Category Archives: Attorneys

Greg Craig indictment and rest of story, Gregory Craig classmate friend of Hillary, Defended Bill Clinton’s impeachment, Tony Podesta ties

Greg Craig indictment and rest of story, Gregory Craig classmate friend of Hillary, Defended Bill Clinton’s impeachment, Tony Podesta ties

“Craig wasn’t a Clinton intimate. He’d known him casually at Yale Law School, but he’d been friendlier with Clinton’s girlfriend, Hillary Rodham — like Craig, originally a member of the Class of ’72.”…Washington Post November 19, 1998

“Given his defense of Bill Clinton’s lies and obstruction of justice, what sort of legal advice will Mr. Craig give to President Obama?…The Hill November 21, 2008

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

From Fox News April 12, 2019.

“Greg Craig, ex-Obama White House counsel, indicted for alleged false statements

“Greg Craig, former White House counsel for then-President Barack Obama, was indicted Thursday on two counts of making false and misleading statements to investigators — including Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team — in connection with his work on behalf of Russia-backed former President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych.”

“The Washington-based lawyer was indicted by a grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for allegedly falsifying and concealing “material facts” and making false statements both to Mueller and to the DOJ National Security Division’s Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) Unit.”

Read more:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/greg-craig-ex-obama-white-house-counsel-indicted-on-making-false-statements-to-doj

From Fox News December 5, 2018.

“Mueller-referred probe into Obama White House Counsel Greg Craig, Clinton-linked Tony Podesta heats up: report

An investigation referred to Justice Department prosecutors by Special Counsel Robert Mueller earlier this year into possible criminal activity by Clinton-linked Washington insider Tony Podesta and former Obama White House Counsel Greg Craig is heating up, according to a new report that underscores federal authorities’ increasing enforcement of laws governing foreign business relationships.”

Read more:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mueller-referred-probe-into-clinton-linked-podesta-group-reportedly-kicks-into-high-gear

From The Washington Post November 19, 1998.

“Gregory B. Craig’s friends were perplexed two months ago when he gave up one of the most prestigious jobs in Washington to take one of the most troublesome: Why descend from the rarefied aerie of foreign policy into the squalid mess of a sex scandal?

Even Craig — who’ll be in the game today as President Clinton’s designated “quarterback” when the House Judiciary Committee opens its impeachment hearings — wasn’t eager for the new assignment.

“I hope you won’t think it amiss if I tell you I’m not enthusiastic,” he recalls telling John Podesta, then deputy White House chief of staff, when Podesta asked him in early September to consider leading Clinton’s defense team in the impeachment inquiry. “John said, ‘Well, just think about it.’ So I kept thinking about it — and my enthusiasm didn’t grow.””

“But getting mixed up in Clinton’s personal problems struck some as a lousy career move. Moreover, Craig was joining a White House staff simmering with factional disputes since the Monica Lewinsky matter became public in January.

Yet Craig was hardly new to the business of rescuing public figures from perilous personal crises. While at the powerhouse law firm of Williams & Connolly — where he was a partner of David Kendall, now Clinton’s private attorney — Craig safely guided his former boss, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), through hazardous televised testimony in the 1991 Palm Beach rape trial of nephew William Kennedy Smith.”

“Craig wasn’t a Clinton intimate. He’d known him casually at Yale Law School, but he’d been friendlier with Clinton’s girlfriend, Hillary Rodham — like Craig, originally a member of the Class of ’72. (She and Clinton received their degrees in 1973.) In the intervening years, they’d had little contact.”

“From a spacious West Wing office once occupied by the first lady’s staff, Craig oversees the legal, political and congressional responses to the ever-changing realities of the congressional proceeding while trying to formulate an exit strategy. Within the bounds of constitutional propriety, he must gauge which result is possible short of impeachment: censure, some other sanction, or no sanction at all?

Craig also directs the public relations side, arguing the president’s case to broadcast and print journalists, and making sure that other White House spin doctors are advancing the same arguments. On the organizational chart, he reports to the president, regularly consults with Chief of Staff Podesta, and serves as a bridge and sometime buffer between the lawyers and the political operatives.

With his seasoning as a trial lawyer (he worked on the defense team of would-be presidential assassin John W. Hinckley Jr.) and as a congressional aide (Kennedy’s top foreign policy adviser in the late 1980s), Craig is a hybrid of the legal and political. He was hired in part to quiet the clash between these warring factions in the White House.”

Read more:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/craig111998.htm?noredirect=on

Clinton Impeachment, Judiciary Committee response to Greg Craig, December 12, 1998.

“Washington, D.C. – Following is a statement delivered by Paul J. McNulty, spokesman for the House Judiciary Committee, in response to the statement today by Greg Craig, White House special counsel:
“I am dismayed by the words of the President’s counsel today. After the President yesterday expressed regret to Congress and the American people for his behavior, today the White House strategy is confrontation, not contrition. By returning to the war room politics of partisan attacks, the White House undermines the sincerity and credibility of the President’s words.
Finally, if the White House wants to decide its course of action by opinion polls and surveys — as it apparently thinks the Committee should — that is its choice. The members of the Judiciary Committee, however, have a higher Constitutional duty that cannot be abdicated.””

https://web.archive.org/web/20000816044847/http://www.house.gov/judiciary/121298.htm

From The Hill November 21, 2008 .

“It is disturbing that Barack Obama will allow Bill Clinton’s impeachment lawyer Greg Craig to serve as his White House Counsel.  Many thought Barack Obama had beaten the Clinton political machine.  Instead, he appears to have embraced it.  Given his defense of Bill Clinton’s lies and obstruction of justice, what sort of legal advice will Mr. Craig give to President Obama?  Will it all depend on what the meaning of  “is” is?
Not only did Greg Craig defend the worst of the worst of the Clinton scandals but he also defended the violent government raid that delivered Elian Gonzalez back to Castro’s Cuba.  In fact, we believe that Greg was working with communist Cuban government during the Elian affair.  Greg Craig is the wrong lawyer to serve as White House Counsel in the Obama White House.
Barack Obama’s White House personnel decisions show that he doesn’t seem to care about government integrity.”

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Julian Assange extradition to US, President Trump AG Barr: Get info on Hillary and Seth Rich, Free him,Pin medal on him

Julian Assange extradition to US, President Trump AG Barr: Get info on Hillary and Seth Rich, Free him,Pin medal on him

“Mr. Trump, tear down that wall. That wall between false narrative and truth. Let Julian Assange speak and listen.”…Citizen Wells

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

Julian Assange was arrested and apparently is to be extradited to US.

If he is extradited, President Trump and Attorney General Barr, unless you too are corrupt and/or are damned fools, work with Assange to find out what he knows and has on Hillary Clinton and Seth Rich.

Assange is a hero not a criminal.

He has been trying to expose criminals.

From Zero Hedge.

“Julian Assange Arrested In London On US Extradition Warrant

Update (7:20 am ET): Assange’s lawyer has just confirmed that he was arrested not solely on charges stemming from skipping bail in the UK…but in connection with an extradition request from the US.

Jen Robinson@suigenerisjen

Just confirmed: has been arrested not just for breach of bail conditions but also in relation to a US extradition request. @wikileaks @khrafnsson

2,027 people are talking about this

Jen Robinson@suigenerisjen

From : The US warrant was issued in December 2017 and is for conspiracy with Chelsea Manning @xychelsea in early 2010.

721 people are talking about this

The US warrant was delivered in December 2017, showing that the US prosecutors were behind his arrest.

* * *

Press reports suggested that Assange was arrested at around 10 am London Time (5 am New York) in what appeared to be a “planned operation.” Though his first battle will be with the British legal system over charges of skipping bail when he sought asylum in 2012, analysts expect that he will eventually face extradition to the US, after a sealed indictment against him were accidentally revealed last year. Wikileaks accused Ecuador of illegally terminating Assange’s asylum, adding that the Ecuadorian ambassador invited police inside the embassy to take Assange into custody.”

Read more:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-11/julian-assange-arrested-london

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

Rep Devin Nunes on Russian collusion hoax, Funded by Hillary campaign and DNC  which hid payments by funneling through Perkins Coie, FBI and DOJ support to hoax conspirators

Rep Devin Nunes on Russian collusion hoax, Funded by Hillary campaign and DNC  which hid payments by funneling through Perkins Coie, FBI and DOJ support to hoax conspirators

“Why is Ellen Weintraub, a liberal Democrat and former employee of Perkins Coie, still a member of the FEC since 2002, long after her term expired?”…Citizen Wells

“We control life, Winston, at all its levels. You are imagining that there is something called human nature which will be outraged by what we do and will turn against us. But we create human nature. Men are infinitely malleable.”…George Orwell, “1984″

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

From the Washington Examiner.

“The Russian collusion hoax meets unbelievable end”

By Rep. Devin Nunes

“As the Russia collusion hoax hurtles toward its demise, it’s important to consider how this destructive information operation rampaged through vital American institutions for more than two years, and what can be done to stop such a damaging episode from recurring.

While the hoax was fueled by a wide array of false accusations, misleading leaks of ostensibly classified information, and bad-faith investigative actions by government officials, one vital element was indispensable to the overall operation: the Steele dossier.

Funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democrat National Committee, which hid their payments from disclosure by funneling them through the law firm Perkins Coie, the dossier was a collection of false and often absurd accusations of collusion between Trump associates and Russian officials. These allegations, which relied heavily on Russian sources cultivated by Christopher Steele, were spoon-fed to Trump opponents in the U.S. government, including officials in law enforcement and intelligence.

The efforts to feed the dossier’s allegations into top levels of the U.S. government, particularly intelligence agencies, were championed by Steele, Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson, and various intermediaries. These allegations were given directly to the FBI and Justice Department, while similar allegations were fed into the State Department by long-time Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal.

Their efforts were remarkably effective. Officials within the FBI and DOJ, whether knowingly or unintentionally, provided essential support to the hoax conspirators, bypassing normal procedures and steering the information away from those who would view it critically. The dossier soon metastasized within the government, was cloaked in secrecy, and evaded serious scrutiny.

High-ranking officials such as then-FBI general counsel James Baker and then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr were among those whose actions advanced the hoax. Ohr, one of the most senior officials within the DOJ, took the unprecedented step of providing to Steele a back door into the FBI investigation. This enabled the former British spy to continue to feed information to investigators, even though he had been terminated by the FBI for leaking to the press and was no longer a valid source. Even worse, Ohr directly briefed Andrew Weissmann and Zainab Ahmad, two DOJ officials who were later assigned to special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. In short, the investigation was marked by glaring irregularities that would normally be deemed intolerable.

According to Ohr’s congressional testimony, he told top-level FBI officials as early as August or September 2016 that Steele was biased against Trump, that Steele’s work was connected to the Clinton campaign, and that Steele’s material was of questionable reliability. Steele himself confirmed that last point in a British court case in which he acknowledged his allegations included unverified information. Yet even after this revelation, intelligence leaders continued to cite the Steele dossier in applications to renew the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.”

Read more:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/rep-devin-nunes-the-russian-collusion-hoax-meets-unbelievable-end

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Charlotte Catholic Diocese vicar general and chancellor Monsignor Mauricio West resigns after  “credible allegation” of sexual misconduct involving former adult student of Belmont Abbey College

Charlotte Catholic Diocese vicar general and chancellor Monsignor Mauricio West resigns after  “credible allegation” of sexual misconduct involving former adult student of Belmont Abbey College

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”… Ephesians 6:12

“And yet we pretend to be godly, know how to adorn ourselves most finely and conceal our rascality, resort to and invent adroit devices and deceitful artifices (such as now are daily most ingeniously contrived) as though they were derived from the law codes; yea, we even dare impertinently to refer to it, and boast of it, and will not have it called rascality, but shrewdness and caution. In this lawyers and jurists assist, who twist and stretch the law to suit it to their cause, stress words and use them for a subterfuge, irrespective of equity or their neighbor’s necessity. And, in short, whoever is the most expert and cunning in these affairs finds most help in law, as they themselves say: Vigilantibus iura subveniunt [that is, The laws favor the watchful].”…Martin Luther

 

From The Charlotte Observer.

“A top Diocese of Charlotte official resigns after ‘credible’ sexual misconduct claim

The chancellor of the Catholic Diocese of Charlotte steps down after a “credible allegation” of sexual misconduct involving a former adult student of Belmont Abbey College.”

“The second in command of the Catholic Diocese of Charlotte has stepped down after a “credible allegation” of sexual misconduct involving a former adult student of Belmont Abbey College, the diocese’s newspaper reported Thursday.

Monsignor Mauricio West, the diocese’s vicar general and its chancellor for nearly 25 years, has denied the allegation, the Catholic News Herald reported. Following a period of counseling and assessment, the diocese’s bishop said in a statement, West will be on a leave of absence from his ministerial duties.

West resigned Monday following a finding by the 46-county diocese’s Lay Review Board that the allegations were credible, The statement by Bishop Peter Jugis said.

The events are alleged to have occurred in the mid-1980s, when West was vice president for student affairs at Belmont Abbey, a small, Catholic liberal arts college in Gaston County. They involved multiple incidents of unwanted overtures toward an adult student over a two-year period, the bishop’s statement said.”

“The bishop offered his “deepest apologies” to the victim in the case.

The diocese will take “all necessary steps to root out all inappropriate behavior and to being open and transparent about our handling of all allegations of such conduct,“ Jugis said.

The 67-year-old West has been a longtime volunteer leader in Charlotte, including with the United Way of Central Carolinas and Queens University of Charlotte. He chaired the United Way board in 2004, a United Way spokesman said. He joined the board at Queens in July 2016 and resigned last Thursday, according to a university spokeswoman.

‘WE ARE DEEPLY SORRY’

In a statement, Belmont Abbey Abbot Placid Solari said the school cooperated with the diocese’s investigation and pledged that the school would be transparent in its handling of misconduct allegations.”

Read more:

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article228524279.html

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Mandated arbitration has no place in insurance policies for individuals, NAIC reviewing, McCarran- Ferguson Act allows states to regulate arbitration in insurance over Federal Arbitration Act FAA

Mandated arbitration has no place in insurance policies for individuals, NAIC reviewing, McCarran- Ferguson Act allows states to regulate arbitration in insurance over Federal Arbitration Act FAA

“Thrivent contends that its commitment to individual arbitration is ‘”important to the membership because it reflects Thrivent’s Christian Common Bond, helps preserve members’ fraternal relationships, and avoids protracted and adversarial litigation that could undermine Thrivent’s core mission.’”…Thrivent v. Acosta Nov. 3, 2017

“pre-dispute mandatory arbitration provisions are inappropriate in insurance policies and incompatible with the legal duties insurers owe policyholders when handling their claims.”…NAIC, National Association of Insurance Commissioners, August 15, 2016

“Our organization was founded to help Lutherans care for and support one another in time of need, guided by the principles of the Christian faith.”…Thrivent Code of Conduct

 

From Insurance Business Magazine.

Clicking “accept” on a company’s terms and conditions – something we do daily to use and pay for products and services – usually subjects us to lengthy contractual agreements, many of which contain mandatory arbitration clauses. Proponents of arbitration might think it’s the greatest thing since whole wheat artisanal sliced bread, but mandating arbitration in consumer contracts is troublesome, and it has no place in insurance policies for individuals and small businesses.

Over the last 10 to 15 years, the practice of requiring individuals to agree to arbitrate rather than litigate any future disputes (or forgo the product, service or employment altogether) has been heavily criticized by government agencies, the media, academics and consumer groups. Arbitration, it turns out, is not always faster and cheaper (the two major benefits claimed), and it can suppress the number of consumers pursuing legal remedies, the likelihood of success and the amount of damages.”

“However, placing mandatory arbitration clauses in insurance policies restructures this crucial aspect of the insurer-insured relationship. Companies presumably employ pre-dispute mandatory arbitration provisions because they believe arbitration generally benefits them – and a growing amount of research suggests they are right. In addition, arbitration proceedings are usually confidential, not subject to judicial or regulatory review (absent fraud), and may contractually limit remedies and damages policyholders would otherwise have under their state law. Manipulating the dispute resolution process in this manner in insurance is in conflict with the duties insurers owe their policyholders and is not holding their policyholders’ interests “at least equal to their own.”

These concerns are why NAIC consumer representatives have requested the NAIC amend the Model Unfair Trade Practices Act to prohibit mandatory pre-dispute arbitration clauses in insurance policies sold to individuals, and ideally small businesses. An NAIC working group is now considering this action.”

“Thanks to the strong presumption favoring state insurance regulation in the McCarran- Ferguson Act, states can regulate arbitration in insurance despite the Federal Arbitration Act [FAA], which otherwise pre-empts most state laws restricting arbitration. Every court considering the application of McCarran Ferguson to the FAA has acknowledged that states can ban or restrict arbitration clauses in insurance contracts as long as the state prohibition “regulates the business of insurance” and the proposed arbitration provision would prejudice that law’s purpose.”

Read more:

https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/opinion/arbitration-no-thanks-105347.aspx

From the NAIC, The National Association of Insurance Commissioners, August 15, 2016.

“Why arbitration clauses should be banned”

“Insurers that would insist on mandatory arbitration of policyholder disputes have selected the forum that they believe will be more favorable to them than to their policyholders, if not on each individual claim then in the aggregate. However, manipulating the dispute resolution process in this manner conflicts with the duties insurers owe their policyholders and is not holding their policyholders’ interests “at least equal to their own.”

If arbitration was truly a neutral forum rather than one favoring insurers, then there would be no need for an insurer to insist on its use before a dispute has even arisen. Insurers should utilize arbitration only when the policyholder has consented to do so after an actual dispute occurs (which is what the suggested amendment to the Model Unfair Trade Practices Act should accomplish), rather than requiring it in boilerplate language that the policyholder is very
unlikely to read, could not bargain over the provision even if she did, and could not make an informed decision at the point of sale on the merits. True freedom of contract, combined with the fundamental right to a trial, requires a knowing relinquishment of that right, which can only occur voluntarily once a specific dispute has materialized.”

http://eachstorytold.com/2018/07/16/naic-banning-arbitration-clauses-in-insurance-policies-why-arbitration-clauses-should-be-banned-companies-that-include-pre-dispute-mandatory-arbitration-clauses-do-so-because-it/

From the NAIC 2018 Adopted Committee Charges.

“8. The Pre-Dispute Mandatory Arbitration Clauses (D) Working Group will:
A. Consider the use of: 1) pre-dispute mandatory arbitration clauses; and 2) choice-of-law and choice-of-venue clauses and, if appropriate, prohibit their use in any individual or commercial insurance policies by amending the Unfair Trade Practices Model Act (#880), developing a new model act or developing other guidance regarding their usage.”

https://www.naic.org/documents/index_committees_2018_committee_charges.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Binding arbitration game is rigged against customers, New analysis of almost 9000 arbitration cases confirms biased against consumers, Incentives to slant toward the business

Binding arbitration game is rigged against customers, New analysis of almost 9000 arbitration cases confirms biased against consumers, Incentives to slant toward the business

“pre-dispute mandatory arbitration provisions are inappropriate in insurance policies and incompatible with the legal duties insurers owe policyholders when handling their claims.”…NAIC, National Association of Insurance Commissioners, August 15, 2016

“Companies don’t want to go to court because it puts them on a level playing field. Courts are ruled by law, legal precedent, and legal discovery, which allows litigants to obtain information and evidence from their opponents or from third parties. Discovery is a privilege in arbitration, but not a right. Arbitrators can’t enforce subpoenas, meaning you have to file a lawsuit just to get a third party or a piece of information into the hearing. In open court, you don’t have to jump through nearly as many hoops. Further, judgments in court are often more favorable to the consumer, both in the rate of success and the dollar amount of judgments.”…North Carolina Consumers Council

“Thrivent contends that its commitment to individual arbitration is ‘”important to the membership because it reflects Thrivent’s Christian Common Bond, helps preserve members’ fraternal relationships, and avoids protracted and adversarial litigation that could undermine Thrivent’s core mission.’”…Thrivent v. Acosta Nov. 3, 2017

 

From Stanford Business March 8, 2019.

“Why the Binding Arbitration Game Is Rigged against Customers

A new study documents how companies shop for sympathetic arbitrators, and how the arbitrators compete for their business.”

“It’s the “mandatory arbitration” clause, and it’s in contracts that cover trillions of dollars of business. In the event you have a dispute with the company, it says, you agree in advance to surrender your right to sue and to submit your grievance to a supposedly neutral private arbitrator.

Almost every financial firm insists on mandatory arbitration, but so do legions of businesses in other realms: AT&T and Verizon, Amazon and Apple, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, even Spotify and Shazam.

Now, a new analysis of almost 9,000 arbitration cases from the securities industry confirms what many have long suspected: The system is biased against consumers — and not just because big companies have more money to spend on lawyers.

When it comes to arbitration, the study finds, companies have a big information advantage in fishing for arbitrators who are likely to rule in their favor.

Making matters worse, the arbitrators themselves know that being pro-company in one case greatly increases their chances of being picked for future cases.

An Incentive to Slant

“This is not like having judges, who get paid the same no matter what happens,” says Stanford Graduate School of Business finance professor Amit Seru, who collaborated on the study with Mark Egan at Harvard Business School and Gregor Matvos at the University of Texas at Austin. “Here, you only get paid if you’re selected as an arbitrator. They have incentives to slant toward the business side, because they know that those who don’t do so won’t get picked. Everyone knows what’s happening.”

In their study, the researchers scrutinized thousands of customer disputes with stockbrokers and investment advisors. The data came from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, which oversees the industry’s arbitration process.

The researchers began by confirming that some arbitrators are measurably more business-friendly than others. Comparing cases on an apples-to-apples basis, the researchers estimated that business-friendly arbitrators awarded customers about 12% less money than their more pro-consumer counterparts. On an average case, that equates to about $90,000.

That was just the start, however. Even though the list from which arbitrators are picked is random, pro-business arbitrators were about 40% more likely to be chosen, so their bias had a disproportionate impact. If the arbitrators had been picked purely at random, the researchers estimated, the average award to each customer would have been $50,000 higher.”

Read more:

https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/why-binding-arbitration-game-rigged-against-customers

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Thrivent new employee dispute resolution mandate?, Effective January 1, 2019?, Citizen Wells breaking news?, Teresa Rasmussen new Thrivent CEO October 2018

Thrivent new employee dispute resolution mandate?, Effective January 1, 2019?, Citizen Wells breaking news?, Teresa Rasmussen new Thrivent CEO October 2018

“Thrivent contends that its commitment to individual arbitration is ‘”important to the membership because it reflects Thrivent’s Christian Common Bond, helps preserve members’ fraternal relationships, and avoids protracted and adversarial litigation that could undermine Thrivent’s core mission.’”…Thrivent v. Acosta Nov. 3, 2017

“pre-dispute mandatory arbitration provisions are inappropriate in insurance policies and incompatible with the legal duties insurers owe policyholders when handling their claims.”…NAIC, National Association of Insurance Commissioners, August 15, 2016

“Companies don’t want to go to court because it puts them on a level playing field. Courts are ruled by law, legal precedent, and legal discovery, which allows litigants to obtain information and evidence from their opponents or from third parties. Discovery is a privilege in arbitration, but not a right. Arbitrators can’t enforce subpoenas, meaning you have to file a lawsuit just to get a third party or a piece of information into the hearing. In open court, you don’t have to jump through nearly as many hoops. Further, judgments in court are often more favorable to the consumer, both in the rate of success and the dollar amount of judgments.”…North Carolina Consumers Council

 

 

Has Thrivent Financial implemented a new employee dispute resolution mandate similar to their MDRP dispute resolution mandated for members since 1999?

If so, why is there no news of this until now on the internet or Thrivent’s website?

Was this supposed to be kept secret?

Did someone inadvertently place this on their website where it got on the internet and was subsequently “rectified”, scrubbed?

A lot of questions have been raised.

Teresa Rasmussen, formerly general counsel and a president at Thrivent became CEO in October.

Is this tied to her?

Did this evolve from Thrivent’s lawsuits against the Department of Labor?

Was this lawsuit a catalyst?

“Executive sues Thrivent, saying he was fired because he is black”

http://eachstorytold.com/2018/05/26/thrivent-executive-fired-gregory-m-smith-lawsuit-says-he-was-fired-because-he-is-black-represented-by-attorney-clayton-halunen-we-are-going-to-get-rid-of-that-black-piece-of-shit/

The following link was scrubbed.

https://www.thrivent.com/privacy-and-security/files/Employee-Dispute-Resolution-Program.pdf

WE CAN’T FIND YOUR PAGE

You may have used an out-of-date link, bookmarked a page that has moved or typed the address (URL) incorrectly.

To find the information you are looking for, use the site navigation, visit our homepage, or use the site search.

Nothing was found by searching on their website or the internet.

However, this was found in cache:

This is Google’s cache of https://www.thrivent.com/privacy-and-security/dispute-resolution-program.html. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Nov 12, 2018 11:25:51 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime.

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ESWyoGuIC10J:https://www.thrivent.com/privacy-and-security/dispute-resolution-program.html+&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

The following was found under the FAQ section:

  • Why is Thrivent introducing the Thrivent Dispute Resolution Program?
    • • Thrivent has had a successful Member Dispute Resolution Program in place for 19 years, and now we are providing our workforce with a similar dispute resolution program that is:
      • Neutral.
      • Timely.
      • Cost-effective.
    • Introducing this program puts us in line with many Fortune 500 companies. According to the Economic Policy Institute, 55% of U.S. employees have agreed to arbitration agreements.
  • When does the program take effect?

    Current employees and field sales members must sign their agreements via DocuSign by December 31, 2018, and the program takes effect on January 1, 2019.

  • Am I obligated to use the Thrivent Dispute Resolution Program instead of filing a lawsuit?

    Yes. Thrivent provides the Dispute Resolution Program as the exclusive means to resolve workplace disputes. By contracting with, or accepting and continuing employment with Thrivent, you agree to resolve all work-related disputes within the rules of the Thrivent Dispute Resolution Program. This agreement is binding on Thrivent, its employees and independent field sales members. Workplace disputes not resolved through Workforce Relations, Code of Conduct, the initial appeal or mediation must be arbitrated under the rules of the Thrivent Dispute Resolution Program.

What if I don’t sign the agreement?

Because agreeing to a Thrivent Dispute Resolution Program is a condition of employment for employees and condition of contract for field sales members, employment/contracts will not be continued for anyone who does not agree to the terms of the program. Employees and field sales members who choose not to sign the agreement will not be eligible for any type of severance or transitional pay.

These agreements are binding on both Thrivent, its employees and field sales members. Workplace disputes not resolved by mutual agreement must be arbitrated under the Thrivent Dispute Resolution Program.

Why is there no mention of this dramatic change in Thrivent news or the internet?

Did  they change their minds?

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/