tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23151310401952183752024-03-13T23:13:47.278-04:00New York Paralegal Joel Irvinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02136601426766713592noreply@blogger.comBlogger2686125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2315131040195218375.post-18511847527815018152022-12-01T12:12:00.008-05:002022-12-01T12:16:59.816-05:00Amazon Is Not Removing Hebrews 2 NegroesAndy Jazzy CEO of Amazon has no plans to remove the book or film Hebrews 2 Negroes from the Amazon platform.
<a href="https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3757760-amazon-ceo-no-plans-to-take-down-antisemitic-film-kyrie-irving-shared/"></a>Joel Irvinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02136601426766713592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2315131040195218375.post-23993802482629845152022-11-10T06:06:00.003-05:002022-11-10T10:06:02.387-05:00Is Amazon Antisemitic?Andy Jazzy is the CEO of Amazon and he runs the platform that the movie and book Hebrews 2 Negroes are sold. Why isn't anyone calling him anti-semitic? <a name='more'></a>The movie has been out since 2018. The movie and the book have become best sellers.
Joel Irvinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02136601426766713592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2315131040195218375.post-17069255705165552602020-10-02T13:24:00.008-04:002020-10-02T13:24:40.570-04:00Coming Soon!New content is coming soon to New York Paralegal!
<a name='more'></a>Joel Irvinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02136601426766713592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2315131040195218375.post-69682241475735273702018-08-03T17:35:00.002-04:002018-08-03T17:35:42.445-04:00A.G. Underwood: We Will Sue Over EPA Rollback Of Clean Car Rule<br />
NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Barbara D. Underwood announced her intent to challenge the Trump administration’s illegal and environmentally-destructive plan to roll back federal limits on tailpipe pollution from cars and trucks, if the proposed rule released today is finalized.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
Attorney General Underwood – part of a coalition of 20 Attorneys General – released the following joint statement. The coalition includes every state attorney general from jurisdictions that have adopted California’s more stringent standards to reduce vehicle emissions, improve miles/gallon, and save drivers money on gas.<br />
<br />
“Federal rules to limit tailpipe pollution and improve fuel economy are our best strategy to reduce carbon pollution, improve air quality, and save drivers money on gas. The Administration’s proposal to weaken these rules will cause the American people to breathe dirtier air and pay higher prices at the pump. If adopted, the Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s rollbacks will cost American drivers hundreds of billions of dollars. Freezing or weakening these standards puts the health of our children, seniors, and all communities at risk, and increases the rising costs of climate change for our states. This decision upends decades of cooperative state and federal action to protect our residents. We are prepared to go to court to put the brakes on this reckless and illegal plan.”<br />
<br />
– New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen, Delaware Attorney General Matthew Denn, Hawaii Attorney General Russell Suzuki, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, Maine Attorney General Janet Mills, Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson, New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal, New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas, North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein, Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Kilmartin, Vermont Attorney General T.J. Donovan, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, and Washington, D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine<br />
<br />
Background on Clean Cars Rule: <br />
<br />
Globally, the transportation sector is the fastest growing source of dangerous greenhouse gas pollution. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the transportation sector has surpassed the electric power sector and is now the nation’s largest source of carbon dioxide emissions. Cars and light duty trucks make up 60 percent of the country’s transportation sector and are the main driver of U.S. dependence on oil, including foreign imports. <br />
Beginning in 2010, EPA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the California Air Resources Board agreed to establish a single national program to limit greenhouse gas emissions from model year 2012–2025 vehicles. This program allows automakers to design and manufacture vehicles that will comply with tailpipe standards in all states.<br />
The current federal standards for model year 2022-2025 vehicles are estimated to:<br />
Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 540 million metric tons;<br />
Remove the equivalent of 422 million cars from the road; and,<br />
Save drivers $1,650 per vehicle.<br />
If enacted, EPA’s proposal to freeze the emissions standards at 2020 levels would:<br />
Reduce average fuel economy from an estimated 46.8 miles per gallon in model year 2026 vehicles to 37 miles per gallon;<br />
Increase the country’s oil consumption by 5.3 to 11.9 million gallons per day in 2025;<br />
Result in 16 to 37 million metric tons more carbon pollution in 2025; and,<br />
Cost Americans roughly $193 billion to $236 billion more at the pump through 2035.<br />
In January 2017, EPA determined, in its “midterm evaluation,” that the 2022-2025 standards are readily achievable by the auto industry. After an extensive technical review, based in significant part on information from industry, advocates, and other interested parties, EPA found that “automakers are well positioned to meet the standards at lower costs than previous estimated.” However, in April, EPA arbitrarily reversed course and claimed that the greenhouse gas emissions standards for model years 2022–2025 vehicles should be scrapped. The Administration offered no evidence other than a meager record of self-serving industry analysis to support this decision and deferred further analysis to a forthcoming rulemaking.<br />
<br />
A coalition of 17 states and the District of Columbia—who together represent 44 percent of the U.S population and 43 percent of the national new car sales market—sued the agency over its decision to withdraw the agency’s evaluation supporting the standards, based on the fact that EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously, failed to follow its own Clean Car regulations, and violated the Clean Air Act. <br />
In its draft rule, EPA not only proposes to freeze federal emissions standards at 2020 levels but also threatens the authority of states to enforce stronger standards to protect residents. The Clean Air Act authorizes California to adopt emission standards that are more stringent than the federal standards and other states are authorized to adopt those same standards for new motor vehicles sold within their states. California’s standards have a huge impact and are vitally important to public health for millions of Americans. The proposed rule would eliminate the California standard, subjecting every state to less efficient and dirtier standards.<br />
The states that follow California’s standards are home to 74 million people, or approximately one-quarter of the country’s population. These states consume more than 28 billion gallons of gas annually, approximately one-fifth of the national total. If EPA succeeds in rescinding the authority of California and the states that follow its standards, the drivers in all those states stand to pay approximately $65 to $80 billion more in gasoline costs through 2035 than if those states retain their authority to enforce the current California standards. <br />
Joel Irvinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02136601426766713592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2315131040195218375.post-54943763443609403312013-08-28T11:50:00.000-04:002013-08-28T11:59:32.618-04:00Parents Say High School Coaches Witnessed Sodomy By JACK BOUBOUSHIAN <br />
<br />
CHICAGO (CN) - High school soccer coaches stood by as older players beat and sodomized younger players in hazing rituals that the coaches "ordered and witnessed," parents claim in court.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Parents John and Jane Doe sued Maine Township High School District 207, its principal Audrey Haugan, freshman soccer coach Emilio Rodriguez and varsity coach Michael Divincenzo, in Cook County Court. Their child, Doe Child, was a student at Maine West High School in Des Plaines.<br />
<br />
"In September 2012, Doe Child was one of several minors who was subjected to physical and sexual assault while a member of the Maine West High School soccer team as part of hazing rituals that were ordered and witnessed by several coaches," the parents say in the lawsuit. "Pursuant to this ritual, Doe Child was 'rewarded' for making the varsity boys' soccer team in the following ways: more senior members of the team grabbed him, forced him down to the ground, and physically and sexually assaulted Doe Child. These hazing rituals are a form of bullying and for years have been part of the culture of the Maine West soccer team. The team's coaches have sanctioned these rituals, while other school officials - including Maine West's principal - turned a blind eye toward the abuse, even after the abuse was reported to them. Indeed, Doe Child is only one of many students who have been physically and sexually assaulted."<br />
<br />
The Does claim that during one soccer practice, Divincenzo, 37, threatened the team "that he would have older players sodomize the younger players if 'they did not start to communicate.'"<br />
<br />
The complaint continues: "On or about September 26, 2012, during soccer practice, defendants Rodriguez and Divincenzo ordered the team to do a 'campus run.'<br />
<br />
"After defendants Rodriguez and Divincenzo ordered the 'campus run,' a number of Doe Child's teammates grabbed Doe Child and then sexually assaulted and battered him.<br />
<br />
"On or about September 26, 2012, Doe Child's teammates performed the following acts, while defendants Rodriguez and Divincenzo idly stood by:<br />
<br />
"a. tore off Doe Child's pants and underwear;<br />
"b. pushed Doe Child down to the ground;<br />
"c. shoved Doe Child's face in the ground/dirt;<br />
"d. held Doe Child down so that he could not resist;<br />
"e. struck Doe Child on his head, torso, back, arms and legs;<br />
"f. grabbed Doe Child's testicles with their hands; and<br />
"g. sodomized Doe Child with their fingers and other foreign objects."<br />
At least two other team members were also battered and sexually assaulted that day, the Does claim.<br />
<br />
"Following the September 26, 2012 occurrences, the state's attorney's office and Des Plaines Police Department conducted hundreds of interviews and reviewed thousands of documents as part of an investigation into the hazing culture at Maine West," the complaint states.<br />
"On May 15, 2013, defendant Divincenzo was indicted on one count of hazing, three counts of battery, and four counts of failing to report abuse as mandated by law as a teacher and coach."<br />
<br />
The Does seek damages for willful and wanton conduct, emotional distress and reimbursement of medical expenses.They are represented by Antonio Romanucci and Rebekah Williams with Romanucci & Blandin<br />
<br />
Source: Courthousenews.comJoel Irvinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02136601426766713592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2315131040195218375.post-47787015407671999842013-08-26T11:41:00.000-04:002013-08-28T11:58:28.621-04:00East Elmhurst Man Pleads Guilty To Hiding $3.2 Million From The Internal Revenue Service In Foreign Bank AccountsEarlier today at the federal courthouse in Central Islip, New York, Mohanbhai Ramchandani, of East Elmhurst, New York, pled guilty to violating the United States Treasury Department’s Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts Report law (FBAR) and filing false tax returns to conceal $3.2 million that he earned from his Manhattan-based tailoring business<a name='more'></a> – Mohan’s Custom Tailors. According to court filings and facts presented during the plea proceeding, Ramchandani admitted the illegal activity and cooperated with Internal Revenue Service (IRS) agents after being confronted with the evidence against him.<br />
<br />
The guilty plea was announced by Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, and Toni Weirauch, Special Agent-in-Charge, Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation, New York.<br />
<br />
Ramchandani built a successful business that made millions. Rather than live up to his financial responsibilities, he sought to conceal in foreign banks $3.2 million of income clearly earned in the United States. Ramchandani tried to evade not just lawful tax reporting obligations but also the laws that protect our economy,” stated United States Attorney Lynch. “Ramchandani not only grossly underreported his true income, he completely underestimated the tenacity of the IRS to ‘follow the money’.”<br />
<br />
IRS Special Agent-in-Charge Weirauch stated, “Offshore tax enforcement is a major priority for the Internal Revenue Service. Individuals who chose to hide income outside of the United States expose themselves to a variety of criminal charges, including criminal tax and FBAR violations, and severe penalties. As we continue to gain access to more and more information about individuals involved in offshore tax evasion, potential violators can expect us to use all of our enforcement tools to stop this abuse.”<br />
<br />
The government’s investigation revealed that Ramchandani operated a lucrative custom tailoring business specializing in the manufacturing of suits and shirts. Customers paid for their purchases with cash, checks and credit cards, including American Express. Ramchandani sent checks that American Express issued to him for payment of his customers’ purchases to the Bank of India in Hong Kong where he held an account. He then transferred those proceeds to an account held at the same bank in his son’s name, as well as to other banks in India and Canada. Between 2007 and 2009, Ramchandani hid $3.2 million in the foreign bank accounts and, in violation of FBAR laws, failed to report that he had money in those accounts. Ramchandani also filed tax returns that failed to include the money that he sent overseas. The tax loss to the IRS for 2007, 2008 and 2009 was $736,002.00.<br />
<br />
Today’s guilty plea took place before United States District Judge Joseph F. Bianco. When sentenced, Ramchandani faces up to five years in prison, a penalty of $1.6 million for the FBAR violation and restitution to the IRS of $736,002.00 for unpaid taxes.<br />
<br />
The government’s case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Demetri M. Jones.<br />
<br />
The Defendants:<br />
<br />
MOHANBHAI RAMCHANDANI<br />
Age: 66<br />
<br />
Joel Irvinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02136601426766713592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2315131040195218375.post-64338154903268041842013-08-22T11:39:00.000-04:002013-08-28T11:42:39.383-04:00Former Accounting Firm Partner Pleads Guilty In Manhattan Federal Court To Stealing Nearly $4 Million In Client Payments Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that CRAIG B. HABER, a former partner of a global accounting firm, pled guilty today in Manhattan federal court to stealing nearly $4 million in client payments intended for the firm. HABER pled guilty before U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said: “Craig Haber committed a flagrant fraud against his accounting firm and its clients by directing millions of dollars in payments intended for the firm to his personal bank accounts. With his plea today, he joins the ranks of disgraced financial professionals who put their own interests before the organizations and clients they were supposed to serve.”<br />
<br />
According to the Complaint, the Information, and statements made in court:<br />
<br />
From 1993 through July 2012, HABER was a partner at a global accounting firm headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, that provided a variety of auditing, accounting, and tax preparation services to businesses and individuals in the United States and abroad (the “Accounting Firm”). HABER worked at the Accounting Firm’s office in New York, New York, and provided tax preparation and advisory services.<br />
<br />
The Accounting Firm’s bills to clients ordinarily included payment instructions directing clients to pay the firm by wire transfer or by sending checks to its headquarters in Chicago. However, on multiple occasions from 2004 through July 2012, HABER instead provided instructions to his clients directing them to send checks to him at the Accounting Firm’s New York, New York office.<br />
<br />
Upon receiving those checks, HABER deposited a number of them into a bank account that he had opened in the name of a sham business whose name was very similar to the name of the Accounting Firm. After depositing the clients’ checks into that account, HABER then transferred the money from that account to two personal bank accounts which he used to pay various personal expenses, including mortgage payments for his residence in New York, New York.<br />
<br />
HABER stole a total of nearly $4 million in client payments.<br />
<br />
* * *<br />
<br />
HABER, 59, of New York, New York, pled guilty to one count of mail fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. He is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Castel on December 13, 2013 at 2:00 p.m.<br />
<br />
Joel Irvinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02136601426766713592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2315131040195218375.post-82709839621899901742013-05-24T11:06:00.000-04:002013-05-28T11:07:19.623-04:00Disability Doctor Peter J. Ajemian Sentenced In Manhattan Federal Court To Eight Years In Prison For His Role In LIRR Fraud Scheme Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today that PETER J. AJEMIAN, a Board-certified orthopedist, was sentenced today in Manhattan federal court to eight years in prison for his role in the alleged massive fraud scheme in which Long Island Railroad (“LIRR”) workers claimed to be disabled upon early retirement so that they could receive disability benefits to which they were not entitled. Between the late 1990s and 2008, AJEMIAN recommended that at least 734 retiring LIRR employees receive disability benefits, and was responsible for treating nearly half of all LIRR employees who retired and received disability benefits in one four-year period. AJEMIAN pled guilty in January 2013 to one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, wire fraud, and health care fraud, and one count of health care fraud before U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero, who also imposed today’s sentence.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara stated: “Today Dr. Ajemian begins to pay the price for being a key facilitator of a massive disability fraud on the LIRR, that he admitted resulted in losses of millions of dollars. This Office will continue to pursue those who participated in this scheme to abuse LIRR’s disability system and gain benefits to which they were not entitled.”<br />
<br />
According to the Complaint, the Superseding Indictments, the Superseding Informations, and statements made in other public filings and in court:<br />
The LIRR Disability Fraud Scheme<br />
<br />
The Railroad Retirement Board (“RRB”) is an independent U.S. agency that administers benefit programs, including disability benefits, for the nation’s railroad workers and their families. A unique LIRR contract allowed employees to retire at the relatively young age of 50 – the age of eligibility has since changed to 55 – if they had been employed by the LIRR for at least 20 years. Eligible employees are entitled to receive an LIRR pension, which is a portion of the full retirement payment for which they are eligible at 65. In addition, at full retirement age (between age 60 and age 65 depending on years of service) they are eligible to receive an RRB retirement pension. For LIRR workers who retired at 50 with only an LIRR pension, they would receive less than their prior salary and substantially lower pension payments than those to which they would be entitled at full retirement age. However, LIRR employees who retired and claimed disability could receive a disability payment from the RRB on top of their LIRR pension, regardless of age. A retiree’s LIRR pension, in combination with RRB disability payments, can be roughly equivalent to the base salary earned during his or her career.<br />
<br />
Hundreds of LIRR employees have allegedly exploited the overlap between the LIRR pension and the RRB disability program by pre-planning the date on which they would falsely declare themselves disabled so that it would coincide with their projected retirement date. These false statements, made under penalty of prosecution in disability applications, allowed LIRR employees to retire as early as age 50 with an LIRR pension, supplemented by the fraudulently obtained RRB disability annuity. From 1995 through 2011, more than 75% of LIRR employees stopped working and began receiving RRB disability benefits, whereas during this same period, only 25% of retiring Metro-North employees stopped working and began receiving RRB disability benefits.<br />
<br />
AJEMIAN is a Board-certified orthopedist who was instrumental in helping LIRR retirees receive disability benefits to which they were not entitled. Between the late 1990s and 2008, he declared over 94% of the LIRR employees he saw as patients disabled. As part of the massive fraud scheme, AJEMIAN prepared false documentation purporting to show the LIRR employees’ steady decline toward disability exactly at the time they pre-planned their retirement. He then provided to those LIRR employees a narrative for submission to the RRB that claimed they should receive a disability annuity. These medical narratives were completely fabricated or grossly exaggerated so that AJEMIAN could recommend a set of restrictions that, if legitimate, would render it impossible for the LIRR employees to continue performing their jobs. Many of the purportedly “objective” findings from the tests he conducted showed nothing more than normal degenerative changes one would expect to see in patients within the relevant age bracket.<br />
<br />
AJEMIAN received approximately $800 to $1,200, often in cash, for these fraudulent assessments and narratives, as well as millions of dollars in health insurance payments for unnecessary medical treatments and fees for preparing fraudulent medical support for the claimed disabilities. Of approximately 453 LIRR annuitants studied, AJEMIAN received approximately $2.5 million in related payments from patients and insurance companies. In turn, those patients have received over $90 million in RRB disability benefit payments. In his plea agreement, Ajemian stipulated that the total intended losses from his fraud were between $100 and $200 million, and that the actual losses suffered by victims to date total $116.5 million.<br />
<br />
* * *<br />
<br />
In addition to his prison term, AJEMIAN, 63, of Oyster Bay Cove, New York was also sentenced to three years of supervised release. He has also agreed to forfeit $116.5 million and pay $116.5 million in restitution, and was ordered to pay a $200 special assessment.<br />
<br />
In sentencing AJEMIAN, Judge Marrero said, “Putting all of these circumstances together conveys the gravity of Dr. Ajemian's criminal conduct in its grittiest perspective. Dr. Ajemian corrupted the license publicly granted to him to practice medicine, and betrayed the public trust embodied in that privilege. By his fraudulent actions, he not only distorted his professional duties, but flipped the physician's medical function on its head and made health care a mockery. In the cases encompassed by the charged conspiracy, Dr. Ajemian generally treated not ill employees, but fit ones. He provided physician's services not to restore these patients to good health, or prevent sickness, but to turn able-bodied employees into fully-pensioned annuitants falsely afflicted by certified lifetime disabilities.”<br />
<br />
Thirty-two people have been charged in connection with the LIRR disability fraud scheme, 23 of whom have now pled guilty. The charges against the remaining defendants are merely allegations and they are all presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.Joel Irvinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02136601426766713592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2315131040195218375.post-61727734742593962222013-02-01T13:56:00.000-05:002013-02-02T13:57:11.674-05:00Jury Rules for EEOC in Sexual Harassment Case Against the Finish LineNASHVILLE, Tenn. - A U.S. District Court Jury has found that a 38-year-old general manager at The Finish Line, Inc.'s Cool Springs Galleria store in Franklin, Tenn., subjected three female subordinates, who were 16 and 17 at the time, to severe sexual harassment, the U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today.<a name='more'></a> The Finish Line is an Indianapolis-based company that sells athletic footwear, apparel and accessories.<br />
<br />
The jury awarded the victims $30,000 in compensatory damages in a trial presided over by Chief District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr. In addition to compensatory damages, the parties also stipulated to an amount of back pay. Within 20 days, the EEOC will also file a motion with the court for injunctive relief against the defendant.<br />
<br />
The lawsuit charged Finish Line with subjecting at least three female employees to unlawful sexual harassment. The agency also alleged that Finish Line forced the female employees to quit as a result of the sexually abusive working environment, and retaliated against one female employee by reducing her hours because she resisted the sexual harassment.<br />
<br />
This alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits harassment based on sex and retaliation against those who protest it. The EEOC filed its lawsuit, Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-00920, in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, after first attempting to settle the matter through its conciliation process.<br />
<br />
"This jury verdict reinforces the EEOC's continued commitment to securing fair and equal treatment for women of all ages in the workplace," said Faye A. Williams, EEOC regional attorney in Memphis District, which includes Tennessee, Arkansas and North Mississippi. "It also sends a clear message to employers that there is a price to pay for sexual harassment in the workplace."<br />
<br />
Kenneth Anderson, EEOC lead trial attorney, said, "It is unfortunate that any woman has to deal with sexual harassment in the workplace, especially teenagers. Equally reprehensible is the fact that the harassment was at the hands of their much older male supervisor. We commend these three young women for the tremendous courage they displayed in confronting egregious sexual harassment by their supervisor." Joel Irvinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02136601426766713592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2315131040195218375.post-57434511318419784542013-02-01T13:53:00.000-05:002013-02-02T13:54:12.555-05:00Jury Awards $200,000 in Damages Against A.C. Widenhouse in EEOC Race Harassment SuitWINSTON SALEM, N.C. - In a legal victory for the U.S. Equal Employmen Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a North Carolina federal jury has awarded compensatory and punitive damages against A.C. Widenhouse, Inc., a Concord, N.C.-based trucking company, the agency announced today. <br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
On Jan. 28, the Winston-Salem jury of eight returned a unanimous verdict finding that Contonius Gill and Robert Floyd, Jr., former Widenhouse employees, were discriminated against based on their race, African-American. The jury also found that Gill was fired in retaliation for complaining about racial harassment at Widenhouse. The jury awarded a total of $200,000 in compensatory and punitive damages to the men. The court will now decide back pay damages for Gill and injunctive relief.<br />
<br />
According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Gill and Floyd worked as truck drivers for the company. From as early as May 2007 through at least June 2008, Gill was repeatedly subjected to unwelcome derogatory racial comments and slurs by the facility's general manager, who was also his supervisor; the company's dispatcher; several mechanics; and other truck drivers, all of whom are white. The comments and slurs included "n----r," "monkey" and "boy." Gill testified that on one occasion he was approached by a co-worker with a noose and was told, "This is for you. Do you want to hang from the family tree?" Gill further testified that he was asked by white employees if he wanted to be the "coon" in their "coon hunt." <br />
<br />
Floyd testified that he also was subjected to repeated derogatory racial comments and slurs by the company's general manager and white employees. Floyd testified that when he was hired in 2005, he was the only African-American working at the company. Floyd said the company's general manager told him that he was the company's "token black." Floyd testified that on another occasion the general manager told him, "Don't find a noose with your name on it," and talked about having some of his "friends" visit Floyd in the middle of the night. Gill repeatedly complained about racial harassment to the company's dispatcher and general manager and Floyd complained to an owner of Widenhouse, but both men testified that the harassment continued. <br />
<br />
Gill intervened in the lawsuit and in addition to the EEOC's claim of racial harassment, Gill said Widenhouse fired him based on his race and in retaliation for complaining about the racial harassment. The jury also returned a verdict in favor of Gill on both of his discriminatory discharge claims.<br />
<br />
Race discrimination, including racial harassment, and retaliation for complaining about it, violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. A.C. Widenhouse, Inc., 1:11-cv-00498), in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina after first attempting to reach voluntary settlement through its conciliation process.<br />
<br />
"This is the second jury verdict we have had within the last few months in a case alleging racial harassment," said EEOC General Counsel P. David Lopez. "It is unfortunate that workplace racial harassment persists in the 21st century, and the EEOC will take those cases to trial, if necessary, to vindicate the rights of the victims."<br />
<br />
"The jury verdict in this case is significant because it is a reminder to employers that race harassment and racial discrimination cannot be tolerated in the workplace," said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC's Charlotte District Office. "The jury, acting as the conscience of this community, properly found that Widenhouse engaged in conduct that warranted an award of punitive damages. Such damages are designed to punish Widenhouse's past conduct and to deter this employer, as well as other employers, from engaging in this type of race discrimination. We are hopeful that this verdict sends a strong message to employers."<br />
<br />
EEOC Trial Attorney Nicholas Walter, who tried the case, added, "We are pleased with the verdict and happy for Mr. Gill and Mr. Floyd. The jury took less than an hour to vindicate the rights of these gentlemen. The EEOC will pursue future cases of racial harassment and discrimination with the same diligence and fervor it did in this case against Widenhouse."Joel Irvinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02136601426766713592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2315131040195218375.post-52149817001392549052013-01-31T13:51:00.000-05:002013-02-02T13:52:04.643-05:00BASF Corporation to Pay $500,000 to Settle EEOC Retaliation Lawsuit Against CognisURBANA, Ill. - BASF Corporation will pay $500,000 to settle a retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against Cognis Corporation, the EEOC announced today. BASF acquired Cognis in 2010.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
In its lawsuit, the EEOC charged - and the judge later held - that Cognis retaliated against a longtime employee at its Kankakee, Ill., facility in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Cognis had required that employee, as a condition of his continued employment, to sign a "last-chance agreement." That agreement prohibited the employee from filing charges of discrimination with the EEOC, even for events that had yet to occur. When the employee informed Cognis that he did not want to be bound by the agreement out of concern about its effect on his civil rights, Cognis fired him.<br />
<br />
The EEOC brought suit (EEOC v. Cognis Corp., 10-CV-2182, C.D. Ill.) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois after first attempting to resolve the case through its conciliation process.<br />
<br />
Chief U.S. District Judge Michael P. McCuskey held in May 2012 that the employee's termination constituted unlawful retaliation in violation of Title VII. With that issue decided, the only question left for trial was the extent of the employee's damages.<br />
<br />
The EEOC's lawsuit also alleged that Cognis retaliated against five additional employees by forcing those employees to make a similarly illegal choice. Those employees chose to sign a last chance agreement that stripped them of their right to file charges and seek relief for future discriminatory conduct - rather than be terminated. By settling the lawsuit, BASF has opted not to continue defending against those allegations.<br />
<br />
Judge McCuskey entered a consent decree resolving the lawsuit on January 25, 2013. The decree provides monetary relief to the victims and requires BASF to report all employee retaliation complaints under Title VII at the Kankakee facility to the EEOC for the next two years. BASF must also train a specified group of its employees on prohibited retaliation under the federal employment nondiscrimination laws and adopt a new policy informing employees of their right to oppose unlawful discrimination without fear of retaliation. Furthermore, BASF agreed that it would not require the recipients of monetary relief to keep confidential the allegations and facts underlying the charge, to waive their rights to file a charge with any government agency, or to refrain from reapplying for work with the company.<br />
<br />
"The EEOC has an inherent, institutional interest in maintaining open lines of communication with people who believe they may be victims of discrimination," said John Hendrickson, the EEOC's regional attorney in Chicago. "That is why employers who attempt to break that line of communication by dissuading employees from filing EEOC charges are breaking the law. Courts get that, and with this case, we hope more employers will as well."<br />
<br />
EEOC's Chicago District Director John Rowe, added, "Cognis presented the victims in this case with a terrible, illegal choice: lose your job or lose your civil rights. Under the law, no worker has to make that kind of choice. Employers would be better served by working to ensure that their employees are free from discrimination, rather than threatening their workers with termination in an effort to make sure that employees don't complain."<br />
<br />
The EEOC's litigation team was led by Supervisory Trial Attorney Gregory M. Gochanour and Trial Attorneys Deborah Hamilton and Brad Fiorito of the Chicago District Office.<br />
<br />
Cognis was acquired in December 2010 by BASF, a multinational chemical company. According to the most recent information available on the BASF website, BASF Corporation has approximately 16,000 employees in North America and in 2011 had sales of $20 billion.Joel Irvinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02136601426766713592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2315131040195218375.post-61447799375927051892013-01-28T13:48:00.000-05:002013-02-02T13:49:32.555-05:00EEOC Reports Nearly 100,000 Job Bias Charges in Fiscal Year 2012WASHINGTON-The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced that it received 99,412 private sector workplace discrimination charges during fiscal year 2012, down slightly from the previous year. <a name='more'></a>The year-end data also show that retaliation (37,836), race (33,512) and sex discrimination (30,356), which includes allegations of sexual harassment and pregnancy were, respectively, the most frequently filed charges. The fiscal year runs Oct. 1 to Sept. 30. The fiscal year 2012 enforcement and litigation statistics, which include trend data, are available on the EEOC's website at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/index.cfm. <br />
<br />
Additionally, the EEOC achieved a second consecutive year of a significant reduction in the charge inventory, something not seen since fiscal year 2002. Due to a concerted effort, the EEOC reduced the pending inventory of private sector charges by 10 percent from fiscal year 2011, bringing the inventory level to 70,312. This inventory reduction is the second consecutive decrease of almost ten percent in charge inventory. Also this fiscal year, the agency obtained the largest amount of monetary recovery from private sector and state and local government employers through its administrative process - $365.4 million.<br />
<br />
In fiscal year 2012, the EEOC filed 122 lawsuits including 86 individual suits, 26 multiple-victim suits (with fewer than 20 victims) and 10 systemic suits. The EEOC's legal staff resolved 254 lawsuits for a total monetary recovery of $44.2 million.<br />
<br />
EEOC also continued its emphasis on eliminating systemic patterns of discrimination in the workplace. In fiscal year 2012, EEOC completed 240 systemic investigations which in part resulted in 46 settlements or conciliation agreements. These settlements, achieved without litigation, secured 36.2 million dollars for the victims of unlawful discrimination.<br />
<br />
"These remarkable achievements are a credit to the commitment of the EEOC's staff and the product of strategic and efficient investment of critical budget resources in recent years, said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. We look forward to building on these accomplishments and further advancing the agency's mission as we implement our new Strategic Enforcement Plan in the coming year."<br />
<br />
As part of its Open Government efforts to make the greatest amount of useful data available to the public, the EEOC introduced several new features in the fiscal year 2012 data tables. The Commission released new tables showing sex harassment, harassment generally, and pregnancy discrimination which contain only those charges filed with the EEOC. In the past, tables for these three categories, which are subsets of other bases, had listed all charges filed with both the EEOC and its state and local Fair Employment Practice Agency (FEPA) partners. Since no other charts include both FEPA and EEOC filings, these categories will now be harmonized with all the other data charts. <br />
<br />
Additionally, in response to requests for this data, the Commission released a new table indicating the type of discriminatory action alleged by statute. In fiscal year 2012, discharge was the most frequently-cited discriminatory action under all statutes, followed by "terms and conditions" of employment and then discipline.<br />
<br />
Overall, the agency secured both monetary and non-monetary benefits for more than 23,446 people through administrative enforcement activities - mediation, settlements, conciliations, and withdrawals with benefits. The number of charges resolved through successful conciliation, the last step in the EEOC administrative process prior to litigation, increased by 18 percent over 2011.Joel Irvinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02136601426766713592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2315131040195218375.post-87228898841281344792013-01-23T17:13:00.000-05:002013-01-23T17:13:16.721-05:00 DEFENDANT FROM SHIRLEY ARRESTED FOR AIMING A LASER BEAM AT AIRCRAFT FLYING OVER LONG ISLANDFederal agents arrested a Shirley, Long Island, man this morning on the charge of aiming a laser pointer at two aircraft last August 2012. 1<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
The arrest of Angel Rivas was announced today by Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, and George Venizelos, Assistant Director-in-Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, New York Field Office. The defendant is scheduled to be arraigned before the United States Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay at the United States Courthouse in Central Islip, New York, later today.<br />
<br />
According to court filings, on August 21, 2012, the defendant used a laser pointer to direct a laser beam at a commercial aircraft and a Suffolk County Police Department helicopter sent up to investigate the initial incident. Investigators first determined that the beam of light came from the vicinity of the defendant’s residence on William Floyd Parkway in Shirley, New York, then confirmed that the defendant himself had directed the laser beam at the aircraft and helicopter.<br />
<br />
“Laser pointers aimed at aircraft pose many dangers, including disrupting the vision of pilots,” said United States Attorney Lynch. “Last February, President Obama signed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, which specifically prohibited the conduct alleged in the complaint. The safety of American air travelers has been and will continue to be a priority for law enforcement.” Ms. Lynch expressed her grateful appreciation to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Inspector General - Investigations, the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force in New York, and the Suffolk County Police Department for their participation in the investigation leading to today’s arrest.<br />
<br />
FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge Venizelos stated, “On a night last summer, Rivas allegedly endangered the lives of passengers and crew of not one but two aircraft, and potentially, people on the ground. Pointing a laser at an aircraft is not a prank, it is a federal crime with penalties befitting its seriousness.”<br />
<br />
If convicted of the charge, the defendant faces a maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment and a maximum fine of $250,000.<br />
<br />
The government’s case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Charles N. Rose.<br />
<br />
The Defendant:<br />
<br />
ANGEL M. RIVAS<br />
Age: 33<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
_____________________________<br />
<br />
1 The charges contained in the complaint are merely allegations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.<br />
<br />
<br />
Joel Irvinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02136601426766713592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2315131040195218375.post-57617705358140981242013-01-22T17:31:00.000-05:002013-01-23T17:33:11.526-05:00Former New Jersey Teacher Pleads Guilty In Manhattan Federal Court To Child Exploitation And Child Pornography Offenses Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today that EVAN ZAUDER, a former sixth-grade teacher at a private school in New Jersey, pled guilty in Manhattan federal court to charges of using the Internet to entice a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity, and to receipt, distribution, and possession of child pornography.<a name='more'></a> ZAUDER pled guilty before United States District Court Judge Lewis A. Kaplan. His criminal conduct is not currently known to have involved any students at the school.<br />
<br />
Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara stated: “Evan Zauder’s abuse and exploitation of minors was heinous criminal conduct perpetrated on some of the most vulnerable and powerless members of society. This Office treats the protection of children as an extraordinarily serious responsibility, and as this case demonstrates, we will persist in our efforts to ensure that those who prey on minors are found and held accountable.”<br />
<br />
According to the Complaint, the Superseding Information, and statements made in court:<br />
<br />
Between April and November of 2011, ZAUDER used the Internet to entice a minor in New Jersey who was 14 to 15 years old at the time to engage in sexual activity, and to attempt to entice the minor to do so a second time. ZAUDER also received and distributed files containing child pornography from his desktop computer between December of 2010 and May of 2011, and possessed hundreds of images and videos of child pornography on four devices that were seized from his Manhattan apartment in May of 2012.<br />
<br />
ZAUDER, 27, pled guilty to a Superseding Information charging him with one count of enticement of a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity, one count of transportation, receipt, and distribution of child pornography, and one count of possession of child pornography. He faces a minimum sentence of 10 years in prison and a maximum sentence of life in prison on the enticement count, a minimum sentence of 5 years in prison and a maximum sentence of 20 years on the transportation, receipt, and distribution count, and a maximum sentence of 10 years on the possession count. For each of the three counts in the Superseding Information, ZAUDER faces a maximum fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense. He will be sentenced by Judge Kaplan on May 22, 2013, at 4:00 p.m.Joel Irvinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02136601426766713592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2315131040195218375.post-3335196811955287662013-01-22T17:07:00.000-05:002013-01-23T17:16:17.427-05:00Metro Special Police & Security Services, Inc. Sued by EEOC for Sexual Harassment and RetaliationCHARLOTTE, N.C. - Metro Special Police & Security Services, Inc., a Charlotte-based provider of private security and public safety services, violated federal law by subjecting male employees to sexual harassment,<a name='more'></a> the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed today. The EEOC also charged the company with unlawfully suspending, demoting and/or discharging some male employees for complaining about sexual harassment or filing discrimination charges with the EEOC.<br />
<br />
According to the EEOC's suit, Officers James Pedersen, Eric Steele, Daniel Griffis and a class of similarly situated male employees were subjected to sexual harassment by a captain and a lieutenant employed by the company. The EEOC contends the captain made offensive comments to his male subordinate employees, solicited nude pictures from them, asked male employee to undress in front of him, and solicited male employees for sex. The captain and lieutenant forced male employees to accompany them to gay strip bars while on duty. The captain touched the chests and genitals of male employees. Additionally, the captain offered promotions to male employees in exchange for sex. The lieutenant asked a male employee if he had sex with males or females.<br />
<br />
Male employees complained about the captain's and lieutenant's conduct by telling them to stop, and they complained to their supervisor and the company's owner/CEO, the EEOC said. In spite of the complaints, the company failed to prevent and promptly correct the harassment. In addition, certain employees who complained were suspended, demoted and/or discharged, the agency charges.<br />
<br />
Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination and violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII also prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who complain about discrimination in the workplace. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Metro Special Police & Security Services, Inc, Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-39), after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement. The agency seeks back pay for those claimants entitled, as well as compensatory and punitive damages for all claimants, and injunctive relief.<br />
<br />
"All employees, men and women alike, are entitled to a workplace free from sexual harassment," said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney of the EEOC's Charlotte District Office. "It is particularly alarming when sexual harassment is perpetrated by a high-ranking supervisor, the company shuns its legal responsibility to stop it, and employees suffer retaliatory acts for lawfully voicing their concerns."<br />
<br />
Tina Burnside, supervisory trial attorney in the EEOC's Charlotte District Office, added, "Under Title VII, employers have a legal duty to ensure that sexual harassment does not permeate the workplace, and employers are responsible for ensuring that their supervisors know that sexual harassment is against the law and will not be tolerated."Joel Irvinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02136601426766713592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2315131040195218375.post-36520697527054819292013-01-14T18:11:00.000-05:002013-01-14T18:11:55.610-05:00Schlesinger Electrical Contractors, Inc. and Two Members of Schlesinger-Siemens Electrical, LLC’s Board of Managers Indicted for Falsely Claiming SSE Was Properly Licensed Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., today announced a $10 million settlement that resolves a three-year investigation into the criminal conduct of SCHLESINGER-SIEMENS ELECTRICAL, LLC[1] (“SSE”), an electrical contracting firm. In the Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) and corresponding Statement of Facts, Siemens Electrical admitted that SSE violated New York State law by filing false documents with the Department of Buildings (“DOB”) and the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”).<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
“This corporation defrauded the City government. It lied about its qualifications to perform the jobs it was hired to do, and overstated the participation of minority businesses,” said District Attorney Vance. “In doing so, it unfairly put itself ahead of more qualified applicants to obtain more than $200 million in contracts to improve the City’s infrastructure. Although it safely and successfully completed the majority of the work it was hired to do, there is no room for dishonesty in business, particularly when taxpayers are footing the bill.” <br />
<br />
According to documents filed in court, SSE was formed in 2004 for the purpose of bidding and performing DEP projects. Between August 31, 2005, and January 19, 2007, DEP awarded five contracts to SSE with a total value of $234,798,844:<br />
<br />
The MWBE Fraud<br />
<br />
The five contracts for the DEP projects required that SSE comply with the New York State Minority and Women-owned Business Enterprises (“MWBE”) program. Pursuant to the MWBE program, SSE was obligated to make good faith efforts to subcontract a specific percentage of the contract amount with certified MWBE companies for each of the DEP projects. Between 2005 and 2012, SSE submitted to DEP utilization reports and other paperwork that did not accurately reflect the role and participation of MWBE sub-contractors in DEP projects in the procurement, installation, and testing of certain equipment. The utilizations reports submitted were false in that they included equipment valued at approximately $10 million that was not provided by the MWBEs.<br />
<br />
The Electrical License Fraud<br />
<br />
DEP requires that all contracts for electrical work be awarded to licensed electrical contractors who comply with the New York City Electrical Code, which requires all electrical companies doing business in the City to have a licensed Master Electrician serve as the “Responsible Representative”[2] of the electrical business. Between 2005 and 2008, SSE was not in compliance with the Electrical Code because it did not properly employ a Master Electrician who had responsibility for supervising employees conducting electrical work on DEP projects. As an entity, SSE had no electrical employees of its own.<br />
<br />
Two members of the SSE Board of Managers– ROBERT SOLOMON, 74, and JACOB LEVITA, 62 – and SCHLESINGER ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., (“SCHLESINGER”) have been indicted in New York State Supreme Court on charges of Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree, Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the First Degree, and Conspiracy in the Fifth Degree[3] for defrauding DOB and DEP by misrepresenting that SSE properly employed a Master Electrician, so it could be awarded DEP contracts, when in fact it had not. The defendants had 49 percent ownership in SSE. <br />
<br />
When SSE was formed, it did not have a Master Electrician on staff. After the first DEP project was awarded, SSE was informed by DEP that it was required to have its own Master Electrician or it would not be awarded any additional projects. From 2006 to 2008, the defendants, on behalf of SSE, paid $1,500 a month for two years to a Master Electrician working full-time for a different, unaffiliated electrical contracting firm to activate his inactive license and place it with SSE. <br />
<br />
In 2007 and 2008, the electrician submitted Electrical License Renewal Application forms to DOB falsely naming SSE as the electrical company for which he was responsible. In fact, during that time period, SSE used SCHLESINGER employees to do the electrical work at 26th Ward Water Pollution Control Plant in Brooklyn and at two projects at the Wards Island Water Pollution Control Plant in Manhattan. The Master Electrician hired by the defendants on SSE’s behalf had no knowledge of these jobs and did not supervise the SCHLESINGER employees working on the projects. In fact, LEVITA applied for the permits for the three DEP projects at issue, despite not being the Master Electrician for SSE. <br />
<br />
Additionally, in December 2007, at the request of SOLOMON, the Master Electrician hired by the defendants applied for permits for SSE for the Croton E1 and E2 projects, and falsely represented to DEP that he was the Responsible Representative for SSE.<br />
<br />
The investigation into this case is ongoing. SSE will remit the $10 million payment to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, which will be forfeited and distributed pursuant to state asset forfeiture law. The DPA is in part in recognition of the cooperation of Siemens Electrical with the investigation, and its decision to voluntarily taken remedial actions in an effort to enhance integrity in the electrical contracting industry in New York City.<br />
<br />
Port Authority Inspector General Robert E. Van Etten said: “In this investigation, SSE engaged in a pattern of fraud that provided them with an undue advantage, designed to enrich themselves, in the bidding of public works contracts. They also abused the Minority and Women-owned Business Enterprises program, designed to benefit and train minority contractors by falsifying documents indicating that they utilized these firms. We will continue to pursue investigations of the construction industry, and the resolution reached today should send a very clear message to all contractors that the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey will not tolerate fraud or any other criminal misconduct on public projects. The Port Authority Office of the Inspector General and its law enforcement partners will aggressively identify, investigate and bring to justice those who corrupt the integrity of the construction industry.”<br />
<br />
New York City Department of Investigation Commissioner Rose Gill Hearn said: “The monitor, hired by the DEP at the outset of the Croton project to work with DOI to oversee this important infrastructure work, alerted DOI to the issue that the licensee for Schlesinger-Siemens expired. The proactive presence of the City’s monitor on this project has continued to yield important information, while permitting the project to move along. Here a contractor’s fraud and contempt for construction regulations was exposed, including when confronted by DOI investigators, the no-show electrician could not even describe the job he supposedly supervised. DOI will continue to work with its law enforcement partners to stop this type of fraud against the City and safeguard major infrastructure projects.”<br />
<br />
Senior Investigative Counsel Elyse Ruzow of the Rackets Bureau oversaw the investigation leading to today’s actions under the supervision of Assistant District Attorney Daniel D. Brownell, Chief of the Rackets Bureau and Deputy Chief of the Investigation Division; former Assistant District Attorney Jane Tully, formerly Deputy Chief of the Rackets Bureau; former Executive Assistant District Attorney Adam S. Kaufmann, formerly Chief of the Investigation Division; and Executive Assistant District Attorney David Szuchman, Chief of the Investigation Division. Assistant District Attorney Duncan Levin, Chief of the Asset Forfeiture Unit, handled the asset forfeiture aspects of the case.<br />
<br />
District Attorney Vance thanked Port Authority Inspector General Van Etten, as well as Supervisory Police Investigator Jeffrey Schaffler and Forensic Supervisor Fred Ferrone. District Attorney Vance also thanked DOI Commissioner Gill Hearn and Special Investigator Tiffany Dumas.<br />
<br />
Defendant information:<br />
<br />
ROBERT SOLOMON, D.O.B. 12/09/38<br />
Port St. Lucie, Florida<br />
<br />
JACOB LEVITA, D.O.B. 01/10/51<br />
Brooklyn, New York<br />
<br />
SCHLESINGER ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.<br />
Brooklyn, New York<br />
<br />
Charges for all:<br />
<br />
Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree, a class E felony, 1 count<br />
Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the First Degree, a class E felony, 1 <br />
Conspiracy in the Fifth Degree, a class A misdemeanor, 1 count<br />
<br />
[1] On August 27, 2004, Siemens Energy & Automation (“SE&A”) and Schlesinger Electrical Contractors formed SSE for the purpose of bidding upon and performing DEP projects. On April 12, 2012, Siemens Industry, Inc. (“SII”), the successor of SE&A, acquired Schlesinger’s interest in Schlesinger-Siemens Electrical, LLC, making it a single-member LLC. In connection with the acquisition, SII changed Schlesinger-Siemens Electrical, LLC’s name to Siemens Electrical, effective May 8, 2012.<br />
[2] The New York City Administrative Code defines the term “Responsible Representative” as “[a] master electrician who has the authority to make final determinations and who has full responsibility on behalf of a master electrician business for the manner in which electrical work is done and for the selection, supervision and control of all employees of such business who perform such work. A partnership or corporation shall designate one master electrician who is a partner of such partnership or an officer of such corporation to be the responsible representative of such partnership or corporation.”<br />
[3] The charges contained in the indictment are merely allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.Joel Irvinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02136601426766713592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2315131040195218375.post-54057610415914039712013-01-09T18:03:00.000-05:002013-01-14T18:04:17.259-05:00Carrols Corp. To Pay $2.5 Million to Settle EEOC Sexual Harassment and Retaliation LawsuitNEW YORK - Carrols Corporation, the world's largest Burger King franchisee, will pay $2.5 million and take significant remedial steps to settle a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The lawsuit alleged discrimination against 89 female employees around the country, many of whom were teenagers when they worked for Carrols.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
The EEOC's suit charged that Carrols subjected a class of women - including many teenagers - to egregious sexual harassment at Burger King locations throughout the Midwest, Southeast, and Northeast. EEOC alleged that the harassment, which ranged from obscene comments, jokes, and propositions to unwanted touching, exposure of genitalia, strip searches, stalking, and even rape, was perpetrated by managers in the majority of cases. According to the EEOC, Carrols also retaliated against some of the women by cutting their hours, manufacturing discipline against them, and even firing them, while it forced more women to quit because the harassment made their working conditions intolerable.<br />
<br />
Sexual harassment and retaliation for complaining about it violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit (Civil Action No. 98-cv-01772 FWS/TWD in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York) after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement.<br />
<br />
Under the terms of the publicly-filed consent decree resolving the case, Carrols will pay $2.5 million in compensatory damages and lost wages to the 89 victims. It also will implement a number of measures to increase employees' awareness of Carrols' anti-harassment policies and to improve Carrols' response to complaints brought forward under those policies. Those measures include enhanced training for Carrols' managers in preventing and responding to harassment; improved mechanisms for tracking harassment complaints; notices posted in all domestic Carrols Burger King locations informing employees about the lawsuit's resolution and their rights under federal anti-discrimination laws; and an injunction prohibiting further harassment and retaliation.<br />
<br />
"As this case demonstrates, the EEOC will persist in enforcing the legal prohibitions against harassment until the matter is resolved. Although employers may have adequate anti-harassment policies on paper, they are of little value when employers fail to take positive steps to prevent or remedy harassment," said P. David Lopez, General Counsel for EEOC. "Employers must make sure employees know about the policies and then they must respond effectively when complaints are brought forward."<br />
<br />
Gillian L. Thomas, trial attorney in the New York District Office, which encompasses New York City, Buffalo, Newark, and Boston, added, "The harassment reported by the women in this case was truly egregious, with the majority of cases involving physical contact. No woman, regardless of age, should have to endure such abuse just to earn a paycheck."<br />
<br />
Headquartered in Syracuse, N.Y., Carrols owns, operates, and franchises 576 restaurants under the Burger King® brand, as well as close to 250 restaurants under the Pollo Tropical® and Taco Cabana® brands. Last spring, Carrols nearly doubled its Burger King locations in a deal that gave Burger King a 28.9% equity stake in the franchisee. Carrols operates in 13 states and employs over 17,000 people.Joel Irvinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02136601426766713592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2315131040195218375.post-32533984624557644142013-01-01T17:58:00.000-05:002013-01-14T17:58:54.617-05:00AXIUS CEO ROLAND KAUFMANN PLEADS GUILTY TO CONSPIRACY TO PAY BRIBES IN STOCK SALES WASHINGTON – Roland Kaufmann, CEO of Axius Inc., pleaded guilty today in Brooklyn for conspiring to bribe stock brokers, announced Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York Loretta E. Lynch. <br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Kaufmann, 60, a Swiss citizen, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge John Gleeson in the Eastern District of New York to one count of conspiracy to violate the Travel Act.<br />
<br />
“Roland Kaufmann conspired to bribe stock brokers and fleece investors in Axius stock,” said Assistant Attorney General Breuer. “He took the crooked path, and now faces the prospect of years in prison. Although he committed his crimes from outside the United States, U.S. authorities tracked him down and he has now been held to account. This case shows our determination to prosecute all those who seek to corrupt U.S. securities markets.”<br />
<br />
“Roland Kaufman sought to game the system with his scheme to bribe stockholders to help him artificially raise the price of his company’s stock,” said U.S. Attorney Lynch. “He reached across the ocean to insert his deception into U.S. markets, thereby placing investors at risk. We will continue to bring our resources to bear against anyone who would harm the integrity of United States capital markets for their own personal financial gain, even when those who try to exploit our investors are hatching their schemes from abroad.” <br />
<br />
“The flagrant market manipulation engaged in by Kaufmann was designed to make him rich,” said George Venizelos, Assistant Director in Charge, FBI New York Field Office. “Absent the undercover agent, the scheme also would have made honest investors much poorer. The FBI is committed to policing the securities industry to prevent unjust enrichment for cheaters, victimization of honest investors, and the undermining of public confidence in market integrity.”<br />
<br />
“This case demonstrates the value of a coordinated approach by law enforcement authorities,” said Richard Weber, Chief, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Criminal Investigation. “As a result of the collaborative effort in this investigation, investors were protected from further financial harm. IRS Criminal Investigation is always ready to lend its financial investigative expertise to the investigation of complex and sophisticated financial crimes.”<br />
<br />
Kaufmann admitted to conspiring with co-defendant Jean-Pierre Neuhaus, another Swiss citizen, to violate the Travel Act by bribing stock brokers. Axius, which refers to itself as a “holding company and business incubator” that develops other businesses, is incorporated in Nevada, and its principal offices are in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. As part of the scheme, Kaufmann and Neuhaus, while located overseas, enlisted the assistance of an individual they believed had access to a group of corrupt stock brokers; this individual was in fact an undercover law enforcement agent. Kaufmann and Neuhaus believed that the undercover agent controlled a network of stockbrokers in the United States with discretionary authority to trade stocks on behalf of their clients.<br />
<br />
According to court documents, Kaufmann and Neuhaus instructed the undercover agent to direct brokers to purchase Axius shares that were owned or controlled by Kaufmann in return for a secret kickback of approximately 26 to 28 percent of the sale price. Kaufmann and Neuhaus instructed the undercover agent as to the price the brokers should pay for the stock, and Kaufmann specifically instructed the undercover agent, in Neuhaus’s presence, that the brokers would have to pay gradually higher prices for the shares they were buying. Kaufmann and Neuhaus directed the undercover agent that the brokers were to refrain from selling the Axius shares they purchased on behalf of their clients for a one-year period. By preventing sales of Axius stock, Kaufmann and Neuhaus intended to maintain the fraudulently inflated share price for Axius stock. Kaufmann and Neuhaus agreed to sell approximately $3.5 million to $5 million worth of Axius shares through the undercover agent’s stock brokers.<br />
<br />
Kaufmann and Neuhaus were arrested on March 8, 2012. On Oct. 10, 2012, Neuhaus pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud and violate the Travel Act.<br />
<br />
At sentencing, scheduled for May 17, 2013, Kaufmann faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison. As part of his plea agreement, Kaufmann agreed to forfeit $298,740 that victims lost as a result of the crime.Joel Irvinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02136601426766713592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2315131040195218375.post-42770097397339786902012-12-14T15:27:00.000-05:002012-12-16T15:29:15.848-05:00 DISTRICT ATTORNEY VANCE ANNOUNCES GUILTY PLEAS IN CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY ENTERPRISE CORRUPTION CASEManhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the guilty pleas of AMERICAN STANDARD TESTING AND CONSULTING LABORATORIES (ASTC), its owner, ALAN FORTICH, 44, and five other defendants for falsifying concrete testing and inspection reports. ALAN and ALVARO FORTICH also pleaded guilty to manipulating government programs to obtain jobs for which they were otherwise ineligible. <br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
“As we have made clear many times, falsifying construction safety tests is unacceptable conduct,” said District Attorney Vance. “These defendants not only cheated their clients, but also jeopardized the public’s safety. Fortunately, the crimes were discovered and tests were conducted to ensure the structural integrity of the buildings in question. We will continue to root out those who put the public at risk for their own personal gain.”<br />
<br />
According to the defendants’ guilty pleas, ASTC was hired by contractors, engineers, architects, and others to perform tests and inspections relating to the strength and quality of concrete, as mandated by the New York City Building Code. For more than 10 years, the defendants submitted thousands of false test reports, regularly skipping vital safety tests and creating false reports to create the impression that the tests were performed.<br />
<br />
During the same period, ASTC lied about its credentials in order to obtain licenses from the New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) it was otherwise not entitled to obtain, and also about its small business qualifications to obtain work it was otherwise not eligible to perform. During the time period covered by the plea, ASTC falsified testing on both private and public projects.<br />
<br />
In each case, additional steps were taken to ensure the safety and stability of the project.<br />
<br />
The victims of ASTC’s fraud include:<br />
<br />
the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and its associated agencies (New York City Transit, Bridges and Tunnels, MetroNorth, and Capital Construction) <br />
the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) <br />
the New York City Department of Design and Construction <br />
the New York City School Construction Authority <br />
the New York City Department of Buildings <br />
numerous private owners and engineers <br />
<br />
This case was the result of an investigation by the District Attorney’s Rackets Bureau and the Inspectors General of PANYNJ, DOB, the MTA, and the NYC Department of Investigation into criminal activities in New York City’s construction industry. The investigation involved the analysis of thousands of documents, computer forensics, and the execution of nearly a dozen search warrants. <br />
<br />
Senior Investigative Counsel Diana Florence and Assistant District Attorney Anne Ternes of the District Attorney’s Rackets Bureau prosecuted this case under the supervision of Bureau Chief and Deputy Chief of Investigations Daniel Brownell and Chief of the Labor and Construction Investigations Unit Brenda Fischer. Trial Preparation Assistants Mariangela Perrotta and Katherine Munyan assisted with the investigation, as did Chief Investigator Walter Alexander, and Senior Investigators Terry Quinn and Angel Garcia. Senior Forensic Analyst Selena Ley worked under the supervision of Director Steven Moran, of the District Attorney’s High Technology Analysis Unit.<br />
<br />
District Attorney Vance thanked the following agencies: Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, New York City Department of Investigation, New York City Department of Buildings, Metropolitan Transportation Authority of the State of New York, and New York City School Construction Authority.<br />
<br />
Defendant Information:<br />
<br />
AMERICAN STANDARD TESTING AND CONSULTING LABORATORIES<br />
Whitestone, NY <br />
<br />
Convicted:<br />
<br />
Enterprise Corruption, class B felony, 1 count<br />
<br />
<br />
ALAN FORTICH, D.O.B. 7/11/67<br />
Whitestone, NY <br />
<br />
Convicted:<br />
<br />
Enterprise Corruption, class B felony, 1 count<br />
<br />
<br />
SHAMIM AKOND, D.O.B. 8/1/68<br />
Brooklyn, NY <br />
<br />
Convicted:<br />
<br />
Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, class E felony, 1 count<br />
<br />
<br />
RICHARD KASPARIAN, D.O.B. 8/8/39<br />
Manhasset, NY<br />
<br />
Convicted:<br />
<br />
Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, class E felony, 1 count<br />
<br />
<br />
BRUCE PUMO, D.O.B. 7/12/53<br />
Bogota, NJ <br />
<br />
Conviction:<br />
<br />
Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, class E felony, 1 count<br />
<br />
<br />
MICHAEL RABKIN, D.O.B. 7/13/58<br />
Gouldsboro, PA<br />
<br />
Convicted:<br />
<br />
Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, class E felony, 1 count<br />
<br />
<br />
ALVARO FORTICH, D.O.B. 11/19/78<br />
Whitestone, NY<br />
<br />
Convicted:<br />
<br />
Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the Second Degree, class A misdemeanor, 1 count <br />
<br />
Joel Irvinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02136601426766713592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2315131040195218375.post-61906101501236456942012-12-14T11:18:00.000-05:002012-12-15T11:18:49.050-05:00Department of Justice Forfeits Nearly $7 Million in Proceeds of Unlawful Offshore Gambling and Money Laundering Following Guilty Plea by William Paul Scott WASHINGTON—The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a consent order of forfeiture today ordering the civil forfeiture of $6,976,924 traced to international money laundering of the proceeds from an offshore Internet gambling operation that illegally targeted U.S. residents, announced Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and Richard Weber, Chief of the Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI).<a name='more'></a> The civil forfeiture action was resolved in connection with the criminal prosecution and recent conviction of William Paul Scott for violations of the Wire Act and money laundering statutes.<br />
<br />
On December 15, 2003, the U.S. government filed a civil forfeiture action against approximately $7 million held by Soulbury Limited, a shell company controlled by Scott and used to conceal the profits he gained through his illegal offshore Internet gambling operations. The government alleged that the $7 million held by Soulbury were proceeds of Wire Act violations and were subject to forfeiture as property involved in or traceable to money laundering transactions.<br />
<br />
According to the civil forfeiture complaint, between 1997 and 2002, Scott and an associate operated World Wide Tele-Sports (WWTS), an Internet gambling operation located in Antigua. WWTS and related entities offered online sports betting services that had been heavily marketed to U.S. gamblers via the Internet and print and broadcast media. U.S. residents, who made up the vast majority of WWTS’s clientele, purchased “credit” for their Internet gambling accounts over the phone or online and sent hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars out of the United States to WWTS’s offshore bank accounts. The U.S. gamblers then used these credits to place bets on popular professional and collegiate sporting events such as the Super Bowl and the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s men’s basketball tournament. Soliciting sports wagers over the Internet violates the Wire Act.<br />
<br />
Based on the significant formal legal assistance provided by relevant authorities in the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the United States filed the civil forfeiture complaint against WWTS criminal proceeds physically located in Guernsey but seized $6,976,924 from a correspondent bank account in the United States held by the Royal Bank of Scotland International (Guernsey). The seizure marked the United States’ first use of a legal provision that Congress designed to overcome situations that might prevent full cooperation in forfeiture matters even where both jurisdictions wish to completely fulfill their legal forfeiture assistance obligations under the applicable bilateral and UN assistance treaties (18 U.S.C. § 981(k).<br />
<br />
In March 1998, over five years before the civil forfeiture complaint was filed, Scott was charged in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York by criminal complaint with conspiring to violate the Wire Act, relating to his operation of WWTS. But because Scott resided in Antigua, the United States could not execute the warrant issued for his arrest, and he remained at large. Even as the criminal complaint against Scott remained outstanding, Soulbury filed a claim on March 1, 2004, answered the civil forfeiture complaint and proceeded to contest the civil forfeiture action.<br />
<br />
In April 2004, Scott was indicted in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York on the conduct that formed the basis for the 1998 criminal complaint. In April 2005, Scott was indicted in the District of Columbia based on different criminal conduct, charging him with money laundering, violations of the Wire Act, and other offenses relating to WWTS. In February 2012, the indictment in the Southern District of New York was transferred to the District of Columbia so that it could be resolved by a plea agreement that covered both pending criminal cases. Scott returned to the United States to enter a guilty plea in both cases in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on September 25, 2012.<br />
<br />
Scott was convicted of one count of conspiracy to violate the Wire Act and three counts of international money laundering. As part of his plea agreement, Scott consented to the civil forfeiture of the $6,976,924 in proceeds traced to Royal Bank of Scotland International (Guernsey).<br />
<br />
Scott is scheduled to be sentenced on January 7, 2013. He faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison for each money laundering count and a maximum of two years in prison for the conspiracy count.Joel Irvinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02136601426766713592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2315131040195218375.post-25494376476555335462012-12-13T11:11:00.000-05:002012-12-15T11:12:02.641-05:00Hamilton Growers to Pay $500,000 to Settle EEOC Race / National Origin Discrimination LawsuitATLANTA - Hamilton Growers, Inc., doing business as Southern Valley Fruit and Vegetable, Inc., an agricultural farm in Norman Park, Ga., has agreed to pay $500,000 to a class of American seasonal workers - many of them African-American - who, the EEOC alleged, were subjected to discrimination based on their national origin and/or race, the agency announced today. The agreement resolves a lawsuit filed by the EEOC in September 2011. <br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
The EEOC's suit had charged that the company unlawfully engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against American workers by firing virtually all American workers while retaining workers from Mexico during the 2009, 2010 and 2011 growing seasons. The agency also alleged that Hamilton Growers fired at least 16 African-American workers in 2009 based on race and/or national origin as their termination was coupled with race-based comments by a management official. Additionally, the lawsuit charged that Hamilton Growers provided lesser job opportunities to American workers by assigning them to pick vegetables in fields which had already been picked by foreign workers, which resulted in Americans earning less pay than their Mexican counterparts. <br />
<br />
The EEOC also alleged that American workers were regularly subjected to different terms and conditions of employment, including delayed starting times and early stop times, or denied the opportunity to work at all, while Mexican workers were allowed to continue working. The settlement provides monetary relief to 19 persons who filed charges with the agency and other American workers harmed by the practices.<br />
<br />
Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. <br />
<br />
Forty of the workers intervened in the lawsuit and filed additional claims seeking relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Agricultural Worker Protection Act. The workers were represented by Georgia Legal Services, which worked collaboratively with the EEOC in resolving the case.<br />
<br />
Pursuant to the consent decree settling the suit, the Hamilton Growers will exercise good faith in hiring and retaining qualified workers of American national origin and African-American workers for all farm work positions, including supervisory positions. Hamilton Growers will also implement non-discriminatory hiring measures, which include targeted recruitment and advertising, appointment of a compliance official, and training for positive equal employment opportunity management practices. The company has also pledged, among other things, to create a termination appeal process; extend rehire offers to aggrieved individuals from the 2009-2012 growing seasons; provide transportation for American workers; and limit contact between the alleged discriminating management officials and American workers. The decree also provides for posting anti-discrimination notices, record-keeping and reporting to the EEOC.<br />
<br />
"The EEOC will continue to protect the rights of vulnerable workers, such as the African American agricultural workers in this case, who were unlawfully terminated because of their race and national origin," said EEOC General Counsel David Lopez. "Employers must ensure that their employment practices are in line with anti-discrimination laws, especially in light of the globalization of the labor force."<br />
<br />
Robert Dawkins, regional attorney for the agency's Atlanta District office, said, "The EEOC is pleased to have effectuated positive change in the employment practices of agricultural employers who regularly hire foreign workers under the H-2A visa program for temporary or seasonal work. Federal law protects U.S. workers against an employer's discriminatory preferences, and we are optimistic that this resolution will go a long way in discouraging employers from discriminating against workers based on race and national origin in the hiring or firing process." <br />
<br />
According to Bernice William Kimbrough, district director for the EEOC in Atlanta, "This case brings to the forefront an issue that is increasingly affecting members of agricultural communities throughout the nation. We will continue to focus our efforts to eradicate all forms of discrimination against the American work force."<br />
<br />
Class member Ashley Richardson noted that job opportunities remained limited in Southwest, Georgia and stressed the importance of the opportunity to return to Hamilton Growers without facing the discrimination of prior years. <br />
<br />
Attorney Leah Lotto of Georgia Legal Services added, "Discrimination against American workers in the H-2A guest worker program is endemic. We hope this case will bring attention to that problem and that we will see Hamilton Growers demonstrate to its neighbors that offering job opportunities to American workers is not only legally required, but also the right thing to do for communities and local economies."Joel Irvinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02136601426766713592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2315131040195218375.post-25579711798030135112012-12-12T11:13:00.000-05:002012-12-15T11:15:02.756-05:00New York Chief Executive Officer and President of Investment Fund Arrested for Perpetrating Multi-Million-Dollar Fraud Scheme NEW YORK—Abdul Walji, chief executive officer, and Reniero Francisco, president, of Arista LLC, a California-based investment fund, were charged in connection with a six-count criminal complaint, defrauding their investors, and misappropriating millions of dollars, announced U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara and the FBI Assistant Director in Charge of the New York Field Office George Venizelos.<a name='more'></a> From 2010 through 2011, Walji and Francisco allegedly solicited numerous investors for the fund by misrepresenting its nature and performance, issued fraudulent account statements to investors to cover up massive losses, and misappropriated at least $2.7 million of investor funds for their own personal use. Walji and Francisco were arrested by the FBI this morning at their residences in California and will be presented in federal court in the Central District of California, Santa Ana branch, this afternoon.<br />
<br />
“As alleged, Abdul Walji and Reniero Francisco managed what was more investment fraud than investment fund—luring unsuspecting clients into investing only to divert millions to themselves, wiping out some of their clients’ entire life savings. When hiring investment advisers, people are entitled to expect they will act in the client’s best interests, but investors also need to be vigilant because even the records they receive may be falsified,” stated U.S. Attorney Bharara.<br />
<br />
“The defendants allegedly conned dozens of investors with false promises. Instead of investing their savings in the risk-free securities claimed, the defendants put investors’ money in highly speculative investments—if they invested it at all. They took money under false pretenses and lied about the performance of their clients’ portfolios. The FBI is determined to protect the public by rooting out unscrupulous money managers,” said FBI Assistant Director in Charge George Venizelos.<br />
<br />
According to the allegations in the complaint unsealed today in Manhattan federal court:<br />
<br />
Arista began operations as an investment firm in February 2010, with its principal place of business in Newport Coast, California. On April 20, 2011, Arista became a registered commodity pool operator with the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), and a member of the National Futures Association (NFA).<br />
<br />
In early 2010, Walji and Francisco began to solicit individuals to invest in Arista. In connection with those efforts, Francisco solicited and recruited several of his former clients from the large broker-dealership at which he previously worked. Several of Francisco’s former clients contributed large portions of their savings, including their retirement savings, for an investment in Arista. Walji and Francisco collected nearly $10 million from over 35 investors, of which only approximately $7.5 million was invested in S&P 500 future contracts and U.S. Treasury Bond options.<br />
<br />
From February 2010 through December 2011, Walji and Francisco carried out their fraudulent scheme through three methods. First, Walji and Francisco misrepresented to several Arista investors the nature of the firm’s investments and the returns that investors would receive from investing in Arista. For example, Walji and Francisco falsely told investors that their money would be invested in safe, risk-free securities, while, in fact, much of the money was invested in options and futures. Second, Walji and Francisco caused fraudulent account performance statements to be sent to Arista investors that misrepresented the value of the investors’ investments with Arista. Specifically, in an effort to secure additional contributions from investors, at times when investors were losing money they had already invested, Walji and Francisco concealed Arista’s trading losses and misrepresented that the investors were profiting from their investments. Third, Walji and Francisco misappropriated at least approximately $2.7 million from Arista’s investors that they diverted for their own personal benefit.<br />
<br />
Walji, 60, of San Juan Capistrano, California, and Francisco, 56, of Newport Coast, California, are both charged in the complaint with conspiracy to commit securities fraud and wire fraud, securities fraud, and wire fraud. Walji is also charged separately with commodities fraud. The securities fraud and wire fraud charges each carry a maximum term of 20 years in prison; the commodities fraud charge carries a maximum term of 10 years in prison; and the conspiracy charge carries a maximum term of five years in prison.Joel Irvinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02136601426766713592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2315131040195218375.post-2313528696762344362012-12-08T11:09:00.001-05:002012-12-15T11:31:45.086-05:00New York City Paralegal Association Annual Membership Appreciation DinnerThe New York City Paralegal association is holding its annual membership appreciation dinner on Tuesday, January 22, 2013. <br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
The Grand Salon<br />
<br />
3 West Club<br />
3 West 51st Street<br />
<br />
New York, New York 10019<br />
<br />
6:00-9:00 PM<br />
<br />
The event will feature a guest speaker. There will also be awards and recognitions for members and sponsors. It is a semi-formal event so dress accordingly.<br />
<br />
<br />
For additional information click on the following link: <a href="http://www.nyc-pa.org/news-events?eventId=575071&EventViewMode=EventDetails">NYCPA Dinner</a>Joel Irvinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02136601426766713592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2315131040195218375.post-60753213170577068212012-12-06T17:44:00.000-05:002012-12-06T17:44:59.068-05:00Woman Claims Boss Masturbated Every DayBy JACK BOUBOUSHIAN <br />
<br />
CHICAGO <a href="http://www.courthousenews.com/">(CN)</a> - A Cook County highway boss asked a woman who worked for him "to come into his office every day at around 4 o'clock while he watched porn and masturbated," the woman claims in court.<br />
<a name='more'></a> <br />
Philishia Fields and Helen Chandler sued the Cook County Highway Department, Keith Washington and Mike Davis in Cook County Court.<br />
<br />
Fields and Chandler claim their bosses at the Highway Department, Washington and Davis, sexually harassed them for years.<br />
<br />
"(F)rom approximately July 2010 through October 2011, Washington asked Fields to come into his office every day at around 4 o'clock while he watched porn and masturbate," the complaint states.<br />
<br />
During these 15 or 16 months, "every day that Washington was not in a meeting, he would masturbate in his office at around 4 o'clock," according to the complaint.<br />
<br />
Field adds that "in response to Washington's sexual advances, degrading language, and offensive behavior, Fields told Washington that he is disgusting and to stop acting that way."<br />
<br />
She claims that "on four separate occasions, Washington told Fields to masturbate while he masturbates."<br />
<br />
Also during this time, she claims, "on numerous occasions, Washington stated 'you're my girlfriend, you can't date anyone because that's cheating on me.'<br />
<br />
"That in response to Washington's aforementioned comment, Fields stated she is not his woman, that he has a wife, he is delusional, and he is crazy."<br />
<br />
According to the 38page complaint, from July 2010 through October 2011, "Washington asked for oral sex on a daily basis," and told Fields "I want you to play with your vagina while I masturbate," and "I want you to suck my penis."<br />
<br />
She claims: "Washington constantly rubbed his penis on Fields' butt when he walked behind her despite there being sufficiently room to avoid bodily contact."<br />
<br />
She claims that Washington frequently offered to pay her for sexual favors, to pay for her to travel with him for sex, to pay for new clothes or to pay her bills if she had sex with him.<br />
<br />
"In response to Washington's sexually offensive language and behavior, Fields stated that she is a lesbian, that she has a girlfriend, that he has a wife, that he is nasty, and that he is old enough to be her father," the complaint states.<br />
<br />
Fields claims that "on a nearly daily basis, Washington stated that it was a waste for Fields to have a girlfriend."<br />
<br />
In June 2011, Fields says, Washington told her, "I don't know why you're with a woman. It's just that's not right for you to be licking on another woman when you can be sucking my penis."<br />
<br />
Fields claims Mike Davis also asked her for sexual favors repeatedly and made sexual comments about her body.<br />
<br />
Co-plaintiff Chandler makes similar claims against Washington.<br />
<br />
Although Fields repeatedly requested transfers due to the sexual harassment, she did not receive one until October 2011, when she was given additional job duties, but not paid a higher wage, she says.<br />
<br />
"Cook County condoned sexual harassment and failed to maintain a harassment-free work environment by failing to provide adequate training, counseling, discipline and instructions to its employees and officers," the complaint states.<br />
<br />
"(T)he sexual harassment Fields was subjected to by the hands of Washington, was severe, persistent in nature, unwelcome, extremely offensive, humiliating, and effective in creating a hostile and intimidating work environment for Fields that substantially interfered with Fields' ability to perform her job."<br />
<br />
The women seek damages for sexual harassment, sexual orientation harassment, and retaliation.<br />
<br />
They are represented by Scott Fanning with Asonye & Associates. <br />
<br />
Source: <a href="http://www.courthousenews.com/">Courthouse News Service</a>Joel Irvinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02136601426766713592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2315131040195218375.post-72773774895284355412012-12-06T17:36:00.000-05:002012-12-09T14:51:36.280-05:00Free Webinar for Students - January 17, 2013 This free webinar is for paralegal students or newly-graduated paralegals who are ready to begin their interviewing process. Attendees will gain insight into the skills needed for successful job interviews. Discussions on current career trends will assist attendees in determining tools needed to get THE job.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
The webinar will include instruction to enhance interviewing skills, and resume writing. The webinar will conclude with examples of the correct make-up and dress to assist in creating the polished appearance needed for a successful job interview.<br />
<br />
For additional information <a href="http://www.nala.org/NalaNews29.aspx">click here.</a><br />
<br />
Source:<a href="http://www.nala.org/Default.aspx"> NALA.org</a>Joel Irvinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02136601426766713592noreply@blogger.com0