Owner Elga Koehler told The Star-Ledger that the store went bankrupt in August but wasn't required by law to notify customers, or immediately give them their dresses or money back. They'll get their money back "eventually," she said, after a repayment plan was "formulated." Evidently, Elga was unconcerned about how if you snatch away a woman's wedding dress she's picked out and paid for, it will make her very very mad— a point that the angry women, several of whom were dressed in black and wearing Ugg boots, according to an eyewitness account by Daniel Edelman, sought to drive home with their protest. Apparently, their mothers never told them how to do a chargeback.

Millburn bridal shop goes bankrupt without providing brides with dresses [The Star-Ledger] (Thanks to josh42042!)

As you can see from the above screen grab, Mr. Brown, like so many other eBay thieves, practiced excellent customer service. His customers claimed to be "in love" with him, thanks to his prompt delivery and "good communication." One customer remarked that the camera he bought was missing its instructions. Guess the owner didn't pack them.

Mr. Brown's bail has been set at $100,000. He faces 10 years in prison if convicted. The TSA is reportedly taking the matter "seriously."

Bail set at $100,000 for airport baggage screener [Newsday]
TSA agent helped himself to a $47,900 camera (and more!) [Gadling] (Thanks, Geoffrey!)

Tipster Alexander writes:

These were in plain view at the Warren NJ Quiznos. It's one of those creepy bug zapper raquets with the dirty rag the guy used to pick up hot things with on top of it. This is taken with my iphone from right where you stand when you order a sandwich. I am never eating there again.

Whatever is up there, it's not artisan bread.

"He basically pulled out a bottle of lighter fluid, poured it all over his body, pulled out a cigarette lighter and lit himself on fire," Bloomfield Police Capt. Chris Goul said.

The man, 62-year-old Emilio Saladriagas, entered the Bloomfield Rent-A-Center location Tuesday and asked to speak to a supervisor about the late payment notices and collection calls, says the Star-Ledger. When a manager was not available, he pulled out the lighter fluid.

Employees doused him with water and he is now in stable condition at the burn unit of a local hospital. He has not been charged with a crime because he did not make "overt or criminal" actions to harm anyone but himself, according to police. The employees are receiving counseling.

"We don't know if he had mental health issues or what sparked it," [police] said. "Employees said he'd always been a nice man."

If you're in debt and having a hard time dealing with the collection calls and notices, there's help available. The first thing to do is to familiarize yourself with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (PDF). If you're being harassed, you can sent a letter to the debt collector demanding that they stop contacting you. They do not have the right to keep contacting you simply to try to get you to pay. You can also do a little research and locate some free or low cost legal help in your area. If you have a lawyer, the debt collectors are required to contact the attorney instead of you. If the debt collectors don't follow these rules, you can sue them! Not being able to pay your bills can be a humiliating experience, but don't give up.

Newark man sets himself on fire [Star-Ledger] (Thanks, Andrew!)

Gas stations fall under the watchful eye of New Jersey's Office of Weights and Measures, so we think Matt should report this gas station immediately. Unlike more lackadaisical government agencies, the folks at Weights and Measures are usually pretty enthusiastic about their jobs, particularly when the job involves busting shady gas stations for overcharging their customers. If something illegal is going on here, they're the ones to put a stop to it.

Here's an example of how one Consumerist reader brought down the sword of justice on a Wisconsin gas station. Now it's your turn.

New Jersey Office of Weights And Measures Contact Information [New Jersey]

UPDATE: Matt filed a report with the New Jersey Office of Weights And Measures (which he forwarded to the Consumerist), and, independently, Sunoco contacted us to confirm the location of the gas station so that they can conduct their own investigation.

PREVIOUSLY: Don't Drink Lamp Oil Or You'll Die

Anonymous writes:

I recently wrote to the consumerist about the fact that Verizon is acting in a manner most would consider inconsistent with a customer-first attitude. Only in bizarro world could the statements that were made be construed as an attack on it's employees. Unfortunately John Bonomo, Verizon's director of Media Relations, saw it as exactly that. He believes that it did 'his or her colleagues a disservice and dishonoring the work that they do on behalf of our customers.' Mr Bonomo also said that there were 'a number of inaccuracies', but failed to identify any. All he did was state that customers entitled to the tv will get them, and acknowledges that delivering the set would take some time, and we said that as a part of the promotion.' That's funny, I never stated that Verizon wasn't going to give everyone their tv's, only that it was taking longer then it takes conceive and deliver a baby.

Mr Bonomo goes on to say that employees should be commended and here I am in total agreement. For far too long we have suffered at the hands of individuals posing as management, people who have no clue how to properly run a company. They actually believe it's acceptable to refuse to credit a customer who we admit we over billed, simply because we're given too much credit to everyone else. They think it's perfectly fine to knowingly send out fliers advertising a price, then decide not to honor them, and to then claim they were sent out *in error*.

Some readers of the consumerist have asked 'how do we know what he said is true?' Excellent question. To prove it, I submit to you the emails from the director and the head of marketing which is the basis for most of what was stated in my previous article. I believe they stand for themselves, and I challenge Mr Bonomo to defend the policies that these emails impose on us as employees, and on the customers who they claim to value.

First is the NJ marketing summary which clearly state on the 2nd page that effective 2/18 the blitz offers were to be made permanent. Second is an email from Judy Peters stating that all offers are rescinded. Following this is a far more detailed email dated 3-15 detailing what has been rescinded, why, and what is left to offer. The language is very threatening (even to management, which is referred to as IHD) This email was sent only a few weeks after half a million letters offering these rates were mailed out, and it clearly stated as so in the NJ marketing plan on our website. After being rightfully called out for being so asinine, Judy Peters sent another email explaining that the offers are now back in effect, but ONLY if the customer indicates awareness of them. We can't proactively offer them. Note the specific use of the phrase 'letters sent in error' which contradicts Verizon's own internal marketing information, which indicates that the offers were in fact meant to be sent.

Following that is an email informing us of the first of what would be two times where we simply didn't give anyone their proper discount if they had a specific bill date.

Then we have three emails from our director and the head of marketing. The first one, dated March 3rd, tells us that we're been partially neutered and that we are now only able to adjust $150 without first needing to seek management approval. Pay particular attention to the last paragraph if you want real insight into how management thinks. Then there's a followup sent March 18th cutting it to $50. Finally there's an email telling us that we are not to give any credit to anyone for any reason for the remainder of the month.

PREVIOULY: LEAKS: Insider Says Verizon Isn't Fulfilling Advertised Discounts For Tens Of Thousands

RELATED:
Verizon Changes "Free LCD TV " Promotion To "Free Digital Camcorder" Promotion
Verizon Responds To Angry Customers Who Have Not Received Their Free LCD TVs
Verizon FiOS "Free LCD TV" Promotion Resulting In A Lot Of Angry Customers

(Photo: davidbivins)

My husband received a brand new PS3 for his birthday from my (very generous) sister on April 2nd. The next night (April 3), my excitedly retired our PS2 to the closet and set up his new toy - the packaging was PERFECT, the machine was not. We weren't surprised we had received a used machine but WERE surprised that it did not work - games wouldn't register, Blu-Rays wouldn't play. His new PS3 was just an expensive piece of garbage. I called my sister who had both her receipt and the debit card she used to purchase it and we agreed to meet the next day (April 4) at our local Target which is NOT the Target she purchased it at but is closer to my house, so screw her. I politely informed the CSR that the PS3 was not only used but broken and we wanted an even exchange for the new machine. After opening the box and examining it with a member of the Electronics team, she noted that not only was the console used but the serial number did not match the serial number on the box - essentially, someone had beaten the system and we were the patsies with the POS machine.

She was as helpful as she could be but still had to call the GSLT (I think that is the acronym) to the front of the store to process the return. When Y. (male, evil) came to "help" us, he immediately told me the PS3 was not returnable. My non-confrontational sister prepared to eat the $400 but I persisted. Y. informed us that because the serial number on the console did not match the serial number on the box, there was nothing he could do to help us. I politely informed Y. that, come hell or high water, we were getting a refund. It was just a matter of how long it took. Y. politely responded, "I imagine you already got what you wanted. There is nothing else I can do for you."

I asked him to scan the box and take a peek into the PS3's history - had it been returned before? When had it been received in the store? All I wanted was the benefit of the doubt that we might have both been taken advantage of. He refused. He specifically stated that it was not returnable, it was our problem, and started walking away. When I asked if he was the story manager, he replied, "I'm in charge right now." (Which means no). He rolled his eyes when I asked if he would please call the Fairfield location and see if they would be able to help us. After wasting 5 minutes arguing with one of the most stubborn women on the East Coast, he agreed. He walked about 3 feet away (for privacy?) and picked up the big red phone to call the other location - obviously I was eavesdropping. He gave the GSLT(?) of Fairfield, Ryan, the rundown of what was happening and the impossible happened. Ryan actually wanted to see the situation resolved fairly. Ryan traced the PS3 and was able to see that it had been returned a few days before my sister purchased it. He was also able to see that the serial number on the console was NOT checked against the serial number on the box (scary what a computer can tell you) and told Y. that it was a legitimate return.

I have never seen a "manager" so angry after solving a problem. Y. told us that it was Ryan's decision if Fairfield would accept the return but it was HIS decision if Clifton would accept the return. And he had already made up his mind - no. After a 45 minute drive to Fairfield (which is about 5 minutes away - don't you love Route 3 on a Friday?), we were finally able to meet the charming Ryan who processed our return in - seriously - less then 3 minutes. It was unbelievable.

I consider myself to be a fairly informed consumer. I keep my receipts, I watch my statements, and I play by the rules - but it never would have occurred to me to open a box, remove the packaging (seriously, this PS3 was perfectly wrapped. I want the thief to come to my house and clean because he/she is METICULOUS) and compare serial numbers. It also never occurred to me that Target would accuse me (in a roundabout way) of dishonesty and fraud. All in all, it only took about 1.5 hours of my life to solve the problem but the experience has left me with a terrible taste in my mouth (or is that lunch?)

For the rest of you out there, please check the serial number of all the electronics you buy before you leave the store. You will save yourself a lot of headaches.

(Photo:Imasuperhero)

Over at the Trusted Adviser blog there was a bit of a customer service showdown going on between the DMV and the cable company... and well, see if you can guess which operation "Judy" is dealing with:

Judy called XYZ about a common transaction. "Sure," they said, "here's what you need to bring, and we'll take care of you."

She gets there: "What? Who told you that! You need to go back home and bring the other thing."

She returns. "You can't do this, your ex-husband's name is on the records. We need a copy of the twelve-year old divorce decree, plus his signature on a form. We don't have that form, but we'll fax it to you."

Days later. "Who told you we could fax that to you? We can only mail it."

More days. "We need to confirm your social security number." She gives it to them. "Sorry, we can't match it; we don't have records of your social security number." "Then what were you going to match it to?!" Judy asks. We have entered Kafka-land some time ago.

At last, Judy leaves with the desired outcome. It turns out to be wrong.

On returning yet again, it's, "well, who in the hell gave you that? It's obviously wrong. Hey lady stop screaming—no need to take out your personal problems on us!"

OK, that was—drumroll—the Cable Company! Comcast of West Orange, Essex County, New Jersey.

And that means—yes, people, believe it or not—the raging success story is the New Jersey DMV. Lately renamed the Motor Vehicle Commission.

Customer Service Showdown: The Cable Company vs the DMV [Trusted Adviser] (Thanks, Ian!)
(Photo:u2acro)

United Home Warranty, which has disconnected its phones, taken down its Web site and left no forwarding address, has vanished, leaving an unknown number of policyholders holding worthless home warranties, authorities said.

Efforts to reach officials with the company failed. One executive, identified by law enforcement officials, hung up when reached by phone.
Mike Utley, a homeowner in Dublin, Ohio, said he came across United Home Warranty over the internet. But soon after buying two separate one-year home warranties last year, he could not reach the company.
"United Home Warranty contracted with me for two years of service and then rejected my first service request for a faulty freezer," he said. "I called and sent e-mails requesting service and got no response."
In April, he wrote a letter to the head of customer service whose name appeared on his contract, "Mr. Kyle Matthews," but the letter was returned unopened, five months later.

"The phone numbers the BBB had for this company are disconnected, and directory assistance does not have a listing for this company," the website said. "The BBB's mail to this company has been returned as undeliverable."
The New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs said it has received a number of complaints from consumers about United Home Warranty and has determined the company is now operating out of New York City under a new name — National Home Protection, according to spokesman Jeff Lamb. Complaints are now referred to the New York State Attorney General's Office, he said.

Department of State records in New York list United Home Warranty's address as 42 W. 38th St., Suite 800, New York. Corporate records show the business is licensed to David Seruya, an Oakhurst resident.

National Home Protection also lists its address as 42 W. 38th St., Suite 800. Records show that both businesses are licensed to David Seruya.

Reached on his cell phone, Seruya refused to answer questions about the companies and abruptly hung up the phone. He also deleted his Facebook account, which featured pictures of himself and his bikini-clad wife after The Star-Ledger sent him e-mails through the website asking him about the home warranty businesses.

"We know (David Seruya) exists, and we know he is connected to these businesses," said Lt. Steven Peters of the Ocean Township Police Criminal Investigation Bureau.

Peters has been investigating United Home Warranty since September after the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center alerted local police about complaints lodged against company.

Warranty firm probed for fraud [Star-Ledger]
(Photo:emilgh)

• 30,000+ people nationwide have still not received the free HDTVs Verizon promised new FiOS triple-play subscribers
• Verizon totally screwed up the "blitz" promotion, leading some customers signing up and not getting their discounts, others getting too much discount, and others not getting their discount for months
• Employees issued over $1 million in credit in January '08, double what was given out in Jan '07
• $250 in discretionary credit has been reduced to $50
• Internally, Verizon refers to customer service reps who give out "too much" credit due are called "offenders."

If his allegations are true, they could prove fodder for the NJ AG's office.

Full letter scan, inside...

Confessions of a Verizon Consultant

I work for Verizon in customer service and I think it's time your readers knew the truth about just how screwed up Verizon's marketing and billing is. Your readers are probably familiar with the tv promotion, but that is only the latest failed marketing attempt. In fact it is one in a series of clusterfucks, caused either by our marketing department, our accounting department or both. I should first emphasize that I work in NJ, so what I've witnessed isn't necessarily representative of what goes on in other states, but I suspect it probably is.

Our primary offer at Verizon is packages or bundles of services: phone, internet and cable. In areas where FIOS is available, we offer that; where it isn't we offer Directv. The phone component is our freedom essentials which offers 3 services with unlimited long distance. Beginning in the fall of 2006 Verizon began aggressively promoting our packages with offer after offer in quick succession. Almost all of them have been disastrous. Among the mistakes made by our marketing department:

* advertising promotions before they were allowed to
* sending offers meant only for new customers to existing ones
* listing the end of promotion dates incorrectly
* failing to give the employees accurate information on the promotions

About 18 months ago we started offering what we call the blitz. It is a discount off of the freedom essentials price, and it was only meant to be offered to new customers. What's important to know is that it is incompatible with any other bundle offer or any other promotion. Unfortunately inadequate training and lack of ethics by some employees led to it's being offered to all customers, and being combined with other discounts. The amount of the discount was initially $15, then increased to $19 and then to $20. When we raised our rates on the plan by $it meant we had to increase the discount by $2 as well. With the change in the amount of the discount, and the change in the rate itself, it isn't surprising that accounting started fouling up. Some of their failures include:

* Some customers never got their $2 increase in discount.
* Others got too much and received a $4 increase in the discount
* Some customers get a double discount even though were eligible for a triple discount.
* Some customers don't see their blitz discount for 2, 3 even 4 months, despite multiple employees submitting a request.
* As a result of multiple requests by employees for the discount, some customers actually got the discount multiple times. In some cases customers got free service as a result.
* Some customers got the discount even if they canceled the plan, again resulting in some customers having zero bills. The same thing happened on accounts on winter suspension.

What happens if you are promised a price, and then your bill doesn't reflect that price? Shouldn't you get credit that month? Not according to Verizon. Employees were told to refuse to credit these charges because the discount, once applied, would last for 12 months. You would get your discount in months 2-13 rather then 1-12. Or 3-14 or 4-15, whenever we finally got it right. So your discount was deffered because of our inability to properly process the discount. Service reps who did credit customers in the 1st or 2nd month were called "offenders" in one email inadvertently sent to everyone.

Then there's the tv debacle. In October 2007 we offered a free 19 inch HDTV to anyone who signed up for a triple bundle. Customers were told they would get their tv within 4 weeks. Then we found out they get a confirmation letter in 4 weeks, and once they responded to it, then they get the tv 4 weeks from then. Except not everyone got their letter. Some customers got letters for the double bundle (which gave them a camcorder) when they were actually eligible for the tv.

Weeks stretched into months and by February we had many irate customers. Some went to ABC news and in their February 1 news report, a Verizon PR person was quoted as saying that there were only a "handful of complaints." A handful? 30,000 is not a handful. That's right, as if this moment there are 30,000 tv's nationwide that haven't been delivered and that's just the FIOS customers. Who knows how many non-FIOS customers are still waiting their tv's. Let's put that number in perspective. We added 250K FIOS video subscribers in the 4th quarter and an unknown amount in the the first 2 months of 2008, perhaps another 150K. If 30K still don't have their tv that means that roughly 10% of those eligible don't have their tv's. And remember that's just the FIOS customers.

Even those figures don't tell the full picture because that doesn't take into account the thousands of customers who think they're eligible for the tv but aren't. As I said at the start, the blitz offer and the triple bundles are incompatible. If you signed up for the triple bundle, you were eligible for the free tv. If you got the blitz or a combination of the triple bundle and the blitz, then you weren't eligible for the tv. Who knows how many people were verbally told they were eligible, only to receive the blitz price, rendering them ineligible? The only way for that to be resolved is for them to know that there's a price problem and to bring that to an employee's attention. When someone says they didn't get their tv, we just pass them to our fulfillment center, which will then tell them they're not eligible and no amount of complaining to them will help them. In the past few weeks we were told to look carefully for eligibility before referring a customer to the fulfillment center, but that's unlikely to happen. Management is all over our ass about sales, and opening that can of worms is not something many of us want to do.

At the same time that ABC news was being told it was a handful, customers who were waiting got letters saying if they wanted the original tv from the offer it may be another 8-12 weeks. Alternately they could take a Magnavox 19 inch HDTV and get it 4-8 weeks. Or they could take the $200 best buy gift card that was originally offered as an alternative to the tv.

Compounding the problem is that in FIOS there are no HD set top boxes available. Even if you got your HDTV, you won't be getting a HD picture any time soon.

As bad as the tv debacle is, it gets worse. In February 2008 we sent thousands of mailers out to customers offering them the blitz price on freedom essentials. or on a bundle package. Three weeks later Verizon decided we weren't going to honor the blitz price. So, you got ot a mailer that said you could have the blitz? Sorry, too bad. You were signed up 3 months ago and are still waiting for your blitz? Sorry, too bad. They're removed all ability to issue blitz discounts from our computers. Management has told us to soothe the customer, but tell them they can not have the blitz. If I made up prices I'd get fired, but apparently Verizon can announce one price, then decide not to honor it and that's perfectly fine.

Meanwhile, employees have issued twice as much credit as we did a year ago. According to Andrea Custis we gave out over 1M in credit in January 08, double the amount from January 07. Why might we have to give so much credit? Could it be that our billing systems are for shit? Or that our price quotes are completely off the mark because there's so many promotions and they're changing them every day that so we don't know what we're talking about? Or that people are out of service longer because we have so many techs dedicated to installing FIOS?

At a time when we are screwing up like never before, Verizon has decided: no more credit. That's right: we screw up, but you still have to pay. Service reps used to have the discretion to issue up to $250 of credit without needing to ask permission. Then they started cracking down on the "offenders" and two weeks ago reduced our credit limit to $150 and last week to $50. Today we got an email from our director Erica Kelly saying that "our adjustments are tied to our revenue" so no more credit is to be issued by anyone (including management) for any reason till after March 30th. So, we could charge you incorrectly and we won't adjust it and why? Cause finances are a bit tight this month. What a crock of shit! If a customer tried telling us that we'd shut their phone off!What unmitigated gaul they have, at a time when every thing we do is a disaster, every promotion is a failure, every promise is broken, to tell customers "tough shit if we made a mistake. Pay up anyway." Who do these executives think they are? And the worst part is WE (the frontline employees) have the pleasure of sounding like Ebeneezer Scrooge when we tell customers that yes we made XYZ msitake but no, we're not going to remove the incorrect charge from your bill.Send

Are these problems company wide? I can't say with certainty but judging by the responses to the tv threads here on the Consumerist I'd say it probably is..It's time Verizon stop treating customers like crap. It's time Verizon stopped expecting it's customer service agents to be the zookeeper who has to cleans up their steaming piles. It's time Verizon stoped lying to everyone, and stopped pretending that problems don't exists. It's time for Verizon to fix their broken systems, fix their lousy billing, train us properly, and only offer promotions they can actually make good on. It's time Verizon took action against the employees who purposely make up prices and say anything to get a sale.

We've told management about these issues and no one is listening. Maybe they will finally listen if you tell them you're not going to take it . Here's a few emails you may want to try. The penny pinching director for the state of NJ is Erica Kelly. Her email is erica.j.kelly@verizon.com. The head of NJ's Marketing department, the one that likes to offer you one price but and then tell you you can't have it is Andreas Custis. Her email is andrea.l.custis@verizon.com. If you want to go right to the top, contact Ivan Seidenberg, our CEO. His email is ivan.g.seidenberg@verizon.com.

If you would rather bypass the bureaucrats, then you can contact Anne Milgram the NJ Attorney General, or the BPU. Their numbers are in the blue government pages of your phone book. As for you Verizon sufferers outside NJ I would direct you to contact Ivan Seidenberg. He's the CEO for the whole company, not just NJ. Or you can go over their heads and contact your state attorney general or your board of Public Utilities.

Yours Truly

A Disgusted Verizon Consultant

In response to this post, John Bonomo, Verizon's director of Media Relations, writes:

The employee who anonymously faxed the "mysterious" letter to your headquarters is doing his or her colleagues a disservice and dishonoring the work that they do on behalf of our customers. It's more appropriate to cheer for thousands of our customer service representatives who are helping our customers every day.

Even worse, this self-described employee's letter contains a number of inaccuracies, and readers here should be aware them. For example, we've stated publicly that customers who qualified for the free TV under our recent promotion will receive one. We also acknowledged that delivering the set would take some time, and we said that as a part of the promotion.

We've also said that we have begun taking new orders from new customers for HD set-top boxes, and we are fulfilling back orders that we placed for some customers who had service installed during our temporary shortage. We have a strong commitment to serving our customers and for making things right when an issue is called to our attention.

Of course, any customer who isn't getting the service they deserve should contact us, and customer service representatives will work hard on their behalf.

RELATED:
Verizon Changes "Free LCD TV " Promotion To "Free Digital Camcorder" Promotion
Verizon Responds To Angry Customers Who Have Not Received Their Free LCD TVs
Verizon FiOS "Free LCD TV" Promotion Resulting In A Lot Of Angry Customers

(Photo: davidbivins)

Yesterday, March 3, I decided to buy a Bluetooth headset because they have recently banned handset use while driving in NJ. I read reviews online, and decided to go with a certain headset that both J&R Electronics in NYC carries, as well as Best Buy. After some quick research, I realized that J&R's in-store price was $30 less than Best Buy's in-store price. So I reviewed Best Buy's price guarantee policy thoroughly, and I couldn't see why there would be a problem matching the price. I called Best Buy corporate to double check with them, and the lady on the phone agreed with me.

So I headed over to the Secaucus, NJ store, picked up the BluAnt Z9 headset I wanted to buy, and the representative in the "Mobile Shop" that was helping me, asked me who I wanted to price match, and I told him J&R, he said, "Oh, yea, that's fine, just head over to the customer service counter." I go to the customer service counter; present the cashier with my proof of J&R's in-store price, as well as the store's phone number, in case they needed to call to verify stock, according to their policy. She walks away from me and talks on her walkie talkie and comes back and says that "the store manager says we can't match that price." I asked to see the manager. After a few minutes the manager comes, doesn't even say hi, or how are you today, he just stands there and looks at me. I explain to him how I spoke to Best Buy corporate before coming, etc. He tells me that J&R is a wholesaler, and they can't match their price. I asked to him explain how it's a wholesale shop when a normal person can go buy a product there without a resellers ID or tax certificate. Then he told me, "I'll have someone in the back call corporate for you, when they have an answer, they'll beep my walkie talkie."

I waited another 10 minutes and the original cashier comes to me and says "we can't do it, corporate says it's the stores discretion, and we're not going to do it." I told her I wanted to see a manager. A different lady comes to the counter, again very rude and no greeting, turns out that the first person that came to the counter as a manager figure, wasn't even a manager. So now this one gives me a run around. She tries to tell me they're a wholesaler only because they have "wholesale prices," to which I answered, "So just because they're prices are lower than yours, they're wholesale prices?" She was beat, and she knew it. Turns out she doesn't even know what the fine print is on their price guarantee program, so I had to read it back to her, and then I find out that she's not even a store manager. So at this point I am pretty disgusted with the stores hospitality and service, and the lack of knowledge of the policy on the whole staff. I asked her to see a store manager or the store's general manager. She told me that neither of them was here today and that they were off. I continue arguing with her, threaten to call the Checks & Balances Bureau of Hudson County, she panics, then 15 minutes later came an actual store manager, this was the first person I interacted with that greeted me. The manager before introduced us and she told me that "he had just come in," forgetting that she told me he was off. He claimed that J&R electronics is a local competitor, but they are a "mom & pops store." I didn't do anything but burst out laughing. I mean what kind of retail educated manager can say J&R is a mom and pops store? They probably do at least ¾ of the online business that BestBuy.com does, and they have only 1 retail store. They have a far superior customer service and retail structure to Best Buy. He then went on and scanned the product and told me that the best he could do is $79.99 vs. J&R's $69.95. So asked him for his name and number, they lady's name I spoke to before him, as well as the General and District Manager's names and numbers. The gentleman refused to give me their names and contact info and told me that corporate does not allow them to give that info out. So I walked out, and I am now looking for Best Buy corporate emails, hoping you can help me with some contact info. I have attached Best Buy's Price Guarantee Policy, as well as a screenshot of J&R & Best Buy's page for the product.

The $30 price difference is not a big deal to me, believe me. It's the way Best Buy treats it's customers, and how thousands of customers a day get shafted by them.

(Photo: hanapbuhay)

State Public Advocate Ronald Chen said during last week's presidential primaries, he heard from three people who tried to register to vote on the commercial Web site. They were turned away at the polling place because they were not officially registered.

Web site charges nearly $10 for voter registration forms [NJ.com] (Thanks, Todd!)
(Photo:Tengaport)

Suspecting that Best Buy might be interfering, Oliveri created an email account in the name of a Target employee and contacted Best Buy for a reference. In his lawsuit, Oliveri alleges that Ann McCafferty, a human resources manager at Best Buy, responded:

"I will give you the skinny on him but you can't say you got any info from best Buy or we can be sued. Just don't hire him and say you went with a better candidate.

"He was hired as GM and demoted after 12 months or so because he sucked. He is desperate for a job because supposedly his wife left him because he has no job. I would not touch him.

"Again, do not forward this email to anybody or say where you heard the info from because we were not allowed to give this info out, but I would hate you to get stuck with this guy!"

From the Courier News:

Charged with theft, and conspiracy to commit theft, are Michael Lombardozzi, 25, 1178 Fairfield Road, Bridgewater; Jose Caraballo, 18, 452 Front St., Dunellen, and Randy Billie, 21, of Paterson, all sales associates at the store, according to papers filed in Superior Court.

Caraballo told Bridgewater police that he received a call at home Dec. 28 from another employee to come to the store and pick up a box. Court papers state that Caraballo knew it was a box of a relatively low-priced item that was repacked and contained a higher-priced item.

Caraballo took the box to the cashier and paid the price listed for the lower-priced item, authorities said.

When he got home with the box, Caraballo opened it and found an LCD projector valued at $1,499, according to court papers.

Lombardozzi told police that on Dec. 23 he took a Mac Book Pro, valued at $2,700, and put it in a box of a lower-priced item and gave it to another employee to buy, according to court papers. The other employee then gave it back to Lombardozzi, authorities said.

Best Buy employees charged with theft [Courier News] (Thanks, Ray!)
(Photo:meghannmarco)

Saturday morning (11/10) I witnessed some amazing sleaziness over at the Princeton,NJ Best Buy. I was standing near the back of the store when one of their salespeople came strolling from a back door holding a Nintendo Wii over his head, and started walking the aisles announcing that it was their last unit. I followed, wondering both how quickly would it get snatched up and how quickly could I decide if I wanted to buy it. It took a few minutes for a couple to come rushing up to claim it, exclaiming how happy their kids were going to be. I went back to looking around the store. About 30 minutes later, I heard this announcement on the store's PA: "Attention Best Buy customers! Julie is now walking through the store with our last Nintendo Wii! If you're looking for a Nintendo Wii, please look for Julie!" And there was another salesperson doing the same thing as the first - walking the aisles of the store holding the Wii above her head.

I was now in the store solely to witness more of this sales technique. The second Wii took just over 15 minutes to sell - I overheard two manager-types (one in a suit, the other a yellow shirt) discussing it, the suit asking "Did Julie sell that Wii, yet? How long?" And then "Wait 40 minutes and send out the next one." Too long for me to wait around, so I left (after stopping in at the store's new Apple niche to set the a Macbook's home page to the Best Buy tagged stories on Consumerist).

I suppose there's nothing illegal or unexpected about this, but as some one tentatively in the market for a hard-to-find Wii I'm annoyed enough to swear off Best Buy this holiday season.

(Photo:silver marquis)

From the NYT:

Izod will pay $1.4 million a year in cash for the first two years of the five-year agreement, which will be cut to $750,000 annually in 2009 when the Nets are expected to move to Brooklyn.

The Nets, who made the deal through their naming rights division as the agent for the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority, focused largely on finding a fashion company as the sponsor. The choice was from among the Izod division of Phillips-Van Heusen, Rocawear and Southpole, all clothing retailers.

In addition to the cash, Izod will provide marketing valued at $600,000 a year and $100,000 annually in uniforms for arena workers. Phillips Van-Heusen will also open five stores in the Xanadu development that is rising in the Meadowlands.

Fashionable New Name for Arena [NYT]

The meat in question comes from frozen hamburgers distributed by Elizabeth, N.J.-based Topps Meat Co.. The recall affects 331,582 pounds of frozen beef patties that were distributed nationwide. All packages carried the number "Est. 9748" inside the USDA mark of inspection, and were produced on June 22, July 12 or July 23, the USDA said.

Here's a complete list of the recalled meat, compliments of your USDA:

• 10-pound boxes of "BUTCHER'S BEST 100% ALL BEEF PATTIES 75/25, 6 OZ. FLAT, 27 PIECES." Each box bears a sell-by date of "JUL 23 08."
  
• 10-pound boxes of "BUTCHER'S BEST 100% ALL BEEF PATTIES 75/25, 4 OZ. (4-1), 40 PIECES." Each box bears a sell-by date of "JUL 23 08."
  
• 10-pound boxes of "KOHLER FOODS 4 OZ. FLAT HAMBURGER, CODE: 60100, 40 PCS." Each box bears a sell-by date of "JUL 23 08."
  
• 10-pound boxes of "KOHLER FOODS 6 OZ. FLAT HAMBURGER, CODE: 60200, 27 PCS." Each box bears a sell-by date of "JUL 23 08."
  
• 10-pound boxes of "KOHLER FOODS 8 OZ. FLAT HAMBURGER, CODE: 60300, 20 PCS." Each box bears a sell-by date of "JUL 23 08."
  
• 10-pound boxes of "SAND CASTLE FINE MEAT, 100% PREMIUM BEEF HAMBURGERS 80/20, 8 OZ. FLAT, 20 COUNT." Each box bears a packed-on date of "JUN 22 07."
  
• 10-pound boxes of "SAND CASTLE FINE MEAT, 100% PREMIUM BEEF HAMBURGERS 85/15, 6 OZ. FLAT, 27 COUNT." Each box bears a packed-on date of "JUN 22 07."
  
• 2-pound boxes of "Topps 100% Pure Ground Beef Hamburgers, 8 Quarter Pounders." Each box bears a sell-by date of "JUL 12 08."
  
• 2-pound boxes of "Topps 100% Pure Ground Beef Hamburgers, 3 OZ., 10 COUNT." Each box bears a sell-by date of "JUL 12 08."
  
• 3-pound boxes of "Topps 100% Pure Ground Beef Hamburgers, 6 OZ. PUB Burgers." Each box bears a sell-by date of "JUN 22 08."
  
• 3-pound boxes of "Topps 100% Pure Ground Beef Hamburgers, 12 Quarter Pounders." Each box bears a sell-by date of "JUN 22 08," "JUL 12 08" or "JUL 23 08."
  
• 3-pound boxes of "Topps 100% Pure Ground Beef Hamburgers, 16 Hamburgers." Each box bears a sell-by date of "JUL 23 08."
  
• 5-pound boxes of "Topps 100% Pure Ground Beef Hamburgers, 20 Quarter Pounders." Each box bears a sell-by date of "JUN 22 08," "JUL 12 08" or "JUL 23 08."
  
• 8-pound boxes of "Topps 100% Pure Ground Beef Hamburgers, 32 Quarter Pounders." Each box bears a sell-by date of "JUN 22 08."
  
• 10-pound boxes of "Topps 100% PREMIUM HAMBURGERS 5 OZ. (1/2")." Each box bears a sell-by date of "JUN 22 08."
  
• 10-pound boxes of "Topps HAMBURGERS, 3.2 OZ, 50 COUNT." Each box bears a sell-by date of "JUL 12 08."
  
• 10-pound boxes of "Topps 100% PREMIUM HAMBURGERS, 8 OZ. (Pub Burger)." Each box bears a sell-by date of "JUL 23 08."
  
• 10-pound boxes of "Topps 100% PREMIUM HAMBURGERS, 4 OZ. (4-1) Homestyle." Each box bears a sell-by date of "JUL 23 08."
  
• 10-pound boxes of "WESTSIDE, 100% PREMIUM HAMBURGER, 8 OZ FLAT, 20 COUNT." Each box bears a sell-by date of "JUN 22 08."
  
• 10-pound boxes of "WESTSIDE, 100% PREMIUM HAMBURGER, 6 OZ FLAT, 27 COUNT." Each box bears a sell-by date of "JUN 22 08."
  
• 10-pound boxes of "WESTSIDE, 100% PREMIUM HAMBURGER, 5 OZ FLAT, 32 COUNT." Each box bears a sell-by date of "JUN 22 08."

Customers who have questions should contact Topps' Vice President of Finance and Administration Jeffrey Rohach at (908) 351-0500 ext. 50. E. coli symptoms can be found here, and usually include stomach cramping and bloody diarrhea.

New Jersey Firm Recalls Ground Beef Products For Possible E. coli O157:H7 Contamination [USDA]
Topps Meat Co. Recalls Hamburgers [AP]

Under the terms of foreclosure, no one except the owner has the right to step foot in the house until after the sale.

Neighbor never saw 'disgusting' interior [NorthJersey.com via Credit Slips]
(Photo: Marike79)

"If the tea spills out and burns you, it's for two reasons: the lid isn't on properly, or the tea is too hot. ... If the beverage was hot enough to cause third-degree burns on Mr. Couso, it was too hot."

It's a bit hard to argue that tea can be served "too hot," being that most black tea needs to be steeped at near boiling temperatures if you're making it correctly. Lower temperature water is more appropriate for green or white or oolong teas...

We recommend Mr. Couso stick to the "improperly lidded" argument, just in case there are any hardcore tea drinkers on the jury.

Starbucks sued over spilled tea [North Jersey]
(Photo:tiangotlost)

It's like the pharmacy your dad would build you if you wanted to play pharmacy.

First, Flight 62's takeoff was delayed by 3 hours, then rather than land in stormy New York, the plane was diverted to Atlantic City, NJ. There the passengers sat in the plane, on the tarmac, for 4 more hours.

Passengers were allowed to leave the plane, (which they'd boarded at 2:30 pm) at 12:30 am. Four hours after that they were given hotel rooms, and by 3:21 pm the following afternoon, nearly 25 hours since they boarded the first plane, the passengers landed at JFK.

Flight 62 passengers said an already bad situation was made worse by the lack of customer service in Atlantic City.

Azim Khan, of Fort Lauderdale, said he felt abandoned by JetBlue's representatives there. Kahn said that upon landing around 8:30 p.m. passengers were told that buses would soon arrive to transfer them to JFK. The promised buses never came.

Passengers ultimately took taxis at their own expense to a nearby hotel where JetBlue had secured rooms for the night, he said. The taxi fares will be reimbursed.

For the remainder of the night, Khan and others went without food because nearby restaurants already had closed. Les Raye, 60, of Davie, said JetBlue should have made better provisions.

"I don't think I've ever gone through anything like this in my many years of flying," Raye said.

JetBlue passengers endure 25-hour trek from Fort Lauderdale to N.Y. [Chicago Tribune]
(Photo: dailydose)

The "Handy Manny" cartoon on Playhouse Disney was abruptly interrupted yesterday morning when Comcast honchos mistakenly aired the porno in sections of Jersey.

"What are they doing?" a 5-year-old boy asked his parents when an explicit sexual scene showed up on his TV screen.

The boy's father, Paul Dunleavy, was appalled.

"It was two people doing their thing, it was full-on and it was disgusting," said Dunleavy, who asked that his son not be named. "It wasn't something you'd expect to see on Cinemax, never mind Disney."
...

"If you can't feel safe letting kids watch the Disney Channel, what can you do?" asked Dunleavy, a father of three from Middletown, N.J.

"I couldn't believe it. We try to do the right thing to protect our kids from this stuff, and then they broadcast it on children's TV," Dunleavy said.

"My wife was like, 'Oh, my God.' She was shocked."

"We had an isolated issue in a local New Jersey facility, we immediately detected the issue and it was corrected promptly," he said in a statement.

"We apologize to any customer who experienced it and continue to investigate the root cause of it."

Cable porn gaffe: The full Mickey! [Daily News] (Thanks, Phil!)

RELATED: Viewers Expect Tom Brokaw, Get Hard-Core Porn

(Thanks to Moshe!)

I. Initial Sales Pitches

A. "I assume you want us to protect you bumper to bumper on the car, right?" (assumption makes the customer feel like everyone takes it)
B. "You've rented from us before?" (if yes) "Then, I'm sure you took our coverage last time, right?" (customer will feel silly for having not taken it)
C. "How long do you need the car?" -three days- "Three days? That's only $60 and protects you the full value of the car!" "...it's only $19.99/day and protects you of the full value of the car!!!" (make sure the customer feels your excitement)

Before getting insurance at a car-rental place, call your car insurance company and your credit card company, as oftentimes you're already covered with one of these places.

(Photo: presta)

II. Handling Objections A. I have my own insurance- "Yes, but you have exposure. Meaning, if anything happens, we'd have to collect your deductible, place a claim through your insurance, you'd have to worry about surcharges, insurance rates going up, etc..." (exposure, most powerful objection word ever) B. No, I'm ok... I don't need it- "80% of my customers under 10 days do take it because they would not be responsible for any damage, regardless of fault!" (customers love to be a part of the majority, it's comforting)

III. Thing You Should NEVER Say
A. "How do you want to cover the car?" (this gives them the option of their own insurance, and they'll use that option every time)
B. "Do you want to take our coverage or use your own insurance?" (Are you kidding me?! This is not sales!)
C. "We offer a protection package that can cover you bumper to bumper..." (Duh, that is precisely what you'd be doing... offering, not SELLING!)

IV. A True Seller...
- A true seller can close the deal within 30 seconds.
- A true seller doesn't even need the "three no's."
- A true seller "persuades" rather than "offers."
- A true seller believes in what he/she is selling.
- A true seller uses 1 to 2 powerful words, rather than a novel.
- If you work for Enterprise, you are a true seller (you just might not know it yet).

Tipster Tim Nudd writes: "As I was waiting for the guy to run my credit card, I noticed a piece of paper on the counter...It seemed to be a one-page cheat sheet for how Enterprise employees should go about selling car insurance to its customers. It was just sitting there, so I took it."

"To be fair, I don't know if this is a standard-issue Enterprise sales sheet or what. Plus the guy didn't even bother with any of this crap when I told him I didn't need his insurance. I did think it was a little weird that this Enterprise location has it in writing that making the customer feel silly can be a good thing."

— BEN POPKEN

(This is a repost from our archive.)

Its customers generate twice as much cash flow as the average subscriber, said Comcast spokeswoman D'Arcy Rudnay.

Insight, Comcast Splitting Joint Venture [Forbes]
Comcast to Buy New Jersey Cable Operator [Forbes]
(Photo: cmorran123)

Because of the circumstances surrounding Mr. M's situation and subsequent actions taken toward employees involved, Delta unfortunately lost contact with him.

However, we look forward to not only offering our apology, but also reimbursement for his lost property.

It is true that, according to our policy, Delta does not offer reimbursement for lost or stolen camera equipment.

However, a key component of good customer service is recognizing exceptions to a rule and handling those cases accordingly. The employee who originally handled this issue is no longer a member of Delta's customer care team.

Mr. M, we regret this inconvenience and look forward to working with you toward a resolution — which we hope will win you over as a Delta customer for life."

Betsy (Delta Representative)

It's great that Charles got his money back, but this is bullshit. The problem wasn't that Charles misplaced his camera, it was that Delta employed someone who stole it. A "we don't replace lost or stolen equipment" doesn't apply when it's your own employees stealing from your own customers. Secondly, how can Delta say they "lost contact" with Charles? He sent them letter after letter, several of which we posted. Lastly, and this is the biggest reason why this is bullshit, is that Delta only did this because the radio show got involved, not because they realized the error of their ways. Their tactic here was to placate and shut up before it became a bigger PR problem.

So that's how you want to do it, corporate multinationals? It's only when something looks like it's going to damage you that you'll do the right thing? No problem, we can play that game, with relish. — BEN POPKEN

PREVIOUSLY: Man Tracks Down And Gets Prosecuted Baggage Handler Who Stole His Camera, Delta Still Won't Refund

The other proposals would require cell phone companies to prorate early termination fees, prohibit them from requiring the purchase of a new phone when a customer returns a defective phone not covered by warranty, and ban them from charging customers for calling 911.

"Cell phone providers act as though they can charge whatever they want, whenever they want," said Assemblyman Michael J. Panter (D-Monmouth), the lead sponsor. "It's time that cell phone users had the edge when dealing with rapidly expanding industry."

Cell phone firms want 'protection' bills disconnected [Star-Ledger]
(Photo:cmorran123)

We asked around the unloading dock if anyone had jumpers but nobody piped up. An employee directed us to a customer service reception area. We handed them our license and they gave us a portable car jumper kit.

As we trudged through the snow to go do the job ourselves, we thought with a grin, "This is so IKEA."

Don't get us wrong, we enjoyed jumping the car, it's just amusing that the ethos behind the self-assembly business model trickles all the way down to the parking lot.

— BEN POPKEN
(Photo)

Delta's position is that, "We must respectfully deny your request for a full refund of your trip since travel did commence."

Using that rationale, it wouldn't matter if a stewardess stabbed you repeatedly in the chest and barfed on your wounds. As long as you got to where you were going, everything is copasetic.

The theft occurred in August of 2005, and Charles is still trying to pry a refund from Delta's mangy paws.

Inside, find a treasure trove of documentation, showing his correspondence with Delta, the TSA, Port Authority police services, the New Jersey prosecutor's office, and the winning bidder on his camera on eBay...

Charles writes:

In August, 2005 I flew on Delta airlines from Newark, NJ to Springfield, MO. I was visiting family, and brought along my $250 Fuji Digital Camera, stupidly placing it in my checked luggage. When I arrived, the camera was gone. Thinking I had simply forgotten it, I enjoyed my vacation and then returned home to New York. Only the camera wasn't in my apartment.

I hopelessly called Delta, who told me they weren't liable for a thing. They said I could file a formal complaint to show to my insurance company, which I soon learned had a $250 deductible. (D'oh.) I knew someone had taken the camera from my suitcase, so I filed a complaint with the Transportation Security Administration. (TSA)

In a last ditch effort, I also checked on Ebay. I was surprised to find a camera with no case, no box, no instructions, and a 512mb memory card like mine, that had been auctioned the day after my outgoing flight. The "seller location" was listed as "God Bless America." I contacted the winning bidder and explained my situation, describing some minor scratches on the camera LCD that he could use to distinguish it. He hadn't received it yet, but promised to take a close look when it came. A week or two later, he emailed me and asked if I had the serial number. When I sent it to him, he recommended I call the police. Still unsure of which police department to contact, as I had a brief layover in Cincinnati, I asked him for the return address on the package, and he sent it along.

With a Jersey City address in hand, I contacted the Port Authority Police Investigation Unit and explained what had happened so far. The helpful detectives opened an investigation, but it moved slowly, understandably given their priorities and the fact that they had to buy it back from the winning bidder on Ebay. After months of persistent follow-up, I learned that a Delta employee had confessed to taking my camera. He had been arrested and fired, and I would have to wait until after his court date to retrieve my property. In December 2005, I borrowed a car, drove to Newark, and got the camera back. It had taken 8 months.

Now given that there was conclusive court room evidence that a Delta employee had stolen from me, given the amount of trouble and time it took to regain my camera, given the fact that I undoubtedly performed a service for Delta, who discovered and removed an employee who was stealing from their customers, I figured I was entitled to some form of compensation. Ideally, I felt I deserved a refund for my $600 trip, but I would have gladly accepted a voucher or two for a free flight. At the very least, a sincere apology, thank you, and discount on my next fare. Delta wouldn't give me a thing. I tried several times to work my way up the chain of their 800 number with zero success. I wrote the obligatory angry letter and received a firm denial. I called their public relations office and threatened to go viral. The response: do whatever you want. We don't care at all.

One other relevant detail. This was by no means an isolated incident. When I went to the auction history of the seller (which would have been another good thing to save), there were at least a half dozen auctions. The most recent was for a cell phone and charger, no documentation, box, etc. This guy had clearly made a habit of this, although the account was actually in his wife's name. The police got him to confess by threatening to bring charges against her.

Itinerary Aug 13 2005

Emails with TSA Claims

—-—-—-- Forwarded message —-—-—--
From: Lau, Francis <[redacted]@dhs.gov>
Date: Oct 4, 2005 11:52 AM
Subject: Your TSA Claim #200XXXXXXXXXX
To: [redacted]

Mr. Charles M,

Thank you for the fax. I have received both pages. The repair receipt and the credit card statements are not necessary. The main objective is to verify your purchase. I will be sending your claim for a review in the coming week. It will take 4-8 weeks before a decision is made. You will be notified via the mail when a decision is reached. You can track your claim status by visiting: www.tsa.gov. Thank you.

Francis O. Lau, Claims Examiner
TSA Claims Management Office
(w) 571.[redacted]
(fax) 571.[redacted]

On 10/4/05, Lau, Francis <[redacted]@dhs.gov > wrote:

Mr. Charles M,

One more question, please explain why you think TSA is responsible for the missing camera.

Francis O. Lau, Claims Examiner
TSA Claims Management Office
(w) 571.[redacted]
(fax) 571.[redacted]

—-—Original Message—-—
From: Charles M [mailto: [redacted]@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 1:23 PM
To: Lau, Francis
Subject: Re: Your TSA Claim #200XXXXXXXXXX

Mr. Lau:

Thank you for your help with my claim so far. The reason I filed a claim with TSA about the camera is that I am sure it was stolen from a checked suitcase, although I don't know for sure who was responsible.

On August 13th, at 7:05am, I began a trip from Newark, NJ to Springfield, MO. I flew on Delta Flight 5771 to Cincinnatti, and then on Delta Flight 5184 to Springfield. When I arrived at my destination, the camera which had been packed into my checked bag was gone.

Although I was almost certain I had packed the camera, I waited until returning home to file a claim and report, in case I had left it at my residence. When I failed to find the camera in my apartment, I called Delta to file a report, and filed a report with TSA.

I also began looking on Ebay for a camera that might be a possible match. I quickly located a potential match (with no battery charger, documentation, a 512mb memory card), and contacted the buyer as the auction had already ended. After some correspondence with the buyer, that included sending him the serial number, he suggested I contact the police. This leads me to believe that he did in fact, purchase my stolen camera.

The buyer provided me with as much information as he had about the seller, and based on that information, I filed a police report with Detective Pat Earley of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police Department. He is currently doing an investigation, and you can contact him at 973-[redacted] for more information.

Thank you again for your help, and please feel free to contact me if you require any clarification or other documents.

Sincerely,

Charles M

—-—-—-- Forwarded message —-—-—--
From: Lau, Francis <[redacted]@dhs.gov>
Date: Oct 4, 2005 12:27 PM
Subject: RE: Your TSA Claim #200xxxxXXXXXX
To: Charles M <[redacted]@gmail.com>

Mr. Charles M,

After reading your e-mail, I cannot help but to admire your creative thinking. I will contact the police to see if the seller works at the airport, and/or if the person is employed by TSA. Thank you very much.

Francis O. Lau, Claims Examiner
TSA Claims Management Office
(w) 571.[redacted]
(fax) 571.[redacted]

On 10/5/05, Lau, Francis <[redacted]@dhs.gov > wrote:

Mr. Charles M,

I spoke with Det. Pat Earley this morning. His investigation cleared TSA from any wrongdoing. Details you will have to receive from Det. Earley. Hence, your claim with TSA will be denied.

A side note: your investigative skills are admirable. I even told Det. Earley that you would be a great addition to any investigative arms of the law. Thank you very much for your help, Mr. My. Have a nice day.

Francis O. Lau, Claims Examiner
TSA Claims Management Office
(w) 571.[redacted]
(fax) 571.[redacted]

—-—-—-- Forwarded message —-—-—--
From: Charles M <[redacted]@gmail.com>
Date: Oct 5, 2005 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: Your TSA Claim #200xxxxxxxxxx
To: "Lau, Francis" <[redacted[@dhs.gov>

Mr. Lau:

Thanks for your help and kind words. I hope to get the camera back soon, although I'm sure that since it's evidence it may take a while. I'm still a little shocked that I was actually able to find it, but hopefully catching the theif will keep anyone else from having to go through this.

Charles M

—-—-—-- Forwarded message —-—-—--
From: Lau, Francis <[redacted]@dhs.gov >
Date: Oct 5, 2005 9:24 AM
Subject: RE: Your TSA Claim #200xxxxxxxxxx
To: Charles M <[redacted]@gmail.com>

Mr. Charles M

Det. Earley is going to retrieve the camera, but it will be used as evidence until the case is over. You have a nice day.

Francis O. Lau, Claims Examiner
TSA Claims Management Office
(w) 571.[redacted[
(fax) 571.[redacted]

—-—Original Message—-—
From: Charles M [mailto: redacted
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 11:50 AM
To: caliborn@[redacted]
Subject: Camera Reward

Today I was able to speak with Detective Earley and he informed me that the police have the camera and an arrest has been made. I would like to make good on my promise of a reward for helping me resolve this issue.

With your permission, I'll send you the money via Paypal, so please send me your Paypal Account name in order to receive your reward. Thanks again.

From: "Caliborn" < caliborn@[redacted]>
To:
Subject: RE: Camera Reward
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 18:10:34 -0500

That's very generous of you. I'm glad that Earley finally was able to move on the prosecution. Makes you wonder how much is on eBay that is also stolen.

My Paypal account is : caliborn@[redacted]

December 16, 2005

Delta Airlines, Inc.
P.O. Box 20706
Atlanta, GA 30320-6001

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am contacting you regarding a flight I took on your airline in August, 2005. While flying from Newark International Airport to Springfield, Missouri via Cincinnatti, I had an expensive digital camera stolen from my checked suitcase. I contacted your customer service department shortly after returning from my trip and was told that Delta is not liable for any lost property.

I now have definitive proof that my camera was taken by a Delta employee who has since confessed to his crime, been arrested, and fired. I know this because I found my camera being sold on Ebay, and contacted the buyer to verify the serial number. I then contacted the police, who conducted an investigation resulting in the arrest and termination of the employee.

I am writing to request a full refund for the cost of my trip, in the amount of $585.00, or else I will be forced to pursue other means to make me whole, such as litigation and public media exposure. In addition to the fact that I was unable to use my camera while on vacation, an extreme inconvenience, I also spent considerable time and effort tracking down my property and the thief who had taken it. I had to file multiple reports, engage in extensive web searches and email correspondence, and borrow a vehicle to drive to Newark Airport in order to recover my property. The result of my actions benefits your company directly, as you have been able to remove an employee who was stealing from your customers. It has caused me a great deal of trouble, as during a four-month span from August through December, I was deprived of my property on dozens of occasions during which it would have been useful.

My initial attempts to secure compensation from your ticket refund and lost baggage departments have been met not with apologies and gratitude, but with derision and stonewalling. I am extremely angry that I was unable to speak with or even secure the name of someone who had the authority to rectify this heinous situation. If I do not receive a prompt and satisfactory response to this letter, I will pursue legal action and contact the media about your remarkable lack of basic responsibility to your customers. I have already had an offer from a columnist at the New York Metro, which averages 850,000 daily readers, to publish this story. I also have access to a blog with thousands of daily readers. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Charles M

Letter from the prosecutor's office

Letter from Port Authority

Letter from Delta

Letter from prosecutor's office

February 6, 2007 Delta Airlines, Inc. P.O. Box 20706 Atlanta, GA 30320-6001 Dear Sir or Madam:

I am contacting you regarding a flight I took on your airline in August, 2005. While flying from Newark International Airport to Springfield, Missouri via Cincinnatti, I had an expensive digital camera stolen from my checked suitcase. I contacted your customer service department shortly after returning from my trip and was told that Delta is not liable for any lost property.

I now have definitive proof that my camera was taken by a Delta employee who has since confessed to his crime, been arrested, and fired. I know this because I found my camera being sold on Ebay, and contacted the buyer to verify the serial number. I then contacted the police, who conducted an investigation resulting in the arrest and termination of the employee.

I am writing to request a full refund for the cost of my trip, in the amount of $585.00, or else I will be forced to pursue other means to make me whole, such as litigation and public media exposure. In addition to the fact that I was unable to use my camera while on vacation, an extreme inconvenience, I also spent considerable time and effort tracking down my property and the thief who had taken it. I had to file multiple reports, engage in extensive web searches and email correspondence, and borrow a vehicle to drive to Newark Airport in order to recover my property. The result of my actions benefits your company directly, as you have been able to remove an employee who was stealing from your customers. It has caused me a great deal of trouble, as during a four-month span from August through December, I was deprived of my property on dozens of occasions during which it would have been useful.

My initial attempts to secure compensation from your ticket refund and lost baggage departments have been met not with apologies and gratitude, but with derision and stonewalling. I am extremely angry that I was unable to speak with or even secure the name of so