Veritas News Network - Truth is Trending: Recent Episodes

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

US Magistrate Judge Eric Long has issued a letter to counsel in the Welcome Inn case that could be near settlement.

In a Jan. 28 letter, Judge Long set out what needed to be done before the settlement conference scheduled for Feb. 22.

The judge posed several questions that required an answer prior to the conference, including whether the parties want the settlement terms on the record and how soon the checks and closing documents could be received.

The court is seeking to settle the case to save time and avoid costly litigation. The plaintiffs filed suit against the defendants Jan. 28, 2017. Since then, many documents have been filed with the court.

Case History Plaintiffs April R. Brashier, Richard M. Orencia, and Chad Lebow filed a lawsuit against Quincy Property LLC, doing business as “Welcome Inn,” and against Brett Burge, Kenneth Logan, Quentin Kearney and Joe Wimberly under FLSA and Illinois Wage Laws. The lawsuit, filed on Jan. 28, 2017, alleges the plaintiffs worked at the defendants’ hotels and weren’t paid overtime due under the Fair Labor Standards Act, or FLSA.

The plaintiffs further allege they were misclassified as salaried employees exempt from FLSA, and that the defendants illegally deducted amounts from their pay in violation of FLSA.

Under FLSA, employees may bring a collective action against an employer to recover unpaid overtime or minimum wages. Unlike class action suits under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, whereby potential plaintiffs are included unless they opt out, potential plaintiffs in FLSA collective actions must affirmatively opt in to the suit, according to Cornell Law School.

Brashier claims in court documents she was unjustly terminated at Welcome Inn for complaining about a lack of overtime pay, and threatened with illegal wage deductions.

Lebow alleges the defendants also retaliated against him. He claims they reduced his wages and/or tried to intimidate him by “strictly scrutinizing his work because he requested overtime pay.”

Judge Long requests Judge Long also asked the parties what will happen if they don’t settle the case and if they have any alternative to a negotiated settlement.

“Also, it is important that you conduct meaningful settlement negotiations, including a demand by the Plaintiff(s) and an offer by the Defendant(s), prior to the settlement conference,” Long wrote. “If as a result of those negotiations you determine that the case cannot be settled, please notify me immediately. I do not want to compel you and your clients to engage in a hopeless exercise.”

Long also question whether there was valid insurance coverage, and if so, what amount. “If coverage is at issue, or the amount/type affects settlement value, have you notified the other side? Do we need to include the representative from more than one company/carrier?”

The parties with ultimate settlement authority must be personally present at the settlement conference, Long said.

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo wants to make it a felony to assault a working journalist, bringing it from a misdemeanor to a class D felony.

“Reporters have a tough enough job as it and it is unacceptable and unconscionable that they increasingly have to endure the threat of physical harm just for doing their jobs,” said Cuomo, a Democrat. “While the current federal administration is fostering an environment that normalizes and even encourages attacks on the press, New York is taking a stand. It is my hope that other states join us in enacting these protections into law once and for all.”

Cuomo, whose brother Chris Cuomo is a primetime CNN host, blamed the Trump administration for launching “an attack on the press, labeling journalism it does not like as ‘fake news’ to advance the administration’s own agenda and inspire hatred of the media among the public.”

 The proposal has been met with skepticism — from journalists.

A syndicated editorial from the New York Daily News states, “Thanks but no thanks. In a free society, there is no consistent and principled definition of what a journalist is.”

It continues, “Every day, thousands of New Yorkers tweet in real time about the conditions of their subways and streets and neighborhoods, about crimes they witness and other things. They attend public hearings and community board meetings and tell their neighbors about what they see and hear. Are they journalists?

“Assault, obviously, is already a crime in New York — either a misdemeanor or felony, depending on the severity of the injury. For a select few victims, generally individuals who are performing sensitive and dangerous work on behalf of the public like EMTs, health inspectors and transit workers, the law upgrades misdemeanor assault to felony assault.”

Others have expressed similar opinions. David Andreatta, a columnist for the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle in upstate New York, warned that giving special treatment to journalists can lead to a slippery slope, writing “There’s no end to the number of jobs that prompt visceral reactions from some segment of society. Why not debt collectors, defense attorneys, parking enforcement officers and artists? Are we to upgrade misdemeanor assault to a felony for all of them?”

Professional journalists aren’t required to be licensed or registered in the state of New York. Marwa Fahes gives a good description of the difference between citizen journalism and traditional journalism.

The governor’s Democratic party controls both houses of the New York state legislature.

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

Settlement negotiations are underway in the Welcome Inn case, according to the most recent court filings.

The parties held a telephone status conference on Jan. 11 before Magistrate Judge Eric I. Long. Attorney John Ireland represented the plaintiffs, former employees of the Welcome Inn hotel in Quincy, IL., and Kevin Doherty and Thomas Luetkemayer stood for the defendants, the owners of Quincy Property LLC and proprietors of the hotel.

The status of the case and discovery were discussed as well as mediation. Ireland offered a settlement demand by the plaintiffs. The defendants had until Monday, Jan. 21 to file their response.

Case History Plaintiffs April R. Brashier, Richard M. Orencia, and Chad Lebow filed a lawsuit against Quincy Property LLC, doing business as “Welcome Inn,” and against Brett Burge, Kenneth Logan, Quentin Kearney and Joe Wimberly under FLSA and Illinois Wage Laws. The lawsuit, filed on Jan. 28, 2017, alleges the plaintiffs worked at the defendants’ hotels and weren’t paid overtime due under FLSA.

The plaintiffs further allege they were misclassified as salaried employees exempt from FLSA, and that the defendants illegally deducted amounts from their pay in violation of FLSA.

Under FLSA, employees may bring a collective action against an employer to recover unpaid overtime or minimum wages. Unlike class action suits under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, whereby potential plaintiffs are included unless they opt out, potential plaintiffs in FLSA collective actions must affirmatively opt in to the suit, according to Cornell Law School.

Brashier claims in court documents she was unjustly terminated at Welcome Inn for complaining about a lack of overtime pay, and threatened with illegal wage deductions.

Lebow alleges the defendants also retaliated against him. He claims they reduced his wages and/or tried to intimidate him by “strictly scrutinizing his work because he requested overtime pay.”

Settlement Possible Another telephone conference has been set for Jan, 24 at 10 a.m. This conference will determine whether the parties agree to settle or if the case will go to trial.

The case is entering its third year with back and forth court filings and no resolution.

View Details

View Details

View Details

A trial date has been set in the case between Jason Hartman and Results Property Management principals Quentin Kearney and Ken Logan.

Missouri Casenet says a jury trial has been scheduled for July 29. Judge Bryan Round will hear the arguments.

Logan and Kearney have been embroiled in a legal battle with real estate expert Hartman for eight years. The dispute began over invoices for property maintenance. Hartman alleged the billing invoices were too vague, and that he was unable to determine what work had been done and who had performed the work. When he didn’t receive detailed invoices, Hartman posted online a video showing the suspicious invoices.

The judge presiding over the case recently appointed a Special Master. Each party is required to pay one-half the cost of the Special Master and must deposit $5,000 each into a trust account.

The Court also granted plaintiff’s request to re-open the deposition of Quentin Kearney. Hartman’s attorney argued in his motion that Kearney had been uncooperative during a previous deposition.

Contention over counsel Hartman also asked for the court to disqualify the defendant’s counsel. The request comes on the heels of an action taken by attorney David Zeiler, who represents Kearney and Logan.

For many years, Hartman had been represented by Lee Hardee III of Kansas City, Missouri, but the case took a bizarre turn in early August when Hardee was forced to recuse himself from the case. Hardee was notified — while arguing in court on the same case — that Logan and Kearney were suing him for abuse of process. The pair are represented by Zeiler and Michael Hughes.

Hardee, who suffers from hypertension, was subsequently admitted to the hospital, reportedly due to stress.

Due to a conflict-of-interest, Hardee had to file a motion to withdraw from the Results Property Management case, leaving Hartman without counsel just hours before the trial was scheduled to begin.

The parties will participate in some pre-trial conferences prior to the trial date.

View Details

View Details

View Details

The longstanding case between Jason Hartman and Results Property Management principals Quentin Kearney and Ken Logan is moving forward with a case management conference scheduled for January 4.

Logan and Kearney have been embroiled in a legal battle with real estate expert Hartman for eight years. The dispute began over invoices for property maintenance. Hartman alleged the billing invoices were too vague, and that he was unable to determine what work had been done and who had performed the work. When he didn’t receive detailed invoices, Hartman posted online a video showing the suspicious invoices.

The judge presiding over the case recently appointed a Special Master.

“The Court, having reviewed the motions and the suggestions of the parties, and upon careful consideration of the pleadings, finds that this case raises unique, complex and troubling issues, potentially meriting additional discovery and inquiry, and therefore appointment of a Special Master is necessary and appropriate and therefore pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 68.01 does immediately appoint the Honorable J.D. Williamson as Special Master in this matter,” the judge’s ruling reads.

A Special Master is an official appointed by a judge to make sure that judicial orders are actually followed, or in the alternative, to hear evidence on behalf of the judge and make recommendations as to the disposition of a matter.

The judged ordered the plaintiff and the defendants evenly split the cost of the Special Master, although a request can be made to have only the defendant pay.

Kearney to be deposed The Court also granted plaintiff’s request to re-open the deposition of Quentin Kearney. Hartman’s attorney argued in his motion that Kearney had been uncooperative during a previous deposition.

Hartman also asked for the court to disqualify the defendant’s counsel. The request comes on the heels of an action taken by attorney David Zeiler, who represents Kearney and Logan.

For many years, Hartman had been represented by Lee Hardee III of Kansas City, Missouri, but the case took a bizarre turn in early August when Hardee was forced to recuse himself from the case. Hardee was notified — while arguing in court on the same case — that Logan and Kearney were suing him for abuse of process. The pair are represented by Zeiler and Michael Hughes.

Hardee, who suffers from hypertension, was subsequently admitted to the hospital, reportedly due to stress.

Due to a conflict-of-interest, Hardee had to file a motion to withdraw from the Results Property Management case, leaving Hartman without counsel just hours before the trial was scheduled to begin.

The newly-appointed Special Master, Honorable J.D. Williamson, will preside over the case management conference. A pre-trial hearing is tentatively scheduled for Feb. 1.

View Details

View Details

View Details

Courts entertain some bizarre cases brought by HOA’s

David and Arna Orlando never thought they’d get sued by a homeowner’s association for parking at their own house.

The couple were the target of a lawsuit filed by the The Kimry Moor Homeowners Association just outside Fayetteville, NY. The HOA sought an injunction in Onondaga County, NY Supreme Court to stop them from parking their 2014 black Ford150 truck in their own driveway.

The association asserted its regulations only allow residents to park “private, passenger-type, pleasure automobiles” in driveways. The association owns the driveways in the development. The association argued the couple’s pickup did not qualify as a private passenger-type vehicle.

The Orlandos contended their pickup was a personal passenger vehicle and not a commercial vehicle of any sort.

The couple eventually moved to Florida and the lawsuit was subsequently settled to the satisfaction of both sides. The Orlandos are prevented from discussing details of the settlement, but cases like theirs are not so rare.

What is an HOA? Independent American Communities, an HOA watchdog blog operated by Deborah Goonan, describes them this way: “Homeowners, condominium, cooperative, and property owners associations are collective legal entities – usually incorporated. Governing documents of HOAs – which include Declarations of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), By Laws, and Articles of Incorporation – are legally binding on both individual members and their Association, with U.S. courts generally viewing the relationship as contractual between and among the parties.”

The blog explains for homeowners the risk of entering into a homeowner’s association.

“But that contract is usually written by and for developers, making it one-sided in favor of the HOA,” IAC reports. “In addition, governing documents are not subject to state or federal review, and state laws impose very few restrictions on the terms of HOA contracts. A buyer or heir to HOA property must agree to all terms without any opportunity for negotiation before taking title to that property.”

HOA loses case, homeowner loses privileges Even when an HOA loses in court, it could take vindictive measures. A Florida homeowner took his HOA to court so he could review information that should have been public record. He won his summary judgment case, gaining access to the management contract and financial records of his HOA, including the specific compensation of its manager. As reported by Jan Bergemann, president of Cyber Citizens For Justice, Inc.:

In an order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, Circuit Court Judge William L. Roby ruled against Piper’s Landing, Inc. in Martin County, Fla. in a case where the homeowner’s association refused to allow a member to inspect the management contract and the financial records indicating the specific compensation of manager Brian Reich.

Not long after, the homeowner received the following letter:

Bill Peters, of Bel Air, MD was sued by a neighboring HOA over a 2-foot span of his driveway.

The case started when Harford County issued permits for Peters to build the driveway. He said he gave the neighboring homeowners’ association, which his property is not a part of, a month’s notice, according to wbaltv.com.

He spent $15,000 to build his driveway, which passed county inspection. Then, the Emerald Hills Homeowners Association took him to court.

Peters won the case, but it cost him $50,000 in legal fees.

How to protect assets The Homeowners Protection Bureau, LLC offers information and resources regarding disputes and asset protection. If sued by an HOA, it is best to consult an attorney.

View Details

View Details

Judge rules Quentin Kearney can be deposed once again

A Special Master has been appointed to oversee some aspects of the ongoing litigation between Jason Hartman and Results Property Management principles Ken Logan and Quentin Kearney. A Special Master is appointed by a judge to oversee one or more aspects of litigation

“The Court, having reviewed the motions and the suggestions of the parties, and upon careful consideration of the pleadings, finds that this case raises unique, complex and troubling issues, potentially meriting additional discovery and inquiry, and therefore appointment of a Special Master is necessary and appropriate and therefore pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 68.01 does immediately appoint the Honorable J.D. Williamson as Special Master in this matter,” the decision reads.

Logan and Kearney have been embroiled in a legal battle with real estate expert Hartman for eight years. The dispute began over invoices for property maintenance that Hartman alleged were so vague he was unable to determine what work had been done and who had performed the work. When he didn’t receive detailed invoices, Hartman recorded a video showing the invoices and posted it to the internet.

Hartman’s motion to disqualify counsel In a November 13 filing, Hartman’s attorney, Kenneth Caldwell, asked the court to disqualify defendants’ co-counsel David Zeiler due to “extraordinary circumstances.”

For many years, Hartman had been represented by Lee Hardee III of Kansas City, Missouri, but the case took a bizarre turn in early August when Hardee was forced to recuse himself from the case. Hardee was notified — while arguing in court on the same case — that Ken Logan and Quentin Kearney were suing him for abuse of process. The pair are represented by Zeiler and Michael Hughes.

Hardee, who suffers from hypertension, was subsequently taken to the hospital and admitted, reportedly due to stress.

Due to a conflict-of-interest, Hardee had to file a motion to withdraw from the case, leaving Hartman without counsel just hours before the trial was scheduled to begin.

Along with the appointment of the Special Master to continue with the case questions, the Court granted plaintiff’s request to re-open the deposition of Quentin Kearney. Hartman’s attorney argued in his motion that Kearney was uncooperative during a previous deposition.

A case management conference is set for Dec. 17. The Special Master will attend the conference and report any finding.

View Details

View Details

Legal battle continues in Results Property Management case

A lawyer for Results Property Management has filed a motion to continue trial, and requesting sanctions in response to a motion filed by the plaintiff’s attorney to have him disqualified from the case.

As reported Nov. 30, an ongoing legal battle between Jason Hartman and Results Property Management principals Ken Logan and Quentin Kearney continues with Hartman’s attorney calling for the disqualification of the attorney for Results Property Management.

In a November 13 filing, Hartman’s attorney, Kenneth Caldwell, asked the court to disqualify defendants’ co-counsel David Zeiler due to “extraordinary circumstances.”

For many years, Hartman had been represented by Lee Hardee III of Kansas City, Missouri, but the case took a bizarre turn in early August when Hardee was forced to recuse himself from the case when he was notified — while arguing in court on the same case — that Ken Logan and Quentin Kearney were suing him for abuse of process. The pair are represented by Zeiler and Michael Hughes.

Hardee, who suffers from hypertension, was subsequently taken to the hospital and admitted, reportedly due to stress.

Due to a conflict-of-interest, Hardee had to file a motion to withdraw from the case, leaving Hartman without counsel just hours before the trial was scheduled to begin.

Hartman’s new lawyer filed a motion seeking to disqualify Zeiler. In Hughes’ Nov. 19 motion, he states, “The Motion to Disqualify Counsel also misses the mark on the law. Plaintiff’s counsel must be confused in which case he is filing the instant motion. He appears to be arguing that counsel should be disqualified in the Hardee Lawsuit when discussing the standard for disqualification under the “necessary witness rule.” Nowhere does the plaintiff’s counsel suggest that either of defendants’ counsel are necessary witnesses in the instant case.”

It continues, “Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel offers no Missouri law to support his proposition that disqualification of counsel is an appropriate remedy due to Mr. Hardee’s withdrawal from this action.”

Hughes further states, “The other reasons that plaintiff’s counsel asserts for the requested continuance are disingenuous at best. The fact that he entered his appearance on September 5, 2018, but just recently received the case file appears to be a problem between him, his client, and Mr. Hardee and does not rest at the feet of the Defendants. A previously scheduled trial is something that he should have disclosed to his client and something that his client should have considered before hiring him.

” Moreover, if plaintiff’s counsel had a previously scheduled trial when he entered his appearance on September 5, 2018, why is he waiting until now to request a continuance of the trial setting? It also should be pointed out to the Court that plaintiff has at least two other lawsuits pending in Jackson County, Missouri, with different attorneys on each one.”

An eight-year case over vague invoices Logan and Kearney have been embroiled in a legal battle with real estate expert Hartman for eight years. The dispute began over invoices for property maintenance that Hartman alleged were so vague he was unable to determine what work had been done and who had performed the work. When he didn’t receive detailed invoices, Hartman recorded a video showing the invoices and posted it to the internet.

Hughes wrote in his recent motion, “Additionally, regardless of how voluminous the case file may be, the issues in this case after nearly a decade of litigation are extremely narrow. First, were there repair and maintenance services performed on plaintiff’s property? Second, did the contract plaintiff signed obligate him to pay for these repair and maintenance services? Third, was the plaintiff responsible for paying for these repair and maintenance services? Fourth, did the defendants or their vendors perform these repair and maintenance services? Fifth, were the amounts that defendants charged plaintiff fair and reasonable? How long can it take plaintiff’s counsel to get up to speed on these issues that have a value of $2,500? As noted, by the time this case goes to trial, it will have been going on in one phase or another for nearly a decade. It is time to bring it to a conclusion by having the trial, as scheduled, on February 11, 2019. The Court should overrule the plaintiff’s Motion to Continue the Trial Setting.”

Hartman also filed a Doe lawsuit after numerous libelous posts showed up on various websites, such as Ripoff Report. A Doe lawsuit is filed when the plaintiff wants to determine who is behind a defamatory or threatening anonymous post on the internet or someone who uses a fictitious name for the purpose of scamming or defrauding. Logan and Kearney allege that lawsuit unjustly named them.

View Details

View Details

View Details

The ongoing legal battle between Jason Hartman and Results Property Management principals Ken Logan and Quentin Kearney continues. Now Hartman’s attorney is calling for the disqualification of the attorney for Results Property Management.

Missouri lawyer Lee Hardee III was forced to recuse himself from the case in early August, after he was notified while in court on the same case that Logan and Kearney were suing him for abuse of process. Hardee was representing Hartman, the plaintiff in the case.

Due to a conflict-of-interest, Hardee filed a motion to withdraw, leaving Hartman without counsel hours before the trial was to begin.

In a November 13 filing, Hartman’s new attorney, Kenneth Caldwell, asked the court to disqualify defendants’ co-counsel David Zeiler due to “extraordinary circumstances.”

“On August 5, 2018, during the deposition of plaintiff Jason Hartman by defendants’ co-counsel Michael Hughes, something extraordinary occurred. Just before plaintiff’s counsel, Lee Hardee was to ask follow up questions of his client, defendants’ co-counsel David Zeiler threatened Hardee personally with a lawsuit, if Hardee did not dismiss Hartman’s claims against his clients in a separate, unrelated case. At the same time, Zeiler handed Hardee a copy of the lawsuit he intended to file against Hardee for Abuse of Process,” Caldwell wrote in his petition. “Hardee had no authority to dismiss his client’s lawsuit in the other case and Zeiler subsequently filed the lawsuit against Hardee the same day.”

Caldwell’s motion continued: “Zeiler’s threat of, and subsequent action of filing a lawsuit against Hardee (who was Hartman’s agent by virtue of the attorney-client relationship), by any definition was an abusive litigation tactic and seriously rattled Hardee and interfered with Hardee’s ability to finish the Hartman deposition. It likewise interfered with his ability to take the Kearney deposition on August 7, 2018. Zeiler intentionally used this abusive litigation tactic to gain an unfair litigation advantage in this case.”

Results Property Management case origins The case stems from a dispute over invoices billed to Hartman for property maintenance allegedly performed by Metrowide Building Services, a firm owned by Logan, according to Missouri Secretary of State corporate records. Hartman alleged the invoices he received were vague and listed none of the pertinent information regarding the work performed. He requested a detailed invoice as to what specific work was performed, where it was performed, and by whom.

When he didn’t receive the information, Hartman recorded a video showing the invoices and posted it to the internet. That was the beginning of the eight-year legal feud between the parties.

Caldwell said he entered his appearance on September 20 but only recently received Hardee’s voluminous file. “As far as the undersigned can gather from a brief review of the lengthy history of the case, depositions remain to be taken, there are hundreds of files to pore through, there are numerous deposition transcripts to review, pre-trial proceedings are just around the corner, and a trial is scheduled to begin on February 11, 2019,” Caldwell noted.

Caldwell alleges that Zeiler, Kearney, and Logan “obviously knew and intended that their lawsuit against Hardee put Hartman at a serious disadvantage in preparing for trial.”

Court documents show that Hardee fell ill and was hospitalized after the August court proceeding. Although Hartman tried to depose Kearney directly pro se, Kearney’s counsel, Hughes, substantially interfered by answering deposition questions meant for Kearney, who refused to respond to most of the questions.

Due to the circumstances and defendant’s counsel’s interference as supported by the affidavit of Hartman, Caldwell also asked the court to allow the right to take (re-take) Kearney’s deposition.

As of today, the court has not answered the request.

View Details

View Details

The Welcome Inn labor relations case could be coming to an end — but only if the defendants accept a settlement demand offered by the attorney for the plaintiffs.

Attorney John Ireland, representing April Brashier, Chad Lebow, Richard Orencia and more than two dozen former and current employees, offered a Nov.30 settlement demand.

The demand would settle the case for approximately 34 plaintiffs, who allege Welcome Inn owners operated in violation of the Illinois Fair Labor Standards Act.

Last month the case involving the Quincy, IL hotel had been reassigned to Judge Colin Stirling Bruce and Magistrate Judge Eric I. Long. U.S. Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins is no longer on the case.

A telephone conference was held between Ireland and attorneys for the defendant Kevin Doherty, Ambrose McCall and Thomas Luetkemeyer. The parties indicated discovery has not been initiated due to interest in mediation, court records show.

Case history Plaintiffs April R. Brashier, Richard M. Orencia, and Chad Lebow filed a lawsuit against Quincy Property LLC, doing business as “Welcome Inn,” and against Brett Burge, Kenneth Logan, Quentin Kearney and Joe Wimberly under FLSA and Illinois Wage Laws. The lawsuit, filed Jan. 28, 2017, alleges the plaintiffs worked at the defendants’ hotels and weren’t paid overtime due under FLSA.

The plaintiffs further allege they were misclassified as salaried employees exempt from FLSA, and that the defendants illegally deducted amounts from their pay in violation of FLSA.

Under FLSA, employees may bring a collective action against an employer to recover unpaid overtime or minimum wages. Unlike class action suits under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, whereby potential plaintiffs are included unless they opt out, potential plaintiffs in FLSA collective actions must affirmatively opt in to the suit, according to Cornell Law School.

Brashier claims in court documents she was unjustly terminated at Welcome Inn for complaining about a lack of overtime pay, and threatened with illegal wage deductions.

Lebow alleges the defendants also retaliated against him. He claims they reduced his wages and/or tried to intimidate him by “strictly scrutinizing his work because he requested overtime pay.”

Settlement possible in near future

According to court documents, the defendants intend to respond to the settlement demand. A status conference is scheduled for Jan. 9 at 10:30 a.m. Magistrate Judge Eric I. Long will conduct the proceedings.

The case is Brashier et al v. Quincy Properties Llc, Doing Business as Welcome Inn et al.

View Details

View Details

The Welcome Inn labor relations case is moving forward after months of legal wrangling.

Plaintiffs April R. Brashier, Richard M. Orencia, and Chad Lebow filed a lawsuit against Quincy Property LLC, doing business as “Welcome Inn,” and against Brett Burge, Kenneth Logan, Quentin Kearney and Joe Wimberly under FLSA and Illinois Wage Laws. The lawsuit, filed Jan. 28, 2017, alleges the plaintiffs worked at the defendants’ hotels and weren’t paid overtime due under FLSA.

A telephone conference was held Oct. 15 with counsel for plaintiff, John Ireland, and defense counsel, Mary Yong and Thomas Luetkemeyer.

Court documents show that plaintiffs’ counsel is in the process of obtaining demands from each of the plaintiffs. Those documents note that Ireland has presented a demand for 21 of the plaintiffs. He hopes to have demands for the remaining plaintiffs by the end of the week. Demands are a collection of all documents that show injuries and/or loss of wages. It is a step undertaken prior to litigation.

Ireland said he believes it’s too early in the Welcome Inn case to engage in mediation. Defense counsel Luetkemeyer agreed it would be best to wait until after demands have been presented, and responses made, before scheduling mediation.

Another status conference to further discuss mediation is scheduled for November 30 with Magistrate Judge Schanzle-Haskins presiding.

View Details

View Details

View Details

Popular Arizona restauranteur Julian Wright is embroiled in a bitter battle with former managers who claim Wright misappropriated funds.

Wright responded to those allegations by accusing the former managers of misappropriation.

Wright owned the Gringo Star Street Bar, which subsequently closed without notice to investors. Wright’s limited liability company is Fork & Dagger, LLC., listed as “manager” in legal documents.

Whiskey Rocks Tempe, LLC, is a limited liability company organized for the operation of the Gringo Star Street Bar. True Gentlemen, LLC (“TL”) is a member of Gringo, hence, Fork & Dagger is one corporation. Operating under it is Whiskey Rocks Tempe, and under that True Gentlemen.

Wright’s rebuttal contends: “Throughout the past year, TL (Gringo Star managers) has alleged and asserted to other Gringo members that “manager” (referring to Wright) had engaged in fraud and other improprieties, and had overcharged for corporate overhead and other expenses. Most recently, in the course of soliciting other members to contribute to an alleged litigation fund being amassed by TL. It stated it would be filing a ‘public complaint’ against Manager for its alleged wrongdoing.”

As previously reported, investors in the Gringo Star Street Bar are still awaiting a return on their investment.

Overview of the case The bar opened in 2013, offering arcade games, food and drinks, dancing, and street art. The 6,500-square foot bar on the corner of 5th Street and Mill Avenue was once home to the Library Bar and Grill, another of Wright’s establishments. Gringo Star’s opening was highly anticipated from both a consumer and investor standpoint. Mill Avenue is popular for its unique taverns and nightlife, which draws patrons from nearby Arizona State University. From an investment standpoint, it appeared to offer a good return.

The following allegations were set forth in Wright’s response:

1. Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, Manager permitted two of TL’s Members, Hartley Rodie and Stephen Sperry, to conduct and oversee Gringo’s day-to-day business.
2. While Sperry and Rodie operated Gringo’s business successfully and profitably between 2013 and 2016, Gringo’s net income declined significantly after 2016.
3. Upon information and belief, Sperry and Rodie neglected their duties to Gringo upon their potential involvement in other restaurant ventures.
4. Sperry and Rodie also engaged in excessive participation or giveaways of Gringo’s property, giving away food, drinks and other property of Gringo in “comps” totaling $1,027,902.00 out of total gross income (including comps) of $10,548,451.00.
5. Although Sperry and Rodie controlled the day-to-day operations of Gringo, Manager provided oversight, corporate-type and administrative services and caused an outside bookkeeper and CPA to pay bills and handle other accounting matters for Gringo.

Wright maintains that all finances are properly accounted for.

The matter is expected to go to arbitration.

View Details

View Details

When the Gringo Star Street Bar in Tempe, Arizona closed abruptly in mid-January, investors said they were taken by surprise when they learned via Facebook post that the popular nightspot had closed its doors for good.

“I had no idea it closed,” said a Tempe resident at the time, who had invested in the establishment. His sentiment was echoed by other investors, who wished to remain anonymous for fear of financial retribution. The surprise was not that the establishment had closed, but that shareholders had learned of the closure on social media.

As reported January 20, a post on the bar’s Facebook page alerted customers to the closing. There was no explanation given and numerous questions from patrons were left unanswered.

In March, Wright told shareholders that once the books were reconciled, they would receive their return on investment. Months passed without payment.

Now the former managers are in a bitter legal battle with Wright, alleging he misappropriated Gringo Star’s funds. Conversely, Wright is alleging it was not he, but his former managers, who misappropriated funds.

The bar opened in 2013, offering arcade games, food and drinks, dancing, and street art. The 6,500 square foot bar on the corner of 5th Street and Mill Avenue was once home to the Library Bar and Grill, another of Wright’s restaurant bars. Gringo Star’s opening was highly anticipated from both a consumer and investor standpoint. Mill Avenue is popular for its unique taverns and nightlife which draws patrons from nearby Arizona State University.

From amigos to antagonists Investors said things started going south after a couple of years. They no longer received dividends and found Wright difficult to reach. They allege when they asked questions about their investment or the financial health of the Gringo Star Street Bar, they were either ignored or not given an answer. When they did receive an answer, they allege it wasn’t a favorable one. In fact, two investors said Wright would answer with a “F**k you” if he didn’t like what was being asked of him. Veritas News was provided with a string of text messages allegedly between a shareholder and Wright that does show crude language.

At that time, Wright did provide a profit and loss statement for 2017. The records show total sales of just over $1 million, but with overall sales down 39.4 percent.

Currently faced with arbitration through the American Arbitration Association (AAA), Wright sent a memo to investors stating, “The proforma Operating Budget provided to you prior to your investment projected that operating expenses would total 18.27% of gross sales. Actual operating expenses of Gringo Star from 2013 totaled 18.13% of adjusted gross revenues (i.e., total gross revenues less $1,027,902.00 of drinks and food that (former managers) comped to unknown persons during their management of Gringo Star).”

It continues, “The proforma Opening Budget projected that corporate overhead would total 3.01% of gross sales. From 2013 to 2017 corporate overhead actually totaled 3.03% of adjusted gross sales (gross less [former managers’] giveaways).”

No date has been set for the arbitration.

View Details

It was more bad news for some who invested in a Tempe bar owned by Julian Wright as the IRS has sent notifications that they owe money.

According to one shareholder, the IRS sent notification that money is owed for the Canteen bar.

“He’s costing his investors almost a quarter of a million dollars because he didn’t do something right,” the investor said. “We’re paying penalties and interest and the investors had nothing to do with it.”

The shareholder said it makes no sense that those who invested in the Canteen are liable to the IRS. “According to him (Wright), he sold have the business to someone else and they took it over. Then the other owner put in that they put in a million dollars in assets, when it was really only $300,000 in assets for depreciation. So why aren’t they paying it instead of us paying it.”

For some investors, there was another potential loss as Wright abruptly closed the Gringo Star Street Bar on the popular Mill Avenue. The closure left shareholders to wonder if they will see any income from the sale, which Wright said was $300,000. The Tempe bar opened in 2013, offering arcade games, food, drinks, dancing and street art. The 6,500 square foot bar on the corner of 5th Street and Mill Avenue was once home to the Library Bar and Grill, another of Wright’s bar/restaurants. Gringo Star’s opening was highly anticipated from both a consumer and investor standpoint.

Shareholders said when the bar first opened, it appeared to be a sound investment. They said they did see a return on the funds they entrusted with Wright.

But after a couple years, they said things started going south. They no longer received dividends and Wright was difficult to reach. They allege when they asked questions about their investment or the financial health of the Gringo Star Street Bar, they were either ignored or not given an answer. When they did receive an answer, they allege it wasn’t a favorable one. In fact, two investors said Wright would answer with a “F**k you” if he didn’t like what was being asked of him. Veritas News was provided with a string of text messages allegedly between a shareholder and Wright that does show crude language.

One investor said he has received no explanation for the money owed the IRS. He said he was told that Wright didn’t want to get into a pissing match with the new owner.

“He’s supposed to be fiscally responsible to us,” the shareholder said. “We invest with him to make money.”

Wright is the president of Fork & Dagger Restaurant Group. He has opened and closed bars in and around Tempe. In October, ABC15 reported Wright’s plans to open Equal Parts, a “rustic northern Italian” eatery in downtown Chandler had been scrapped for a different concept. The new concept will be called Las Palmas Cantina.

Wright has been featured in several Phoenix New Times stories. He has also been featured in a promotional video for Tempe.

Learning the IRS wants the investors to pay penalties and interest didn’t sit well for those who already anticipate a loss from Gringo Star.

Gringo Star Street Bar’s Jan. through Oct. 2017 profit and loss statement indicates the establishment took a negative 37 percent change in sales. The 2016 profit and loss statement also indicates a loss of revenue.

Arizona Leisure’s website states, “Without a doubt, Tempe’s Mill Avenue District is the hottest entertainment center in Arizona. It is the hot spot in the Valley of the Sun Phoenix area with the highest concentration of restaurants, cafes, microbreweries, sports bars, unique shopping and nightlife than any other place in the Metro area.”

The location of the bar and its proximity to the university leaves one investor baffled as to Gringo Star’s demise.

“It’s a popular area and a college hangout,” the shareholder noted. “I thought it would be a good investment. Lots of foot traffic.”

College students and foot traffic weren’t enough to keep Gringo Star out of the red, according to another shareholder. “It was mismanaged. They were giving out too many comps and not watching the bottom line.”

What will happen next, the shareholders said they aren’t sure. Those interviewed said they hope to receive some money from the sale, however, noted they won’t be surprised if they don’t.

“We probably won’t see a nickel. I’ll be surprised if we do,” said one investor.

They are hoping after the bills are paid that there will be something left for the investors to receive. For those invested in the Canteen, the Gringo Star profits could pay the IRS.

View Details

The owner of the Gringo Star Street Bar in Tempe, Arizona said a manager posted the closure notice on Facebook before he had the chance to notify investors.

That’s one of the complaints investors stated when owner Julian Wright abruptly closed the popular bar located on Mill Avenue.

“There was no communication,” said an investor who trusted his money with Wright. “I found out Gringo Star closed when I saw it on Facebook.” The shareholder noted that there had been “street talk” that business was faltering and that it was apparent the bar was not doing well, however, he was “left in the dark.”

The Jan. 19 closure announcement was vague, leaving investors to wonder what was going on. They alleged Wright was a poor communicator and that it wasn’t until he was contacted by an investor that all investors were notified that the bar had been sold.

Wright said investors were aware he’d been trying to sell. “The investors that keep in touch with me had known about us trying to sell this business for a year now, including a time in October when it was in escrow and was supposed to close and then a day before it fell out so I didn’t want to get anyone too excited to look like this was a done deal.”

Wright sold the bar for $300,000 but had not received any money at the time of the sale. He said last week he has since received the money and investors will be paid.

The bar opened in 2013, offering arcade games, food, drinks, dancing and street art. The 6,500 square foot bar on the corner of 5th Street and Mill Avenue was once home to the Library Bar and Grill, another of Wright’s bar/restaurants. Gringo Star’s opening was highly anticipated from both a consumer and investor standpoint.

Shareholders said when the bar first opened, it appeared to be a sound investment. They said they did see a return on the funds they entrusted with Wright.

But after a couple years, they said things started going south. They no longer received dividends and Wright was difficult to reach. They allege when they asked questions about their investment or the financial health of the Gringo Star Street Bar, they were either ignored or not given an answer.

No government funding

When asked if he receives any government funding, Wright said, “No such thing exists for bars in Tempe.” He added, “I’m the biggest investor since day one.”

The Tempe city government was contacted for confirmation, however, did not respond. Phone calls were not returned and an email sent requesting the information under the Freedom of Information Act received no acknowledgement or response of any kind.

Wright said his businesses are privately financed and added that he’s very protective of his investors.

In response to allegations that he’s lax in his communication with his shareholders, Wright said, “I’m not the greatest communicator especially since I no longer have my company controlled who handled all the investor communications.” He said there are certain types of investors, such as those who complain or feel something underhanded is going on, that he no longer does business with. “I don’t accept money from investors like that anymore and so I’m ridding myself of those cancerous types of individuals.”

When asked why Gringo Star Street Bar wasn’t able to keep the doors open, Wright said Mill Avenue is very competitive. “After Gringo Star opened, countless other bars, seeing our success, opened around us and in better locations.” He added that there have been more bars that have failed on Mill Avenue than have been successful. Wright noted that a bar in a college town rarely has a lifespan beyond three years.

“The fact it lasted five years is pretty impressive,” he said.

Despite the investor complaints, Wright said no money was lost. “That’s the reality,” he said.

View Details

Investors left in the dark regarding Gringo Star Street Bar closure

Investors of a popular Tempe, Arizona bar were taken by surprise when they learned via a Facebook post that the Gringo Star Street Bar on Mill Avenue had locked the doors for good.

“I had no idea it closed,” said a Tempe resident, who had invested in the establishment. His sentiment was echoed by other investors, who wished to remain anonymous for fear of financial retribution. The surprise was not that the establishment had closed, but that shareholders had learned of the closure on social media and not from the owner or managing partners.

“There was no communication,” said an investor who trusted his money with Gringo Star Street Bar owner Julian Wright. “I found out Gringo Star closed when I saw it on Facebook.” The shareholder noted that there had been “street talk” that business was faltering and that it was apparent the bar was not doing well, however, he was “left in the dark.”

Unbeknown to shareholders, the bar was sold, according to Hartley Rodie, Gringo Star Street Bar managing partner.

“We sold the bar,” Rodie wrote in response to a request for information. “The group that purchased it will be starting construction immediately and opening a different concept in the coming months.

Bodie didn’t elaborate as to who purchased the facility and what it will become.

As reported January 20, a post on the bar’s Facebook page alerted customers to the closing. There was no explanation given and numerous questions from patrons were left unanswered.

The bar opened in 2013, offering arcade games, food, drinks, dancing and street art. The 6,500 square foot bar on the corner of 5th Street and Mill Avenue was once home to the Library Bar and Grill, another of Wright’s bar/restaurants. Gringo Star’s opening was highly anticipated from both a consumer and investor standpoint.

Shareholders said when the bar first opened, it appeared to be a sound investment. They said they did see a return on the funds they entrusted with Wright.

But after a couple years, they said things started going south. They no longer received dividends and Wright was difficult to reach. They allege when they asked questions about their investment or the financial health of the Gringo Star Street Bar, they were either ignored or not given an answer. When they did receive an answer, they allege it wasn’t a favorable one. In fact, two investors said Wright would answer with a “F**k you” if he didn’t like what was being asked of him. Veritas News was provided with a string of text messages allegedly between a shareholder and Wright that does show crude language. Wright was unavailable for comment.

Lack of notification irks shareholders

Several shareholders said while they knew the bar was not doing well, they expected Wright would keep them updated as it its financial health.

That didn’t happen, they allege, and it wasn’t until they saw a Jan 19 post on the bar’s Facebook page that they were notified of the closing.

“It’s been real and it’s been fun but now it’s time to go. We know many of you have had some of your wildest nights at our lovely bar and we are glad we were able to be part of it It’s been a great ride! Peace out Thanks for the memories!” the announcement stated. There was no other information provided.

“I first heard of the closing on Facebook,” said an investor who had signed on to his account Jan. 20 and saw the announcement as he perused his newsfeed. “I received nothing from Julian.”

Wright did notify investors, but not until Jan. 24, and not until after an investor contacted him wanting to know the status.

Wright wrote:

  Hi All,

It looks like we’ve finally closed a deal to sell Gringo Star. We haven’t received funds yet but it’s looking good. In anticipation of the sale closing we closed the business as well last week. It’s been losing money and staff at a rapid rate so wasn’t worth keeping open even through the weekend.

The sale price was $300,000 and included all FF&E, liquor license and inventory. Quite frankly we were lucky to get that. They probably could have bled us out and gotten it for half that. Especially since the last $300,000 deal we had in escrow fell out the day before we were supposed to close (in October.)

It will take us 45-60 days to reconcile as we have to await final statements from all vendors and make sure everything is paid off before making final distributions. The deal was an all cash offer so at least there was no carry back.

I could only guess at what the final amount will be as I don’t have all the financial info but I do know I’ve personally put in at least $60,000 in the last six months to keep the doors open and the staff paid and we had to pay $56,000 at closing to get caught up on rent, and that was after applying our $17,000 rent deposit.

If you have any questions feel free to email, call or text me. Attached are all the P&L’s I have in my computer. I haven’t received Nov, Dec 2017 yet. Cheers,

Julian Wright

President More questions than answers

The message from Wright left several shareholders with more questions than answers.

“The new owner is doing construction and Wright doesn’t even have the money? That’s taking a risk,” an investor noted, adding that he believes Gringo Star closed due to mismanagement, hence, selling without having cash in hand was not a surprise.

“There were too many comps and the place wasn’t kept up,” another investor said.

Gringo Star Street Bar’s Jan. through Oct. 2017 profit and loss statement indicates the establishment took a negative 37 percent change in sales. The 2016 profit and loss statement also indicates a loss of revenue.

The bar is situated in the Mill Avenue District, a popular downtown strip located near Arizona State University. Arizona Leisure’s website states, “Without a doubt, Tempe’s Mill Avenue District is the hottest entertainment center in Arizona. It is the hot spot in the Valley of the Sun Phoenix area with the highest concentration of restaurants, cafes, microbreweries, sports bars, unique shopping and nightlife than any other place in the Metro area.”

The location of the bar and its proximity to the university leaves one investor baffled as to Gringo Star’s demise.

“It’s a popular area and a college hangout,” the shareholder noted. “I thought it would be a good investment. Lots of foot traffic.”

College students and foot traffic weren’t enough to keep Gringo Star out of the red, according to another shareholder. “It was mismanaged. They were giving out too many comps and not watching the bottom line.”

What will happen next, the shareholders said they aren’t sure. Those interviewed said they hope to receive some money from the sale, however, noted they won’t be surprised if they don’t.

“We probably won’t see a nickel. I’ll be surprised if we do,” said one investor. “And letting the new owner start construction before money has exchange hands is a risk, and it could be a liability to all of us. Anything could happen.”

View Details

With little fanfare and no explanation, a popular bar in Tempe, Arizona is closing. The Gringo Star Street Bar, located on the city’s famed Mill Avenue, opened in 2013 offering arcade games, food, drinks, dancing and street art.

In a Jan. 19 Facebook post, a vague notice was given. “It’s been real and it’s been fun but now it’s time to go. We know many of you have had some of your wildest nights at our lovely bar and we are glad we were able to be part of it It’s been a great ride! Peace out Thanks for the memories!”

As of publication, there was no indication on the tavern’s website that it is closing.

Patrons of the establishment were surprised by the announcement.

  Alex Kelly Ouch..  I have left a piece of me at the corner table by the DJ booth with its departure. The only place in the world to have a keg stacked with Don and Vodka..            Amanda Gordon Audra Nicole Hall Nicole Daignault nooooooo…..this just broke my heart and I don’t even live there anymore           Chris Hirata Dude I love this place! I can’t believe they closed it. So sad.         Kassie Visco Maggie Bryson we didn’t even get to say goodbye.             While the surprise came to Gringo Star patrons, it didn’t come as a surprise to investors, who claim owner Julian Wright’s mismanagement caused the demise of the popular nightspot. “I was led to believe I’d get a great return on investment,” said one shareholder. “I invested in Modern Margarita and Gringo Star. I got a little bit of the money back on Gringo Star. I got zero on Modern Margarita. That was a one hundred percent loss, yet somehow Julian figured out a way to make money.” The shareholder added that communication with Wright was almost non-existent. “I would have to nag and beg repeatedly. When I asked him to provide documents for some of the expenses, he totally refused and he literally sent me a text message that said, ‘F**k you.'” Wright could not be reached for comment. Less than two weeks ago,  ABC15 reported Wright will be opening the Pedal Haus Brewery in downtown Phoenix, anticipated to open early this year. Wright is listed as the president of Fork & Dagger Restaurant Group, noted as “an 11 year old multi-state restaurant development and management company” on Wright’s LinkedIn profile. News reports indicated Wright has opened and closed a number of restaurants as well as  scraped plans to open a rustic northern Italian eatery in downtown Chandler.  In 2013, less than two weeks following the opening of Gringo Star,  the Phoenix New Times reported on Wright’s plans to open other businesses on Tempe’s main drag. The fate of the Gringo Star location is unknown. The Facebook page states it’s “permanently closed” and as of publication, no one representing Gringo Star has responded to questions from commenters.

View Details

Two new judges will oversee the ongoing legal battle between the proprietors of the Welcome Inn and its employees.

The case involving the Quincy, IL hotel has been reassigned to Judge Colin Stirling Bruce and Magistrate Judge Eric I. Long, according to the most recent document filing. U.S. Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins is no longer on the case.

Plaintiffs April R. Brashier, Richard M. Orencia, and Chad Lebow filed a lawsuit against Quincy Property LLC, doing business as “Welcome Inn,” and Brett Burge, Kenneth Logan, Quentin Kearney and Joe Wimberly under FLSA and Illinois Wage Laws. The lawsuit, filed Jan. 28, 2017, alleges the plaintiffs worked at the defendants’ hotels and weren’t paid overtime due under FLSA.

The plaintiffs further allege they were misclassified as salaried employees exempt from FLSA, and that the defendants illegally deducted amounts from their pay in violation of FLSA.

Under FLSA, employees may bring a collective action against an employer to recover unpaid overtime or minimum wages. Unlike class action suits under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure whereby potential plaintiffs are included unless they opt out, potential plaintiffs in FLSA collective actions must affirmatively opt in to the suit, according to Cornell Law School.

Brashier claims in court documents she was unjustly terminated at Welcome Inn for complaining about a lack of overtime pay, and threatened with illegal wage deductions.

Lebow alleges the defendants also retaliated against him. He claims they reduced his wages and/or tried to intimidate him by “strictly scrutinizing his work because he requested overtime pay.”

Allegations and court documents have flown back and forth since the case’s filing. After nearly two years, a telephone conference has been scheduled with the court for Nov. 30. Despite the change in presiding judge, the conference will go on as scheduled with Judge Long.

Bruce is a federal judge for the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. Long served as the First Assistant United States Attorney and Criminal Chief for the Office of the United States Attorney for the Central District of Illinois prior to his appointment as magistrate. He served in that capacity since August 2013, after previously serving as an Assistant United States Attorney, Civil Chief and Branch Chief since August 2002, according to his biography.

Documents gave no information as to why the case was reassigned to Long and Bruce.

View Details

The owners of a Welcome Inn hotel in Quincy, Illinois had initially reacted to a lawsuit by interviewing employees as to their working conditions, according to court documents.

In Brashier v. Quincy Properties, LLC, former Welcome Inn employees April Brashier, Richard Orencia and Chad O. Lebow alleged the owners of the hotel violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay them for overtime hours worked. The plaintiffs claim Welcome Inn owners Ken Logan and Quentin Kearney misclassified them as salaried employees in order to dodge overtime pay requirements. The plaintiffs also allege the owners violated the FLSA through illegal deductions from their paychecks.

Brashier claims that when she went to the owners to complain about the conditions now described in the lawsuit, they fired her.

According to court documents, Logan said he and Kearney interviewed several Welcome Inn hotel employees to see if the plaintiffs’ allegations had any merit, and also to determine if Brashier, Orencia and Lebow might be owed further compensation.

Logan and Kearney then asked those employees to sign a draft declaration drawn up by their attorney. The statement reads, in part: “I have been interviewed regarding this Declaration and I choose to complete it without threat or coercion or retaliation. I understand that I am free to complete this Declaration and my decision to decline cannot be used against me or negatively impact my rights or my employment.”

The form continued with employment-related questions and ended with a declaration of signing under penalty of perjury. Court documents show Logan said he and Kearney used the form as a “model to frame the discussions” and added that if any employees of Welcome Inn hotel believed they were owed money, they were paid that amount regardless of failure to sign the declaration. Documents don’t provide the names of all those interviewed, or those who signed the declaration.

Cooperation or coercion? The plaintiffs presented the affidavits of two former employees allegedly interviewed by Kearney and Logan: Debra Schoen and Jason Smidt. Schoen’s affidavit alleges that Logan referred to other employees as “Mexicans” and that he repeatedly asked her to sign a paper stating she was owed no overtime. Schoen further alleged that she was forced to sign the document without reading it or consulting an attorney. She feared termination and claimed that if fired, she would only have three days to move.

Logan disputed many of Schoen’s statements and denied threatening or coercing anyone he interviewed, court documents show. Logan reportedly told Schoen that she was free to participate or not participate in the interview.

“Kearney and Smidt also disagree over the details of Smidt’s interview,” casetext reported. “According to Smidt, Kearney called Smidt to meet with him. At the meeting, Kearney asked if he owed Smidt any money. Kearney explained that there was a lawsuit and he wanted to know if Smidt thought he was owed any money. Smidt said he was owed $500,” according to Smidt’s affidavit.

According to Smidt, Kearney said, “I will pay what you think you are owed, but you have to sign a document saying you will never sue.” Kearney transferred $500 to Smidt’s bank account. Smidt used his smart phone to confirm the transfer. Kearney then gave Smidt a document to sign. According to Smidt, Kearney told him that by signing, Smidt would not be able to sue him or the other defendants in the pending lawsuit. Smidt signed the document. According to Smidt, Kearney told him that if he tried to sue, Smidt would get nothing, and would have to pay Kearney “a lot of money.”

Kearney disputed several of Smidt’s statements. Kearney said he asked Smidt about any money owed to him and paid the $500 “before I presented a declaration to Smidt based on our interview.” Kearney said he did not condition receipt of the $500 on signing the declaration. Kearney also said he never told Smidt that once he signed the declaration, he could not sue any of the defendants.

Kearney also said that no employee was terminated for refusing to participate in the interviews he and Logan conducted. Kearney said no employee was terminated for refusing to sign a declaration. Kearney said no one threatened or coerced any Welcome Inn hotel employee he interviewed into signing a declaration.

The case is Brashier v. QuincyProperty, LLC, No. 17-cv-3022, at *11 (C.D. Ill. Sep. 29, 2017).

View Details

Four owners of a Welcome Inn located in Quincy, Illinois are being sued for allegations of violating that state’s Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in a complex case that has spanned nearly two years.

Plaintiffs April R. Brashier, Richard M. Orencia, and Chad Lebow filed a lawsuit against Quincy Property LLC, doing business as “Welcome Inn,” and Brett Burge, Kenneth Logan, Quentin Kearney and Joe Wimberly under FLSA and Illinois Wage Laws. The lawsuit, filed Jan. 28, 2017, alleges the plaintiffs worked at the defendants’ hotels and weren’t paid overtime due under FLSA.

The plaintiffs further allege they were misclassified as salaried employees exempt from FLSA, and that the defendants illegally deducted amounts from their pay in violation of FLSA.

Under FLSA, employees may bring a collective action against an employer to recover unpaid overtime or minimum wages. Unlike class actions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure whereby potential plaintiffs are included in the class unless they opt out, potential plaintiffs in FLSA collective actions must affirmatively opt in to the suit, according to Cornell Law School.

Brashier claims in court documents she was unjustly terminated at Welcome Inn for complaining about a lack of overtime pay, and threatened with illegal wage deductions.

Lebow alleges the defendants also retaliated against him. He claims they reduced his wages and/or tried to intimidate him by “strictly scrutinizing his work because he requested overtime pay.”

Allegations and court documents have flown back and forth since the case’s filing.

Points of contention The first disagreement between the parties concerns the definition of Collective. This affects to whom the notice is sent. The plaintiffs assert the Collective should be defined as “all salaried employees” while the defendants contend it should be limited to individuals at Welcome Inn holding the title of housekeeper, maintenance staff, front desk personnel, and skilled trade construction employees, or those performing similar tasks, according to league.com.

The plaintiffs also allege the defendants improperly took deductions from salaried employees, therefore, a class of all salaried employees is appropriate.

The court found that notice must be sent to those employees, classified as exempt, who were paid less than $455 weekly. One of the requirements for classifying employees as exempt from overtime and minimum-wage requirements is that they are paid at least $455 per week. Plaintiff Orencia asserts he was classified as exempt, but was paid less than $455 per week, court documents show.

The parties also disagree on whether the notice can be transmitted by text message in addition to US Mail and email. Plaintiffs propose providing an abbreviated notice to potential opt-ins by text message. This could help potential opt-ins further inquire about the case.

The case is being heard by U.S. Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins.

View Details

By: Gord Brody // Human Rights Watch

From the end of World War II, through the Cold War, the fall of the Soviet Empire and even to this day, the United States has commonly been called “The World’s Policeman.” It’s not always a compliment and is actually being rebuked from those on the left and the right of the political spectrum. The direction this incumbency is headed is debatable, but one very troubling effect of the explosion of U.S. military activity since 9/11 is what’s happening back home.

The mentality of the “warrior cop” comes straight from overseas, where we’ve been at war since 2001. Many soldiers, who returned home, have joined their local police forces, only to find themselves using some of the same tactics, weapons and vehicles on American city streets that were used in Fallujah, Baghdad and Kabul.

We have become a police state.

Militarized Police

The single largest factor in the transformation of the peace officer in to an antagonistic, menacing force, is their acquisition of military style weapons, armor and vehicles. Grants from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have given municipal police departments and county sheriff’s offices access to heavy artillery, battle training and the famed Lenco Bearcat, which is essentially a tank. These vehicles cost in the neighborhood of $200,000 and weigh 8 tons.

The Bearcat sounds like a necessary vehicle for navigating a war zone, but what about a small town? A grant from DHS would have brought a one to the streets of Keene, NH, a sleepy community of 23,000 people. That was, until the citizens got wind of it in advance and put the whole thing to a stop. Keep in mind, that this is the absolute exception. Usually the Bearcat finds its way to these small towns one way or another, whether the people living and working there like it or not. In February 2012, however, the citizens of Keene said a resounding “No.” Below is an excerpt from Autoblog.com:

The Keene, NH, police department was going to get its own Lenco BearCat, a vehicle the town’s mayor reportedly described as a “tank.” However, citizens in the town of 23,000 revolted, according to the article, with nearly 100 of them packing a city council meeting in opposition. Critics said the vehicle promoted violence, and cited a promotional video for the BearCat that shows gun-wielding cops using one of the armored trucks to knock down the door of a house and spray tear gas inside. The issue is scheduled to come up again at next month’s meeting.

A $285,933 grant from DHS would pay for the eight-ton military truck. The Huffington Post cites a report from the Center for Investigative Reporting stating that $34 billion of similar grants have been issued since Sept. 11, 2001.

A Lenco spokesman criticized some of the citizens who spoke out against his firm’s vehicle, calling them “crazy.”

It’s quite bold to call people in a small New Hampshire town “crazy,” for rejecting this type of policing in their streets. Lenco Bearcat pictured below

The “Homeland” is now the Battlefield

Post 9/11 paranoia about a large terrorist attack being a possible outcome in just about every corner of the United States has lead to a swift and thorough repeal of basic constitutional rights, for innocent American citizens, in the name of security. The examples are everywhere and impossible to miss.

• The Patriot Act (2001): This legislation, passed just 6 weeks after the September 11th attacks was a shredding of the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It explicitly states that Americans or visitors in our country have no expectation that they are to be secure in their person, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. We are no longer free from warrants being issued against us without probable cause. What this has all deteriorated in to is the Federal Government, through the National Security Agency (NSA) holding a virtual monopoly on data transmitted electronically through the internet, EMail, Cell Phones and many other devices. They then share this info with local police and it casts a very wide electronic dragnet, which few, if any are able to escape. The revelations by Edward Snowden in 2013 rung the alarm bell for the entire developed world that the NSA was collecting all the data, phone calls, texts and any other imaginable information under the guise of “security.”
• DHS Agency, TSA, Begins Aggressive “Groping” Searches of American Men, Women, Children and the Elderly: Air travel in the U.S. has come to be defined by one single incendiary experience: The TSA (Transportation Security Administration) groping pat down. Through a series of enhanced measures which are claimed by DHS to be “designed to prevent another 9/11” , airport security in this country has gone from a mild annoyance to something that many have described as sexual assault. The subjects of enhanced security measures could be anyone from a suspicious looking child to a wheelchair bound senior citizen who are selected, supposedly at random, to be stripped down, groped, fondled and humiliated. This is done just so that there can be no doubt in the mind of the screener that this person is not carrying some sort of weapon or bomb. Essentially, they’ve decided that the average American is a potential terrorist, with no evidence to support that claim. Keep in mind that TSA alone employs 60,000 people and their annual budget is nearly $8 Billion dollars. This is a giant bureaucracy who spends more money than entire countries like Canada, Spain and Australia just on security in airports.
• DHS Purchases Billions of Rounds of Ammo: If our loss of rights and dignity wasn’t enough to scare the average American whose become accustomed to the poor treatment by their Federal Government, what about the fact that they are arming themselves to the teeth? Last year, Forbes confirmed that 1.6 Billion rounds of ammo were being purchased, not by the U.S. Army, but by the Department of Homeland Security. Let that sink in for just a minute. In addition to that, they’re also buying up the steroid addicted cousin to the Lenco Bearcat, the MRAP. That same write up in Forbes from March of 2013 has the details:

Add to this perplexing outré purchase of ammo, DHS now is showing off its acquisition of heavily armored personnel carriers, repatriated from the Iraqi and Afghani theaters of operation. As observed by “paramilblogger” Ken Jorgustin last September:

The Department of Homeland Security is apparently taking delivery of an undetermined number of the recently retrofitted 2,717 ‘Mine Resistant Protected’ MaxxPro MRAP vehicles for service on the streets of the United States.”

These MRAP’s ARE BEING SEEN ON U.S. STREETS all across America by verified observers with photos, videos, and descriptions.”

Regardless of the exact number of MRAP’s being delivered to DHS (and evidently some to POLICE via DHS, as has been observed), why would they need such over-the-top vehicles on U.S. streets to withstand IEDs, mine blasts, and 50 caliber hits to bullet-proof glass? In a war zone… yes, definitely. Let’s protect our men and women. On the streets of America… ?

“They all have gun ports… Gun Ports? In the theater of war, yes. On the streets of America…?

Seriously, why would DHS need such a vehicle on our streets?”

• Indefinite Detention Without Trial (NDAA 2012): Not so hidden within the bill that is passed every year to fund the military operations of the United States, otherwise known as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), was an indemnity for American citizens to be held indefinitely without trial or even notification to their families in a military tribunal. Section 1021 authorizes such actions and has been highly scrutinized since its signing by President Obama just after midnight on New Years Day 2012. It’s an unprecedented move to allow for executive authority to completely bypass the court system and the U.S. Constitution in the face of a perceived threat by an individual. This is yet another swift erosion of rights once enjoyed by all, which are now subject to review and revision at the stroke of a pen.

View Details

As the world wades further and further into the Information Age, the definition of a journalist has continued morphing at a faster rate than ever. So what is a journalist? Is it a person acting as a watchdog of the government, or a spokesman for it? Is it a member of age-old institutions that have been respected for years, or is it a lone speaker trying to be heard above the din of voices? Did he or she study some form of writing, or is he an accountant with a hobby? Does it matter?

These are questions that no longer only plague discussions of credibility, but also the laws of the land. In recent months the discussion surrounding the implantation of a federal shield law has significantly increased, with cases like Jana Winter’s and James Rosen’s garnering mass media coverage. But smaller cases have been surfacing as well, such as the Crystal Cox defamation suit.

What Is a Journalist?

Merriam Webster defines a journalist firstly as a “writer or editor for a news medium,” and secondly as a “writer who aims at a mass audience.” While the first definition may be reserved for employees of institutional news organizations, the second could easily apply to any blogger. Most citizen journalists know they’ll never reach more than a few readers, but it doesn’t mean that they don’t hope to go viral. Most people don’t write in a public forum just for themselves.

The complication comes when you consider the rights of a journalist, and how broadly those rights should apply.

Last summer the Senate Judiciary Committee spent time debating the definition of a journalist as it constructed the language for a federal shield law, which is any law that gives a reporter privilege, much like a priest or doctor has, that prevents a judge from compelling him or her to produce information for a subpoena. Sen. Diane Feinstein wanted to ensure that any definition did not cover entities such as WikiLeaks, who she feels aren’t journalists, just leakers. One proposal she put forward was a salary requirement. Sen. Chuck Schumer fought that requirement because in the Internet Age it’s not just writers who earn a living for it who are disseminating important public information.

Consider Sohaib Athar, also known by his Twitter handle “Really Virtual,” who unknowingly live-tweeted the military operation that killed Osama bin Laden. He may live in Pakistan, but had he lived in the United States that type of citizen reporting likely would, and should, have been covered as journalistic in nature. Another prime example is the work of the members of the Arab Spring who helped forward the goals of freedom. TIME even awarded the protesters from that movement, as well as others such as Occupy Wall Street, with its “Person of the Year” award in 2011.

The Need For a Shield Law

Currently 40 states have enacted specifically tailored shield laws. The rest of the states, less Wyoming, protect a reporter’s privilege through case law, the state constitution, or other legal means.

The federal shield law, which would likely trump state laws and render them obsolete, is slowly making its way through Congress. The language, as it stands, states that a party searching for information in a trial must have exhausted all other means of obtaining the information; that there is a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed; and that the information is critical to the party winning its suit (criminal or civil). Other situations under which a journalist could be compelled to testify include cases of future national security threats; if the information could prevent imminent bodily harm or death; if trade secrets are being disseminated; or if the public interest of the information being revealed outweighs the public interest of the information being withheld. A judge has the final say on a case by case basis. The law also does not protect defamation, slander, and libel, which have case law as precedents.

A last provision in the federal law state that the subpoena can’t be overly broad, unreasonable, or oppressive, and it must be “narrowly tailored” in subject matter and time so that other documents aren’t unnecessarily revealed.

So why is this type of law necessary? Take a look at our current administration. Many say that it is the worst for ever for going after reporters. New York Times Executive Editor Jill Abramson told Al Jazeera America last year that the Obama administration “is the most secretive White House that I have ever been involved in covering” in 22 years; James Goodale, one of the lawyers who fought for publication of the Pentagon Papers and defended the Times’ right to publish them in front of the Supreme Court, wrote an editorial for The Daily Beast last May that the Obama administration is worse than Nixon’s in terms national security press freedom. In fact, this administration has prosecuted eight individuals for felonious crimes of leaking classified information to the press under the 1917 Espionage Act, compared with a total of three prosecutions for all previous administrations.

First, it was uncovered that the Department of Justice had seized two months of incoming and outgoing phone records from Associated Press reporters and editors without notifying the publication to allow an appeal. The seizure came after The AP printed a story in May 2012 about the government’s actions to stop a bomb from Al Qaeda in Yemen. The AP says they consulted with the government to make sure no national security information was divulged, but the publication was still secretly monitored.

It was soon revealed that in 2009 the DOJ used a search warrant to monitor Fox News reporter James Rosen. Rosen, a beat reporter in Washington, had his movements monitored via his State Department security badge. The warrant, which also permitted monitoring of Rosen’s email, was issued after the DOJ argued that he was a criminal co-conspirator with Stephen Jin-Woo Kim in leaking classified information that North Korea may test a nuclear bomb.

These leaks led to reforms in the DOJ, but a federal shield law would theoretically, and hopefully, further limit the government from overstepping its power. Confidential sources are the most vital tool an investigative reporter has; without them, there would not be a free dissemination of information because there would be very little information to report. The monitoring of Rosen led to a conviction of his source, Kim, likely keeping other possible sources from approaching Rosen in the future.

A Federal Definition for “Journalist”

But the most important part of the federal law, and the part that judges, journalists, and citizens will focus on, is how a journalist was ultimately defined. The final language protects those who publish news or information for any news information service whether it’s in print, electronic, or another format. The person must also act like a journalist, meaning he or she must gather information and materials with the prior intention of publishing.

Other parameters do outline a type of salary requirement—you’re covered if you worked for a news organization for at least one year in the previous 20 or three months in the previous five years—but it also protects student journalists. And lastly, what pleased many in the media was the addition of a clause granting a judge the authority to extend coverage under the shield law to any person if the judge felt doing so was “necessary to protect lawful and legitimate news-gathering activities,” meaning that a citizen journalist doing true reporting could be covered.

Historical Setbacks

The main legal barrier to a federal shield law is the Supreme Court Case Branzenburg v. Hayes. The court was deeply divided, siding 5-4 against the journalists claim that the press clause in the First Amendment constituted a privilege similar to that of a doctor’s, spouse’s, religious overseer’s, or lawyer’s protecting them from testifying before a grand jury. The court held that the burden to report the news doesn’t outweigh the public’s need for a law enforcement system and the absence of such a privilege had not held back the press from flourishing since America was birthed.

While the case has been a set back for journalists since 1972, there were bright spots in the decisions. Justice Byron White, writing for the majority, wrote that though the court declined to recognize a privilege for journalists, it did see the importance of a free press and that the government should have to show “a substantial relation between the information sought and a subject of overriding and compelling state interest.” Justice Lewis Powell concurred, writing “The asserted claim to privilege should be judged on its facts by the striking of a proper balance between freedom of the press and the obligation of all citizens to give relevant testimony with respect to criminal conduct. The balance of these vital constitutional and societal interests on a case-by-case basis accords with the tried and traditional way of adjudicating such questions.”

Is A Shield Law a Good Idea?

Despite the obvious need for some type of protection for journalists to protect their sources, there are concerns with the actuality of a federal shield law. Is it a good idea for the government to define a journalist? Many think this may lead to licensing for journalists, which is an enormous hindrance on free speech and a form of censorship, and thusly unconstitutional.

Syracuse University Professor Roy Gutterman—an expert on communications law and the First Amendment, as well as the director for the renowned Tully Center for Free Speech at Syracuse—prefers that the “news gathering function” be defined instead of a “journalist.” Gutterman told Veritas News that “The analogy to licensing is obvious and it’s a long standing concern with shield law, whether it’s federal or state, it gets into this question of who gets to qualify,” so language that asks questions like “do you engage in news gathering and reporting and editing” would be preferable.

Another concern is the government overriding any law put in place. As Gutterman pointed out, the Department of Justice already has guidelines for subpoenaing reporters. “They can’t just willy-nilly call up a reporter and ask for information or subpoena them. There is a sort of checklist they have to engage in, but it’s easy to overcome.” It’s certainly easy enough to find a claim for national security or an imminent threat, especially if those claims are considered top secret. In those cases the information doesn’t have to be conveyed in open court, and so a journalist can’t contest the veracity of the claim. The Attorney General Eric Holder even called James Rosen a “flight risk” so that the DOJ didn’t have to notify him that he was being surveilled.

The Future

It’s quite possible that, not only will a federal shield law finally be put in place, but that the Supreme Court will soon rule on the matter of a reporter’s privilege. New York Times reporter James Risen faces prison for refusing to testify in the criminal trial of former CIA agent Jeffrey Sterling. Risen wrote in his book, State of War, about a failed operation to sabotage Iran’s nuclear research, and the DOJ thinks Sterling was the source. A three judge panel from the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Risen must testify, but in January he appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court.

As the current administration fights tooth and nail to stem its leaky faucet, it’s more important than ever that journalists are protected. The United States contends its position as the world’s policemen because it is a democracy, and citizens are granted personal freedoms. The US condemns other countries, like Egypt, for jailing reporters. So why is this condemnation not reflected on the United States’ legal system? “You talk about making an international statement, it was very hard for the US to condemn other countries where reporters are…harassed, beat, and so on,” Gutterman said to Veritas News. “And now we have the federal government going after reporters who are going after the highest forms of government and it doesn’t look good and isn’t American tradition.” No one disagrees that the government has a difficult job to do protecting state secrets, but maybe it should spend less time fighting reporters and more time acting morally and within the boundaries of the law so that employees don’t feel the need to blow the whistle.

View Details

Internet privacy may be a myth in the 21st century. Just look at the news cycle for the past several months: it has been dominated by the classified documents that Edward Snowden leaked from the National Security Agency. The documents show that the United States government is constantly spying on not only foreigners within the US, but also on citizens at home and abroad, as well as aliens physically in their own countries. The news has wrought a worldwide fear that we live in an age that lacks privacy. People no longer feel comfortable speaking freely to friends and relatives over the phone or though email. The scariest part is that most of these fearful people are placing their concern with the wrong entity.

Yes, one can worry about Big Brother from now until the end of days. But if a person doesn’t break the law and lives life relatively sin-free, there’s little to worry about in regard to data the government may have on you. The real concern should be what damage regular people surveilling your activities can do to irreparably harm your life.

Dangers of Virtual Reality

Maybe you click on a link in an email for Amazon, Bank of America, or your gas company. The email looks like your other emails from the company, and the website at the other end of the link looks just like the one you normally use. This is one of the easiest ways to gain access to your cyber-life. It looks legitimate, and users are ready to enter their username and password. Later on, when your bank account is emptied and your credit card fraudulently used, you realize that a scammer created a facsimile that you fell for, and you gave the scammer all the information he or she needed to access any account you use that information from. This is referred to as phishing.

But maybe you’re smart. Smarter than those other Internet users who don’t watch where they’re going when “crossing the street.” The problem is that an increase in Internet user savvy in spotting scams is always met and surpassed with hackers growing wilier about creating them.

A new trend that has been in the news—though not nearly as much as the NSA reveals—is revenge porn. Although the standard definition is having nude photos you took with a significant other posted on the Internet after a nasty break-up, this is not the only form revenge porn can take. In fact, there are other forms that the person in the photo is much less responsible for.

Beware of the RATs

Look at the case from last fall involving Miss Teen USA Cassidy Wolf. The Washington Post reportsthat she was emailed two nude photos of herself that she had never seen. The FBI found that a former high school classmate had software on his computer that allowed him to spy remotely on Wolf, and others, through the webcams built into their computers. This is done by using a RAT, or Remote Administration Tool, to control another person’s computer through the Internet.

Until this point it was widely believed that you were safe from this type of hacking as long as you watched out for the LED light next to the webcam—if it’s on it means it’s in use. Wolf says her light was never on, and a former assistant director of the FBI’s Operational Technology Division in Quantico says the agency found a way to activate a computer’s camera without igniting the light years ago, likely meaning serious computer hackers could do so as well. A professor and graduate student at Johns Hopkins recently wrote a paper about the ability to hack Apple computers without turning on the light

Social Engineering Is Out-Laws-ed

A huge proponent of legislation to prevent revenge porn is Charlotte Laws. She got involved after her daughter’s email was hacked by a scammer using social engineering, which is using psychological manipulation to get a person to divulge personal information.

In this type of situation, which Charlotte’s daughter Kayla suffered, a group of friends is targeted all at once. The hacker uses Facebook to imitate the victim to make his or her friends think they were talking to the victim. Of course, if you’re talking to a friend you’re likely to reveal personal information, and that information helped the hacker access the victims’ email accounts. Now the hacker not only has access to photos you posted on Facebook, but also to anything hidden in your private email.

Kayla was made aware that intimate photos she had taken of herself and emailed from her cell phone to her computer—but never sent to anyone else—were posted on a revenge porn website called “Is Anyone Up?” when her friend Katie was perusing the site after a male friend of hers was extorted with photos of himself posted. When Kayla went to see for herself she found photos of another friend of hers posted as well.

Websites like “Is Anyone Up?” don’t just post your photo though. Your name, phone number, address, place of employment, and other personal information may be posted, and users of the porn site are encouraged to harass you with the information. Not only may your friends and family be sent to nude photos, but your employer can be as well.

Charlotte set out on a vendetta to help other victims of this website. She wasn’t sure what accounts of the victims’ had been hacked, so she used the phone numbers that were posted on the site, or available on White Pages, to call the victims. What she found was that more than 50 percent of the dozens of victims she contacted had either been hacked or had photos of their face Photoshopped onto nude bodies of other women.

It wasn’t a secret who was running the website: Hunter Moore was an entrepreneur in California who called himself a “professional life ruiner” in interviews, and obviously got off on running sites like this, and adjacent sites that blackmailed victims into paying to have their photos taken down from the first website. He hired a hacker who went by the likely made-up name Gary Jones to do the dirty work. And he was fearless; he knew how unlikely it was for victims to fight him in court because a civil suit costs about $60,000, and would make the photo a public record, exposing it to even more eyes.

Charlotte’s Advice

Charlotte told Veritas News that the thinks the only solution to revenge porn is through legislation because you can’t prevent yourself from being hacked. But that also doesn’t mean people should shun the Internet, because that isn’t realistic in today’s world. Here is some advice she shared for our readers to better protect themselves. You can also visit endrevengeporn.org for more resources and attorneys to help with a law suit at little or no cost:

1. Build up your online presence. If you have a common name it is less likely that a nude photo will pop up on the first page of search results when your name is Googled. If you have a more rare name, the chances are that the photo will pop up higher on the list of search results. Combat this by creating legitimate profiles on respectable social media sites. These should push the unwanted photo further down the list.
2. Do NOT delete the nude photos of yourself. As soon as you take them make sure you save them. Whether you print the photo out or save it on an external hard drive it doesn’t matter. This is vital because one way to get a website to cease and desist publishing your photos is if you have proof that you took them, which means you own the copyright. Don’t delete any headshots either, or really any photos, because the same rule applies if a photo of your face is morphed with another person’s body.
3. Call on your local representative to support laws that protect users from revenge porn. The only state with a law on the books is New Jersey, but Charlotte has worked with California State Sen. Anthony Cannella and a few others to finally get a law passed in California.

Other Protection Methods

Charlotte’s advice is great for situations in which you are hacked, but what if you fall victim to another form of online torture? Here are some important steps to ensure your safety online in general:

1. Cover Your Webcam

Put a piece of tape over your camera when you’re not using it, or buy a more sophisticated cover, such as Eyebloc, a 3D-printed piece of plastic shaped like a shield that slips over your webcam. It sells on Amazon and eyebloc.com for $6.99.

1. Two-Step Verification

Sites such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, and many free email services have an option to add an extra layer of safety beyond your password so that you can only enter your account with both your password and a code that is texted to you. With Gmail, for example, you can’t log-in on a new computer if you don’t have your cell phone with you.

1. Use a Secure Connection

You’re probably aware that all websites start with http://. But it’s important to change your settings to encrypt the websites you visit. Make sure they read “https” instead of “http” to ensure you’re using secure connection sites, especially if you’re logging in on a public Wi-Fi network. Other preferences you can change in your browser include limiting websites from tracking you and from accessing your location.

1. Use Complicated Passwords

First, make sure you aren’t using the same password for every website. Each email address should have a different password, as should any bank accounts or online bills you pay. Also make sure not to use the same security questions across the board. Second, use more complex passwords. Many websites now have certain requirements to make stronger passwords, but if they don’t, you should create one that is at least eight characters long, doesn’t use a common word or name, or a predictable pattern such as numbers at the end.

1. Don’t Click on Email Links

Whether you get an email to pay your monthly electric bill, or to buy the latest Dan Brown book on sale, do not access this through your email. Instead, go directly to the electric company’s website, or Amazon.com, to get to your bill and pay it. That way you can’t fall for a fake site that looks so much like the one you know.

View Details

Bowl season is holiday season for college football conferences and schools, and not just because it falls during the same time of year. Four of the “Power 5” conferences are guaranteed over $30 million just from their automatic participation in BCS bowls, and stand to make an additional $11-22 million from non-BCS bowl games, depending on the conference.

Of the Power 5 conferences, the SEC leads the way with $51.5 million in total bowl revenue. The ACC finished second with $46.6 million, followed by the Big Ten with $45.5 million, the Big-12 with $42.2 million and the Pac-12 with $41.4 million.

Under the current system, a school from each of the AQ (automatic qualifying) conferences receives an automatic berth in one of five BCS bowl games, which nets each respective conference a $23.9 million payout. This is the final season there are six AQ conferences – the AAC gets a bid along with the Power 5 leagues. The remaining four at-large berths are worth $6.3 million to the conference of whichever teams are selected. The BCS (Bowl Championship Series) also gives $250,000 to each conference.

This format, however, is in its final season. Beginning next year, the BCS will move to a four-team playoff for the National Championship, which will require three games. Currently, there is one National Championship game along with four publicized yet pointless BCS bowls, which are glorified cash cows that crown a pack of runner-ups.

The new system will not only be more exciting, but far more profitable as well. The BCS’ long-term contract with ESPN is worth an average of $470 million per year, as opposed to the measly $155 million annually the BCS currently receives. $345 million of that money will be split between all conferences, with between 70-85% (depending on differing reports) going to the Power 5 conferences.

As usual, Christmas has been good to the NCAA brass this season, and it only stands to get better. The players, meanwhile, have no presents under their tree.

View Details

Years from now, the college sports world will look back upon today as perhaps the most significant time in its history. It is a time of palatial prosperity for the National Collegiate Athletic Association; unprecedented profits and popularity have catapulted its product to the vanguard of American sports. But it seems the only thing that can keep up with the NCAA’s penchant for power is its magnetism for ethical imbroglio and scandal. While concord is becoming increasingly difficult to find within the organization, nearly everyone inside seems to harmoniously agree that change, in some scope, is coming.

But what that change will look like seems to be the million – or more appropriately, multi-billion – dollar question. The NCAA is reportedly projected to rake in over $900 million in revenue this year, thanks almost entirely to prodigious television contracts and other media rights payments, and that number is expected to climb to over $2 billion by 2020. Burgeoning outrage that is beginning to smother the brand clearly isn’t stemming from the amount of money being made, but rather from how it’s being allocated. The athletes, or as the NCAA would swiftly correct you to say, “student-athletes,” are being excluded from the ever-expanding pot of gold.

The NCAA has always defended not paying players because they receive scholarships instead. But that rule was instated before ESPN and the internet made college sports (and all others) into colossal cash machines. Now, football and men’s basketball have become such potent revenue generators that many are starting to wonder why a small group of predominantly old, rich white guys from the south are collecting all the treasure when a far larger group of predominantly African-American young men spend all day digging for it – and why that thought creates a disconcerting feeling of history repeating itself.

Of course, NCAA President Mark Emmert and his clan of athletic directors and college presidents are against “pay-for-play,” since that money would likely come from their own pockets. But the salaries of the aforementioned regime, along with those of the coaches, continue to dramatically ascend. Last season 70 football coaches made over $1 million, 50 made over $2 million, and 25 made over $3 million. In 39 states, the highest paid state employee is a football or basketball coach, and college presidents wear the crown in five of the remaining 11 states. Emmert himself makes $1.6 million.

Directly paying players to compete, many argue, turns the NCAA into a semi-professional league. But as the television contracts, merchandise sales, and administrator salaries keep swelling, how can the athletes, those most responsible for all the income and those risking their own futures the most, not get a piece of the pie? In former NCAA President Walter Byers’ book Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Exploiting College Athletes, he writes, “Today the NCAA Presidents Commission is…firmly committed to the belief that the enormous proceeds from college games belong to the overseers and supervisors. The plantation workers performing in the arena may only receive those benefits authorized by the overseers.” Andrew Zimablist argues in Unpaid Professionals the NCAA coined the term “student-athlete” simply so they could ostracize them from earnings and avoid potential lawsuits.

The NCAA polity doesn’t just refuse to share, but also won’t allow athletes to beget money from their personal brands. Former UCLA basketball star Ed O’Bannon brought a class-action lawsuit against the NCAA with numerous other former athletes, alleging the NCAA shouldn’t be allowed to directly profit from player likeness on jerseys, in video games and elsewhere. Recently, a US District Judge ruled that players could in fact challenge NCAA rules that “prohibit compensation beyond the value of their athletic scholarships.” However, she denied their pursuit of billions of dollars of lost revenue from the past, only allowing players to sue for damages individually.

Earlier this season, the NCAA alleged Texas A&M quarterback Johnny Manziel had sold his own autograph, and responded by suspending him for half a game. Yet in years past, similar or even lesser offenders received far more substantial penalties (Part II of this story will further explore the NCAA’s laughable enforcement record). Meanwhile, the NCAA online store continued to sell Manziel’s jersey until ESPN analyst Jay Bilas tweeted in indignation, and jersey sales were immediately removed from the site.

The NCAA’s egregious and widening wealth disparity, which has alarming similarities to the rest of the world, has long since crossed the line of being a picketing cry for justice by ignorant idealists. There seems to be an ostensible business opportunity to disrupt the carefully guided cash flow that is passing by those who are creating it. History has taught us this scenario is unlikely to last long; a flame added to those portentous ingredients is a recipe for revolution.

As if all of the above weren’t enough, redistribution of wealth isn’t the only looming threat along the treacherous path that the NCAA has already begun to face. The NCAA is an organization long marred with scandal, corruption, incompetence and hypocrisy. Part II will take a cavernous dive into the off-the-field troubles that have shattered the NCAA’s credibility, thus weakening its legs as it prepares for its tenuous future.

Hence the manifest importance of the present for the NCAA. Even Emmert acknowledged, “It seems to be a bit of a historic moment.” He has apparently come to realize the hard Darwinian truth: a significant upheaval of college sports as we know it is indeed on the horizon, if it is to survive. The NCAA, which declined to comment on this story, has never been more embattled but similarly never more profitable. The road ahead for the NCAA, no matter where it leads, will be the toughest one yet.

View Details

The New York State Attorney General has placed debt collector Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC under strict guidelines when attempting to collect debts from state residents.

The company, located in Norfolk, VA, has been the subject of thousands of consumer complaints nationwide and has filed 66,000 debt collection actions in New York courts alone between 2007 and 2012.

Among the thousands of judgments filed, Portfolio Recovery Associates has filed over 2,000 judgments on time-barred actions between Dec. 2008 and April 2012 and in some instances continued to collect on those judgments despite being time-barred.

Under the assurance the state made with Portfolio Recovery Associates, the company can no longer commence or cause to be commenced any lawsuit against a time-barred debt. New York’s statute of limitation’s is six years, however, some contracts, particularly credit card agreements, state that their place of incorporation serves as the location. Many companies incorporate in Delaware, which time-bars debts after three years.

The settlement requires Portfolio Recovery Associates to vacate the improper judgments with the court and cease any further collection activities on the judgments, make key enhancements to their debt collection practices, and pay civil penalties and costs to the state in the amounts of $300,000. PRA must also train its employees as to the collection practices they must follow in New York.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, like other collection agencies, buys bad debts for pennies on the dollar. They then attempt to collect on those debts, even those that are time-barred. For consumers unaware of collection laws, they pay the bill or have judgments placed against them.

Some consumers have had their bank accounts frozen or their wages garnisheed for debts that are either time-barred or weren’t theirs to begin with. Court papers are filed with little, if any, verification of debt and many don’t specify whether the debt is time-barred.

Beginning in March, any debt collector wishing to file a judgment in a New York State court will have to provide much more information about the debt and the filer must include the debtors address so the court can send out notice to confirm the court papers have been received by the person being sued.

The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act lists the laws that govern credit reporting. Each state has its own laws, many of which offer additional protection.

View Details

The phone rings. The caller claims to be from United Processing Services. The message: Call an unnamed law firm within a specified time period, usually an hour or two, or a process server will arrive at your door, or worse, at your place of employment. Don’t ask questions because there are no answers. The case is purportedly sealed, however, a case number is provided to give to an attorney at the toll-free phone number for the purported law firm.

A call to the so-called “law firm” leads to a company called R & J Consulting where the person answering is a debt collector, not an attorney, and will attempt to collect a debt- or a presumed debt- or a phantom debt.

The threatening calls often go to those who are in the midst of a major purchase, such as a mortgage, refinance or vehicle loan. The calls put some in a panic as they don’t want anything to prevent or delay their purchase.

Many succumb to the scam because at first glance everything looks legitimate. An Internet search of “United Processing Services” returns “United Process Service,” a legitimate company based in New York City. The consumer may believe they simply heard the name wrong and assume it was the legitimate company that placed the call.

“It’s a scam,” a spokesperson from United Process Service said, adding that process servers don’t give advance warning.

United Processing Services, purportedly operating out of the Albany, N.Y. area could not be located following an extensive search.

A search of R & J Consulting did return an impressive website with a picture of a group of professionally dressed men and woman surrounding a large conference table with shelves of law books as a backdrop. A reverse image search, however, shows the photo, slightly cropped, as belonging to an Oklahoma law firm. Other photos on the R & J Consulting website are stock photos, according to reserve image searching.

VNN placed a call to R & J Consulting to interview one of their attorneys for this story. A woman answering the phone said she would transfer the call. Six minutes later a man who identified himself as “Josh” said that he wasn’t allowed to speak to the press and added that the attorney was out of the office, however, he would transfer the call to the attorney’s office so that a voice message could be left.

When asked who the call was being transferred to, Josh said, “Shawn Bradley.” VNN then asked if Bradley was an attorney.

“Correct,” Josh said. Asked again, Josh said “yes.”

Josh transferred the call to what he said was Bradley’s voice mail, however, the voice mail was answered by someone named Justin. A message was left and as of publication the call has not been returned.

Bradley is not a licensed attorney in California, according to that state’s bar association.

The address listed on the R & J Consulting website is 26025 Newport Rd. Suite A-469 Menifee, Ca. 92584. Tax records show the property housing a UPS store. An employee of the UPS store confirmed the address. When asked about R & J consulting, the employee said she was not at liberty to give out any other information.

The UPS site in Menifee does offer mailbox service and customers can use the UPS address with a suite number, according to their website. They also offer mail forwarding and package acceptance.

It’s not only R & J Consulting that uses the same address and suite number. A search brought up the company J.D. Mitchell & Associates, another debt collection company.

J.D. Mitchell & Associates also looks to be a legitimate company at first glance, however, a reverse image search of a photo posted on the website is a cropped image taken from www.archithings.com.

There’s a plethora of complaints on the Internet about both companies, including complaints filed with the Better Business Bureau and when it comes to unscrupulous debt collection, the Federal Trade Commission also receives a plethora of complaints.

“We get more complaints about debt collectors than any type of industry,” said Chris Koegel of the FTC’s Division of Financial Practices, adding that the agency receives approximately 250,000 complaints about debt collection companies each year. The agency is aggressive in efforts to stop unscrupulous debt collectors and has permanently banned 60 thus far.

How debt collectors find you

Many debt collectors purchase old, time-barred accounts for pennies on the dollar. In most instances, the debts are beyond the statute of limitations. Each state has its own limits.

Debt collectors try to collect on the old receivables in hopes the consumer is unaware of the statute of limitations and also by using threats, such as bank account seizure, wage garnishment, or even arrest. In some instances, the collector will attempt to collect a debt from someone with the same name and sometimes the debt never existed at all, commonly referred to as a phantom debt.

For those obtaining mortgages the collector can purchase the information from other parties.

“What were’ finding is that consumer’s go online looking for information, such as exploring mortgages and they think they’re entering information into the lender’s actual site but it’s actually a lead generator that captures all the personal information the person enters and then selling it out to, in some cases, multiple parties,” Koegel said. “That’s a big problem. That’s a real sensitive point for consumers. You’re closing on a house and you think this is going to be a problem.”

Some buy time-barred debts and do a “soft-pull” of a credit report to locate the consumer. The soft-pull doesn’t count negatively on the overall credit score and often don’t show when a consumer receives his or her credit report.

When to be suspicious of a debt collector

If you don’t recognize the debt that somebody’s talking to you about that’s the red flag that you need to go and do more research, Koegel said.

“Anybody that threatens you with harassment- that’s a huge red flag. Owing a debt is not a crime in this country. There’s no debtors prison,” he added. Also, if the caller won’t give you an address or a phone number or if they right away ask you for sensitive personal information.

If a debt collector contacts your employer or a family member, they are in violation of the law. Debt collectors don’t have the right to contact a third party nor can they tell a third party that a debt is owed. The one exception is if a debt collector can’t locate the debtor, however, even in that instance they cannot imply the consumer owes a debt. It is a law that is fairly frequently violated, Koegel said.

A consumer can visit the FTC consumer web page for helpful articles on debt collection and fake debt collectors.

What to do if you receive a debt collection call

It’s important for the consumer to ask for the collectors’ name, the company name, and the phone number. When on the call, refuse to discuss any debt until the company sends a validation notice, Koegel said. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Section 809, requires the collector to send a written notice within five days of communication with the consumer.

The validation must contain four key pieces of information, Koegel said.

“The first is the amount of the debt. The second is the name of the person who currently owns the debt and the third and fourth are explanations of certain rights that the consumer has. The consumer has the right to dispute or request verification of the debt and the consumer has the right to obtain the original creditors name and address.”

Koegel noted that there are additional steps that a consumer can take such as contacting the original creditor and asking if the collector has the authority to collect the debt. It’s also important to exercise due diligence to research the debt collection company and it’s critical for the consumer to pull a free credit report. Koegel recommended annnualcreditreport.com. The website does provide credit information, however, it does not provide a credit score. Credit Karma does provide free credit monitoring with scores.

Any legitimate debt should show up on your credit report, Koegel said. “If that alleged debt doesn’t show up on the credit report there’s absolutely nothing to worry about.”

If the debt is showing on the credit report the consumer should dispute the information with the credit bureaus and send a certified letter to the debt collection company. That should stop the calls until the debt is validated, Koegel said.

Any debt collector cannot sue in court after the statute of limitations. Moreover, a delinquent debt is not reported indefinitely on a credit report. Generally it’s removed after seven years.

As for any company or person representing themselves as an attorney, Koegel said it’s not legal. “The unauthorized practice of law is a felony,” he said.

View Details

Jay Jarvis was angered when bill collectors kept calling him demanding he pay a $40 copay bill from a March visit to Oswego Health Urgent Care located in Fulton, NY. The Hannibal, NY resident maintained he didn’t owe the money because his insurance company, Aetna, had already paid the bill. Despite this, the collection calls continued.

Jarvis decided to take matters into his own hands and contacted Aetna requesting a hard copy of an explanation of benefits be mailed to his home. He received it October 9 from Aetna’s Texas office.

When he opened the envelope and began to read the statement, there with his own information was the information for two complete strangers. “What is this?” he said when he discovered the names of two women with their identification numbers, employers, and diagnostic codes. Both of the women had visited the same urgent care center around the same time as Jarvis.

He immediately called Aetna.

“They told me to just destroy the document. They never asked for the names of the people so they could be contacted,” Jarvis said, adding that no apology was given.

Jarvis then decided to attempt to contact the women himself. When he called the first woman listed her phone had been disconnected so he tried another number of someone with the same name. He reached a relative and learned that the woman had passed away.

He then called the second number belonging to Amber Munger, the second name listed. “She answered the phone and I was trying to explain it to her,” Jarvis said. At first Munger was suspicious. Jarvis asked her to allow him to further explain, then she became angry that her information had been disclosed. The two met in person so Jarvis could show Munger the information Aetna had erroneously sent to him.

Aetna responds to breach

Atena’s media communications representative Susan Millerick said in a written statement that the employee who released the information has been retrained and the company will offer free credit monitoring to the member whose information was inappropriately shared.

“Protecting member information is critically important to Aetna. This unfortunate but isolated incident was the result of a human error. The customer service agent involved understands the seriousness of her mistake and has been retrained on the best process to use in the future,” Millerick said. “While trying to assist a member with a billing dispute, the agent accidentally mailed the wrong document to the member. Our Privacy Office began an immediate investigation, confirmed that no financial or federal identification numbers were shared, and has reached out to the members involved.”

Millerick said the company has apologized. “We have apologized to impacted individuals and will offer a free year of credit monitoring to the member whose information was inappropriately shared, although no financial information or social security number was shared. We sincerely regret any stress or worry caused for our members. We work hard and train continuously to prevent incidents like this and we appreciate members calling us immediately with privacy concerns so we can investigate and address any issues promptly.”

Diagnostic codes easily accessed

Had Jarvis been curious, he could have easily looked up the diagnosis for both women. Diagnostic codes are easily obtainable on the Internet in a matter of seconds. The website Find-A-Code provides search information by code and by aliment name.

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, more commonly known as its acronym HIPAA, requires HIPAA covered entities and their business associates to provide notification following a breach of unsecured protected health information.

Jarvis said had he not contacted Munger she would have never known that he had obtained her personal information and reiterated that at no time during his conversations with representatives of Aetna was he asked for the names of those listed on the statement he received.

“She’s lucky I’m an honest person,” Jarvis said of Munger. “Who knows what someone else might have done.”

Despite the breach and confusion, Jarvis said he was able to resolve his billing error with Aetna.

View Details

Gary Thibodeau sits in a prison cell at the Clinton Correctional Facility in Dannemora, NY waiting for a January 2015 court date to begin a hearing to determine if he will be entitled to a new trial. Thibodeau was convicted in the 1994 abduction of 18 year old Heidi Allen based on the statements of two jailhouse snitches. Thibodeau had passed a lie detector test and no evidence was found to conclude he had anything to do with the Easter Sunday kidnapping of Allen from the D&W Convenience store in New Haven, NY where she worked as a clerk.

Earlier this year federal public defender Lisa Peebles uncovered new evidence that she hopes will garner a new trial for Thibodeau, including documentation that Allen had been recruited as a confidential drug informant at the age of 16 by the Oswego County (NY) Sheriff’s Department. In a 1995 news story, it is stated that family members knew nothing about her informant status, yet sheriff reports show that two deputies had met with Allen and her parents at the time of her recruitment. Recently it was learned that an Oswego County sheriff deputy, Christopher Van Patten, had carried a card with Allen’s information and photograph and subsequently lost it near a phone booth in the parking lot of the D&W Convenience Store. The card was said to have been “immediately” found by an employee and returned to another deputy who happened to stop in the store. The details as to when the card was lost and the length of time it was lost are murky.

Witness statements also suggest that three other men were responsible for Allen’s disappearance. They claim one of the men, James “Thumper” Steen, bragged about abducting and killing Allen. Steen is in prison serving a life sentence for the 2010 murder of his estranged wife and her boyfriend.

Gary Thibodeau reacts to the jury’s guilty verdict during his 1995 trial. Photo: dnett@syracuse.com

Thomas Edward Kennedy of Kalama, Washington, was released from prison in 2012 after his daughter confessed that she had lied about being raped by her father. In 2001 Cassandra Ann Kennedy told a school counselor that her father had raped her on at least three occasions. A medical examination revealed her hymen was perforated, “consistent with genital contact with penetration.” Kennedy was charged with three counts of first-degree child rape. Her parents were divorced and Cassandra Kennedy told her mother she had made up the story the day after she testified at his trial in 2002. Both kept the secret for 10 years. Cassandra Kennedy was not charged with perjury. A judge concluded that the statute of limitations had run out and charging her could result in the apprehension of victims to report rape.

In 1984, Darryl Hunt was sentenced to life in prison for raping and murdering newspaper copy editor Deborah Sykes of Winston-Salem, North Carolina. He was a 19 years old African-American and Sykes was white.

For years, Hunt’s appeals failed even when a second jury learned that a witness who helped convict him was a Klansman. Ten years into Hunt’s sentence, a DNA test failed to link him to either Sykes’ rape or murder, yet a Winston-Salem judge saw no reason for a new trial. Hunt spent 19 years in prison before a DNA match found Sykes’ real killer.

Causes of wrongful convictions

The reasons for wrongful convictions vary. The University of Michigan’s Michigan Law Innocence Clinic, which works on non-DNA exonerations, states five primary reasons for wrongful convictions, although there are other reasons as well.

Eyewitness Misidentification: Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide. Research shows that the human mind is not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound. Instead, witness memory is like any other evidence at a crime scene; it must be preserved carefully and retrieved methodically, or it can be contaminated.

Junk Science: Many forensic testing methods have been applied with little or no scientific validation and with inadequate assessments of their significance or reliability. As a result, forensic analysts sometimes testify in cases without a proper scientific basis for their findings. And in some cases, forensic analysts have engaged in misconduct.

False Confessions: In many cases, innocent defendants make incriminating statements, deliver outright confessions, or plead guilty. Regardless of the age, capacity, or state of the confessor, what they often have in common is a decision—at some point during the interrogation process—that confessing will be more beneficial to them than continuing to maintain their innocence.

Government Misconduct: In some cases, government officials take steps to ensure that a defendant is convicted despite weak evidence or even clear proof of innocence.

Snitches: Often, statements from people with incentives to testify—particularly incentives that are not disclosed to the jury—are the central evidence in convicting an innocent person. People have been wrongfully convicted in cases in which snitches are paid to testify or receive favors in return for their testimony.

Bad Lawyering: The failure of overworked lawyers to investigate, call witnesses, or prepare for trial has led to the conviction of innocent people.

The National Registry of Exonerations states that to date there have been 1,460 exonerations including 20 this year. The number includes the exoneration of Pennellville, NY resident Daniel Gristwood, who served nine years for the 1996 attempted murder of his wife. Gristwood was freed from prison in 2005, two years after Mastho Davis admitted he was the man who attacked Gristwood’s wife, Christina Gristwood, with a hammer as she slept in the Gristwoods’ Clay, NY apartment in 1996.

The cost of wrongful convictions

Gristwood was awarded $5.5 million in a wrongful conviction verdict. The state of New York has appealed the verdict. Should the verdict stand, Gristwood is expected to receive upward of $7 million due to compounded interest.

Daniel Gristwood, father of five, was wrongly convicted for the attempted murder of his wife. Photo: CNYCentral

In New York State compensation of the wrongly convicted is left to the discretion of the Court of Claims. Each state varies as to compensation, however, 24 states provide no compensation to those who are exonerated.

Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Washington and Wyoming have no state statutes providing financial compensation.

Those states with statutes the compensation varies from California’s $100 for each day of incarceration to a maximum of $1 million regardless of time served in Tennessee.

Separate from compensation are lawsuits filed by the exonerees in cases of intentional government misconduct, and because it is difficult to prove, only a minority of cases qualify. Prosecutors and judges have absolute immunity from lawsuits under a U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

The cost of lost time

For those wrongly incarcerated, it means days, months and years that can never be given back. During periods of incarceration, those wrongly convicted have missed the graduations, marriages, births and deaths of family members. Thibodeau’s wife Sharon passed away while he sat behind bars.

“All prisoners are vulnerable to psychological problems. Exonerees also struggle with the psychological dissonance of having been profoundly wronged by society,” according to an Innocence Project report.

In 2007, The New York Times researched 137 cases of those whose wrongful convictions had been overturned through DNA testing and found that most have “struggled to keep jobs, pay for health care, rebuild family times and shed the psychological effects of years of questionable or wrongful imprisonment.”

After the initial elation of freedom, the newly exonerated person must face many immediate needs including a place to live, food, clothing, medical care, a form of identification other than a prison ID card, a means of transportation and other special needs, according to the Innocence Project report. The exoneration date may have arrived without much advance notice, leaving the exoneree unprepared.

State compensation, the report notes, takes an average of three years to secure, leaving the exoneree with little or no resources. The lack of credit leaves them unable to secure housing and health insurance.

Despite compensation, not all exonerees adapt to life outside prison. Roy Brown received $2.6 million for the 15 years he spent behind bars for a murder he didn’t commit. Brown attracted national news coverage in January 2007 when he was released from the Elmira, NY state prison. DNA evidence proved not only that he didn’t murder Cayuga County, NY social worker Sabina Kulakowski in May 1991 near Auburn, NY but that another man did. Brown himself tracked down previously undisclosed statements that pointed to the real killer, Barry Bench. After Brown wrote Bench a letter accusing him of the murder in 2003, Bench killed himself by standing in front of an oncoming train.

Roy Brown. Syracuse, NY Police photo

Brown was fearful that he would never see the money because of liver disease. He was expected to only live a few more months, however, four months following his release he was given a liver transplant.

Brown spent his money freely, purchasing and elaborate home and vehicles, including a limo. But two years into his new life, Brown was charged with a felony for possessing heroin with the intent to sell.

Health factors

Although all prisoners are entitled to healthcare, The American Public Health Association published a 2009 report concludes, “Many inmates with a serious chronic physical illness fail to receive care while incarcerated.”

States face challenges due to the increasing number of prison inmates and the aging inmate population. The PEW Charitable Trust found that prison health care spending in these 44 states totaled $6.5 billion in 2008, out of $36.8 billion in overall institutional correctional expenditures.

Proving innocence

While Thibodeau is being represented by a federal public defender, many states have organizations to assist those who have been wrongly convicted. Some work only with cases that have DNA evidence, others will work on cases where there is no DNA evidence.

Last month, U.S. Attorney Ronald C. Machen Jr. announced the creation of a Conviction Integrity Unit in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, promising a vigorous effort to identify and investigate cases that resulted in wrongful convictions. The unit also will make recommendations about ways to improve training, investigations and prosecution practices to ensure the integrity of future convictions.

The announcement follows a four-year review by the U.S. Attorney’s Office of more than 2,000 files involving FBI analysis of hair or fiber evidence. That review was done in the wake of the exoneration of Donald Gates, who was convicted in 1982 of a rape and murder in part on the basis of testimony involving hair evidence. DNA testing – which was not available at the time of Mr. Gates’s trial — proved in 2009 that he was not the perpetrator.

In Thibodeau’s case there was no DNA evidence, nor any physical evidence, linking him to the crime. Allen’s body has never been found and Thibodeau never confessed to the crime. The conviction became noteworthy because of the lack of evidence.

View Details

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has sued a Brooklyn law firm and its partner for allegedly participating in a fraudulent mortgage rescue scheme. The suit was filed Wednesday against Gennady Litvin and two firms where he is a principal partner, Litvin Law Firm in Brooklyn and Litvin, Torrens & Associates in Miami.

The lawsuit, filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, states, “Petitioner brings this special proceeding to permanently enjoin Respondents from engaging in deceptive, fraudulent and illegal business practices that target distressed homeowners who are seeking to lower their mortgage payments or save their homes from foreclosure and to recover restitution, damages, disgorgement, civil penalties and costs.”

It’s alleged that the Respondents, directly and through third party marketers, deceptively induced homeowners to pay a fee of typically $595.00 or $750.00 per month by representing that they would  provide them with a comprehensive legal services plan that would allow them to avoid foreclosure or obtain a mortgage modification. As a result, vulnerable homeowners have paid Respondents thousands of dollars for services they could have obtained from qualified non-profit housing counselors or legal services attorneys for free. The Respondents routinely failed to prevent foreclosure or obtain a loan modification as promised. In fact many of the consumers never met or spoke with an attorney, court documents state.

The Respondents claim to do business in 31 states and said clients will be represented by a licensed foreclosure attorney who is licensed in their respective state.

Schneiderman also accused Litvin of false advertising and deceptive business practices as well as other claims related to misrepresentation.

The lawsuit notes that Connecticut, Georgia, and North Carolina have issued cease and desist orders to Litvin Law Firm and Litvin, demanding they stop soliciting for services in those states. The firm and Litvin are banned from doing business in Rhode Island and the Maryland Attorney General’s office has charged them with engaging in unfair and deceptive trade practices.

The lawsuit was signed by Assistant Attorney General Mary Alestra.

View Details

Every day Americans sign arbitration agreements without being aware of it. For too many, reading the fine print contained in a contract or terms of service is time consuming, hence, it’s passed over.  But arbitration agreements are everywhere and every day consumers are waiving the right to have their day in court.

Commercial arbitration agreements are everywhere because they provide a unique advantage to corporate America–secrecy.

Arbitration removes the transparency of the courts and provides privacy protection for business. That’s because most arbitration proceedings are confidential- meaning the public can never truly know how a business operates when it comes to consumer wrongdoing. While the federal arbitration statute itself doesn’t require confidentiality, most agreements to arbitrate do.

There is one exception. Consumers who feel they have been wronged in an arbitration can appeal to the court to vacate the decision of an arbitrator. When that happens, anything included in court documents become public record. But for the thousands who don’t appeal to the courts, the arbitration proceeding and outcome aren’t for public consumption.

It’s difficult to comprehend how any lawmaker or judge could believe it’s okay for the consumer to be denied access to critical  information about a company’s performance.  Consumers rely on reputation to make decisions as to where they take their business. When that information is shielded, it becomes “buyer beware.”

Corporate America, of course, can hang their hat on the knowledge that their dirty laundry won’t get aired for all to see. Is it any wonder so many companies add arbitration clauses to their contracts and terms of service? They have every reason to do so, and no reason not to.  No matter what the outcome their secrets are safe.

Imagine if arbitration was open to the public, just like a court proceeding, and the public and press could be in attendance. Surely, the number of forced arbitration clauses in consumer contracts would decrease. Proponents of arbitration claim the elimination of such proceedings would clog the courts but if you pore through court documents you’ll find plenty of lawsuits against arbitration decisions, arbitrators, and all things arbitration.

Settling consumer disputes behind closed doors is wrong. No matter who wins there is no winner because the transparency is shielded behind the fine print. And that’s just plain wrong.

View Details

When Cindy Cox, a disabled United States Navy Veteran, ordered an iPhone case from online store Accessory Outlet, she got much more than a case for her phone. She alleges she was bullied.

Now, she is asking the court for a declaratory judgment against the company.

It all began July 6 when Cox, of Kenosha, Wisconsin, ordered a case for her phone for just under $40. When the tracking number Accessory Outlet provided indicated that the order hadn’t shipped after ten days, she tried to cancel the order. Accessory Outlet refused. When Cox said she would contact her credit card company, Accessory Outlet demanded that Cox pay $250 under its “Terms of Sale.” The terms state,“You agree not to file any complaint, chargeback, claim, dispute, or make any public forum post, review, Better Business Bureau complaint, social media post, or any public statement regarding the order, our website, or any issue regarding your order, for any reason, within this 90 day period, or to threaten to do so within the 90 day period, or it is a breach of the terms of sale, creating liability for damages in the amount of $250, plus any additional fees.”

Over the course of two days, the company sent Cox several emails threatening to report the $250 “debt” to credit reporting agencies and thereby to damage Cox’s credit score, according to Public Citizen, who filed the lawsuit on her behalf. Accessory Outlet promised that Cox’s debt “will continue to rise with every email and every second we dedicate to correspondence of any kind pertaining to your breach of the terms of sale.” The company also threatened to refer the “debt” to a collections agency, which Accessory Outlet said would call Cox’s home, cell, and work phones “continuously.” Accessory Outlet told Cox that it had enforced the terms of sale against “many individuals” and that Cox was “playing games with the wrong people and [had] made a very bad mistake.”

Accessory Outlet told Cox that it had enforced the terms of sale against “many individuals” and that Cox was “playing games with the wrong people and [had] made a very bad mistake,” Public Citizen reported.

“Accessory Outlet is using unfair terms hidden in fine print, along with threatening emails, to bully a customer into keeping quiet about her bad experience with the company,” said Scott Michelman, the Public Citizen attorney handling the case. “But terms that prevent a customer from speaking publicly about her transaction and from contacting her credit card company are unreasonable and unenforceable.”

No one could be reached at Assessory Outlet and their website states it is down for maintenance.

The case was filed in the Supreme Court of New York in Manhattan. Daniel E. Clifton of Lewis, Clifton & Nikolaidis, P.C. in New York is co-counsel for Cox. The lawsuit asks the court to declare that Cox does not owe Accessory Outlet a debt because the terms of sale were hidden on its website, are unreasonably favorable to Accessory Outlet and were never presented to or accepted by Cox when she made her purchase.

View Details

An arbitrator for the American Arbitration Association is accused of hearing a case that may have been a conflict-of-interest.

As previously reported, a California resident lost an arbitration to Palms Place, LLC and was ordered by the arbitrator to pay nearly $90,000 in legal fees. The resident had made a deposit of $108,000 on a condominium that was to be built next to the Palms Casino in Las Vegas.

The arbitration was executed through the American Arbitration Association which touts itself as providing “neutrals”; arbitrators with no conflicts or ethical concerns. As the California resident learned after-the-fact, his case was decided by an arbitrator whose neutrality is now being called into question.

As of publication time, the American Arbitration Association had not responded to a request for comment.

Thomas Ryan, a partner in the Lewis Roca Rothgerber law firm was the arbitrator on the case. At no time did he disclose his or his firm’s connections with Palms Place owner George Maloof and Palms Casino minority owner Greenspun Corporation.

Lewis Roca Rothgerber is heavily involved in the casino gaming industry. According to the firm’s website, “Lewis Roca Rothgerber’s gaming practice group is a national practice that supports casino operators, suppliers, state and local governments, communities, businesses, non-profit organizations, tribal governments and others in addressing casino gaming law including Native American and riverboat casinos, racinos, interactive and mobile gaming, poker, and interstate horse racing.”

Ryan, along with three other Lewis Roca Rothgerber attorneys, currently represent Brian Greenspun, owner of The Greenspun Corporation in a pending federal district court case, Greenspun, et al. vs. Stephens Media, LLC, et al, according to court documents.

The Greenspun Corporation website states, “Palms Casino Resort — The Greenspun Corporation is also a minority partner in the Palms Casino Resort, a 95,000 square foot casino developed by the Maloof Companies where non-stop entertainment can be found. The Palms also opened its new expansion and has introduced Palms Place, a tower currently under construction, which will feature fully furnished condos…”

The firm has also represented Brian Greenspun before various Nevada regulatory bodies relating to his interest in N-M Ventures which does business in the Palms Casino Resort, according to documents.

Another potential conflict is that the law firm’s partner Alfredo Alonso represented Palms as a paid lobbyist before the Nevada Legislature in the 74th (2007), 75th (2009) and 76th (2011) sessions. The California resident’s arbitration was in 2011 and early 2012.

The American Arbitration Association’s Model Standards of Conduct states, “A mediator shall decline a mediation if the mediator cannot conduct it in an impartial manner. Impartiality means freedom from favoritism, bias or prejudice.”

In addressing conflicts of interest, the rules further state, “A mediator shall avoid a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest during and after a mediation. A conflict of interest can arise from involvement by a mediator with the subject matter of the dispute or from any relationship between a mediator and any mediation participant, whether past or present, personal or professional, that reasonably raises a question of a mediator’s impartiality.”

The resident has asked the court to overturn Ryan’s ruling as well as the award of attorney fees.

View Details

Retail giant Wal-Mart has reached a settlement with New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman after his office launched an investigation into false advertising.
The attorney general’s office investigated Wal-Mart’s advertising for a Father’s Day sale, which listed 12-packs of Coca-Cola products on sale for $3. The AG’s office found that customers were charged $3.50 for the beverages.
According to Schneiderman, Wal-Mart sold 66,000 12-packs of Coca-Cola products at the inflated price in New York stores in both March and June.
Wal-Mart employees offered a couple of excuses for the higher price, according to Schneiderman. Staff at a Buffalo-area store claimed that the price listed in a newspaper circular was a national advertisement and didn’t apply to sales in New York. Other Wal-Mart employees said it was because of the state’s “Sugar Tax,” however, the state doesn’t have a sugar tax.
The investigation also found cash registers at stores weren’t programmed to recognize the sale price of Coca-Cola 12-packs. Wal-Mart has taken steps to correct that issue, according to Schneiderman.
The sale of products at more than 16 percent the advertised price is a violation of New York State law.
“Whether it’s securing the largest financial settlements in U.S. history to address misconduct that crashed the economy, or settling cases with the nation’s largest retailers, this office will continue to stand on the side of ordinary New Yorkers,” Schneiderman said. As part of the settlement, Wal-Mart will pay more than $66,000 in penalties to the state. The settlement also requires the company to improve its internal reporting to act on information when consumers complain about overcharges.

View Details

A proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Southwest Airlines secretly recorded a telephone call in violation of privacy laws. The plaintiff, Aaron Siani, filed a proposed class action suit Sept. 7. in the U.S. District Court Central District of California.

In his complaint, Siani alleges that on or about September 1, 2014, he received a telephonic communication on his cellular telephone from (210) 991-9991, a number associated with Southwest Airlines. The caller identified herself as a representative of the airlines. During the conversation, Siani discussed the details of his request to cancel and obtain a refund of an airline itinerary. In addition to discussing details of the airline itinerary, Siani divulged certain information personal to the representative.

After speaking with the representative for several minutes, Siani inquired as to whether the phone call was being recorded. The representative informed him that the entire conversation had been recorded and apologized for not informing him at the onset of the call. Shortly thereafter, Siani terminated the call with the representative as he was uncomfortable sharing personal details on a recorded line.

The lawsuit states, “Due to the private subject matter being discussed, Plaintiff had no reasonable expectation that any of Plaintiff’s cellular telephone conversation with Defendant would be recorded. Had Plaintiff known that said conversation was being recorded, Plaintiff would have handled the transmission of his sensitive information with more care.” It continues, “ Plaintiff found Defendant’s clandestine recording to be highly offensive due to the delicacy of the topics discussed during said conversations.

“Defendant’s conversation with Plaintiff, was without Plaintiff’s knowledge or consent, recorded by Defendant, causing harm and damage to Plaintiff. Prior to Plaintiff’s query on the matter, Plaintiff was never informed that Plaintiff’s cellular telephone calls were being recorded. At no time during the call did Plaintiff give consent for the cellular telephone call to be monitored, recorded and/or eavesdropped upon.”

The suit is a proposed class action because, as noted in the complaint, “Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that during the relevant time period, Defendant has had a policy and a practice of recording telephone conversations with consumers. Defendant’s employees and agents are directed, trained and instructed to, and do, record cellular telephone conversations with the public, including Plaintiff and other California residents.”

It is further noted that, “ Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that during the relevant time period, Defendant has had all of its calls to the public, including those made to California residents, recorded without the knowledge or consent of the public, including Plaintiff and other California residents.”

The lawsuit was filed by Matthew M. Loker of the Kazerouni Law Group, APC on behalf of Siani.

Loker asserts that Californians have a constitutional right to privacy. “Moreover, the California Supreme Court has definitively linked the constitutionally protected right to privacy within the purpose, intent and specific protections of the Privacy Act, including specifically, California Penal Code § 632.

“In addition, California’s explicit constitutional privacy provision (Cal. Const., 1 § 1) was enacted in part specifically to protect California from overly intrusive business practices that were seen to pose a significant and increasing threat to personal privacy.”

The complaint continues, “California Penal Code § 632.7 prohibits in pertinent part ‘[e]very person who, without the consent of all parties to a communication…intentionally records, or assists in the…intentional recordation of, a communication transmitted between…a cellular radio telephone and a landline telephone.’

Thus, on its face, California Penal Code § 632.7 precludes the recording of all communications involving a cellular telephone.”

The lawsuit is seeking $5,000 for the plaintiff and for each member of the sub-class.

The case has been assigned to District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall and Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner.

View Details

There’s been a lot of concern over privacy issues with the new Facebook messenger app, however, Facebook claims those concerns are overstated.

Soon, the app will be required for all iPhone and Android users.

Fears have spread across the Internet about the app being invasive and able to access personal information such as phone contacts and there have been concerns that the app can eavesdrop on conversations.

Facebook has denied the allegations and issued a statement in regard to the concerns.

It reads, “You might have heard the rumors going around about the Messenger app. Some have claimed that the app is always using your phone’s camera and microphone to see and hear what you’re doing. These reports aren’t true, and many have been corrected. Still, we want to address some concerns you might have.”

It continues, “Like most other apps, we request permission to run certain features, such as making calls and sending photos, videos or voice messages. If you want to send a selfie to a friend, the app needs permission to turn on your phone’s camera and capture that photo. We don’t turn on your camera or microphone when you aren’t using the app.”

The Associated Press recently published five myths about the messenger app. According to AP, while you’re required to use the app on the iPhone or Android, you aren’t required to use it on other devices such as desktops, laptops, iPad or Facebook mobile.

The AP also reported that contrary to what many believe, the terms of service are not different than for all its mobile apps.

As for the microphone recording users, AP states, “The app needs permission to use your phone’s microphone and camera. But it requires that access because the microphone is needed for voice calling, a service that the standalone app offers that the Facebook app doesn’t, and sending sound with videos. Same with the camera, it needs access if you want to send your friends pictures.”

The concern many users have raised is that Facebook will direct the app to send SMS, or text, messages without your permission.

AP claims the reality is that one of the permissions does say that Facebook can edit, receive, read and send SMS messages. “But the company says the reason it wants to send and receive SMS messages is so that if you add a phone number to your Messenger account, you can confirm by a confirmation code that Facebook sends via text message.”

The final myth that AP dispelled is that the messenger app is new. It has been around since 2011, according to the AP, and has been used in Europe.

Despite the assurances, the app has a 1.5 rating on iTunes and the Internet is swarming with user complaints. Those using the specific mobile devices won’t be able to access messenger from their phone without the app.

The Facebook statement concludes, “We’re committed to providing a fast, reliable and fun messaging app that anyone in the world can use to reach the people who matter to them. That’s why we’re focusing just on Messenger and moving messages out of the Facebook app.”

View Details

For decades, Americans who have been wronged by corporations and large companies could bring a class-action lawsuit, pooling their resources to alleviate the cost of suing. The class-action lawsuit made it possible for the “little guys” to take on big conglomerates.

But more and more corporations are adding arbitration clauses into terms of service agreements, essentially forcing a consumer to waive the right to sue in court or bring a class-action.

The arbitration clauses essentially force each individual to appear before an arbitrator or arbitration panel with a price tag that can sometimes far outweigh the cost of court.

For years, the practice of forced arbitration was prohibited by law in many states. But in 2011 the Supreme Court ruled in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion that all state laws prohibiting forced arbitration clauses are preempted by the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act.

That led a host of corporations to add the clauses to terms of service and other contractual agreements.

For the consumer with a small claim, the cost of arbitration may far exceed the amount of the tort. Not only must the consumer pay one-half the cost of the arbitration, but may incur travel expenses if bringing an action against an out of state company. A class-action would allow a group of consumers with small claims to band together and file one large claim, hence, a more cost-effective and feasible avenue.

What are the chances of a consumer winning an arbitration?

A 2007 study, conducted by Public Citizen concluded that 95 percent of arbitration cases brought by consumers are settled in favor of companies.

According to the study, a sample of 19,300 cases showed that arbitrators ruled in favor of consumers five percent of the time. Meanwhile, companies such as MasterCard, Visa, Discover Financial Services and American Express Co. won 95 percent of the disputes, the study noted.

Critics of arbitration point out that arbitration providers want to get repeat business from companies, so they have a financial incentive to rule more often in favor of a business and that arbitration clauses do nothing more than shield them from costly lawsuits.

Proponents claim the consumer has as equal a chance of prevailing before an arbitration panel as they would in court. They also claim it’s more cost effective for the consumer to engage in arbitration rather than a costly lawsuit.

In AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, American Express argued that arbitration is a more cost effective method for lower income plaintiffs to pursue their claims and that it prevents abusive lawsuits against corporations.

As VNN previously reported, a California resident lost an arbitration and was ordered to pay the prevailing party nearly $90,000 in legal fees. The amount does not include the cost of the actual arbitration.

Arbitration is provided under the Federal Arbitration Act enacted February 12, 1925 as a method of resolving disputes.

In the ruling of AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion the Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act does not permit courts to invalidate a contractual waiver of class arbitration on the ground that the plaintiff’s cost of individually arbitrating a federal statutory claim exceeds potential recovery.

Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. It was not unanimous.

View Details

The rise in citizen journalists and bloggers has resulted in a wave of controversy over the coveted press pass and media credentials.

Traditionally, those working in the mainstream media receive a press pass from their employer containing their name and photograph, the name of the media organization and contact person, as well as certification that the employee is an authorized representative of said media organization.

Media credentials go a bit further and vary from agency to agency. Some may require a complete background check, others may require only a home address, social security number and a photocopy of a driver’s license, and almost all require the credentialed person be a verifiable member of the mainstream media.

Press credentials can get a reporter, photographer, or photojournalists into everything from concerts and major league baseball to the White House and can allow crossing the yellow police tape that seals off the area of a crime or accident scene. Credentials are often needed for entering private space and government functions that are not considered public.

While press credentialing is most often a non-issue for media professionals, it is a growing concern for citizen journalists, bloggers, and even non-profit news organizations.

Some organizations won’t consider issuing credentials to bloggers and non-profits and others will give consideration to those meeting certain criteria.

The Senate Press Galleries, for example, bars non-profit news organizations from membership. It requires that member news organizations be chiefly supported through advertising and subscriber revenue, essentially eliminating non-profits because they are primarily supported through donations.

The American Bar Association, however, will consider bloggers and citizen journalists who can authenticate their status.
According to the ABA website, “Because of the unique nature of this event, bloggers or other citizen-journalists must represent well-established, law-related or legal technology-related outlets as determined by ABA Media Relations staff.”

A credentialed reporter can sometimes cross police lines and have access to interviews with those close to the crime or accident. Non-credentialed reporters do so at their own risk.

There has been a growing number of arrests involving citizen bloggers and citizen journalists, and it has spurred a wide national debate over who should qualify for privileged access.

While professional journalists are educated in the ethics of the field and are aware of what they can and cannot do, bloggers and citizen journalists with no journalism education or experience can find themselves tangled in lawsuits or tossed in jail.

The high-profile “Constitutional Clayton” blogger case is an example of the ethical line being crossed.

Several months ago Madison, Mississippi Police arrested Clayton Thomas Kelly, 28, of Pearl, on a charge of exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Kelly is accused of allegedly sneaking into St. Catherine’s Village in Madison, where Rose Cochran, wife of U.S. Sen. Thad Cochran, has resided since 2000, suffering from progressive dementia.

Kelly, a political blogger, posted a video on the Internet that included a picture of Rose Cochran.

Three others were also arrested in connection with the case.

The case, and others like it, have presented a new problem for the “new media” and the weight of government transparency against breaking the law to get a story.

A 2014 study from the Digital Media Law Project at Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society and the Journalist’s Resource Project at the Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, “Who Gets a Press Pass? Media Credentialing Practices in the United States,” performed a quantitative examination of media credentialing in the United States. It surveyed the experience of more than 1,300 newsgatherers of various kinds throughout the country in their efforts to obtain media credentials from different types of credentialing organizations from 2008 to 2013.

According to the survey results, one out of every five respondents who applied for a credential was denied by a credentialing organization at least once. Certain categories of applicants are more likely to be denied than others: freelance journalists were significantly less likely to receive media credentials than employed journalists. Photographers were more likely to be denied than non-photographers. Respondents who identified themselves as activists were more likely to be denied than those respondents who did not.

A Google search will return many websites offering press passes and credentials for a fee. Be wary of these offers as chances are they won’t be accepted. And keep in mind that many events require press credentialing directly from the government agency or organization itself and not from the news agency or any online organizations.

View Details

When a party loses an arbitration the arbitrator can award legal fees to the prevailing party but there’s no remedy for the plaintiff to learn if the fees are actually paid to the lawyer.

As previously reported, a resident of California had agreed to purchase a condominium at Palms Place in Las Vegas, prior to construction of the units. After delays and unanswered questions, the buyer did not want to move forward with the purchase and the matter landed before an arbitrator from the American Arbitration Association.

The plaintiff lost the case and was ordered to pay nearly $90,000 in legal fees for Palms Place to Marc P. Cook of Bailus Cook & Kelesis of Las Vegas without actual proof that Palms Place had paid the bill. The plaintiff was not shown a cancelled check or any other proof of payment to verify the entire amount was paid by Palms Place to Cook.

The American Arbitration Association does not comment on cases that are, or have been, before them. An appeal is pending in the California resident’s case.

The plaintiff was charged at the rate of $350 per hour with additional fees for copies and postage. Cook’s final bill totaled $109,725, including arbitrator fees, according to court documents filed.

Charges included $70 for an email sent by Cook to someone to request contacting someone else. A charge of $105 was billed for Cook to review and respond to the arbitrator’s email. When the arbitrator wrote and requested a conference, Cook billed $70 to read and respond to the message.

The costs do not include those of the plaintiff, including his own legal fees.

Arbitration is dubbed a cheaper alternative to court, but for some who have been through the process, it is far more costly than court. For the California resident, the cost of arbitration was more than the $100,000 deposit he put down on the condominium. Not only did he lose his deposit but raked in arbitration and legal fees bringing the out-of-pocket total to over $200,000.

Due to the high legal fees, the purchaser said he would like to see proof of the payment made by Palms Place to Cook. That may not be possible unless a judge orders disclosure when his appeal is heard.

When legal fees are awarded the party can either pay the bill, have a judgment filed against them, or appeal in a district court.

Despite a plethora of consumer complaints and lawsuits against arbitration companies, Congress has done little to change the laws or to make arbitration more consumer friendly.

Binding arbitration clauses are often found in the fine print on contracts and purchase agreements. The clause forces a consumer into arbitration as it’s a waiver of rights to try a case in court. If a consumer loses a case, the legal fees for the prevailing party can be awarded if the arbitrator so chooses. While the cost of arbitration itself can range from hundreds to thousands of dollars, the legal fees can be exorbitant and far outweigh the issue or item in dispute.