Category Archives: Courts

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

Thrivent new CEO Attorney Teresa J. Rasmussen, Formerly president and general counsel, More “Core Christian Values” or adversarial positions?

Thrivent new CEO Attorney Teresa J. Rasmussen, Formerly president and general counsel, More “Core Christian Values” or adversarial positions?

“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

“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal”…1 Corinthians 13

“And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.”…Jesus, John 8:32

 

I have believed and experienced for years that Thrivent was controlled by attorneys.

Now Thrivent is being run by new CEO Teresa J. Rasmussen, another attorney.

Will she bring more Thrivent touted “Core Christian Values” or attorney driven adversarial positions?

I sent Ms. Rasmussen a heads up email about my case about a week ago.

To her credit, she passed the email on to another in house attorney, the same one who took part in my “mediation” session.

I received an email from him 4 days ago and responded.

From Finance & Commerce October 16, 2018.

“Teresa Rasmussen is Thrivent’s new CEO

Teresa J. Rasmussen, currently president of Minneapolis-based Thrivent Financial, will take over as CEO by the end of the month. She replaces Bradford Hewitt, who is retiring after eight years of leading the financial services organization.

Rasmussen joined Thrivent in 2005 and has served as general counsel, secretary and senior vice president. She previously worked for American Express and Ameriprise Financial and began her career as a trial attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice.

She is the first woman in the CEO position, Thrivent said.

In a press release, Thrivent board chair Bonnie Raquet praised both Hewitt and Rasmussen for the work at the organization.

“Terry has distinguished herself as a strong leader with extraordinary business and legal acumen, as well as a deep understanding of Thrivent’s charter as a fraternal benefit society,” Raquet said. “What’s more, she has deep-seated values and a practical approach to aligning our workforce to serve our members and drive growth.””

Read more:

https://finance-commerce.com/2018/10/teresa-rasmussen-is-thrivents-new-ceo/

Without revealing too much of this exchange at this time (I waited 4 days without a response to write this) I would like to clear up the following statement made by the in house attorney:

” I would very much encourage you to seek the advice of counsel before setting forth on your threat to defame Thrivent.  Thrivent is proud of its trusted reputation and will take necessary steps to protect itself from your misrepresentations and false accusations.  For the past 7 years the Ethisphere Institute has recognized Thrivent as one of the top 100 most ethical organizations in the world.  Again, we will take necessary steps to protect our valued reputation.”

First:

Thrivent’s  “Code of Conduct”

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

Second:

I diligently endeavor to write the truth, the facts. I conveyed this to the first Thrivent outside attorney to contact me and cautioned him on trampling on my First Amendment Rights. I also advised him to have Thrivent contact me with any corrections to inaccurate reporting.

I placed the following in an article dated July 30, 2018 addressed to former CEO Brad Hewitt:

“I recently told the outside attorney who relayed this message that I endeavor to be accurate and do not lie.

I stated that if Thrivent finds any errors or wishes to respond with a rebuttal, I will accomodate them.”

So far I have received no corrections from Thrivent, just threats.

Third:

Apparently there is enough evidence to draw the conclusion that the Ethisphere Institute award is one of the best ethics awards that money can buy.

Last:

If Thrivent wishes to protect its “valued reputation” it should immediately issue an apology to me and set in motion efforts for reparations.

 

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/

NC insurance issues, Hurricane Florence ramifications, Mandatory arbitration impact, Most have no flood insurance, My disability claims impact

NC insurance issues, Hurricane Florence ramifications, Mandatory arbitration impact, Most have no flood insurance, My disability claims impact

“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

“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”…Matthew 7:15

 

Hurricane Florence and its subsequent short term and long term flooding impact has been dominating much of the news in NC.

The impact is much worse than most people realize due to the extensive flooding and the fact that most people affected by the flooding do not have flood insurance.

Those who do have insurance coverage may be in for another shock.

The mandatory arbitration clause that may be in their insurance contract and permitted in NC. If they do not get what they consider a fair settlement, they may not be able to litigate, to have an attorney protect their interest in a court of law.

From the North Carolina Consumers Council.

“Mandatory Arbitration Clauses Are Everywhere But Aren’t Good For The Consumer

MANDATORY ARBITRATION TIES YOUR HANDS AND PREVENTS YOU FROM GETTING PROTECTIONS AND REMEDIES AVAILABLE UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL LAW”

“Arbitration can be voluntary or mandatory. Voluntary arbitration is preferred as it preserves your legal rights. Mandatory arbitration, on the other hand, compels you to first submit to the arbitration process as a condition of buying or using a product or service before you take your case to court. In many situations, however, accepting a mandatory arbitration clause means you surrender your rights to further court action at any time in the future for anything.”

“Arbitration providers market entirely to businesses and their arbitrators often consist primarily of corporate executives and their lawyers. So, arbitration is tilted heavily in the favor of the company because the arbitrator is chosen by and paid for by the company. That arbitrator has a financial incentive to rule in the favor of the company in order to be chosen in the future by the company for other arbitration cases. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that the arbitration will not find for the consumer. But arbitrators aren’t required to take law and legal precedent into account when making decisions like in legal proceedings. And since arbitration is private, everything that happens behind those closed doors is supposed to remain secret, meaning there is no public review of the process and no appeal in the case of binding arbitration.”

Read more:

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

I recently received a gift, a blessing, from the NC Insurance Commission regarding my disability claim with Thrivent.

I am not at liberty to release the information at this time.

However, the impact this has had on me is significant.

It is my story and the story of thousands, if not millions of others.

http://eachstorytold.com/2018/09/25/thrivent-disability-claim-denial-and-treatment-impact-on-my-life-2009-to-present-delay-and-deny-alice-in-wonderland-protocol/

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

“Peter Kochenburger and Brendan Bridgeland, NAIC Consumer Representatives 
Section One: 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.”

Read more:

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/

Aside from continuing my disability claim struggle, I hope to play a part in removing mandatory arbitration clauses in insurance policies.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Brett Kavanaugh Senate Judiciary “hearing” silver lining, Democrats left exposed as scumbags, End justifies means agenda damages many lives, Ford needs professional help but must be held accountable

Brett Kavanaugh Senate Judiciary “hearing” silver lining, Democrats left exposed as scumbags, End justifies means agenda damages many lives, Ford needs professional help but must be held accountable

“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

“Democrat mantra: The end justifies the means.”…Citizen Wells

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

 

There is a silver lining from yesterday’s Senate Judiciary “hearing” on the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh.

I listened live to as much as I could.

I caught several lies from Christine Blasey Ford in her written testimony as well as her oral answers.

I have a copy of the transcript and will further address Ms. Fords answers as well as the behavior of the Democrats/Left.

I do have an immediate question: How did so many nut jobs get into that small room and subsequently be allowed to disrupt the proceedings?

First guess is Ms. Feinstein had a hand in that. She has gotta go.

I believe that many Americans, such as myself, are so outraged by what took place that the Dems will end up getting bitten on the ass by the fallout.

And certainly Mr. Kavanaugh will never forget this chicanery!

I have a lot on my plate but they just gave me more energy.

I hope that you feel the same way.

Full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes!

WElls.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/