lawsuit against Sprint

Unreadable -- delete.

"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Nomen Nescio" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > >Oh, I must be mistaken then. Some government agency went through the
> steps
> > >to tell the wireless providers could recap their expenses from the
> > >government mandate to initiate WNLP.
> >
> > What "steps" did they go through to tell the wireless providers what to
> charge for WLNP recovery?
> >
> > They said "if you want to raise your rates to recover your costs, go
> ahead". Do you really
> > think they needed the FCC's permission for this? Couldn't everyone have
> changed the rates
> > without the FCC's blessing?
> >
> > They never said they could violate current contracts. If they did, I
> missed that part.
> >
> > If the FCC was so deeply involved in this fee, what did they tell the
> carriers to charge?
> >
> >
> > >> Do you understand the point?
> > >
> > >Yes ... I do. Apparently you don't.
> >
> > Okay, we want to get personal? Fine.
>
> Oh, where was I getting personal? Seems like you asked me, and I then
asked
> you.
> >
> > >And your plan rates haven't changed ... have they?
> >
> > Yes, you half-brained ****wit. They have gone up $3.30 due to my
multiple
> lines. Wrap it, slap
> > it, unbundle it and smack it ... the non-mandated taxes and surcharges
> a/k/a My Calling Plan
> > Rates have indeed gone up.
>
> No need to be adding any cussing here. . My plan too went up $3.30. Am I
> worried about that additional cost, no ... not really.I don't think it's
> going to be permanent. My opinion at least. Nothing to cite ...
> >
> > If they divide my plan rate, and call one half of it the "calling plan
> rate", and the other half
> > a "phone surcharge" ... has my calling plan really been cut in half?
>
> But they didn't cut it in half ... did they?
> > No, i'm paying the same.
> > The calling plan rate is sum of the bill minues all MANDATED taxes and
> surcharges. Arbitrary
> > charges are rate increases.
> >
> > And the ****ing sky is blue and the grass is green.
>
> There you go again.
>
> >
> >
> > >Which judgement is that? That the customer has the option of bailing
out
> of
> > >the contract early?
> >
> > The court judgement you inbred imbecile. What frigging rock have you
been
> living under?
>
> If there is a link to that judgement, how about posting it? I must have
> missed it the first time.
> >
> > Whaaaaaaaaaa? I hear Kobe Bryant is in some kind of trouble.
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaat trouble? I
> > didn't hear nuttin 'bout no trouble.
>
> And this has to do with WLNP charges how?
> >
> > >No, and I quoted it earlier today, saying basically that I thought it
was
> a
> > >bogus number.
> >
> > You think every numer is bogus but Sprint's.
> >
> > Tell me, how do you type so proficiently with Len Lauer's dick in your
> mouth.
> >
> > Len Lauer is Sprint PCS's CEO for those who don't like his nutsack on a
> daily basis.
> >
> >
> > >No officials from any wireless provider has confirmed that cost.
> >
> > So how do you know they are bogus then? They certainly haven't rebutted
> the numbers.
> >
> >
> > >>Yes, but this cost was a new one, outside of the costs incurred by the
> > >carriers.
> >
> > People get hit with new charges every day. Welcome to planet earth. I
> get hit with them all
> > the time on my bill too. They also have their costs reduced to (recent
> decline in fuel prices
> > helped). New charges happen, old ones go away, people eat pizza ....
what
> the **** does any of
> > this have to do with the price of horse**** in Japan?
>
> I don't know ... You tell me ...
> >
> > >This change was ordered by the government,
> >
> > Like the every increasing taxes I pay every month? You mean a mandate
> like that?
> >
> > >and since they mandated that WLNP must take place, also said that the
> carriers could recap that
> > >expense.
> >
> > They also said that Sprint could lick a dog's ass. Doesn't mean they
have
> to do it.
>
> My my my ... did you wake up on the wrong side of your cardboard box
today?
> Sure sounds like it ...
>
> Bob
> >
>
>

---

› See More: lawsuit against Sprint

>Let's put this in perspective, shall we? First off, in the prior post, it
>was started by saying this was over ... a done deal, which it wasn't. The
>issue had not been adjudicated yet. It was a *temporary* injunction that was
>issued by the judge. As far as I know, it's a common practice to issue these
>temporary injunctions, until the matter can be heard and decided in court.

Not unless it is determined by a judge to have significant merit, Bob.

I've been involved in the injunction process many, many times. They are not as easy to get as
you think.

Someone has to screw up in a rather obvious manner to be slapped with an injunction. They don't
just hand them out like candy.


>To answer your next question, no ... I have no cites to back up this
>statement, only what I've heard through my attorneys when I was a claims
>adjuster, prior becoming a broker ...


Okay, so you don't know. Probably few uf us do.

I make my best guesses based on my current employment in the legal profession, dealing with,
oddly enough, consumer law.

We all just our making our best guesses here, but some of them are more educated than others.


>Absolutely none. Courts are a funny beast, unpredictable to say the least
>(need I bring up the OJ Simpson case?), and I wouldn't bet a wooden nickel
>on what the outcome would be. I've been involved in suits, representing the
>carrier, where I thought we had a strong position and we lost. I've been in
>some cases where I thought we had a weak position .. and we won. Like I
>said, I don't have a clue.


Maybe you're right.

But this is actually one of the more cut-and-dry cases I have seen. The injunction came quickly.

I think I know which way this one is headed, but you are right, anything can happen.

Bob Smith wrote:
>
> "Phillipe" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> > done, luckily I just select and highlight the message, and click on add
> > filter, and boom, the adolescent insulters is gone.
>
> Then why haven't you killfiltered yourself yet?
>
> Bob

Because he can't figure it out? LOL!

In article <[email protected]>,
Michael Arends <[email protected]> wrote:

> Bob Smith wrote:
> >
> > "Phillipe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > > done, luckily I just select and highlight the message, and click on add
> > > filter, and boom, the adolescent insulters is gone.
> >
> > Then why haven't you killfiltered yourself yet?
> >
> > Bob
>
> Because he can't figure it out? LOL!

I am not the one spewing childish insults. Those who do get KILL filed.
Welcome to the club Michael.

"Phillipe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Michael Arends <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Bob Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > "Phillipe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > > > done, luckily I just select and highlight the message, and click on
add
> > > > filter, and boom, the adolescent insulters is gone.
> > >
> > > Then why haven't you killfiltered yourself yet?
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Because he can't figure it out? LOL!
>
> I am not the one spewing childish insults. Those who do get KILL filed.
> Welcome to the club Michael.

You keep kill filtering everyone here Phillippe and all you will be doing is
talking to your self.

Bob

>Are you a lawyer, or "legal secretary"? My best guess is that you're the
>latter...(and no, that is not a diss on you....my father told me never to
>diss a person who is working....regardless of his profession).

Your father sounded like a wise man.

But, no, I am not a legal secretary. You are wrong.

It happens.

"Nomen Nescio" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >Are you a lawyer, or "legal secretary"? My best guess is that you're the
> >latter...(and no, that is not a diss on you....my father told me never to
> >diss a person who is working....regardless of his profession).
>
> Your father sounded like a wise man.
>
> But, no, I am not a legal secretary. You are wrong.
>
> It happens.


Well are you a lawyer? Are you going to file on our behalf to ***** against
Sprint? In some of your posts you make excellent points, then they went to
entertaining.....then they just went border-line whining.....I'm not trying
to disrespect you, and I don't even care that I'm wrong....but if something
is to be done with SPCS essentially taking pennies out of pocket extra, I
just want to know what the plan of action is.

Considering the two prior posts you made to yours truly, I almost wasn't
going to reply to you. In saying that, here we go.
"Nomen Nescio" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> >Now you say," let's see if the courts agree" ... Above you said that it's
> >already been decided ...Make up your mind.
> >
> >Bob
>
>
> I have made up my mind, Bob.
>
> As i'm sure you are aware, a judge must find "merit", "reasonable belief
that an action will
> succeed", and must act to "prevent damage" before he/she can issue an
injunction.
>
> Therefore, the court has agreed with the consumer that the action has
merit, and because of this
> agreement has prevented Sprint from doing what it wants. An injunction is
a pretty big deal for
> such a large company. An injunction is very decisive and is actually a
preliminary judgement for
> the plaintiff. Injunctions rarely proceed complete exhoneration ... but
it does and could happen.

Let's put this in perspective, shall we? First off, in the prior post, it
was started by saying this was over ... a done deal, which it wasn't. The
issue had not been adjudicated yet. It was a *temporary* injunction that was
issued by the judge. As far as I know, it's a common practice to issue these
temporary injunctions, until the matter can be heard and decided in court.
To answer your next question, no ... I have no cites to back up this
statement, only what I've heard through my attorneys when I was a claims
adjuster, prior becoming a broker ...
>
> Now, more needs to be decided.
>
> Let's see how it plays out, shall we?
>
> Maybe the injunction will be lifted, maybe it won't, maybe Sprint will be
found liable for greater
> penalties, maybe they will be completely cleared of any wrongdoing.
>
> What do you think will happen, Bob? Do you have any predictions?

Absolutely none. Courts are a funny beast, unpredictable to say the least
(need I bring up the OJ Simpson case?), and I wouldn't bet a wooden nickel
on what the outcome would be. I've been involved in suits, representing the
carrier, where I thought we had a strong position and we lost. I've been in
some cases where I thought we had a weak position .. and we won. Like I
said, I don't have a clue.

Bob

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Cruz Gracia" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > I don't feel like looking this up, but why do you very consistently
> mis*****
> > lawsuit? :-)
> >
> >
>
> Bad habit when typing quickly... why, are you the group *****checker?
>
> Tom Veldhouse
>


Not really....I just noticed that you did it 100% of the time.....I'm not
flaming, just have very minor fun at your expense...

Cruz

"Nomen Nescio" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >Again, I was under the impression that the FCC did authorize that the
> >wireless markets could recap their expenses with this government mandate.
>
> Oh, I just realized. Since the FCC made no calculations or
ecommendations, the FCC "authorized"
> Sprint to charge $1,000 per line per customer.
>
> Actually, the FCC also autorized Sprint to charge $1 Billion per month per
customer.
>
> According to Bob, you are on the hook for whatever the charge is, because
the FCC said they could
> recover it, and put no cap or calculation behind it.
>
> If I had a whole bunch of people under contract obligated to pay whatever
I charged, I would charge
> $100,000 per customer for the life of their contract, fold the company,
and never have to worry
> about money again for the rest of my life.
>
> I wonder why Sprint doesn't do this?
>
> Maybe because they know they can't charge whatever they want and legally
make people pay it?
>
> Maybe the FCC "authorization" is just a semantic shell game?
>
> Who knows.


Jesus Christ, dude, WE GET YOUR FRIGGIN POINT!! I don't (necessarily)
disagree with you but seeing the same thing posted with a couple of words
changed will only serve as annoyance.......

What are you doing about it now is what I want to know? What do you propose
to do?

Are you a lawyer, or "legal secretary"? My best guess is that you're the
latter...(and no, that is not a diss on you....my father told me never to
diss a person who is working....regardless of his profession).


"Nomen Nescio" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >Let's put this in perspective, shall we? First off, in the prior post, it
> >was started by saying this was over ... a done deal, which it wasn't. The
> >issue had not been adjudicated yet. It was a *temporary* injunction that
was
> >issued by the judge. As far as I know, it's a common practice to issue
these
> >temporary injunctions, until the matter can be heard and decided in
court.
>
> Not unless it is determined by a judge to have significant merit, Bob.
>
> I've been involved in the injunction process many, many times. They are
not as easy to get as
> you think.
>
> Someone has to screw up in a rather obvious manner to be slapped with an
injunction. They don't
> just hand them out like candy.
>
>
> >To answer your next question, no ... I have no cites to back up this
> >statement, only what I've heard through my attorneys when I was a claims
> >adjuster, prior becoming a broker ...
>
>
> Okay, so you don't know. Probably few uf us do.
>
> I make my best guesses based on my current employment in the legal
profession, dealing with,
> oddly enough, consumer law.
>
> We all just our making our best guesses here, but some of them are more
educated than others.
>
>
> >Absolutely none. Courts are a funny beast, unpredictable to say the least
> >(need I bring up the OJ Simpson case?), and I wouldn't bet a wooden
nickel
> >on what the outcome would be. I've been involved in suits, representing
the
> >carrier, where I thought we had a strong position and we lost. I've been
in
> >some cases where I thought we had a weak position .. and we won. Like I
> >said, I don't have a clue.
>
>
> Maybe you're right.
>
> But this is actually one of the more cut-and-dry cases I have seen. The
injunction came quickly.
>
> I think I know which way this one is headed, but you are right, anything
can happen.
>

"Phillipe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Nomen Nescio <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Wait, I would have to do one other thing. Since people would be able to
buy
> > their way out of the
> > contract for $150, I would also have to raise the Early Contract
Termination
> > Fee to $1 Billion.
> >
> > Then, at say, oh, 2am ... I would post the new T&C on my website
notifying
> > customers of the
> > increased ETF fee, and inform people that by placing a phone call that
they
> > agree to the new T&C.
> > Since only a small fraction of subscribers would read the T&C before
placing
> > a call the next
> > morning, I will have locked everyone in to the new Terms and Conditions.
> >
> > THEN I can jack up the WLNP fee to $1 Billion. Either way, every
subscriber
> > will legally owe me at
> > least $1 Billion. To collect, I can foreclose houses, business, take
cars
> > and boats to satisfy the
> > debt ... the sky's the limit. The FCC authorized it all, and the T&C
> > supports me.
> >
> > I posted my T&C and could show that everyone who made a phone call the
next
> > day "Agreed" to it, the
> > FCC authorized mr to charge $1 billion for WLNP. No court in the land
could
> > touch me!
> >
> > I would be a trillionaire in one month.
> >
> > The plan is so simple, it's brilliant!
> >
> > Why, Sprint would be simply nuts not to do this! They could take over
the
> > world!
> >
> > And it's all 100% legal and enforceable. Bob says so! And that's good
> > enough for me.
>
>
> Actually I'm surprised no one has suggested soemthing like this for
> California. A negative lottery. Every registered voter would be entered.
> Whoever had their name drawn would be the "winner" and then responsible
> for paying off the 47 billion dollar deficit. Hopefully that could be
> Billy Gates.

Doesn't he live in Washington?

>Well are you a lawyer?

I've always hated it when people have said "I'm a lawyer" because it has always struck me as a
cheap ploy by people to make it sound like they somehow are more relevant than another person.
So, i'd prefer just to say that I am exposed to consumer law. If that's okay, i'd prefer to
leave it at that.

I'm just giving you the benefit of the knowledge of cases that I have worked on ... in some
capacity. It doesn't mean that I know any more than anyone else, just that I have been exposed
to the case law, have participated in related cases, and have the benefit of experience in
witnessing the outcomes. I can make some educated guesses in these areas, but they won't always
be right.

Take it for what it's worth.


>Are you going to file on our behalf to ***** against Sprint?

On WLNP? No. Someone else has already gotten the ball rolling.

In other matters, probably not on behalf of everyone. It would be a personal suit. I don't
initiate class actions personally. If I were to win a personal civil suit, it would help you
indirectly by changing policy and setting precident.

I do, however, know people that are watching certain situations and ready to pounce on them with
a class-action status. Some lawyers are opportunits. Even greedy if you will. I'm sure this
comes as a surprise to nobody. I can tell you that there is some excitement among some of these
fellows about the way Sprint is conducting itself. More than one guy sees a new house payment in
all of these shennanigans. Sprint should tread lightly. Consumers aren't as stupid as they
used to be, and class actions are usually based on contingency (no money out of the consumer's
pocket, but lots out of the company's pokcet).

I would respectfully advise them to do the right thing. They will be better off for it.

Not that they will take this advice, but I really think that they should.


>In some of your posts you make excellent points, then they went to
>entertaining.....then they just went border-line whining.....

Yeah, well, i'm moody. You can't please all of the people all of the time. Sometimes I feel
like whining. Sometimes I feel like entertaining. Sometimes I feel like making points. Take
what you want and throw the rest out. They can't all be pearls.


>I'm not trying to disrespect you, and I don't even care that I'm wrong....

No disrespect taken.

>but if something
>is to be done with SPCS essentially taking pennies out of pocket extra, I
>just want to know what the plan of action is.

There is already a suit pending, and an injunction has been issued. In most cases, Sprint will
now let you out of your contract without a an ETF if you tell them that you disagree with the
WLNP fee.

The suit is ongoing. A plan of action is taking place as we type.

You don't have to pay the fee anymore, if you don't want to. According to many reports
(including myself), Sprint will even credit you in excess of the fee in order to keep you as a
customer.

You have to call to discuss it with them, however. They aren't going to call you and offer.

Hey, great postings--I would like a general idea of what to expect in
extras--which would seem to be a win-win for both sprint and the
customer--if we can get extra minutes or some other option added w/o
charge this would seems to be the better outcome--as I mentioned in
another posting, these companies are going to charge more for this--if
you cancel the contract, then you pay the fee to another company--seems
like sprint is the best one to negotiate with--what do yo all think???

Nomen Nescio <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> >Well are you a lawyer?
>
> I've always hated it when people have said "I'm a lawyer" because it has always struck me as a
> cheap ploy by people to make it sound like they somehow are more relevant than another person.
> So, i'd prefer just to say that I am exposed to consumer law. If that's okay, i'd prefer to
> leave it at that.
>
> I'm just giving you the benefit of the knowledge of cases that I have worked on ... in some
> capacity. It doesn't mean that I know any more than anyone else, just that I have been exposed
> to the case law, have participated in related cases, and have the benefit of experience in
> witnessing the outcomes. I can make some educated guesses in these areas, but they won't always
> be right.
>
> Take it for what it's worth.
>
>
> >Are you going to file on our behalf to ***** against Sprint?
>
> On WLNP? No. Someone else has already gotten the ball rolling.
>
> In other matters, probably not on behalf of everyone. It would be a personal suit. I don't
> initiate class actions personally. If I were to win a personal civil suit, it would help you
> indirectly by changing policy and setting precident.
>
> I do, however, know people that are watching certain situations and ready to pounce on them with
> a class-action status. Some lawyers are opportunits. Even greedy if you will. I'm sure this
> comes as a surprise to nobody. I can tell you that there is some excitement among some of these
> fellows about the way Sprint is conducting itself. More than one guy sees a new house payment in
> all of these shennanigans. Sprint should tread lightly. Consumers aren't as stupid as they
> used to be, and class actions are usually based on contingency (no money out of the consumer's
> pocket, but lots out of the company's pokcet).
>
> I would respectfully advise them to do the right thing. They will be better off for it.
>
> Not that they will take this advice, but I really think that they should.
>
>
> >In some of your posts you make excellent points, then they went to
> >entertaining.....then they just went border-line whining.....
>
> Yeah, well, i'm moody. You can't please all of the people all of the time. Sometimes I feel
> like whining. Sometimes I feel like entertaining. Sometimes I feel like making points. Take
> what you want and throw the rest out. They can't all be pearls.
>
>
> >I'm not trying to disrespect you, and I don't even care that I'm wrong....
>
> No disrespect taken.
>
> >but if something
> >is to be done with SPCS essentially taking pennies out of pocket extra, I
> >just want to know what the plan of action is.
>
> There is already a suit pending, and an injunction has been issued. In most cases, Sprint will
> now let you out of your contract without a an ETF if you tell them that you disagree with the
> WLNP fee.
>
> The suit is ongoing. A plan of action is taking place as we type.
>
> You don't have to pay the fee anymore, if you don't want to. According to many reports
> (including myself), Sprint will even credit you in excess of the fee in order to keep you as a
> customer.
>
> You have to call to discuss it with them, however. They aren't going to call you and offer.
>

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]