1099's for credit card illegal fees fines and penalties are illegal and mail fraud

Today I received in my emails from someone marketing information for Accounts Payroll, some sort of seminar on who gets 1099's for on a settlement dispute. It seems to me that allocation should take place in the settlement agreement, otherwise if the income was a write off to the credit card company, it is their problem, should be recaptured as income, and should NOT have to be declared by the creditor--because most of it typically consists of those illegal $35 overlimit and late payment amounts--which are illegal.

No person damages by brach of contract gets a wind fall. Charging $35 for being a few days late on a payment IS a windfall to the creditor. Once that happens, the debtor should cancel the card and inform the creditor that the charge IS illegal. All you get for breach of contract (and this is legal theory going back centuries to English commonlaw) is ACTUAL DAMAGES. How many times must I repeat this. If someone breaches a contract, all they get is actual damages.

So when your credit card company hikes up your bills by $35 for an overlimit charge (which they created), and then a $35 charge for being a few days late, a month late or whatever, you should know those charges are illegal.

Why do you think in court the companies are sooooo eager to settle accounts for pennies on the dollar. If you asked for discovery on the original contract you signed, they probably lost it. If you ask for discovery of all your purchase amounts and interest and fee charges, you will probably find them running an even 2 to 1! That's right. A fifty percent or more penalty for being late, or having lost your job or having a sick dependent or even illness yourself.

There are numerous petitions on www.mypetitionsite.com on making corporations no longer a protected "citizen" under the Constitution and that stricter law may apply to them than citizens--ie, the right to make unlimited campaign contributions as a "citizen" of the US. Please sign and support those.

Commandering a Webpage–Merk & Co. vs. Merk KGaA

Merck KGaA said it had entered into an agreement with Facebook for the exclusive rights to www.facebook.com/merck in March 2010.

Comment: With regard to US trademark law, the US Trademark Office doesn't really get into disputes between rival divisions of company, separate but related companies, and even past split offs and spin offs which apparently this was.

As a result, these issues will need to be litigated in either a US court having jurisdiction, or in one of the international courts regarding the internet--a very costly move.

Just who owns the pages on Facebook and how are they litigated will be a very interesting questions for busiensses.

If you don't have a contractual agreement with all your related companies, past and present, you will not be able to sue for beach of contract, therefore: "Merck is considering causes of action for breach of conduct, tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with prospective business advantage, and/or conversion."

Cyberattacks--Who is responsible?

From the BBC today:

Cybersecurity: Ministers seek help from business

The government says it is planning "unprecedented co-operation" with the private sector to combat cybercrime.

Cabinet Office Minister Francis Maude said its Cyber Security Strategy would make the UK "one of the most secure places in the world to do business".

Data sharing between government and business on cyber threats will increase while a new unit within the MoD will look at cyber "military capabilities".

Cyber-attacks are ranked on a par with international terrorism as a threat.

Last year's national security strategy listed hostile computer attacks as one of four "tier-one" threats to the UK and ministers have set aside £650m of new money to better protect key infrastructure and defence assets from "cyber warfare".

Comment:

One of the interesting aspects of this article is that I have heard from several business owners that it's the Russian Mafia that is responsible for many hackings and cyber attacks.

In an online poll of a computer/hacking website, the 82% of users said the Russians were the best hackers.

If you google "Russians and hacking" numerous websites online declare that Russians and the Chinese are the greatest hackers and can also attack our utilities. Well, there is no profit in that. What most business owners are complaining of is theft of credit card information. While a small to medium business owner is best ceasing to store any credit card information on local computers, most consumers find this to be a horrid pain, typing in you address and complete credit card information with each purchase, it would seem that the local business could keep all credit card numbers, except the last 4, or the last 4 could be encoded with a hand kept code done by mathematical algorithm.

The Occupy Movement and Your Constitutional Right to Protest

Peaceable assembly. What rights do US citizens have? Can we occupy our parks, open areas and other public areas that we pay for and support.

FromWikipedia

"The right to protest is a perceived human right arising out of a number of recognized human rights. While no human rights instrument or national constitution grants the absolute right to protest, such a right to protest may be a manifestation of the right to freedom of assembly, the right to freedom of association, and the right to freedom of speech.^[1]

Many international treaties contain clear enunciations of these rights. Such agreements include the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights, especially Articles 9 to 11; and the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, especially Articles 18 to 22. However, in these and other agreements the rights of Freedom of assembly, freedom of association, and freedom of speech are subject to certain limitations. For example, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights contains prohibitions on advocacy of "national, racial or religious hatred"; and it allows the restriction of the freedom to assembly if it is necessary "in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others." (Articles 20 and 21.)

Protesting, however, is not necessarily violent or a threat to the interests of national security or public safety. Nor is it necessarily civil disobedience, because most protest does not involve violating the laws of the state. Protests, even campaigns of nonviolent resistance or civil resistance, can often have the character (in addition to using nonviolent methods) of positively supporting a democratic and constitutional order. This can happen, for example, when such resistance arises in response to a military coup d'état;^[2] or in the somewhat similar case of a refusal of the state leadership to surrender office following defeat in an election."

While the right to protest is not specifically enumerated in the US Constitution, it appears to fall under the right to freely assemble and the right of free speech.

My favorite to the SunTimes this week went:

Let's see, we can occupy Afghanistan (for opium), we can occupy Iraq (for oil), we can even now occupy Libya (for more oil), but we can't occupy our own parks and public spaces for the purpose of protesting incredible tuition hikes, massive unemployment, shipping jobs overseas, etc.

And the news media (which I guess belongs to the 1%) keeps on saying the protesters are disorganized and have no agenda. What's up with that?

Take a look at http://boingboing.net/2011/11/18/police-pepper-spraying-arrest.html

you will not believe 1) how peaceful protesting students were pepper sprayed like bugs and 2) how the crowd chanted "shame on you", surrounded the officers peacefully (despite the fact they were carrying guns, tear gas rifles and batons) and moved the POLICE out of the area by chanting "you can go" repeatedly.

While mayors around the world will be watching this on how to prevent such protests, students can learn how to conduct a peaceful, effective protest.

This is all over the internet. The news media cannot shut down what millions of people have already viewed, over and over. The truth is that the protests have great meaning, they are done in peace, and they are amazingly effective.

FBI deniest water utility hacking by Russians

From the BBC today:

FBI plays down claim that hackers damaged US water pump

Reports of a hacking attack raised fears about the security of the US water system

Continue reading the main story

Related Stories

• How hackers threaten utilities
• Hackers 'attack' US water system
• Russia and China 'top cyberspies'

US officials have cast doubt over reports that a water pump in Illinois was destroyed by foreign hackers.

The FBI and the Department of Homeland Security said they had "found no evidence of a cyber intrusion".

The Illinois Statewide Terrorism and Intelligence Center (STIC) previously claimed a hacker with a Russian IP address caused a pump to burn out.

A security expert, who flagged up the story, said he was concerned about the conflicting claims.

Information about the alleged 8 November breach was revealed on Joe Weiss's Control Global blog last week. His article was based on a formal disclosure announcement by the Illinois STIC.

The report said that the public water district's Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System (Scada) had been hacked as early as September.

It claimed that a pump used to pipe water to thousands of homes was damaged after being repeatedly powered on and off.

It added that the IP address of the attackers had been traced back to Russia.

The news attracted attention because it could have been the first confirmed case of foreign hackers successfully damaging a US utilities.

My comment: As long as the local water supplies continue to be contaiminated with fluroride, a known and dangerous neurotoxin (fluroride is the main ingredient in rat and mouse poison--check it out), and they allow other dangerous materials to pass through public water systems, including skewing radioactive test results, there is no reason for the Russians to hack anything in our water supplies. The public's apathy toward known and well established toxins are firmly established by our own freely elected politicians.

The occupy movement needs to get involved with the CDC, NIH, EPA and other government agencies that continue to favor the interests of big business over the consumer. Organic shouldn't be an option--the government has a duty to keep known toxins out of our food supply and ensure crops are fertilized with compost and manure which has many, many more nutrients rather than the "spray on" Monsanto, Cargill, ADM type of only 8 to 10 nutrients. The human body needs 98 nutrients per day. Where do you think our current epidemic of heart disease, cancer and dementia is coming from? Our nutrient poor crops, lack of independent (not drug company sponsored research) by the NIH and CDC, and the lassiez faire approach of the EPA.

Oh, don't get me going. The Occupy movement is only at the tip of the ice berg. Andrew Jackson said that corporations left to run amuck will become the greatest threat to any democracy.

HTC looses patent infringement claims at ITC

One of the things that patent owners can do to protect their products is to register their patent and trademark rights with US Customs. Customs can then sua sponte, or as informed by a patent owner, seize all infringing goods under 35 CFR section 137 and hold the goods until an administrative hearing is held in Washington DC.
Apparently this happened with a shipment of Apple phones into the US. HTC has been longing to get rid of iPhone, iPad, etc. by claiming patent infringement of its graphics patents.
Today, the appeals court at the ITC delcared two graphics patents held by HTC to be not infringed by Apple products. HTC stock fell 5%.

College Expenses--Don't wait to file a Petition

In re the Marriage of Petersen, No. 1108984, 2011 WL 4391130 (Ill. Sep. 22, 2011), holds that a divorced party, whose divorce decree reserves the issue of college expenses and who wishes to later petition a court to force their ex-spouse to contribute to said expenses, cannot obtain contributions for expenses that predate the petition.

In a recent case decided by the Illinois Supreme Court, the court decided that a wife’s Petition for contribution to college expenses could not operate retroactively, but said college expenses would only be awarded for current bills and invoices.

From the ISBA:

Overall, Petersen nonetheless provides a cautionary reminder for thousands of divorced individuals in Illinois. Namely, spouses who possess divorce decrees that reserve college expenses for further determination, yet eventually desire to obtain a contribution to these expenses from their ex-spouse, must be sure to petition the court for said contribution at the earliest possible time to ensure they are not precluded from receiving contributions for expenses that predate the petition. Notably, Petersen does not expressly explain when an expense will be deemed to have predated a petition. Is the date upon which the expense is incurred instructive? The invoice due date? The actual date of payment? Absent express guidance from the court, family law practitioners should err on the side of caution and advise their clients to file their petitions for college contributions as soon as practicable. Otherwise, the client could end up footing the bill for thousands of dollars that may otherwise be subject to contribution from their ex-spouse.

For further info, see:http://www.isba.org/sections/familylaw/newsletter/2011/11/collegeexpensecontributionsbydivorc

Chicago Parking Tickets--Dismissed! No boot!

Today I found out how you can get out of all boot charges, and that involves having the client die. I went out to my car today to find a boot on it. Over about 2 or 3 years I received a number of dumb ticket for parking "in an alley" (not true, the "alley" is actually a private drive and not part of the city), for not having a current registration (my mom forgot to give me the paperwork, she had terminal cancer), and silly me, I just mailed in the evidence (which I think they just toss away), thinking everything was okay (though I know they post this on the internet someplace).
Meanwhile she continues to get the notices but isn't interested any longer in the problems of life.
So I got a boot. But with a copy of a certified death certificate, which they fax and review some place, I have no idea, they did in fact take off the boot and I don't believe there are any charges against the car any longer.
Yeah.
So remember, if the owner of the car dies, you can get those dumb tickets dismissed and all you need is a copy of a death certificate.
It takes about an hour or so them to do this, and I don't know why, but be prepared to spend some time at your local facility.