Verizon wireless - UNSCRUPULOUS VERIZON almost arrested!

Author

UNSCRUPULOUS VERIZON almost arrested!

Freedom Fighter

2007-02-09, 10:33 pm

Talk about arrogance! This greedy, abusive, harassive corpseration must go!
----------------------------
From http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/81544
Warrant Issued For Verizon's Arrest
They can, apparently, hear him now...

Posted 2007-02-09 08:58:10 by Karl · tags: [wireless] [business]
Tipped by The_Gman

According to the Consumerist, one man successfully sued Verizon Wireless
after they "double-billed him, ruined his credit, lied about not receiving
his letters, and refused to fix their mistake." When Verizon didn't appear
for the follow up payment review, the court issued a capias, or bench
warrant, authorizing Verizon's arrest. Fortunately, Verizon paid up at the
last second, avoiding any unsightly news footage of all those network guys
from their commercial doing the perp walk in handcuffs.

Steven J. Sobol

2007-02-09, 10:33 pm

In article <C98zh.49407$Xq6.14989@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Freedom Fighter wrote:
> Talk about arrogance! This greedy, abusive, harassive corpseration must go!

Who would they have arrested?

An incorporated company is given some freedoms that individuals are,
and in many ways is considered a "person" in the eyes of the law, but
if you are going to arrest someone, you have to arrest a person.

-Just curious.

--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED

It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.

Freedom Fighter

2007-02-09, 10:33 pm

"Steven J. Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:slrnesq4jk.fdm.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net...
> In article <C98zh.49407$Xq6.14989@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Freedom Fighter wrote:
>
> Who would they have arrested?

Good point. That is discussed on the forum from which this article came.

> An incorporated company is given some freedoms that individuals are,
> and in many ways is considered a "person" in the eyes of the law, but
> if you are going to arrest someone, you have to arrest a person.

We in America are increasingly becoming subject to corporatism, a
characteristic of fascistic societies and governments. In this,
monopolistic, politically influential corporate entities behave as
anarchists and criminals, capable of doing so due to lack of effective
government oversight or effective legal recourse for those they exploit.

> -Just curious.
>
> Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl **
> Linux/*BSD/Windows
> Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
>
> It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.

Larry

2007-02-09, 10:33 pm

"Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net> wrote in news:C98zh.49407$Xq6.14989
@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

> network guys
> from their commercial doing the perp walk in handcuffs.
>

Oh, would you like to see what the arms of the little guy in glasses that
wears that stupid jacket all summer in the heat looks like. They strip him
in the Salley Port and find tracks all up and down his arms....hee hee...

Why else would anyone wear a long sleeve jacket all summer when all the
other people in the TV spam look like they're dressed for the beach?

Larry
--
VIRUS ALERT! VISTA has been released!
NOONE will be spared!

Agent_C

2007-02-09, 10:33 pm

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 00:16:34 GMT, "Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net>
wrote:

>Talk about arrogance! This greedy, abusive, harassive corpseration must go!
>----------------------------
>From http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/81544
>Warrant Issued For Verizon's Arrest
>They can, apparently, hear him now...
>
>Posted 2007-02-09 08:58:10 by Karl · tags: [wireless] [business]
>Tipped by The_Gman
>
>According to the Consumerist, one man successfully sued Verizon Wireless
>after they "double-billed him, ruined his credit, lied about not receiving
>his letters, and refused to fix their mistake." When Verizon didn't appear
>for the follow up payment review, the court issued a capias, or bench
>warrant, authorizing Verizon's arrest. Fortunately, Verizon paid up at the
>last second, avoiding any unsightly news footage of all those network guys
>from their commercial doing the perp walk in handcuffs.

Until somebody comes up with an index number, I'm regarding this story
as at least 90% bullshit.

I don't doubt that somebody sued Verizon, but the purported details
and outcome make no sense.

A_C

kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net

2007-02-09, 10:33 pm

Freedom Fighter wrote:
> Talk about arrogance! This greedy, abusive, harassive corpseration must go!
> ----------------------------
> From http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/81544
> Warrant Issued For Verizon's Arrest
> They can, apparently, hear him now...
>
> Posted 2007-02-09 08:58:10 by Karl · tags: [wireless] [business]
> Tipped by The_Gman
>
> According to the Consumerist, one man successfully sued Verizon Wireless
> after they "double-billed him, ruined his credit, lied about not receiving
> his letters, and refused to fix their mistake." When Verizon didn't appear
> for the follow up payment review, the court issued a capias, or bench
> warrant, authorizing Verizon's arrest. Fortunately, Verizon paid up at the
> last second, avoiding any unsightly news footage of all those network guys
> from their commercial doing the perp walk in handcuffs.
>
>
And I'm going to file on Monday in my local court. I'm going to love
doing this. I can't wait. :)

kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net

2007-02-09, 10:33 pm

Steven J. Sobol wrote:
> In article <C98zh.49407$Xq6.14989@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Freedom Fighter wrote:
>
> Who would they have arrested?
>
> An incorporated company is given some freedoms that individuals are,
> and in many ways is considered a "person" in the eyes of the law, but
> if you are going to arrest someone, you have to arrest a person.
>
> -Just curious.
>
>
>
When I asked verizon who should I list on the paper work, They advise me
to send paper work to airtouch in LA, Calif. I'm going to file on the
mgr of our local store. Time to get down and get dirty. I'm looking
forward to this. Stick it in them and turn it till it hurts.

This is about there txt msg plan going up in price which I don't agree with.
They then offered me a 100 txt plan FREE. I turned it down. :)

Then He asks me what provider I would be going to. hahahaha...

Todd Allcock

2007-02-10, 4:33 am

At 10 Feb 2007 01:55:59 +0000 kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net wrote:

> This is about there txt msg plan going up in price which I don't agree
> with.

Here we go again...

So, how much are you going to to sue them for? A successful suit needs
damages. What are your damages? If you haven't texted anyone, your
damages, so far, are zero.

> They then offered me a 100 txt plan FREE. I turned it down. :)

Make sure you tell that to the judge- Verizon offered a generous
concession and you refused it. That'll play well in small claims...

Seriously- how many texts do you use a month? The 100 free texts per
month means you can make 300 texts/month before the price increase
effects you. (300 texts at the old price = $30, 100 free texts + 200
paid texts at new price = $30.)

If you were actually using 300 texts a month, you'd already have a
texting plan, and the increase wouldn't affect you.

You'd better be prepared to prove to the Judge that the increase will
harm you monetarily- unless your bills show a pattern of 300+
texts/month, I think the net result of your case will be to lighten your
wallet the $50-100 filing fee.

> Then He asks me what provider I would be going to. hahahaha...

Are you saying they offered to let you out of your contract? If so,
you'll not only be out the court costs, but the Judge will instruct the
baliff to slap you for wasting his or her time!

Again, kidding aside, RCN Wirless News did a story on Verizon's texting
price increase a few weeks ago. In the story Verizon claimed their
lawyers rubber-stamped the increase and claimed it didn't violate the
terms of their customer's contracts (Verizon claimed in the article that
they only needed to give a 30-day written notice to change the price of
the texts.) Now I'm not suggesting a Judge will necessarily agree with
Verizon's position, but going into small claims court with a smartassed
attitude over a nickel for texts you don't even use isn't going to get
you very far, particularly when Verizon tells the Judge they offered you
$15.00 worth of free texts/month to mitigate the increase.

Good luck... I suspect you might need it.

kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net

2007-02-10, 4:33 am

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 10 Feb 2007 01:55:59 +0000 kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net wrote:
>
>
>
> Here we go again...
>
> So, how much are you going to to sue them for? A successful suit needs
> damages. What are your damages? If you haven't texted anyone, your
> damages, so far, are zero.
>
>
>
> Make sure you tell that to the judge- Verizon offered a generous
> concession and you refused it. That'll play well in small claims...
>
> Seriously- how many texts do you use a month? The 100 free texts per
> month means you can make 300 texts/month before the price increase
> effects you. (300 texts at the old price = $30, 100 free texts + 200
> paid texts at new price = $30.)
>
> If you were actually using 300 texts a month, you'd already have a
> texting plan, and the increase wouldn't affect you.
>
> You'd better be prepared to prove to the Judge that the increase will
> harm you monetarily- unless your bills show a pattern of 300+
> texts/month, I think the net result of your case will be to lighten your
> wallet the $50-100 filing fee.
>
>
> Are you saying they offered to let you out of your contract? If so,
> you'll not only be out the court costs, but the Judge will instruct the
> baliff to slap you for wasting his or her time!
>
> Again, kidding aside, RCN Wirless News did a story on Verizon's texting
> price increase a few weeks ago. In the story Verizon claimed their
> lawyers rubber-stamped the increase and claimed it didn't violate the
> terms of their customer's contracts (Verizon claimed in the article that
> they only needed to give a 30-day written notice to change the price of
> the texts.) Now I'm not suggesting a Judge will necessarily agree with
> Verizon's position, but going into small claims court with a smartassed
> attitude over a nickel for texts you don't even use isn't going to get
> you very far, particularly when Verizon tells the Judge they offered you
> $15.00 worth of free texts/month to mitigate the increase.
>
> Good luck... I suspect you might need it.
>
>
>
Wrong again. read about it in your bill. I'm not in a txt plan. And
after I went down there and asked the guys name for the court papers I
got a call on my cell phone. "Were sorry" you can leave your plan. guess
where I was at when this call came in ? Yep, The verizon store. "Waiting
for the mgr that was busy" Told by the guy that asked me what it was
concerning. The best part about this BS is that I'm told on the phone
that I get 100 text's per month. I asked when was it added ? A few
months ago. I then asked why did I get billed for 4 last month ? I'm
then put on hold. A few mins later I'm told I'm allowed to end the
contract without the fee. They will do anything to keep you from getting
out early. Even lie to your face.

Damages would have been the extra .05 per txt. Do you even understand
the word contract ? I guess you don't. I don't take any crap from any
company. It's people like you that do so, the more they find, the more
they try to get away with it.

Small claims court cost 31.00 to file. When they would have lost, As
it's all spelled out on there enclosed paper in my bill. If you don't
agree then you can leave without paying the fee. They would have to pay
the court costs, along with my time and there lost time. You think there
going to show up for 175.00 ? I have all the time in the world. I would
have enjoyed going to small claims court.

We have contracts for a reason. So a person does not get bent over.
By your reply you must enjoy that kind of thing. I did not take there
free txt package. Why, I don't like to txt. But that's the point here.
They raise the price under my contract. I have a right to leave without
a ETF... If they raised your "Contract" per month fee by 50% would you
allow it ? This is what there doing here.

Good luck ? Nope. It's called not eating crap and being told your going
to enjoy it.

Scott

2007-02-10, 10:33 am

" kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net" < kevinkeithweaver1@sb
cglobal.net> wrote
in news:xnfzh.25841$yC5.23183@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net:

> Wrong again. read about it in your bill. I'm not in a txt plan.

Which means that you probably don't text enough to incur any serious
damage.

> And
> after I went down there and asked the guys name for the court papers I
> got a call on my cell phone. "Were sorry" you can leave your plan.

I hear they are trying to purge all the whiners and morons.

> guess
> where I was at when this call came in ? Yep, The verizon store.

And I was in bed with Anna Nicole. See how easy it is to be someplace
you weren't?

" Waiting
> for the mgr that was busy" Told by the guy that asked me what it was
> concerning. The best part about this BS is that I'm told on the phone
> that I get 100 text's per month. I asked when was it added ? A few
> months ago. I then asked why did I get billed for 4 last month ? I'm
> then put on hold. A few mins later I'm told I'm allowed to end the
> contract without the fee.

Do the world a favor- take them up on the offer. The fact that they
made it gives you no legal recourse. Any 'damages' incurred going
forward of done voluntarily and not as a matter of contract law. If you
chose to stay, you chose to stay with the current pricing in place.

> They will do anything to keep you from getting
> out early. Even lie to your face.

Where did they lie? They offered to let you out of your contract. You
did pass Frshsman English, didn't you? Or is that next year when you
get to the big kids' school?

>
> Damages would have been the extra .05 per txt.

You're right- WOULD HAVE BEEN. By agreeing to stay in contract, you
agreed to the new pricing. Had they not offered to let you out of it,
things would be different.

> Do you even understand
> the word contract ?

Apparently we all understand it much better than you.

> I guess you don't. I don't take any crap from any
> company.

No- you whine and take up the compnay's time. You're the type of
customer that drives normal folks nuts- armed with very little
understanding of the law and absolutely no understanding of the issue at
hand. You spend hours trying to convince a company that you HAVE to be
right because your peanut-sized brain can't comprehend that anyone else
might actually know what they are talking about.

> It's people like you that do so, the more they find, the more
> they try to get away with it.
>
> Small claims court cost 31.00 to file. When they would have lost, As
> it's all spelled out on there enclosed paper in my bill. If you don't
> agree then you can leave without paying the fee. They would have to
> pay the court costs, along with my time and there lost time.

They won't have to pay for yout time- further proof that you don't have
a clue about what you are doing. Small Claims Court does not compensate
for time- only the "small claim" at hand.

Besides- McDonalds is paying what.....6 bucks an hour? I'm sure they
can get by without their fry guy for an hour or two.

> You think there
> going to show up for 175.00 ? I have all the time in the world. I
> would have enjoyed going to small claims court.

They might in fact send somebody from a local store who will be more
than happy to explain to the judge that the offer to get out of your
contract was made and that you refused. This would blow your case
apart. Of course, you'll have to admit to it yourself even if they
aren't there, unless you are simply just a bottom-feeder who's looking
for his payback from the Big Corporate Monster.

My bet- you don't mention it at all. You don't seem to have the moral
character or the balls to tell the truth to the judge.

kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net

2007-02-10, 12:33 pm

Scott wrote:
> " kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net" < kevinkeithweaver1@sb
cglobal.net> wrote
> in news:xnfzh.25841$yC5.23183@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net:
>
>
>
>
>
> Which means that you probably don't text enough to incur any serious
> damage.
>
>
>
>
>
> I hear they are trying to purge all the whiners and morons.
>
>
>
>
> And I was in bed with Anna Nicole. See how easy it is to be someplace
> you weren't?
>
>
> "Waiting
>
>
> Do the world a favor- take them up on the offer. The fact that they
> made it gives you no legal recourse. Any 'damages' incurred going
> forward of done voluntarily and not as a matter of contract law. If you
> chose to stay, you chose to stay with the current pricing in place.
>
>
>
>
> Where did they lie? They offered to let you out of your contract. You
> did pass Frshsman English, didn't you? Or is that next year when you
> get to the big kids' school?
>
>
>
> You're right- WOULD HAVE BEEN. By agreeing to stay in contract, you
> agreed to the new pricing. Had they not offered to let you out of it,
> things would be different.
>
>
>
>
> Apparently we all understand it much better than you.
>
>
>
>
>
> No- you whine and take up the compnay's time. You're the type of
> customer that drives normal folks nuts- armed with very little
> understanding of the law and absolutely no understanding of the issue at
> hand. You spend hours trying to convince a company that you HAVE to be
> right because your peanut-sized brain can't comprehend that anyone else
> might actually know what they are talking about.
>
>
>
> They won't have to pay for yout time- further proof that you don't have
> a clue about what you are doing. Small Claims Court does not compensate
> for time- only the "small claim" at hand.
>
> Besides- McDonalds is paying what.....6 bucks an hour? I'm sure they
> can get by without their fry guy for an hour or two.
>
>
>
>
>
> They might in fact send somebody from a local store who will be more
> than happy to explain to the judge that the offer to get out of your
> contract was made and that you refused. This would blow your case
> apart. Of course, you'll have to admit to it yourself even if they
> aren't there, unless you are simply just a bottom-feeder who's looking
> for his payback from the Big Corporate Monster.
>
> My bet- you don't mention it at all. You don't seem to have the moral
> character or the balls to tell the truth to the judge.
>
>
>
>
You just don't get it. Not until last night did they offer to allow me
to get out once this all went down. Being you work and **** verizon off,
I now fully understand your reply. It's the network.

Scott

2007-02-10, 3:33 pm

" kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net" < kevinkeithweaver1@sb
cglobal.net> wrote in
news:Q0ozh.5395$MN.3830@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net:

> You just don't get it.

Oh, I get it. You don't have a clue about how the real world works and see
this as your opportunity to stick it to the man. Your feelings of self-
importance come through crystal clear, only to be outdone by your lack of
any practical business knowledge. Watching Court TV does not make you a
legal expert.

> Not until last night did they offer to allow me
> to get out once this all went down.

Then do the world a favor and get out. And brush up on your contract law a
little bit before signing with another carrier- you have a lot to learn.

If you're thinking you won, think again. Verizon is happy to get rid of
nuisance customers like yourself who suck up resources and act like they
are the only user on the network.

> Being you work and **** verizon off,

More cluelessness- I neither work for nor use any Verizon products or
services. I guess that throws your whole "shill" argument out the door.

> I now fully understand your reply.

How? Did an adult translate it for you. You have shown that you
understand very little.

Freedom Fighter

2007-02-11, 4:33 am

" kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net" < kevinkeithweaver1@sb
cglobal.net> wrote in
message news:PC9zh.17127$ji1.4684@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
> Steven J. Sobol wrote:
> When I asked verizon who should I list on the paper work, They advise me
> to send paper work to airtouch in LA, Calif. I'm going to file on the mgr
> of our local store. Time to get down and get dirty. I'm looking forward to
> this. Stick it in them and turn it till it hurts.
>
> This is about there txt msg plan going up in price which I don't agree
> with.
> They then offered me a 100 txt plan FREE. I turned it down. :)
>
> Then He asks me what provider I would be going to. hahahaha...

Good luck - more power to you!

Diamond Dave

2007-02-11, 4:33 am

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 01:50:24 GMT, " kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net"
< kevinkeithweaver1@sb
cglobal.net> wrote:

>And I'm going to file on Monday in my local court. I'm going to love
>doing this. I can't wait. :)

Yawn. Thank you for wasting our taxpayer money and my monthly Verizon
Wireless fees for your wild goose chase.

kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net

2007-02-11, 4:33 am

Diamond Dave wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 01:50:24 GMT, " kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net"
> < kevinkeithweaver1@sb
cglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Yawn. Thank you for wasting our taxpayer money and my monthly Verizon
> Wireless fees for your wild goose chase.
>
>
Taxpayer money ? The person that files pays the fee. How is this
taxpayer money? Just thought you would chime in as well huh.

Diamond Dave

2007-02-11, 4:33 am

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 17:22:16 -0800, " kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net"
< kevinkeithweaver1@sb
cglobal.net> wrote:

>Taxpayer money ? The person that files pays the fee. How is this
>taxpayer money? Just thought you would chime in as well huh.

Paying for the judge, etc. I'm sure your "fee" won't pay for all that
goes into a lawsuit. (Yes, I know I'm not in your district, but its
the idea of you're wasting someone's tax dollars.)

Thank you for wasting my VZW fee on your petty lawsuit that will go
nowhere.

kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net

2007-02-11, 4:33 am

Diamond Dave wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 17:22:16 -0800, " kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net"
> < kevinkeithweaver1@sb
cglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
> Paying for the judge, etc. I'm sure your "fee" won't pay for all that
> goes into a lawsuit. (Yes, I know I'm not in your district, but its
> the idea of you're wasting someone's tax dollars.)
>
> Thank you for wasting my VZW fee on your petty lawsuit that will go
> nowhere.
>
Wasting your verizon fee ? Cool. Maybe they will raise your fee's 50%
while your in contract. Then we can see how happy your going to be about
it.

*Update* They called me this am and are letting me out without a ETF...

I'm not the only one there trying to keep. Larry, What was that web site
that has a hard-on for verizon. :)

Scott

2007-02-11, 10:33 am

" kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net" < kevinkeithweaver1@sb
cglobal.net> wrote in
news:27Czh.26069$yC5.22908@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net:

> Wasting your verizon fee ? Cool. Maybe they will raise your fee's 50%
> while your in contract. Then we can see how happy your going to be about
> it.

Thanks for proving my point, you little spoiled and clueless child. I like
the way that you admit to your selfisheness- "I don't care if I cost you
more money."

>
> *Update* They called me this am and are letting me out without a ETF...

Then get out- go to another provider. You'll have to sign another
contract- try to understand the next one

>
> I'm not the only one there trying to keep. Larry,

They aren't trying to keep you- they are trting to get rid of you. Pain in
the XXX customers like you cost too much money to be profitable. They (and
the rest of the Verizon community) are much better off without you.

What was that web site
> that has a hard-on for verizon. :)
>

www. kevinweaverisacluele
sstroll.com?

kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net

2007-02-16, 12:33 pm

You will never get Scott to agree with you.
I followed that web site's advice and was able to get out of mine. If
anyone else Is Interested on how to. Read the script on it. He also some
for other's as well.

Freedom Fighter wrote:
> Talk about arrogance! This greedy, abusive, harassive corpseration must go!
> ----------------------------
> From http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/81544
> Warrant Issued For Verizon's Arrest
> They can, apparently, hear him now...
>
> Posted 2007-02-09 08:58:10 by Karl · tags: [wireless] [business]
> Tipped by The_Gman
>
> According to the Consumerist, one man successfully sued Verizon Wireless
> after they "double-billed him, ruined his credit, lied about not receiving
> his letters, and refused to fix their mistake." When Verizon didn't appear
> for the follow up payment review, the court issued a capias, or bench
> warrant, authorizing Verizon's arrest. Fortunately, Verizon paid up at the
> last second, avoiding any unsightly news footage of all those network guys
> from their commercial doing the perp walk in handcuffs.
>
>

LinkBot