Woops, sorry, I didn't see the first post. If they call again, hit *57 on you phone. It might be worth the $5. But then it might not. The calls are probably coming from Nigeria.

HI i now have this man from this company calling me, saying he is going to take legal action against me, and that he is going to check to see if i have any property in my name, and if so they will get thier money that way. i told him i will get my lawyer to contact him but he wont stop calling so i am now blocking every phone# from every different area code thaey are calling from.

Hi i received a letter from these people sayin they were a collection agency. They told they wanted to help me with fixing my credit. I must say i almost fell for it, but i could not find the letter sent me with all the info on it, soi typed in the address on canada 411 and guess what nothing came up. I googled them and all kinds came up about them. i can't believe how close i came to being scammed by these people.Oh and did i mention the account they were talking about has been wiped out for two years. i am so glad i did not FALL for this scam

I am going through the same thing. They also contacted me 3 years ago for the first time about a Rogers bill supposedly outstanding which I knew was not as I did not have an account with Rogers in over 7 years and it had been paid in full when I switched to a different provider. They tried to ask me personal info when I kept saying you have the wrong person. Thank god I am someone who keeps a copy of everything because they wouldn’t stop saying I owed money so I said I will prove I don’t as I have the paid bill and will send you a copy. I sent them the info and never heard from them again until today. They are now saying they will take a settlement for my "OUTSTANDING BILL"!!! They still have my last name wrong but the correct address as they managed to get that out of me the first time they called me. I decided to look the company up and found this website. From what I have read in here the company is not legit, has anyone found out otherwise or anymore on them?

I'm thinking that we don't have to close these threads..
They just get so big and bulky.

I also have to rework the menu system so that the pages from 1 to ... don't clog up the page.

"This thread is closed." Well, fair 'nough, but even a "bigot" deserves his day in court.

1. You're right about the gender thing. I screwed up the "Jainarine" name badly. Just like I always seem to mix up "Takvor", "Hanumantharao", "Mutyara" and "Chomitz". Being Irish, I would've gotten it right had it been "Paddy", "Sean" or even "Patrick." I guess a true Canadian "Don Cherry" kind of guy like you never gets the Hindi ones wrong.

I posted my reponse last night before going to bed. I had been working all day on a lot of MS Office files as well as corresponding with some people on unrelated blogs. After about 4 hours of looking at a computer screen, I start getting "snow blindness" for want of a better term. I have to walk away from the terminal for about 20 minutes or I make a lot of errors, both in reading and writing. And, yesterday, I was going solid for almost 14 hours with few breaks.

Nonetheless, before I went to bed last night, I quickly glossed the whole insipid transcript. Being very tedious and lengthy, I didn't notice a couple of spots where Stinson referred to the plaintiff as a "he". Instead, I made a quick guess that it was 7:1 that "Jainarine" was a girl's name. I usually check it out first but I was unusually tired and so I left it until this morning. Mea Culpa. Besides, Russell Peters is never around when you need him. When I got up, I checked the gender of the name on the internet and found that I got it totally backwards. Genderwise, it's 7:1 in the other direction. Rechecking further, I found the spots referring to "him" in the court transcript. Whereupon verifying my error, I promptly made the necessary gender corrections, but apparently not before you read the first (uncorrected) version.

2. He; she; whatever! I still think the person sounds like a a sad case. I mean laying a Human Rights Tribunal race card complaint because you can't get a promotion at McDonald's after four and a half years. C'mon! He probably sued the last restaurant he was in because the waitress brought him over white bread instead of brown.

3. I'm sorry your nose got out of joint because of my remarks. That's why I suggested you keep a couple of phone books close by to rip up if the blood pressure gets out of hand.

Unfortunately, as I said before, you're going to have to develop the maturity in life to stop having hissy fits, calling everyone who disagrees with your views a bigot or a mental case.

After all, a newspaper owner, even though he owns the publication, can't order his columnists to agree with or espouse everything he holds dear: that would destroy the integrity of the newspaper. If some people want to exert their critical faculties in order to disagree with you, so be it. That's life. We live in Canada, not Iraq.

Maybe what we need is another advocate for free speech.

Ray

this thread is now closed...

In response to RAYMOND's... "When Your Pants Are Down..."

While more will be said in another post about your apparent joy in pooh pawing materials I bring forth, the post with regards to the JAINARINE SOMWAR V. McDONALDS RESTAURANT’S needs some special attention.

I agree with you that most readers either may not understand the legaleze of the case, nor take the trouble to read it all the way through. I however was presenting it for Angella who has major issues with a credit reporting agency, and thus the case ought to be read by her. With Monty’s background and current interest in credit bureaus and their antics, I thought he also ought to be aware of the case.

But your downplay of the case and the uncalled for verbal attack on the plaintiff seems to be such that many might wonder if you are a bigot.

While you acknowledge reading the case, the very first line in your post describes the transcript of the case as being very long winded.

Perhaps the length of the transcript prevented you from paying any real attention to what you were reading. Therein, in over a dozen places the plaintiff is clearly identified as being a male. But your six paragraphs of post seem to change the gender not once, but at least ten times to a female.

This lack of attention is further evidenced by your comment that the plaintiff… SOMWAR.. was…”It seems playing the race card for a promotion in 2000,“ and that… “it didn’t work.”

A more fair understanding of the case, or the “race” issue is available for anyone choosing to read the case rather than rely on your opinion of the case.

Therein the reader will soon realize that the plaintiff did not rush to a discrimination case, and in fact was told in 2000 that HE WAS ELLIGIBLE FOR A PROMOTION, but that at that time a position was not available. He further noted at that time that he… “did not know of any Non Caucasians as being promoted.” And even more to the point about his not rushing to use the “race card”… as you put it, the transcript also says that he continued to push for answers about a promotion.. and in fact waited another 4 1/2 years BEFORE laying a complaint before a Human Rights Tribunal, as was his right at law.

Your second paragraph ends with the note that….”At least SHE got 2500 bucks to cover the court costs.”

Had you done some further research you would have discovered that HE actual not only got the $2500 in court costs, which tends to suggest the court felt he HAD A CASE, perhaps to your chagrin, but since the matter was ultimately settled out of the court room, it is reasonable that he also got more cash from his employer in order to settle.

I suspect your third paragraph would be perceived by many as nothing less than incredibly insulting to this plaintiff and all Non Caucasians. Perhaps even more serious!

You state that…”it’s hard (to) think of Somwar as anything but a grumpy sad sack failure who goes through life filing lawsuits for reasons almost as frivolous as the customer who sued McDonalds for scalding himself with some hot coffee.”

If the case was frivolous would the courts not have thrown it out.?

I too have read the transcript. Nowhere in it do I see any pattern of lawsuits, frivolous or otherwise.

Can you share with the readers where you gained this tidbit of information? Or is it just from using the PFA factor. Plucked From Air?

And if there is no evidence to support your assumption, I can start to understand why it is hard, as you say, for you to make your mind, as you have.

Perhaps there are some professionals that ought to be consulted!

BA

Error

The principle of the case is interesting to be sure. I read Stinson's long, long, longwinded, jurisprudence (case law) analysis. Since the majority of people aren't lawyers, I'm not sure if his tort distinctions are going to mean much to them.

One thing's for sure: Jainarine Somwar really fast tracked his career to a life at Burger King over the axe he had to grind. It seems playing the race card for a promotion in 2000 didn't work. At least he got 2500 bucks to cover his court costs.

This will raise some readers' blood pressure, and so if it goes higher than 210/150, please keep a couple of Regina phone books nearby to rip up, but it's hard think of Somwar as anything but a grumpy sad sack failure who goes through life filing lawsuits for reasons almost as frivolous as the customer who sued McDonald's for scalding himself with some hot coffee. Oh hang on - he got a million bucks - maybe he wasn't so stupid.

Perhaps Somwar should have tried spilling some cooking fat on himself. A tip for his next job at Burger King, if the race card fails again.

Somwar would have been a lot further ahead, and life would have been much simpler, if he skipped the tort stuff and just filed a complaint under the Ontario Consumer Reporting Act(CRA) Section 23(1)(c) and left it at that.

In partial defence of McDonald's, it may be that they were finally going to "promote" him to a manager's job in 2004. Because he'd be managing the money and inventory more closely, they likely submitted him to a credit check, something which they do with all supervisory candidates for obvious reasons. Nonetheless, they should have gotten him to sign a permission form first. Hopefully, Burger King or Harvey's won't make the same mistake.

Ray