The thieves reply

A couple of months ago my wife and I delivered to the Arkansas Attorney General’s office 75 consumer complaint forms on 65 political lobbyist organizations. Some of the organizations bilked my mother-in-law out of more than $23,000. The others attempted to do the same.

Around a dozen of the organizations have responded. Most responses are “We will place Mrs. R. on our ‘Do not mail’ list.”

Other lobbyists, though, deny wrong-doing and even make accusations against Priscilla, who signed the complaints as Mrs. R.’s daughter and holding power of attorney.

Illuminating the of lobbyist industry, one organization – Charity Compliance of Frederick, Md. – represents four lobbyists: James Carney/Citizen Guardian; Dan Perrin/The Seniors Center; Ben Oliver/Council for Retirement Security; and, Rita Smith/Campaign to Limit Congressional Terms. Perrin, Oliver and Smith are among the more forceful lobbyists, warning of dire consequences should Mrs. R. not send money.

Of the more humorous responses, the law firm of Wewer and Lacy, LLP, Laguna Niguel, Calif., claims that sense United States Health Congress and White House Watch do not “sell any goods and services,” a consumer complaint “is not supported under (Arkansas) laws cited.” Additionally, Wewer and Lacy state, United States Health Congress and White House Watch are advocacy groups, each “has a First Amendment right to express it’s (sic) views, so the laws cited are inapplicable.”

Or, lobbyists have the same First Amendment rights as any resident of the United States, and, therefore, also have the right to lie to older people in order to get money.

The second-best response is from The Seniors Coalition, a particularly aggressive group that sends intimidating and fear-inducing letters. Those fine people said: “We flatly reject as false and defamatory the Complainant’s characterization of our correspondence with (Mrs. R.). The Complainant’s statements are preposterous.”

Here’s how to tell when a politician or a lawyer is lying: When he/she uses the words “ludicrous” or “preposterous.”

The best response to our charge of intimidation and fear tactics is in the reply from Second Amendment Foundation:

“We deny all allegations contained in the … complaint filed by (my wife), daughter of the complainant, holding power of attorney.

“Complainant obviously does not support the goals and positions of the Second Amendment Foundation, and raised this frivolous complaint in an attempt to silence our First Amendment rights.”

Yeah, that’s right. My wife and I are wrong in trying to stop the Second Amendment Foundation from using fear and intimidation to cheat Mrs. R. out of her Social Security and Teacher Retirement monies because, after all, fear and intimidation are guaranteed free speech.

Looking forward to additional fine defenses of thievery.