It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

So My Congressman Responds...

page: 1
15
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   
So, like many of you .. I wrote my Congressman. Was not a very happy letter I might add.

And now he has e-mailed me back. Sorta. More like.. E-mailed everyone back..
.. but I understand perfectly that this is not a perfect World and there is no way my Congressman, especially one as important as Mr. John A. Boehner -- ya, House Republican Leader .. like I had a chance in hell to sway his vote.

Here is what he had to say:

Dear Stephen:



Thank you for contacting me regarding the economic rescue plan. I appreciate hearing from you.



Let me begin by saying that I am as angry as the thousands of constituents who contacted me about the economic rescue package. My constituents, and the American people, are angry that this has happened to them and are angry and terrified about what this means for their future. I share the same frustration and fears about our economy and its future, as this was one of the toughest votes I have ever had to cast. The economic rescue plan is not perfect. But the bipartisan plan was necessary because the risk of inaction is much higher than the risk of action. If I did not believe that we were on the brink of economic crisis; if I did not believe that inaction would catastrophically diminish our retirement savings and the ability of small businesses, college students, and homeowners to get loans; if I did not believe that inaction would imperil the bank accounts of the American people, it would have been the easiest thing in the world for me to have said no.



As the House Republican Leader, I sought to work together with the Administration and the congressional leadership, in a bipartisan way, to address this crisis that threatens the very foundation of our economy. I have heard from thousands of Americans that feel this rescue package has little to do with the realities of their day-to-day lives, that they were prudent with their own budget, and that they should not be on the hook for failures and greed on Wall Street. However, I believe that economic stabilization is necessary to address the problem for Main Street. A key indicator of our economy is the health of the credit market. The credit market, at its basic level, is the circulatory system of the economy. To a large extent, our economy operates on the constant and circular flow of funding from lenders to borrowers. Its smooth functioning is vital for businesses to fund their day-to-day operations, and for consumers to buy cars or obtain student loans. Now that credit system is paralyzed. A consequence of this paralysis is that banks are not lending to one another because they do not trust the financial health of other banks, and they feel the need to conserve capital to weather the next potential crisis. If left unaddressed, the problem in our credit market could further impair the ability of companies to meet payrolls or to finance expansions, leading to more job losses; make it increasingly difficult for prospective homebuyers to obtain mortgages or individuals to acquire car loans; and block students' access to college loans. In short, what some have called a huge "bailout for Wall Street" in fact aims at preventing painful consequences on Main Street.

A major component of the financial stress has been the boom and bust in housing. Over the past two decades, mortgages have increasingly been funded indirectly through asset-backed securities and non-bank lenders. In most cases, once a mortgage was made, the mortgage was sold by the entity that originated the loan to another institution, which pooled a large number of these loans together. From this pool, the institution then issued securities whose returns were based on the payments made on the underlying mortgages in the pool. For a variety of market and regulatory reasons, these mortgage-backed securities (MBS) became widely held by nearly every financial institution in the U.S. and in many institutions worldwide. It has been argued that rapid house price appreciation in some areas and low interest rates led to overconfidence by investors, lenders, borrowers, and regulators. Builders responded to higher prices with increased construction, and the pace of home price increases could not be sustained. Inventories of unsold homes began climbing and prices stagnated at the same time as short-term interest rates began rising. In 2006 and 2007, the rates of default and non-payment by mortgage holders increased significantly. Any borrowers, including those in the subprime market, who had depended on being able to refinance at low interest rates or depended on rapid home price appreciation found their plans frustrated and defaults occurred at increasing rates. The value of financial assets that depended on home owners making their payments, such as mortgage-backed securities (MBS), declined significantly. These losses have rippled through the financial system. Due largely to the uncertainty about what future mortgage default rates will be, as well as which financial institutions are currently holding MBS, financial markets have nearly frozen.

On September 21, 2008, the Secretary of Treasury Henry Paulson announced a proposal to allow the Department of Treasury to purchase up to $700 billion in unwanted mortgage-related assets from the balance sheets of financial institutions in an attempt to reduce disruptions in the financial system. Concerned that the American public would be left holding the bag for mismanaged companies, I requested a House Republican working group, including both moderate and conservative Members led by Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), to put forth a series of economic rescue principles aimed at ensuring the recovery is funded by Wall Street, not Main Street. On behalf of myself and my Republican colleagues, in a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) I outlined improvements to the rescue proposals necessary to forge an agreement. I reiterated that it must reflect core free-market, pro-taxpayer principles in order for a large majority of Republicans to support Secretary Paulson's plan.

The final rescue plan (H.R. 1424), signed into law on October 3, 2008, authorizes a purchase program, called the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), that allows the federal government to hold up to $700 billion in unwanted mortgages or mortgage-backed securities from the balance sheets of financial firms, and creates an insurance program to allow federal guarantees as an alternative to direct purchases. With 90 percent of mortgage payments being paid on-time, it is reasonable to expect a substantial payback, if not profit, in our investment. As the holder of billions of dollars in mortgage loans, the Treasury will create a plan to mitigate foreclosures and encourage servicers of mortgages to modify loans. Lastly, if after five years the government has lost money on the program, the president is required to submit a proposal for recouping the shortfall from firms that benefited from the program.

House Republicans stood on principle throughout the process of crafting the economic rescue legislation, and in doing so, we were able to secure numerous reforms on behalf of taxpayers. We fought for, and won, an increase in the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) cap from $100,000 to $250,000 to protect savings and small businesses. We fought successfully for inclusion of an insurance program, paid for by participating firms, that puts the financial burden on Wall Street instead of Main Street, a major change from the original plan proposed by the Treasury Department, which put too much burden on taxpayers. We pressed successfully for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to change so-called "mark-to-market" rules for certain assets that have worsened the credit crisis. We also stripped out special-interest earmarks for trial lawyers, labor bosses, and thinly-veiled political organizations like ACORN that were included in the original deal struck between congressional Democrats and the Treasury Department.

Also, Republicans insisted on real accountability by limiting the Treasury Secretary to utilizing up to $250 billion initially, with another $100 billion available after the Secretary reports to Congress on what happened with the initial $250 billion; and by allowing Congress to withhold the remaining $350 billion. Republicans also insisted that taxpayers be first in line to recoup losses from participating financial institutions in the event they fail or lose money - not shareholders and certainly not corporate executives, and that irresponsible corporate executives at participating institutions not be rewarded with golden parachutes or severance pay. In addition, because of Republican efforts, the rescue plan helps local community banks across the country by allowing them to write off losses on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage assets they hold. While the Treasury's initial proposal had minimal oversight, House Republicans secured in the final bill a more rigorous oversight structure by creating a Financial Stability Oversight Board, a Special Inspector General, and a Congressional Oversight Panel, with an equal number of Democrats and Republicans.

There is more in the next post..




posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Included in the final bill was a Senate-passed tax extender package that extends into current law tax cuts for two additional years. Inclusion of this $110 billion tax relief measure represents a win for taxpayers. Some have criticized the final economic rescue plan stating that it is a compilation of "earmarks" or "pork" intended to reward special interests. To the contrary, the bill contains extensions of dozens of provisions of general applicability that are widely supported across the political spectrum but that must be renewed on a temporary basis, including: a one-year patch of the AMT to prevent 21 million additional families from a tax increase; research and development tax credit to encourage cutting edge research and the jobs it supports to be conducted here in the U.S.; a deduction of state and local sales taxes from taxpayers' federal income returns; tax credits for construction of clean coal facilities; and renewable tax credits for the installation of wind, solar and biomass power plants, helping reduce our dependence on imported oil, among others. While other provisions, including those related to Puerto Rican rum and motorsports tracks, sound irrelevant and wasteful, it is important to note that these provisions are not new spending, are neither earmarks nor "pork," but rather are extensions of current tax deductions and credits. Rest assured, I have never accepted an earmark and continue to work hard to eliminate them.



Given current market volatility, Secretary Paulson has taken further action to strengthen market stability and restore confidence in our financial institutions, while the Department of Treasury simultaneously works to implement the TARP. Using $250 billion from the economic rescue bill, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, Treasury is purchasing equity stakes in a wide array of banks and thrifts. Making such capital available will allow them to provide credit to our economy and make loans to businesses and consumers. Treasury will purchase shares of senior preferred stock and receive warrants for common shares. Preferred shares will pay cumulative dividends at a rate of 5 percent per year for the first five years, and at a rate of 9 percent per year thereafter. Participating institutions agree to accept restrictions on executive compensation, including a ban on "golden parachutes;" to help homeowners; and to lend money during the period that Treasury hold equity issued through the program. Nine large financial institutions already have agreed to participate in the program. While government owning a stake in any private U.S. company is objectionable, Treasury assures that the program will be limited in size, so that private investors retain control; limited in scope, so that the government cannot exercise any control over any private firm, and has voting rights that can only be used to protect the taxpayer's investment - not to direct the firm's operations; and limited in duration, with provisions to encourage banks to buy back their shares from the government when the markets stabilize and they can raise money from private investors.



I voted for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, reluctantly, because I believe the risk of doing nothing was unacceptable. Doing nothing meant taking a huge gamble with the futures of Main Street Americans - families, retirees, students, small businesses and taxpayers. The legislation is designed to free up more capital to grow businesses, create jobs and let small businesses make major purchases, and to ensure that Americans can get approval for car loans, student loans, and other consumer credit.



The enactment of this flawed but necessary bill is not a cause for celebration. Taxpayers should never have been put in this position in the first place. Americans deserve answers on the origins of this economic crisis. Washington has failed the American people. There was no failure in our free-market system, of which I remain a strong proponent, but rather a failure of politicians and bureaucrats who were not fulfilling their oversight responsibility. Executives at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other firms were permitted to run rampant, engaging in free-wheeling and irresponsible business schemes that ultimately imperiled our economy. Combined, Fannie and Freddie not only securitize half of the nation's mortgage market but $1 trillion alone in subprime loans, yet they are not required to disclose the risk these mortgages posed to the solvency of their balance sheets because Congress has not required the same registration and reporting requirements of Fannie and Freddie as Congress does of all other publicly traded companies.



Over the last decade, Republicans have consistently sought fundamental reform of Fannie and Freddie, but our efforts were blocked by Democratic lawmakers who said no reform was needed. Former President Bill Clinton tried to initiate reforms and was rebuffed by his own party; President Bush tried in 2003 to take similar action but again was blocked by Democratic lawmakers who insisted Fannie and Freddie were "fundamentally sound financially." At the same time Democrats claimed there was "no crisis" at Fannie and Freddie, predatory subprime lending ran rampant, laying the foundation for the troubles that are playing out today. The transformation of Fannie and Freddie into the "Affordable Housing Center" was a laudable goal, but to push predatory subprime lending to unspeakable heights and to encourage questionable lending practices, believing housing prices would continue to soar, was reckless. In addition, the politicization of Fannie and Freddie over the last decade seriously undermined the credibility of the organizations and prevented their restructuring and reform, with Democrats viewing any attempt at curtailing their behavior as an attempt at curtailing affordable housing. The motivations for Fannie and Freddie to gamble with taxpayer money on bad nonprime mortgage bets were not entirely a matter of good intentions gone awry. Greed and corruption were unfortunately part of the equation as well. The size and growth of Fannie and Freddie leading up to their collapse were nothing short of astonishing. There is no debate that Fannie and Freddie share responsibility for the housing crisis that has preceded today's market turmoil. It is outrageous that the partisan congressional hearings being conducted on the origins of the crisis have been designed to steer clear of any such discussion.



After numerous requests by Republicans to hold a hearing on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's role in the financial crisis denied, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Henry Waxman (D-CA) has since agreed, however has yet to set a date or call on witnesses such as Franklin Raines and other former Fannie and Freddie executives. Chairman Waxman's refusal to examine the true roots of the problem solely to shield his fellow Democrats politically is irresponsible and cheats the American people of key facts that could help all of us learn how we got here and what we must do to make certain this situation never repeats itself. American families should never again be put in this situation. The crisis in our economy is an outrage, because it is a crisis that could have been avoided. It is a failure of a broken Washington in dire need of fundamental reform.



Thank you again for contacting me with your thoughts. Please don't hesitate to inform me of your concerns in the future. To sign up for email updates, I invite you to visit my website at johnboehner.house.gov...







Sincerely,

John A. Boehner



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 10:39 PM
link   
A thoroughly spineless and partisan response fron your CONgress Critter Rockpuck. Thank you for sharing it with us.



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Ya know if they put half the effort they put into their form letters into actually doing some good....

oh wait, they're aids probably come up with this drivel, never mind.



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 10:46 PM
link   
I have seen another letter about the same issue from congressmen in my area, it looks like they almost used the same document.

They all got their story straight.



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 10:55 PM
link   
I got a response from Senator Claire McCaskill. I won't bore you with the drivel.

I replied the following:" You lost my vote when you voted for the ballout. Keep it in mind next time you go against the will of the people."



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 10:56 PM
link   
My first thoughts were......what a long draw out response from a Congressman......I'm shocked. It's like no one will own up and admit to doing anything wrong in this whole debacle. Congress, will blame Wall Street and the Mortgage industry, when it was their own fault for setting in motion these events in the first place. Then once it was in motion, everybody just went along for the ride while the icebergs starting appearing all around us. Nothing to worry about here.


Don't get me wrong, Wall Street and the Mortgage industry are just as much to blame, but Congress was the Dr. Frankenstein to the their monster.

For those of you who can stomach it. here is a pretty good video describing the whole sorry mess. www.cbsnews.com...

[edit on 22-10-2008 by pavil]



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Yep, I got one too. I'm planing on sending a letter back, real brief and straight to the point letter it will basically have these words:

I feel very sorry that you voted TWICE to pass this bail-out. Please now understand what it will be my life's mission, to vote YOU out-of-office. I will henceforth give my VOTE and financially support to ANY other candidate that will be running against you in the near future.

I wish good luck to you in your future endeavors out of public office.

Sincerely,
-G

[edit on 22-10-2008 by Gateway]



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 11:03 PM
link   
My reply to John A. Boehner is as follows:

Congressman Boehner first I would like to thank you for the response. Albeit an impersonal, generic, long winded political saving face piece of trash that it was.. I thought to point a few things out. Since you obviously missed it.

You are not a Republican.

Oh yes, you are in name, you are by party, but by the ideologies that true Republicans hold you are a two face liar. You hide behind the party badge and I suppose you believe that anything you do or so in indicative to what the party followers expect. Just because you do something, does not make it Republican. You, those like you, have bastardized the party, destroyed what it stood for and have the nerve, the audacity to tell me WE NEEDED THIS BILL? .. That because you packed it full of "goodies" for all us ignorant imbeciles (that's obviously what you think we are) that we will just roll over and accept what you did for some worthless "tax incentive" or further government oversight into insurance companies?

Let me tell you what a REAL Republican would have done. Not a stooge like your self.

A real Republican would have seen that the Government has NO RIGHT WHAT SO EVER TO INTERFERE WITH THE FREE MARKET SYSTEM! That is first and foremost. I don't give a damn, Mr. Congressman whether or not we stand on the brink of complete economic collapse.. the Government does NOT have the authority to purchase failing companies to prop up a system that obviously has massive dysfunction to it's very core! The Government does not have the right to use tax dollars, raise the national debt and waste reserves on helping predatory lenders, frauds, crooks, the worst of Humanity.

A real Republican would see that in a Free Market you cannot Socialize Losses, privatize gains and expect us to believe it's capitalism!

A Real Republican WOULD HAVE BEEN AGAINST HE BILL SIMPLY ON THE FACT THAT IT IS PACKED FULL OF GARBAGE!

Tell me, Mr. Congressman because my mind has drawn a blank. If you cannot tell I have already exasperated my thinking abilities as an ignorant Citizen. Tell me what Mental Health has to do with the banking crisis? What does ensuring Insurance Companies payout for depression and mental illness have to do with Lehman's going under, the stock markets folding, retirement accounts being wiped away? WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH BANKING? Seriously, I would love to know. I tried piecing it together.. I thought that perhaps the government thinks the CEO's and Presidents of these companies where mentally unsound and needed to consult a doctor but wouldn't because their health plans didn't cover the cost. Then I thought, no, no that cannot be, the Government allowed the CEO's and Presidents to come away millions richer. I thought, perhaps it was so that all the employees being laid off around the country where going to break out in fits of depression. No, no couldn't be that because THEY ALL LOST THEIR HEALTH COVERAGE ANYWAYS! But does it stop there? NO.. What about this:

$2 million dollar tax incentive to makers of wooden arrows for children.
$100 million to benefit racetrack owners.
$192 million in rebates on excise taxes for the Puerto Rican and Virgin Islands rum industry

Did you own stock in some of these companies? Did your friends? Your family?

Or do you and the other Congressmen sit in your offices thinking of the most ridiculous items you could throw money at? Wooden arrows? Rum? Let's not forget .. this bill was about

BANKS

A REAL REPUBLICAN NEVER WOULDN'T GIVE A SOUL IN THIS WORLD POWER OVER ANYTHING WHAT-SO-EVER IF IT WAS UNMONITORED, UNCONTROLLED, UNCHECKED, AND NOT REPORTED!!! Yet here you are.. you gave Mr. Paulson more power then any treasurer in the history of our country. I will call him Financial Czar Paulson. (I thought Czar was a nice touch seeing as where this country is heading...) ..

A REAL REPUBLICAN WOULD NOT ENDORSE INCREASING GOVERNMENT CONTROL OVER THE PEOPLE, THE ECONOMY, PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS AND PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANIES! Show me a Republican that wants the Government to take control of the economy, of it's people and I will point out a Socialist in disguise.

What exactly makes you a Republican Congressman? Your social views? That's got to be it. And all I have to say is WHO GIVES A DAMN what your social views are. Congress doesn't debate issues that might not get them reelected. I ask because nothing so far is showing me how you are CONSERVATIVE.

A REAL REPUBLICAN WOULDN'T IGNORE THE OUTCRY FROM HIS CONSTITUENTS. Ya, you put up a nice teary eye plea for Congress to "separate the men from the boys" in regards to who will vote how.. But by God sir you slapped us in the face. I know you think we are ignorant farm dwelling hilljacks here in your district, but you had a massive outcry against this bill and you decided we didn't know better. It "had to be done". LAST I CHECKED SIR, YOU ARE THERE TO DO OUR BIDDING NOT WHAT YOU "FEEL" IS THE "RIGHT THING TO DO". We did not elect you for your opinion, we elected you because you are OUR opinion. You represent US. And WE told you NO. You told us we didn't know better.

When your up for election next time you run, I will vote against you. I will vote for the first time in my life Democrat. I will see the two candidates, whoever is fortunate enough to run against you, and I will see the same thing. Two Liberal Socialist who do the Governments bidding, slapped the constituents in the face and told us what ignorant little school children we where. I will vote Blue because there is no difference, and I might as well vote for the guy who openly states who and what he is, and not some coward who hides behind his party while he does his masters bidding.

We didn't need this "bail out". We don't need the Treasury interfering. We don't need the Fed interfering. We don't need more government policies. We don't need more government power. We don't need consolidation. We don't need to make certain agency leaders immune from the Constitution. We don't need to protect investors. We don't need to secure debt from foreign countries. And we sure as hell don't need important legislation packed with trash like tax breaks for wooden arrow makers.

We need to get people like you, Mr. John A. Boehner out of Washington.

Quickly.

Edit fixed some spelling errors.

[edit on 10/22/2008 by Rockpuck]



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Great letter!!

Rockpuck...Now, I'm gonna have to put you on my friend list.



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 11:22 PM
link   
I recieved a smilar letter myself from my house rep and one of my senators. I replied back with:

"If you want to truly get to down to heart of the problem then I suggest you investigate the Federal Reserve System, Hank Pauslon and the executives you mentioned. Under the current federal reserve system (which is a privately owned bank) our money is debt and debt is money.

I find it ludicrous that the treasurey dept has to go the Fed for a loan and then pay interest on the same money. This bailout bill is going to cost another $35 billion in interest payments.

While you're looking for the "culprits" why don't you and other members of congress pull Paulson and Bernacke back before congress and ask them to explain that after passing the bill all the bad stuff they said would happen if it wasn't passed is now happening. Also, ask Paulson why the contracts to the private firm that is overseeing this bill are blacked out, I thought he promised complete transparency.

It's becoming more and more apparent to a lot of Americans that the gov't and congress in particular has lost touch with main street and if that is the case we'll find people who are in touch. I invite you to do your own research in the federal reserve. Here's a documentary that will help you on your way:

video.google.com...

I really hope you'll look into the federal reserve and restore the power of this country back where it belongs in the hands of the people not the central bankers. Do what's right by the constitution and what's right by this country before you and those who voted for this bailout bill complete it's destruction.

Long live the Republic."

Think I'll get put on a watch list?



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Those a5540l35 dont know what that letter says.
They dont even write them.

They have 100's of little a5540l35 to do the grunt work.

There is only one way to fix the problem, everyone is just waiting for it to happen.



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 11:41 PM
link   
My congressman never replied to my emails. So i'm headed to his office here tomorrow since he is in town. wonder how long i'll have to sit there until he either talks to me or his grunts make me leave



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 11:41 PM
link   
I got similar form emails back from Casey and Specter, but Gerlach went all out and snail-mailed a rambling four page missive on official letterhead.

Thieving jerks, all of 'em.



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 01:53 AM
link   
I actually sent Dave Reichert a nice little "Thank You" card via snail mail after he stuck to his guns and voted "no" twice. I haven't gotten anything back from him, but I really didn't expect to as what I sent was basically self explanatory and needed no response other than him remaining true to the will of those he represents in future house votes.



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 02:54 AM
link   
I got a reply letter back from both of my senators, but the problem is one wrote back thinking me for informing him about my stances on child health care. I wrote about the freaking bailout. My friend who wrote the same senator got the same letter back, about child health care.

The other idiot wrote back a similar letter as the one you got, talking about it was "the hardest thing I ever voted". Sorry, I don't believe the bs, they are traitors too. My friend and I got the exact same templated letter.

They don't read our mail, nor do they care about our opinions. They are in office and they will continue to sell us out as long as they are. Now I know why politicians spend millions to get a low paying job.



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 07:20 AM
link   
I got an actual letter from my senator, Lindsey Graham. DeMint, sent me an email, as did my Representative.

DeMint, who voted no, has earned a lot of respect from the people of SC. Graham, who voted yes to the bailout bill, has seen his lead against his democratic newcomer opponent lessen, and continue to shrink.

Rockpuck, I fully share your disgust at the sheer abandonment of republican principals these people have shown. It makes me wonder if the Republican party, like our banking institutions, is insolvent. And as a registered and donor to the GOP, this is the 4th year I haven't made a donation. It started at Bush's 2nd term, for me at least. Lately, I have donated time and money to individuals that willingness to adhere to the constitution, regardless of party lines. Unfortunately, as we say here, its "slim pickin's" in regards to candidates that support the constitution.

Its a sad day when the only choice American's have is the "lesser of 2 evils".



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Rock forget the long, logical response.

Just send him this:

"Your actions have left countless young voters disillusioned in democracy. May God forgive you for this sin, because I sure as hell can't."



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 09:50 AM
link   
The shortest answer, and the most sincere one, received from a lawmaker is available right here:





The Speaker of The House -- the European edition -- is flipping them alright.


Here's the whole enchilada. Isn't fun to be represented by real people?




posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Keep those letters! Once your representatives come home, you may be able to sue them in small claims court. Breach of contract, willful misconduct, or something similar (research what is acceptable in your state). If those representatives get sued for a few thousand dollars by enough people, they are going to be hurting as much as the rest of us. You would be surprised at how the rulings go in small claims...I have been to court 3 times and have won each time. You must be meticulous in your preparations and be sure of the applicable charges you bring, but it can be done.

You must also be sure they are served correctly. They cannot be served while at work or on their way to work. So ask questions at your local court as to procedure for government officials.

CC



new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join