Instead of grandstanding for public relations purposes as he runs for the U.S. Senate, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal might want to reorder his priorities so that his staff focuses on complaints that actually impact his constituants.
For instance, state Consumer Protection Commissioner Jerry Farrell Jr. last spring formally asked Blumenthal to take legal action against Bond Dinettes in Newington after dozens of customers complained of being ripped off, lied to, and jerked around on their furniture orders. Farrell’s office spent months investigating Bond and he doesn’t lightly ask for legal action.
Blumenthal, who by then announced that he would run for the Senate seat being vacated by Chris Dodd, did not even have the courtesy of responding to Farrell as he shelved the request. Farrell – whom I had to tell had his request turned down – said it had never happened before.
Blumenthal – who in the past showed little regard for how his decisions impact on business – is now sensitive to claims made by conservatives that he is anti-business.
He as much indicated that he did not want to put out of business a small company, even if the company takes customer deposits and payments, keeps them as long as 18 months, and tells them that the reason their orders haven’t come in is because the factory is behind. Sure, the factory is behind, because Bond keeps the money instead of turning it over to the factory.
Blumenthal, in a prepared statements to questions I raised in May said in a prepared statement:
“Our ongoing settlement discussions, which we hope will produce prompt refunds or delivery for consumers, offer the quickest and most comprehensive remedies.
Rather than litigation, which will be costly and time consuming, a settlement under these specific circumstances will assure more immediate money or products for consumers who have been harmed and protect consumers in the future by providing more comprehensive disclosures by the company.
“The company, after doing business in Connecticut for more than 35 years, has suffered a significant sales decline over at least the past year that has resulted in credit problems and other financial hardships.”
Interesting that none of the other furniture companies in Connecticut are under investigation for similar acts.
Well, let’s just see how Blumenthal’s be kind to lying businesses tact is working out. The following is an email I received this week from the latest Bond Dinettes victim:
“I have an issue wiith Bond Dinettes as many other customers have had in the past.
After repeated calls and a visit at the store I have only received 2 calls back in the past 9 months both asking me to fax my order.
They blame the manufacturer. The last of the 2 calls I was very angry. The lady said she was the only one in the office so she wasn’t able to answer my questions.
After 9 months the most I get on a call is another request for my order and someone who can’t answer my questions.
I have filed a complaint with the BBB, and they did not receive any response after 2 attempts. I just sent a letter to the attorney general.
The reason I am contacting you is that I saw your article about them on the internet.
When I brought this up to the lady she said that the person who wrote the article was fired because of the article. Is this true? Was there incorrect info. in the article because I am having a similar situation. I just want to know if this is another lie. (It is a lie – I did not fire myself George).
Thank you,
Meghan
So now let’s compare this with the Google investigation of data it collected in producing its street maps. Blumenthal asked other attorneys generals to permit his overworked staff to take the lead on this investigation.
I cannot imagine any reason – other than the publicity that Blumenthal received – for Connecticut to be heading this investigation.
A, its an issue that Google already admitted it made a mistake in. B, its being investigated around the world already by several governments and C the BBC reported this week that the British investigation produced a pretty tepid result as no intended wrongdoing was discovered.
You can read it here.
These are just a few more reasons why Blumenthal should resign immediately and let someone without conflicts of interest, who is credible, lead the AG’s office while he continues what I predict will be a successful run for the Senate. It would be nice to have an Attorney General who could go into a court room and not be asked whether he is still lying about being a combat veteran in Vietnam.
Yet another horribly written, biased and one sided hatchet piece by this blog owner. I suppose since this is your soap box George you can bang this tired lonely drum , but I’ve said before I think this damages your credibility as a “journalist”.
For instance…where do you come up with this comment;
“He as much indicated that he did not want to put out of business a small company”
So you have nothing concrete to back this assertion up, but it sure fits your needs here right?
Another doozy;
“Sure, the factory is behind, because Bond keeps the money instead of turning it over to the factory”
How exactly do you know this? What proof do you have?
As an alleged consumer reporter, I’m disappointed to see that YOU have not tried to contact Bond to get their side of the story. How hard would it have been to stop in and let them know who you were and what you were writing about? How about a phone call, would that have been too burdensome? Instead of doing the basic fact gathering and leg work, you not only slam ol’ Blumy, you take a shot at a local business as well.
Two final points. First, this is a business that has been around for at least 25 years that I can remember. They have serviced thousands of customers every year. Do 12 or 13 complaints really warrant time consuming or lengthy investigations and litigation? Seriously? This isn’t some fly by night company selling furniture out of the back of a truck at some rest stop. Most custom made or higher end furniture takes 10-12 weeks to make. It’s too expensive to keep inventory on hand at the factory or retail store. Bond deals for the most part in custom made items. You want a standard table, go to Raymor and Flannigan and they may have it in stock, at an inflated cost of course.
Second, who leaves a deposit with a check? Ever heard of a credit card? If the store doesn’t produce my item, it’s a simple phone call to the credit card company and the charge is reversed. If I did pay by check and didn’t get my item after 18 months? First I would feel foolish for letting it go on that long. Then I file small claims, and get my money. Oh, and the company of course pays for my filing fee.
I doubt your too fired up at Bond, if you were I’m sure you would have done the story yourself. Instead, it looks like you glommed on to this issue and found a way to turn it in to yet another anti-Blumenthal story. Sad. Transparent. Beneath your abilities (I still cling to that thought).
Years ago my daughter and son-in-law purchased some living room tables from Bond Dinettes. A few months later they noticed the joints in the tables were coming apart. They call Bond Dinettes and talked to the owner about the problem. The owner was very nasty to them and told my son-in-law if he came down there he would punch him out. Needless to say they never got the problem fixed. I never forgot this and have told people through the years never to do business with this company. They should be out of business.
Maybe this answers your questions.
The Nation’s Worst State Attorneys General
Cato-at-liberty
Friday, July 23, 2010
By Ilya Shapiro
Our friends at the Competitive Enterprise Institute have released a new report on the worst state attorneys general in the country. Despite Eliot Spitzer no longer being eligible for consideration, six attorneys general comprise the worst-in-the-nation list:
1. Jerry Brown, California
2. Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut
3. Drew Edmondson, Oklahoma
4. Patrick Lynch, Rhode Island
5. Darrell McGraw, West Virginia
6. William Sorrell, Vermont
The report, authored by Hans Bader (who will be contributing an article to this year’s Cato Supreme Court Review), uses several criteria for determining who made the list of shame: ethical breaches and selective applications of the law; fabricating law; usurping legislative powers; and predatory practices (such as seeking to regulate out-of-state businesses that broke no state law).
Hmmm…how many democrats are on that list?
One only has to look at the name of this “Institute” to get a notion of who backs them. What is their slogan you ask?
Free Markets and Limited Government
Yup, the same right wingers that pushed this concept over the past oh, 30 years or so. How did that work out with the banking, housing, and auto industry? Let’s not forget oil companies too right?
It’s laughable to think that things will always work themselves out with little to no govt involvement. Companies will ALWAYS end up screwing the customers in the name of profits when left to their own rule. History proves that over and over and over again.
Jobs, or keeping companies from breaking the law. You can’t have both.