Litigation

This morning I received a follow up call from an industry colleague seeking help in dealing with a plaintiff attorney who was concerned about structuring his client's settlement because of fear that the settlement would later be factored. Then someone pointed me in the direction of "Bentzen's Bog".

For those not anglicized "Bog" is British slang for toilet. That's right and she just left another "floater".

As predictable as a wind up toy Rhonda Bentzen continues to speak and prove nothing of her own industry or the settlement industry and their respective issues. Bentzen implies that the following issues we've covered are "trivial and Inconsequential":

.

1. False advertising in the structured settlement industry
2. False advertising in the factoring industry
3. Non compliance with state insurance law
4. Credential Puffery
5. Perjury
6. Financial literacy/illiteracy
7. Revelation that dealing with Bentzen ultimately meant that many the structured settlement industry cleared her deals through one of the worst cash now pushers in the country.
8. Kickbacks taken by settlement professionals that reduce the amount that desperate tort victims receive when they have no alternative but to sell their structured settlement payment rights. She wrote this Download Bentzen Funding Solutions 90 pct blog post 12-12-2007 (check out that "punim"!) and now avoids publishing the new statistic.  We have quoted this statistic in the context. The claim was made just over 2 years ago.
   
9. Factoring company servicing. Yet NASP dedicated a whole session to addressing this issue at its annual meeting.

In her post Bentzen demonstrates that she assigns as much priority to attention to detail as the other "targets of our affection" by first claiming that a certain part of her email to me (her point 3) was "conveniently omitted and later in her post provides prima facie "evidence" that she has read it! In the immortal words of Bushwood's  "poet laureate" Carl Spackler " I have to laugh".

Rhonda Bentzen states that she "would love to answer my statistical questions but she chooses not to because in the past, she alleges that " this author has purposely misled visitors by repeatedly quoting statistics which SHE allegedly said were out of context and years out of date". Setting aside whether or not you consider misleading, the publication of a single statistic that Bentzen herself published less than 2 years ago (see link in  #8 above) and it was still out there as of March 26, 2009 (the date the link was copied to preserve the evidence). My math says that's less than a year ago. How about yours? Has Bentzen now implied that she's both a statistical puffer AND a bald faced liar?

Was Bentzen pressured to remove the post about "the 90%" by settlement professionals who saw her as the source for their name and business practice being publicly exposed by the stuctured settlement transparency initiative? For reasons unknown, Rhonda Bentzen took an active role in trying to smash the initiative from the time she published the 90% statistic. The delicious irony is that what's linked to #8 above, shows the aforementioned blog post (about "the 90%) sandwiched between the "back button" leading to the gossip column and the "next button" leading to "full disclosure".

Should one surmise that whatever percentage the gutless Bentzen says other than zero, she realizes that it will continue to implicate her own clients taking "kick backs" from her, money that has been proven by the published testimony of several third parties (in her own industry) to negatively impact the bottom line for the desperate tort victim? Prior to this author bringing the subject up who knew the dirty little secret? 

The frosting on the "foot in mouth" cake is that Rhonda Bentzen clearly has no qualms with some of her clients who are "Settlement Planners Who Solicit Plaintiff Attorneys With OUTDATED information"  (like 6 to 9 years old)

John Darer would like to take this moment to thank Rhonda Bentzen for letting her actions continue to prove HIS points over and over (<sigh> and over) again.