Filing Compliance Bureau: Fill & Download for Free

The Better Business Bureau has no legal authority over anyone. If an entity belongs to the BBB, then the BBB can approach it about your complaint. The BBB has policies about members responding to complaints. If the business fails to respond in a way that the BBB thinks is appropriate, then the letter grade that the business has can be dropped. In addition, the BBB provides reports on complaints filed and whether they were resolved. The BBB does not have the ability to force compliance, however, beyond removing someone from its membership.A court of law has legal authority. Therefore, if you win in a court of law, you have a judgment against the entity with which you have a problem. You still have to collect that judgment. Sometimes that can be easy, sometimes it can be hard, sometimes it is impossible. It depends on the circumstances. But your chances of getting your money back, if that is what you seek, is much better with a lawsuit.However, if a company belongs to the BBB and cares about its ratings, it cannot hurt to file a complaint with that organization as a first step.

Thanks for the Oppt’y to answer your question, Michael!The short answer is: NoThe U.S. State Dept administers a very weighty set of regulations known as ITAR - International Trafficking in Arms Regulations. ITAR’s rules are very detailed on a product-by-product basis about what is required for arms exporting. In general, the ITAR uses a voluminous document called the USML - United States Munitions List, and pretty much anything on the USML requires a detailed application submitted to the State Department’s bureau of Arms Control and International Security. This organization is run by an Under Secretary. The applications often run upwards of several dozen pages. It is quite common for companies to submit an arms export application that is administratively rejected for missing and/or ambiguous information. The fact of the matter is: A formal application rejection is a black mark for the company, and will be public knowledge for other government contracting officers to see, and could cause the company with a rejected application to lose future business. Most State Dept export control officers are aware of the far-reaching implications of a formal application rejection, so, they will return the application as “unsubmitted,” with remarks about why the application needs to be reworked.The export application must be very detailed, and specific. Required information includes whether the foreign recipient is on the Treasury Department’s OFAC sanctions list, and many other U.S. Government control tollgates. Ultimately, when/if the export application is approved, it is only valid for the specific items listed, during a finite date range for shipment out of the country, and it normally requires a finite item count. For example, if a defense contractor was selling a type of radar system, the approval would be for the exact number specified in their contract, like 15 radar sets. The State Dept approval comes in the form of an “Export Visa.” Once the company ships its 15th radar unit, the export visa is expired, and a new visa application would have to be filed if additional units were negotiated and put under contract.Penalties for violating ITAR’s export control requirements are often severe, and are prosecutable under Federal Law as a criminal act. Even if the U.S. Attorney’s Office does not find criminal wrongdoing, the State Dept will sanction the company, disbar them from arms export, and frequently impose a heavy fine that can be millions of dollars. At a minimum, the State Dept will put the company under a “Consent Decree” that will stipulate a whole slew of corrective actions. A State Dept consent decree for ITAR export violations will literally turn a company upside down, forcing them to completely revamp their policies, procedures, and export control team personnel. It will also include a requirement for extensive retraining of every person in the company who is even remotely connected to arms export shipping. Export violating companies nearly always have to hire additional personnel who are experienced ITAR professionals, rather than having export compliance duties done on an ad hoc basis by the shipping department manager, or the company project manager overseeing the contract where the violation occurred. In just about every consent decree case I have seen, there are one or more employees who will be terminated for cause.In closing, an American arms manufacturer cannot sell whatever they want, to whomever they want, whenever they want. A serious export violation at a small company could cause contract cancellations, and possibly sink the company. ITAR regulations are no laughing matter, and there is very little wiggle room for even an honest mistake. The final outcome of a sanctioned violation is so sobering that employees will be talking about it for years to come, even after they leave the company. It is very traumatic.Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and ComplianceBureau of International Security and NonproliferationBureau of Political-Military Affairs

Frankly speaking, no institution is seriously bothered about police reforms in India. In 2010, I had myself filed a PIL in the Supreme Court (and had argued it) on certain police reforms relating to introduction of a Transparent Recruitment Process for ensuring that for selection at lower levels in police there is no corruption or nepotism or irregularities, etc. We had given detailed suggestions on the basis of a report prepared by the National Police Mission under the Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPR&D). This PIL was filed on behalf of NGO Lokniti Foundation in the year 2010. Now, we are in 2018. It is yet to be heard in detail.This PIL was tagged with the famous PIL of Shri Prakash Singh for police reforms. There are several others cases relating to police reforms which were tagged with these cases. You will be surprised to know that the last effective listing date was on 14 July 2015 (about two and half years back), though the last actual arguments took place on 13 January 2015 (more than 3 years back). But, nothing really effective is happening in these matters for last several years.These police reforms cases are not priority matters for the courts. They are not listed on priority basis. The courts have their own priority cases.Likewise, none of the States are interested to pursue the police reforms.On 22 September 2006 (i.e., about 12 years back), in the case of Prakash Singh v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 1, the Supreme Court had issued 7 directions for certain police reforms. Most of these directions have not been complied with by most States, and wherever such directions have been shown to have been complied with, that is mostly a paper-compliance and in practice these directions have not been properly complied with. The Contempt Petitions, and certain other connected matters are now pending in the Supreme Court for last about a decade or so. However, as I mentioned above, these cases are not given priority by the Supreme Court.As my own PIL (in the name of Lokniti Foundation, which I argue in Supreme Court) is also tagged with these cases for police reforms, I have been personally appearing in this case for more than 7 years now. I have personally seen how nobody is interested to pursue police reforms. Just to mention a relevant fact, the above PIL by Shri Prakash Singh was originally filed in the year 1996, i.e., about 22 years back. However, the directions given in 2006 in this 1996 petition are yet to be complied with mostly. This can clearly show the priority given to police reforms.As regards your second question as to whether an online petition would work, I do not want to discourage you from filing an online petition. It may create some public opinion, if nothing else. But, generally speaking, nothing much is going to happen. The reason is that none of the State Governments appears to be seriously interested in police reforms (they would lose some power over police if they pursue such police reforms); and the Supreme Court also does not accord it a priority (or, even the routine listing is not done). Even the Central Government is not much bothered (though police being a State subject, the role for Central Government is quite limited).