See the Citibank credit protector scam details

Read the analysis by Alessandro Machi showing how insidious the scam is

 

Citibank credit protector coupon
(See Below)

As a public service to help prevent others from being duped by the Citibank credit protector coupon scam I decided to go through the steps of actually enrolling in the program. 

I called and was given the information that in order to receive the information it was mandatory that I enroll in the program. The customer service agent added that I would  receive information and a "mail-in retail coupon" worth $15 about 7-10 days after my 30-day free trial enrollment. Enrollment actually takes place at the time of the telephone solicitation.  (Read how Citibank runs the scam telephone solicitation.)  I was told I  had thirty days free to examine the material "from the time I received the papers"   but the  papers were marked with the enrollment date  of the  telephone solicitation which had taken place 10 days prior.   Moreover, I found that Citibank included a slip of paper that the enrolled person must sign clearly indicating that they desire to stay enrolled in the program. In addition they included papers that provide fully the details of who can benefit from the program, as well as the exclusions and limitations, which are many. Consider yourself lucky if you get the papers at all and pay attention to the dates.   SEE  the Citibank credit protector scam details.

The coupon you receive looks like you see below only it is blank. My papers indicated I was enrolled June 21, 2005. On July 1,2005 I called customer service regarding the validity of the coupon. Here is what "Sandra" told me: You can use the coupon for any type of purchase: restaurant, gas, clothes, except a purchase on the internet.  YOU MUST BE ENROLLED AT THE TIME OF THE PURCHASE. [If you want de-enroll,  "cancel" you must do so by calling 888 592 7355, or by writing to Credit Protector, PO BX 1507, Fort Worth TX 76101-9904].  

On July, 5th I canceled my enrollment and sent in the "original" sales slip for a gas purchase the value of $15 dated July 3 to the agency indicated on the coupon. The agent who took my call (Ig.. Ko.....) ask me the reason I wanted to cancel. Not satisfied with my answer he continued on to point out that there were at least 16 benefits to take the program. He gave me his full name when I asked for it. He told me I would receive a notice of cancellation in the email in 7-10 days. I never received that!

ADVICE: IF YOU ARE CERTAIN THAT THIS "PAYMENT DEFERMENT" PROGRAM  (FRAUDULENTLY AND MISLEADINGLY NAMED "A CREDIT PROTECTOR" PROGRAM) IS NOT  FOR YOU TAKE THIS ADVICE:

USE YOUR COUPON BEFORE CANCELING YOUR  ENROLLMENT BECAUSE  EVEN THOUGH THE DATE ON THE COUPON SAYS ...SEPTEMBER 30... ONCE YOU CANCEL YOUR ENROLLMENT THE COUPON BECOMES INVALID.

  As a test of the truth of the scam I enrolled myself in the Citibank Credit protector program. I Received the coupon and used it in the allowed time making certain to follow the "TERMS AND CONDITIONS", see above.

   I sent it in to the rebate center with the original receipt, and some days later I de-enrolled. I waited, and I waited. They never sent the $15.  I filed a Small Claims Court [SCC] action.

  On February 16, 2006 after two hearings in Small Claims Court were postponed prior by Citibank lawyers, my case was heard by Hon. Arlene P. Bluth. Citibank sent their best dog and pony show: slick greasy-haired, three-buttoned suit lawyer Russell Shanks, and one of their slovenly vice presidents, Nat Cooper to perjure himself not less than five times for Citibank.

   They had no idea I was suing them for only $15 since I filed my claim for the amount of $1000. (The court will only award you the amount you can prove you deserve.

    I was fortunate. The courtroom was packed, but my case was the first and continued on for 45 minutes (that is a very long time in Small Claims Court). When I began my "story" the judge immediately refused to let me read the short narrative I had prepared which unsettled me. I was forbidden to present my story cogently. I objected, but was overruled.  Later on during the hearing Mr. Slick Lawyer, Russell Shanks and one of the V.P.s Nat Cooper introduced the transcript of the first trial trying to show that my case was part of the previous case. I immediately "objected" because I had not been given a copy of the transcript as well. The judge overruled my objection. When the they gave the her the part that was supposed to prove their contention the poor judge must have felt like a hopeless fool because she simply couldn't find it.  It is no wonder that Small Claims Court is nicknamed "Liar's Court".

    Long story short: the judge ruled in favor of the lying clowns from Citibank. [See the SCC judgment.] Three weeks later I filed a "Notice of Appeal".  Yes for $15. [See the Notice of Appeal.]  This time I filed my appeal within the thirty days allowed to file such a paper.

    Please let me know if others of you have been victimized by this scam.  Moreover, if there are some of you with legal talent please let know if you want to help me complete the appeal for submission to the court.  Below you will find the "brief" I ended up submitting to the Appellate Court in support of the appeal I took from the Small Claims Court judgment your Hon. Bluth passed down.

    [Indeed I had filed a "Notice of Appeal" when the judge ruled against me at the first hearing [the first trial] . However, Mr. Shanks filed legal papers to prevent me from having my appeal heard and won. Simply because I filed my appeal six days beyond the 30 day time period allowed.  Ouch! See what I wrote when Citibank objected to my Notice of Appeal] This only proves to me how important it is to Citibank to prevent me from winning...THERE IS BIG, BIG MONEY FOR CITIBANK IN THEIR CREDIT PROTECTOR SCAM. [Citibank paid a $118 billion settlement in 2002 for deceptive telemarketing practices; and paid with a smile. See National Association of Attorneys General Settlement.

       I wish I could say that the biblical "David" had brought down "Goliath". Sometimes however, when you go up against a bald-faced lying lawyer, and his perjuring, unscrupulous Citibank vice president, evil prevails. The consequence is they were easily able to obfuscate the truth and pull the wool over the eyes of an idiot judge who they rendered hopelessly confused. By the end of my hearing there remained a whole courtroom of plaintiffs and defendants itching to be heard. Most were simply rescheduled.

Judge Bluth ruled against "David" and was true to form for Civil Court judges forced hear cases in Small Claims Court from time to time, she neglected in her "judgment" to provide the rationale for her decision.

After it was over I caught up with Mr. Shanks in the elevator and exchanged a few icy barbs with him including my ardent desire that he commit a certain unmentionable act upon himself.

As far as I can tell Citibank has spent about $25,000 having to deal with me. My cost has been about $85.

 Go back to the legal brief

MY BRIEF

Ted Rothstein, DDS, PhD
35 Remsen Street
 Brooklyn, NY 11201

The pages referenced in parentheses come from the transcript of the Small Claims Court hearing before Judge Bluth.

Re: Rothstein V. Citibank Originally SCK 6990/2005 (on appeal 2006-1502KC)

Dear Honorable Justices of the Appellate Court:   

I seek to have case no. SCK 6990/2005, adjudicated February 16, 2006, in the court room of Arlene P. Bluth, be reversed in my favor or reheard for the following reasons: 

First, at the outset the Court unfairly and to my detriment prohibited me from presenting the seven simple sentences I prepared to outline my case: See case minutes: (P2, 20 - P3, 11), and again (P3, 25 thru P4, 13). At age 67 I believe I had the right to present my case as I prepared for it from my notes so as to avoid becoming confused as persons my age under pressure are sometimes prone to do.  

Second, and of utmost importance, I would like to submit the following supporting evidence (see attached) in support of the evidentiary statement that I made on lines P4, 22 - P5, 13. No. That I was enrolled in the program the day I made the retail purchase (7/2/05) using the coupon.  This supplementary evidence is a letter from Citibank and proof res ipsa loquitur supporting my declaration that I was enrolled in the program the day I filed the retail rebate coupon.  The evidence I presented in court to show I terminated my enrollment on 7/5/05, was suppressed by Judge Bluth for reasons known only to the judge (P9, 12 – P 11, 16).  This document was received many months after I requested it…too late for the trial. Like DNA evidence, although it is obtained many years after a case be closed, its relevance is sufficient to overturn a guilty verdict. 

Finally, I would have the court consider that the judge permitted Citibank counsel to introduce two pieces of evidence unrelated to the present case (P13, 20 - P14, 6) and a transcript both from an unrelated case (SCK 9207/04), See P15, 14 thru P17, 9), as evidence over my objections. The transcript was from a prior case (SCK 9207/04)  unrelated to this case and used by the defense  to support its contention that I was not enrolled in their program when I submitted the coupon. I objected each time to no avail.  Defense counsel’s ploy was a blatant attempt to confuse and obfuscate the facts of the present case.

That the judge allowed testimony to be read into the minutes of the trial over my objection without me being given prior access to the document and the fact that I was not allowed to examine it to counter is a factor that deserves considerable attention since it seems to be the document Judge Bluth used to determine that I was not enrolled at the time I insisted that I was.  

I believe I was entitled by law to have access to those documents prior to the hearing or at least had the right to review them when they were introduced. This right was denied me. 

For the above mentioned reasons, I believe the Justices of the Appellate Court should reverse the verdict or al least allow the court to rehear the case.   

The Court should provide me with an opportunity to be heard again if only to present the supplementary supporting evidence that was unavailable to me at the time of the hearing. I thank the court in advance. 

Yours truly,Ted Rothstein, DDS, PhD               

THE APPELLATE COURT REVIEWED MY BRIEF ON OCTOBER 11, 2007.  I RECEIVED THEIR DECISION OCTOBER 24.

    DID I WIN OR LOSE?

      TAKE A GUESS BEFORE YOU READ THE THREE PAGE RESPONSE OF THE APPELLATE COURT.

 PAGE 1.

                        PAGE 2.

                        PAGE 3.

                           PAGE 4.

+