funds. You are about to learn how Wachovia Bank, among others, has been scamming you out of your funds by using a clever and creative accounting practice. You will also learn how deep this problem goes (i.e. a proposed and pending bill in Congress).
Second, until Congress passes H.R. 1456, I suggest that after you read the following information, you immediately cut and throw away your debit card from Wachovia bank and instead use services like http://www.RushCard.com, which do NOT charge you any overdraft fees and you can make direct deposits. If you still want to use Wachovia, you can use them while using RushCard’s debit card or some other service. I’ve used them for a number of years and I have never received another overdraft fee (RushCard is owned by the famous Russell Simmons).
Wachovia Bank is in Violation of 12 U.S.C. 4303(b)(1):
It is alleged that Wachovia, among other banks, are in violation of 12 U.S.C. 4303(b)(1) for their failure to disclose that the condition precedent of a pre-existing overdraft could cause the assessment of additional overdraft fees even when a consumer has sufficient funds to cover the remaining debits. Instead, Wachovia Bank has been wrongly blaming consumers for the additional overdraft fees that they did NOT cause by falsly informing them that the condition precedent was insufficient funds(Wachovia’s accounting practice REQUIRES a pre-existing overdraft in your account to be able to create additional overdraft fees you did not cause yourself…it’s a clever practice..because it makes you look guilty).
The following is the result of a pre-existing overdraft that Wachovia used with its creative accounting practice to cause the consumer to suffer additional overdraft fees she did not cause. The consumer was NOT aware that her one overdraft that she caused would be a condition precedent that would cause her to be assessed additional overdraft fees when applied to Wachovia’s creative accounting practice. Whachovia bank then lied to her and told her that the condition precedent was insufficient funds:
Plaintiff’s account (If debits were paid “chronologically” or from “low to high”):
Date
Posted / Charged
Charge
Balance
Available Balance
Overdraft fee
7/13/09 - 7/13
$500.00*
-$419.21
$35.00
7/13/09 - 7/13
$160.00
$80.79
0
7/13/09 – 7/12
$50.85
$240.79
0
7/13/09 – 7/11
$50.17
$291.64
0
7/13/09 – 7/11
$40.00
$341.81
0
7/13/09 – 7/10
$16.01
$397.82
$381.81
0
Plaintiff’s account (Debits “re-sequenced” and paid from “high to low”):
Date
Posted / Charged
Charge
Balance
Available Balance
Overdraft fee
(Total $210.00)
7/13/09 – 7/10
$16.01*
-$419.21
$35
7/13/09 -7/11
$40.00*
-$403.20
$35
7/13/09 – 7/11
$50.17*
-$363.20
$35
7/13/09 – 7/12
$50.85*
-$313.03
$35
7/13/09 – 7/13
$160.00*
-$262.18
$35
7/13/09 – 7/13
$500.00*
$397.82
-$102.18
$35
Letter From the U.S. Congress
U.S. Congress letter demanding the banks stop this overdraft scam:
(Interesting how this politician removed this letter)
Well, I guess it’s a good thing that I kept a copy. You can see the letter from the U.S. Congress that uses the term “abusive overdraft practices” here:
U.S. District Court Judge Beverly B. Martin for the Norther District of Georgia denied Wadchovia’s motion to dismiss the Complaint. One of the claims that survived was based on Wachovia’s bad faith performance of the contract to increase its profits through increased overdraft fees to the detriment of the Plaintiffs. The order was dated July 2, 2008. Wachovia immediately settled the lawsuit before it was certified.
Support Bill H.R. 1456 “Consumer Overdraft Protection Fair Practices Act”
Besides this class action, H.R. 1456 is your best protection. Support it now as it is pending in Congress. This bill will stop the banks from implementing this abusive overdraft protection. Go to the website below and click the “I SUPPORT THIS BILL” button. Tell everyone you know. Call or email your representative to vote for the bill.
There are good and honest politicians trying to watch out for us; but the bad ones who are getting donations from the banks are opposing this bill.
Ten (10) Democrats have sponsored and co-sponsored this bill:
The proposed bill contains the following provisions:
Consumer Overdraft Protection Fair Practices Act, (H.R. 1456) has three main components:
• It would require banks to provide their customers with the option of choosing whether they want to enroll in overdraft protection programs after receiving clear information about those programs
• It would require notice to customers when an ATM or point-of-sale debit card transaction will trigger an overdraft and an opportunity in real time for the customer to accept or reject the overdraft service and associated fee.
• It would prohibit banks from intentionally manipulating the order in which they process debits on customer accounts so as to increase and maximize their overdraft income.
Here is the bills status..notice NO votes yet:
Introduced
Mar 12, 2009
Referred to Committee
Committee Assignments
Reported by Committee
…
House Vote
…
Senate Vote
…
Signed by President
…
HEARING ON H.R. 1456
Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Hearing:
March 19, 2009
H.R. 1456 Consumer Advocate…YOU HAVE A VOICE:
H.R. 1456 BANK LOBBISTS:
(The banks think you appreciate overdraft fees):
H.R. 1456 CONGRESS WOMAN:
(Listen how the bank representative answers “NO…that’s not how thinks work in the real world” and then he contradicts himself by finally answering “YES” that’s how it works…He had to be advised by someone else to answer “YES”….the banks know your pain…they just don’t care).
The following is an allegation contained in the class action lawsuit being filed against Wachovia bank:
“4.That this action challenges the predatory and bad faith business practices of the Defendant in increasing its profits by failing to disclose to the Plaintiffs that a pre-existing overdraft in their checking accounts was a condition precedent that could and did result in the assessment of additional insufficient funds fees even when the Plaintiffs had sufficient funds in their checking accounts to avoid the additional insufficient funds fees. This action also alleges that the Defendant falsely represented to the Plaintiffs that a condition precedent of insufficient funds was the cause of the additional insufficient funds fees in their checking accounts when the actual condition precedent was a pre-existing overdraft. In fact, if the Defendant did NOT assess the additonal insufficient funds fees on a condition precedent of a pre-existing overdraft, it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for the Defendant to have assessed the additional insufficient funds fees on a condition precedent of insufficient funds because the Plaintiffs had sufficient funds in their checking accounts to pay the remaining debits.
5. That the Defendant is in violation of 12 U.S.C. 4303(b)(1) for failing to inform the Plaintiffs that the condition precedent that could cause and did cause the assessment of the additional insufficient funds fees was a pre-existing overdraft in their checking accounts. Instead, the Defendant falsely informed the Plaintiffs that they were assessed the additional insufficient funds fees due to a condition precedent of insufficient funds.“
This company is under investigation for possible fraud. The allegation is that TollFreeNumbers.com charges consumers a fee for backorders of toll free numbers. But the company does not remove the backordered toll free number from the public directory after a consumer pays the fee. Which causes multiple consumers to backorder the same toll free number and pay the fee. The company then sends these individuals an email informing them that the toll free number is “unavailable” and then keeps the fees.
In short, the allegation being investigated is that TollFreeNumbers.com is making multiple backorder sales on a single toll free number to multiple consumers for a fee with no intention or ability to deliever on its promise. If the investigation confirms the allegations, a lawsuit will be filed against the company.
Preliminary evidence against this company has been posted in the comments section in the above “comments” link.
Mehmet v. Add2Net a/k/a Lunarpages.com (Breach of Contract)
This lawsuit is on appeal in the Appellate Division 1st Department (New York)
The lawsuit involves a breach of contract where Lunarpages.com WAIVED a breach in payment and then before the payment could be mailed out, Lunarpages.com terminated a hosting account and maliciously deleted source code and database files causing over $70,000.00 in damages.
Judge Shirley Korneich of the New York Supreme Court dismissed the complaint by claiming that the Defendant never waived the payment breach. However, the judge overlooked controling law that states if the Defendant gave the breaching individual an opportunity to continue performing the contract, the waiver is implied by law. Furthermore, the judge failed to address the issue of whether a five day mailing period was a reasonable time to recieve the payment. If the five day mailing period was a reasonable time to receive the payment then the judge should have held Lunarpages.com in breach.
I have filed an appeal with the Appellate Division 1st Department in New York. It has been placed on the calendar and it will be heard in the September 2009 term. I am expecting a favorable outcome, which is a reversal and remand.
eBay had solicited individuals to join its eBay affiliate network via Commission Junction where eBay would then pay a commission for buyer referrals to its eBay website. eBay released Commission Junction and initiated its own administrative website of its affiliate program called eBay Partner Network. eBay then locked multiple individuals out of its affiliate network after they spent a considerable amount of time and money to promote eBay. For example, I purchased about 50 domain names, hosting accounts and created about 50 eBay referral websites that were sending buyers to eBay. eBay failed to provide notice or a reason why it breached its contract with these individuals. eBay then failed to pay owed commissions on the buyer referrals nor did it compensate the individuals for their time and money. Furthermore, eBay has banned affiliates out of their eBay Partner Network accounts based on false reasons prior to eBay paying their earned commissions. In addition, eBay Partner Network conceals information on the boundaries of its contract with affiliates who are then unaware of how to avoid a breach. eBay Partner Network then takes advantage of this concealment to ban affiliates who suffer losses. eBay then keeps the commission payments.
The lawsuit against eBay and eBay Partner Network will be filed within California and it will be based on a breach of contract, deceptive and unfair business practices. Injunctive relief will also be requested. If you are interested in joining a class-action lawsuit in this matter, please send your emails to Badisse@Badisse.com.
The comments section above contains a copy of an email sent to affiliate members from eBay refusing to grant them access to the eBay Partner Network and failing to give them a reason why it refused them access when they had a valid contract with eBay.
B. David Mehmet v. Paypal, Inc. (Breach of Contract, Fraud, Defamation)
This lawsuit has been settled.
This lawsuit was filed within the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. The allegation against Paypal in the Complaint was that Paypal’s anti-fraud detection software created false positives in determining which transactions were fraudulent and which were not. Paypal’s software would create millions of false positives. It was alleged that Paypal was unable to timely review each frozen account to determine if they were a victim of a false positive. Thus, Paypal would engage in other methods of trying to manage the millions of false positives by sending out emails that contained false reasons for accounts and funds being frozen. Paypal would then reverse the forzen funds and charge innocent consumers a reversal fee instead of allowing the transaction to be completed. The Complaint alledged that I and millions of other consumers were victimized by a false postive and that Paypal sent an email to my businness associate defaming me in their attempts to conceal that I was a victim of a false positive.
After Paypal failed to get my Complaint dismissed and after some discovery was completed, which included a meeting with Paypal in San Francisco, the lawsuit was amicably settled.
