Evee Gayle Clobes death after 6 vaccines at 6 months of age, Neurotoxin Aluminum in vaccines and food ingested by infants, Cumulative effect causing problems?

Evee Gayle Clobes death after 6 vaccines at 6 months of age, Neurotoxin Aluminum in vaccines and food ingested by infants, Cumulative effect causing problems?

“Aluminum, used as a adjuvant in many vaccines, is a neurotoxin. Why are we injecting it in tiny babies?”…Citizen Wells

“Mercury is a highly toxic element; there is no known safe level of exposure. Ideally, neither children nor adults should have any mercury in their bodies because it provides no physiological benefit.”…National Institute of Health

“”You’re a traitor!” yelled the boy. “You’re a thought criminal!””…George Orwell, “1984”

 

This is difficult to write.

My heart goes out to the Clobes Family.

God bless.

Aluminum is a neurotoxin, is in vaccines and foods that infants ingest.

Mother’s food, breast milk and infant formulas and other products ingested in utero and after birth.

https://citizenwells.com/2019/03/10/neurotoxin-aluminum-in-vaccines-mothers-food-breast-milk-and-infant-formulas-and-other-products-ingested-in-utero-and-after-birth-cumulative-4925-micrograms-by-18-months-in-injections/

Why are we bombarding small bodies with so many vaccines at one time and not testing for levels of toxicity?

This is not only irresponsible but in my opinion criminal on the part of the medical community.

The mother, Catie Clobes, relates her story.

“On March 1, 2019, Catie Clobes tragically lost her six and half month old daughter, Evee, a day and a half after receiving six vaccines at her six month doctor’s visit. Like many parents who experience a devastating unexpected loss of their healthy infant, Catie reached out in our Stop Mandatory Vaccination FaceBook group in search of answers on adverse complications post vaccination. Catie shares her heartbreaking pain in her story below with additional details in the Q&A that follows.”

“Q&A with Catie:

Q: Which vaccines did your daughter receive at her 6 month visit?
Catie: DTaP (Diphtheria, Tetanus, and Acellular Pertussis) Hepatitis BIPV(Polio), and PCV-13 (Pneumococcal).

Q: What date did she receive her vaccines?
Catie: 2/27/2019

Q: What kind of information did you receive from the doctor prior to Evee receiving the vaccines? Vaccine information sheet (VIS), package insert, other information? Did you receive full informed consent about the full risks and benefits?
Catie: I don’t recall receiving anything. Something could have been with her after-visit summary, I’m not sure. I don’t recall seeing anything. The doctor only asked if Evee was receiving her vaccinations and I said yes and she said good.

Q: Can you describe more in detail about what happened?
Catie: Evee was put to bed at 9 p.m. on 2/28/19. That whole day she was giggling as usual, eating solid foods, nursing just fine, no temperature, no other signs or symptoms that I could remember. Nothing out of the ordinary. She fell asleep in my arms before I laid her down, and when I did lay her down she didn’t wake up which she usually does. Almost every other night I lay down and go to sleep with her, but I stayed up to watch basketball. I went to bed around 11 p.m. and she was still alive, in her deep sleep and breathing. I kissed her and went to sleep. I woke up to go to the bathroom the next morning, 3/1/19, around 7 a.m., and I started singing her name as I came back in. I thought she was still sleeping hard. She was on her back, the same position that I left her in the night before. I picked rolled her face over and saw that she was passed. Ambulance was called and she was pronounced dead at the Buffalo Hospital. Preliminary autopsy has showed nothing, no abnormalities, no visible reason as to why she passed.

Q: Were there any warnings or symptoms that indicated she was having an adverse reaction?
Catie: Well maybe that she was so tired, that she was sleeping so hard when I laid her down and when I went to bed. There have been a few other nights like that though. Other than that, no.

Q: Can you explain if she was given any medication after her vaccines?
Catie: No.

Q: Was she vaccinated prior to this 6 month old visit? And if so, what vaccines on which dates did she receive (including at birth)? Have you ever noticed any adverse reactions?
Catie: She received a couple vaccinations at birth. Those don’t show in the immunization record. I’m not sure why. I believe it was Hep B when she was born. Her 10/31/18 two month visit and 12/17/18 four month visit she received vaccinations, see the immunization record for which ones. [2 month visit vaccines: Rotavirus, PCV-13, IPV, Hep. B, HIB, and DTaP and at the 4 month visit, she also received: Rotavirus, PCV-13, IPV, Hep. B, HIB, and DTaP]”

“Q: What do you feel caused or contributed to Evee’s passing?
Catie: I want to make clear that I can’t be 100% certain, without proof, that this is true, but I have a feeling the vaccinations contributed to her death which is why I have shared her story, made the VAERS report, and am working with a lawyer.”

I urge you to read more:

https://www.stopmandatoryvaccination.com/parent/vaccine-injury/mom-asks-why-her-6-month-old-infant-died-after-getting-6-vaccines/

Catie Clobes Facebook Page:

https://www.facebook.com/catie.clobes.1

From Science Daily.

“While aluminum is a known neurotoxin and occupational exposure to aluminum has been implicated in neurological disease, including Alzheimer’s disease, this finding is believed to be the first record of a direct link between Alzheimer’s disease and elevated brain aluminum following occupational exposure to the metal.”

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140212093300.htm

From the National Institutes of Health.

“Infants’ exposure to aluminum from vaccines and breast milk during the first 6 months.”

“The success of vaccination programs in reducing and eliminating infectious diseases has contributed to an ever-increasing number of vaccines given at earlier ages (newborns and infants). Exposure to low levels of environmental toxic substances (including metals) at an early age raises plausible concerns over increasingly lower neuro-cognitive rates. Current immunization schedules with vaccines containing aluminum (as adjuvant) are given to infants, but thimerosal (as preservative) is found mostly in vaccines used in non-industrialized countries. Exclusively, breastfed infants (in Brazil) receiving a full recommended schedule of immunizations showed an exceedingly high exposure of Al (225 to 1750 μg per dose) when compared with estimated levels absorbed from breast milk (2.0 μg). This study does not dispute the safety of vaccines but reinforces the need to study long-term effects of early exposure to neuro-toxic substances on the developing brain. Pragmatic vaccine safety needs to embrace conventional toxicology, addressing especial characteristics of unborn fetuses, neonates and infants exposed to low levels of aluminum, and ethylmercury traditionally considered innocuous to the central nervous system.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20010978

Thanks to commenter fhl for informing us.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Advertisements

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

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

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

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

 

From The Charlotte Observer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘WE ARE DEEPLY SORRY’

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

Read more:

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

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

From Insurance Business Magazine.

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

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

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

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

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

Read more:

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

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

“Why arbitration clauses should be banned”

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

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

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

From the NAIC 2018 Adopted Committee Charges.

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

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

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Weasel Mueller use of “does not exonerate him” improper in legal context, Exonerate has exact legal meaning, Throwing bone to weasel fake news media?

Weasel Mueller use of “does not exonerate him” improper in legal context, Exonerate has exact legal meaning, Throwing bone to weasel fake news media?

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

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

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

 

Speaking of weasel fake news media….

From the NY Times.

“Mueller Finds No Trump-Russia Conspiracy, but Stops Short of Exonerating President on Obstruction”

“Mr. Mueller’s team drew no conclusions about whether Mr. Trump illegally obstructed justice, Mr. Barr said, so he made his own decision. The attorney general and his deputy, Rod J. Rosenstein, determined that the special counsel’s investigators had insufficient evidence to establish that the president committed that offense.

He cautioned, however, that Mr. Mueller’s report states that “while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him” on the obstruction of justice issue.”

Read more:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/us/politics/mueller-report-summary.html

I suppose I should have led off with weasel fake news NBC. They interrupted the coverage of the golf tournament with breaking news about the Barr letter.

They took the “bone” Mueller provided (exonerate) and chewed excessively on it.

As soon as I heard this, I knew the Orwellian intent.

From the Barr letter to the the House and Senate Judiciary Committees:

“After making a thorough factual investigation into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but
ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion one way or the other as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as
difficult issues of law and fact concerning whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5779688/AG-March-24-2019-Letter-to-House-and-Senate.pdf

This is a legal document, condensed from another legal document produced by Mueller.

Exonerate has a special legal meaning.

From Black’s Law Dictionary:

“To lift, remove the stain of being called out for blame, liability, or punishment. It is more that just freeing an accused person of the responsibility for a criminal or otherwise illegal or wrongful act. It is publicly stating that this accused should never have been accused in the first place. Refer to acquit and exculpate.”

From US Legal:

“Exoneration refers to a court order that discharges a person from liability. In criminal context the term exonerate refers to a state where a person convicted of a crime is later proved to be innocent. Exoneration may lead to controversies when the person exonerated was convicted for death penalty. The term exoneration is also referred in the context of surety bail bonds. In this case, a judge may order a bond exonerated, in such cases the clerk of the court time, stamps the original bail bond power and indicates exonerated as the judicial order.”

PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS NEVER ACCUSED OF OR CONVICTED OF A CRIME!

The end justifies the means.

The narrative continues.

I refer you to Orwell.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rachel Maddow crying? others in Fake News in despair over Mueller report?, Twitter bans users and James Woods rejoices

Rachel Maddow crying? others in Fake News in despair over Mueller report?, Twitter bans users and James Woods rejoices

“If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world but I am sure we would be getting reports from hell before breakfast.”… William Tecumseh Sherman

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”…Joseph Goebbels

“”You’re a traitor!” yelled the boy. “You’re a thought criminal!””…George Orwell, “1984”

 

From Zero Hedge.

“Twitter Bans User For Laughing At Rachel Maddow’s Tears Of Despair Over Mueller Report

As left-wing news outlets were forced to cover the completion of the Mueller report sans high-level indictments (Trump Jr., for example), Rachel Maddow had a grand-mal meltdown after having been forced by MSNBC to cancel a fishing trip and drive in to work on a Friday night.

Maddow fought back tears as she reported on her own collapsing narrative, to which Twitter user ‘Karli Bonne’ (@kbq2251) posted a video of herself laughing at Maddow’s despair.

As the video began to go viral, Twitter suspended her account.

Bonne then tweeted the video from another account (@kbq225) which was quickly amplified by several people, including actor James Woods, who truly gives zero f*cks now that Hollywood has blacklisted him for being openly conservative.

 

James Woods

@RealJamesWoods

either choking on kitty litter chunks or facing the hard cold reality she’s the worst journalist in television history. Always certain, but rarely right…

20.8K people are talking about this

James Woods

@RealJamesWoods

was actually crying. Crying! Not since her drunken liar goddess got pummeled in the election have I seen such agony etched onto the face of this bonehead. Dear God, this is so much fun…

25.3K people are talking about this

Karli Bonne’⭐️⭐️⭐️@kbq225

Cry me a river!!! They just suspended my account again!! @kbq2251 wth not even a email this time O well here we go again!! Thanks schills I’m still lol no collusion!😂🤣🤣🤣 pic.twitter.com/a1ZxE7AsUY

1,816 people are talking about this

ALX 🇺🇸 ❌@alx

The original account (@kbq2251) who posted the video of Rachel Maddow Crying has been Suspended by Twitter.

Spread this video everywhere because Twitter obviously doesn’t want you to see it. pic.twitter.com/Gq6iSYIfMT

5,526 people are talking about this

View image on TwitterView image on Twitter

Chuck Ross@ChuckRossDC

Don’t know whether Maddow was crying or not, but the @kbq2251 Twitter account that claimed she was has been suspended

1,494 people are talking about this

While Twitter’s ban of Karli may have backfired due to the Streisand effect (not the Streisand defect), reactions to Maddow’s meltdown have been hilarious. ”

Read more:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-23/twitter-bans-user-laughing-rachel-maddows-tears-despair-over-mueller-report

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

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/

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

From Stanford Business March 8, 2019.

“Why the Binding Arbitration Game Is Rigged against Customers

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Incentive to Slant

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

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

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

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

Read more:

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

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/