AOL Declared War On SuperCitizen

[Gibsie]

Fortunately AOL are not this bad in Britain, although they do have a tendancy to tell outright lies to prospective customers.

Maybe you should try handing around her username and password and having a load of different people across the area using it. AOL would quickly cancel that, I do believe

[MalevolentLight]

Comrade Striker lives in The People's Republic of California? Why didn't I see this before?

[Imran Siddiqui]

If it is a Church, then in the US (maybe different in Finland), but a lot of employment laws don't apply (due to seperation of church and state), so you have to check to see what the laws say on that point.

[chequita guevara]

If corporations would voluntarily shy away from practices that harm their customers, where are the corporations that voluntarily fixed problems without government regulation or lawsuits? BTW, most voluntary recalls involve a threat of government coersion. The government prefers to negotiate with companies to get them to "voluntarily" recall defective products, but often must resort to fines.

I'll give you one to start. L.L.Bean started a voluntary recall of a defective product. They got fined by the government, however, for failing to tell the government there was a problem with the product, even though they were making a good faith effort to reach all their customers. Of course, L.L.Bean might have had other reasons for wanting to keep the recall quiet, like not damaging their brand, even while trying to fix the problem.

[Barinthus]

EEOC - Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and you can find out more at http://www.eeoc.gov/

Church? Why didn't you say so earlier? Whee now the drama unfolds... IIRC religious organizations are exempted from many employment laws. Nevertheless, check EEOC out, you never know.

[Pekka]

"but a lot of employment laws don't apply (due to seperation of church and state)"

Oh? I thought separation of church from state means the separation of church from state. Not state from church.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, it's seperation of church AND state, not church FROM state. So it goes both ways.

I assume she's in Finland? So it may be different there.

[Pekka]

No. She's in the US. But yes, most emplyoment rules do apply to church workers as well. To protect them. However, church has their own system as well. But they can't run tyranically anything, or their asses gets sued, just like everyone elses. Well not sued, but settled with some official.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You can always sue the Church... for violating a contractual relationship or something.

[Pekka]

And frankly, because it is financed by tax payers money, it needs to be controlled normally, and not by these mad minds of few people. They do control it, but if they step out of the line, they'll get slapped back into the line of what is considered acceptable behaviour and workers rights. And that's fine, as long as they accept tax money being their financial security, they should recognize that and treat workers with respect. And they pretty much do that at the moment, so there hasn't been much problems in here.

Some things are something state can't touch in the church system and rules. For example when church accepted that women can be pastors as well, even today there is a group of male pastors who deny this right for women. They solely say woman can't be a pastor, adn they won't have any in their congregation. So a thing like this, state can't touch. However, the highest ranking priest in the church, what ever it is in english, he slapped around that group and said if they don't find female workers equal and forbid them to work in their church, maybe they should form a new religion, because the church has accepted women as pastors, and ruled so, so if they don't obey that, they can go and have their own little male dominated church somewhere else. So there are a lot of cases where church has the ultimate say and state can't do anythinga bout it, in this case help the rights of women to work in church as pastors earlier. As things moves slowly in church and these decision makings etc and rulings are extremely slow.

[CiverDan]

At this point..First have your mother call AOL. Keep a record of the Date and Time of the call and name of person of the other end. Get them to say again why she cannot cancel after she asks again. Then have them answer "Yes" to the question "So I am required to continue paying for a service I do not want and do not have the authority to cancel?" Follow this up immediately with a written letter stating she is currently beign billed for this service and wants to cancel. (and keep a copy of it)

Once they say/do that they have no leg to stand on. As long as no Minimum Time-limit agreement is effect, one cannot be charged for anything when they do have the authority to request a service stop.

While doing this: Try to contact the person who opened the account. Someone else beside AOL (who cant give that info to anyone without a court order) who your mother has contact with with may know. If this person can be contacted and is a decent person, they can attempt to do the cancellation request. If this option is unavailable (or doesn't work) then contact an attorney once you either get a letter back (or simply wait a reasonable amount of time if you dont get one). This entire process mentioned about should be done in about 20 or so days. continue paying in the interm..we are talking 1 bill cycle max

Note simply contacting an attorney doesnt have to be expensive. Some wont charge for simply coming in and talking initially. Simply explain the situation with all facts and evidence. Get an answer as to the best course of action for her with the least legal cost. Since she is clearly in the right (based on what you said) their may be many options that cost little with no real legal treat against her.

He may suggest stop paying/cancelling account they are billing/etc. The key here is to start the process rolling.

I'm not a lawyer but I bet the lawyer in this case would say that with copy of letter/phone convo info if she stops paying and AOL tries to recoup a judge wouldnt waste a sec before saying she dont have to pay once they say "she has to pay though she cant cancel it"

[Sava]

ROFLMAO when I saw this thread and it's title

[Pekka]

Sava, why? This is serious threat. I intend to pre-emptively strike to the criminal bases that is AOL with my e-mails and they are either with us or against us. It is time.. it is time to stand up to these crooks and intervene these horrific acts of war against SuperCitizen. They have said they will not stop, they will keep sending their bills.. well.. we have a saying in Funland and them words are if you're going to bring it... BRING IT!

[Pekka]

CiverDan, hmm.. sounds like a good plan.. this might be worth doing. Thanks

[Sava]

Originally posted by Pekka
Sava, why? This is serious threat. I intend to pre-emptively strike to the criminal bases that is AOL with my e-mails and they are either with us or against us. It is time.. it is time to stand up to these crooks and intervene these horrific acts of war against SuperCitizen. They have said they will not stop, they will keep sending their bills.. well.. we have a saying in Funland and them words are if you're going to bring it... BRING IT!

I wouldn't want to be AOL right about now.

/me checks AOL's net worth...

wait a minute, yes I would.