Mlsvc01-prod.s3.amazonaws.com



ROUNDUP ATTACHMENTS 01-8-15CSKT, State Officials Reach Deal Over Flathead Water Rights CompactThe compact needs further approvals from the state LegislatureBy ASSOCIATED PRESS // Dec 11, 2014 // Montana officials have reached a new agreement on a water compact with the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Montana Gov. Steve Bullock and Attorney General Tim Fox announced Thursday.Fox and Bullock said the new compact will protect the tribe’s rights while ensuring irrigators and residents on or near the Flathead Indian Reservation have a reliable water supply.“I’m pleased that an agreement has been reached that respects tribal rights, while ensuring that irrigators and residents in the region continue to have access to a reliable water supply,” Bullock said of the agreement. “The Compact is the result of constructive negotiations where all parties sought common ground in the best interests of the state and Tribe. I’m confident that the legislature will recognize the importance and fairness of this agreement.” The agreement would set up a $30 million fund in part to pay for water pumping to meet irrigation demands.It also establishes a technical team that includes irrigators to put into effect provisions of the compact that protect historic uses of the reservation’s water while also making sure the tribe’s stream-flow targets on the Flathead River are met.The compact needs further approvals from the state Legislature, Congress and the northwest Montana tribes.“Over the last several months, we have been heavily involved in discussions amongst stakeholders,” Fox said. “My primary concerns have been that the Compact be constitutional and that it guarantees irrigators receive sufficient water to continue farming today and in future generations. This Compact, which is significantly better than the previous one, does both. After long and difficult negotiations, the state, the Tribes, and the federal government have reached an agreement that is good for Montana. I urge our legislators to carefully review and ratify it.”The Montana Legislature last year rejected a prior agreement that was the product of more than a decade of negotiations. At least four lawsuits have been filed since then over claims to the water flowing on or through the reservation.Those cases are still pending.How much of the reservation’s water goes to farmers, ranchers and others through the Flathead Indian Irrigation Project has been at the core of the dispute.After the prior agreement was rejected, Bullock and tribal leaders opened negotiations that were limited to agreements between the tribes and irrigation districts in western Montana.The 2015 session is the final chance for lawmakers to approve a compact with the tribes. If they fail, the tribes will have to assert their water rights by filing claims in a state stream adjudication court by June 30, 2015.The Legislature has approved water compacts for Montana’s other reservations.A call to the tribes’ communications director, Robert McDonald, was not immediately returned.Special master rules against Montana water claims in dispute with Wyoming over Tongue RiverDecember 29, 2014 5:15 pm ? By BEN NEARY Associated PressA special master presiding over an interstate water rights lawsuit pending before the U.S. Supreme Court recommends denying most of Montana's remaining claims that Wyoming failed to deliver enough water on the Tongue River.If ultimately accepted by the Supreme Court, Monday's report by Barton Thompson Jr. will resolve the bulk of the lawsuit that Montana filed against Wyoming in 2007 while leaving Montana little to show for it."What this case confirms is that the primary solution to water issues in Montana on the Tongue River can be found in Montana's operation of the Tongue River Reservoir," Wyoming Attorney General Peter Michael said Monday. He had worked on the case for Wyoming for years before taking over as attorney general.Michael said he's reviewing Thompson's report and may appeal on some points. "Montana failed to use immense amounts of water during the drought years of the last decade," he said, "and Wyoming believes that the compact requires more diligence from Montana before it can be heard to complain about uses in Wyoming."Montana had launched the litigation saying it intended to prove that Wyoming had been shorting it on water deliveries at the state line nearly every year since 1950 — the year the two states and North Dakota entered a formal agreement over how to administer water on the Tongue and Powder rivers.Montana originally had claimed it was improper for Wyoming irrigators to use sprinkler irrigation on their fields. Compared with older flood irrigation methods, Montana claimed that sprinklers unfairly used more of the water that was diverted from the river while returning little.The Supreme Court ruled earlier that Wyoming irrigators could use more efficient irrigation methods without violating the compact.Montana also had challenged the effect on river flows of pumping groundwater for coal-bed methane production in Wyoming. However, Thompson ruled Montana failed to prove that CBM pumping was hurting water deliveries at the state line.Thompson made a series of rulings significantly limiting Montana's claims before presiding at a 25-day trial last year.Thompson, a law professor at Stanford University, had ruled before trial that Montana couldn't claim that Wyoming had failed to deliver adequate water on the Tongue River in years when Montana hadn't demanded more water at the state line. That and other rulings left Montana with only a few years to argue about.Montana went into trial claiming Wyoming had shorted Montana farmers about 10,000 acre-feet of water over the last decade. An acre-foot is the amount of water covering an acre to a depth of 1 foot, or about 325,000 gallons.Thompson stated in Mondays' report that although Montana suffered shortages in many years, the state could only prove that it gave notice to Wyoming seeking more water and suffered actual damages in 2004 and 2006. He ruled Wyoming owes Montana for 1,356 acre-feet of water it failed to deliver in those two years."Under my analysis, Wyoming's liability is relatively small," Thompson wrote in Monday's report. He recommended the Supreme Court should endorse further proceedings to determine the damages Wyoming owes for its underdelivery.Anastasia Burton, spokeswoman for Montana Attorney General Tim Fox, issued a statement Monday emphasizing that Thompson's report found that Wyoming had violated the Yellowstone River Compact."The decision found Wyoming liable for depriving Montana of water in 2004 and 2006, years in which severe drought conditions significantly harmed Montana farmers and ranchers along the Tongue River," Burton said.Burton said the Montana attorney general's office would review the 350-page report and make more detailed comments later. "For the moment, we consider this decision an important step to ensuring Montana irrigators will be able to enjoy their senior water rights on the Tongue River," she stated.Wyoming claims that in 2004 and 2006, the years when it failed to deliver required water, there was surplus water for sale in the Tongue River system for $10 an acre-foot. It maintains that damages in the case should be capped at the value of the water in those years, or about $14,000.Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead said Monday he's proud of work by the Wyoming attorney general's office and state engineer's office on the case. He said Michael and Wyoming state engineer Patrick Tyrrell had led an extraordinary effort over the past several years "to demonstrate that Montana's claims that Wyoming was wrongfully using massive quantities of water were baseless."Attorney General’s Office Comments on Latest in Montana-Wyoming Water Case Today, the Special Master appointed by the United States Supreme Court agreed that Wyoming violated the Yellowstone River Compact to deprive Montana of the full enjoyment of its water rights in the Tongue River. The decision found Wyoming liable for depriving Montana of water in 2004 and 2006, years in which severe drought conditions significantly harmed Montana farmers and ranchers along the Tongue River.The Special Master also agreed that Montana operates the Tongue River Reservoir in a reasonable manner to safely manage winter storage to prevent down-stream icing and extreme run-off in the spring months. Montana is gratified that the professionals at the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, and the farmers of the Tongue River Water Users Association have been recognized for their safe, effective and responsible management of the Tongue River Reservoir.The Montana Attorney General’s office will review the full report of the Special Master, which runs to 350 pages and represents the culmination of 9 years of hard work, before providing a more detailed comment. For the moment, we consider this decision an important step to ensuring Montana irrigators will be able to enjoy their senior water rights on the Tongue River.The U.S. Supreme Court will likely decide early next year what steps will come next in the litigation. Those steps could include an opportunity for Montana and Wyoming to file exceptions to the Special Master’s report and setting the case for oral argument before the court makes a final decision.Oklahoma, Nebraska Sue Colorado in U.S. Supreme Court Over Commercialization of MarijuanaOKLAHOMA CITY – Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt on Thursday joined Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning in filing a lawsuit in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking a declaration that the state of Colorado’s commercialized marijuana system violates the U.S. Constitution.“Fundamentally, Oklahoma and states surrounding Colorado are being impacted by Colorado’s decision to legalize and promote the commercialization of marijuana which has injured Oklahoma’s ability to enforce our state’s policies against marijuana. Federal law classifies marijuana as an illegal drug. The health and safety risks posed by marijuana, especially to children and teens, are well documented. The illegal products being distributed in Colorado are being trafficked across state lines thereby injuring neighboring states like Oklahoma and Nebraska. As the state’s chief legal officer, the attorney general’s office is taking this step to protect the health and safety of Oklahomans,” Attorney General Pruitt said.Marijuana is an illegal drug under federal law, yet the state of Colorado has legalized a system that promotes the distribution of marijuana. The lawsuit filed by Oklahoma and Nebraska states that illegal products from Colorado are trafficked into neighboring states like Oklahoma and Nebraska, causing a burden on those states. COLORADO ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE WILL DEFEND STATE’S MARIJUANA LAWS FROM LAWSUIT BY BORDERING STATES12/18/2014 DENVER—Today, the states of Nebraska and Oklahoma announced that they have filed an original action in the United States Supreme Court against the State of Colorado alleging that Colorado’s Amendment 64 and its implementing legislation regarding recreational marijuana is unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In response to today’s lawsuit, Colorado Attorney General John Suthers issued the following statement: “Because neighboring states have expressed concern about Colorado-grown marijuana coming into their states, we are not entirely surprised by this action. However, it appears the plaintiffs’ primary grievance stems from non-enforcement of federal laws regarding marijuana, as opposed to choices made by the voters of Colorado. We believe this suit is without merit and we will vigorously defend against it in the U.S. Supreme Court.”Washington AG offers statement on Oklahoma and Nebraska’s marijuana lawsuit against Colorado SEATTLE — Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson today offered the following statement in response to the announcement that Oklahoma and Nebraska have sued Colorado in the United States Supreme Court over marijuana legalization. Nebraska and Oklahoma allege that Colorado’s Amendment 64 and its implementing legislation regarding recreational marijuana is unconstitutional and preempted by federal law.“I am disappointed that Nebraska and Oklahoma took this step to interfere with Colorado’s popularly enacted initiative to legalize marijuana,” said Ferguson. “I will be following this closely and intend to ensure that Washington’s interests are protected. I will vigorously oppose any effort by other states to interfere with the will of Washington voters.”U.S. won't stop Native Americans from growing, selling pot on their landsOpening the door for what could be a lucrative and controversial new industry on some Native American reservations, the Justice Department on Thursday will tell U.S. attorneys to not prevent tribes from growing or selling marijuana on the sovereign lands, even in states that ban the practice.The new guidance, released in a memorandum, will be implemented on a case-by-case basis and tribes must still follow federal guidelines, said Timothy Purdon, the U.S. attorney for North Dakota and the chairman of the Attorney General's Subcommittee on Native American Issues.“It once again sends a message that we really don't care about federal drug laws.”It remains to be seen how many reservations will take advantage of the policy. Many tribes are opposed to legalizing pot on their lands, and federal officials will continue to enforce the law in those areas, if requested.Southern California is home to nearly 30 federal- and state-recognized Indian tribes, with a total population of nearly 200,000, according to state estimates. The largest tribes operate profitable casinos and outlet malls, including those by the Morongo, Cabazon, San Manuel and Pechanga tribes.Representatives for several of the largest tribes could not be reached for comment.The policy comes on the heels of the 2013 Justice Department decision to stop most federal marijuana prosecutions in states that have legalized the possession or sale of pot. Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Alaska and the District of Columbia have all moved to legalize the drug, though the D.C. law may be scaled back by Congress.Some tribes see marijuana sales as a potential source of revenue, similar to cigarette sales and casino gambling, which have brought a financial boon to reservations across the country. Others, including the Yakama Reservation in Washington state, remain strongly opposed to the sale or use of marijuana on their lands.Purdon said in an interview that the majority of Native American tribes, mindful of the painful legacy of alcohol abuse in their communities, appear to be against allowing marijuana use on their territory.The federal government will continue to legally support those tribes that wish to ban marijuana, even in states that now permit its sale, Purdon said.But the Justice Department will generally not attempt to enforce federal marijuana laws on federally recognized tribes that choose to allow it, as long as they meet eight federal guidelines, including that marijuana not be sold to minors and not be transported to areas that prohibit it."The tribes have the sovereign right to set the code on their reservations," Purdon said.John Walsh, the U.S. attorney for Colorado, said a primary purpose of the memorandum to be released Thursday is to assure U.S. attorney offices and tribes that despite the changes in Justice Department policy announced last year, federal prosecutors still have the authority to prosecute marijuana felonies on tribal lands.In many cases, federal prosecutors are the only ones permitted by law to prosecute marijuana felonies on tribal lands.Walsh said that the new memorandum, like the one issued for states last year, emphasizes that states or reservations must have "robust and effective regulatory systems in place" and that federal prosecutors reserve the right to take broader enforcement actions.The policy is likely to be criticized in states opposed to marijuana sales, particularly those with Native American reservations.Kevin A. Sabet, an opponent of marijuana legalization and former advisor on drug issues to President Obama, called the policy an "extremely troubling development.""It once again sends a message that we really don't care about federal drug laws," he said.Sabet, director of the Drug Policy Institute at the University of Florida, said, "Native Americans and their families suffer disproportionately from addiction compared to other groups. The last thing they want is another commercialized industry that targets them for greater use."tim.phelps@Times staff writer Hugo Martin in Los Angeles contributed to this report. Attorney General Kamala D. Harris Announces Arrest of Four Suspects Running Emeryville Sex Trafficking Ring Friday, December 12, 2014Contact: (415) 703-5837SAN FRANCISCO – Attorney General Kamala D. Harris today announced the arrest of four suspects accused of operating a sex trafficking ring out of Emeryville, California. Acucare Oriental Massage co-owner Jimmy Gong Lee and Tom Loi are also accused of making bribes to an Emeryville Police Captain—who was working undercover, posing as a corrupt officer—to further their illegal business operations.Today’s arrests are the result of a joint investigation by the California Attorney General’s Office, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), the California Attorney General’s Tax Recovery and Criminal Enforcement Task Force, the Emeryville Police Department, the Mariposa County Sheriff’s Office, and the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices for the Northern and Eastern Districts of California.“Human trafficking is one of the world’s most profitable criminal enterprises, and it is having a devastating impact right here in our own backyard,” said Attorney General Harris. “Each year, thousands of women and children of all ages and backgrounds are forced into labor and prostitution. I thank our local, state and federal partners for fighting this serious threat and bringing these perpetrators to justice.”“Illegal ventures like this degrade the quality of life in our neighborhoods as well as the women involved,” said Tatum King, acting special agent in charge of HSI San Francisco. “HSI will continue to work closely with its law enforcement partners to identify, disrupt, and dismantle these kinds of enterprises that prey on the vulnerable and often bring other criminal activity into the area.” Defendants Jimmy Gong Lee, 55, Tom Loi 59, Wei Kuang, 56 and Rong Liu, 37, were arrested today and face a total of 30 felony state charges for their respective roles in the operation. The charges include conspiracy, pimping, pandering, bribery, and tax fraud. Lee and Loi are being held at the San Francisco County Jail and Kuang and Liu are being held at the Alameda County Jail on $150,000 bail each and will be prosecuted by the Attorney General’s Office. Lee and Loi are also facing federal charges. The joint investigation revealed that Acucare Oriental Massage was operating as a brothel, with young Asian females being used for commercial sex and being replaced every two weeks. Lee and Liu owned the business while Kuang worked at the front desk, collected money, and provided condoms. A series of undercover operations revealed that “johns” (men paying for sex) would be buzzed in to enter the business, pay approximately $60 to Kuang, and then select a “masseuse” from a group of women. The women would then negotiate further fees for sexual services, a portion of which was given back to Kuang. When Emeryville authorities began questioning the legitimacy of the business, Lee gave Loi thousands of dollars to pay off an Emeryville Police Captain, who was working undercover as a corrupt police officer. In a series of recorded meetings between March 2013 and May 2014, Loi gave the Captain a total of $24,000 in bribes—roughly $2,000 a month—not to shut down Acucare. On June 5, 2014, agents with the California Department of Justice and HSI executed search warrants on the Acucare Oriental Massage in Emeryville and Lee’s residence in San Francisco. In addition to shutting down Acucare, agents recovered $69,000 cash, and evidence showing that Lee, Liu and Kuang were operating a brothel. Attorney General Harris has made the fight against human trafficking a priority for the California Department of Justice. In March of this year, the Office of the Attorney General released a report, Gangs Beyond Borders: California and the Fight Against Transnational Organized Crime, which is the first comprehensive report analyzing the current state of transnational criminal organizations in California (). The report identified human trafficking as one of the emerging activities being undertaken by these organizations, and made recommendations to address this issue, including funding state task forces to investigate and disrupt these organizations.Attorney General Harris has been a strong advocate for increased collaboration between federal, state and local law enforcement agencies during the investigation and prosecution of the crime of human trafficking. She has also advocated for early and frequent collaboration between law enforcement and victim service providers.In 2012, Attorney General Harris created a Human Trafficking Work Group and released a report, The State of Human Trafficking in California, which outlined the growing prevalence of the crime of human trafficking in the state (). The report describes the evolving challenges California faces in addressing this crime, which has become a $32 billion-a-year global industry. California—a populous border state with a significant immigrant population—is one of the top destinations for trafficking human beings.Please note that these are only allegations and, as with all defendants, those named here must be presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.Attorney General Mark Brnovich Joins Cindy McCain in Fight Against Sex Trafficking(Phoenix, AZ) - Newly sworn-in Attorney General Mark Brnovich will make his first public comments on the fight against human trafficking in Arizona this week. Brnovich will join Cindy McCain Wednesday at an event to unveil an anti-human trafficking campaign sponsored by Clear Channel Outdoor.The event will take place Wednesday, January 7th from 10 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. at 602 East Grant Street Phoenix, AZ 85004.These efforts to raise awareness about human trafficking come just weeks before the Super Bowl comes to town. The influx of fans serves as an opportunity for traffickers, but also for law enforcement to seek the public’s help in combating this terrible crime.The United States Department of Justice considers Phoenix one of the top human trafficking areas in the country. Most victims are forced into sex trafficking before they are 15 years old.While the spotlight of the nation’s largest sporting event is on Arizona, Brnovich intends to make it clear that his office will be ramping up efforts to end this crime against humanity.“Enslaving innocent children for sexual exploitation and profit is despicable,” said Brnovich. “This type of crime against some of our most vulnerable must never be tolerated.”Attorney General Brnovich has hired Zora Manjencich to coordinate anti-human trafficking efforts for the Attorney General’s Office. Manjencich spent nine years at the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office handling high-profile sex crimes in the East Valley. She tried and convicted a child predator who was featured on ‘America’s Most Wanted’ and earned the Crime Victims’ Rights Special Award.Cindy McCain believes Brnovich’s presence at the event will highlight his commitment to thwarting human trafficking in Arizona, just three days into his term."Mark and I have discussed this issue in depth and I know he is committed to aggressively prosecuting those who dare to traffic our children for sex, “said McCain. “I am grateful for his commitment and look forward to working with him in the coming years to stop trafficking in our state.”Attorney General Rosenblum Calls on Oregon Legislature to Update Oregon Data Breach Law December 10, 2014Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum today testified before the joint Senate and House Judiciary Committee in support of legislation to better protect the data of Oregonians. She called on the Oregon legislature to update Oregon’s Data Breach Law, and extend data breach enforcement and notification to the Oregon Department of Justice. Currently, Oregon is one of only a handful of states that does not give data breach enforcement and notification power to the state Department of Justice. Nate Cardozo, staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and recognized and published expert on free speech, privacy litigation, and the protection of privacy in the digital age, also testified. “As technology changes, so must the legal infrastructure which protects that technology. Oregonians want—and should—know who is collecting their personal information and data, how it is being used and protected, as well as to whom it is being sold. If asked today, most people would have little idea how to answer these questions. We need to protect and educate Oregonians—as they should, but often cannot, understand how their data is being used,” testified Attorney General Rosenblum. Data breach and the distribution of personal information is a growing risk for Oregonians. Nationally, data breaches in 2013 exposed an estimated 546 million piece of personal information. The Oregon Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2007 requires businesses and governmental agencies to notify consumers of digital data breaches and develop safeguards for personal information but provides no protection for medical, insurance or biometric information. By extending enforcement power to the Oregon Department of Justice, Oregon will be able to use the effective enforcement tools of the already-existing Unlawful Trade Practices Act . “Ten years ago, stealing your identity was about getting a hold of your bank account, or your social security number. Now, criminals are just as likely to target your medical information, or your insurance data, or your social media presence.” continued Attorney General Rosenblum. Contact:Kristina Edmunson, Department of Justice, Kristina.Edmunson@doj.state.or.us, 503-378-6002Attorneys General Reach Settlement with Zappos over Data BreachTALLAHASSEE, Fla.—Attorney General Pam Bondi, along with eight other attorneys general, today announced a settlement with Nevada-based online retailer , Inc. The settlement resolves allegations that Zappos placed consumers’ personal data at risk by allegedly failing to protect financial information during a data breach that occurred in 2012. Zappos has agreed to pay $106,000 to the states and must take certain actions intended to better protect consumers’ information. Under the terms of the settlement, Zappos is required to:· Maintain and comply with its information security policies and procedures; · Provide the attorney generals with its current security policy;· Provide the attorney generals copies of reports demonstrating compliance with the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard for two years;· Have a third party conduct an audit of its security of personal information; and· Provide relevant training to employees.The other states participating in the investigation include: Arizona, Connecticut, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.Military consumers to get $2.5 million in relief, AG Cooper announces Raleigh: A company that set up shops near military bases and targeted North Carolina military consumers with unfair practices now has to forgive debts and pay refunds, Attorney General Roy Cooper announced Thursday.“Military servicemembers work hard to protect our country, but unfortunately their steady paychecks can make them targets for shady practices,” Cooper said. “We won’t tolerate unscrupulous businesses that take advantage of military consumers in North Carolina.”Cooper today joined the Virginia Attorney General’s Office and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to file a complaint and judgment in federal court in Virginia against Freedom Furniture, Inc., Freedom Acceptance Corporation (FAC), Military Credit Services, LLC (MCS) and owners John F. Melley and Leonard B. Melley, Jr. for violations of state and federal laws on credit and debt collection. Freedom Furniture is a national retailer that sells furniture, electronics, jewelry and other products online and at 14 retail locations near military bases, including one in North Carolina near Fort Bragg in Fayetteville. FAC services credit and collects debts on behalf of Freedom Furniture, and MCS extends credit for purchases made by military consumers at independent retailers. Under the judgment, Freedom Furniture, FAC and MCS will pay more than $2.5 million in consumer relief and $100,000 in civil penalties. Consumer relief includes $2.2 million in debt forgiveness and $373,279.06 in refunds for consumers who had default judgments entered against them in court as a result of the debts. In North Carolina, 311 affected consumers including around 180 servicemembers will receive approximately $234,000 in refunds and debt forgiveness. The defendants must also adjust the amount owed by consumers with the credit reporting agencies. Eligible consumers will receive their refunds directly from the CFPB.The consumer relief aims to repair the damage done by the defendants to consumers’ finances and credit, as outlined in a complaint filed today along with the judgment. When a servicemember purchased an item from Freedom Furniture, the company usually set up a monthly draft from the consumer’s paycheck, or military allotment for servicemembers. Consumers were also required to provide a backup method of payment in case their allotment stopped or wasn’t enough to cover the monthly draft. For many servicemembers, this backup method was a spouse’s or parent’s credit or debit card. The investigation revealed that FAC and MCS often double billed customers for monthly payments. FAC and MCS tried to forecast when customers’ military allotments would stop or be insufficient to cover the payment owed and then used the backup payment method instead. The information the companies used to make their prediction wasn’t always reliable, yet FAC and MCS went ahead with collecting backup payments. That resulted in some consumers paying double the amount owed in a single billing cycle, and some paid overdraft fees as well. According to the complaint, FAC and MCS collectors sometimes contacted servicemembers’ commanding officers about their debts, which could harm their opportunities for promotion. They also routinely filed lawsuits in Virginia courts against North Carolina consumers, even though state law requires that debt collection suits be brought in the county in North Carolina where the debt occurred.In addition to the $2.5 million in relief for previous consumers, the judgment includes protections for consumers from future harm. Under the judgment, the defendants are barred from:? Filing lawsuits against consumers in courts outside of the consumer’s county of residence or the county where the debt was incurred;? Charging any third party accounts such as credit or debit cards without written consent;? Collecting payments from backup accounts before payments are actually due and without notice;? Garnishing North Carolina consumers’ wages;? Contacting friends or family members about a consumer’s debts; and? Contacting a servicemember’s chain of command about a debt. “Most businesses in military communities want to do right by servicemembers and their families, but some bad apple businesses don’t do things the right way,” Cooper said. “It’s important that we educate servicemembers about fraud and let them know our office is here as a resource.” Cooper’s Consumer Protection Division fights unfair business practices. Military personnel and their family members can file a consumer complaint with the Attorney General’s Office by calling 1-877-5-NO-SCAM toll-free within North Carolina or filling out the complaint form at . Cooper’s office has also put together a guide for military consumers, available at military.aspx and distributed to military installations statewide.Media Contact: Noelle Talley, (919) 716-6413Vermont Attorney General Settles Consumer Protection Lawsuit Against Dollar TreeCONTACT: Elliot Burg , Assistant Attorney General, (802) 828-5507January 6, 2015Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., will permanently keep all jewelry off its shelves in Vermont and pay the State $42,500 in settlement of a lawsuit filed by the Vermont Attorney General’s Office in July 2014. The suit alleged that Dollar Tree, a national discount chain based in Chesapeake, Virginia, violated a prior settlement with the State to minimize children’s exposure to toxic substances by refraining from selling jewelry in Vermont. Vermont Attorney General William H. Sorrell noted that the new settlement “reflects my continued commitment to keeping products that may contain toxic substances out of the hands of Vermont’s children.”The lawsuit alleged that Dollar Tree failed to comply with a 2010 settlement under the Vermont Consumer Protection Act that resolved claims that Dollar Tree had sold products containing high amounts of toxic lead and cadmium. According to the State’s 2014 complaint, Dollar Tree violated a provision in the earlier settlement barring it from selling any items “commonly understood to be jewelry” by selling jewelry, including rings, earrings, bracelets, and necklaces, in its stores in Barre, Bennington, Burlington, Derby/Newport, and Rutland.Under the new settlement, “jewelry” is defined specifically to include necklaces, bracelets, rings, earrings, brooches and anklets, principally designed and intended as an ornament to be worn on the human body, regardless of the material from which they are made. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download