Litigation

With respect to the CT Woman saga Rhonda Bentzen today presents the following as facts:

"Fact:  the structured settlement broker did an outstanding job providing plenty of upfront money as well as a beautifully put together structure". 

"Fact:  the annuitant received an outstanding deal from me for the purchase of a small percentage of her monthly payments to take care of her current issues".

Rhonda Bentzen neglects to state that the "current issues" that led the NSSTA member structured settlement broker (who we have not named in our posts) to refer to Bentzen for structrued settlement factoring OCCURRED LESS THAN 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE STRUCTURED SETTLEMENT WAS SET UP!

While there may have been a large structured settlement annuity placed, it is patently obvious that there was a HUGE FLAW in the settlement plan, if one was even done. Bentzen's discount rate however low was not an outstanding deal for the CT woman because when one compares the cost of funding the benefits sold in the "beautiful" structured settlement broker CT woman transferred.

In my June 9, 2009 post The True Cost of Poor Settlement Planning I addressed this issue in great detail.

If this is Rhonda Bentzen's idea of "beautiful" then draw your own conclusions about Ms. Bentzen's ethics and level of financial literacy.

AND, If this woman goes to the mainstream media with her story or her congressmen as she is indeed comtemplating, one wonders what Bentzen will say then.  I'm not making this story up. I have spoken to the structured settlement broker in question as well as extensive conversations with the CT woman, as recently as yesterday. I can assure you my industry brethren that the broker in question ,as was related to me by he and the CT Woman, WAS NOT AND IS NOT PLEASED with Ms. Bentzen's handling of the CT woman matter.

They say that "reputation comes from the company you keep".  Ms. Bentzen essentially states in her posting that no matter what the ethics of Structured Asset Funding's owners (who own Bentzen Funding Solutions) including the fact that the company falsely advertises "cash now" or encourages people through their advertising to transfer structured settlements for boats or cars she is willing to compromise herself due to the "immigration laws".

From the blog " Thoughts on Quotes" March 3, 2008

"How important is your reputation? Most people want to be known for something good, like honesty, fairness, strength, integrity and kindness. No matter how hard you work at living a good life, it may not guarantee that your reputation is secure. I'm not saying it's right, but people tend to judge you by many things, including the company you keep".

In my capacity as a journalist, and professionally, I passionately believe that exposing a business practice through public discourse is both healthy and newsworthy.  It is effective and very much in the public interest that structured settlement and settlement planning watchdog commentary exists. No matter how much Bentzen stamps her feet and snorts that is where it begins and where it ends.

With respect to Ms. Bentzen's continued "obsession" with "McCarthy era lists"...

It deserves pointing out that despite some gray hair, this author was not even born during the McCarthy era. I'm not even old enough to have my AARP card!  My chosen role model in this endeavor is Louis Brandeis, whose case opinions on free speech were, "according legal scholars some of the "greatest defenses"  on free speech ever written by a member of the Supreme Court" (Wikipedia). I am especially motivated by the quote "sunlight is the best of disinfectants".

The "sunlight" has exposed among other things:

1. A disappointing degree of financial illiteracy
2. The "cash now" fraud
3. Business practices within the industry (proven to cost consumers) such as the kickbacks demanded of or offered by and paid by Bentzen. This led to the structured settlement transparency initiative. While only about 5% of producers participated the initiative led to a companies such as EPS Settlements Group and Wahlstrom & Associates issuing formal company statements on factoring. One would also like to think the sunlight has reduced this practice.
4. Mischaracterization and misrepresentation of professional credentials such as the Certified Structured Settlement Consultant designation. This has led to constructive discussions between The University of Notre Dame and Joe Ricci of NSSTA.
5. Mischaracterization of IRC 5891 by Bentzen and others
6. Mischaracterziation of other Internal Revenue code sections
7. Misrepresentation by "QSF jockeys" that a (single claimant) qualified settlement fund gave plaintiffs full market access when it did not
8. Questionable use of a "professional testimonial" from a former Presidential candidate by a settlement firm that was deduced to be a pay for play for testimonial.
9. A lie by a member of our industry that it was the only plaintiff exclusive firm in the country
10. Packaging of annuity contracts by an annuity issuer that defied logic considering the millions in premiums being brought in by settlement brokers. This resulted in an Improvement in the "packaging" of annuity contracts by the annuity issuer.
11. Rated age abuse by those getting kick backs from MSA vendors and the concomitant effect on the speed at which rated ages are delivered from hours to days.
12. The balance between false advertising and perjury and the implication for the structured settlement professionals involved
13. That some structured settlement brokers signed affidavits to the United States Department of Justice that were mutually exclusive to their own advertising
14. The promotion of a fictitious financial designation by long time structured settlement general agent.
15. The promotion of a trade association as a professional designation by an settlement industry member
16. The difference between 468B and 468b is a "load of waste".
17. The true cost of a structured settlement factoring transaction that occurs within months of structured settlement creation.
18. The "trustworthy" Rhonda Bentzen's erstwhile gossip proclivities about the personal and business lives of industry participants.
19. Absurd false advertising claims by industry members that have led to changes in behavior.

Why does Ms. Bentzen continually appear to seek to justify bad behlavior by questioning the "sunlight"?

The only "list of names" maintained, populated and posted on this blog are (1) a list of people who have voluntarily subscribed to the structured settlement transparency initiative and (2) a list containing 2 people, one of whom publicly disclosed their position and the other whose position was "publicly disclosed" by a principal in her firm. Both individuals were given the opportunity to change their positions or by inaction confirm them Download 1132009 email to Michele Whitmore confirm position on SSTI (similar letter was sent to the other individual on 1/6/2009). Did McCarthy give people the same opportunity?

What proof did Bentzen have prior to publishing her allegation today that a list of names of those that "disagree with me" appear on a  list of names that currently exists, or evidence that any names on such alleged list ever existed in the public domain?

Rhonda Bentzens' Obsession?                                   John Darer's Role Model