In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Marcus Didius Falco <email@example.com> wrote:
> By Caroline E. Mayer
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Thursday, February 24, 2005; Page E01
> Beth Plowman, a Damascus international public health adviser, was
> shocked when she discovered that a $27,240 arbitration judgment had
> been levied against her for credit card charges incurred by an
> identity thief who bought sporting goods all across Europe.
[[.. munch ..]]
> When she found out about the charges, Plowman began trying to get them
> dismissed through the collection agency, not realizing that she also
> needed to show up at the arbitration hearing. She lost the arbitration
> and had to hire a lawyer to persuade the collection agency pursuing
> her for the debt to drop its claim.
[[.. munch ..]]
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What I do not understand, is who put
> in the fix with the 'arbitrator'?
Fact: there *wasn't* any 'fix' put in with the arbitrator.
Fact: Ms. Plowman *DID*NOT*SHOW*UP* at the arbitration hearing.
Fact: In any legal (or quasi-legal) proceeding, the task of the presiding
officer is to resolve any matters that are "in dispute".
Fact: If one of the parties fails to show up, and, thus fails to
contest the 'facts' presented by the other side, there are _no_
matters 'in dispute', and the side that *did* show up gets a
'default judgement' in their favor. Pure and simple, _their_
version of the 'facts' of the matter is better than what the
other side presented -- since the other side presented
"nothing". This is a "no brainer" decision in _any_
> Was it the credit card company or the collection agency or ...? How
> could the credit card company ever have reached a decision that the
> person was responsible for the fraud? PAT]
The credit card company was operating on the basis that the charges
_were_ 'legitimate'. It hadn't been established *yet* that there was
'fraud' involved. Ms. Plowman was dealing with the _collection_agency_,
and the 'full story' was not getting back to the card issuer. And,
presumably, when Ms. Plowman got the _notice_ of the arbitration
hearing, she *assumed* (and we all know about _that_ word :) that it
"wasn't important" to follow-up on, since she was "talking" to the
collection agency on the matter.
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Lisa Hancock
> Marcus Didius Falco wrote:
>> Washington Post Staff Writer
>> Beth Plowman, a Damascus international public health adviser, was
>> shocked when she discovered that a $27,240 arbitration judgment had
>> been levied against her for credit card charges incurred by an
>> identity thief who bought sporting goods all across Europe.
> ... I thought your liability from a 'stolen' card (which this
> is) was $50.00?
Does a statutory limit in UNITED STATES LAW apply to transactions that
occur _outside_ the USA, for a credit-card with a 'billing address'
that is also *outside* the United States, "cleared" by a company
outside of the United States? That company may be a subsidiary of a
U.S. company, but that does not necessarily mean that U.S. law
Doesn't the $50 limit apply only *after* you have _reported_ the card
stolen? Which Ms. Plowman did _not_ do? [ I believe that there is a
U.S. statutory limit of $250, if the card has -not- been reported as
In the case of 'unauthorized charges', don't you have to notify the
card company "promptly" after the monthly billing has gone out? Was
the _credit- card_company_ *ever* told that the charges were bogus?
Ms. Plowman was, apparently, dealing *only* with the collection
Did Ms. Plowman present *any* evidence -- either 'circumstantial' or
'hard facts' -- at the arbitration hearing, to substantiate the claim
that the charges were the result of a "stolen" card (or identity)?