• 1141516 17 18
  • Page
  • Text Only
EugeneV said:   
Why would you interprete "denied, retain card" as instruction for the merchant to destroy card, anyway?


I didn't.
But I interpret "I'll be responsible for all authorized charges made to this card" as "I'm not giving it to some stranger intact just because he says VISA told him to take it."

In that situation I would simply refuse to hand it over, period - if the card is indeed property of the issuer, the issuer may have to send their own rep to excercize their right to take the card away from me. If police or other law enforcement officers were present and instructed me to hand over the card (to the store, not to them), perhaps then I would bend it first.

But presume the clerk is already holding your card when he receives this instruction. Getting into a fist fight with him is probably not the greatest idea.

sackland87 said:   
Never received a call back from the corporate office. Decided just to let it go and not call them back. Ive been there twice since and bought 1K each time. They also still havent said anything to me...


It's such a crappy situation - because you obviously still want to be able to buy GCs at the store. The situation has become so bad around me (as per the example of manager's stating it is against the law to buy any GCs with credit) that I am really starting to get confrontational with them. I have one WG store left that never gives me any hassle - and if it wasn't for that I would probably be looking to talk to a district manager about policy.

If I was in your situation, and didn't have other alternatives to get the cards, I would probably at least make the manager feel uncomfortable every time I went in. I'd ask if he was on duty, and ask to speak with him every time I was there to buy gift cards. I'd ask him to ring me up directly so that there was no misunderstanding since I don't want the aggravation and embarrassment of being pulled over by police in my home town every time I shop at Walgreens. I'd probably extrapolate on the story and say how my wife's boss, and my kid's teachers all saw me pulled over on the side of the road....anything to make the guy uncomfortable each time I went in.

Of course, the manager has the discretion not to sell you any cards apparently - since they seem to make their rules up each time.

Since you have gotten the ultimate call-out at a store for this, I would actually capitalize on it to try and extract some legitimate information. I would confront the manager and ask them point blank why he called the cops on you. Ask him if it is against store policy to sell gift cards for over a certain amount with a credit transaction. If not, why did he feel the need to do so with you, etc. I would ask for written store policy and if it differs from corporate.

I had posted on another thread that when I was denied for a CC purchase at one store, I spoke with the manager (one of the few that seemed intelligent to me) who advised me that they don't sell them because of the fraud/loss and that it was store specific. He gladly allowed me to purchase some though if I would provide him with ID. I'm actually considering going back to that store to talk with him again as he seemed willing to discuss policy. I don't think he understood it fully himself, but he seemed to be willing to admit he was wrong on some counts and would probably get me in touch with someone that could answer the question legitimately.

EugeneV said:   
But presume the clerk is already holding your card when he receives this instruction. Getting into a fist fight with him is probably not the greatest idea.


I presume he doesn't have a death grip on it and isn't ready to play tug of war if you snatch it.
While he's saying 'give that back' I'd have time to flex it five times and rip it.

If that ever happens, please come back and describe it in detail. I mean, after you post bail and all...

From CNN said: A federal judge ruled today that New York's stop-and-frisk policy violated constitutional rights, according to court documents.

In the ruling, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin says that an outside monitor will be appointed to oversee changes to the police department's policy.

taxmantoo said:   EugeneV said:   
But presume the clerk is already holding your card when he receives this instruction. Getting into a fist fight with him is probably not the greatest idea.


I presume he doesn't have a death grip on it and isn't ready to play tug of war if you snatch it.
While he's saying 'give that back' I'd have time to flex it five times and rip it.


Unless you are using a stolen card I highly doubt the instruction that comes back when the card is swiped will say "Retain Card". It may just say card declined. In which case you get the card back saying charge didn't go through. Sometimes they may swipe it again or ask you to do so.

newbietx said:   taxmantoo said:   EugeneV said:   
But presume the clerk is already holding your card when he receives this instruction. Getting into a fist fight with him is probably not the greatest idea.


I presume he doesn't have a death grip on it and isn't ready to play tug of war if you snatch it.
While he's saying 'give that back' I'd have time to flex it five times and rip it.


Unless you are using a stolen card I highly doubt the instruction that comes back when the card is swiped will say "Retain Card". It may just say card declined. In which case you get the card back saying charge didn't go through. Sometimes they may swipe it again or ask you to do so.


Expect more of this as drugstores become more of a part of the front line in the war on Meth. CVS will start limiting the amount of nail polish remover with acetone. Visiting with a local store manager CVS is considering requiring the use of a CVS card if you pay by means other than credit card of debit card. http://www.kens5.com/news/CVS-restricting-sale-of-nail-polish-re...

I wouldn't buy large volumes of gift cards at a Drugstore chain.

nsdp said:   ...I wouldn't buy large volumes of gift cards at a Drugstore chain.
Okay, I'll bite. As long as you're not doing so illegally (i.e. stolen credit card or the like), what's the problem with purchasing gift cards?

I could see advising against manufacturing meth based on the info you're presenting (plus, obviously, a variety of other reasons), but the gift card conclusion seems a bit of a non sequitur.

Welcome to the surveillance state, slave. Now go about your business. Your activities have been logged.

dbond79 said:   nsdp said:   ...I wouldn't buy large volumes of gift cards at a Drugstore chain.
Okay, I'll bite. As long as you're not doing so illegally (i.e. stolen credit card or the like), what's the problem with purchasing gift cards?

I could see advising against manufacturing meth based on the info you're presenting (plus, obviously, a variety of other reasons), but the gift card conclusion seems a bit of a non sequitur.


Ever hear of 18USC1956? Laundering of monetary instruments-- Drugstores are reporting everything that could possibly be criminal now.

nsdp said:   dbond79 said:   nsdp said:   ...I wouldn't buy large volumes of gift cards at a Drugstore chain.
Okay, I'll bite. As long as you're not doing so illegally (i.e. stolen credit card or the like), what's the problem with purchasing gift cards?

I could see advising against manufacturing meth based on the info you're presenting (plus, obviously, a variety of other reasons), but the gift card conclusion seems a bit of a non sequitur.


Ever hear of 18USC1956? Laundering of monetary instruments-- Drugstores are reporting everything that could possibly be criminal now.
Does 18USC1956 specify to whom suspected Laundering of monetary instruments should be reported?
I suspect that it specifies a federal agency and not the local police department.
Could you clarify?

mikeres said:   nsdp said:   dbond79 said:   nsdp said:   ...I wouldn't buy large volumes of gift cards at a Drugstore chain.
Okay, I'll bite. As long as you're not doing so illegally (i.e. stolen credit card or the like), what's the problem with purchasing gift cards?

I could see advising against manufacturing meth based on the info you're presenting (plus, obviously, a variety of other reasons), but the gift card conclusion seems a bit of a non sequitur.


Ever hear of 18USC1956? Laundering of monetary instruments-- Drugstores are reporting everything that could possibly be criminal now.
Does 18USC1956 specify to whom suspected Laundering of monetary instruments should be reported?
I suspect that it specifies a federal agency and not the local police department.
Could you clarify?

I'm no lawyer, but one thing that 18 U.S.C. § 1956 does appear to specify is that it applies to the act of trying to conceal the source of proceeds of "some form of unlawful activity", you know, money laundering. So again, I fail to see what that has to do with the purchase of gift cards for the purposes typically discussed on FWF or the travel blogs. I mean no one here, that I've ever seen, has discussed purchasing GCs in support of their coke dealing business.

Its apparent that none of the preceding discussions has been read or you would have a clue what this whole discussion was about.

Would be nice if you read a thread before repeating comments that were made on page 1.

FWF: The new home for functional illiterates and the unbelievably lazy.

nsdp said:   I wouldn't buy large volumes of gift cards at a Drugstore chain
why are you so scared of attracting scrutiny ?

sackland87 said:   Glitch99 said:   
As I've told numerous store managers - "whatever will make you comfortable with my activity". If it takes a police detective clearing me, so be it. Goes hand in hand with voluntarily respecting whatever limits each manager wants to impose, regardless of company policy.


At least you had the opportunity to speak with the managers. Thats the thing that bothers me the most I think. Not a single word was said to me. Just wait till I leave then call the cops. Punk move IMO.



Codename47 needs to brush up on Banking laws. Regs require reporting and it being kept secret from the person whom they feel is suspicious. Get over it or stop playing the game.

sackland87 said:   Glitch99 said:   
As I've told numerous store managers - "whatever will make you comfortable with my activity". If it takes a police detective clearing me, so be it. Goes hand in hand with voluntarily respecting whatever limits each manager wants to impose, regardless of company policy.


At least you had the opportunity to speak with the managers. Thats the thing that bothers me the most I think. Not a single word was said to me. Just wait till I leave then call the cops. Punk move IMO.



Codename47 needs to brush up on Banking laws. Regs require reporting and it being kept secret from the person whom they feel is suspicious. OP - get over it or stop playing the game.

Mickie3 said:   Its apparent that none of the preceding discussions has been read or you would have a clue what this whole discussion was about.

Would be nice if you read a thread before repeating comments that were made on page 1.

FWF: The new home for functional illiterates and the unbelievably lazy.

I'm perfectly aware what this "discussion" (read ranting) was about at one time, but nothing posted on page 1 or anywhere else changes the fact that there is a logical disconnect between:
1. Drugstores are cracking down on meth manufacturers
2. Therefore, don't buy giftcards.

dbond79 said:   Mickie3 said:   Its apparent that none of the preceding discussions has been read or you would have a clue what this whole discussion was about.

Would be nice if you read a thread before repeating comments that were made on page 1.

FWF: The new home for functional illiterates and the unbelievably lazy.

I'm perfectly aware what this "discussion" (read ranting) was about at one time, but nothing posted on page 1 or anywhere else changes the fact that there is a logical disconnect between:
1. Drugstores are cracking down on meth manufacturers
2. Therefore, don't buy giftcards.


I agree there isn't a straight line here pointing to a logical conclusion. Additionally, we have some posters with high degrees of paranoia (warranted or not).

However, there are some valid points to take from this. Regardless of the legality of one's activities, the behavior manifests itself as the same to the retailer.
If the retailer is suspicious of your transaction, it doesn't matter what your motive was. They don't need to ask or question it - they just need to file reports and in some cases (apparently) call authorities.

If all that happens is that the cops get called - then you actually are getting off lucky. I say this because if you have reports filed those reports go to FinCEN and/or the IRS.
While there is nothing illegal in what we are doing, it is possible that some sort of audit by a government entity of our behavior may raise additional red flags.

If you are 100% squeaky clean on your taxes, including reporting any gains from churning then you might not have to worry about anything in the end...but it is still possible that this may all cause time and hassle.

I'm not saying how likely any of this is to happen - I would say the probability is probably pretty low. I also am not going to open a debate as to whether any churning activity is reportable/taxable.

Fact is if you engage in what looks like suspicious behavior, you may get attention drawn to you that *may* lead to undesirable results, the least of which is a drain of your time.

Personally, I will continue to churn.

There is no disconnect. Credit card churning and money laundering show very similar patterns. This causes law enforcement to examine those who display the pattern. If you don't mind the attention you can carry on. If the attention offends you this is not a game you should play.

Also, I think there is another point lost in this discussion. Credit card churners aren't particularly profitable to anyone other than themselves. You can call all the area managers and corporate numbers you want. If you manage to explain the situation correctly and the understand the facts, they probably aren't going to waste too much of their time helping you. You're what Best Buy calls a "Devil Customer" and they won't mind you taking your higher risk transactions to their closest competitor.

Credit card churning is a game. If it was easy, everyone would do it. I'm glad it isn't easy!

Codename47 needs to brush up on Banking laws. Regs require reporting and it being kept secret from the person whom they feel is suspicious. OP - get over it or stop playing the game.

You need to brush up on the constitution and read what I wrote. They can report whatever they want, and I am well aware of SAR's and such. What I am saying is that they have no reason to detain the OP based on the innocent actions he has taken and continue to detain him after he proved that the card he used was his. They are free to investigate whatever they want, but they'll do it without my help.

nsdp said:   Our current Bexar County District Attorney and two of her staff have been debarred by the WDTX and the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals

nsdp -- Your posts, on this thread and others, frequently include a lot of assertions, claims, etc. that are supposedly based on your personal experience and knowledge, but are often strangely lacking in support. I wonder if you would indulge me with a little fact-checking, starting with the above statement. Has Bexar County Criminal District Attorney really been disbarred? Her website indicates otherwise. Just asking.
  

codename47 said:   Codename47 needs to brush up on Banking laws. Regs require reporting and it being kept secret from the person whom they feel is suspicious. OP - get over it or stop playing the game.

You need to brush up on the constitution and read what I wrote. They can report whatever they want, and I am well aware of SAR's and such. What I am saying is that they have no reason to detain the OP based on the innocent actions he has taken and continue to detain him after he proved that the card he used was his. They are free to investigate whatever they want, but they'll do it without my help.

  I have a friend who is a lawyer who went to the LA County Jail due to a large number of traffic tickets that he blew off.  The first day in custody he sounded just like you do in this post.  A few days later he was singing a different tune after getting a taste of reality at the business end of a Deputy Sheriff''s combat boot.

tuphat said:   
nsdp said:   Our current Bexar County District Attorney and two of her staff have been debarred by the WDTX and the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals

nsdp -- Your posts, on this thread and others, frequently include a lot of assertions, claims, etc. that are supposedly based on your personal experience and knowledge, but are often strangely lacking in support. I wonder if you would indulge me with a little fact-checking, starting with the above statement. Has Bexar County Criminal District Attorney really been disbarred? Her website indicates otherwise. Just asking.
  

  
He said disbarred by the Western District of Texas and the 5th Circuit, not the BAR association.
Does her website say she's still licensed to practice before the Federal Bar?

EDIT: Yes, that's what it says:

In addition to being licensed to practice law in Texas, she is also licensed in Federal court in the Western District of Texas and in the United States Supreme Court. She is board certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.


http://www.bexar.org/da/JudgeReed.html 

A Google search for Susan D Reed disbarred points me to this page, but I can't find her on it, or on the list of previously disciplined practitioners:
http://www.justice.gov/eoir/discipline.htm

Again a question of competence. The list you refer to is issued by DOJ and only applies to immigration attorneys. Second it only reports suspensions after 1/1/2000. Please read https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/921/921.F2d.585.90-824... and see if you find Mary Carol Cunningham or Beth Fielding Siever on either list because neither was an IMMIGRATION attorney. Cunningham won on appeal due to the failure of Judge Ayers to recuse himself. Since Ayers had retired at the time of appeal they did not send it back for further hearing as the point was moot.

The order said "ORDERED that Mary Carol Cunningham is suspended from the practice of law before the Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas for one year from the date this order becomes final. Mary Carol Cunningham will not be readmitted to practice before the Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas until she has successfully passed (according to the standard required of all attorneys prior to their admission to the State Bar of Texas) the Multi-State Professional Ethics Examination and reported such to the Chief Bankruptcy Judge for the Western District of Texas." Teh local rules provide specifically " Local Rule 200-2 provides:

(a) When it is shown to the Court that any member of its bar has ... been guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar of the Court, he will be subject to suspension or disbarment by the Court. The member shall be afforded an opportunity to show good cause, within such time as the Court shall prescribe, why he should not be suspended or disbarred. Upon his response to the order to show cause, and after hearing, if requested, or upon expiration of the time prescribed for response if no response is made, the Court shall enter an appropriate order." Now Rule AT-2:

"Rule AT-2. SUSPENSION OR DISBARMENT4
11

* * * * * *
12

(b) The Court may, after reasonable notice and an opportunity to show cause to the contrary, and after a hearing, if requested, take any appropriate disciplinary action against any attorney who practices before it for conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar or for failure to comply with these rules or any rule of the Court."


(b) The Court may, after reasonable notice and an opportunity to show cause to the contrary, and after hearing, if requested, take any appropriate disciplinary action against any attorney who practices before it for conduct unbecoming a member of the bar or for failure to comply with these rules or any rule of the Court."

To the best of my knowledge Susan Reed is not now nor has she ever been an Immigration attorney. So your reference check is under the wrong Article of the Constitution. You did an Article II search and you should have done an Article III search.

How did you screw up that bad? This is where you should have searched https://ecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl They do log your name and IP.

I hope for your clients' sake your tax abilities are better than this.

I saw that was immigration.
Like I said, I just did a quick google.
For some reason it led me there even though disbarred was the only matching word currently on that page.

Since you were the one claiming that the DA and two unnamed (until now) associates were disbarred, how was I supposed to find Siever or Cunningham at the link you provided or any other link until you named them?
And where's the link on the DA herself?

If you saw it was immigration only why did you post it? B***S*** factor Fraud Deceit? link is now posted above with the caveat they do log and verify any one who logs in or attempts to login without proper authority. "This is a Restricted Web Site for Official Court Business only. Unauthorized entry is prohibited and subject to prosecution under Title 18 of the U.S. Code. All activities and access attempts are logged." Also
Chrome doesn't work. Firefox or Explorer 7 or 8 only.

Cunningham was posted to show you the local rules THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEARCHING under Article III courts and that you don't know what you are doing.

nsdp, still waiting for the proof on Judge Hinojosa and the two who supposedly went to jail. Still waiting on the proof of "Our current Bexar County District Attorney and two of her staff have been debarred by the WDTX and the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals". You have so far posted a bunch of excuses, lots of insults to anyone who challenges you,  and some misdirection, but no proof.

According to you, Susan Reed was "debarred by the WDTX and the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals", but like the Hinojosa claim, there is ZERO accessible public record to prove this, google and other searches reveal ZERO confirmation of this. It is hard for me to believe that these events took place, and all the information has been kept a secret for what is now more than a dozen years. Combined with more questionable claims in this thread, your credibility is very suspect.

Jstic said:   nsdp, still waiting for the proof on Judge Hinojosa and the two who supposedly went to jail. Still waiting on the proof of "Our current Bexar County District Attorney and two of her staff have been debarred by the WDTX and the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals". You have so far posted a bunch of excuses, lots of insults to anyone who challenges you,  and some misdirection, but no proof.
 

 
Agreed!
As far as I am concerned, nsdp no longer has any credibility left.

Bexar County .. 4th most populous county in Texas, county seat = San Antonio.

How can there be no news articles etc about a disbarred District Attorney?

nsdp said:   If you saw it was immigration only why did you post it? B***S*** factor Fraud Deceit?
  
I thought it was clearly stated why I posted it.
I did one search, on google, for her name along with the district and disbarred.
The search results included ONE federal attorney discipline page, so I linked it, expecting you to say something like 'no, that's not what she was disbarred for, her disbarment is here'. Instead you start babbling like a crazy person and accusing me of all sorts of shit.

sackland87 said:   I am a Citi TYP card holder and have been churning GCs since I got it. My normal "run" is 4 drug stores and one grocery store. I usually walk away with about 7K in GCs each run. This past Thursday however, went very different. Here is the series of events.

#1: Stopped at the grocery store. Picked up $1500 in GCs.

#2: Stopped at Walgreens and bought one $500 PayPal MyCash card.

#3: Stopped at Rite Aid and bought one $500 Vanilla Visa.

#4: Was pulling into Rite Aid #2 and was pulled over. Turns out Walgreens called the police on me for suspicious activity. The police officer questioned me about why I was stopping at all the drug stores and why I was buying so many GCs. I was honest with him and he checked my CC that I used with my ID to make sure they matched. After everything checked out, he was puzzled on why I was stopped in the first place, but said he had to keep me until the detective arrived to talk to me. When the detective arrived (with the K9 unit as well), he explained all the bad things GCs can be used for (which I already knew) and that is why I was stopped. He said he had called the Secret Service to confirm my identity and that everything checked out. After about 30 minutes of being questioned, I was on my way and told I can continue doing what I do, as it is not illegal.

What do you do with all these gift cards? How do you pay off the credit card? How about enlightening us?

Here I am trying to get rid of gift cards and cannot find an easy way to convert this to cash. And you are out here buying tons of gift cards? What is the catch?


 

Maybe you didn't find the secret file, Taxmantoo, because she wasn't disbarred, but "debarred" as NSDP said.

While both words would technically work, is it just me or do those in the legal field always use "disbarred"? For instance, if I just google "lawyer debarred" I get Showing results for lawyer disbarred. Seems like someone with decades of experience in the legal field wouldn't use the less common (incorrect?) word.

NSDP, just so we are all clear, when you said the following:
nsdp said:   Again a question of competence. The list you refer to is issued by DOJ and only applies to immigration attorneys. Second it only reports suspensions after 1/1/2000. Please read https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/921/921.F2d.585.90-8249.html  and see if you find Mary Carol Cunningham or Beth Fielding Siever on either list...
 

  were you saying that these two individuals, Cunningham and Siever, were the staffers that you were referencing in your earlier comment?
nsdp said: Our current Bexar County District Attorney and two of her staff have been debarred by the WDTX and the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals
 


Because I see no mention of either one being District Attorney, so I'm assuming they must be the staffers in question.

tuphat said:   Bexar County .. 4th most populous county in Texas, county seat = San Antonio.

How can there be no news articles etc about a disbarred District Attorney?

  
If the Western District of Michigan disbarred my county persecutor, I'd expect to read about it in the paper, same thing if it had happened when he was an assistant persecutor. 
If he was disbarred before he worked for the county, I'd not expect to read about it in the paper, but I also wouldn't expect him to claim to be licensed to practice in WDMI on the county's web site.

Edit: I sort of tested the above theory. One of  my local judges was disciplined in the 1990s.
Google search terms Michael Hocking Judicial Tenure gets four results, two from news outlets, one from the state's court web site, and one from the attorney discipline board. I conclude that 90+% of the news articles either weren't put on the web or have vanished from the web in the last 20 years.

Texasbar.com indicates that Siever was indeed disbarred. Cunningham has faced past disciplinary actions but still has her Texas bar card.

BUT: I didn't find anything indicating that either person has worked for Bexar DAs office, or that current DA Reed was disbarred. Maybe she has a slander case vs ndsp?

tuphat said:   Bexar County .. 4th most populous county in Texas, county seat = San Antonio.

How can there be no news articles etc about a disbarred District Attorney?
  

Tuphat read the local rules AT1-AT7. Those are in camera proceedings. There is an article at the Express News but they charge real money to access stories more than 30 days old. This is why you can't find anything BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING.

The San Antonio Express-News archive contains staff-written and other selected articles from 1990 to the present.

Searching is free and unlimited, but a small fee is charged for complete articles retrieved from our archive.

You may purchase individual articles for $2.95 or select a package for multiple articles. View package pricing. The results list for your search will display the headline, the publication date and the estimated word count for the complete article.

To view the complete article, you must click on the headline in the results list. You will be asked to register as a new user or sign-in as an existing user. Payment is by credit card.

You will find 2169 articles about Susan Reed. Happy hunting. You guys have been such idiots I won't tell you the date. http://www.mysanantonio.com/about_us/archives/ 

As for the Judge Hinojosa case try the same source if you REALLY REALLY know what you are doing or you might check behind the paywall of another paper in the division of the Southern District where the case was transfered.

The fact that you collectively have not tried to see what pay wall policies are in the appropriate areas reminds me of Detective Mancuso in A Confederacy of Dunces. Not able to find evidence if he had to lift a rock and look underneath.

You might also want to read this article on a trial that finished up this spring as to why you have problems if you don't know what you are doing. It points out that you are incredibly stupid to think that the court order spells out the suspension or disbarment names. It's a 5th Circuit rule that YOU DIDN'T READ DID YOU. http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_53d4b96a-c8d... 

Are any of you competent to conduct legal research? If so you would have found the news article in your search for stories concerning Judge Hinojosa above and recognized the problems you face. I appreciate how each of you contributes to the monumnetal evidence of your collective incompetence. I now think you as a group are so incompetent that you cannot recognize your own incompetence AKA Dunning-Kruger Syndrome.

More smoke and mirrors. You still haven't answered the question as to whether those 2 lawyers from Austin who ran afoul of some judge during a bankruptcy case are supposed to be the same as the 2 Bexar County DA's staffers which you claim faced disciplinary action along with their boss (highly doubtful) or if they just represent some other completely irrelevant case from over 20 years ago which you brought up for no reason, other than the fact that you were actually able to produce documentation about them.

NSDP, trolling since 2006.

tuphat said:   Texasbar.com indicates that Siever was indeed disbarred. Cunningham has faced past disciplinary actions but still has her Texas bar card.

BUT: I didn't find anything indicating that either person has worked for Bexar DAs office, or that current DA Reed was disbarred. Maybe she has a slander case vs ndsp?
 

If she had a slander suit against me it would be posted on the Docket sheet in the Bexar County District Clerk's Office. Another admission of GENUINE IGNORANCE tuphat. Only expunction, juvenile, and adoption cases in Texas state court may be sealed. And it sure as hell would have been on the front page of the Express News.  



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2014