"Partner with us today to build a better tomorrow" - that's the slogan for @oportun, a predatory lender that sued more poor latinx people during the pandemic than any other.
The company sued longtime customers who'd spent years in a debt-trap of endless payments and refinancing, customers who lost their jobs and missed some of those payments.
2/
It was just an escalation of business-as-usual for a company that has sued 30 customers a day, every day since May 2016. The company filed 10,000 lawsuits in the first five months of the pandemic. They are among the nation's most litigious lenders.
3/
No wonder. With APRs as high as 66.99%, Oportun has guaranteed that vast numbers of borrowers will fail to meet their payments and end up trapped in the company's lawsuit factory.
4/
Now they want to go national. The company - which operates in 12 states today - has applied for a nationwide banking charter. But thanks to reporting from @propublica and the @TexasTribune, they may not get it.
40+ consumer rights and latinx groups cosigned a letter to the @USOCC objecting to Oportun's application. Among the signatories is @WeAreUnidosUS, who partnered with Oportun as recently as 2019.
Oportun promises to draw down its campaign of legal terror against victims of its predatory lending, but that's too little, too late. For the sake of the 10,000+ covid-impoverished families they terrorized at the pandemic's height, they should be shut down, not expanded.
7/
As Parler disappears from the Android and Ios app stores and faces being kicked off of Amazon's (and other) clouds, people who worry about monopolized corporate control over speech are divided over What It Means.
1/
There's an obvious, trivial point to be made here: Twitter, Apple and Google are private companies. When they remove speech on the basis of its content, it's censorship, but it's not GOVERNMENT censorship. It doesn't violate the First Amendment.
2/
And yes, of course it's censorship. They have made a decision about the type and quality of speech they'll permit, and they enforce that decision using the economic, legal and technical tools at their disposal.
3/
In 1963, SCOTUS ruled in Brady v Maryland. They held that when prosecutors called on police officers to testify against a defendant, the prosecutors had a legal duty to inform defendants about the officers' records of misconduct and false testimony.
1/
Since then, prosecutors have created "Brady lists" of cops who can't be trusted to take the stand. They avoid cases that rely on these officers' testimony, or seek out alternate witnesses to call. Brady lists have done much to advance the right to a fair trial in America.
2/
Brady lists are secret, and they shouldn't be. An officer on their local prosecutors' Brady list is an officer whom those prosecutors believe to be a corrupt liar. Yes, that officer is unlikely to be called upon to testify against you, but they still wield enormous power.
3/