Category Archives: Lawsuits

Thrivent Financial vs Perez Department of Labor Acosta DOL, Status of lawsuits, Defense of alternative dispute resolution with mandated arbitration

Thrivent Financial vs Perez Department of Labor Acosta DOL, Status of lawsuits, Defense of alternative dispute resolution with mandated arbitration

“The MDRP is the sole means for presenting and resolving grievances, complaints, or disputes between Members, insureds, certificate owners or beneficiaries and Thrivent or Thrivent’s directors, officers, agents and employees. The MDRP reflects Thrivent’s Christian belief system and strives to preserve Members’ fraternal relationship.”…Thrivent v. Perez Sept. 29, 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

“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

 

From Bloomberg  Sept. 29, 2016.

“Thrivent Financial for Lutherans is accusing the Department of Labor of exceeding its statutory authority by attempting, with its new fiduciary rule, to force all disputes into federal court rather than allowing for alternative dispute resolution methods (Thrivent Financial for Lutherans v. Perez, D. Minn., 0:16-cv-03289, complaint filed 9/29/16).

Thrivent’s lawsuit, filed Sept. 29 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, takes aim at the rule’s “best interest contract” (BIC) exemption”

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/employee-benefits/thrivent-financial-joins-fray-in-challenging-dols-fiduciary-rule?context=article-related

From the lawsuit.

“Thrivent’s Member Dispute Resolution Program
42. Thrivent’s MDRP is incorporated into all of Thrivent’s fraternal insurance contracts through the open contract provision by which Thrivent’s Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws are incorporated into all Thrivent insurance contracts, as required under state law. The MDRP Bylaw was adopted by Thrivent’s Member-elected Board of Directors as a part of Thrivent’s Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws in 1999 (at which time Thrivent was known as AAL). In so doing, Thrivent’s Board of Directors determined that the MDRP is in the best interests of Thrivent’s Membership.

43. The MDRP Bylaw, which is Section 11 of Thrivent’s Bylaws, requires binding, mandatory arbitration for any Member disputes with Thrivent. Section 11 “applies to all past, current and future benefit certificates, members, insureds, certificate owners, beneficiaries and the Society. It applies to all claims, actions, disputes and grievances of any kind or nature whatsoever. It includes, but is not limited to, claims based on breach of benefit contract[.]” Bylaws, § 11(b). “No lawsuits or any other actions may be brought for any claims or disputes covered by” Section 11. Id. § 11(c).

44. The MDRP is the sole means for presenting and resolving grievances, complaints, or disputes between Members, insureds, certificate owners or beneficiaries and Thrivent or Thrivent’s directors, officers, agents and employees. The MDRP reflects Thrivent’s Christian belief system and strives to preserve Members’ fraternal relationship.”

“47. A key benefit of the MDRP is that it preserves the fraternal relationship between Thrivent and its Members by avoiding adversarial litigation that could threaten to undermine the organization’s core mission. Thrivent’s Bylaws provide that no lawsuits or other actions are permitted for claims or disputes covered by the MDRP. Thrivent’s MDRP provides for resolution of disputes on an individual basis, involving Thrivent and the Members. Representative or class actions are not permitted under the MDRP Bylaw, which provides that “no disputes may be brought forward in a representative group or on behalf of or against any ‘class’ of persons, and the disputes of multiple members, insureds, certificate owners or beneficiaries (other than immediate family) may not be joined together for purposes of these procedures.” See Bylaws, § 11(e).
48. The MDRP is consistent with Thrivent’s fraternal nature, consistent with the Christian belief system of its Members, and reflects the careful balancing between Thrivent’s and its Members’ desire for a prompt, fair and efficient resolution of disputes, on the one hand, and the protection of the interests of all Members on the other. As such, the MDRP is an integral part of Thrivent’s governance structure. Experience has shown that the MDRP not only provides a fair and efficient process for dispute resolution, but is also in the best interest of Members.”

https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Thrivent_Financial_for_Lutherans_v_Perez_et_al_Docket_No_016cv032?1552582945

DOL temporarily stopped enforcing anti-arbitration provision.

“Thrivent Financial for Lutherans convinced a federal judge in Minnesota to temporarily stop the Labor Department from enforcing the fiduciary rule’s anti-arbitration provision against the nonprofit financial entity.

Thrivent showed the threat of irreparable harm to its business model, both now and in the future, was sufficient to have its request for a preliminary injunction granted, Judge Susan Richard Nelson held Nov. 3 (Thrivent Fin. for Lutherans v. Acosta, 2017 BL 396118, D. Minn., No. 0:16-cv-03289-SRN-DTS, order granting preliminary injunction 11/3/17″

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/employee-benefits/thrivent-financial-wins-battle-over-labor-dept-arbitration-ban?context=article-related

Status report January 2, 2018.

“While the administrative process continues forward, it is not yet complete. On November 29, 2017, the Department published in the Federal Register a final rule extending the transition period and delay of applicability dates for the relevant prohibited transaction exemptions from January 1, 2018 to July 1, 2019. See 82 Fed. Reg. 56545 (Nov. 29, 2017). The Department believes that this administrative delay will provide the Department time to complete its review of the underlying Fiduciary Rule and related exemptions and its intended proposal of “a new streamlined class exemption.” Id. at 56548. The Department believes that both its review and any proposed changes can be implemented before July 1, 2019. See id. at 56552 (explaining the Department’s belief that the additional time “is sufficient to complete review of the new information in the record and to implement changes to the Fiduciary Rule and/or PTEs, if any, including opportunity for notice and comment and coordination with other regulatory agencies”) ”

https://www.dolfiduciaryrule.com/portalresource/ThriventvPerez2018-01-02ECF112JointStatusReport.pdf

Status report July 2, 2018.

“Pursuant to the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order dated November 3, 2017, the parties submit this joint status report to address whether a continued stay of proceedings is necessary. The parties agree that a continued stay of proceedings is appropriate and anticipate providing a subsequent report to the Court on September 4, 2018.

In its Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the “implementation and enforcement of the BIC Exemption’s anti-arbitration condition against Thrivent . . . until the conclusion of this litigation or such time as the Court so orders.” ECF No. 111 at 19. The Court also stayed the case, concluding that “[s]taying this matter will allow the administrative process to fully develop, possibly resolving this dispute, and thereby promoting judicial economy.””

https://www.napa-net.org/sites/napa-net.org/files/uploads/thrivent-dol-status-report.pdf

A status report for September 2018 has not been located.

However, the following suggests the Department of Labor is continuing to work on the “Fiduciary Rule and Prohibited Transaction Exemptions.”

RIN Data

DOL/EBSA RIN: 1210-AB82 Publication ID: Fall 2018
Title: Fiduciary Rule and Prohibited Transaction Exemptions
Abstract:The Department of Labor in 1975 issued a regulation defining who is “fiduciary” under section 3(21)(A)(ii) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) as a result of giving investment advice for a fee or other compensation.  On April 8, 2016, the Department replaced the 1975 regulation with a new regulatory definition.  The new regulatory definition was vacated in toto in Chamber of Commerce v. Department of Labor, 885 F.3d 360 (5th Cir. 2018).  The Department is considering regulatory options in light of the Fifth Circuit opinion.
Agency: Department of Labor(DOL) Priority: Other Significant
RIN Status: Previously published in the Unified Agenda Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule Stage
Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No
EO 13771 Designation: Deregulatory
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined     (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations.)
Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1002 (ERISA sec. 3(21))    29 U.S.C. 1108 (ERISA sec. 408)
Legal Deadline:  None
Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite
Request for Information (RFI) 07/06/2017 82 FR 31278
RFI Comment Period End 08/08/2017
Final Rule 09/00/2019

https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201810&RIN=1210-AB82

How will this play out? Who knows.

The NAIC in 2016 stated: “pre-dispute mandatory arbitration provisions are inappropriate in insurance policies and incompatible with the legal duties insurers owe policyholders when handling their claims.”

Hopefully justice will prevail.

***  Update Mar 15, 2019  ***

According to a USDOJ attorney who worked on the lawsuit, it has ended.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Advertisements

Insurance company intimidation tactics, Fraud allegations bullying, Manipulate situation by choosing what information is relevant, NC Statutes on unfair claim settlement practices

Insurance company intimidation tactics, Fraud allegations bullying, Manipulate situation by choosing what information is relevant, NC Statutes on unfair claim settlement practices

“For members who have found themselves in disputes with Thrivent, the retroactive change rankles. “You’re wondering how Lutheran organizations can treat their own customers that way,” says Mr. Tiedemann, an 83-year-old retiree who navigated the dispute-resolution process for more than two years before giving up.”...WSJ May 30, 2006

“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

“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

 

How Do Insurance Companies Use Intimidation Tactics?

“One of the ways an insurance company may try to manipulate the situation is by choosing what information is relevant. If they discover some key information that wasn’t previously communicated to them, they might choose to punish you for not telling them, instead of simply assuming you had made a mistake and asking you to supply the missing information.”

“Unsubstantiated Fraud Allegations: Many insurance providers will allege that their policyholder is engaged in fraud by inflating the value of items in their claim, fabricating events resulting in loss or claiming loss of items that do not exist or were not lost or damaged. Sometimes these allegations will be loosely based on mistakes on a proof of loss form or be completely without any factual support. The objective is to intimidate a policyholder into accepting a lowball offer because of fears that the insured will face potential civil or criminal liability as well as having his or her claim completely denied.”

http://eachstorytold.com/2018/06/30/fraud-accusation-insurance-company-intimidation-tactic-common-intimidation-techniques-tactics-by-insurance-companies-are-unethical-illegal-obligation-of-good-faith-and-fair-dealing-toward-policyh/

From AcomHealth.

“It is a very common device for claims adjusters to allege “fraud” as a means to drive a minimal financial settlement with a provider. The claim by some insurance company employee that “overutilization” has taken place and that somehow, based on self-serving and unreal “guidelines” they are exploring legal action against the provider is, indeed, sobering and probably as intimidating as it is intended to be. As absurd and unethical as this behavior is, it is frequent and it is effective in driving low-dollar settlements by providers even for the most legitimate of claims.”

“While the exact language in the law regarding fraud may vary from state to state, the common elements necessary to prove fraud might be summarized as follows:

Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant’s actions involved five separate elements:

  1. A false statement of a material fact,
  2. Knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue,
  3. Intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim,
  4. Justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and
  5. Injury to the alleged victim as a result. Source:  Farlex Internet Free Dictionary”

Read more:

https://acomhealth.com/steps-prevent-defend-claims-insurance-fraud/

NC Statutes.

“§ 58-24-165. Unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts and practices. Every society authorized to do business in this State shall be subject to the provisions of Article 63 of this Chapter relating to unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices”

https://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/BySection/Chapter_58/GS_58-24-165.pdf

“(11) Unfair Claim Settlement Practices. – Committing or performing with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice of any of the following: Provided, however, that no violation of this subsection shall of itself create any cause of action in favor of any person other than the Commissioner:
a. Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue;
 b. Failing to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly upon communications with respect to claims arising under insurance policies;
c. Failing to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation of claims arising under insurance policies;
d. Refusing to pay claims without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon all available information;
e. Failing to affirm or deny coverage of claims within a reasonable time after proof-of-loss statements have been completed;
 f. Not attempting in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair and equitable settlements of claims in which liability has become reasonably clear;
g. Compelling [the] insured to institute litigation to recover amounts due under an insurance policy by offering substantially less than the amounts ultimately recovered in actions brought by such insured;
h. Attempting to settle a claim for less than the amount to which a reasonable man would have believed he was entitled;
 i. Attempting to settle claims on the basis of an application which was altered without notice to, or knowledge or consent of, the insured;
 j. Making claims payments to insureds or beneficiaries not accompanied by [a] statement setting forth the coverage under which the payments are being made;
k. Making known to insureds or claimants a policy of appealing from arbitration awards in favor of insureds or claimants for the purpose of compelling them to accept settlements or compromises less than the amount awarded in arbitration;
 l. Delaying the investigation or payment of claims by requiring an insured claimant, or the physician, of [or] either, to submit a preliminary claim report and then requiring the subsequent submission of formal proof-of-loss forms, both of which submissions contain substantially the same information;
 m. Failing to promptly settle claims where liability has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage; and

n. Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation of the basis in the insurance policy in relation to the facts or applicable law for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement.”

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thrivent buys ethics awards?, Touts Christian values, The ethics of firms paying to be honored for ethics, Ethisphere Institute “World’s Most Ethical Companies”, Thrivent touts these “ethics” awards”

Thrivent buys ethics awards?, Touts Christian values, The ethics of firms paying to be honored for ethics, Ethisphere Institute “World’s Most Ethical Companies”, Thrivent touts these “ethics” awards”

“Committed to honesty, integrity and fairness
Insurance companies are subject to a lot of rules. National and state governments and other regulatory organizations have established a vast array. At AAL, we recognize the importance of these rules and work diligently to follow them. Then we take an extra step.
We choose to hold ourselves to a higher ethical standard than the regulations demand. We’re part of the Insurance Marketplace Standards Association–more commonly known as IMSA.”…AAL (Thrivent) Correspondent January/February 2002

“the awarding of an ethics accolade to a company that gives you money just doesn’t pass the smell test.”…LA Times October 27, 2014

“The secret of life is honesty, and fair
dealing. If you can fake that you’ve got it made.”…Groucho Marx

 

Thrivent, a Lutheran connected fraternal organization has been in the news for the past several years trying to maintain it’s dispute resolution, MDRP, contract dictate in lieu of litigation, despite challenges from the DOL.

It claims it’s approach of appeal, mediation and arbitration is in the best interest of its members.

It also touts its Christian based approaches and ethics awards.

Is it buying the ethics awards?

From a recent lawsuit against Thrivent:

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

“A black executive claims he was fired as president of a Thrivent Financial subsidiary because he accused a co-worker of racial discrimination, according to a lawsuit he filed against the financial services firm.

Gregory M. Smith, who said he was recruited by Thrivent in 2016 to help grow its network of independent insurance brokers, said he was stunned to encounter discrimination at a Fortune 500 company whose mission is “helping Christians be wise with money and live generously.”

“I was shocked,” said Smith, 56, who has worked at some of the largest insurance companies in the U.S. “I have never been treated so badly in my life.”

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/

“Thrivent Financial, which manages more than $100 billion in assets, boasts of its corporate culture, noting on its website that it has been named one of the world’s “most ethical companies” six years in a row by the Ethisphere Institute.”

http://www.startribune.com/executive-sues-thrivent-saying-he-was-fired-because-he-was-black/451920593/

From Thrivent:

“Thrivent, a not-for-profit membership organization that helps Christians be wise with money and live generously, announced today it has been recognized by the Ethisphere Institute, a global leader in defining and advancing the standards of ethical business practices, as one of the 2018 World’s Most Ethical Companies.”

“For the last seven years, Thrivent has been honored to be named a World’s Most Ethical Company,” said Brad Hewitt, CEO of Thrivent. “As we serve our members and carry out what it means to be an ethical company through our actions and business practices, we are pleased to be recognized as leaders in setting a standard that we hope will continue to develop within the business community.”

https://www.thrivent.com/newsroom/for-7th-year-in-a-row-thrivent-named-a-worlds-most-ethical-company.html

From Slate.

“Sometime in the next week or so, something called the Ethisphere Institute is scheduled to announce this year’s list of the “World’s Most Ethical Companies.” If past years are any indication, the winners will have their press releases ready to go, and news outlets across the country will eat it up. There’s just one hitch: These ethics awards—let’s call them the Ethies—may have ethics issues of their own.

The Ethisphere Insitute, which describes itself as “a leading international think-tank dedicated to the creation, advancement and sharing of best practices in business ethics, corporate social responsibility, anti-corruption and sustainability,” is actually a for-profit company. The institute also lends itself credibility with an “advisory panel” of ethicists, yet several former members say they’ve had little if anything to do with it. Finally, the institute and an affiliated company sell services to and collect fees from some of the same companies Ethisphere extols.”

“The scoring is based mostly on information provided by the companies themselves, and Ethisphere says its questionnaire should take 30 to 40 minutes to complete. Ethisphere then asks companies for documentation to support survey answers and reviews other sources, such as news articles, court records, and Consumer Reports. Ethisphere says it reviewed more than 10,000 corporations for last year’s list.

Brigham acknowledges that the system is imperfect. “Could they be lying to us?” he says. “Sure, they could. … Over time, we’re going to have to figure out how to verify that. And no one is going to pay us to verify it, and if we try to charge them to verify it, we’re going to have reporters like you make it sound like we’re getting paid off.”

Ethisphere says its methodology was developed with the help of a panel of independent experts. But as I dialed up half a dozen of the 20 committee members, I found only one (George Ash) who said he actually contributed to shaping the methodology. Others said they made a suggestion that wasn’t heeded (Thomas Donaldson), or didn’t seriously analyze the methodology (Patrick Barwise, John Dienhart, Chris MacDonald), or didn’t know they were on the panel (Karen Paul). Ethisphere says that it assumed panel members who didn’t respond to its queries simply agreed with the methodology and that each member explicitly agreed to be on the panel. Since my inquiries, Ethisphere has named a new, smaller panel, and none of the people I spoke to are still on it.”

“It’s tempting, of course, to dismiss all this as just corporate window-dressing, and in fact Canadian ethicist Chris MacDonald, who until recently was on Ethisphere’s advisory panel, warned me to take such awards “with a grain of salt.” And then there are people like Gretchen Winter, former ethics officer for “World’s Most Ethical” winner Baxter International and current director of the Center for Professional Responsibility in Business and Society at the University of Illinois. Winter says the institute’s conflicts of interest and reliance on self-reported information make its awards “less credible.” At the same time, she says, the awards help in “advancing the conversation about ethics and compliance programs in the executive suites and boardrooms.”

They may just as easily be used, however, to squelch conversation. Last year, while working on another story, I was interviewing a corporate spokesman about allegations of fraud against his company and government fines for a radioactive waste spill. He sent me a press release trumpeting the news that Ethisphere had named his engineering and construction firm, CH2M Hill, one of the “World’s Most Ethical.” It “speaks for itself,” he said. If only he knew.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2010/03/its_all_good.html

From the LA Times.

“The ethics of firms paying to be honored for ethics

“It’s apparently a point of honor among some corporations to be named one of the World’s Most Ethical Companies. There already are rankings, after all, for the World’s Most Admired Companies and the Best Companies to Work For.

Blue Shield issued a press release in March saying that it had been recognized as one of the World’s Most Ethical Companies for the third year in a row. The company said the honor had been earned because of Blue Shield’s “strong culture of ethical behavior and integrity.”

Dozens of other companies issued similar press releases around the same time. Waste Management, the garbage-disposal company that in 2011 paid $7.5 million to settle charges that it broke Massachusetts environmental laws, touted its inclusion among the World’s Most Ethical Companies.

So did Eastman Chemical, which faces lawsuits alleging that it did not adequately warn of the dangers of a chemical that spilled into a West Virginia river earlier this year, leaving more than 300,000 people without water for days.”

“Apparently, Blue Shield and Ethisphere haven’t quite grasped that the appearance of a conflict can be just as troubling as an actual conflict.

Nor do they seem to understand that the awarding of an ethics accolade to a company that gives you money just doesn’t pass the smell test.

Hey, remember when things like ethics mattered?

Blue Shield doesn’t. Neither does the Ethisphere Institute.”

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus-20141028-column.html

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

NPR alleges Wheeler lawsuit alleges Fox News and Trump supporter created fake news story, Same day as Seth Rich murder reenactment, Damage control?

NPR alleges Wheeler lawsuit alleges Fox News and Trump supporter created fake news story, Same day as Seth Rich murder reenactment, Damage control?

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

 

The Seth Rich murder reenactment is scheduled for today, August 1, 2017.

Damage control in play?

From NPR August 1, 2017.

“Lawsuit Alleges Fox News And Trump Supporter Created Fake News Story”

“Behind Fox News’ Baseless Seth Rich Story: The Untold Tale”

“The Fox News Channel and a wealthy supporter of President Trump worked in concert under the watchful eye of the White House to concoct a story about the murder of a young Democratic National Committee aide, according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday.

The explosive claim is part of the lawsuit filed against Fox News by Rod Wheeler, a longtime paid commentator for the news network. The suit was obtained exclusively by NPR.

Wheeler alleges Fox News and the Trump supporter intended to deflect public attention from growing concern about the administration’s ties to the Russian government. His suit charges that a Fox News reporter created quotations out of thin air and attributed them to him to propel her story.

Fox’s president of news, Jay Wallace, told NPR Monday there was no “concrete evidence” that Wheeler was misquoted by the reporter, Malia Zimmerman. The news executive did not address a question about the story’s allegedly partisan origins. Fox News declined to allow Zimmerman to comment for this story.

The story, which first aired in May, was retracted by Fox News a week later. Fox News has, to date, taken no action in response to what it said was a failure to adhere to the network’s standards.

The lawsuit focuses particular attention on the role of the Trump supporter, Ed Butowsky, in weaving the story. He is a wealthy Dallas investor and unpaid Fox commentator on financial matters, who has emerged as a reliable Republican surrogate in recent years. Butowsky offered to pay for Wheeler to investigate the death of the DNC aide, Seth Rich, on behalf of his grieving parents in Omaha.

On April 20, a month before the story ran, Butowsky and Wheeler — the investor and the investigator — met at the White House with then Press Secretary Sean Spicer to brief him on what they were uncovering.

The first page of the lawsuit quotes a voicemail and text from Butowsky boasting that President Trump himself had reviewed drafts of the Fox News story just before it went to air and was published.

Spicer now tells NPR that he took the meeting as a favor to Butowsky, a reliable Republican voice. Spicer says he was unaware of any contact involving the president. Butowsky now tells NPR he was kidding about Trump’s involvement.

“Rod Wheeler unfortunately was used as a pawn by Ed Butowsky, Fox News and the Trump administration to try and steer away the attention that was being given about the Russian hacking of the DNC e-mails,” said Douglas Wigdor, Wheeler’s lawyer.”

Read more:’

http://www.npr.org/2017/08/01/540783715/lawsuit-alleges-fox-news-and-trump-supporter-created-fake-news-story

Coincidence with Seth Rich murder reenactment?

Why no link to lawsuit text?

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

Ted Cruz Obama eligibility, Natural born citizens?, Cruz approval protects Obama, 1 US citizen parent, Language of constitution citizen parents, Cruz born in Canada, Obama born ???

Ted Cruz Obama eligibility, Natural born citizens?, Cruz approval protects Obama, 1 US citizen parent, Language of constitution citizen parents, Cruz born in Canada, Obama born ???

“The Founding Fathers wouldn’t recognize America today….The Constitution has been tossed on the same trash pile as the Bible.”…Amazon description of Cheryl Chumley book “Police State USA: How Orwell’s Nightmare is Becoming our Reality”

“no Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .”…US Constitution

“‘It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well…..In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words — in reality, only one word. Don’t you see the beauty of that, Winston? It was B.B.’s idea originally, of course,’ he added as an afterthought.”…George Orwell “1984”

 

 

Ted Cruz was born in Canada.

We do not know where Obama was born.

There is zero proof that Obama was born in the US.

Cruz and Obama had 1 US citizen parent. That creates a problem with the natural born citizen requirement of the US Constitution.

Many of the Obama eligibilty challenges beginning in 2008 were based on a lack of a authentic birth certificate proving birth in the US. The image presented on WhiteHouse.gov, even if it came from Hawaii does not prove US birth.

Some of the eligibility challenges were based on the requirement of 2 US citizen parents and birth on US soil.

CDR Charles F. Kerchner filed a lawsuit against Obama on January 21, 2009.

“47. Hence, at the time of his birth on August 4, 1961, Obama was born to a U.S.
citizen mother but not a U.S. citizen father.
48. Under the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” Obama therefore
cannot be a “natural born Citizen.” Endnote 9.”

“9. The origins of the term “natural born Citizen’ and inclusion in the Constitution can be traced to a 1787 letter from John Jay to George Washington. This specifically speaks about the reason for requiring the President to be a “natural born Citizen.” It was believed that there would be less of a chance to have foreign influences put upon the President and Commander in Chief of our Army (military forces) if the person serving as the President is a “natural born citizen”, i.e., being born on U.S. soil and being second generation via both his parents also being U.S. citizens. There thus would be no claim on the President from any foreign power and he would have no relatively recent allegiance
and influence via family to a foreign power or from family living in a foreign country.
Being a “natural born citizen” dramatically reduces the likelihood of such foreign
influence. That is why John Jay, who was a major writer in The Federalist Papers which were critical in the ratification process of getting the Constitution approved, requested that the term be inserted into our Constitution. He was one of the founders who was very concerned about foreign influences being exerted on our new nation, especially on the President and Commander in Chief of the Army. He was not concerned about the loyalties of existing “original citizens” of the new country because they had openly fought for independence. And that is why the Article II grandfather clause is in there for them. But John Jay was very concerned about foreign influences on future Presidents and Commander in Chiefs. Thus he wrote the letter to General Washington. Washington
agreed and had the clause put in the Constitution and the delegates agreed and approved it and the “We the People” of those days voted for it and ratified it. And it can only be changed now by a new amendment by today’s “We the People.” Jay would have obtained the term “natural born Citizen” from the leading legal treatise of those times, The Law of Nations (1758), E. Vattel, Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212. This work was read not only by the Founding Fathers but was also well-known throughout the colonies among the general population. Jay frequently cited this treatise in his writings.
Additionally, the term “Law of Nations” is mentioned in the Constitution itself in Article I, Section 8 (defining piracy). There are also many references to The Law of Nations in The Federalist Papers, for the writers relied upon authors such as Vattel, among others.
The Journal of Legal History, Volume 23, Issue 2, August 2002, pages 107 – 128.”

H. Brooke Paige challenged Obama’s eligibility as a natural born citizen in the Vermont Supreme Court.

“Mr. Paige, for example was aware of the Venus Cranch case of 1814 in which Justice Livingstone quoted the entire 212nd paragraph of Vattel and stated:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…”

This contradicts the Vermont state attorney who attempted to marginalize Vattel’s description of natural born citizen and portray it as antiquated.”

https://citizenwells.com/2013/05/19/vermont-obama-eligibility-challenge-update-may-19-2013-h-brooke-paige-appeal-in-vt-supreme-court-awaiting-decisions-on-multiple-issues-obama-not-natural-born-citizen/

There are 2 important concepts from the above cases.

1. It was clearly understood at the time the Constitution was written that in this country natural born citizen meant a child born on US soil to 2 US citizen parents.

2. That the requirement of natural born citizen has not been changed by an amendment. You are being bombarded by misinformation about this law and that law affecting the natural born citizen requirement but nothing has changed it since the Constitution was ratified. This was noted in Hassan v FEC;

 “Because the natural born citizen requirement has not been explicitly or implicitly repealed, Hassan’s challenge to that provision, and the Fund Act’s incorporation thereof, must fail.”

From Mario Apuzzo:

“Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789″
“In defining an Article II “natural born Citizen,” it is important to find any authority from the Founding period who may inform us how the Founders and Framers themselves defined the clause. Who else but a highly respected historian from the Founding period itself would be highly persuasive in telling us how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen. ” Such an important person is David Ramsay, who in 1789 wrote, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789), a very important and influential essay on defining a “natural born Citizen.”

https://citizenwells.com/2015/03/25/glenn-beck-comedy-show-wnd-media-lie-about-natural-born-citizen-and-constitution-citizens-not-eligible-ted-cruz-eligibilty-in-question-founder-and-historian-david-ramsay-defines-natural-born-citize/

You are being led to believe that “legal experts” are in agreement on the definition of natural born citizen (refer to numerous orwellian references at Citizen Wells)

That is simply not so!

John McCain had 2 US citizen parents.

However,

From the Michigan Law Review August 13, 2008.

Gabriel J. Chin, U of California, Davis, School of Law.

“Although he is now a U.S. citizen, the law in effect in 1936 did not grant him citizenship at birth. Because he was not born a citizen, he is not eligible to the office of president.”

“II. Natural Born Citizenship as a Child of Citizens”

“According to the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the
Constitution “contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth
and naturalization.” Unless born in the United States, a person “can only
become a citizen by being naturalized . . . by authority of congress, exercised
either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the
enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or
by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens . . . .” A person
granted citizenship by birth outside the United States to citizen parents is
naturalized at birth; he or she is both a citizen by birth and a naturalized
citizen. This last point is discussed thoroughly in Jill A. Pryor’s 1988 note in
the Yale Law Journal, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential
Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty.”

“Since Senator McCain became a citizen in his eleventh month of life, he does not satisfy this criterion, is not a natural born citizen, and thus is not “eligible to the Office of President.”

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1157621

Media reports.

Here are 2 of the more honest reports:

From Time June 23, 2011.

“It’s equally strange to me that a nation that was forged through immigration — and is still formed by immigration — is also a nation that makes it constitutionally impossible for someone who was not physically born here to run for President. (Yes, the framers had their reasons for that, but those
reasons have long since vanished.)”

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2079445,00.html

Honest but stupid: “but those reasons have long since vanished.”

Wrong!

From PolitiFact May 9, 2013.

“Is Ted Cruz eligible under the Constitution to become president?”

“When discussing McCain, the CRS report draws on immigration law and says: “The uncertainty concerning the meaning of the natural-born qualification in the Constitution has provoked discussion from time to time, particularly when the possible presidential candidacy of citizens born abroad was under consideration. There has never been any authoritative adjudication.”

“So legally, the question is unsettled. Perhaps it will be if Cruz ever becomes a presidential contender.”

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/article/2013/may/09/ted-cruz-eligible-under-constitution-become-presid/

Something happened from 2013 to 2015.

Now Ted Cruz can be legally challenged on his natural born citizen status.

On  August 12, 2013 Cheryl Chumley wrote the following:

“Donald Trump, staunch birther: ‘Nobody knows’ yet where Obama was born”

“The two then discussed the birthplace of Sen. Ted Cruz, who’s been talked about as a potential GOP frontrunner for the White House in 2016. Mr. Cruz was born in Canada, which would make him ineligible for the office under the provisions of the Constitution.”

Read more:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/12/donald-trump-nobody-knows-yet-where-obama-was-born/

On March 24, 2015, Cheryl Chumley, writing for WND, wrote the following:

“DONALD TRUMP GOES BIRTHER ON TED CRUZ”
“Section One, Article Two of the Constitution states “no person except a natural born citizen, or citizen of the United States … shall be eligible to the office of president.””
Read more:
Why did she leave out:
“at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”
which is crucial to the statement and to differentiate between citizen and natural born citizen?
She left out 9 words.
9 very important words.
I can only think of one plausible answer.
The same conclusion you are arriving at.
 We are being bombarded with article after article stating that Ted Cruz is eligible to be president.

Why?

TO

PROTECT

OBAMA

 

 

 

 
media reports 2013 v now

Obama presidential eligibility summary, Reality 101, March 11, 2014, Natural born citizen status, Birth certificate, Foreign born father, Obama used private and taxpayer paid attorneys to keep records hidden

Obama presidential eligibility summary, Reality 101, March 11, 2014, Natural born citizen status, Birth certificate, Foreign born father, Obama used private and taxpayer paid attorneys to keep records hidden

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

“Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya”...Barrister Michael Shrimpton

 

 

 

Most things are simple.

It is important to sometime step back and look at an otherwise complex situation and provide clarity.

We know much about the Obama presidential eligibility and records despite Obama employing private and numerous government attorneys at taxpayer expense.

The following is a summary. Supporting details can be found on this site and many others.

  • Obama’s father, by all indications was a foreigner. By many definitions, going back to the founding of this country, 2 citizen parents are required to be a natural born citizen. A current case, Paige V State of Vermont, makes this assertion and is currently presented to the US Supreme Court. The SCOTUS should clearly define what a natural born citizen is and put this issue to rest.
  • Obama, starting in 2008 has used Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, other private attorneys and numerous government attorneys, at taxpayer expense to keep his birth certificate, college records and other records hidden.
  • Most of the circumstantial evidence up to early 2008 indicates that Obama was born in Kenya.
  • There is no evidence, that would hold up in a court of law, that Obama was born in the US.
  • The image placed on WhiteHouse.gov in 2011 is obviously not a copy of a traditional birth certificate that you and I had to present to play Little League baseball. It has “or abstract” at the bottom. Since anyone born anywhere could register a birth in Hawaii, even if the document came from HI, it proves nothing.
  • Obama was born somewhere. We still do not know where.
  • We have no solid proof that Stanley Ann Dunham was Obama’s biological mother.
  • We have compelling evidence that Obama was helped with his college expenses. We have seen no evidence of his college loans.
  • If Obama is a natural born citizen and eligible to be POTUS, we have been provided no proof.

Don’t take my word for it.

Look it up.

If you want the truth, you will find it.

Obama DOJ fights Kansas to allow foreigners to vote, Justice Department lawyer Bradley Heard, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, Arizona Supreme Court decision quoted

Obama DOJ fights Kansas to allow foreigners to vote, Justice Department lawyer Bradley Heard, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, Arizona Supreme Court decision quoted

“Based on my firsthand experiences, I believe the dismissal of the Black Panther case was motivated by a lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law. Others still within the department share my assessment. The department abetted wrongdoers and abandoned law-abiding citizens victimized by the New Black Panthers. The dismissal raises serious questions about the department’s enforcement neutrality in upcoming midterm elections and the subsequent 2012 presidential election.”…J. Christian Adams

“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
“If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patroits to prevent its ruin”…Samuel Adams, 1776

Reported by J. Christian Adams, former DOJ attorney, at Pajamas Media February 12, 2014.
“DOJ Argues to Court Against Rules to Prevent Foreigners From Voting”

“Justice Department lawyer Bradley Heard was in court today trying to stop Kansas from ensuring that only citizens register to vote. Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, relying on a United States Supreme Court opinion of last year, asked the federal Election Assistance Commission to permit him to ensure that only citizens were registering to vote.

The Election Assistance Commission said no, so Kris Kobach went to federal court. Enter Eric Holder’s Justice Department, as usual, opposing election integrity measures.

Despite harping about resource concerns (which apparently means that the DOJ can do nothing about corrupted voter rolls), Holder found the time and money to send Bradley Heard to a hearing in Kansas to argue against Kobach’s election integrity measures.

Things didn’t go well for Bradley Heard before Judge Eric Melgren today. The Wichita Eagle:

Judge Eric Melgren repeatedly pressed Department of Justice lawyer Bradley Heard to explain how a Supreme Court decision last year on Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship law allows the federal Election Assistance Commission to reject requests from Arizona and Kansas to add state-law requirements to the instructions for filling out the voting form.

“The single pivotal question in this case is who gets to decide … what’s necessary” to establish citizenship for voting, Melgren said.

Heard said that decision lies with the EAC under the federal National Voter Registration Act, also known as the motor-voter law. He said the law empowers the commission to decide what questions and proofs are necessary to include in the federal registration form.

Take note, Heard argued both that Kobach can’t take steps to prevent foreigners to register to vote, and, that federal government power over state elections is supreme.

So who is Bradley Heard?”

Read more:

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/02/12/doj-aruges-to-court-against-rules-to-prevent-foreigners-from-voting/