bureaucracybusters

Posts Tagged ‘FRAUD’

LISA MURKOWSKI HAS A WARNING FOR PARAMOUNT: PART TWO (END)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Medical, Politics, Social commentary on August 13, 2025 at 12:05 am

On July 3, Alaska’s Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski cast the deciding vote on Republicans’ “One Big Beautiful Bill” that:    

  • Extends President Donald Trump’s 2017 tax cuts;  
  • Funds his immigration crackdown;
  • Imposes work requirements on social safety net programs;, and 
  • Cuts $1 trillion from Medicaid and Medicare.

The United States population is estimated to be between 341 and 347 million. But Murkowski wasn’t concerned about them. 

What she cared about were the 740,133 people she represented in Alaska.

Murkowski was upset at Trump’s plan to cut federal funding for wind and solar projects. So, in return for selling out the rest of the country, she demanded that Congress agree to protect Alaskan wind, hydropower and solar projects.

Congress agreed.

After her vote, Trump issued an executive order to limit solar and wind project awards. Insisting that renewables are unreliable, the executive order endorses polluting options such as oil, natural gas and hydropower. 

Now Murkowski feels betrayed: “Do I feel like the administration was not being up-front with us? Yes.”

Murkowski would have done well to study Trump’s past behavior:  

  • On May 17, 2017, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed former FBI Director Robert S. Mueller to investigate links between Russian Intelligence agents and the 2016 Trump Presidential campaign. 
  • Throughout Mueller’s probe, Trump repeatedly insulted him via Twitter and press conferences. 
  • But aides convinced him that firing Mueller would be rightly seen as obstruction of justice—and thus grounds for impeachment. So he never dared go that far.

Director Robert S. Mueller- III.jpg

Robert Mueller

  • In March, 2023, Trump threatened “death and destruction” if he were criminally charged in New York for making “hush money” payments to porn “actress” Stormy Daniels. Trump shared an image of himself threatening Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg with a baseball bat on his Truth Social platform.
  • The trial proceeded—and Trump was convicted of 34 felonies for falsifying New York business records in order to conceal his illegal scheme to corrupt the 2016 election. 

Trump threatens 'death and destruction' to Alvin Bragg

Lisa Murkowski’s betrayal and humiliation holds an important warning for Paramount Globe Class B: Trump’s “word” is worthless.

Consider: Paramount is worth $9.25 billion. Nevertheless it wanted to merge with Skydance Media, whose worth is valued at $4.75 billion.

Paramount is the parent company of CBS Network, which hosts The Late Show With Stephen Colbert.

Colbert, who has hosted the show since 2015, has been a fierce Trump critic ever since the former real estate developer announced his first run for President. And Trump, notoriously thin-skinned, equates any criticism—especially when it’s wrapped in humor—as literally treason.

Stephen Colbert | WikiLists | Fandom

Stephen Colbert

For example: At Christmastime, 2018, “Saturday Night Live” aired a parody of the classic movie, “It’s a Wonderful Life.” Its title: “It’s a Wonderful Trump.”

In it, Trump (portrayed by actor Alec Baldwin) discovers what the United States would be like if he had never become President: A great deal better-off.

As usual, Trump expressed his resentment through Twitter: The Justice Department should stop investigating his administration (for his collusion with Russia during the 2016 Presidential election) and go after the real enemy: “SNL.”

Paramount had recently paid Trump $16 million to settle a lawsuit he had brought against the CBS news show, 60 Minutes. He claimed that it had misleadingly edited a pre-election interview with then Vice President Kamala Harris to boost her election chances in 2024.

CBS initially called the lawsuit “completely without merit.”  The network’s attorneys and a number of legal experts said that the lawsuit was without merit.

But Paramount was in the midst of an $8 billion sale to the Hollywood studio Skydance Media. For this, it needed the regulatory permission of the Federal Communications Commission of the Trump administration.

So it’s easy to draw a straight line from Paramount to CBS to Late Night With Stephen Colbert to see how easy it was for Paramount/CBS to cancel the highest-rated late-night show on television with 2.4 million nightly viewers. It has also been nominated for 33 Emmys.

Which it did on July 17. 

In a statement, Paramount/CBS called the cancellation a purely financial decision: “It is not related in any way to the show’s performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount.”

On July 14, after returning from a multi-week break, Colbert said: “While I was on vacation, my parent corporation, Paramount, paid Donald Trump a $16 million settlement over his ‘60 Minutes’ lawsuit. 

“As someone who has always been a proud employee of this network, I am offended. And I don’t know if anything will ever repair my trust in this company, but just taking a stab at it, I’d say $16 million would help. 

“I believe this kind of complicated financial settlement with a sitting government official has a technical name in legal circles—it’s big fat bribe.” 

Addressing his in-house and television audience on July 17, Colbert announced: “I want to let you know something that I found out just last night. Next year will be our last season. The network will be ending The Late Show in May.

“It’s not just the end of our show, but it’s the end of ‘The Late Show’ on CBS. I’m not being replaced. This is all just going away.” 

A frequent theme of the classic CBS show, The Twilight Zone, was: Deal with the Devil—and you’ll get burned.

Paramount may well prove as disappointed as Lisa Murkowski.

LISA MURKOWSKI HAS A WARNING FOR PARAMOUNT: PART ONE (OF TWO)

In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Medical, Politics, Social commentary on August 12, 2025 at 12:07 am

For all his adult life, Donald Trump—as a businessman, Presidential candidate, President and now re-elected President—has trafficked in bribery and coercion.  First bribery:         

  • Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi (and now United States Attorney General) personally solicited a political contribution from Donald Trump around the same time her office deliberated joining an investigation of alleged fraud at Trump University and its affiliates.
  • After Bondi dropped the Trump University case, he wrote her a $25,000 check for her re-election campaign. The money came from the Donald J. Trump Foundation.
  • Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton moved to muzzle a former state regulator who said he was ordered in 2010 to drop a fraud investigation into Trump University for political reasons.
  • Paxton’s office issued a cease and desist letter to former Deputy Chief of Consumer Protection John Owens after he made public copies of a 14-page internal summary of the state’s case against Donald Trump for scamming millions from students of his now-defunct real estate seminar.
  • After the Texas case was dropped, Trump cut a $35,000 check to the gubernatorial campaign of then-attorney general and now Texas Governor Greg Abbott.
Related image
Now coercion:
  • Throughout his career as a businessman, Trump forced his employees to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements, threatening them with lawsuits if they revealed secrets of his greed and/or criminality.
  • In 2016. USA Today found that Trump was involved in over 3,500 lawsuits during the previous 30 years: “At least 60 lawsuits, along with hundreds of liens, judgments, and other government filings” were from contractors claiming they got stiffed.
  • On March 16, 2016, as a Republican Presidential candidate, Trump warned Republicans that if he didn’t win the GOP nomination in July, his supporters would literally riot: “I think you’d have riots. I think you would see problems like you’ve never seen before. I think bad things would happen, I really do. I wouldn’t lead it, but I think bad things would happen.”
  • An NBC reporter summed it up as: “The message to Republicans was clear: ‘Nice convention you got there. Shame if something happened to it.'”
  • Speaking with Bob Woodward, the legendary Washington Post investigative reporter, Trump confessed: “Real power is—I don’t even want to use the word—fear.”
  • During his Presidential campaign he encouraged Right-wing thugs to attack dissenters at his rallies, even claiming he would pay their legal expenses. 

Related image

Donald Trump

But when he has confronted men and women who can’t be bribed or intimidated, Trump has reacted with rage and desperation.

Alaska’s Republican United States Senator Lisa Murkowski should have kept those truths in mind before she sacrificed access to healthcare for millions of Americans.

On July 3, Murkowski cast the deciding vote on Republicans’ “One Big Beautiful Bill” that extends Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, funds his immigration crackdown, imposes work requirements on social safety net programs, and cuts $1 trillion from Medicaid.

The largest cuts come from Medicaid work reporting requirements ($326 billion; limits on state provider tax arrangements ($191 billion); and restrictions on state-directed Medicaid payments ($149 billion).

The United States population is estimated to be between 341 and 347 million. But Murkowski wasn’t concerned about them.

Lisa Murkowski

Lisa Murkowski

What she cared about were the 740,133 people she represented in Alaska.

Murkowski was upset at Trump’s plan to cut federal funding for wind and solar projects. So, in return for selling out the rest of the country, she demanded that Congress agree to protect Alaskan wind, hydropower and solar projects. 

Murkowski believed that Trump administration officials understood how local wind and solar projects could offset the costly diesel fuel that many Alaskan rural communities must import by barge to provide electricity for their homes and businesses.

She also thought she’d negotiated an agreement to protect a 12-month window for solar and wind projects to continue to receive tax credits.

“It’s not everything that I wanted,” she explained then, “but it’s going to keep some of our projects alive, and that’s important.”

After her vote, Trump issued an executive order to limit solar and wind project awards. Continuing to insist that renewables provide only unreliable power, the executive order also gives a nod of approval to polluting options such as oil, natural gas, and hydropower. 

Suddenly, Murkowski feels betrayed.

“To me, it’s just reckless by the administration. Do I feel like the administration was not being up-front with us? Yes.”

Murkowski would have done well to study Trump’s past behavior.  

When Donald Trump—as a businessman and President—has been confronted by men and women who can’t be bribed or intimidated, he has reacted with rage and frustration.

  • Trump boasted that he “never” settled cases out of court. But New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman pressed fraud claims against the real estate mogul’s counterfeit Trump University—and Trump settled the case out of court rather than take the stand.
  • “Today’s $25 million settlement agreement is a stunning reversal by Donald Trump,” said Schneiderman on November 18, 2016, “and a major victory for the over 6,000 victims of his fraudulent university.”
  • On May 17, 2017, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed former FBI Director Robert S. Mueller to investigate links between Russian Intelligence agents and the 2016 Trump Presidential campaign. 
  • Upon learning of his appointment, Trump wailed: “Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I’m fucked.” 

DEFEATING CORPORATE PREDATORS WITH “WHO/WHOM?”

In Bureaucracy, Business, Law, Law Enforcement, Self-Help, Social commentary on January 6, 2025 at 12:06 am

It’s easy to be intimidated by a large corporation—such as a bank or phone company—when you’ve been ripped off. After all, it’s well-known, has millions of dollars, and legions of attorneys.     

But when that happens, it’s essential to remember two words: Who/Whom?

Translation: Who can do What to Whom?  

When you’re dealing with people whose greed is equaled only by their arrogance, there is only one way to prevail: You need to make them afraid of you.

And that can be achieved only by finding someone—or some agency—they fear, and turning them into your ally.

A friend of mine—Lynn—tried to order a calendar from an online calendar company. She put in the required information—including her debit card number—but kept getting “Error” messages.

Eventually she quit trying.

Lynn never got the calendar—but she wound up with four separate charges to her debit card, totaling $71.32.

She tried to get a refund from the company—which claimed they couldn’t find the charges.

Meanwhile, Lynn’s bank had in fact confirmed the charges—since the money had been taken from her account. And the bank—Bank of America—promised to remove the charges within 72 hours.

Three days came and went—and no reimbursement had been made to her account. 

Bank of America Corporate Center.jpg

Bank of America Corporate Center

So Lynn called BofA again—and was told it would take about 45 days to run “an investigation” into her loss.

Luckily, an investigator-friend of hers advised her to file a complaint with the Federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). It can be reached at https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ 

According to its website, the agency operates as follows: 

  • “We create clear rules to implement the law and preserve choices for consumers.”
  • “We enforce federal consumer financial laws by investigating cases of potential wrongdoing and taking action.”
  • “We supervise financial companies to ensure compliance with federal consumer laws.”

So she called the agency—at (855) 411-2372 on a Friday—and waited to see what happened. 

Two days later—a Sunday—she called Bank of America to check her balance. To her surprise, she found that the bank had found a way to reverse the fraudulent charges that had been made to her debit card.

And it had done in far less than 45 days.

Clearly, someone at BofA had gotten the message: This is no woman—or agency—to take lightly.

CFPB seal.png

Then there’s this case: From November, 2011 to February 2012, AT&T demanded that Dave pay for a service the company had failed to provide.

They had promised to supply him with Uverse high-speed Internet—at 25 MBPs a second. Instead, he had gotten only 6 MBPs—and a big dot in the middle of his computer screen while watching YouTube videos. 

Finally, an AT&T rep told him the blunt truth: His geographical area in San Francisco was not yet supplied with the fiber-optic cables that could provide high-speed Internet service. 

Dave canceled Uverse—and began getting a series of bills from AT&T.

After getting a phone call from a collection agency, Dave decided to ask me to intervene on his behalf.

I decided to go directly to the Office of the President of AT&T.

Why? Because the man at the top of an organization cannot fob you off with the excuse: “My hands are tied. I can’t do it.”

He can do anything he wants.

I found the name of the president by a quick search on Google under: “AT&T Corporate Offices.”

And at the top of the heap stood Randall L. Stephenson––Chairman of the Board, CEO and President of AT&T Inc.

Randall L. Stephenson - Wikipedia

Randall L. Stephenson

Robert Scoble, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0&gt;, via Wikimedia Commons

I didn’t expect to speak with Stephenson. One of his chief lieutenants would do nicely—such as a woman I’ll call Margie.

First, I introduced myself and said I was authorized to act on Dave’s behalf. Then I handed the phone to Dave (who was sitting next to me) so he could confirm this. 

After that, I briefly outlined the problems Dave had been having. 

Margie—using Dave’s phone number—quickly accessed the computerized records documenting all I had told her. She said she needed three or four days to fully investigate the matter before getting back to me.

Police long ago learned the “good cop/bad cop” routine usually works wonders. So I decided to apply a variation of this with Margie. 

I said that Dave wanted to resolve this quietly and amicably. But, if necessary, he was prepared to do so through the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)—both of which have jurisdiction over AT&T. 

Margie hurriedly said there was no need to conduct an investigation after all. In fact, she added, she was writing a credit to Dave of $150.00 that very minute.

Why had Margie changed her mind?

Just as banks use every excuse to charge their customers for anything they can get away with, so do phone companies. AT&T wouldn’t want the PUC and FCC to start asking: “Is AT&T generally dunning customers for money they don’t owe?”

I had no doubt the answer would have proven to be: “Yes.” 

And I believe that Margie felt the same way. 

DEFEATING CORPORATE PREDATORS WITH “WHO/WHOM?”

In Bureaucracy, Business, Law, Law Enforcement, Self-Help, Social commentary on December 14, 2020 at 12:12 am

It’s easy to be intimidated by a large corporation—such as a bank or phone company—when you’ve been ripped off. After all, it’s well-known, has millions of dollars, and legions of attorneys.

But when that happens, it’s essential to remember two words: Who/Whom?

Translation: Who can do What to Whom

When you’re dealing with people whose greed is equaled only by their arrogance, there is only one way to prevail: You need to make them afraid of you.

And that can be achieved only by finding someone—or some agency—they fear, and turning them into your ally.

A friend of mine—Lynn—tried to order a calendar from an online calendar company. She put in the required information—including her debit card number—but kept getting “Error” messages.

Eventually she quit trying.

Lynn never got the calendar—but she wound up with four separate charges to her debit card, totaling $71.32.

She tried to get a refund from the company—which claimed they couldn’t find the charges.

Meanwhile, Lynn’s bank had in fact confirmed the charges—since the money had been taken from her account. And the bank—Bank of America—promised to remove the charges within 72 hours.

Three days came and went—and no reimbursement had been made to her account. 

Bank of America Corporate Center.jpg

Bank of America Corporate Center

So Lynn called BofA again—and was told it would take about 45 days to run “an investigation” into her loss.

Luckily, an investigator-friend of hers advised her to file a complaint with the Federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).  It can be reached at https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ 

According to its website, the agency operates as follows: 

  • “We create clear rules to implement the law and preserve choices for consumers.”
  • “We enforce federal consumer financial laws by investigating cases of potential wrongdoing and taking action.”
  • “We supervise financial companies to ensure compliance with federal consumer laws.”

So she called the agency—at (855) 411-2372 on a Friday—and waited to see what happened. 

Two days later—a Sunday—she called Bank of America to check her balance. To her surprise, she found that the bank had found a way to reverse the fraudulent charges that had been made to her debit card.

And it had done in far less than 45 days.

Clearly, someone at BofA had gotten the message: This is no woman—or agency—to take lightly.

CFPB seal.png

Then there’s this case: From November, 2011 to February 2012, AT&T demanded that Dave (not his real name) pay for a service the company had failed to provide.

They had promised to supply him with Uverse high-speed Internet—at 25 MBPs a second. Instead, he had gotten only 6 MBPs—and a big dot in the middle of his computer screen while watching YouTube videos. 

Finally, an AT&T rep told him the blunt truth: His geographical area in San Francisco was not yet supplied with the fiber-optic cables that could provide high-speed Internet service. 

Dave canceled Uverse—and began getting a series of bills from AT&T.

After getting a phone call from a collection agency, Dave decided to ask me to intervene on his behalf.

I decided to go directly to the Office of the President of AT&T.

Why? Because the man at the top of an organization cannot fob you off with the excuse: “My hands are tied. I can’t do it.” He can do anything he wants.

I found the name of the president by a quick search on Google under: “AT&T Corporate Offices.”

And at the top of the heap stood Randall L. Stephenson––Chairman of the Board, CEO and President of AT&T Inc.

Randall L. Stephenson - Wikipedia

Randall L. Stephenson

Robert Scoble, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0&gt;, via Wikimedia Commons

I didn’t expect to speak with Stephenson. One of his chief lieutenants would do nicely—such as a woman I’ll call Margie.

First, I introduced myself and said I was authorized to act on Dave’s behalf. Then I handed the phone to Dave (who was sitting next to me) so he could confirm this. 

After that, I briefly outlined the problems Dave had been having. 

Margie—using Dave’s phone number—quickly accessed the computerized records documenting all I had told her. She said she needed three or four days to fully investigate the matter before getting back to me.

Police long ago learned the “good cop/bad cop” routine usually works wonders. So I decided to apply a variation of this with Margie. 

I said that Dave wanted to resolve this quietly and amicably. But, if necessary, he was prepared to do so through the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)—both of which had jurisdiction over AT&T. 

Margie hurriedly said there was no need to conduct an investigation after all. In fact, she added, she was writing a credit to Dave of $150.00 that very minute.

Why had Margie changed her mind?

Just as banks use every excuse to charge their customers for anything they can get away with, so do phone companies. AT&T wouldn’t want the PUC and FCC to start asking: “Is AT&T generally dunning customers for money they don’t owe?”

I had no doubt the answer would have proven to be: “Yes.”

And I believe that Margie felt the same way.