Talk:USAA/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is a discussion page, which contains two proposed versions of the main article page for United Services Automobile Association. So discuss! Please confine your edits to proposed changes or commentary to the text for either one or the other version: or please feel free to add a third version of your own. Please do not simply revert the page because you want to suppress the facts and opinions thereon.

Contents

The Proposed Version

(The consensus version appears at the bottom of this page)

United Services Automobile Association
Type unincorporated reciprocal inter-insurance exchange
Founded 1922
Headquarters San Antonio, Texas, USA
Key people Robert G. Davis, Attorney in Fact
Tim Handren, Association Executive
Joe Robles, Association Treasurer
Greg Schwartz, Chief Disinformation Officer
Industry Property and Casualty Insurance
Products Insurance, principally, plus Banking, Investing
Revenue Image:green up.png$11.273 billion USD (2004)
Employees ~21,000 (2004)
Website [http://www.usaa.com/

Argument/Discussion for the Alternative Version:

Like the ingredients on a package of cookies, the components should be listed in the order of their "importance" - right? This is an encyclopedia article: it is not a PR set piece for Robert G. Davis. USAA has a web site where people can read the USAA message. As this is an encyclopedia, let's deal with the facts, such as they are and wherever they might fall. As it is extremely unlikely that "the friends" of USAA are going to be able to reconcile the text they hope for with the raw unvarnished facts of the "missing $5 billion", why don't we start with the assumption that the resulting article is going to have an "on the one hand" and "on the other hand" presentation. That is to say that the friends of USAA should get ready to advance some sort of meaningful explanation as to why and how $5 billion of money belonging to the subscribers of the unincorporated reciprocal inter-insurance exchange has come to "no longer be" the absolute property of the subscribers.

Let's start with the facts - the single principal over-arching and important fact about USAA is:

§1) United Services Automobile Association is an unincorporated association; additionally, it may simultaneously be some sort of an unincorporated membership association. The fact that USAA is unincorporated is singularly the most important attribute of the entity. Why? Because there is no other business entity in America like it. As it dawns on the slightly wealthier component of the subscribers and their lawyers that USAA is unincorporated and that each subscriber is personally and individually exposed to law suits in every jurisdiction in the country - and that each subscriber is protected only by the somewhat flimsy and completely untested limited liability provisions of the Texas insurance code - there may very well be a leming-like flight of subscribers from USAA. It is my personal belief that subscribers to the unincorporated reciprocal inter-insurance exchange and policyholders of USAA CIC who have large claims pending may already be irredeemably and irrevocably in deep trouble - irregardless [sic].

The second most important feature of USAA is that:

§2) USAA is only "owned" (if indeed it is "owned" at by anybody at all) by the 2.2 million persons who contemporaneously make up formally and strictly defined group of the current subscribers to the unincorporated reciprocal inter-insurance exchange (which is the cash cow which dominates the balance of the associations activities). The ["subscriber agreement"] they have each "signed" taken together with certain applicable elements of the ["by-laws"] which most subscribers have never actually seen constitute the "articles of association" which govern the unincorporated reciprocal inter-insurance exchange. In a very odd way, the balance of the "by-laws" govern those aspects of the unincorporated association which do not strictly revolve around the unincorporated reciprocal inter-insurance exchange. The principal problem at USAA is that its ambiguous status as an unincorporated association provides it with none the attributes of "perpetuity" we normally associate with " corporations". This Gordian Knot is made even more complex by the fact that when ostensible and putative member/owners stop purchasing insurance, they instantly cease to be "formal members" of the unincorporated membership association (although they may rejoin by again purchasing insurance).

Note: The most revealing document as to attorney in fact Robert G. Davis' real views on "who owns what" and "how many members USAA really has" can be found in his "response to interrogatories" in the legal case True v USAA. The parties who want to debate the most accurate portrayal for USAA should read and study this document (the response to interogatories) to the extent necessary to be able to argue from fact rather than from the simple heartfelt desire to defend USAA because it is so wonderful, etc. etc. blah blah blah.

The third and most compelling fact about USAA today is that:

§3) COL James True has commenced a legal action against the 2.2 million other subscribers for the return of his share of the $5 billion "unallocated" "unassigned" "surplus" of the unincorporated reciprocal inter-insurance exchange: COL True's action seeks to represent the "class" - the other 2.2 million subscribers who are "similarly situated". This is an extremely important development - and Robert G. Davis and his 14 member board of directors have devoted Herculean efforts to suppressing the release of any information about this case, including chucking Robert J. Koenig into jail for just talking about.

Why is it so important for Robert G. Davis to suppress the existence of True v USAA? The fourth most relevant fact about USAA is that its financial integrity is fatally challenged: if COL True wins his law suit, which seems very likely, USAA will become constructively insolvent.

§4) The National Association of Insurance Commisioners has already admitted in its own amicus brief that True v USAA threatens the very core of USAA's financial stability. Thus, we know that this is a very important matter.

How did the $5 billion, the return of which COL True seeks in his legal action, come to be lost in the first place? This brings us to the 5th most important problem at USAA:

§5) USAA has no capital. Robert F. McDermott could never figure out a way to capitalize his vision. So instead of registering a common stock issue, Robert F. McDermott simply helped himself to the subscribers money: to date, McDermott, Herres, and now Davis have helped themselves to $5 billion of other people's money. Read "response to interrogatories".

And then we have a sub-article for the encyclopedia describes an activity at USAA which is so sui generis as demanding perhaps to be moved to slot # 1: and that is the use of litigation against its own members to generate working capital to fund day-to-day operations as well as a smoke screen to acrete money away from the absolute owners, the subscribers, and into the "unallocated" "unassigned" "surplus".

§6) USAA's litigation portfolio: I am prepared to hold off on an indepth discussion of this particular subject if USAA wants to declare a time out and work on this with a fully empowered board-level committee - to which I will be invited. How's them apples?


(Note as to the rules for this little debate: there is actually very little to argue about in the above. This is to propose that we give anybody who wants to debate the above 5 facts a week to form and express their arguments. On Sunday next, this is to propose that the facts of the matter override the glossy brochure material put up so far by USAA and its agents and shills. I'd also like to see a rule which requires all the parties to fully identify themselves. It's really starting tp get a little tedious with all these people who line up to faithfully defend the great insurance scholar Robert F. McDermott - but who won't tell us who they are. It is absolutely amazing that we can't put a name to a single person who has popped up to try and step on Robert J. Koenig. McDermott (and by extention Herres and Davis): you have jerk-off friends.)

Proposed final text:

Tuck v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, 859 F.2d 842 (10th Cir. 1988) [1] lls us that:

USAA is an unincorporated association; and the sum of the ~2.2 million contemporaneous subscribers.

USAA's 2004 Statutory Report to the Texas Department of Insurance [2] reads as follows:

USAA is a reciprocal interinsurance exchange domiciled in Texas. USAA's membership is limited to commissioned, warrant and non-commissioned officers in the United States Military Services, cadets and midshipmen and other candidates for commission; employees of USAA and widows of the aforementioned categories.

Two complete histories of USAA can be had here [3] and [4].

Everything (and more) that you ever wanted to know about Reciprocal Inter-insurance Exchanges can be had here [5].

Most of the questions which are not answered in either USAA's statutory reports to the Texas Department of Insurance, the 2 histories of USAA, or Reinmuth's book on reciprocals, can be found in this interesting document [6]

The sturm und drang which it has taken to bring the reader these elemental core documents, including 7 days in solitary confinement for Robert J. Koenig, will boggle the reader's mind. The reader is cautioned to pretty much disregard any of the 4-color gutter-bleed annual reports which are sent out by USAA - as they are for the most part pure rubbish. Read USAA's statutory annual report for the facts.

Discussion:

The only members of the unincorporated membership association at any given moment are those persons who have in force an executed ["subscriber agreement"] which must be read in conjunction with the ["by-laws"]

Additionally, the unincorporated association also offers all comers (without regard to membership in the unincorporated reciprocal inter-insurance exchange) the chance to purchase banking services through the USAA Federal Savings Bank; life insurance through a captive subsidiary; financial planning; and discount brokerage and investment services including a line of mutual funds. Other ventures include a real estate investment company, a mail-order retail catalog operation, and travel services.

When acting as an insurer, USAA operates as an unincorporated reciprocal inter-insurance exchange URIE under the Texas Insurance Code [7].

USAA simultaneously possesses the characteristics of an "association", a "club", a "corporation", a "sole proprietorship", a "partnership", a "financial services company", an "insurance holding company", an "LLC", a "limited partnership", and finally, simply and perhaps most properly an "unincorporated reciprocal inter-insurance exchange"

Although USAA extends membership primarily to current and former U.S. military personnel and their families, anyone can become a member by either opening a bank account/investment account, purchasing life insurance, or becoming a limited partner in one of USAA Real Estate Company's tax advantaged limited partnerships. Only military service members and (curiously) FBI agents and their families can obtain automobile and homeowner's insurance from USAA.

As of 2004 USAA had over $81 billion in assets under management for approximately 5 million customers: this claim remains completely and absolutely unsubstantiated.

USAA's predecessor, the U. S. Army Automobile Association, was founded in 1922 by a group of Army officers who were seconded to San Antonio, Texas. The reason why USAA was founded was because local insurance companies would not offer insurance to the officers - for reasons best known to the insurance companies themselves. Some believe that Army officers reputation for erratic driving habits may have been a factor in discouraging local San Antonio insurance companies from offering policies to San Antonio Army officers.

Nothing so defines USAA as the litigation involving USAA

USAA maintains a $2 billion litigation reserve - its litigation portfolio. The use of "predictive analytics" to determine who gets their claims denied has created a situation where the USAA Board of Directors will eventually succumb to a charge of willful blindness. The bulk of USAA's working capital is provided by the cash dollars it withholds from insurance claims it has decided to litigate. It is impossible to define and understand USAA without an in depth consideration of its claims denial/litigation practices.


State Market Conduct Examinations


Rent-a-Shills

Chiacomo claims to be an adminstrator for Wikinews: that representation is accepted facially. Chiacomo also distinguishes himself by fully identifying himself and providing contact information: and that is admirable. But if Chiacomo is an official or quasi-official organ of Wikipedia/Wikinews, one has to wonder why Chiacomo has so assiduously and systematically set about suppressing any information at Wikinews about True v USAA. Chaiacomo has conducted himself as if he were a senior bürö-chief of the office of the censor in Eastern European country before the fall of the Berlin Wall: Chiacomo doesn't want any news about True v USAA on the Wikinews site: why? It is Chiacomom who wishes us to accept him as some sort of intellectually-driven and principled editor: when in fact he may be just a petty tyrant. And I ask Chiacomo to disclose all ex parte contacts with him or with Wikpedia/Wikinews by USAA or its representatives. Suppressing the news about True v USAA is the greatest disservice Wikipedia could perform.

BirgitteSB deletes and then blocks posting of public documents.

  • [ ]
  • [ ]
  • [ ]
  • [ ]
  • [ ]
  • [ ]
  • [ ]
  • [ ]

Consensus

(The Pre-NPOV version)

United Services Automobile Association
Type Private
Founded 1922
Headquarters San Antonio, Texas, USA
Key people Robert G. Davis, Chairman & CEO
Tim Handren, COO
Joe Robles, CFO
Greg Schwartz, CIO
Industry Financial Services
Products Insurance, Banking, Investing
Revenue Image:green up.png$11.273 billion USD (2004)
Employees ~21,000 (2004)
Website www.usaa.com

USAA Group is a financial services company headquartered in San Antonio, Texas, that offers automobile, homeowner's and life insurance; banking services through the USAA Federal Savings Bank; financial planning; and discount brokerage and investment services including a line of mutual funds. Other ventures include a real estate investment company, a mail-order retail catalog operation, and travel services. As an insurer they operate as an unincorporated reciprocal inter-insurance exchange (URIE) under the Texas Insurance Code [8].

Although USAA extends membership primarily to current and former U.S. military personnel and their families, anyone can become a member by opening a bank account, an investment account, or by seeking life insurance from USAA. Only military affilliates and their families can obtain automobile and homeowner's insurance from USAA. As of 2004 USAA had over $81 billion in assets under management for approximately 5 million customers.

The United Services Automobile Association was founded in 1922 by a group of military officers. Previously, it had been difficult for military personnel to obtain insurance because of the hazardous nature of their profession.

The mission of USAA is to facilitate the financial security of its members, associates and their families through provision of a full range of highly competitive financial products and services; in so doing, USAA seeks to be the provider of choice for the military community. USAA is also a major employer in San Antonio.

Ratings

Litigation involving USAA

External links

{{bank-stub}}

Category:Companies based in Texas Category:Financial services companies of the United States Category:San Antonio, Texas

Discussion From this point forward

For someone who refuses to identify onself, it is ironic that you challenge the use of internet handles for everyone else, plus feel free to edit other people's discussions and then acuse them of being unable to be unbiased on the matter if they don't agree with you.

As such, if you truly want to prove your case, then you'll leave the above 'versions' alone and provide analysis here and below.

If you want to play only by your 'rules,' then expect the discussion to be locked and the article to be reverted to non-NPOV status. [up yours buddy - stop threatening - and see if you can rise to the task of a minimally civilized debate on the facts and the merit].

Question for author of edited version

Since you're ready for others to come forward, please demonstrate how you are involved with USAA or Koenig. [The sooner USAA's agents and rent-a-shills are prepared to fully identify themselves and to stop anonymously ragging on Koenig, the sooner the real debate can begin].

For the person suggesting the change from the currently approved Wiki version

Why should one side, "get ready to advance some sort of meaningful explanation as to why and how $5 billion of money belonging to the subscribers?" This is an encylopedia, not a forum? [If this discussion page is not a "forum": then exactly what is it??]

[This is an encyclopedia. The article on USAA will describe USAA in terms that compare it to any other similar entities, and where that is not possible, by using unique terms. As it stands, we are at a stage in the debate where we are trying to figure out why USAA has never filed any formal articles of association. There is also the question of USAA's capitalization: the first questions one asks when seeking to understand a "financial entity" are: how much capital; who put it up; when was it put up; and when do the people who put the money up get it back? COL Trues law suit revolves around the last question: when do we get out money back? That is why COL Trues law suit is so important: and that explains why Robert G. Davis is hell bent to leather to suppress any information about COL True's law suit. Now I appreciate that you guys are operating a "shill for hire" operation and that some of these issues may be new to you. That is to say you're long on invective and cutting Koenig down - but one fry short of a full Taco in the upstairs department when it comes to corporate analysis. Try it out. Learn the facts of the matter and learn how to debate. I'm here to have a good time: are you?]

OK - let's start discussing . . .

§ 1 of the proposed alternative version above seeks to substitute, with emphasis, that the United Services Automobile Association is an "unincorporated entity", an "association", in fact an "unincorporated association" which has evidently never filed formal "articles of association" with any Secretary of State anywhere in the United States. Since the small group of men who control USAA can rememdy that problem on a short Friday afternoon before cutting out to the golf course, it is not clear to me why Mr. Koenig or any other person suggesting an alternative view of USAA should have to eat anybody's shit in that account. OK? Now: what about the facts of the matter? Is USAA in fact some sort of legitimately organized Financial Services Company - and if so:

a) where and when did it file its articles of incorporation?
b) how many shares of stock did it issue - or in the alternative - who are the partners or partners/limited partners?

If it is neither a corporation, a partnership, nor a chartered for-profit/not-for-profit association: then it is an "unincorporated association".

This author states that USAA is an "unincorporated association".

Now, how much time would the friends of USAA like to research that question and get back to this discussion page with evidence that USAA is some other sort of formally organized entity?

This is a discussion page: now let's work it out. Phone the office of general counsel (Steven Allan Bennett, 210-456-1800) at USAA and tell him that you have a small problem and could he please fax over the routine ordinary records of the Financial Services Company's organization. You will not get an answer from Mr. Bennett as there ain't none.


Tuck v USAA

The violent ad hominem attacks of "rent-a-shills" armed and paid for by USAA's attorney in fact, Robert G. Davis, and the USAA Board of Directors obscures that for the most part what USAA is and isn't is already settled law: trust the writer when he tells you that Robert F. McDermott, Robert T. Herres, and Robert G. Davis have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to suppress this information - including inducing Nassau County Supreme Court Judge Robert Roberto to jail Robert Koenig for just thinking about this matter: that's right - just for "thinking".

In 1989 (which were the twilight years of AIF Robert F. McDermott miscreant tenure as AIF), an almost unnoticed case resolved against claims settlement evader McDermott and went down in United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.

Tuck v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, 859 F.2d 842 (10th Cir. 1988)

By the way, USAA rent-a-shills, you keep on saying that none of this is researched: beyond that which was spoon fed to you, dribbling down your chins, by Robert G. Davis' PR department, point me to one single piece of sourced research that any one of you has produced to support a position: you all make me vomit.

H. Dale Cook, Chief Judge for United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, ordered as follows: Image:Tuck v usaa para 01.gif

So, it is settled law that USAA is an unincorporated association, and in fact an unincorporated reciprocal inter-insurance exchange. Rent-a-shills: note that Federal District Court Judge H. Dale Cook did not order that USAA was a Financial Services Company.

Judge Cook then went on:

Image:Tuck v usaa para 02.gif

and

Image:Tuck v usaa para 03.gif


As the reader can see, when Robert Koenig commences his law suit against the 2.2 million actual subscribers (not the perjured 5 million member number that Davis keeps on telling you is the number), they are about to learn that the AIF has been appointed to accept service on each member's behalf with respect to damages from the jailing. The law suit can be commenced in any district court in any state of the Union, and as long as there is one USAA "member" in that state, how do they put it . . . you've been served.

Koenig says this: any member who terminates his policies and resigns from USAA right now will be released from the lawsuit. This offer is good until revoked, but does not apply to subscribers of USAA who had scienter of Koenig's jailing and who tacitly approved it.

Tuck v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, 859 F.2d 842 (10th Cir. 1988) tells us that every law suit against USAA is actually a "class action": but in this case it is members of USAA who are the class - not the defendant.

Judge Cook then continued:

Image:Tuck v usaa para 05.gif

Now, Davis rent-a-shills, let's take a look at what Judge Cook said here:

". . .. [the] United Services Automobile Association is an unincorporated association consisting of its subscribers . . .". At no point does Judge Cook state that USAA is any sort of Financial Services Company - nowhere!

This part of Judge Cooks order should send shiver down the spine of any "member"of USAA who has something to lose.

Image:Tuck v usaa para 06.gif

taken in conjunction with this:

Image:Tuck v usaa para 10.gif

shows us that it is the subscriber who is personally and individually served and sued when any claimant commences a legal action against USAA. And the only protection the individual subscriber has against losing his assets is the strength and probity of the attorney in fact.

Well - when the subscriber comes to his senses and understands that he is funding and propping up a Potemkin Village, a so-called Financial Services Company - well there will be a wholesale flight of subscribers from USAA.

The members of USAA are a class of subscribers - a class just waiting to be sued - and sued in a class action.

That's right - a class action: not a class of plaintiffs - but rather a class of defendants. This is a staggering discovery. And when one considers that attorney in fact Robert G. Davis and his 14 member Board of Directors may be operating USAA way outside its charter as an unincorporated reciprocal inter-insurance exchange: well, quite frankly, this could be a formula for disaster.

The USAA directors' defense of lack of scienter is rapidly evaporating under the legal doctrine of willful blindness: the directors can no longer plead ignorance. Each director now knows everything about what is going on at USAA.

Koenig-Accused 'Rent-a-shill' LeyteWolfer responds

I just doubt EVERY conclusion you make, because you have labeled me a pawn of USAA. I am not a member of USAA, I am not hired by USAA and I've never done business with USAA. Therefore, your blanket statements about me are false and hence, cast tremendous doubts on your other blanket statements.

My interest in USAA has only be in regards to how one person (you, Koenigwhatever, and all your 15 sockpuppets) has dictated how Wikipedia and every member of its staff and every reader must see the USAA entry as handled differently than every other article on this internet encyclopedia.

And because I DON'T agree with you wholeheartedly, you label me a hireling of USAA. You base it only on the fact that I don't agree with you. And you've labeled other people who ask questions about YOUR interest similarly: "Well, you're obviously not smart, paying attention or a USAA rent-a-shill and trying to disrupt the TRUTH."

It seems, of all people who have printed any words here, that only YOU have a closed mind and have actually decided that its you against the whole world (since there will be no one else who could possibly see this incident of your arrest in the same way).

As the actual article is now safe from your vandalism, the Wiki system has proven to work....I'll let you froth at the mouth about whatever you want behind the scenes. My comments on this and my doubts regarding ANY conclusion you make based on such spurious evidence are forever immortalized here. So, anyone reading your 'conclusions' will also be exposed to the fact that you quickly try to censor others that cast doubt on your perspective and you use ad hominem attacks to attempt to discredit them. All because they want you to respect Wkipedia's system. Not because we are defending USAA, because we want to defend Wikipedia's reputation.

My final statement for this response: Readers of the USAA discussion page, please consider that you are being exposed to one view point of one person involved in a personal crusade against a company that he holds as responsible for his arrest in Texas. As such, anything he says about USAA must be seen with that filter. Afterall, if you had been charged with a crime by the Coco-Cola corporation, would your friends necessarily believe you'd be operating from an unbiased perspective when you say "Coke is the Devil?" While Koenig (in whatever form he presents himself) may attach documents here, keep in mind that the context may be altered by exclusion of otherwise relevant material and a purposefully-confused chronology of events. Also know, Gentle Readers, that the main article -in itself- will not ever be a soapbox again for any one man's personal crusade.

Thank you.


What do they say LeyteWolfer: you can dish it out but you can't take it. And you can huff and puff, Mr. Wolfer, but you ain't going to blow this house down.

Now, what we have here are two radically different versions of the same entity: the white-bread sanitized "Wikipedia approved" was hammered out by the word-smiths in USAA's PR department: they paint a picture of a lilly-white pure-as-the-driven-snow charitable and suppremely well-capitlized financial services company which lives and breathes to do good things for its members.

Then we have this other William Blakian version of dark satanic mills spewing out a venemous miasma which assassinates members who submit claims and charms legislators, insurance regulators, law enforcement officials, and judges to the detriment of the so-called members.

And now we have LeyteWolfer who huffs and puffs about the darker author and his motivations.

Tell me, LeyteWolfer: point me to one place in the volumes of discussion pages which have sprung up like a vile yellow sulphur well over the last few weeks - point us to one place at which some author, just one, argues that USAA is a duly chartered and organized Financial Services Company.

A writer has cited, chapter and verse, a publicly available 1989 court case which has seminally and secularly defined USAA as an unincorporated reciprocal inter-insurance exchange. Isn't that what we are first debating here?

LeyteWolfer: you perjure yourself by saying that the reader is being exposed to one view. LeyteWolfer: there are two views on this page: count them - 2 views. Please go find somebody to defend the apparently incorrect view that USAA is a financial services company. To even call USAA a company doesn't square with reality: USAA is an unincorporated association. That means that each member can be sued, personally and individually, in every state in the union.

Failure to prove a single piece of evidence

You fail once again to prove your points, so quickly resort to ad hominem attacks. You are so quick to promote your New World Order conspiracy, that you rank the rest of us Wikipedians in with USAA. Take, for example, your attacks against Chiacomo: calling him a "senior bürö-chief of the office of the censor in some Eastern European country before the fall of the Berlin Wall" was a civil response? Only because he asked you to attribute your source? Nice.

[answer All sources have been attributed. Chiacomo knows that: and he has not responded in any meaningful way. In fact, he has faded away except to continue to peremptorily delete wikinews articles about True v USAA. Chaiacomo, who I gather is a creature of the Wikipedia apparatchik, is now the principal agent behind the suppression of Wikinews about True v USAA. In the future, when it is said that the 2.2 million members of USAA were denied the chance to learn about True v USAA, it will be a matter of record that Chiacomo was the censor. I do not make this stuff up.]]

Why do you hate the people, the community that build Wikipedia? What proof do you have that USAA even touched this 'lily white' article?

[answer Are you kidding me: I love Wikipedia. What I can not understand is why Wikipedia won't let a debate on the essential nature of USAA proceed as it will, as it must. The mystery is: why does Wikipedia so agressively champion the USAA PR's department POV. And finally, as it ought to be easy for USAA to offer its articles of incorporation for the purported financial servics company - why is the continued lack of evidence of those articles of formation construed by Wikipedia admins in USAA's favor? Hmmm. Before you stands the emperor without his clothes: Wikipedia seems to be saying that, gee, oh gosh, the emperor has no clothes so we can't show him to be what he actually his. Or - is it perhaps that USAA has made a little donation to the Wikipedia Foundation?]

You can't and you won't. You'll avoid the questions asked of you and claim the ask-er is evil. And all your claims to sue 2 million+ members of your bogey-man company amounts to a bag of hot air. I challenge you to file even one lawsuit against one member by the end of March, without hiding behind further made-up clauses of 'gag orders' and ad hominem attacks.

[answer As Eliza Doolittle said, just you wait Henry Higgins.]

Shame on you, Mr. Koenig. Shame. [Shame on Wikipedia for tilting the playing field.]

Summary Arguments

The witching hour, when the correct description of USAA's essential corporate structure is to be posted to the Main Article Page, approaches.

The issue to be proven was:

§1) United Services Automobile Association is an unincorporated association.

That USAA is principally an unincorporated association, and not a Financial Services Company, is a matter of settled law in Tuck v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, 859 F.2d 842 (10th Cir. 1988).

Many USAA sockpuppets and rent-a-shills, as well as Wikipedia administrators, have vented a great deal of mis-directed and puerile anger at writers who subscribe to a canonically correct description of USAA.

No proponent of the notion that USAA is a financial services company has emerged: and any record of a filing with any Secretary of State to that effect is lacking.

QED!

This is to ask the Wiki administrator overseeing this effort to unlock the main article page so that it can be conformed with the fact(s).

This is also to ask Mr. Jimbo Wales and the Wikipedia Foundation to certify that it has accepted no donation from United Services Automobile Association, either directly or indirectly. If USAA has made a donation to Wikipedia, please disclose details of same.

And finally, readers are asked to note that Google must not be too dumb: Google has stopped indexing the main article page and is presenting this talk page as the de facto main page for USAA. This is an outcome which could not have been googlebombed: it just reflects Google's AI POV on "where is the vig". Nobody wants to read USAA's PR - everybody wants to know about the cat-fight between the wiki administrators and the impudent upstart.

See Googlebomb. And please sign your contributions. Remain anonymous if you feel you must but it's damn confusing trying to attribute statements on this page. It does not help your credibility. --Mmx1 15:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Exactly which anonymous statements are you referring to? This entire page is a dog's breakfast of people attacking eachother. There seems to be very little doubt about the identity of the writer who seeks to substitute a view that USAA is an unincorporated entity. What about all the others who argue against it. They aren't being attacked - yet they carefully disguise their identity. Mmx1 - to proposing a double standard.

[Archive 1] [Archive 2] [Archive 3] [Archive 4] [Archive 5]

Tilting At Windmills

There's only one person attacking anybody, and that's Koenig attacking everybody, but USAA. He wants people to make definite statements how who employs them, who has received donations from whom and demands posters indicate who they are, abandoning the whole 'handle' side of the internet so that he can sue them, but refuses to identify himself properly in turn.

Tilt away, little man, tilt away.

Onward, Sancho.

I, however, intend to see what the exact charges against Robert Koenig in Texas are. Let's see what he /doesn't/ want this community to know about his case. So when Koenig hides that contact info from his own webpage, the numbers are: Nassau County Deputy Sheriff Lieutenant Miritello, (516) 571-2159 and Nassau County Deputy Sherif Sergeant MacKintosh, (516) 571-2186. Every wiki USAA rent--shill should call these two Sheriff's Deputies right now, and be sure to say that the information was originally posted on the internet by Robert Koenig on his extraordinary--rendition.blogspot.com (which is archived in Google cache and the Internet Archive, when Koenig gets too scared to keep it up). It'll be interesting to see what the charges are.

Oh, and to Administrator Splash: my vote is to keep the subject article locked from any further vandalism by Koenig. Thanks. --User:LeyteWolfer

That's apparent from the changelogs but just wanted to emphasize that for the readers. Would help if you signed your posts, too. :-)--Mmx1 16:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right, Mmx1...my bad. It is the right thing to do. --User:LeyteWolfer


Comprehensive information on the circumstances surrounding Koenig's arrest and incarceration can be obtained directly from:

Edward Reilly
Sheriff
Nassau County Sheriff’s Department
240 Old Country Rd
Mineola, NY 11501-4245
516.572.4100
ereilly@nassaucountyny.gov

As is noted above, the Sheriffs who were paid by Robert G. Davis to perform the arrest:

Lieutenant Miritello, (516) 571-2159
and
Deputy MacKintosh, (516) 571-2186

can probably share with readers and rent-a-shills alike the exact language of Judge Robert Roberto's order which jailed Koenig.

Phone calls to the chambers of practically any and all of these judges will also yield lots of information: most of these Texas judges had a hand at some point in promulgating the orders which jailed Koenig.

45th Civil DC - Judge Barbara Hanson Nellermoe, Bexar County Distict Court, (210)335-2507
57th Civil DC - Judge Pat Boone, Bexar County Distict Court, (210)335-2531
73rd Civil DC - Judge Andy Mireles, Bexar County Distict Court, (210)335-2523
131th Civil DC - John D. Gabriel, Bexar County Distict Court, (210)335-2521
150th Civil DC - Judge Janet Littlejohn, Bexar County Distict Court, (210)335-2533
166th Civil DC - Judge Martha Tanner, Bexar County Distict Court, (210)335-2501
224th Civil DC - Judge David Peeples, Bexar County Distict Court, (210)335-2132
225th Civil DC - Judge John J. Specia Jr., Bexar County Distict Court, (210)335-2233
285th Civil DC - Judge Michael Peden, Bexar County Distict Court, (210)335-2086
288th Civil DC - Judge Frank Montalvo, Bexar County Distict Court, (210)335-2663
289th District Court - Judge Carmen Kelsey, Bexar County Distict Court, (210)531-1185
407th Civil District Court - Judge Karen Pozza, Bexar County Distict Court, (210)335-2462
408th Civil District Court - Judge Rebecca Simmons, Bexar County Distict Court, (210)335-2831

The judges in bold might give eager Wikipedians the greatest immediate rewards: the reader will note that all the judges involved were civil judges, not criminal judges. You might start with Judge Andy Mireles and ask him exactly, according to his own records: what exactly did Koenig do? Exactly. It will be very interesting to see if Judge Andy Mireles will be forthright. You have to understand, Judge Andy Mireles was justice's point man for one the finest moments in judicial history.

And then again, there are the two lawyers from Fullbright and Jaworski who can detail USAA's side in the matter: what exactly was the horrible crime that Koenig committed?

[Michael O'Donnell]
and
[Robert G. Newman]

"Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war!".

An Olive Branch of Appeasement

Why don't the parties stop talking at each other and speak to the issue. The issue is:

How is United Services Automobile Exchange best described? what is the best encyclopedic description of USAA?

It is not necessary for the Robert G. Davis PR/flack department to be right anymore than it is for hyper-critical conspiracy-finding Koenig and his dark-avenging angels to be the rightious ones. All that should matter, in the final analysis, is whether the encyclopedic description of USAA is the best possible description. It would be earnestly wikipedianesque to use this instance as an example of how to proceed in the future in wiki-factional warfare. What about 2 USAA main articles: the official USAA-sponsored one (donations and all) and the alternative version: cross linked.


a) please sign posts.
b) see WP:POVFORK. There cannot be two versions of it. --Mmx1 20:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
c) who says?
From the link: "POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Point of Views on a certain subject are treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be nominated for deletion. Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" — except in extreme cases of repeated vandalism. Instead, assert the application of NPOV policy — regardless of any POV reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in an NPOV-consistent manner. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance — or that the person making it has mistakenly claimed a kind of "ownership" over it.
The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article (in some cases people have even converted existing redirects into content forks.) However, a new article can be a POV fork even if its title is not a synonym of an existing article title. If one has tried to get one's personal theory that heavier-than-air flight has never occurred inserted into existing aviation articles and other editors have rejected it as absurd, the answer is not to create Unanswered questions about heavier-than-air flight." --Mmx1 21:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
You've got to kidding me. I need a lawyer to understand this. So the Jimbo Wales Wikipedia stance is that there is only one version of the facts - the version voted on by rent-a-shills. Who, among you, has supported one single fact alleged to be correct - except for Koenig. Koenig has documented everything he says - chapter and verse. It is a matter of well-settled case law that USAA is an unincorporated association. Not one person has stepped up to challenge that conclusion with a fact - not one.
The only apparent concern of the assembled wiki-shills is to speculate on why Koenig was arrested. All the parties, and their phone numbers, are listed above. Go for it: phone the lawyers and the judges and ask!!!

Koenig has done no such thing: I think he violated a restraining order requiring him to remain 500 yards away from the children of Robert Davis, and I think it was a teacher at the school he had staked out that actually called the cops, and when he drove away, the same teacher followed him to the address at which he was eventually arrested. Thanks to Deputy MacKintosh. Case closed.