Talk:USAA/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:USAA  (Redirected from Talk:USAA/Archive03)
Jump to: navigation, search

This lays out a proposal for a material and substantial set of additions to the article on USAA.

The essential purpose and objective of these additions is to pay special attention and to give an appropriate level of emphasis to USAA's special and often unique characteristics. It seems pointless to use Wikipedia as a forum for a white-bread regurgitation of what USAA already publishes on its own website. Those who want to read what USAA feels to be "the truth" about itself can go to the USAA web site.

These are the topics and sub-topics which should be laid out in order to fully understand how USAA operates.

This writer understands that there are some readers and fellow Wikipedians who have a somewhat proprietary feeling for USAA: and seeing it like some sort of club they they belong to, they feel compelled to defend it and to personally criticize those who might write something less than perfectly comforting about USAA.

Why don't we see if we can stick to the facts and debate the issues.

Proposed section titled "un-allocated" "un-assigned" "surplus"

This new section opens up a discussion thread on the issue of $5 billion which USAA is "holding" in "unassigned surplus".

The legal issues disputed in COL True v United Services Automobile Association, and USAA's Response to Interrogatories tells us that the $5 billion in "un-assigned surplus" is broken down into 2 categories:

  • "allocated" un-assigned surplus: and,
  • "unallocated" un-assigned surplus.

Very simply put, here is the question!: how did Robert F. McDermott, and after him Robert T. Herres, and now Robert G. Davis manage to set $5 billion aside?

I can't imagine one reason why such a simple elemental question doesn't invite a clear, concise, and declaratory response from Robert G. Davis and his 14-member Board of Directors.

Furthermore, why have the resources of law firms Fulbright & Jaworski, Akin Gump, and New York lawyer James O. Drucker been so focused on the task of getting Robert J. Koenig into jail for 7 days in December for persisting in talking about this matter?

Why have the majority of the Judges of Texas' Bexar County District Court coalesced around Robert G. Davis, practically genuflecting before USAA by shutting Koenig up and putting him in jail: this guy [Koenig] must know something that these Texas judges don't want to get out. What other possible reason could there be?

[Remember, movmentarian and others: this is a discussion page . . . Please ask questions! Ask Koenig to post the information on why and how New York State Supreme Court Judge Robert Roberto came to order him into jail for 7 days of solitary confinement].

As USAA is an unincorporated association, or more specifically, an unincorporated reciprocal inter-interinsurance exchange wherein the subscribers' funds are held in a sacred and sacrosanct trust, to used solely for their benefit: how and why was the $5 billion put aside?

And: what part has inappropriate litigation and perhaps even unlawful litigation against its own members played in the opaque mechanisms by which McDermott, Herres, and now Davis have converted the $5 billion.

Proposed section titled "Is USAA a Trust?"

Trust? What is a "trust"? What is a "trustee"? When McDermott held himself out as the subscriber's "attorney in fact", what exactly did that mean? Or what does "it", i.e. "attorney in fact", mean in a general sense?

What is an "attorney in fact"? May an "attorney in fact" invade funds entrusted to his care? May an "attorney in fact" set aside a USAA member's funds in a "litigation reserve" rather than returning the money to the member? If Robert G. Davis sets aside (in the litigation reserve, as a by-product of litigation against that same member) a member's own insurance settlement money, may Robert G. Davis use that money to fund the day-to-day operations of the unincoporated association - just because he happens to have the cash?

Hmmm: all good questions. And all questions which hone in on "what exactly is USAA?".

May McDermott, Herres, and Davis use the funds belonging to COL True, or any other member, to make political donations to President Bush's campaign? Does Robert G. Davis purposefully subscribe to a formal policy of mis-describing political donations, sometimes as coming from "USAA" and sometimes from "United Services Automobile Association": it seems so.

When Robert G. Davis, who after all only heads up a "unincorporated association" uses the authority granted to him to put Robert J. Koenig in jail for asking these questions: then who has really put Koenig in jail?

Maybe each of the 5 million members of USAA is individually and personally liable to Koenig for a manifest 42 U.S.C. 1983 violation of his ordinary rights. Perhaps each of the 14 "directors" of this unincorporated association is individually and personally responsible for Davis' excesses: his serial abuses of discretion? "Jail" - jail for questioning how USAA comes to have accreted $5 billion? Every Texas Bexar County District Court Judge who issued an ex parte order against Koenig (who was thousands of miles away) knew that Robert G. Davis' sole intent was to jail Koenig: it seems to me that every Bexar County District Court Judge is now in an extremely uncomfortable position. These judges and their lawyers are all studying up on 42 U.S.C. 1983: the implications of a purposeful, witting and willing inter-state conspiracy by a cabal of Texas Judges to deny a citizen of another state of his freedom - and to do so under color of law - when Robert G. Davis and his lawyers had not, have not, and still do not even alleged that Koenig has ever said anything but the truth . . . Well, that is a very serious matter indeed. Remember, of course, that the Bexar County District Court also engages routinely in the practice of ordering the execution of innocents. Let's hear from the Bexar County DA that this isn't true; she, at the time a sitting judge, herself, stood by, idly, while another judge who was seeking to be the new Texas Attorney General slaughtered an innocent accused.

This same DA has sat by and knitted while the Bexar County Judiciary conspired to jail Koenig: and as Koenig sat in a New York jail, incommunicado, in solitary confinement, swept up by 4 Nasssau County Sheriffs in the direct pay of Robert G. Davis, all their campaign coffers overflowed with contributions from USAA.

Hmmm: the plot thickens. Do they put something in the water in Texas?

Proposed section titled "Structure"

Is USAA either an "association", a "club", "corporation", a "sole proprietorship", a "partnership", a "financial services company", an "insurance holding company", an "LLC", a "limited partnership", or simply an "unincorporated reciprocal inter-insurance exchange"?

Or, as Brigadier General Smedley Butler USMC, the most highly decorated Marine in US History and a double-winner of the Medal of Honor said:

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war [business/enterprise] a few people make huge fortunes.

USAA is all these things, simultaneously and variably, depending on the situation and how the viewing party sees things or wants to see things at the time.

Strictly speaking, USAA is only an unincorporated reciprocal inter-insurance exchange: there is absolutely no filing with any government anywhere in the world in which USAA states that it is an "association"!

This is a vexing issue as USAA would dearly like to be seen as an "association": but the fact of the matter is that a person is a "member" of USAA only when he/she has a policy in force. This situation is further confused by the apparent contradiction that while one may not have not insurance policy in force at a particular moment, and thus lacking a formal "membership" in the purported "association", that one can still have a Life Insurance Policy in force, an account at USAA Federal Savings Bank, and a USAA mutual fund.

So, if USAA is either an "association" or a "club", it is a "membership organization" which one belongs to, strictly speaking, only when one has a Property and Casualty insurance policy in force: but that "membership priviledges", as to Life Insurance, Banking facilities, and the purchase of mutual funds seems to exist independant of "memberhip in the association".

You're operating under a misaphrension. The USAA Federal Savings Bank, Investment Management Company, Life Company as well as the internal Information Technology Company are all seperate incorporated entities (legally anyway, although the President and CEO of the Bank still reports to Robert Davis.) and therefore do not need to operate under the P&C Group's eligibility requirements. 19:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Never said they did! I'm trying to define the "structure of USAA": if anybody can belong to USAA Federal Savings Bank, Investment Management Company, the Life Company and the internal Information Technology Company - then what exact is USAA? Who owns those entities: USAA Federal Savings Bank, Investment Management Company, the Life Company and the internal Information Technology Company? If USAA is an unincorporated association with the limited brief, at best, to operate a reciprocal inter-insurabnce exchange - then who owns those subsidiaries? 01:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

If these subleties and distinctions seem confusing: they are. And that is the fly in the ointment at USAA. These questions never seem to elicit any sort of response from the hierarchy at at USAA except for fairly aggressive spam commenting and occasional law suits.

I am having trouble understanding exactly what your proposal is. If you want to insert the above text, then i would have to say no. If you want to comment on the structure of the company, then that would be fine. There is no reason to stick a discussion about what kind of company USAA is because it is based on original research. When you get down to it, USAA is a financial services company. They offer a variety of different options to thier members in the insurance and banking arenas. You are correct that one must have a property or casualty insurance policy in order to be a voting member, but that can simply be mentioned in one sentence and certainly does not make the company as evil as you would attempt to paint them. It would also be very helpful if you would add edit summaries to your posts. Cheers. Movementarian (Talk) 06:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Movementarian: you belittle and humiliate yourself by constantly running me down rather than arguing the merits. Why can't you show that you have some intelligence beyond knowing how to stick your hand out for emolument from USAA to defend the company. What I am trying to write here, regardless the motive, is the seminal description of USAA: what, exactly, is USAA? I actually don't know what USAA is. I can not understand how an entity which purports to be some sort of organized association can do so unless there is some legal basis for its existence, as such. That is not to infer evil. But it does, unfortunately, lay out a premise for a fundamental instability which might explain McDermott's, Herres's and Davis's lack of candor when it comes to explaining how, exactly, they have accreted $5 billion of unassigned surplus. Also remaining to be explained is how much McDermott, Herres and Davis are paid: or to put it exactly, how much they are paid by USAA, the "association/URIE, and then how much they are paid by the other affiliates, subsidiaries, and associated companies? So, to refine the question: how did this "association", whatever it is exactly (legally speaking), acquire $5 billion, and how much do McDermott, Herres and Davis get paid from each of the affiliated entities, and how much is each paid in total. Movementarian: while we all know that you are paid to throw yourself down on the ground and to prostrate yourself in front of any wildman with a bulldozer who presumes to even criticize Davis, how about you try to answer those questions: not so much the answer(s), if indeed they are knowable - but more the issue of why those questions can not and should not be explored. It is true, as you know, that I have gone through bankruptcy and have served time in jail in pursuit of thoe questions. My nose tells me that there is a massive fraud afoot at USAA. I have repeatedly offered to meet with Davis whenever and whereever he wishes to discuss these matters: his response has been to send sheriffs to arrest me.
So - Movementarian:
Question # 1: as Texas law provides a clear path for not-for-profit associations to register with the Texas Secretary of State . . . why has USAA never registered as an association.
Question # 2: why does there exist this odd and contradictory moment of inflection, when a "member" departs "the association", and leaves a lot of his/her money lying on the table? Would you like to see my letters to Ronnie Earle, the Travis County District Attorney on the subject. I'd like to see DA Earle empanel a Grand Jury to determine how Davis accreted $5 billion. But in truth, I'd prefer to see Davis and his Board of Directors empanel their own committee with outside members (like you and me) to resolve this issue.
Six months after a member closes his or her final line of P&C business with USAA, either as a result of death or choice (either his or hers or USAA's to no longer insure them), the total balance of that member's SSA is forwarded to that person or his or her estate. While it may be seen as an 'interest free loan' for those six months USAA is within the laws that allows reciprocals to gain capital in this manner. USAA is not the only reciprocal that employs this method. 19:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Question # 3: why is USAA attorney on fact Robert G. Davis pursuing $2 billion of litigation against his own "members"?
I have been very patient with you Mr. Koenig, however I will only issue this warning once. Do not make personal attacks against other users.. Movementarian (Talk) 10:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know that Robert Davis is a wikipedia user but regardless I am skeptical about Mr. Koenig's numbers. That any insurance company is involved in litigation with its subscribers is as unavoidable as disagreements in settlement, coverage, etc. I'm suspiscious because the general counsel of USAA doesn't publish information on current litigation publicly unless required by law, and it isn't. The only way to quantify the amount of intra-USAA litigation would be to access the public court records of every district that USAA does business in for current litigation which would be a monstrous task, and even then how would you convert a hypothetical amount of people suing or being sued by USAA to a dollar amount? It sounds like you're just making all this up. A question worth asking would be - Is USAA involved in litigation with its customers more often than other insurance companies? I don't know how you could answer that, but I suspect that it is not. 13:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Now with the unpleasantness out of the way. The issues that you raise may serve well in other forums, but not on Wikipedia. I have not refused to answer your questions, I have merely pointed out that your contributions must meet certain requirements. I have posted those reqirements on this talk page and your user pages. Other users have tried to communicate this fact to you as well, but you have not listened. I seriously suggest that you take the time to read the policies and guidlines that have been pointed out so many times and perhaps you will understand what I am getting at. As I have said before, I have no personal stake in USAA. All I would like is a factual neutral article regardless of the content. Movementarian (Talk) 10:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I am an attorney with USAA's litigation department. Obviously I can't identify myself or I'd be fired and then put in jail along with Mr. Koenig. The issues raised about USAA's organizational structure are
  • OK - Movementarian: you (and any other interested parties) have had more than one month to chime in with some sort of commentary as to the above essay on USSA's structure. I genuinely wish that there had been some high-quality discussion on the question: and I find movmentarian's puerile contributions, such as they were, to have been more of play-period during the third grade than the considered thought of a person who claims he is a law-enforcement officer. The "question" as to USAA's essential structure remains largely undiscussed and unresolved: and as USAA's essential structure is so difficult to pin down, USAA's tendency towards some sort of almost chimera-like qualities is suitable for posting. This is my suggestion for an abstract of the final posting: which I intend to complete on Monday, 13 February 2006:

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".

USAA Attorney and Cop suppressing truth!!!

The attorney for USAA that is dogging this entry must know something that USAA knows and does not want the world to know.

The cop dogging this entry has no idea what he is talking about, and has no interest in this entry being accurate. He has bullied Mr Koenig into silence!

USAA's very own initial entry was propaganda!

The real truth about where USAA got its money, and who that money belongs to seems to be winding its way through the courts.

Google "True v. USAA" and see what comes up?

There is something behind all this.

private e-mail from Mr. Koenig

Mr. Koenig, thank you for the e-mail you sent me. I think, though, that this talk page is the best place for discussion relating to the article USAA. --Allen 00:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

February 14, 2006

To: Allen McBride E-mail: Current location: Durham, NC Home: Oak Ridge, TN

Dear Mr. McBride:

I note that you are a senior-level embedded editor at Wikipedia.

At your very kind invitation and express request, the text of the email I sent you follows herewith:

Dear Mr. McBride:
I haven't had to defend myself before a Swarthmore man since defending my thesis in International Relations before my Swarthmore graduate Department Head (in that same major):
I hope that I can be slightly more agreeable to you than I was to him (actually, he liked me a lot and helped me get into Harvard for Graduate School:.
I am writing about your edit(s) to:
You claimed that my new work was defective due to "unsourced claims about military drivers" [sic].
If only you knew what you were talking about.
Annexed is Chapter 1 from USAA - Tradition of Service: that chapter lays out the official USAA view on the matter.
I object to (and slightly resent) your somewhat impetuous conclusion that I have not done my home work.
You may, if you wish, disagree: but if you want me to source and footnote, tell me how. And then please enforce the same standards on the other writers. OK?
I have done my homework: and I'd appreciate the opportunity to defend and justify before you next delete.
I know more about USAA than any other person in the globe. Read this:
As for the "redundancy"of "unincorporated": you are entitled to that view.
However, it is at the very least a truthful redundancy.
Since USAA is in fact an unincorporated business, in essence a "partnership" of 5.5 million USAA members who individually and personally stand behind the claims of every other member (that's right, you know - read the above chapter!!), USAA's constant use of the term "company", with Presidents, and Directors, and all the paraphernalia of corporations is untruthfully and misleadingly redundant.
USAA is run by a small group of men who are very anxious to draw the readers eye away from the essential commercial structure of USAA: which is UNINCORPORATED. Do you now understand?
Now: you please suggest to me how it can be emphasized that USAA is an "unincorporated entity": it is not my fault that each of the 5.5 million members may find themselves personally and individually liable for far more than they are being told.
Thank you.
I'd now like your permission to revert.
I enclose a letter written to a Wikinews Editor: I suggest that you get out of the way on this matter as when this matter settles, the fall out could be professionally fatal. This is a much bigger thing than you can imagine. I know: I've gone to jail for my views.

(Allen's response:) Dear Mr. Koenig,

Thank you for your message on my talk page. You're right; it was rude of me to point you to this talk page and then not respond when you re-posted your e-mail here. I cannot formally give you permission to revert my edits, but I will continue to revert unsourced allegations and self-referential edits (edits to the article that refer to the article as an article, or to the editing process). So in that informal sense, no; you do not have my permission to revert my edits. As Movementarian and others have pointed out before, some of your ideas could reasonably be included in the article, if they were sourced in a way that they didn't look like original research.

--Allen 17:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)