Category Archives: Attorneys

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/

 

Advertisements

Hillary Clinton is “evil incarnate”, Hillary: “If you want to talk about real evil, it’s her”, David Schippers interviews, Schippers life long Democrat voted twice for Bill, Man of principles

Hillary Clinton is “evil incarnate”, Hillary: “If you want to talk about real evil, it’s her”, David Schippers interviews, Schippers life long Democrat voted twice for Bill, Man of principles

“As a result of our research and review of the Referral and supporting documentation, we respectfully submit that there exists substantial and credible evidence of fifteen separate events directly involving President William Jefferson Clinton that could constitute felonies which, in turn, may constitute grounds to proceed with an impeachment inquiry.”…David Schippers  House Judiciary Committee October 5, 1998

“Let me tell you something. They were all over that woman,” Schippers told NewsMax.com. “And it was the type of stuff we ran into with the outfit (the Chicago mob). Intimidation just by watching her, making their presence known. … Just to let her know ‘We can do what we want.’ ”…David Schippers

“Hillary: “If you want to talk about real evil, it’s her””…David Schippers

 

I am not a fan of either political party, especially the uber corrupted Democrat Party.

David Schippers, a life long Democrat who voted for Bill Clinton twice, criticized both parties.

He was the lead counsel in the impeachment investigations of Bill Clinton.

Mr. Schippers passed away in October 2018. God bless him and his family.

I wish that we had a real 2 party system of people like Mr. Schippers who put God and country first over ambition and political party.

David Schippers told the truth about the Clintons and especially Hillary.

From Free Republic April 27, 2002 regarding a radio interview of David Schippers.

“David Schippers, the man called in by Henry Hyde to be chief counsel of the impeachment of William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, has been very candid and succinct in his description of Hillary Clinton. When asked about her on FreeRepublic Radio, he described her as “evil incarnate.”

He also described Bill Clinton as the worst thing to ever happen to this country.

Those who are still wearing the ceremonial kneepads and drinking the Clinton Kool-Aid are hard pressed to criticize Schippers as a member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Schippers, you see, is a life long Democrat. Schippers, working under Robert Kennedy, helped take down the Chicago mob. Schippers voted twice for Bill Clinton.”

Read more:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/673688/posts

In a October 21, 2016 interview by Sandy Rios on American Family Association radio, Mr. Schippers called Hillary evil again, worse even than Bill Clinton.

Hillary: “If you want to talk about real evil, it’s her”

Listen to the entire interview here:

https://afr.net/podcasts/sandy-rios-in-the-morning/2016/october/interview-with-david-schippers-chief-chief-investigative-counsel-for-the-us-house-judiciary-committee/

We owe David Schippers a tremendous debt of gratitude.

More Americans need to follow his example.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

David Schippers obituary, What fake news doesn’t want you to know Part 1, Schippers Democrat man of principle exposed Clintons, Thank God for David Schippers

David Schippers obituary, What fake news doesn’t want you to know Part 1, Schippers Democrat man of principle exposed Clintons, Thank God for David Schippers

“The White House wanted any applicant for citizenship to be naturalized in time to register for the November election, so the pressure on the INS was constant.”…David Schippers

“Let me tell you something. They were all over that woman,” Schippers told NewsMax.com. “And it was the type of stuff we ran into with the outfit (the Chicago mob). Intimidation just by watching her, making their presence known. … Just to let her know ‘We can do what we want.’ ”…David Schippers

“Thank God for the life of David Schippers. He is a shining example for all Americans.”…Citizen Wells

 

If you are a Democrat, first get right with God and then follow the example of David Schippers, a man of principle.

The fake news media has covered his passing, but they have not reported how he exposed the Clintons. Citizen Wells will.

From Legacy Obituaries.

“David Phillip Schippers, Jr., age 88, a resident of Grayslake, passed away on Friday, September 28, 2018 at his home. He was born on November 4, 1929. David was an attorney for 59 years, a member of St. Gilbert Catholic Church and a lifelong White Sox fan. David is survived by his devoted wife, Jacquline, of 66 years. He is further survived by his 10 children, Kate Schippers (Michael Batka), David Schippers III ( Pat Connor), Tiyi Schippers (David Bunce), Ann Schippers Winter (Bob Winter), Colleen Schippers Margolis (Lou Margolis), Hon. Thomas Schippers (Carol), Kevin Schippers (Beth), Dr. Mimi Schippers ( Robert Scott Bullock, Marc Pagani), Patrick Schippers (Trisha), Peter Schippers (Dr. Laura Taylor); 26 grandchildren; and 29 great grandchildren.”

Read more:

https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/chicagotribune/obituary.aspx?n=david-phillip-schippers&pid=190355734&fhid=24620

From the Chicago SunTimes.

“David P. Schippers Jr., the Republican Party’s chief counsel in the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, died of pancreatic cancer Friday at 88 at his home in Grayslake.

In 1998, U.S. Rep. Henry J. Hyde, R-Illinois, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, appointed Mr. Schippers to be the committee’s chief investigator as it weighed whether to endorse the impeachment of Clinton.

After independent counsel Ken Starr had recommended 11 grounds for impeachment, including obstruction of justice and lying under oath, Mr. Schippers, a Chicago criminal defense lawyer and former federal prosecutor, said there were at least 15.

“If you don’t impeach, then no House of Representatives will ever be able to impeach again,” he said. “The bar will be so high that only a convicted felon or a traitor will need to be concerned.”

In December 1998, the House Judiciary Committee approved articles of impeachment for perjury and obstruction of justice, sending the question to the full House. Days later, for just the second time in history, the Republican-controlled House voted to impeach a president–in this case, for misleading officials about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

After a trial, the Republican-controlled Senate voted on Feb. 12, 1999, to acquit Clinton.

“In the U.S. Senate, politics trumped principles, and polls trumped honor,” Mr. Schippers said in a book he wrote with Alan P. Henry, “Sellout: the Inside Story of President Clinton’s Impeachment.”

He felt “he had a solid case, and he didn’t think all of those people in the Senate were honoring their oath of office,” according to his son David. But his son said he also knew this: “You win some, you lose some.””

“He used to tell his kids, “Never bet against God, Notre Dame and the Democratic Party,” according to his son, who said, “After he got old and the Clinton impeachment, he said, ‘At least, I’m two out of three.’ ”

As a federal prosecutor in Chicago in the 1960s, Mr. Schippers headed an organized-crime division under then-U.S. Attorney Edward V. Hanrahan. He helped prosecute Sam Battaglia, a successor to Chicago mob boss Sam Giancana. And his unit’s work led to a yearlong stay at the Cook County Jail for Giancana, sent there for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury.”

Read more:

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/chicago-attorney-david-schippers-a-key-figure-in-bill-clinton-impeachment-dies/

For the rest of the story, what fake news is not telling you, stay tuned.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

 

Fourteenth Amendment birthright citizenship, Trump right Ryan and other Democrats wrong, Alien parent(s) must be domiciled in US legally, Misquoted and misused to protect Obama and agenda

Fourteenth Amendment birthright citizenship, Trump right Ryan and other Democrats wrong, Alien parent(s) must be domiciled in US legally, Misquoted and misused to protect Obama and agenda

“Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.”
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.”…Marbury V Madison

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

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

 

Attorney Mario Apuzzo has done an oustanding job for years of clarifying the US Constitution and statutes in regard to US citizenship and Natural Born Citizen.

The following addresses the citizen birthright bestowed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

“In Article II, the Constitution demands the status of “natural born.” In the Fourteenth Amendment, it demands “born” in the United States and “subject to its jurisdiction” at the time of birth. Only a child born in the country (or its jurisdictional equivalent) to citizen parents can be an Article II “natural born” “Citizen of the United States.” Minor v. Happersett (1875). In contradistinction, a child born in the United States (or its jurisdictional equivalent) to one or two alien parents can under the Fourteenth Amendment be a “born” “citizen of the United States.” U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1989).  It should be noted that Wong Kim Ark also added in its holding that the alien parents of the U.S.-born child were domiciled in the United States.  The Court felt that the fact of domicile gave the United States sufficient jurisdiction over the parents which at birth spilled over to the child.”

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/search?q=fourteenth

There is a huge difference between visiting the US illegally and being legally domiciled here.

Legal definition: “Domicile is a person’s permanent place of dwelling. It is a legal relationship between a person and a locality. ”

state of domicile.: “The state in which a person has his/her permanent residence or intends to make his/her residence, as compared to where the person is living temporarily.”

Case closed!

Next subject.

Once again, Trump is right and the Democrats and spineless RINOs are wrong.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Thrivent claim news, Dr. Grover office contact, Sincere investigation attempt?, Records not requested in 2017 contrary to Thrivent letter statement, Mediation session sham

Thrivent claim news, Dr. Grover office contact, Sincere investigation attempt?, Records not requested in 2017 contrary to Thrivent letter statement, Mediation session sham

“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.”…North Carolina Consumers Council

“The insurance companies understand that if they deny and deny claims, then many of the claimants will never pursue their claim,”…ABC News Good Morning America April 25, 2008

“Companies And CEOs Rarely Admit To Wrongdoing”…NPR Sept. 20, 2013

 

From Citizen Wells October 15, 2018.

“I have in my possession startling new evidence which explains the “Alice in Wonderland” responses and requests I received from Thrivent personnel and agents during the processing of my disability claims.

I am requesting that you examine the letter your senior claims examiner sent to the NC Insurance Commission on  August 10, 2018 and take the appropriate actions.

If I were in your shoes, after examining and reviewing the evidence, I would immediately issue an apology and make reparations.

In the absence of those Christian responses, I am requesting again that we proceed to mediation instead of Thrivent’s insistence on perceived authority to mandate binding arbitration.”

https://citizenwells.com/2018/10/15/to-brad-hewitt-thrivent-financial-for-lutherans-request-for-mediation-based-on-startling-new-evidence-request-you-examine-august-10-2018-letter-senior-claims-examiner-sent-to-nc-insurance-commissio/

Has a sincere effort to investigate what has actually transpired in my claims case begun?

I received a call from Dr. Grover’s office on Tuesday, Oct. 23, 2018, at 3:00 PM, asking if I had given my permission for an insurance company to receive my records.

I answered yes.

Since this phone number did not match the one I had on record, I decided I must verify it. I also wanted to know if anyone had requested my records in 2017.

On Friday, Oct. 26, 2018, I called the number which was answered as Dr. Grover’s office. I verified my identity and asked if anyone had requested my records in 2017. I was told someone would call me back.

I received a call several hours later. No one requested my records in 2017.

Thrivent Attorney Wayne Luck during mediation and the same claims person who wrote the 6 page letter to the NC Insurance Commission with the nonsensical contract explanation, the  “Alice in Wonderland” protocol, tried to accuse me of falsifying records. The claims person in her letter to my former attorney stated that Dr. Grover’s office had no records for me. As you note above, Dr. Grover’s office had no record of Thrivent requesting my records.

I however, have multiple copies of documents proving Dr. Grover saw me multiple times.

At no time has Thrivent requested these records.

The hole is getting deeper.

I will not put off forever revealing the  “Alice in Wonderland” nonsense the Thrivent claims person wrote.

I hope that someone(s) at Thrivent is intelligent and moral enough to seek the truth.

Background on Dr. Grover controversy.

http://eachstorytold.com/2018/10/27/thrivent-claim-more-startling-new-evidence-of-fraud-or-incompetence-dr-grovers-office-called-consequence-of-alice-in-wonderland-protocol/

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Companies and CEOs rarely admit to wrongdoing,  Lawyers won’t let them, An apology helps to subtract the insult from the injury, thereby minimizing the injured party’s anger toward the offender

Companies and CEOs rarely admit to wrongdoing,  Lawyers won’t let them, An apology helps to subtract the insult from the injury, thereby minimizing the injured party’s anger toward the offender

“How might my behavior be perceived if it appeared in social media feeds, on the news or in tomorrow’s headlines?”...Thrivent “Code of Conduct”

“do unto others as you would have them do unto you”… Matthew 7:12

“An apology helps to subtract the insult from the injury, thereby minimizing the injured party’s anger toward the offender.”…Jonathan R. Cohen, Assistant Professor of Law

 

From NPR.

“Companies And CEOs Rarely Admit To Wrongdoing”

“SONARI GLINTON, BYLINE: Here’s a lesson we’ve all probably learned from our parents: When you’re wrong, say you’re sorry; fess up, admit it. These are toddler lessons – “Sesame Street,” “Mister Rogers.” So why do companies and CEOs so rarely admit that they screwed up?

KATHERINE PHILIPS: My cynical answer is, the lawyers won’t let them.

GLINTON: Katherine Philips is a professor of leadership and ethics at Columbia’s business school. She says one of the main reasons companies like JPMorgan don’t usually admit to wrongdoing, is because that will open them to crushing liabilities from plaintiff’s lawyers.

But Philips says there’s another element at play.

PHILIPS: One of the basic kind of psychological needs of human beings is to save face – right? – and to not look stupid, and not look like they don’t know what they’re doing. And people who are in powerful positions, and in charge, oftentimes feel that pressure even more so.”

Read more:

https://www.npr.org/2013/09/20/224296660/why-companies-and-ceos-rarely-admit-to-wrongdoing

ADVISING CLIENTS TO APOLOGIZE

Jonathan R. Cohen, Assistant Professor, University of Florida, Frederic G. Levin College of Law.

“Such factors prompt a question: Should lawyers discuss the possibility
of apology with clients more often? In this Article I argue that, in civil
cases, lawyers should discuss with clients the possibility of apology more
often than they now do.11 Not only is apology morally right and socially
beneficial, but in many cases making an apology is in the client’s (defendant’s)
best interest. This is not to say that there are no risks associated
with apology, not the least of which is the fear that an apology can be used
against one’s client in court as an admission of fault. However, when attention
is paid to the context in which an apology is offered and how it is
made, often “safe” apologies posing relatively little risk of increased liability
can be offered. Further, the possible benefits of apology to the client
(defendant) are under-recognized.”

“An apology can be an important step in preventing future antagonistic
behavior, including litigation. When an injury has occurred, there is a root
question to be resolved: Are you (the offender) my friend or my foe? An
apology signals that the offender wishes to establish or re-establish a
friendly relationship. It is a way of saying to the injured party: “I am your
friend, not your foe.” Implicit in this statement is often a second one, “I
want to have constructive future interactions, not destructive ones.” As
one might expect, this approach frequently works: The offender’s apology
often catalyzes the injured party’s forgiveness.”

“Indignity can be a large barrier to compromise, and in many cases, an
apology is needed before other aspects of the dispute, such as monetary
compensation, can be settled. As Goldberg, Green, and Sander write,
“[At] times, an apology alone is insufficient to resolve a dispute, but will
so reduce tension and ease the relationship between the parties that the issues
separating them are resolved with dispatch.”30 This observation has a
public policy corollary to which I shall return later: If we want to encourage the private settlement of, rather than the litigation of, disputes, allowing
parties to make apologies soon after an injury is critical.”

“Apology and forgiveness may also offer paths for spiritual and psychological
growth. By apologizing for, rather than denying or avoiding,
the damage he caused to his neighbor’s window, Hank becomes a better
person. By failing to apologize, Mr. Tiller may no longer be able to look at
himself in the mirror, or, should he meet her again, look Ms. Jones in the
eye. Responsibility and respect, rather than denial and avoidance, lie at
apology’s core. Within many religious and ethical systems, offering an
apology for one’s wrongdoing is an important part of moral behavior, as is
forgiving those who have caused offense.”

“One strategic benefit of an apology is that, if the injured party receives
the apology early enough, she may decide not to sue. For a legal
dispute to occur, injury alone is not sufficient. The injured party must also
decide to bring a legal claim.36 Taking the step to make a legal claim is
often triggered by the injured party’s anger. An early apology can help defuse
that anger and thereby prevent a legal dispute.37 The lesson here is an
important one. While there are risks to making an apology, there are also
risks to not making an apology. Accordingly, even if an apology could be
used against the offender at trial as proof of the offender’s liability (a topic
I will address shortly), in some cases it may still make sense for the offender
to apologize. The economically oriented might describe such an
apology as a gamble that an offender should take if and only if the expected
benefits from doing so, which depend upon the extent to which an
apology would decrease the likelihood of suit, exceed the expected costs,
which depend upon the extent to which an apology would harm the offender’s
case at trial.”

“VI. CONCLUSION
It is easy to see our world the way it is, and lose sight of the way it
should be. When an offender injures another, one would hope that, to the
extent that the offender feels at fault, he would apologize. This is not only
sound morality, it is a good way to prevent protracted disputes. An apology
helps to subtract the insult from the injury, thereby minimizing the injured
party’s anger toward the offender. Without an apology, what might
have been a minor offense may escalate into a major dispute.

While one could argue that lawyers should discuss the possibility of
apology with clients more often because apologizing when one has injured
another is the right thing to do, which is true, or because society would be
better off if more offenders apologized, which is also true, I have not done
so here. Rather, I have argued that lawyers should discuss apology more
often with their clients because often doing so would make their clients
better off. (Discussing apology with clients may make many lawyers
worse off, but that is another matter.) In many cases, the potential benefits
of apology are great, and when care is taken in how the apology is made—
within a “safe” legal mechanism like mediation, and with attention to nuances
such as admitting fault without assuming liability if insurance coverage
is at issue—the risks of apology are small. While our laws could be
and should be reworked to make “safe” apology easier, our existing legal
rules allow apologies to play a much larger role in legal disputes than they
now do.”

Read more:

https://www-bcf.usc.edu/~usclrev/pdf/072402.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

To Brad Hewitt Thrivent Financial for Lutherans, Request for mediation based on startling new evidence, Request you examine August 10, 2018 letter senior claims examiner sent to NC Insurance Commission

To Brad Hewitt Thrivent Financial for Lutherans, Request for mediation based on startling new evidence, Request you examine August 10, 2018 letter senior claims examiner sent to NC Insurance Commission

“We ended the year with a total adjusted surplus of $ 4.6 billion.”…Thrivent Magazine spring 2010

“Most private consumer lawyers are very reluctant, or completely unwilling, to
represent clients in a system that they believe is rigged against consumers.
Unlike the banking industry lawyers, consumer lawyers generally only get
paid if they win cases. Many of them have a reasonable, earned distrust of
forced arbitration, and extensive surveys of consumer lawyers consistently
show that most will walk away from a case rather than go to arbitration.”…CFPB study May 18, 2016

“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

 

I have in my possession startling new evidence which explains the “Alice in Wonderland” responses and requests I received from Thrivent personnel and agents during the processing of my disability claims.

I am requesting that you examine the letter your senior claims examiner sent to the NC Insurance Commission on  August 10, 2018 and take the appropriate actions.

If I were in your shoes, after examining and reviewing the evidence, I would immediately issue an apology and make reparations.

In the absence of those Christian responses, I am requesting again that we proceed to mediation instead of Thrivent’s insistence on perceived authority to mandate binding arbitration.

Prior to my receipt of the new evidence, I requested that we proceed to mediation in a letter I wrote to Thrivent dated June 11, 2018:

“I was informed that the appeal process was reopened after the mediation session of February 2017. This was the result of a discussion between my attorney, attorney Wayne Luck and the mediator, Mr. Gwyn. Mr Gwyn passed away over six months ago. Recently my attorney filed a lawsuit and Thrivent reiterated that we are bound by the MDRP process. My recommendation is that we go to the next step following appeal, Mediation.”

In that letter I went into much detail about the fact that the first mediation was improperly conducted.

Response from Thrivent’s outside attorney July 12, 2018.

“You asked to be informed if “there is a change of heart or philosophy.” Based on the facts as Thrivent now understands them, it will not change its position regarding mediation.”

Based on the premise: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”

If Thrivent had treated me squarely, with concern for me as a member and human being, I might have embraced arbitration.

On August 9, 2018, Thrivent’s current outside attorney sent the following:

“Please know that Thrivent’s hope in commencing arbitration is that your long-standing dispute with the Society can be resolved with finality, which is to the benefit of you and Thrivent alike.”

Seems sincere, right?  I have no ax to grind with the attorney at this point. He is acting on Thrivent’s information and instructions.

The next day, August 10, 2018, the letter from Thrivent’s senior claims examiner perpetuates (and explains) the “Alice in Wonderland” position and uses that bizarre explanation to attack me.

So much for sincerity.

I sent the following to the attorney on August 22, 2018:

“Thrivent may or may not have informed you of their response to the NC Insurance Commission query regarding my complaint.

[Redacted] of Thrivent sent a 6 page response dated August 10, 2018.

Since you are the newest and therefore most “innocent” player in this controversy, represent Thrivent in some capacity, an officer of the court and bound by the ethics of the NC Bar, and, because I believe it is the right thing to do, I am giving you a heads up.”

I have also learned a great deal about arbitration and its mandatory use in insurance policies.

The following aspects are problematic:

1) This matter could have been cleared up years ago, in a courtroom or simply by representation from an attorney with the specter of going to court a possibility.

2) Thrivent maintained that we were bound by their MDRP, Member Dispute Resolution Program, which they enacted retroactively.

  • My policy was taken out in 1985. Litigation was permitted.
  • Thrivent changed their bylaws in 1999.
  • Thrivent made this change retroactive. State law allows as long as contract benefits are not diminished or destroyed.
  • I increased my coverage in 2000. This bylaw change was not presented to me nor did I agree to it.
  • Notification after my claim in 2009 that I was bound by the MDRP was unjust and diminished my contract benefit.
  • Most attorneys will not take on clients with mandated arbitration contracts on a contingency basis. I discovered that personally.
  • Thrivent, via outside attorneys, kept changing their position on arbitration. This, along with other tactics, led to my loss of legal representation.

 

3. The NAIC, National Association of Insurance Commissioners, on August 15, 2016 stated:

“Why arbitration clauses should be banned”

“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.”

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

4. The North Carolina Consumers Council states:

“The problem comes with mandatory or forced arbitration where you are giving away your legal rights if the arbitration process doesn’t work in your favor. Companies have the advantage in arbitration and want you to go through the arbitration process.”

https://www.ncconsumer.org/news-articles-eg/mandatory-arbitration-clauses-are-everywhere-but-arent-good-for-the-consumer.html

5. National Association of Consumer Advocates June 23, 2012: “According to NACA’s survey of nearly 350 consumer attorneys, it is clear that private arbitration does not compare at all well to our nation’s traditional justice system. Consumers have lost the opportunity to assert their rights under many state and federal consumer protection statutes because of pre-dispute binding mandatory arbitration.”

https://www.consumeradvocates.org/sites/default/files/NACA2012BMASurveyFinalRedacted.pdf

6. CFPB study May 18, 2016: “Most private consumer lawyers are very reluctant, or completely unwilling, to represent clients in a system that they believe is rigged against consumers. Unlike the banking industry lawyers, consumer lawyers generally only get paid if they win cases. Many of them have a reasonable, earned distrust of forced arbitration, and extensive surveys of consumer lawyers consistently show that most will walk away from a case rather than go to arbitration.”

https://financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hhrg-114-ba15-wstate-pbland-20160518.pdf

7. Arbitration, lacking the protections of litigation, is binding.

I have tried repeatedly to resolve this injustice and have reached out with an olive branch, which was difficult given what has transpired and the impact on my life.

Mr. Hewitt, in the Citizen Wells article of July 30, 2018 I appealed to you to investigate my case since I believed that you and management have been misinformed.

I also conveyed an attempt I made with your attorney to make lemonade out of lemons:

In a recent email I sent to your outside attorney I stated:

“We appear to be at an impasse.

I am an expert on business & business systems. Over 30 years experience, with customers with $ 5 million to over a billion in sales.

I represented 3 companies in Manhattan.

My proposal:
Take this out of the legal/adversarial mode.
Hire me as a consultant to explain what happened and to prevent it from happening again.

They tout the MDRP program as benefiting the members and representing their core Christian values.
What better way to exemplify it than to create a win win situation, heal our wounds & to fix any problems in the system.

I am certain a bible verse applies.”

Response from Thrivent outside attorney June 29, 2018:

“As to your offer to serve as a consultant, we appreciate your creativity. Thrivent, however, is constrained by the MDRP program, and hiring you is simply not an option. ”

Our options are narrowing.

Wells

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/