Friday, January 9, 2015

Webster Smith, Another American Tragedy

The Webster Smith case was a litmus test for justice in America. Every once in a while a case comes along that puts our humanity as a people, and as Americans, on trial. Everything that we profess to stand for as Americans was on trial. Our sense of Justice in America and particularly in the U. S. Military was on trial. This was no ordinary trial. Our humanity was on trial. Our system of justice was on trial. This case dissolved the deceptive façade and exposed certain moral deficiencies in our system of justice.
 http://www.amazon.com/Judge-London-Steverson/e/B006WQKFJM

On Dec. 4, 2005 an officer on duty at the United States Coast Guard Academy (USCGA) received an allegation of sexual misconduct from a cadet, setting off an inquiry by the Coast Guard Investigative Services (CGIS), based in Washington, D.C..
The commandant of cadets, Captain Douglas Wisniewski, took immediate action to initiate the investigation into these allegations.
Sexual misconduct at the USCGA is defined as "acts that disgrace or bring discredit on the Coast Guard or Coast Guard Academy and are sexual in nature,  including lewd or lascivious acts, indecent exposure or homosexual conduct."

But the definition also includes consensual acts that are prohibited on Academy grounds, such as holding hands, kissing in public or having sex.

Cadet First Class Webster Smith was charged with sexually assaulting six female cadets in Chase Hall, the cadet living quarters at the United States Coast Guard Academy, and in other locations.

An Article 32 Investigation was convened on March 21, 2006 to determine whether there was probable cause to convene a court-martial to prosecute the charges. The Investigating Officer received the testimony of seven female cadets who accused Cadet Smith of assaulting them between May and November 2005.
The USCGA Superintendent, Admiral James Van Sice, decided to refer the charges against Cadet Smith to a General Court-martial. In his opening statement to the Jury Panel on June 26, 2006 the prosecutor described Cadet Smith as a manipulative senior who preyed on lonely women.

Cadet  Smith of Houston, Texas pleaded not guilty in the first court-martial of a cadet in Coast Guard Academy history. The charges ranged from rape, sodomy, and extortion to assault of the female cadets.

Cadet Smith was tried before a jury panel of Coast Guard officers including four white men, one white woman, three Black men and a man of Asian descent. The senior member was a captain with command experience. There were no cadets on the panel. Since there were no cadets on the jury panel, it can truly be asked whether he was afforded a jury of his peers. Were the best qualified members appointed to the panel, as the Manual For Courts-martial (MCM) and UCMJ mandate?

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), (10 USC sec.801 et seq.) supplemented by the Manual For Courts-martial (MCM) provides guidance for a commander empowered to convene a court-martial. The UCMJ and the MCM both contain the following sentence:
  "When convening a court-martial the convening authority shall detail as members thereof, such members of the armed forces as, in his opinion, are best qualified for the duty by reason of age, education, training, experience, length of service, and judicial temperament". (UCMJ Art. 25(d)(2).

     I have made this or a similar argument many times while defending service members in courts-martial. None of the members of Webster Smith's jury panel had been a cadet at the USCGA while female cadets were living in Chase Hall. Only one had ever attended the USCGA; none had socialized with female cadet; none had attended cadet athletic parties; none had read the cadet regulations; none had counseled a cadet concerning sexual assault; none had first-hand experience with the four class system; none had indoctrinated female cadets; and none had ever had a girl friend who was the first female brigade commander, who got pregnant, had an abortion, and continued to date the putative father for another six months before she was counseled by Coast Guard lawyers that she might have been raped at some point during her 18 month relationship with the accused in this court-martial.

    If, at least, one cadet had been on that jury, he could have explained to the members during deliberations many of the things that they were completely ignorant of. I contend that the jury did not have a clue as to what living conditions were like in Chase Hall, nor did they know what the social environment was like between Black male upper-class cadets and white female cadets in any of the four classes.

   That being the case, the jury was not composed of the best qualified people available in accordance with the UCMJ and Art 25(d)(2).

On June 28, 2006 after about eight hours of deliberation, the panel found Cadet Webster Smith guilty of indecent assault, extortion in exchange for sexual favors and sodomy, which in military parlance includes oral sex. All those charges involved one of the four accusers.

Cadet Smith was sentenced to be separated form the service and to spend six months in jail at a Navy brig.

This was not a rape case. Many senior Coast Guard officers tried to portray it as such. Webster Smith was not and is not a rapist. The court-martial, with all of its faults, proved that this was not a rape case.

Neither was Webster Smith a sexual predator as he was called. He simply refused to stay on his side of the color-line. Someone felt that a message had to be sent; a lesson had to be taught. Just as East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet; the Coast Guard Academy was not going to become a breeding ground for miscegenation.

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of the conviction  of Webster Smith, the only Coast Guard Academy cadet ever  court-martialed.

Smith had sought a Supreme Court review based largely on the argument  that he had not been able to question the credibility of one of his  accusers, known only as Cadet SR.

Smith’s attorneys wanted a chance to question the female cadet  because, according to a legal brief, she had lied about the consensual  nature of a previous sexual encounter with an enlisted man, contrary to  Coast Guard rules and possibly jeopardizing her military career. The  female cadet claimed Smith used knowledge of her previous dalliance to  extort sexual favors from her.

“The defense maintained that the two cadets’ sexual encounter was  consensual and that SR was fabricating her accusations because the  encounter occurred in Chase Hall, the Academy dormitory, where sexual  activity is prohibited by cadet regulations,” according to a brief in  the case.

The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces' (CAAF) minority opinion, including Chief Judge C.J. Effron, agreed that  Smith’s attorneys should have been allowed to question the female cadet.  In a dissenting opinion, they said Smith’s “allegation that SR had  previously lied about a sexual encounter” was relevant to the case.

 Why was Cadet 1st Class Webster Smith investigated, charged, tried, and convicted? Why must this talented young man register as a sexual offender for the remainder of his life? Why did he not find any justice in the military justice system? How could his case go through the entire appeal's process and end up at the United States Supreme Court without being granted any relief? Why would Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security refuse to grant clemency in a case that clearly cries out for justice?

 At this point in history when America had come far enough to elect a Black President why was this shining example of the best and the brightest of the African Americans of his generation denied the equal protection of the law? Why was he relegated to the second rail of military justice? On the second rail one receives "almost equal protection".  Like much else in the law, equal protection is a myth for America's citizens of color. The myth gives one the illusion of fairness.

Could the answer have anything to do with the nature of the criminal justice system or the definition of crime?  Crime is a legal concept, and the law creates the crimes it punishes. But, what creates the criminal law?  Behind the law, above it, and surrounding it is our society. Before the law made certain behavior a crime, some aspect of social reality transformed certain behavior into a crime.

Justice is blind in the abstract. It cannot see or act on its own. It cannot create its own morals, principles and rules. That depends on society. Behind every legal determination of "guilty" lies a more powerful and more basic social and societal judgement, a judgement that this type of behavior is not acceptable. This type of behavior deserves to be prohibited and punished. Our society has long chosen to prohibit and punish interracial sex.

After society makes a social judgement that certain behavior, acts, or conduct is wrong, the criminal justice system goes to work. It refines and transforms the list of prohibited acts and behavior. It interprets the list of acts, and does whatever is necessary to catch, convict and punish the lawbreakers.

Bias is inevitable. Crime and punishment are highly charged, emotional, and political subjects. There is no way to wring prejudice, attitude, or race out of the system.

 The Webster Smith Story Is An American Tragedy.

The Webster Smith Story is an American tragedy. It is not just the story of a Black Coast Guard Academy cadet; it is the story of an American family. It is the story of his mother, Belinda; and his father, Cleon; his wife, Lindsey and their daughter; and of his sister and brothers. It is the story of the friends of Webster Smith. They have all been harmed by the violence directed at their son, brother, husband, father and friend.

At the Coast Guard Academy, Webster Smith was a member of the Eclipse, Track Team, Football team, Regimental Staff, and a Swab summer Staff. He represented the Coast Guard in Washington DC concerning fitness and nutrition programs. He received numerous silver stars and never received a demerit prior the incident and investigation in 2005 that led to his court-martial.

To his classmates, teachers, and coaches Webster Smith appeared to be a magnetic, charming and gifted man, who had risen above his circumstances. Yet, in a moment, as if in the twinkling of an eye, a swift series of events diminished his popularity, vilified his name, and assailed his honor. His image was converted by senior Coast Guard officers from a popular athlete and nice guy to that of a sexual predator and public enemy number one at the Coast Guard Academy.

Webster Smith had dared to dream some big dreams. Like Alex Haley he had dared to believe that he could rise in the USCG to the highest level to which his talents and initiative could take him.

His parents were middle class African Americans. His father, Cleon Smith, was a graduate of the Coast Guard Academy in the Class of 1978 along with Vice Admiral Manson K. Brown.

His mother, Belinda Ingram Smith, believed in God and a good education. After attending college at WSSU for four years she went on to become the first Black female Crime Scene Investigator in the history of the Winston-Salem police Department.

This unbelievable turn about in what had been a Black success story is a singularly American tragedy.

That a cadet so deeply respected and loved by his coaches and classmates could evoke such an outpouring of hate and anger from the senior officers at the Coast Guard Academy is a Coast Guard tragedy and an American tragedy.

All of the female cadets involved with and associated with Webster Smith escaped clean without any consequences for their actions or their behavior. Mother Nature was the only one who exacted a penalty. Natural Law resulted in a pregnancy for his girlfriend. An abortion followed.

If women are equal, they should be treated as equal. Not a single woman was disciplined under the UCMJ or the cadet regulations. All of the female cadets involved in the Webster Smith case graduated and were commissioned as Coast Guard officers. Their testimony at the court-martial painted a picture of female cadets who were untrustworthy, arrogant, and certainly not ladies. Their conduct was unbecoming an officer and a lady.
(Read more at http://www.amazon.com/Judge-London-Steverson/e/B006WQKFJM)



These women were witnesses at a public trial yet they were accorded the equivalent of rape shield protection. This was not a rape case. Not one of the women had been raped. There was testimony of consensual sex acts. Some of the consensual sex acts were unlawful because, among other things, they occurred in Chase Hall, or at Academy functions. How could unlawful consensual sex acts result in charges against only one of the participants? It takes two to tango.

Is it wrong for Black people to ask if there is a double standard? Would that amount to paranoia on the part of Black people? Or would that be considered playing the race card simply to inquire? Is it absurd to believe that anything more than pure chance resulted in the court-martial of Webster Smith? The fact that he was court-martialed speaks to a social reality that African-Americans are acutely aware of in America. Race is not a card to be dealt, but it determines whom the dealer is and who gets dealt a losing hand.

According to a 2008 General Accounting Office Report, from 2003 to 2006 there were NO sexual-harassment complaints at the Coast Guard Academy, but there were 12 incidents of sexual assault reported to the Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS), with one incident in 2003, one in 2004, “NONE” in 2005 and 10 in 2006. It is hard to conceive of the facts relied upon by, Captain Douglas Wisniewski, the Commandant Of Cadets when he asserted in 2005 that there was a climate of fear of sexual assault in Chase Hall.

The 10 incidents reported in 2006 would appear to have occurred after the Webster Smith court-martial. Webster Smith was removed from Chase Hall in 2005. Who was doing all of the sexual assaulting in 2006? Why were none of these people brought to justice? They could have been tried along with Webster Smith.

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of Webster Smith. The justices declined to hear the case without comment. The decision of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) became the final decision in the case.

Thirteen female cadets and 11 males at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy (CGA) reported anonymously in an April 2008 survey that they experienced “unwanted sexual contact,” ranging from touching to forced sexual acts, during the 2007-08 school year.

More than three-quarters said that alcohol or drugs were involved and that the offender was a fellow cadet.
None of the women sought professional help and only 7 percent discussed the incident with authorities.

When Alexander Hamilton organized the Revenue Cutter Service in 1790 it was established in the Department of the Treasury. Later it became known as the Coast Guard. In 1966 it was placed in the Department of Transportation. Today it is the nucleus of the Department of Homeland Security. Webster Smith's case is currently being reviewed for clemency by the Secretary of the Department of Home Land Security, Janet Napolitano.

Webster Smith would have made an excellent military officer. It is Webster Smith and people like him that I want on the wall as our last line of defense for our American way of life protecting us from the great unwashed horde that is coming. Secretary Napolitano who do you want on that wall?

When the Supreme Court rejected Smith’s petition seeking a  hearing on the case, it effectively made the CAAF’s  decision the final decision in the case.
 (By USALJ-ret. )

Tuesday, December 30, 2014

Colorblind Justice From A Blind Judge, Maybe?


Justice is not always blind and seldom is it colorblind. But, can a blind judge bring us closer to that ideal? A Michigan attorney from a family of professional lawyers wants us to think so. The well known Bernstein law firm is run by daddy Sam and his siblings. So, the name Bernstein was worth a million dollars in campaign advertisements to Attorney Richard Bernstein in his contest for a seat on the Michigan Supreme Court. He began with name recognition that was off the charts.
“I want to bring blind justice to the Michigan Supreme Court,” said Detroit-area attorney Richard Bernstein as a Michigan Supreme Court candidate. Highlighting his struggles in education and his work as a legal advocate for the disabled.
"I have come to believe that life is not always fair, but judges should always be," Bernstein said. "I'm here because I believe in the idea of blind justice. I'm here because I believe in the idea of fairness for all people."



 (Attorney, Richard Bernstein, AP photo)
Legally blind since birth, Mr. Bernstein will get the chance on New Year’s Day 2015 when he’s sworn into office and makes history as the first blind person to serve on the state’s highest court.
 "It would be much easier if I could read and write like everyone else, but that's not how I was created," Bernstein said. "No question, it requires a lot more work, but the flip side is it requires you to operate at the highest level of preparedness. ... This is what I've done my entire life. This goes all the way back to grade school for me." This is his second bid for statewide office - he ran for attorney general four years ago but lost the Democratic nomination.
According to an Associated Press profile:
Bernstein is widely known in southeastern Michigan because his family’s personal-injury law firm regularly advertises on TV. He spent more than $1.8 million of his own money to campaign for the state Supreme Court. His slogan? “Blind Justice.”
As one of only two Democrats on the seven-member court, Bernstein is unlikely to crack the court’s conservative sway. But he’s still expected to make a difference.
“His own experience and background is different than anyone else’s at the conference table,” said Justice Bridget McCormack, who was a law professor before she was elected in 2012. “Richard knows a whole lot about disability law the rest of us don’t. We don’t get a lot of those cases. Who knows how it will be useful?”
 Hearing arguments and writing opinions is only part of a Supreme Court justice's job. They meet weekly to decide whether to accept or reject appeals in more than 2,000 cases a year. Because he's blind, Bernstein will be having many conversations with his law clerks instead of communicating through email or long memos.
"My chambers will be unique," he said. "Not many clerks will have as much interaction with a justice as mine will." In November, he was elected to an eight-year term. He’s not the first blind judge to sit on the highest court of a state.
Missouri Supreme Court Justice Richard B. Teitelman, who is legally blind, was appointed to the court in 2002. On the federal level, there’s David Tatel, a blind judge serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
To help prepare Mr. Bernstein for his first set of oral arguments on Jan. 13, an assistant has been reading him briefs.
“We do use technology but technology can only take you so far,” Mr. Bernstein said. “I internalize the cases word for word, pretty much commit them primarily by memory. I’m asking the reader to pinpoint certain things, read footnotes, look at the legislative record.”
(Gershman, Jacob, WSJ,  Dec. 29, 2014)

Saturday, December 20, 2014

Binder & Binder Files For Bankruptcy

 

Social Security Disability Firm Binder & Binder Files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

The Law Firm, Binder & Binder, a Long Island-based national Social Security Disability law firm had to reduce institutional debt after payments from the federal government slowed. The firm is dependent upon government-paid fees earned from shepherding Social Security Disability claimants through the system.The firm is now facing a shrinking number of people seeking benefits and tougher scrutiny from the Social Security Administration (SSA) Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) who decide cases.
Binder& Binder has about 58,000 active cases or its 966 employees, many of whom aren’t lawyers. (In 2004, Congress made it easier for non-lawyers para-legals to represent applicants for Social Security disability benefits.)
In projections filed in court papers, Binder estimates its employee head count will drop to less than 400 over the next two years.

Charles Binder began representing applicants for Social Security Disability Benefits with his brother, Larry, in the 1970s.  In 2010, Binder & Binder scooped up $88 million in fees representing applicants for Social Security Disability Benefits (SSI/SSDI). It was the largest firm of its kind, thriving amid an aging workforce, high unemployment and less oversight than in the current environment.
On Thursday night, the firm filed for bankruptcy protection.
The Wall Street Journal reports:
The firm listed assets and liabilities each between $10 million and $50 million in a bankruptcy petition filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in White Plains, N.Y.
Those debts include $23 million in secured debt to lenders U.S. Bank and Capital One Bank and $16.7 million in unsecured debt to Stellus Capital Management, a spinoff of investment firm D.E. Shaw & Co., court filings show.
U.S. Bank and Capital One Bank are prepared to lend up to $26 million in bankruptcy financing, filings show, subject to court approval.
 The firm is dependent upon government-paid fees earned from shepherding Social Security disability claimants through the system.
The firm is now facing a shrinking number of people seeking benefits and tougher scrutiny from the Social Security Administration (SSA) Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) who decide cases.
Binder& Binder has about 58,000 active cases or its 966 employees, many of whom aren’t lawyers. (In 2004, Congress made it easier for non-lawyers para-legals to represent applicants for Social Security disability benefits.)
In projections filed in court papers, Binder estimates its employee head count will drop to less than 400 over the next two years.
U.S. Bank National Association and Capital One have agreed to provide debtor-in-possession financing of up to $26 million, the filings showed.
The case is in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court Southern District of New York, Case No: 14-23728.

The move will allow the firm to reduce institutional debt after payments from the federal government slowed, hurting cash flow, said Kenneth Rosen, an attorney with Lowenstein Sandler representing Binder & Binder. The company listed both assets and liabilities of between $10 million and $50 million, according to court papers filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York.
"We have filed papers to pay our employees in the ordinary course. We don't want the employees to feel anything; they will not. We don't want the clients to feel anything; they will not," Mr. Rosen said. "The last thing we would want is there to be any interruption. It's business as usual."
U.S. Bank and Capital One made a $23 million secured loan to the company. The financing will allow for operations to continue without interruption, Mr. Rosen said.
The law firm, with about 57,000 clients, has approximately 900 employees in 13 states, including New York, where it has offices in Manhattan, the Bronx, Long Island City and Hauppauge, L.I.
The company's largest unsecured creditor was Houston-based Stellus Capital Management, which had loaned the company $16.7 million. Google and Manhattan-based Integrated Media Solutions were also among the firm's largest creditors, with $800,000 and $2.7 million owed for services, respectively.
Manhattan management consultant Development Specialists will provide a chief restructuring officer to manage the bankruptcy and improve operating performance, according to the filing.
Binder & Binder was founded in 1975 by brothers Harry and Charles Binder. Charles would appear in TV commercials, saying in the ads "You have enough to worry about."


When reached for comment, while vacationing in Hungary Judge London Steverson, USALJ (Retired)


formerly of the Downey, California, Social Security Office Of Hearing And Appeals had this to say: "Wow! What a surprise.
I really like Manny Serpa, Esq. He usually represented Binder&Binder in cases that came before me. His cases were usually well prepared and he did a good job of presenting the merits of the claimant's case. And he won most of his cases. In 1990 the attorney would get an average fee of about $750 for winning a case, but they had to chase the client to get paid, because SSA did not withhold money and pay the attorney directly. Well, in 2009 when I retired the minimum fee was $2 thousand to $3 thousand per case, and the Government would hold back the money and pay the attorneys. Of course, some law firms would collect up to $28 thousand dollars in attorneys fees for a case with large amounts of past due benefits. It was a high volume business with rapid turnover. Even a para-legal could make $1 million dollars a year if he got enough referrals. I never did agree with the idea that para-legals should get paid at the same rate as lawyers, since para-legals do not have a law school education and are not members of the Bar. But, no one listened to me.
  http://www.amazon.com/socialNsecurity-Confessions-Social-Security-Judge/dp/1449569757
I just can't believe that a law firm specializing in Social Security benefits would ever go bankrupt. It's the easiest legal job in the world. The cases are all tried before a judge sitting alone without a jury and the other side is not represented.  The lawyers are nothing more than baby-sitters for the claimants, and the judges ask all the questions at the Hearing. It is like losing an uncontested divorce; it never happens. That is why it is so astounding to hear that Binder&Binder is going bankrupt. There must be some other reason; possibly some kind of gross mismanagement, or some one might have been siphoning funds under the table. I'm not saying that that is a possibility, but this whole thing does not sound quite right to me. As we used to say in the Coast Guard "it will all come out in the wash". I wish old Manny Serpa well."

What Binder & Binder’s Bankruptcy Means for Your Disability Law Practice


(Nathan Chapman, President of The Marketing Center, sees opportunity for your practice in 2015 from Binder & Binder's bankruptcy)
If you’re a Social Security Disability attorney, you don’t need anyone to tell you 2014 has been challenging.
On the other hand, if you think you had a bad year, at least you don’t owe $40 million.
According to news reports at the end of last week, national disability advocacy firm Binder and Binder “is preparing for a possible Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing… as it faces roughly $40 million of debt and shrinking demand for its services amid tightening government scrutiny of claims.”
Gee, it wasn’t so long ago The Wall Street Journal reported, “The $88 million the Binder firm collected in 2010 was more than triple the $26 million it got in 2006, according to data obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request.”
We can trust that H.I.G. Private Equity, which bought a stake in Binder & Binder in 2010, knows some good lawyers and accountants. So, I don’t want to write today about the Goliaths. What’s it all mean for the Davids of the Social Security Disability profession?

What We Heard in 2014…

I like to joke that at our specialized marketing agency for disability attorneys, we talk to more disability lawyers than anyone in America other than Barbara Silverstone. So what did we hear in 2014? Well, a lot of pain and concern – starting with repercussions from the October 2013 federal government shutdown. That resulted in claimant files that didn’t get processed, hearings that didn’t get scheduled, benefits that didn’t get awarded and, yes, legal fees that didn’t get paid.
And then there were the horror stories of ALJs being coached and even punished when they awarded benefits too often. We all cried, “Where is the similar coaching for the judges who deny too many?”
I know of some Social Security attorneys who went into early retirement in 2014. Others laid off staff. The Davids were getting hit by some pretty large slingshot rocks.
Yet, not every conversation with a disability attorney in 2014 was one of pain. While some attorneys may have gotten out, others called us to get in: Yes, there are still attorneys wanting to enter the disability arena, or if already there, to ramp up their practices.
Most significantly, I remember one particular conversation with a disability attorney that was a message of hope. I repeated it often to others. While commiserating about the problems of this era, this attorney said to me: “The attorneys who are having the hardest times are the ones who have been doing the same thing the same way for so long, they are unable or unwilling to change. Those are the ones most in trouble.”

Resolve to Evolve in 2015…

“…Unable or unwilling to change.” Those words linger in the air as we cross over into a new year.
At the Las Vegas NOSSCR Conference this year, we presented a clients-only Internet-themed presentation entitled, “Evolve or Die.” (Watch for it as a webinar early next year.)
Here are some ways that your disability law firm can consider changing:
  • Diversification. We think you should consider diversifying your client base. In 2014, we created new television and/or Internet marketing campaigns for LTD cases, Veterans Disability, Workers’ Compensation, Bankruptcy, Special Education, Employment Law and even Personal Injury for attorneys who also represent Social Security claimants.
  • Improve your Website Conversion. Much is written how SEO can help a Social Security Disability lawyer rank higher in search engine results for increased traffic. We recommend equal study, testing and improvements to help your law firm’s website convert a greater percentage of the traffic into actual leads.
  • Paid Search. When handled by pros and reinforced with branding efforts, a Paid Search campaign be more cost efficient via better conversion than buying leads that have no branding element to them.
  • Better Branding. If you agree that not all attorneys are alike, shouldn’t they not look alike? In 2014, The Marketing Center handled more logo and brand refreshes than any other year in our history.
  • Initial Applications. It’s more important than ever that your marketing messages urge claimants to call when they need to apply, not just after being denied. Then, resolve to get efficient in handling those applications.
  • Believe in yourself. American history shows that in periods of economic panic and market contractions, there are always some who use the retreat by others as an opportunity to grow their brand while competition, in this case Binder & Binder, is less active. Fortunately, at The Marketing Center, we’ve had those conversations in 2014 as well.
For 2015, The Marketing Center’s clients have booked a greater amount of marketing exposure than the year we leave behind. We see that as a positive sign for all - one of hope, optimism and confidence.
Here’s hoping YOU have a prosperous new year. Of course, let us know if you’d like some help with that.

Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Murder Most Foul In New York City

Murder Most Foul. What does lynching look like in 21st Century America?
This is one version. Another season, another reason to kill an unarmed Black man in America.

"It's a very painful day for so many New Yorkers," said New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio.
Citing "centuries of racism that have brought us to this day," Mayor Bill de Blasio says that the fact that protesters have rallied around the statement "Black lives matter" reflects a sad situation, that such an idea needs to be both stated and repeated.
"It's a phrase that should never have to be said," the mayor said. "It should be self-evident."
De Blasio also said that after the grand jury's decision, other inquiries continue, including one by the New York Police Department. Saying that he had just spoken with Attorney General Eric Holder, de Blasio said that the federal government is "clearly engaged and poised to act."

The U S Justice Department will launch a federal civil rights investigation after the Staten Island grand jury declined to bring charges in the case of Eric Garner, an African American who died this summer after a white New York City police officer placed him in an apparent chokehold during an arrest.

Garner, 43, died July 17 after Officer Daniel Pantaleo placed him in what appeared to be a chokehold during an arrest that was recorded on videos, which have contributed to public anger over the treatment of African American men by police.
Garner’s mother, Gwen Carr, expressed outrage at the decision. “I don’t know what video they were looking at, not the same one as the rest of the world,” Carr said at a press conference. “How could we put our trust in the justice system when they fail us like this?”  


Eric Garner’s widow, Esaw, said  that “it was like a modern-day lynching. They had it out for him.”
 "It's a very emotional day for our city. It's a very painful day for so many New Yorkers," Mayor Bill de Blasio said. "We're grieving — again — over the loss of Eric Garner, who was a father, a husband, a son, a good man — a man who should be with us, and isn't."
There were five Staten island police officers involved in the chocking death of Garner. Other officers present on July 17 were not facing indictment as they were offered immunity in exchange for testimony.
The police officer who applied the choke hold to Garder was Officer Daniel Pantaleo. He is the plains clothed officer in the above photo wearing number 99. He issued a statement which he said was in the nature of an apology.  When asked  whether she accepted Police Officer Pantaleo’s apology, Esaw Garner flatly declared: “Hell no.”
“The time for remorse would have been when my husband was yelling to breathe. That would have been the time for him to show some type of remorse or some type of care for another human being’s life—when he was screaming 11 times that he can’t breathe,” Esaw Garner said.  “There’s nothing that him or his prayers or anything else will make me feel any different. No, I don’t accept his apology. No, I can care less about his condolences. He’s still working, still getting a paycheck, still feeding is kids when my husband is six feet under and I’m looking for a way to feed my kids now.”

 The NYPD bans the use of the chokehold; Pantaleo’s attorney, Stuart London, argued that the officer used an approved take-down move, which he learned in police academy, because Garner was resisting arrest.  “There was no pressure ever applied to his throat or neck area,” London said.

 The New York City medical examiner’s office classified Garner’s death as homicide due to “compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police.” The office also mentioned Garner’s asthma and hypertensive cardiovascular disease as contributing factors.
London said Pantaleo remains on modified assignment on Staten Island.

 The NYPD will conduct an internal investigation, Mayor Bill de Blasio said. New York’s two U.S. senators, Charles Schumer (D) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D), had said they would urge the Justice Department to investigate.
 New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) said, “While there will be people who disagree with today’s grand jury decision, it is important that we respect the legal process and rule of law.”
Richmond County District Attorney Daniel M. Donovan Jr. is seeking a court order that would allow him to release “specific information in connection with this grand jury investigation". Donovan has not commented on which charges the grand jury considered. Legal experts agree that the grand jury could have considered lesser homicide charges, including second-degree manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide.
Since the New York City medical examiner’s office classified Garner’s death as homicide, it was reasonable to assume that some one was responsible for Garner's death, since he did not die of natural causes. As such, a reasonable Grand Jury member would have been constrained to return an indictment for negligent homicide, at the very least. Not to do that flies in the face of all logic, and renders the Grand Jury process devoid of all credibility.
Peaceful protests began immediately in New York City. Above is a "Die-In' at New York's Grand Central Train Station.
Largely peaceful demonstrations gathered strength and snarled traffic in locations throughout the city, including Grand Central Terminal, Times Square and near Rockefeller Center, after it was announced that no criminal charges would be brought against officer Daniel Pantaleo in the death of Eric Garner.

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

International Business? Can We Talk?


Kedves Ügyfeleink! (Dear Clients!)
Do you want to start a company abroad?
Figyelmükbe szeretnénk ajánlani KÜLFÖLDI CÉGALAPÍTÁS szolgáltatásunkat!
Céget szeretne alapítani külföldön? Szeretné egy kézben tudni a cégkezeléssel összefüggő összes adminiszrációs ügyet?
Vállaljuk cégek alapítását ...
We undertake the creation and management of companies,  in the following countries: Austria, Belgium, Belize, Bulgaria, Chile, the United Arab Emirates, Luxembourg, Canada, China, Germany, Italy, Malta, Panama, Romania, Serbia, Spain, Switzerland, Slovakia, Sweden, Turkey, UK, Ukraine, USA.
Demand in other countries too!
Quick and complete range of advice in General, we welcome you!
VAN ÜGYVÉDED!
YOUR ATTORNEY AT LAW,
 Dr. Császár Ügyvédi Iroda

Dr. Császár Katalin ügyvéd, az iroda vezetője üdvözli Önt!
Dear Clients!
We want to offer our services to FOREIGN COMPANY!
You want to start a company abroad? Do you want a hand with the cégkezeléssel all related administrative case?
We undertake the creation and management of companies, the posting of the székhelyszolgálatásól, in the following countries: Austria, Belgium, Belize, Bulgaria, Chile, the United Arab Emirates, Luxembourg, Canada, China, Germany, Italy, Malta, Panama, Romania, Serbia, Spain, Switzerland, Slovakia, Sweden, Turkey, UK, Ukraine, USA.
Demand in other countries too!
Quick and complete range of advice in General, we welcome you!

Dr. Catherine Emperor's lawyer, the office manager welcomes you!
The main profile of our office of business law, tax law, corporate law, and civil rights issues in the field of co-operation.
Some of our clients both in number and variety of market segments of the active medium and large companies, and individuals.
We are always open to new solutions, seek new perspectives, in addition to use of previous experience.
In our work we strive to develop solutions that are in addition to the technical aspects of our customers' individual needs are fully met.
Our staff, our partners and permanent (audit, tax advisory and financial experts) using full range of services we provide.
Dr. Császár Katalin ügyvéd, az iroda vezetője üdvözli Önt!

Irodánk fő profilja a gazdasági jog, adójog, társasági jog, és polgári jog területét érintő kérdésekben való közreműködés.
Ügyfeleink között tudhatunk számos, a piac legkülönfélébb szegmenseiben tevékenykedő közép- és nagyvállalatot, és magánszemélyeket egyaránt.
Mindig nyitottak vagyunk új megoldások, új perspektívák keresésére, korábbi tapasztalataink felhasználása mellett.
Munkánk során olyan megoldások kidolgozására törekszünk, amelyek a szakmai szempontok mellett ügyfeleink egyéni igényeinek is maximálisan megfelelnek.
Kollégáink, és állandó együttműködő partnereink (könyvvizsgáló, adótanácsadó, és pénzügyi szakértők) segítségével teljes körű szolgáltatásokat nyújtunk.






Dear Clients!

We want to offer our services to FOREIGN COMPANY!
You want to start a company abroad? Do you want a hand with the cégkezeléssel all related administrative case?

We undertake the creation and management of companies, the posting of the székhelyszolgálatásól, in the following countries: Austria, Belgium, Belize, Bulgaria, Chile, the United Arab Emirates, Luxembourg, Canada, China, Germany, Italy, Malta, Panama, Romania, Serbia, Spain, Switzerland, Slovakia, Sweden, Turkey, UK, Ukraine, USA.
Demand in other countries too!

Quick and complete range of advice in General, we welcome you!

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Ministers Must Marry Homosexuals Or Face Jail And Fines Of $1,000.00 Per Day

Government to Ordained Ministers: Celebrate Same-Sex Wedding or Go to Jail






For years, those in favor of same-sex marriage have argued that all Americans should be free to live as they choose. And yet in countless cases, the government has coerced those who simply wish to be free to live in accordance with their belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
Ministers face a 180-day jail term and $1,000 fine for each day they decline to celebrate the same-sex wedding.
Just this weekend, a case has arisen in Idaho, where city officials have told ordained ministers they have to celebrate same-sex weddings or face fines and jail time.
The Idaho case involves Donald and Evelyn Knapp, both ordained ministers, who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel. Officials from Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, told the couple that because the city has a non-discrimination statute that includes sexual orientation and gender identity, and because the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Idaho’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, the couple would have to officiate at same-sex weddings in their own chapel.
The non-discrimination statute applies to all “public accommodations,” and the city views the chapel as a public accommodation.
On Friday October 17, a same-sex couple asked to be married by the Knapps, and the Knapps politely declined. The Knapps now face a 180-day jail term and $1,000 fine for each day they decline to celebrate the same-sex wedding.
A week of honoring their faith and declining to perform the ceremony could cost the couple three and a half years in jail and $7,000 in fines.
Government Coercion
The Knapps have been married to each other for 47 years and are both ordained ministers of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel. They are “evangelical Christians who hold to historic Christian beliefs” that “God created two distinct genders in His image” and “that God ordained marriage to be between one man and one woman.”
But as a result of the courts redefining marriage and a city ordinance that creates special privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity, the Knapps are facing government coercion.
Governmental recognition of same-sex relationships as marriages need not and should not require any third party to recognize a same-sex relationship as a marriage. Government should respect the rights of all citizens. Indeed, a form of government respectful of free association, free contracts, free speech and free exercise of religion should protect citizens’ rights to live according to their beliefs about marriage.
The Knapps have been celebrating weddings in their chapel since 1989. Government should not now force them to shut down or violate their beliefs.
After all, protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience does not infringe on anyone’s sexual freedoms. No one has a right to have the government force a particular minister to marry them. Some citizens may conclude that they cannot in good conscience participate in same-sex ceremonies, from priests and pastors to bakers and florists. They should not be forced to choose between strongly held religious beliefs and their livelihood.
What Can Be Done
At the federal level, Congress has an opportunity to protect religious liberty and the rights of conscience.
Government should not now force ordained ministers to shut down or violate their beliefs.
Policy should prohibit the government from discriminating against any individual or group, whether nonprofit or for-profit, based on their beliefs that marriage is the union of a man and woman or that sexual relations are reserved for marriage. The government should be prohibited from discriminating against such groups or individuals in tax policy, employment, licensing, accreditation or contracting.
The Marriage and Religious Freedom Act—sponsored by Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, in the House (H.R. 3133) with more than 100 co-sponsors of both parties, and sponsored by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, in the Senate (S. 1808) with 17 co-sponsors—would prevent the federal government from taking such adverse actions.
States need similar policy protections, including broad protections provided by state-level Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs) and specific protections for beliefs and actions about marriage.
Indeed, Idaho has a RFRA, called the Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act (FERPA). State RFRAs prevent the imposition of substantial burdens on sincere religious beliefs unless the government proves that such a burden advances a compelling government interest that has been pursued through the least restrictive means possible.
Protecting Religious Liberty
It is unclear how the city could claim that forcing the Knapps to perform a same-sex wedding is a compelling government interest being pursued in the least restrictive way. There are numerous other venues where a same-sex couple could get married. Indeed, there is a county clerks office directly across the street from the chapel.
States must protect the rights of Americans and the associations they form—both nonprofit and for-profit—to speak and act in the public square in accordance with their beliefs. It is particularly egregious that the city would coerce ordained ministers to celebrate a religious ceremony in their chapel. The Alliance Defending Freedom has filed a motion arguing that this action “violates [the Knapps’s] First and 14th Amendment rights to freedom of speech, the free exercise of religion, substantive due process, and equal protection.”
Citizens must work to prevent or repeal laws that create special privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity. We must also insist on laws that protect religious freedom and the rights of conscience.
Protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience is the embodiment of a principled pluralism that fosters a more diverse civil sphere. Indeed, tolerance is essential to promoting peaceful coexistence even amid disagreement.(By Ryan T. Anderson  )

Thursday, October 9, 2014

Security Guard Sues Social Security Judge For Sexually Assault

Woman claims she was assaulted by judge, sues for $3 million



The Duryea woman who said she was groped by a federal administrative law judge (ALJ) from the Social Security Administration (SSA) has sued two government agencies, SSA and (Department of Homeland Security) DHS, for $3 million, according to court papers filed Tuesday.
Alice De Quevedo has accused Judge Sridhar Boini of grabbing her breast and attempting to kiss her non-consensually in July 2012.
She was working as a security guard at the Social Security Administration’s office in downtown Scranton when the judge, who reviews Social Security cases, allegedly assaulted her.
 Mrs. De Quevedo agreed to the use of her name.
Last year, the plaintiff filed the complaint directly with the Social Security Administration, which employed Judge Boini, and the federal Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which is responsible for protecting federal property. The action was required as a prerequisite to the civil suit in federal court.
Now she’s suing them for failing to protect her from abuse.
Mrs. De Quevedo immediately reported the 2012 incident to Scranton police. An investigation revealed Judge Boini was previously accused in 2011 of similar conduct with another woman.
He pleaded guilty in January 2013 to a simple assault charge involving Mrs. De Quevedo and was sentenced to three months of house arrest and two years of probation. The other charges involving the second woman were dropped in exchange for the plea.
Larry Moran, Mrs. De Quevedo’s attorney, has said that the fact federal officials knew of a previous accusation against Judge Boini makes his client’s case all the more egregious.
(By PETER CAMERON)
Contact the writer: pcameron@timesshamrock.com, @pcameronTT on Twitter