http://www.midas.com/Portals/_default/Skins/Midas2/images/PledgeBar_Internal.gif
At Midas, we will always do right by you and your car - and help keep
you safely on the road

"we will always do right by you and your car" -pledge
FELDMAN ALAN D
(Last)  (First) (Middle)
MIDAS, INC., 1300 ARLINGTON HEIGHTS ROAD
(Street)
ITASCA  IL      60143


Chairman, CEO & President

Robbin Stewart	2/16/09
to me

Midas is committed to earning your trust by providing you with the
expertise, value and responsiveness you expect... every time you visit
us.

We believe that auto care should be a hassle-free experience. For over
50 years, we have built trusted customer relationships based on Midas
reliability and professional service. And because we know that quality
parts and services are important to you, we stand behind them with our
guarantees.

In fact, we guarantee* all our work. And, we're known for our
lifetime-guaranteed brake pads, shoes, mufflers and shocks and
struts*. Our lifetime guarantee is valid for as long as you own your
car.

Yes, we are a company on the move, motivated by the values that have
made us a success: trust, service, reliability and the famous
"Customer First" commitment that built the Midas brand.

Robbin Stewart	2/16/09
to me

they refused to do anything.
Midas International Corporation
1300 Arlington Heights Road
Itasca, IL 60143
(800) 365-0007
they will send me a letter saying so.

Robbin Stewart	2/16/09
to me

customer service 800 365 0007 on phone now, she gets it. like if i
came to your house and broke a mirror

Robbin Stewart	2/16/09
to me

BBB of Central Indiana
(Indianapolis, IN)
22 E. Washington St., Ste. 200
Indianapolis, IN 46204-3584
Phone: (317)488-2222
Fax: (317)488-2224
Email: info@indybbb.org
Web: http://www.indybbb.org

Robbin Stewart	3/10/09
to me

To: Alan Feldman
CEO Midas Muffler
Itaska IL 60143
Recently I went to Midas for a free brake inspection on my 1988 *ol*o.
 While my car was being inspeced, my master cylinder broke. I was
charged $250 to replace it.

This was aboe and beyond the $500 estimate I was gi*en for fixing my
brakes. I had declined the repair, since the price seemed high, and
was only there for the free inspection. I later had the needed work -
replacing front and back pads - done for $130.00. That machanic said
my rear rotors were fine and did not need replacing. This was on a car
I bought for $700.

I object to being charged $250 for a free brake inspection. The master
cylinder was not broken when I brought it there, or when they
inspected it, but only broke when they put it back together. I am not
claiming they broke it on purpose.
That master cylinder has worked fine 24 hours a day since 1988, and
for 150,000 miles. The odds are highly against it breaking by itself
while it just happened to be in your shop. It broke because of whateer
your employees did  or didn't do to it.
I am claiming that I should not be responsible if something breaks
while it is in your custody and control for a free brake inspection.
This happened o*er the weekend when the home office was closed.
On Monday I called you customer ser*ice line. At first the
representati*e understood my problem. She said "if I come to your
house and break a mirror, you shouldn't be responsible for that." But
after she talked to the local franchise, she wouldn't help me resol*e
the problem and was not willing to refund or adjust the $250 I was
charged for a free inspection. I asked her to send me a letter
documenting the company's position,and she said she would. Two weeks
later, I ha*e not gotten  the letter.

In coming to Midas, I relied on your reputation for quality, honesty,
fairness, and free brake inspections.
Your company pledge is

> Midas is committed to earning your trust by providing you with the
> expertise, value and responsiveness you expect... every time you visit
> us.
>
> We believe that auto care should be a hassle-free experience. For over
> 50 years, we have built trusted customer relationships based on Midas
> reliability and professional service. And because we know that quality
> parts and services are important to you, we stand behind them with our
> guarantees.
>

> In fact, we guarantee all our work. >

> Yes, we are a company on the move, motivated by the values that have
> made us a success: trust, service, reliability and the famous
> "Customer First" commitment that built the Midas brand.

>> "we will always do right by you and your car"

Please let me know if you personally, Mr. Feldman, agree with how this
has been handled,a nd whether or not you feel I should ha*e to pay
$250 for a free brake inspection.

Sincerely,
Robbin Stewart

Box 29164 Cumberland In 46229 gtbear@gmail.com.

cc: BBB.

tort claims

evansville
u indy officer khan
harrison college
chicago midway
shepard community center

who what when where how issue key facts
evansville

I was stopped on highway 41 on the north side of evansville on october 30 or 31 2011 by evasville police officers. john doe 1 and 2. they were joined by john doe officer 3 and his dog.
the stop was proper and is uncontested. it concerned a broken taillight. i was using my flashers instead of the taillight.

the officer began by demanding my license and registration, but then ordered me out of the car and conducted a terry-type stop and frisk. other then vehicle infractions, no crime was occurring or reasonably suspected. i and my passenger was unarmed, calm, cooperative, with no criminal record. i am a mild-mannered retired attorney. i was driving a 1988 volvo station wagon.

i verbally objected, calmly but determinedly. i clarified that i was not waving any of my constitutional rights, did not consent to a search, and stated that there were no terry-type indicia which would authorize a search.
he stated that he frisks everybody he stops, that rt 41 is a drug corridor,and that he had a "hunch".

he then demanded the drivers license of my passenger, a second constitutional violation. my passenger was not reasonably suspected of any crime, and did not act in a threatening manner toward the officers.
the search of his papers was not supported by articulable reasonable suspicion.

the officer took a long time to check my license and registration and write three tickets, during which the third officer arrived and conducted a dog sniff of the vehicle, which was negative. this is not itself subject to a tort claim since whren establishes that even pretextual tickets can be the basis of a stop, and Edmonds v Indianapolis establishes that a dog sniff is not a search.

Edmonds was a case that found Indiana's drug roadblocks unconstitutional. One of the two plaintiffs, Joell Palmer, is a friend and former client of mine, and I was with him at the Supreme Court when his case was heard, although I was there as a spectator. I have a strong personal and professional interest in opposing constitutional violations by Indiana officials. In 2010 I was the republican candidate for seat 100 of the Indiana legislature, although I did not win. On one occasion, Stewart v Taylor, I have won a case in federal court finding an Indiana statute unconstitutional. On another occasion, Majors v Abell, I brought a case against Vanderburgh County that eventually lost, after at least 5 years of litigtion. (cite.) My guess is that Vanderburg county incurred thousands of dollars in payments to the Harrison Law Firm in that case. This case could easily be at least that expensive.

I am quite willing and able to make a federal case out of having been unconstitutionally seized and searched.
Since the officer stated that it is his practice to frisk everyone he stops, this could become a class action, with hundreds or thousands of plaintiffs. I will seek, in addition to damages, prospective injunctive relief.

However, I am mostly retired. My focus these days is mostly on participating in clinical trials of new lifesaving medicines. One of the places I have been doing this is at Covance in Evansville. If I cannot safely come to Evansville without the fear of my constitutional rights being violated, I will be discouraged from continuing to do that.  I would be willing to settle this dispute if the ticket against me are dismissed and or the fines repaid, and a written apology. In the Stewart v Taylor case, which resulted in an award of $7000, I had initially only asked for a letter of apology.

issue: terry-type stop every time, no reasonable suspicion.


Because the balance between public interest and
an individual’s right to personal security tilts in favor of a lower standard than probable
cause, reasonable suspicion that criminal activity “may be afoot” is sufficient to justify such
investigatory stops. Id.
Reasonable suspicion requires that there be “some objective manifestation that the
person stopped is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity.” Cortez, 449 U.S. at 417.
While there is no set of hard-and-fast rules to determine what constitutes reasonable
suspicion, Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 274, a mere “hunch” is insufficient. Terry, 392 U.S. at 27.
When reviewing investigatory stops for reasonable suspicion, we “look at the ‘totality of the
circumstances’ of each case to see whether the detaining officer has a ‘particularized and
objective basis’ for suspecting legal wrongdoing.” Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 273 (citing Cortez,
449 U.S. at 417-418).
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/01061201lmb.pdf

MICHAEL WOODSON, v STATE OF INDIANA






u indy officer khan

issue: brandishing weapon during routine trafifc stop

authority: rutherford v chin, 9th circuit, pulling gun is excessive force in routine stop.
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Rutherford-BOP.pdf
9th circuit is not indiana, but mentions a 7th circuit case.


harrison college - issue - brandishing taser, pointed at me,
who: unknown police officer.
when: about 9 pm night of last game of cardinals world series

chicago midway - issue - denied access to airplane unless showed government ID
authority: gilmore v gonzalez
when: approximtely dec 22 2012. who: tsa, chicago cop. (but tsa only D). do not have names.
http://www.papersplease.org/gilmore/_dl/GilmoreDecision.pdf
to do: contact chicago aclu, froomkin.

William M. Simpich, Oakland, California; James P. Harrison,
Sacramento, California, for the plaintiff-appellant.

simpich 1736 Franklin Street Floor 10th

Oakland, CA 94612-3437


Deborah Pierce and Linda Ackerman, San Francisco, California; Rachel Meeropol, New York, New York, for amici The
Center for Constitutional Rights and Privacy Activism. 
Reginald T. Shuford and Catherine Y. Kim, New York, New
York; Aaron Caplan, Seattle, Washington; Michael E. Kipling, Summit Law Group, Seattle, Washington, for amici
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation and American
Civil Liberties Union for Washington. 







shepard community center - issue - brandishing gun, excessive force by off duty officer when no law broken, was only a future trespass warning.
 rutherford v chin, 9th circuit, pulling gun is excessive force in routine stop.
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Rutherford-BOP.pdf
9th circuit is not indiana, but mentions a 7th circuit case.

covance notes

http://www.care2.com/news/member/176104477/192411

so a week ago i was sharing a room in a study with a guy.
he had a story about how he got banned from covance and how jalr got banned from discussing covance.