I should probably make some kind of "hot air" pun here, but it's early and I can't think of one.

I'm going to take another break from 30 days of Debt Collection to mention a Wisconsin law that many people don't know about: The Wisconsin False Advertising law, section 100.18 of the Wisconsin Statutes.

This comes up today because last night I watched an episode of Channel 27's Call For Action, an investigative series presented by that news show. This episode was about a company called Great American Balloon Company, and detailed how various people had paid for hot air balloon rides, some as many as four years ago, and had never gotten the rides. In the course of the report, Dan Cassuto tracked down the company's owner (he refused to comment) and noted that the people had repeatedly been promised rides, only to have the rides cancelled. In some cases, the cancellation was made based on claims of anticipated bad weather, and in one case the claim of bad weather from Great American Balloon Company was made on a day when the reporter actually took a ride with a different hot air balloon company.

Many, if not all, of the people had complained to the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade & Consumer Protection. But none of the people had, to my knowledge, contacted a lawyer or sued themselves (a review of court records shows no suits against the company that I could find), even though they could probably sue -- and do so for free, practically.

They could probably sue, and probably sue for free, under section 100.18. That law says:
100.18(1) (1) No person, firm, corporation or association, or agent or employee thereof, with intent to sell, distribute, increase the consumption of or in any wise dispose of any real estate, merchandise, securities, employment, service, or anything offered by such person, firm, corporation or association, or agent or employee thereof, directly or indirectly, to the public for sale, hire, use or other distribution, or with intent to induce the public in any manner to enter into any contract or obligation relating to the purchase, sale, hire, use or lease of any real estate, merchandise, securities, employment or service, shall make, publish, disseminate, circulate, or place before the public, or cause, directly or indirectly, to be made, published, disseminated, circulated, or placed before the public, in this state, in a newspaper, magazine or other publication, or in the form of a book, notice, handbill, poster, bill, circular, pamphlet, letter, sign, placard, card, label, or over any radio or television station, or in any other way similar or dissimilar to the foregoing, an advertisement, announcement, statement or representation of any kind to the public relating to such purchase, sale, hire, use or lease of such real estate, merchandise, securities, service or employment or to the terms or conditions thereof, which advertisement, announcement, statement or representation contains any assertion, representation or statement of fact which is untrue, deceptive or misleading.

Phew! Got all that? What it means is that companies can't make deceptive or misleading statements to get your money. If they do, the customer can sue the deceptive company, and be awarded their "pecuniary loss," the money they're out. And, better, (this is the free part) the customer can be awarded their attorney's fees if they win.

Most of the people, it seemed, paid about $200, which means they're out $200. If they hired a lawyer to sue, they'd pay a small claims filing fee of $94.50, and probably $30-50 to serve the company. If they win, they'd get a judgment for that money, plus the money they spent on the balloon rides, plus their attorney's fees. (For that reason, many firms, including my own, will sometimes take these cases on a contingent fee basis -- so you don't pay any fees if you don't win.)

I'm not saying for sure that Great American Balloon Company violated section 100.18; from what I saw, it sure looks like it, but I'd have to hear more from the individuals about what they were promised when they signed up, and what they were promised along the way that kept them waiting as much as four years for rides that haven't happened yet to be sure. (The law, by the way, requires that any suits be filed within 3 years of the violation -- but that may not prohibit someone who paid more than 3 years ago from suing, for a variety of reasons.)

What I do know is that for about $100, the people who haven't yet been taken for a ride could try to get their money back. At worst, they're out only another $100; at best, they get their money back and some satisfaction, too. But they haven't yet tried to do that, maybe because they didn't know about this law.

Which is why I always say: Consult a lawyer. You may not know your rights -- but the lawyers should know about them, and we're ready to help.

Here's a doozy of a case where the debt collectors won...

For Day 26 of 30 Days of Debt Collection, (yes, it's still going on...) I thought I'd follow up on what I talked about the other day when I mentioned that debtors can't harass debt collectors, what I called the Good For The Gander rule, by looking at a case where the debtors, or, more correctly, their lawyer, really messed up.

Really really messed up.

The case is Riddle & Associates, P.C. v. Kelly, and here's what happened to set it up: A woman wrote a bad check to a casino in Illinois. So Riddle & Associates was hired to collect the debt. Riddle sent a notice demanding $125 -- the $100 check plus a $25 service charge.

The check writer never responded to that notice directly. Instead, she hired a lawyer, Edelman, to help her out, and Edelman helped her out by writing to Riddle and claiming that Riddle's letter violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA.)

The violation Edelman claimed was a violation known as "overshadowing," which can occur when a letter correctly sets out the information the FDCPA requires -- such as the fact that a debtor has 30 days to dispute a debt -- but then "overshadows" that information by providing other threats or information which contradict or otherwise confuse things.

The "overshadowing" wasn't the only claim that Edelman made. He also said that Riddle had falsely threatened to sue his client, a second claim that will become important.

Edelman demanded Riddle pay his client $3000 for what he said were FDCPA violations. No cowards, Riddle responded by saying they hadn't violated the law, and by demanding that Edelman pay them $500 for their time and fees.

Edelman didn't pay, and we all know what happened next, right? In the ordinary scheme, the debt collector files suit and the debtor counterclaims. Or, sometimes, the debtor files suit and the debt collector counterclaims.

Well, that didn't happen here. Instead, Riddle filed an action for what's called "declaratory judgment," a ruling from the court that "declares" things to be, or not be. In this case, Riddle wanted the Court to say that their letter wasn't illegal.

Edelman didn't back down; he filed counterclaims saying that the letter was illegal... but not for the reasons he'd originally said. He didn't claim, anymore, that the letter "overshadowed" anything, but instead claimed that the letter made a false threat to sue his client, and also claimed that Riddle's asking him for $500 violated the FDCPA, too.

Riddle then moved the court for "summary judgment," (a motion asking the court to decide a case without a trial). Edelman opposed that, saying their motion was "without merit." But Edelman didn't argue much about the "overshadowing" claim that started this whole shebang.

Edelman lost the overshadowing argument. The court ruled in Riddle's favor, saying that Riddle's letter was exactly the kind of letter that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals had suggested debt collectors like Riddle use. Edelman then lost his counterclaims, too, one after a jury trial.

That's when the real fight started, because Riddle, and Riddle's lawyers, asked the Court to award them fees, and they didn't ask for fees under the FDCPA. Instead, they asked for fees to be awarded under a different statute, section 1927 of the United States Code.

That statute says that "Any attorney ... who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct."

That's a rule that prohibits attorneys from ramping up the proceedings unreasonably, and vexatiously. If they do that, the Court can order them to pay excess costs.

Here, the Court found that Edelman's conduct in sending the original letter, and then in how he fought against the declaratory judgment, did just that: He vexatiously and unreasonably multiplied the proceedings. The Court of Appeals said:

"When Edelman demanded $3000 to release a blatantly frivolous claim, the firm pursued a path that it should have known was improper."

That path, the Court decided, led to the litigation which Edelman then fought rather than throw in the towel -- so the whole proceedings, or at least most of them, were Edelman's fault, and he owed Riddle money.

How much money? $18,000 or so.

But Edelman's troubles in this case didn't end there. Riddle's own lawyers wanted their fees paid, too, for the counterclaims. Originally, Edelman won on this issue, but the Court of Appeals overturned that and held that the counterclaims, too, were vexatious, and so it ordered that Edelman pay additional fees.

The good news for the debtor is that she, apparently, was not ordered to pay those amounts. I have no record of whether she ever paid the check, either.

The Riddle case is a cautionary note for lawyers and their clients, one that warns lawyers to make sure that the claims they advance are on solid legal ground. It's important to remember that not all losing cases are frivolous, or vexatious, or unreasonable; in every case that goes to trial, one side wins and one side loses -- but that doesn't mean that 50% of all litigants are behaving unreasonably or frivolously.

It's important to remember, too, that even claims that have been held barred by law are not necessarily frivolous. In some cases, a lawyer can make an argument that the law should be changed, thereby advancing a case that has been previously ruled to be unfounded, and still not be acting frivolous. One famous example of just such a situation is Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, in which Thurgood Marshall argued that separate-but-equal was not; Marshall was arguing against a long-established U.S. Supreme Court precedent -- but he wasn't being frivolous.

In a similar but far less important vein, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held in Rabideau v. City of Racine that a litigant's request for emotional distress damages based on her dog being shot -- while a loser, and barred by law -- was not frivolous.

So not every case is frivolous, vexatious, or unreasonable -- but every case deserves to be examined to make sure that not only can it be brought, but it should be brought.



Want to enter a contest just by commenting on this post? Between 11/24/09 and 12/8/09, you can. Click here for details!

And, they're two good-looking lawyers. That shouldn't matter, but it does.

People in New Jersey looking for bankruptcy lawyers, look no further than Capone and Keefe.

Capone and Keefe are lawyers who make sure that you see lawyers, not paralegals or support staff or somebody-or-others, like some other law firms. When you hire Capone and Keefe, you'll meet with lawyers, you'll get lawyers returning your phone calls, and lawyers will answer your questions.

Capone and Keefe do that because they know that a lawyer represents his or her client best when the client's concerns are listened to and understood, and that's best done when the lawyer and the client talk, and work, together.

Hire Capone and Keefe, and you'll be hiring:

Attorney Marc Capone, former staff attorney (for four years!) for the standing Chapter 13 Trustee in New Jersey, and a graduate of the New York Law School. Marc's been practicing, all told, for fourteen years and knows bankruptcy inside and out.

And you'll be getting:

Attorney Liza Keefe -- likewise, a fourteen year legal veteran, one who not only practices bankruptcy law but also real estate, trusts, and wills.



Together, these two run a hand-on, professional firm that will make sure you are well-represented through every phase of your legal case.

So if you're in New Jersey, and you're in debt, give a call to Capone and Keefe or click over to their website. They'll help you deal with the panic, the fear, the questions that come with contemplating bankruptcy and other financial matters, and they'll do it compassionately and well.

Interesting Judicial Comments: Little green men

30 Days of Debt Collection Will Be Back Soon... here's an interlude from that.

Federal courts, and probably all state courts, have a rule that allows a defendant to ask a Court to dismiss a case if that case "fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Such a motion (called a "12(b)(6)" motion in federal courts, because that's the number of the rule) works like this:

1. It assumes that everything in the Complaint is true, and
2. It asks the Court to rule that even if everything the plaintiff says is true, then the Plaintiff still cannot win for one reason or another.

So a judge has to assume, in ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion, that everything the Complaint says is true...

... or does she? Consider this quote from no less an authority than Justice David Souter, writing for the U.S. Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Iqbal:

Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance... dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a complaint's factual allegations. The sole exception to this rule lies with allegations that are sufficiently fantastic to defy reality as we know it: claims about little green men, or the plaintiff's recent trip to Pluto, or experiences in time travel.

So, tough luck, claimants in that class action suit against alien abductors.





Going to comment on this post? You'd better. Click here to find out why.

Send Jacob to Disney World For The Holidays!

This is a Sponsored Post written by me on behalf ofLeapfish Inc. All opinions are 100% mine.

4-year-old Jacob has two things on his mind. One: He wants to go to Disney World with his family. Two, he's dying.

Because of the latter, Jacob might never have gotten the former wish to come true -- but thanks to LeapFish, and thanks to tweet-a-cause, he's going to get to Disney World after all, and you can send him there just by Tweeting.

This unique fundraising opportunity works like this: The Make-A-Wish Foundation now offers a program called "Adopt-A-Wish," whereby people or companies can take on the full cost of granting a child's wish (instead of donating money outright). LeapFish adopted Jacob's wish and then made it easy for you to help out and raise the money to send Jacob to the Magic Kingdom. From November 16 to November 27, LeapFish will donate 5 cents per Tweet to send Jacob to Disney World, up to $10,000.

(LeapFish is an "evolved" search engine that makes it easier and better to search and share content in one platform. To find out more about them, go to blog.leapfish.com.)

So what do you have to do? Tweet -- and I've made it easier for you by setting up the link above. Click that link and follow the directions and you'll be helping LeapFish make Jacob's wish come true. Nothing could be easier, and nothing could be more helpful. You're going to Tweet anyway, so why not help out a little kid?

Debtors can't harass debt collectors, either: (The Good For The Gander Rule)

Is it still 30 days of Debt Collection?

Sigh.

I'm going to finish this if it kills me.

In Wisconsin, we have the Wisconsin Consumer Act, which applies to almost every debt a person could owe (almost every debt. Almost. That's a big qualifier, even though it doesn't seem like it). One big protection the Wisconsin Consumer Act provides is that it prohibits creditors from imposing attorney's fees on almost every debt it covers. (Almost! every debt.)

Which means that in Wisconsin, at least, you're generally protected from claims that you have to pay the creditors' attorney's fees if you lose your case; so when you default on your credit card and a debt collector comes calling and you make them sue you, you can rest assured that you will not have to pay, if you lose, the debt collector's attorney's fees.

Usually.

(Wow. That's three big qualifiers there: almost every debt, generally protected, usually not have to pay. See why lawyers stay in business?)

There are, like all laws, exceptions to this rule. Mortgages are one exception -- your mortgage lender (in some cases) can tack on attorney's fees.

Another exception comes from the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and provides a back door for debt collectors to try to get their attorney's fees back from you if you sue them and lose. The FDCPA giveth, and the FDCPA taketh away, in some cases, as can be seen by this rule:

On a finding by the court that an action under this section was brought in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment, the court may award to the defendant attorney's fees reasonable in relation to the work expended and costs.

That's what the law says. So if you, the debtor, sue a debt collector "in bad faith" and to harass the debt collector, they can turn the tables on you and get their attorney's fees, from you.

The law sets a pretty high bar for what a debt collector would have to prove. If your case is "minimally colorable," in the words of one court, you won't owe them fees -- so you've got to have some kind of claim, even if it's not a very good one. And if you win on some, but not all, of your claims, you probably won't owe fees either, at least in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in 2003 that an entire action had to be brought in bad faith and to harass, not just a part of it.

In that case, Horkey v. J.V.D.B. & Assoc., Inc., the debtor sued on four different claims all stemming from a debt collector calling her at work. (I mentioned Horkey back on day 20, here.) She won on 3 of the 4 claims, but the court denied her a ruling on the 4th. J.V.D.B. then asked for attorney's fees, claiming that the action was brought in bad faith.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals slapped that contention down, affirming the district court and noting:

In fact, at this juncture any bad-faith accusations would more appropriately be directed at J.V.B.D. for appealing the denial of its attorney's fees, but that issue is not before us.

It would have been neat for a court to turn a motion for fees on its head, and award fees based on someone seeking an award of fees, but we can always go down that rabbit hole later on.

Debt collectors who want to get their fees back have to prove that the debtor acted in bad faith and to harass the debt collector, and winning the case isn't enough to prove that, in most instances. A complete lack of evidence can be proof that a debtor acted in bad faith and to harass, said the Court in Jacobson v. Healthcare Financial Services, Inc., E.D.N.Y.2006, 434 F.Supp.2d 133, so a father whose son's debt appeared on his credit report would have been well-advised to drop that suit before filing for summary judgment.

Keep in mind, though, that simply weak cases aren't enough, either: The law should, and does, encourage people to press new claims or argue for new interpretations, as long as they do so in good faith, so merely presenting a weak, or novel, idea, generally doesn't mean you'll pay the other side's fees if you lose. So you could, say, sue a library for violating the FDCPA, and even if you lose (because you were wrong from the start?) you won't automatically pay the fees for those high-powered library lawyers.

That library case is kind of a fascinating one in its own right, and deserves a closer look.

The case of Riebe v. Juergensmeyer & Assocs, an Illinois federal case under the FDCPA, arose because someone's daughter didn't return a library book and the library wanted to get paid for its book.

Now, ordinarily, things might end with that, unless it's me you're dealing with, or unless you're the library's lawyers, who for some reason thought it would be a good idea to threaten the library patron -- a minor-- with arrest under the Illinois criminal laws. To collect $29.95, the lawyers threatened criminal liability.

That wasn't the end of it, either, because the minor's parents got their own lawyer, who threatened to sue for $31,000 if the case wasn't settled out of court.

The case wasn't settled, and the minor's parents did sue, and the entire case came down to the question of whether a fine imposed for borrowing a library book and not returning it was a "debt" under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

No, the court decided, it's not a debt, because a "debt" means that there was a consumer transaction and borrowing a library book isn't a consumer transaction, it's a public privilege. Because there was no underlying transaction, the Court reasoned, there was no "debt" as far as the FDCPA was concerned.

So the plaintiffs lose, and the defendants, pressing their luck, ask for an award of attorney's fees -- claiming that it was bad faith to write strongly worded letters and demand $31,000 when everyone involved knew it was a "fine" and not a "debt," but the Court denied the request for fees, noting that there was at least a novel argument to be made:
[D]espite Defendants' characterization of the lawsuit as absurd, the facts of this case are sufficiently unique to bring an action (albeit unsuccessful) under the statute, especially in light of the recent debate of what constitutes a "debt" under the FDCPA.

The bottom line? If you're going to sue a debt collector, make sure you have a good reason for doing so.

And return your library books on time.

I would spend far more than 80 days traveling around the world if I could.

Wow. I just got my head spinning, and it's still early.

My head is spinning because I just heard about the British Airways November Seat Sale, a chance to get the Upgraded British Airways experience at low prices and, more importantly, to travel somewhere cool, somewhere I've always wanted to go.

Everytime I hear about an airfare sale, I go check it out in case I have the money to take a quick romantic trip with Sweetie, and British Airways, especially, I go look at because they fly all over the world. So I went to their site and looked to see if I could go to London. I've always wanted to go to London, see Parliament and the Globe Theater and all those places Hugh Grant goes to in his movies.

I could go to London, I learned, and cheaply -- $229 each way per ticket -- but then I saw, just below that, that I could fly to Cairo for just $487 each way. Cairo, I thought: Pyramids, the Sphinx... pyramids (I don' t know much about Egypt). But just below that was Delhi, which I'm pretty sure is in India, and which I also want to see, and that was just $445 each way.

So Delhi, I thought: Maybe I could convince Sweetie to take a trip there, for romance. She's not big on flying, but with the way British Airways upgrades flying for everyone -- they offer over 200 On-Demand Entertainment Options, with complimentary food and cocktails on all flights, comfortable seats, flight socks & blankets, and destination guides to make the most of your trip -- I could probably convince her to go to Hong Kong, especially since British Airways is offering a package there, too, not just the flight but also 3 nights in a hotel for $1,131 per person.

Wait, did I say Hong Kong? I know I was thinking Delhi, but Hong Kong slipped out because of the deal they've got there, too. But, really, I should focus on how to convince Sweetie to take advantage of the Nairobi package British Airways has, just $1,297 for a round trip ticket from New York to Nairobi...

Focus. Focus. I've got to pick one. That Nairobi one is attractive, so that's the one. I'll just call Sweetie right now and tell her, "Sweetie, I've decided. We are booking a round-trip package on British Airways and going to Rome for the holidays. It's just $749 per person including hotel, so it's worth it..."

Focus.

Look, the important thing is that if you book by November 19, you can go anywhere, practically, with superlow rates for flights and including packages for hotels. So while I practice choosing just one of those destinations, why don't you go check themout for yourself?

Grocery Shopping In An Alternate Universe: A Parable

This post appeared first on Thinking The Lions. I know it doesn't quite fit here, but it's important enough that I'm putting it on all my blogs today.


I was one of the lucky ones, I suppose.

I was able to get hired by an employer who offered a great grocery plan. And not only that, but the plan covered my family, which meant that only a few months after getting hired, we'd be able to get to the grocery store almost any time we wanted and buy food.

I liked the plan. Even though I had to pay 15% of my income each month towards groceries (whether or not I bought any), my employer was paying 85% of the cost (whether or not I bought groceries), so I could accept that part of my pay was being taken towards necessities I might never use. It even kind of made sense to me that my employer covered 85% of the cost of the Grocery Plan for the higher-ups who made 2 or 3 or 4 times what I made. Sure, they could afford to pay more for their groceries -- and if they did so, it would reduce my own costs-- and, yeah, 15% of my just-about-minimum wage earnings really kind of hurt a lot more than if I was paying, say, 15% of $200,000 like the guys at the top, but it seemed fair, to me, that we all paid the same exact percentage. Besides, whenever it came up in my mind, I just reminded myself to look only at the percentages, not the actual dollars.

In just three short months, I was covered under the Grocery Plan and it was about time, too, as the kids and my wife were really hungry. We'd put off going to the grocery store until we were covered, but not by choice: Without a Grocery Plan, we couldn't find a grocery store that would let us in unless we paid in advance for everything we wanted.

"But I don't know what I want, yet," I told one lady on the phone. "I don't even know what you offer or what it costs. How can I pay for it in advance?"

She was apologetic and said that's just the way it works.

So anyway, when my Grocery Plan went into effect, I called up and got pre-approval to go to one of the three grocery stores that were kind of near us. The one I really wanted to go to, just down the street, wasn't in the plan, but I could deal with that. I don't mind driving a little, especially because it's important to control the costs of groceries by using only pre-approved stores.

My wife asked "What if we just need a gallon of milk in a hurry? Can't we just run to the Store nearby?" So I asked the insurance lady that, and she said that we could, in an emergency, but that they might not pay for the groceries if we did that and we should try to call them first. Anyway, my wife's just a worrywart. We can plan ahead and never need to run out and get milk at the last minute.

Once I had the pre-approval, I drove to the grocery store, but they told me I needed an appointment to shop. When I asked how long it would be until I could get an appointment, they said they could get me in during the afternoon on Tuesday, three weeks from now.

I wasn't starving, yet, but the kids were pretty hungry. The littlest one, Mr Bunches, hadn't eaten since I lost my last job and I was worried that maybe it was starting to affect him.

"Isn't there any way I could get some groceries today?" I asked the lady at the desk. She said that there was an Urgent Groceries across town, if I felt it was that important.

I pictured Mr Bunches and the way he'd stared longingly at the refrigerator, and decided this was pretty urgent. Not a Grocery Emergency or anything, but pretty Urgent. And besides, even if it wasn't terribly urgent, what other choice did I have? I might have been able to wait a day or two, but three weeks?

So I drove to the Urgent Groceries and went inside. The lady at the front desk asked to see my card and asked what I was there for.

"I need some groceries, today," I said. "I've got some little kids, and a wife, at home, and they haven't eaten in a long time." She looked skeptical, like I didn't belong there, and I wanted to say "Hey, it's your fault that I couldn't get into the regular grocery store," but I didn't, because I didn't want to get them mad at me.

She handed me some forms and said that there was a $100 copay, which really surprised me. "I already pay a premium, through my work," I said. "It's 15% of my income, the same as everyone else's in the business, even the higher-ups -- they make, like 3 times what I do but we all pay the same share, so that's fair, right?"

She said that the co-pay is in addition to the premium, and said I should look at my Grocery Card. I'd never looked at it before -- that whole stack of Grocery Policy Papers and things they'd given me was pretty confusing, and I hadn't read it anyway because it was the only policy my boss offered, so it didn't matter whether I liked it or not, I had to take it or leave it. I didn't really like that I'd pay more every time I went to the Store, but I figured if it became a problem I'd limit my trips, go only when I absolutely had to.

The card said that the copay was $50, and I showed it to her. "That's for regular shopping, not Urgent Groceries," she said. "Urgent Groceries are double."

"I have to pay more if it's more urgent?" I asked.

"Yes," she said, and she didn't sound sympathetic.

"But it's not even my fault I'm here. I tried to go to the regular Grocery Store and they didn't let me in."

"Sorry," she said, but she didn't sound sorry. I had to write out a check for this "copay" and hope that they wouldn't cash it before I got paid on Friday, but what could I do? I needed groceries, and I didn't want to go home and see Sweetie and Mr F and The Boy staring at me.

Then she gave me some forms and said to check in with the receptionist, which was weird because I thought that's what I'd done. But I began filling out the forms and telling them my grocery history, as best as I could. I'd never had Groceries before, so I wasn't really sure how to answer some of the questions.

I sat in the waiting room for about 50 minutes, but I didn't mind because I knew I probably shouldn't have been there. I mean, when I looked at the other Urgent Grocery shoppers waiting their turn, they all looked worse than me. One guy kept smacking his lips and saying "Hamburgers!" over and over, and his eyes looked glazed. There was a little girl there who looked really thin and pale, like she'd never eaten. I thought she should have gone to the Emergency Groceries, or maybe even a Fast Food Place. I didn't mind that she got to go shopping ahead of me.

There were a couple other people like me, though, who didn't seem to really be that needy. I bet they'd done what I did: Just realized that they kind of needed to get some Groceries, and couldn't wait 3 weeks.

While I was sitting there, I couldn't help but wonder why it was that the Regular Grocery Stores weren't open past 5 p.m., or before 9 a.m., or even on the weekends. It might make it easier if they were open longer, or had different shifts. I mean, for regular grocery shopping, I'd have to take time off of work just to go get some potato chips, and if I couldn't do that, I'd always be at the Urgent Grocery Store, since that was the only one open past 5 or on weekends.

Oh, well, I figured. They know what they're doing. It's not up to me to second guess how the grocery business is run.

When they finally called my name, I stopped reading the old Shoppers' Guide they had in the waiting room and got up with my list in hand. I was actually kind of excited: I'd waited so long for this and now I was finally going to get some Groceries!

I took the list Sweetie had made and moved into the store. The first thing I needed was the Bakery, to get some Bread. I didn't see a sign for that, and I asked the clerk up front.

"We don't have a Bakery," she said. "This is an Urgent Grocery, so you can't get everything you need here. If you really need something that's not here, we can refer you. The Emergency Grocery has everything, downtown."

I decided that I didn't need Bread so much, and moved into the Cereal aisle. The selection was pretty slim there, too -- just the bare necessities, but that's what you get, I figured, when you have to go to the Grocery Store after hours. I walked around that aisle for a while trying to figure out which one to get, but I'd never had any cereal before and couldn't tell whether any of them was better than the other, or which one I might need, let alone which one a 3-year-old or my wife might need.

There was a Cereal Assistant, though, and I asked her whether she would recommend one or the other Cereals in the aisle. "I can't really recommend anything," she said. "I'm here to take information from you and pass it on to the Cereal Specialist. Then he and I will talk it over and he'll tell you what you need."

So I answered her questions ("I like sweetened cereal for the boys," I said, and "Maybe something with raisins.") She put it all into her computer, and nodded, and then said she'd be back in a while or the Cereal Specialist would come in in a bit.

After about 10 minutes, the Cereal Specialist came in. He asked me the same questions the Cereal Assistant had, looked at my stomach and my cart (which was still empty) and said "You need corn flakes."

"How much are they?" I asked.

"I don't know," he said, "But I'm sure your insurance will cover it. You should talk to them about it." He handed me a box of corn flakes and then patted my shoulder and said to make a follow-up appointment about a week before the box was empty.

I put the cornflakes in the cart and walked past all the other cereals, wondering why I had corn flakes instead of one of those other ones. It kind of bugged me, to tell you the truth. I'm not the smartest guy about these things, I know, but I saw a Dateline report a couple months ago where they were talking about how corn flakes don't really do that much to curb hunger, and they're not all that nutritious or tasty. I didn't watch the whole thing ('cause... boring), but I got enough to know that maybe I'd never try corn flakes.

Still, he was the Cereal Specialist, and nobody's ever really sure about these things, right?

I did know I needed milk for the corn flakes, and I headed over to the Dairy Aisle. All the milk was behind a counter, where a lady stood in a white coat. I wondered if she was a doctor, and asked her.

"No, I'm the Milk-A-Cist," she said.

"Oh," I said. "I need some milk for these corn flakes. We're going to eat tonight!"

"Did you call your prescription in ahead of time?" she asked.

"Prescription?" I asked.

"I can't sell you most milks without a prescription from the Specialist," she said. "If you've called it in, it'll probably be ready. Otherwise, you might have to wait."

"I've been here a pretty long time already," I said, "And I didn't ask about a prescription in the Cereal Aisle. Isn't there anything you can sell me?"

"We've got some over-the-counter stuff that might work, almost as good," the Milk-A-Cist said.

"Let me have some of that," I said, and she pulled out a bottle of water.

Water with cereal? I wasn't sure about that, but, I'm not Grocery Expert. I didn't go to Grocery School for 8 years or anything, so how should I know what's best? Besides, what else could I do?

"Will that work with cereal?" I asked her.

"I'm not supposed to give advice like that," she said, "But the label says it should be okay. Do you have any allergies to water?"

But I didn't know. I'd never been to the Groceries before. Then I had another thought: "Is that okay for 3-year-olds?" I asked.

She shook her head. "No, you'll need Childrens' Water for them." So she got some of that, too, and then rang it up. I showed her my insurance card, but she shook her head.

"No," she said. "Prescription Milk would be covered, mostly, but for over-the-counter things, you've got to pay cash."

That didn't make any sense to me at all, but, again, who am I to say what makes sense in these things and what doesn't? All these complexities are probably just lost on me. They must be, since the other day a guy on the radio said that we have the Greatest Grocery System In The World. So the weird stuff must work, and I'm not questioning it.

I paid for the waters and then was going to head out, but I looked down and thought Cereal and water doesn't seem like much of a meal, so I decided to try and get something a little more hearty. I headed back to the Meat Department to look for some chicken or something.

But at the Meat Department, there was another clerk. She said "Do you have an appointment?"

"No," I said, "But I didn't think I needed one. This is the Urgent Groceries, right?"

She shook her head. "The Meat Department is a specialist. We can't see you unless you have a referral."

"What's that?" I asked. She sighed and said:

"You have to go back to your regular Grocery Person and get them to refer you to us. Then you call us and make an appointment, and we'll help you with your Meat needs."

"I don't have a regular Grocery Person," I said. "I've only just gotten on a Grocery Plan."

"You should call your plan administrator and ask them to assign you a regular Grocery Person," she said. She seemed pretty nice and added "I'd like to help you, but that's all I can do."

I was really kind of upset. I didn't take it out on her, or the Meat Department, though. It was probably a law, I figured -- probably some stupid government law that was keeping them from helping me right now. Those God damn regulations! It's always like that: every time the government does anything they screw it up. I said that to her:

"Stupid Congress, right?" I nodded. She shook her head, though, and said:

"No, sir, it's just the Policy requirements."

I didn't know what that meant, though. So I thanked her and then said:

"Do you know who my Plan Administrator is?"

She said it was probably in my Policy, whatever that is. There was a 1-800 number on the back of my card, though, so I used my cell phone to call it while I walked back towards the front of the store. I couldn't get a hold of anyone, though. They said to call back during "normal business hours." That made sense: I worked during the day, so they must, too. I'd try to call the next day, I figured, on my lunch break.

Luckily for me, I didn't have to check out at all -- my Grocery Plan was going to pay for EVERYTHING. Except the water, of course. I showed my cereal to the cashier as I went out and she motioned to me.

"We need your address," she said.

"Why?" I asked.

"To send your statement of benefits," she said.

Whatever that is. I gave it to her. She also made me make a follow-up appointment. "Will I get more groceries that day?" I asked. She shook her head and said "It's just to see how these groceries went." I wondered if I'd have to pay a co-pay for that, too, but I figured I could just cancel it. She said I couldn't just call in and talk to them, either, and I'm not going to miss a day of work if the Groceries are fine.

I headed on home, where we feasted on corn flakes and cereal. The Boy complained about the dinner, saying that his friend's dad, when he got hungry, had gotten to go to a fancy restaurant and have a three-course meal.

"Well, what Grocery Plan does he have?" I asked. The Boy didn't know what a Grocery Plan was, so I explained to him that everyone has to have a Grocery Plan, that there's companies out there that will "cover" your Groceries, so that when you get hungry, you go to the Store and they tell you what groceries to get, and then they pay for him.

"Why do they do that?" The Boy asked.

"Because it makes sense," I said. "Nobody knows in advance how much their groceries are going to be, and when they'll need them..." but he interrupted.

"But you know you will need them, right?"

"Maybe," I said. "Not everyone needs groceries."

He shook his head. I could see he didn't get it, and he said "Everyone will need groceries some time or other." I didn't know how else to explain it to him, so I said

"Well, if they need groceries, they get on a Grocery Plan through work and then they'll get them."

"Can't they just buy a Grocery Plan?" The Boy asked. Sweetie and I laughed at that.

"Sure," I said. " I suppose they could just call a Grocery Plan Company and sign up but that'd cost them a bundle. It's better to get a job and have their boss give it to them."

The Boy still looked a little confused and said "But doesn't everyone need to eat? Shouldn't everyone be entitled to at least get some groceries, somehow?"

You've got to expect that from kids: They think that everything's a right, that things like groceries are just guaranteed to be given to you and that somehow, society can guarantee that. I tried to set him straight:

"Everyone can get groceries, if they want, Boy," I said. "But you can't just go around handing them out. We're not Russia, you know. That kind of thing doesn't work. Besides, imagine if the government were to take over the grocery industry!" Sweetie laughed at that, too.

"The government does pretty good with some things," The Boy said. He's probably got teachers that fill his head with that crap.

"Like what?" I challenged him.

"They deliver the mail all over the country, pretty quick, and it's cheap, too. You can mail a letter for less than fifty cents and it'll go from Maine to Alaska in a day or two."

I didn't even know where to begin with that one. "The Post Office?" I said. "That's your idea of government efficiency? Have you ever seen the lines at the Post Office? You wait forever just to get stamps, and the government has to pay the Post Office just to keep it in business." He was being ridiculous. I mean, yeah, I had to wait to get into the Urgent Groceries, but that was different because it wasn't the regular grocery store, which I could have gone right into if I'd had an appointment, plus, once I was in the Urgent Groceries, I'd hardly waited at all.

"Why do they do that?" The Boy asked. "Why do they pay to keep the Post Office running?"

I'd never thought of that, but I gave him an answer: "I guess," I said, "It's because it's important to the government, and people, that everyone gets to mail a letter or send a package and keep in communication with people."

"Aren't Groceries as important as mail?" The Boy asked.

"No," I said, "It's not that. Everyone agrees Groceries are important, but if the Government got into the Grocery business, it would put the private Grocery Companies out of business, and plus, nobody would want to go into the Grocery Store end of it." Something about that bugged me -- I kept thinking of Federal Express and UPS and the Post Office, for some reason, but I shrugged it aside. "We've got the Best Grocery System In the World, and you don't want to mess with that, right?" I figured if the guy on the radio swayed me, it'd sway The Boy.

That was the end of that, more or less. I was going to, the next day, call ahead and make a Grocery Appointment so I could go to the regular store in three weeks, since the follow-up appointment wasn't for new Groceries, but I was pretty busy and, anyway, I had groceries now, so I didn't need an appointment for three weeks away. I didn't know how long the corn flakes would last, but I guessed that if I couldn't get in when they ran out, I'd just go to the Urgent Groceries again.

The only real shocker was that about 3 months later, we got this thing in the mail. We got, like, four things, actually, all these papers that said This Is Not A Bill and had all kinds of figures and numbers on them. I couldn't figure them out -- I've been to college, but these were confusing -- but I didn't need to figure them out. Since they said This Is Not A Bill, I didn't need to do anything so I just threw them away.

The fourth one, though, was a bill, and it was for $4,000. Four thousand bucks! And they said it had to be paid within 30 days or they might send me to a collection agency.

I didn't have four grand sitting around, and anyway, I had a Grocery Plan, so this had to be a mistake. I finally got a chance to call the number on the bill and talk to the lady -- I had to go outside at work to do it because I'm not supposed to make personal phone calls -- and I said that it had to be a mistake because I had a Plan and because it was so expensive.

"I didn't even know how much those corn flakes cost!" I said, and she said that she was sorry about that but there was nothing she could do.

"But the Cereal Specialist said I needed those corn flakes and didn't give me a choice," I said. She didn't have any answer for that one, so I said "Well, anyway, it must be a mistake because I've got a Plan, so I don't have to pay for corn flakes."

"It's not a mistake, sir," she said. "You're not covered for those benefits you received," and when I asked what that meant, she said that because I was a new enrollee, I wasn't covered for Hunger, as that was something she said was a "pre-existing condition."

"You mean," I said, "If I was hungry when I went shopping, you wouldn't pay for it, but if I wasn't hungry, then you would?"

"Exactly," she said. She explained that helped keep their costs down so that I could afford the Grocery Plan.

I tried to make a payment plan, but she said they didn't do that, and that I'd have to pay in full or they might garnish my wages. I talked to a guy I know about this, and he said that maybe a lawyer could help me, but all the lawyers I talked to just said that I could file bankruptcy, and I don't want to do that if I don't have to. I've been just sending them $20 here and there, whenever we have a little extra money, and hoping that they don't sue me or something. I can't keep that up for long, though, since my boss said that they're going to have to start charging the employees more for Grocery Plans to make ends meet at the business. So they're going to raise the contribution to 25%, which seems fair, I guess because with the recession and all, everyone's cutting back and I don't want to get laid off, so paying more seems like a good idea if it keeps me in my job. We couldn't ask many questions, since he told us about it on a conference call; he's on vacation right now, someplace warm like Guatamala or something, but he said even he's going to pay 25% of his wages, so it's not like I'm the only one sacrificing.

_____________________________________________________________

You wouldn't put up with that kind of thing for groceries... so why put up with it for health care?

Tomorrow, or soon, the House of Representatives is going to vote on the health care reform bill. This bill is not everything that's needed -- but it's a good step along the way.

Health care is a basic right that America should guarantee to everyone, and you can help. Contact your representative and tell him or her that you want Universal Health Care. See the links below.

Then contact the White House, and remind President Obama that he said this:


'We can have universal health care by the end of the next president's first term, by the end of my first term,'' Obama said, bringing 600 union workers to their feet during a question-and-answer session with members of AFL-CIO affiliated unions...

And tell him to quit mucking around and get Health Care Reform passed!

To contact your legislator, click this link and follow the simple directions.

To contact the White House, click this link and fill in the form.

What's My Case Worth? ($87,000, it seems.)

Day 24 of 30 Days of Debt Collection, and it's time for another round of what's my case worth? (FDCPA edition.) The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA,) remember, lets debtors who are the victims of violations of that law.

Victims like the three people in New Mexico who were awarded $87,000 in damages for abuses by a debt collector. The debt collector told one debtor that her mom might have to go to jail, called another derogatory names and used profanity, threatened to have one arrested, claimed a lawsuit would be filed, and, last but not least, agreed with the debtors to settle an account for a lesser amount, only to breach that agreement and try to get more money. The debtors were also awarded almost $6,000 in attorney's fees.

It looks like the defendants didn't bother to even appear in court -- so it's not clear if the debtors would have gotten more or less if the collectors had fought on it.

Remember that all cases are different and yours might be worth more... or less... or nothing at all.

Open That Circle Wide!

Forget driving across town to make it to a conference, or trying to find a local hotel to host your conference or seminar. Instead of going to all that trouble, why not OpenACircle?

OpenACircle lets you work in conferences with others without leaving your desk or office. You can share ideas, consult and communicate with your peers in one simple program that includes interactive video conferences, desktop share, file sharing and storage, even instant messaging and calendaring, all in one. OpenACircle is heads and shoulders above other sites that only let you do one of those things.

Got a big meeting? Open A Circle, and you can be at that meeting, with everyone else, talking through video and messaging others, while you all look at the same documents. Need to schedule a follow-up? You've got calendars right there for everyone to use... and you're sitting in your own office, so there's no lost productivity, no downtime stuck in traffic, no losing files on the subway.

OpenACircle works for family get-togethers, too: if you can't visit right now, you can get everyone together virtually to plan for family events like reunions or the holidays. Have your son -- that layabout!-- on from Florida, while you and your daughter come up with the recipes and IM lists of gifts to pick up.

I've already joined up with this program -- it's invaluable for a guy like me, a guy who has to meet with other lawyers and clients but who doesn't want to spend all his time driving around, or making clients drive in to meet me. You look me up there and set up a meeting today, like, say, if you need a lawyer's advice on how to spend that lottery money you just won. (My advice: spend it on lawyer's fees, plus a tip.)

Signing up was easy, too -- no fees, no contracts, no nothing except access to a great program. (There is a premium program with additional features in case you're a really advanced user, but I'm still a beginner at this.) Once you're signed up, you can create a profile, invite others to join your circle, calendar events... it's a great program and easy to use, so go OpenACircle today.