#Florida Bar Ethics Violations

[mfi-miami]

Substance Abuse Among Florida Lawyers Is At An All Time High

Substance Abuse Among Florida Lawyers Is At An All Time High! Has Your Attorney’s Integrity Been Compromised By Addiction? Substance abuse among Florida lawyers is on the rise. So, you need to ask yourself one big question. Is my lawyer high or drunk? There is a good possibility they are. Let’s be realistic. The legal profession is not like what they show on TV. Law school is expensive. The…

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

The Obama-appointed Judge who was overseeing Disney’s lawsuit against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis recused himself on Thursday over a relative’s ownership of 30 shares of Disney stock.

The case was transferred to Judge Allen C. Winsor, an appointee of President Trump who previously upheld the state’s Parental Rights in Education law. That law, known to its critics as the “Don’t Say Gay” law, is at the center of the Disney-DeSantis controversy.

Disney sued DeSantis in April, alleging that the state had engaged in a campaign of retaliation against the company over its opposition to the bill. The state rescinded Disney’s special governing district in Orlando, and then reconstituted it under the control of five DeSantis appointees.

Disney has argued that the state has sought to punish the company for protected speech, and is seeking to overturn the state’s actions.

The lawsuit was initially assigned to Judge Mark E. Walker, whom President Obama appointed to the bench in 2012.

DeSantis’ lawyers sought to have Walker removed on the grounds that his previous comments in other cases show he might be biased against the Governor. In one case, the judge noted that Disney might lose its special status because, “arguably,��� it “ran afoul of state policy.”

Disney’s lawyers, led by Daniel Petrocelli, argued that was not nearly enough to merit disqualification.

Walker agreed with Disney and denied the DeSantis motion on Thursday, saying it was “wholly without merit.”

“In fact, I find the motion is nothing more than rank judge-shopping,” he wrote. “Sadly, this practice has become all too common in this district.”

However, Walker also noted that his relative owns Disney stock, and that he therefore has an ethical duty to step aside.

The case will instead go to Winsor, who previously served as Florida’s solicitor general. In that role, he defended the state’s law outlawing same-sex marriage in 2014.

In February, Winsor dismissed a lawsuit from students and parents who alleged that the Parental Rights in Education law had caused schools to remove books with LGBTQ themes from libraries and to remove LGBTQ lyrics from school musicals.

That lawsuit was brought by Roberta Kaplan, who won a landmark gay rights case at the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. v. Windsor, in 2013. In the Florida case, she argued that the law violated the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause, as well as Title IX, which bars sex discrimination in education.

Winsor dismissed the suit twice, ruling both times that the plaintiffs had not shown that they suffered enough harm to warrant standing in federal court.

“Plaintiffs have shown a strident disagreement with the new law, and they have alleged facts to show its very existence causes them deep hurt and disappointment,” Winsor wrote. “But to invoke a federal court’s jurisdiction, they must allege more. Their failure to do so requires dismissal.”

Walker, the Obama-appointed Judge, had previously ruled against DeSantis in high-profile cases. In November, he blocked a law against “woke” ideology from taking effect at state universities.

Walker also struck down state voting restrictions last year, finding that the state had a “horrendous history of racial discrimination in voting.” DeSantis called the ruling “performative partisanship” and appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed Walker’s ruling earlier this year.

[internationalrealestatenews]

[ad_1] One other Miami metropolis official is within the crosshairs of an investigation into alleged wrongdoing. The Florida Bar is probing Miami Metropolis Legal professional Victoria “Vicki” Mendez's ties to corporations concerned in an alleged house-flipping scheme that focused properties beforehand owned by disabled folks or those that might not handle themselves, the Miami Herald reported. Companies owned by Mendez's mom and her husband bought the properties at properly below-market worth, after which offered the properties for a revenue, generally on the identical day. The bar investigation has been opened since at the least final April, in response to a Florida Bar e-mail obtained by the Miami Herald. Nevertheless, in an e-mail to The Actual DealMendez disputed that an official probe has been opened. “The Herald has incorrectly and libelously reported the information,” Mendez mentioned. “The Florida Bar inquired concerning the lawsuit filed in opposition to me. “Any evaluation by the Bar is pending the result of the case.” In February, Jose Alvarez arrived within the metropolis of Miami, Mendez, her husband Carlos Morales and their firm, Categorical Houses. Alvarez alleges he is the sufferer of a “conspiratorial scheme to complement town legal professional and her husband,” his lawsuit filed in Miami-Dade Circuit Court docket states. When his household dwelling was hit with $271,000 in constructing code violations, Alvarez alleges he sought assist from Mendez, who referred him to Morales, the lawsuit states. Morales allegedly satisfied Alvarez to promote the property to Categorical Houses for $205,000 in 2017. Morales then mounted up the home, succeeded in having the code violations waived and offered the residence for $370,000 in 2018, the lawsuit states. In her e-mail, Mendez alleged Alvarez's lawsuit was “conjured as much as harass my household and get me fired.” The Florida Bar is wanting into properties bought by Categorical Houses in addition to Gallego Houses from the Guardianship Program of Dade County, the Miami Herald reported. The latter firm is owned by Mendez's mom, Margarita Mendez. The non-profit Guardianship Program is charged with promoting the property of disabled folks with none household as a way to pay for his or her care. Final yr, Miami's public radio station WLRN revealed an investigative report that chronicled how Categorical Houses and Gallego Houses purchased the properties at giant reductions after which flipped the properties for hefty income. Miami Metropolis Corridor has became a magnet for public corruption probes. In September, then-Miami metropolis commissioner Alex Diaz de la Portilla He was arrested and charged with bribery, cash laundering, official misconduct and different felonies. State prosecutors allege Diaz de la Portilla spearheaded a no-bid deal permitting Miami Seashore energy couple David and Leila Centner to construct a leisure middle in a metropolis park. Miami Larger Francis Suarez is the topic of a handful of ethics and felony investigations wanting into his non-public facet jobs which have made him a millionaire, in addition to that he allegedly didn't report that he is acquired free tickets to main sporting occasions. —Francisco Alvarado [ad_2] Supply hyperlink

[fldebtcollectionattorney]

AI Ethics Rules Set for Lawyers

The Florida Bar Board of Governors' Review Committee on Professional Ethics has issued Proposed Advisory Opinion 24-1, which is open for comments from Florida Bar members. The opinion addresses the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) by lawyers in their legal practice. This advisory opinion comes in response to the release of ChatGPT-3 in November 2022, which sparked discussions about the ethical implications of using generative AI in the legal profession. Generative AI refers to deep-learning models that use data to generate probable outputs when prompted. These AI systems can create original content, analyze documents, and draft legal briefs based on written prompts. They often rely on large language models with datasets containing billions of parameters, making it challenging to trace the exact process leading to a specific result. While generative AI has the potential to enhance the efficiency of legal work, it also presents ethical concerns. Some lawyers have encountered issues with generative AI producing inaccurate or misleading information that can appear convincing. In one case, lawyers were sanctioned by a federal judge for using false citations generated by generative AI. However, the judge's opinion acknowledged that using reliable artificial intelligence tools for assistance is not inherently improper. To address these concerns, lawyers using generative AI must take specific precautions, including protecting client confidentiality, establishing oversight policies for AI use, ensuring reasonable fees, and complying with ethical and advertising regulations. - Confidentiality: Lawyers must prioritize safeguarding the confidentiality of client information, as required by Rule 4-1.6 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. Lawyers should obtain the client's informed consent before using a third-party generative AI program that might involve disclosing confidential information. Rule 4-1.6(e) mandates taking reasonable steps to prevent unauthorized access to client information when using technology. Lawyers must also understand if the AI program is "self-learning," as this may involve storing and revealing client data. - Oversight of Generative AI: Lawyers are responsible for ensuring that generative AI systems are used in compliance with their ethical obligations. This includes verifying the accuracy of AI-generated work and taking steps to prevent ethical violations. Lawyers should not delegate tasks that require their professional judgment to AI, and they must review and oversee the work produced by AI. - Legal Fees and Costs: Lawyers must charge reasonable fees and accurately communicate the basis for fees and costs to clients, preferably in writing. Costs must not be duplicated, and fees should not falsely inflate billable hours. Lawyers should consider adopting flat billing rates or contingent fee arrangements to prevent overcharging due to increased AI efficiency. - Lawyer Advertising: Lawyers can advertise their use of generative AI but must avoid making misleading or unsupported claims about their AI's superiority. Lawyers should clearly inform prospective clients when they are communicating with an AI chatbot and ensure that the chatbot's responses do not create false impressions. Screening questions may be used to limit chatbot interactions with clients already represented by other lawyers. The Impact of Generative AI on Legal Research and Case Analysis Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing the legal profession, not only in terms of document drafting but also in the realm of legal research and case analysis. With the advent of AI models like ChatGPT-3, lawyers now have access to powerful tools that can significantly enhance their ability to navigate complex legal landscapes. Generative AI in legal research can quickly analyze vast amounts of case law, statutes, and regulations, providing lawyers with relevant precedents and legal interpretations. This capability can save hours of manual research and improve the quality of legal arguments. However, the use of generative AI in this context also raises important considerations. Amidst these advancements in legal research, debt collection attorneys can leverage generative AI to streamline their workflow and identify relevant statutes and case law pertaining to debt recovery. Benefits of Generative AI in Legal Research: Efficiency: Generative AI can sift through extensive legal databases in a matter of seconds, allowing lawyers to find relevant cases and statutes more efficiently. Comprehensive Analysis: These AI models can provide a comprehensive analysis of legal issues, highlighting relevant nuances that might be overlooked through manual research. Time Savings: Lawyers can redirect their time and energy toward other critical aspects of their cases, such as client interaction and strategy development. Ethical and Practical Considerations While the benefits of generative AI in legal research are evident, lawyers must navigate ethical and practical considerations: Accuracy: Ensuring the accuracy of AI-generated legal research is crucial. Lawyers should verify and cross-reference AI-generated information to minimize the risk of errors. Cost: While AI can expedite research, it may come with associated costs. Lawyers should consider the balance between efficiency gains and the expense of using AI tools. Ethical Responsibility: Lawyers remain ethically responsible for the advice and arguments they present to their clients and the court. Relying solely on AI-generated research without professional judgment may be seen as a breach of ethical duties. In conclusion, generative AI is reshaping how lawyers conduct legal research and analyze cases. While it offers significant advantages in terms of efficiency and comprehensiveness, lawyers must approach its use with ethical responsibility, ensuring the accuracy of AI-generated research and maintaining transparency with clients. The integration of generative AI into legal research practices represents a significant step forward in the legal profession's embrace of technology, but it also necessitates a commitment to ethical and professional standards. Read the full article

[jcorsmeier]

Florida Third District Court of Appeal invalidates arbitration provision and fee agreement because of a violation of the Florida Bar Rules

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Florida Third District Court of Appeal opinion which invalidated the arbitration provision in a fee agreement (and the fee agreement itself) because of a violation of Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5(i).  The case is Labelle v. Berenson LLP, 2023 Fla. App. LEXIS 8693 (December 26, 2023). In this case, the plaintiff/client…

[tilde44]

The expansion has far-reaching legal implications, legal experts say, by challenging the very notion of what a court is for and emboldening civilians to enforce law, a duty traditionally left to the government. It’s also a reversal by Texas Republicans on tort law, in which they have typically sought to limit the ability to sue, not expand it. 

Legal experts also told The Texas Tribune that the measure is part of an emerging trend in Republican-dominated governments that find it difficult to constitutionally prohibit cultural grievances. Instead, they empower civilians to sue for civil remedies.

Jon Michaels, a professor at UCLA Law, points to Tennessee, where students, teachers and employees of public schools can sue schools if they share a bathroom with a transgender person, as well as Florida, where student athletes can sue their school if it allows a transgender athlete to play.

“It’s a way of back-dooring and winking while constitutional violations are occurring,” Michaels said. “It is compromising democracy.”

Texas’ abortion law goes much further. Typically, in tort law, which is used to compensate people who have been injured, a person must have incurred some sort of personal harm in order to sue someone else. That’s the very nature of what a civil court is intended to remedy in such a case, several legal experts told the Tribune. Texas’ new abortion law, however, gives that privilege to anyone.

[...]

But in one way, the new law is an about-face by Republicans in Texas who have long railed against the proliferation of lawsuits, usually seeking to increase the bar to bring a lawsuit, not lower it. For decades, groups including the powerful Texans For Lawsuit Reform have sought to reduce “needless lawsuits,” especially against businesses, by funding and helping to elect Texas Republicans. In the mid-1990s, George W. Bush included tort reform in his platform as he ran for Texas governor. In the most recent legislative session, lawmakers made it harder to sue commercial trucking companies and limited claims that can be brought against companies for exposing workers and others to COVID-19.

[...]

Michaels, the UCLA professor, said that Republicans reversing course on tort law is inconsistent with the party’s ideology, and simply political — he said it stokes cultural wars and emboldens an increasing base of Republican voters who are energized by moral outrage.

“Republicans have always hated trial lawyers and plantiff’s bar, and they’ve always been against these types of suits,” Michaels said. “They were always talking about people suing McDonald’s or Starbucks, and how horrible it was. Now, they’re creating these things because it’s advantageous to do so.

“There’s no sense of consistency,” he said. “It’s a way of subsidizing a community or a base that is easily outraged and giving them money and legal opportunity to cause a lot of trouble.”

[...]

“You vest those decisions in a district attorney or an attorney general, who is subject to ethics laws and looking out for the public interest,” he said. “SB 8 inverts that by putting private litigants who are motivated by ideological considerations into the position of a government prosecutor.”

[bellacollinavictims]

WHY THE FLORIDA BAR STILL ALLOWS DWIGHT SCHAR’S CORRUPT ATTORNEY MARC RANDAZZA TO PRACTICE LAW Attorney Marc Randazza, who was fired by InfoWars’ Alex Jones because a Connecticut judge accused him of “serious misconduct,” is Ryan Homes and NVR Inc., founder Dwight Schar’s attorney. Dwight Schar also chose a corrupt attorney Marc Randazza to represent his Bella Collina in Florida. Randazza has been disciplined by the state bars in four out of the five states he is licensed to practice law. Yet The Florida Bar, President Dori Foster-Morales, Executive Director Joshua E. Doyle, and President-elect Michael G. Tanner, still allow “tainted” Randazza to practice. The Florida Bar Publicly Reprimands Randazza Randazza was issued a public reprimand by The Florida Bar on Sept. 3, 2020 DISCIPLINE CASE #201500718 against Marc Randazza. The reprimand was related to his ethical violations in Nevada, where Randazza, as a porn attorney, was sued by the State Bar of Nevada on nine charges of violations. These violations were:

Communication,

Conflict of Interest: Current Clients,

Conflict of Interest: Current Clients: Specific Rules,

Imputation of Conflicts of Interest,

Safekeeping Property,

Declining or Terminating Representation, 

Advisor,

Restrictions on Right to Practice,

Misconduct.

Marc Randazza GUILTY of Bribery & Shady LoanHe pled guilty to two of the ethical violations: the bribe and the shady loan.

He pled guilty to two of the ethical violations: the bribe and the shady loan.

Randazza (Randazza Legal Group) received a 12 month suspension, but was it enforced? The Florida Bar decided to reprimand Randazza by placing him on a year’s probation. The Referee’s note said that he “did not find persuasive the numerous character letters submitted by the respondent nor the testimony of his character witnesses, who were unfamiliar with the facts surrounding his discipline.” In other words, Randazza tried to cover up the facts with recommendations. Find out more on: https://www.dwight-schar-victims.org/about-dwight-schar/why-the-florida-bar-still-allows-corrupt-marc-randazza-to-practice-law https://www.corruptrandazza.com/news/why-the-florida-bar-still-allows-corrupt-marc-randazza-to-practice-law

[dwightscharvictims]

Dwight Schar’s Attorney Marc Randazza Is On The Florida Bar Violations News Dwight Schar has chosen Marc Randazza to represent his reputation claimed to be against the First Amendment. Marc Randazza represents porn sites, neo-Nazi and questionable people like Alex Johns. Dwight Schar’s attorney was accused of bribery and endless unethical violations.Marc John Randazza, 2764 Lake Sahara Drive, Suite 109, Las Vegas, Nevada, public reprimand followed by one year of probation, effective 30 days following a September 3 court order. (Admitted to practice: 2003) Randazza began negotiating a retainer agreement with the company doing business under the name Oron while he was in negotiations against Oron. Randazza was found to have violated Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.8 Conflict of Interest. This is a reciprocal discipline action based on an order from the Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board of the State Bar of Nevada. (Case No: SC19-188)The State Bar of Nevada charged Randazza for violating Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct on nine counts. He broke the rules in regards to: - Communication, 

- Conflict of Interest: Current Clients, 

- Conflict of Interest: Current Clients: Specific Rules, 

- Imputation of Conflicts of Interest, 

- Safekeeping Property, 

- Declining or Terminating Representation, 

- Advisor, 

- Restrictions on Right to Practice, 

- Misconduct. 

Randazza two-timed his clients, who were pornographers, by working for other clients, who were also pornographers. He “solicited illicit payoffs,” said HuffPost. In 2010, Randazza tried to bribe a website so that he wouldn’t sue them, again. This solicitation was a violation of the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct. The State Bar of Nevada sued for the suspension of Randazza’s license in 2018 with violations of ethics. His license was suspended for a year. However, the State Bar did not put the suspension into effect. Randazza actually pleaded guilty to two violations: a bribe and a shady loan. He appealed his suspension to the Nevada Supreme Court, but was rejected.  Find out more on: https://www.dwight-schar-victims.org/about-dwight-schar/dwight-schars-attorney-marc-randazza-is-on-the-florida-bar-violations-news

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Attorney General Merrick Garland on Tuesday banned political appointees at the Department of Justice (DOJ) from participating in campaign events in any form, changing a longstanding agency policy.

“We must do all we can to maintain public trust and ensure that politics — both in fact and appearance — does not compromise or affect the integrity of our work,” Garland wrote in a memo to DOJ employees.

Previous policy allowed political appointees to sometimes attend partisan events in their personal capacities if they participated passively and obtained approval, but Garland on Tuesday barred those individuals from participating in partisan political events in any capacity, even if the event is private.

The DOJ has previously limited attendance at partisan events during presidential election years but allowed exceptions for political appointees whose close family members were running for office and those attending events on the evening of Election Day.

Garland wrote in the memo that his new policy eliminates both of those exceptions.

“I know you agree it is critical that we hold ourselves to the highest ethical standards to avoid even the appearance of political influence as we carry out the Department’s mission,” he wrote. “It is in that spirit that I have added these new restrictions on political activities by non-career employees.”

The decision comes as the department faces intense scrutiny from Republicans after Garland signed off on a request to a judge asking for the approval of a search warrant for former President Trump’s Florida home.

FBI agents executed the court-approved search warrant at Mar-a-Lago earlier this month. Agents seized 11 sets of classified documents in connection with its investigation into whether Trump violated the Espionage Act and two other federal statutes, although the potential violations do not depend on whether the information was classified.

Trump and many Republicans have accused the FBI and DOJ of pursuing the investigation for political reasons. The DOJ is also conducting a criminal probe of efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) introduced articles of impeachment against Garland, while House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has promised to investigate the DOJ if Republicans take back the House in November, telling the Attorney General to “clear your calendar.”

Garland has forcefully pushed back on those criticisms as threats to federal agents increased in the wake of the Mar-a-Lago search.

“I will not stand by silently when their integrity is unfairly attacked,” Garland said in the days following the search, adding that the FBI and DOJ had been subject to “unfounded attacks” on their professionalism.

[patriotsnet]

Who Were The Republicans Who Stormed The Scif

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/who-were-the-republicans-who-stormed-the-scif/

Who Were The Republicans Who Stormed The Scif

Cell Phone Security Breach

Republicans storm SCIF, delay testimony

As the Republicans stormed the secure area,;several brought their cell phones with them into the secure area, according to Democratic Reps. Ted Lieu and Harley Rouda of California.

Cell phones, which the Director of National Intelligence considers high-vulnerability devices, must undergo a rigorous risk-mitigation protocol to be allowed into a SCIF.;They are specifically designed to thwart attempts at electronic eavesdropping, if protocols are followed.;

;Jordan acknowledged that the cell phone mishap by his colleagues crossed a boundary that should remain in place.

They shouldnt do that. Theyre not used to this. They walked in, as soon as they were told that, they set their phones out, Jordan said when asked about his GOP colleagues bringing their phones into the SCIF.

It was a mistake, No big deal. They shouldnt do that. They understand now and it wont happen again, he continued.

Republicans said Schiff was threatening GOP lawmakers with ethics violations related to the stunt. Schiff was also consulting with the Houses sergeant at arms and multiple members confirmed that House Sergeant-at-Arms Paul D. Irving was present.

They violated House rules by trying to crash committees of which they dont sit on, said Lieu.

He said that the House Parliamentarian had been consulted, once again, on the issue of barring members not on the committees of jurisdiction from the proceedings.

The House Parliamentarian has; ruled that you just cant crash committees, Lieu said.

Quality Journalism Doesn’t Come Free

Perhaps it goes without saying but producing quality journalism isn’t cheap. At a time when newsroom resources and revenue across the country are declining, The Texas Tribune remains committed to sustaining our mission: creating a more engaged and informed Texas with every story we cover, every event we convene and every newsletter we send. As a nonprofit newsroom, we rely on members to help keep our stories free and our events open to the public. Do you value our journalism? Show us with your support.

You Need To Be Scared

The impeachment inquiry was launched last month after a whistleblower complaint raised questions about whether President Donald Trump withheld military aid and offered an invitation to the White House as ways to pressure Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy into investigating the family of Joe Biden, a potential political rival to Trump in the 2020 election.

Related

Everything you didnt know about Trump and impeachment

William Taylor, U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, offered testimony Tuesday that countered the White House narrative that there was no quid pro quo in which Trump held up military aid to advance his political interests. Trump wanted to put Ukraines leader in a public box, Taylor recalled.

Apart from Stewart opening the door, none of the Republicans in Utahs congressional delegation participated in Wednesdays storming of the secured room where the House Intelligence Committee was hearing from Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Laura Cooper on how aid to Ukraine is managed.

This committee has become a target for Republican ire of an unfair, secret process to take down Trump, as the panel has been especially active in the inquiry while continuing to operate under its normal rules, intended to protect classified information.

Stewart called Wednesdays mayhem caused by his GOP colleagues unfortunate.

Also Check: Should Republicans Vote On Super Tuesday

Cell Phones In Secure Spaces And Committee Sit

Defying established security protocols, a cadre of House Republicans led by Minority Whip Steve Scalise and Rep. Matt Gaetz stormed the Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility in the Capitol Visitor Center on Wednesday, where the top Pentagon official overseeing U.S. policy in Ukraine was giving her deposition for the Houses impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.

Hours into a standoff between frustrated Republicans and Democrats leading the impeachment inquiry, a handful of GOP members remained sitting in the SCIF, refusing to leave.

Rep. Michael Waltz told reporters that when he and other Republican members entered the room to hear testimony from Laura Cooper, the deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia, Schiff stood up and walked out, accompanied by the witness.

What is Adam Schiff trying to hide? Scalise said as Republicans tried to enter the secure area. They dont even let the presidents legal counsel question people who are making baseless allegations. Maybe in the Soviet Union this kind of thing is commonplace. This shouldnt be happening in the United States of America, where theyre trying to impeach a president in secret behind closed doors.

Intelligence member Val Demings said Republicans are under a lot of stress because of what she said is clear wrongdoing by the president.

And you would have to read it with a member of Democratic staff, that is unprecedented and unfair, she said.

Trump Impeachment: Republicans Storm Secure Hearing

Impeachment of Donald Trump

US Republicans have stormed a high-security impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump, forcing a witness to delay her testimony by five hours.

The Republicans chanted “let us in” as they forced their way into the hearing, breaching US House security rules.

This week, Mr Trump urged Republicans to “get tough and fight” for him.

Three committees in the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives are investigating allegations of wrongdoing by the president.

Democrats accuse him of illegally pressuring Ukraine to dig up dirt on a political rival, but Mr Trump and his supporters say he has done nothing wrong.

Read Also: Are There More Registered Republicans Or Democrats

A Chaotic Scene In A Secure Room

The real fireworks happened before she started speaking.

A source in the room said that as Cooper was sitting down to testify, the Republicans stormed through the rooms three different doors. Rep. Bradley Byrne of Alabama was yelling at Schiff, but the California Democrat did not engage, the source said. Other Democrats, including Rep. Val Demings of Florida, shouted back at both Byrne and Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas, who were yelling about the process.

Demings, according to one source in the room, asked Republicans if they were trying to teach their children that its OK to lie, steal and cheat so long as you dont get caught?

Dont you have any work to do today? she said to one Republican member, according to the source.

Cooper left the room while the Republicans refused to vacate the space. The source said the Capitol Police and sergeant at arms were consulted when members refused to leave the room.

It was closest thing Ive seen around here to mass civil unrest as a member of Congress, said one source in the room.

Why Is This Happening Now

Some commentators have argued that the Republicans, and Mr Trump, have come under increased pressure following Tuesday’s testimony by the acting ambassador to Ukraine, Bill Taylor.

Mr Taylor testified that Mr Trump had made the release of military aid to Ukraine conditional on a pledge that his political rival, Joe Biden, would be investigated, and said relations with Ukraine had been “fundamentally undermined” as a result.

White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham responded in a statement: “President Trump has done nothing wrong – this is a co-ordinated smear campaign from far-left lawmakers and radical unelected bureaucrats waging war on the Constitution”.

Democratic congressman David Cicilline described Wednesday’s protest as “a stunt that corresponded very specifically to the president’s complaint that they weren’t fighting hard enough for him, and in direct response to devastating testimony… from Ambassador Taylor”.

However, Republican Jim Jordan, who has taken part in the hearings, suggested that the protesters were simply fed up with the lack of transparency.

“It’s finally reached the point where members just said they’re so frustrated at the idea that they can’t be a part of this and see what’s going on,” he told reporters.

Don’t Miss: What Did Republicans Gain From The Compromise Of 1877

Republicans Try To Storm Impeachment Room Break Rules In Process

WASHINGTON In the latest attempts to make a circus out of the House Intelligence Committees investigation into President Donald Trumps dealings with the Ukrainian government, a contingent of House Republicans stormed a secure room in the Capitol basement Wednesday, disrupting a deposition and violating House rules by bringing their phones into a secure area.

Rep. Matt Gaetz , whose chief of staff sent an email to Republican legislators offices last week about holding a press conference outside the guarded committee room, led the group of roughly 30 lawmakers into the Intelligence Committees secure area. And because the Republicans, who are not members of the committee, brought phones and other electronics into the Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility , Democrats said the room would now have to be sanitized.

They not only brought in their unauthorized bodies, they may have brought in the Russians and the Chinese, said Rep. Eric Swalwell , a member of the Intelligence Committee.

Swalwell added that some Republican members held onto their phones even after the Sergeant at Arms asked that they remove them from the area. Rep. Mark Meadows later reported that he personally collected phones from Republicans and took them out of the SCIF.;

Republicans have obsessed over the process Democrats are following, saying its too secretive and unfair to the president.;

Jordan did acknowledge that the Republicans shouldnt have brought phones into the SCIF.

In Senate Trial Pat Cipollone Was Wrong On Gop Access To Scif Depositions

House GOP Members Storm Secure Room To Delay Witness – The Day That Was | MSNBC

On the first full day of President Donald Trumps Senate impeachment trial, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone claimed that House Democrats had run roughshod over the presidents procedural rights by denying Republicans access to key parts of the investigation.

Cipollone had several complaints, but one stood out to us as clearly wrong.;

“Not even Schiffs Republican colleagues were allowed into the SCIF” during the House impeachment investigation, Cipollone said on the Senate floor Jan. 21.

Cipollones assertion echoed one made by, and on behalf of, a group of Republicans who staged a sit-in at the House Intelligence committee, to protest what they argued were unfair ground rules for the Republican minority during the House impeachment inquiry.

On Oct. 23, more than 40 Republican lawmakers disrupted witness testimony by storming the SCIF where depositions were under way, chanting, “Let us in!”;

At the time of the sit-in, Republicans could argue that that the impeachment hearings had only taken place behind closed doors and without transcripts being formally released.

But what about access to the depositions at the Intelligence Committee? Were all Republicans banned? No.;

There are nine Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee, 17 on the House Oversight Committee, and 21 on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.;

Featured Fact-check

You May Like: What Is Republicanism And What Does It Value

Why Did Republicans Storm The Capitol Theyre Running Out Of Options

As more testimony is disclosed, it becomes clearer that President Trumps only defense against impeachment is to distract from the facts.

By The Editorial Board

The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstandingvalues. It is separate from the newsroom.

Around 10 a.m. Wednesday, a gaggle of conservative House members on Capitol Hill staged a protest, barging into the secure room called a SCIF where members of three House committees were preparing to hear testimony from Laura Cooper, a deputy assistant secretary of defense.

Shepherding the demonstrators was Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida, one of President Trumps fiercest apologists, whose account live-tweeted the stunt: BREAKING: I led over 30 of my colleagues into the SCIF where Adam Schiff is holding secret impeachment depositions. Still inside more details to come.

This was not a fringe move. Representative Steve Scalise, the minority whip, was among the sea of dark-blue suits that surged into the hearing room.

Chaos ensued. There were shouting matches. Some of the invading members brought along their cellphones, though they are prohibited inside the secure room. Ms. Coopers testimony was delayed, and Democrats called in the sergeant-at-arms for help restoring order.

So many of the defenses he floated early on have crumbled under the weight of subsequent revelations.

But, mostly, its about all theyve got.

A Day After Taylors Explosive Testimony

The GOP disruption comes one day after the committees heard from the top US diplomat in Ukraine, Bill Taylor, who told lawmakers in a lengthy opening statement that Trump had demanded Ukraine launch an investigation to help him politically before US security aid to Ukraine would be released, undercutting White House claims there was no quid pro quo with Ukraine.

Some Republicans in Congress have expressed concerns with Trumps conduct following Taylors testimony though others like Jordan have argued Taylor did not establish a quid pro quo as Republicans continue to press Democrats to change how they conduct the impeachment inquiry.

The picture coming out of it, based on the reporting that weve seen, I would say is not a good one, said Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, who as the majority whip is a member of Senate GOP leadership. But I would say also that until we have a process that allows for everybody to see this in full transparency, its pretty hard to draw an hard and fast conclusions.

But many Republicans in Congress remain fiercely loyal to Trump.

Recommended Reading: What Are The Main Differences Between Democrats And Republicans

House Republicans Literally Storm The Impeachment Hearings

House GOP leadership and, reportedly, the White House itself were aware of the efforts to disrupt the impeachment inquiry.

Alex Wong/Getty

House Republicans took their impeachment grievances to a more confrontational level on Wednesday, barging into a secure facility during a closed-door witness deposition and refusing to leave until Democrats held open hearings.

The gambitcooked up by the pro-Trump brawler Rep. Matt Gaetz and endorsed by House GOP leadershipderailed the closed-door deposition of Laura Cooper, a Pentagon official with jurisdiction over Ukraine policy, before it even started. And it left Democrats indignant that their colleagues had violated long standing rules about interviewing witnesses in classified settings.;

Cell phones, for example, are not allowed in Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities . But the Republican members who barged into those facilities had taken their phones with them inside the room. Lawmakers and aides said that, as of noon on Wednesday, the SCIF was being swept for electronic surveillance devices because the Republicans brought in their phones, delaying the start of Coopers deposition. Democrats were also contemplating whether to bring in the U.S. Capitol Police in order to drag out the protesting members.;

The standoff began shortly after a press conference in the morning, in which GOP members denounced what they called Democrats'”sham” impeachment processa complaint that theyve made central to their impeachment pushback.;

Republicans Involved In Impeachment Protest Already Have Access To Hearings

13 of the 41 Republican lawmakers who were listed by Rep. Matt Gaetz as planning to storm a closed-door hearing Wednesday to protest an alleged lack of transparency in the impeachment inquiry sit on committees with the power to question witnesses and review documents.

The big picture: The inquiry is currently being led by the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight committees, which are comprised of 48 Republicans in total. House Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson has asked the House Sergeant at Arms to “take action” against the members involved in Wednesday’s protest, after lawmakers reportedly brought cellphones inside the classified room and forced the deposition to be delayed for five hours.

Worth noting: A full House vote authorizing an impeachment inquiry would likely allow Republicans to call their own witnesses, but any subpoenas they attempt to issue could be vetoed by Democrats.

Details: The following Republican lawmakers sit on the relevant committees and were listed by Gaetz as planning to participate in the event. Some simply attended the press conference and did not enter the secure briefing room.

Read Also: Where Are Republicans On The Political Spectrum

Odd Details From The House Gop’s Bizarre Anti

On Wednesday, Rep. Matt Gaetz led about 40 fellow House Republicans into a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility being used to depose witnesses in the House impeachment inquiry of President Trump. Some of the Republicans brought cellphones into the secure room, a big no-no.

If only there were clear instructions

Eric Sandeen

Their five-hour sit-in, which included a pizza party, delayed but did not derail the testimony of Pentagon official Laura Cooper, who spent about three hours with impeachment investigators after the Occupy SCIF crew left.

The performance was meant to highlight the GOP’s attacks on the process House Democrats are using to gather preliminary information, a process that has already produced some damaging revelations about Trump’s Ukraine dealings. Here are four odd details from Wednesday’s bizarre circus:

1. A third of the occupiers had the right to be in the room alreadyDespite Republican complaints that this is a secret partisan inquiry, 48 Republicans and 59 Democrats are on the three committees allowed to attend and participate in the impeachment depositions including 13 of the Republicans who “stormed” the SCIF, by journalist Marcy Wheeler’s count.

Key Witness In Trump Impeachment Trial To Retire

Fed up with the lack of public access to an impeachment inquiry they likened to a Soviet-style process, dozens of House Republicans stormed into a closed-door Intelligence Committee hearing, refused to leave and even ordered pizza.

The pro-Trump lawmakers, led by Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, barged into the Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, where Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary Laura Cooper was preparing to give a deposition.

Let us in! cried the lawmakers, some of whom were carrying cellphones and other electronics in the secure location, a violation of congressional rules and, possibly, the law.

Rep. Chris Stewart , an Intelligence Committee member who was there for the hearing, said the GOPers didnt know they couldnt bring in electronics.

There were some people that didnt realize they couldnt come in without their Fitbits. That was an oversight, he told The Post.

As Cooper, a Russia and Ukraine expert, sat down to testify, the Republicans reportedly rushed through the rooms three doors shortly after 9 a.m.

Rep. Bradley Byrne started yelling at House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, but the California Democrat did not respond and quickly left the room, located three floors below street level in the Capitol.

Other Democrats, including Rep. Val Demings of Florida, shouted back at Byrne and Rep. Louie Gohmert , who were yelling about the closed-door process.

Don’t Miss: When Is The Last Time Republicans Controlled Congress

[jcorsmeier]

Florida Supreme Court issues discipline opinion reminding lawyers not to engage in “zealous advocacy” in violation of Bar Rules

Florida Supreme Court issues discipline opinion reminding lawyers not to engage in “zealous advocacy” in violation of Bar Rules

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the Florida Supreme Court opinion imposing a 3-year suspension on a lawyer who altered pictures of his client’s face and used the images as exhibits at a deposition in a criminal case which the Court characterized as overzealous and a proposal by a Florida Bar committee to remove the words zeal and zealous from the Rules…

[bellacollinavictims]

CORRUPT ATTORNEY MARC RANDAZZA REPRESENTS DWIGHT SCHAR AND BELLA COLLINA’S REPUTATION

Dwight Schar, Ryan Homes, Neo-Nazis, Alex Jones, Porn and Corrupt Attorney Randazza

Marc Randazza was fired by conspiracy theorist Alex Jones at InfoWars, but Dwight Schar (founder of NVR, Inc, Ryan homes and owner of Bella Collina in Florida) chose to represent him, his affair or interests.

But “rude” Randazza was so bad that even conspiracy theorist Alex Jones had to fire him. The InfoWars founder was told by a Connecticut judge that Randazza was “tainted.” The same judge accused Randazza of “serious misconduct.” In addition, Randazza lied while filing claims for Jones in the state of Connecticut, where he was not licensed to practice. HuffPost writes that “outrageous” Randazza is “curiously chummy” with fascists and racists. Randazza has also represented several Neo-Nazis in court, including Andrew Anglin, who published the address of a Jewish realtor on the Nazi website The Daily Stormer. Dwight Schar and Bella Collina have chosen this particular attorney to represent them. Schar is now associated with an attorney who has major ethical violations attached to his name, who tries to strike at the racial divide in America. Lately, Marc Radazza was collaborating with attorney William Matthews from Shutts & Bowen law firm, attorney James Ryan, attorney David Landis from Mateer Harbert law firm, and appeared in front of judge Karen Jennemann to convince her that First Amendment right of social media can be sold off. Randazza Is In Trouble In Nevada, Massachusetts, Arizona, Florida, California In every state where Marc Randazza is practicing law he has been reprimanded, sued by the local Bar, suspended or placed on probation, and has multiple Bar complaints. The charges range from misconduct to bribery.   Find out more on: https://www.dwight-schar-victims.org/about-dwight-schar/corrupt-attorney-marc-randazza-represents-dwight-schar-and-bella-collina https://www.corruptrandazza.com/news/corrupt-attorney-marc-randazza-represents-dwight-schar-and-bella-collina

[dwightscharvictims]

WHY THE FLORIDA BAR STILL ALLOWS DWIGHT SCHAR’S CORRUPT ATTORNEY MARC RANDAZZA TO PRACTICE LAW The Florida Bar Publicly Reprimands Randazza Randazza was issued a public reprimand by The Florida Bar on Sept. 3, 2020 DISCIPLINE CASE #201500718 against Marc Randazza. The reprimand was related to his ethical violations in Nevada, where Randazza, as a porn attorney, was sued by the State Bar of Nevada on nine charges of violations. These violations were:

Communication,

Conflict of Interest: Current Clients,

Conflict of Interest: Current Clients: Specific Rules,

Imputation of Conflicts of Interest,

Safekeeping Property,

Declining or Terminating Representation, Advisor,

Restrictions on Right to Practice,

Misconduct.

Marc Randazza GUILTY of Bribery & Shady Loan He pled guilty to two of the ethical violations: the bribe and the shady loan.Randazza (Randazza Legal Group) received a 12 month suspension, but was it enforced? The Florida Bar decided to reprimand Randazza by placing him on a year’s probation. The Referee’s note said that he “did not find persuasive the numerous character letters submitted by the respondent nor the testimony of his character witnesses, who were unfamiliar with the facts surrounding his discipline.” In other words, Randazza tried to cover up the facts with recommendations. Randazza Fired Even By InfoWars’ Alex Jones HuffPost writes that “outrageous” Randazza is “curiously chummy” with fascists and racists. Randazza has also represented several Neo-Nazis in court, including Andrew Anglin, who published the address of a Jewish realtor on the Nazi website The Daily Stormer.But “rude” Randazza was so bad that even conspiracy theorist Alex Jones had to fire him. The InfoWars founder was told by a Connecticut judge that Randazza was “tainted.” The same judge accused Randazza of “serious misconduct.” In addition, Randazza (Randazza Legal Group) lied while filing claims for Jones in the state of Connecticut, where he was not licensed to practice. Randazza also mocked Don Juravin’s Jewish heritage. Casting doubt on his identity, saying that instead, because Mr. Juravin runs a religious website, he is not Jewish. Find out more on: https://www.dwight-schar-victims.org/about-dwight-schar/why-the-florida-bar-still-allows-corrupt-marc-randazza-to-practice-law https://www.newsanyway.com/2021/01/06/why-the-florida-bar-still-allows-dwight-schars-corrupted-attorney-marc-randazza-to-practice-law/

[mongoose232323]

BREAKING NEWS

Rep. Matt Gaetz Showed Nude Photos of

The Women He Said He Had Slept With To

Other Lawmakers In Congress.

Two Fellow Congresspersons To Defend Gaetz

Are Jim Jordan, Who Is Said To Have Procured

Young Boys For His Wrestling Coach To Molest

And Majorie Taylor Greene Who Is Said To Have

Had Multiple Sex Partners When She Owned A

Gym, This Cheating On Her Husband.

From The Article

Rep. Matt Gaetz, the Florida Republican being investigated by the Justice Department over sex trafficking allegations, made a name for himself when he arrived on Capitol Hill as a conservative firebrand on TV and staunch defender of then-President Donald Trump. Behind the scenes, Gaetz gained a reputation in Congress over his relationships with women and bragging about his sexual escapades to his colleagues, multiple sources told CNN.

Gaetz allegedly showed off to other lawmakers photos and videos of nude women he said he had slept with, the sources told CNN, including while on the House floor. The sources, including two people directly shown the material, said Gaetz displayed the images of women on his phone and talked about having sex with them. One of the videos showed a naked woman with a hula hoop, according to one source.

"It was a point of pride," one of the sources said of Gaetz.

There's no indication these pictures are connected to the DOJ investigation.

Gaetz, 38, who was elected to Congress in 2016, has been at the center of a number of controversies in his four-plus years in Congress. But he's now embroiled in easily his biggest scandal yet, after the Justice Department began investigating him in the final months of the Trump administration under then-Attorney General William Barr as part of a larger investigation into another Florida politician. Federal investigators are examining whether Gaetz engaged in a relationship with a woman that began when she was 17 years old and whether his involvement with other young women broke federal sex trafficking and prostitution laws, two people briefed on the matter said.

Gaetz has denied the allegations, saying "no part of the allegations against me are true," and he claimed Tuesday that he was the victim of an extortion plot, which the FBI is separately investigating.

"Over the past several weeks my family and I have been victims of an organized criminal extortion involving a former DOJ official seeking $25 million while threatening to smear my name. We have been cooperating with federal authorities in this matter and my father has even been wearing a wire at the FBI's direction to catch these criminals," Gaetz said in a statement.

Gaetz and a spokesperson for Gaetz did not respond to requests for comment on the images and videos he allegedly showed to lawmakers.

After the DOJ investigation into Gaetz surfaced this week, there were a handful of Republicans in Congress who defended him, speaking out on his behalf, including both Rep. Jim Jordan, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. But many House Republicans stayed quiet.

House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy said Wednesday there were "serious implications" involving the DOJ allegations, adding that he would remove Gaetz from the Judiciary Committee if they were proven true.

"I haven't heard anything from the DOJ or others, but I will deal with it if anything comes to be true" McCarthy said in response to a question from CNN at a town hall event in Iowa.

Gaetz made a name for himself on conservative television soon upon his arrival to Congress in 2017, where he's often been a thorn in the side of House Republican leadership while aligning himself closely with the Freedom Caucus and Trump during his presidency. Gaetz has been a constant presence on both Newsmax and Fox News -- much more than any typical rank-and-file House member -- and he turned to Fox soon after the allegations surfaced Tuesday.

At one point during Gaetz's first term, staff for then-House Speaker Paul Ryan held a short meeting with Gaetz in the Capitol, where they had a discussion with Gaetz about acting professionally while in Congress, according to two sources with knowledge of the meeting. One source said the conversation wasn't tied to a specific incident. Ryan didn't directly have a conversation with Gaetz.

Gaetz's spokesperson denied that he was ever reprimanded by Ryan or his staff. "That did not happen, no meeting with the speaker or his staff," the spokesperson said.

Hours before the news broke Tuesday of the investigation involving Gaetz, Axios reported he was considering leaving Congress for a job at the conservative television station Newsmax.

Gaetz was one of the most vocal backers of Trump's lie after the 2020 election that the election was stolen from him. After 10 Republicans voted to impeach Trump in January, Gaetz personally took up the task of trying to oust the House's GOP conference chair Liz Cheney, the highest-ranking Republican to support impeachment, traveling to Wyoming to hold a rally against Cheney in her home state.

In March 2020, when the scale of the Covid-19 pandemic was not yet clear, Gaetz wore a gas mask on the floor of the House during the first vote on an emergency funding bill for the coronavirus response.

Gaetz was admonished last year by the House Ethics Committee for a tweet threatening Trump's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen ahead of his 2019 testimony before the House Oversight Committee. The committee found the tweet "did not violate witness tampering and obstruction of Congress laws" but did not "reflect creditably" upon the House. The Florida bar also investigated the case and cleared Gaetz. He apologized for the tweet.

Later that year, Gaetz led a band of House Republicans who barged into a closed-door House impeachment inquiry interview, occupying the House Intelligence Committee spaces for several hours in a publicity stunt to protest the investigation that would lead to Trump's first impeachment.

Gaetz has also found himself in hot water over his spending practices. Politico reported last year that Gaetz improperly sent $28,000 to pay an LLC affiliated with a speech-writing consultant. Gaetz's office returned the funds to the House and said it was a "glorified clerical error."

One of Gaetz's official actions as a member of Congress is also gaining fresh scrutiny in the wake of the DOJ investigation. In 2017, Gaetz was the one member of Congress to vote against a bill designed to create a coordinator in the Department of Transportation responsible for helping states develop policies to prevent human trafficking.

At the time, Gaetz did a Facebook Live broadcast defending his vote. He said he voted no because he felt the existing Transportation Department staffing should've been able to handle the task, and he was sent to Washington to stop the expansion of the federal government.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/04/01/politics/matt-gaetz-photos-women/index.html

[easyfoodnetwork]

Report Details Litany of Sexual Abuse Experienced by Women in Master Sommelier Training

K.Decha/Shutterstock

According to the New York Times, harassment and abuse has pushed many women to leave the elite GuildSomm program and, in some cases, quit the industry entirely

In the wine world, perhaps no title is more coveted than that of master sommelier. But the New York Times has uncovered a pattern of harassment, sexual abuse, and rape perpetrated by master sommeliers and members of the title-granting organization, which has traumautized and made life near impossible for women who train for the title. Included in Julia Moskin’s Times report are accounts of women who were harassed so intensely that they stopped training entirely.

In the United States, the master somm title is awarded to those who endure years of study through GuildSomm, the educational branch of the Americas chapter of the Court of Master Sommeliers. According to the Times, the educational branch of the organization has seen a massive influx of students since 2012, following the Netflix release of Somm, a documentary that follows the grueling process of training for the test. While many of the 12,000 members of the GuildSomm community are young women, only 24 of the 155 people who have achieved master sommelier status since 1997 have been women.

One of the experts featured in that documentary is Geoff Kruth, one of the court’s leading educators. Kruth is also the founder and president of GuildSomm. In the Times reporting, 11 women recounted experiences of sexual misconduct by Kruth, who denied any wrongdoing. One woman, a Charleston, S.C sommelier named Ivy Anderson, recalls taking Kruth’s champagne class when she was 22. Soon after, seeing that she had bought a ticket to GuildSomm’s 2016 holiday party in New York, he invited her to dinner. According to the Times, he also “invited her, she said, to stay in a Manhattan hotel with him and other court members.” But when she arrived at the hotel, Anderson noticed there was only one bed in Kruth’s room. He told Anderson he and his wife had “an open relationship” and that “sex between master sommeliers and candidates was common.” Anderson, who knew no one in New York, and had nowhere else to stay, recalls feeling that she had no choice but to go along when he initiated sex.

Alleged accounts of Kruth and other powerful men sexually manipulating women in the training program and leveraging their power are numerous throughout the report. Jane Lopes, a 35-year-old wine importer in New York, told the Times that after a dinner in 2013, Kruth “suddenly slid his fingers inside her underpants and kissed her breast.” Rachel van Til, a wine director near Detroit, recalls being flattered when Kruth reached out online to offer to help with her work. After some proffesional back and forth messages between the two, Kruth “sent her a link to a graphic oral-sex guide, and asked which position was her favorite.” Til filed a formal complaint with the court’s board, and Kruth was barred from judging any of her future exams.

But herein lies one of the educational organization’s most deeply rooted failures: the secrecy surrounding the final test to become a master sommelier. “Grading of the final test is cloaked in secrecy,” writes Moskin, “determined by examiners drawn from the senior ranks of master sommeliers.” These are sometimes the very same sommeliers weaponizing their power to harass, abuse and rape female students and those adjacent to them in the industry. Many of the women interviewed by the Times say that they believed interacting with — and sometimes sleeping with — these men was the only way to advance in their field.

Alexandra Fox recalls receiving an unprompted message in 2011 from Matthew Citriglia, a board member on the court from 2005 to 2017. Fox shared with the Times that Citriglia told her in his message that he was coming to Tampa, Florida for “a group dinner for wine professionals.” Only, no one else showed up for the “group dinner” and Citriglia made a pass at Fox when dinner was over. According to the Times reporting:

Mr. Citriglia apologized repeatedly, Ms. Fox said, and she agreed to take a class he was teaching a few weeks later in Cleveland. One night, she slept with a fellow student; when Mr. Citriglia found out the next morning, he closed the classroom door in her face as the class watched. Months later, concerned that he might be an examiner on future exams, she reached out to clear the air; he never responded, she said. “I never did anything further toward certification,” said Ms. Fox, 51.

Reached for comment, Citrigilia told the Times that he did “not agree with the accusations.”

Women who are shut out of the upper echelon of the wine world aren’t only losing access to a respected title or a dream career; There’s the loss of income, too. Master sommeliers score all sorts of glitzy brand partnerships and consulting gigs, and command an average annual income of $164,000 and a median consulting rate of $1,000 per day, according to a 2017 internal survey of the organization.

The Times reporting implicated men at every level of the organization. More than a dozen women told the Times that in the presence of Fred Dame, the court’s co-founder and honorary “chair emeritus,” they were subjected to sexual innuendo and unwanted touching. Dame did not respond to the Times request for comment. Kate Ham, who worked at Verve in Manhattan in 2018, recalls a traumatizing experience with an unnamed master sommelier. After agreeing to have a cocktail with the master sommelier who she met at a company party, “[t]he next thing she said she remembers is waking up in a strange bed, fighting back as he raped her.” Ham is no longer training for the master sommelier title, and tells the Times that she has “no desire to be tested and judged by these people.”

In response to questions from the Times, the court said that it expects members to “uphold the highest standards of professional conduct and integrity at all times.” Just last month, the organization opened an anonymous hotline to report ethical violations. But considering the damage done by countless representatives of the court and master sommeliers across the country, and the careers that have already been bulldozed and gaslit, it seems like much too little, much too late.

from Eater - All https://ift.tt/35OHF0C https://ift.tt/2TDwbrb

K.Decha/Shutterstock

According to the New York Times, harassment and abuse has pushed many women to leave the elite GuildSomm program and, in some cases, quit the industry entirely

In the wine world, perhaps no title is more coveted than that of master sommelier. But the New York Times has uncovered a pattern of harassment, sexual abuse, and rape perpetrated by master sommeliers and members of the title-granting organization, which has traumautized and made life near impossible for women who train for the title. Included in Julia Moskin’s Times report are accounts of women who were harassed so intensely that they stopped training entirely.

In the United States, the master somm title is awarded to those who endure years of study through GuildSomm, the educational branch of the Americas chapter of the Court of Master Sommeliers. According to the Times, the educational branch of the organization has seen a massive influx of students since 2012, following the Netflix release of Somm, a documentary that follows the grueling process of training for the test. While many of the 12,000 members of the GuildSomm community are young women, only 24 of the 155 people who have achieved master sommelier status since 1997 have been women.

One of the experts featured in that documentary is Geoff Kruth, one of the court’s leading educators. Kruth is also the founder and president of GuildSomm. In the Times reporting, 11 women recounted experiences of sexual misconduct by Kruth, who denied any wrongdoing. One woman, a Charleston, S.C sommelier named Ivy Anderson, recalls taking Kruth’s champagne class when she was 22. Soon after, seeing that she had bought a ticket to GuildSomm’s 2016 holiday party in New York, he invited her to dinner. According to the Times, he also “invited her, she said, to stay in a Manhattan hotel with him and other court members.” But when she arrived at the hotel, Anderson noticed there was only one bed in Kruth’s room. He told Anderson he and his wife had “an open relationship” and that “sex between master sommeliers and candidates was common.” Anderson, who knew no one in New York, and had nowhere else to stay, recalls feeling that she had no choice but to go along when he initiated sex.

Alleged accounts of Kruth and other powerful men sexually manipulating women in the training program and leveraging their power are numerous throughout the report. Jane Lopes, a 35-year-old wine importer in New York, told the Times that after a dinner in 2013, Kruth “suddenly slid his fingers inside her underpants and kissed her breast.” Rachel van Til, a wine director near Detroit, recalls being flattered when Kruth reached out online to offer to help with her work. After some proffesional back and forth messages between the two, Kruth “sent her a link to a graphic oral-sex guide, and asked which position was her favorite.” Til filed a formal complaint with the court’s board, and Kruth was barred from judging any of her future exams.

But herein lies one of the educational organization’s most deeply rooted failures: the secrecy surrounding the final test to become a master sommelier. “Grading of the final test is cloaked in secrecy,” writes Moskin, “determined by examiners drawn from the senior ranks of master sommeliers.” These are sometimes the very same sommeliers weaponizing their power to harass, abuse and rape female students and those adjacent to them in the industry. Many of the women interviewed by the Times say that they believed interacting with — and sometimes sleeping with — these men was the only way to advance in their field.

Alexandra Fox recalls receiving an unprompted message in 2011 from Matthew Citriglia, a board member on the court from 2005 to 2017. Fox shared with the Times that Citriglia told her in his message that he was coming to Tampa, Florida for “a group dinner for wine professionals.” Only, no one else showed up for the “group dinner” and Citriglia made a pass at Fox when dinner was over. According to the Times reporting:

Mr. Citriglia apologized repeatedly, Ms. Fox said, and she agreed to take a class he was teaching a few weeks later in Cleveland. One night, she slept with a fellow student; when Mr. Citriglia found out the next morning, he closed the classroom door in her face as the class watched. Months later, concerned that he might be an examiner on future exams, she reached out to clear the air; he never responded, she said. “I never did anything further toward certification,” said Ms. Fox, 51.

Reached for comment, Citrigilia told the Times that he did “not agree with the accusations.”

Women who are shut out of the upper echelon of the wine world aren’t only losing access to a respected title or a dream career; There’s the loss of income, too. Master sommeliers score all sorts of glitzy brand partnerships and consulting gigs, and command an average annual income of $164,000 and a median consulting rate of $1,000 per day, according to a 2017 internal survey of the organization.

The Times reporting implicated men at every level of the organization. More than a dozen women told the Times that in the presence of Fred Dame, the court’s co-founder and honorary “chair emeritus,” they were subjected to sexual innuendo and unwanted touching. Dame did not respond to the Times request for comment. Kate Ham, who worked at Verve in Manhattan in 2018, recalls a traumatizing experience with an unnamed master sommelier. After agreeing to have a cocktail with the master sommelier who she met at a company party, “[t]he next thing she said she remembers is waking up in a strange bed, fighting back as he raped her.” Ham is no longer training for the master sommelier title, and tells the Times that she has “no desire to be tested and judged by these people.”

In response to questions from the Times, the court said that it expects members to “uphold the highest standards of professional conduct and integrity at all times.” Just last month, the organization opened an anonymous hotline to report ethical violations. But considering the damage done by countless representatives of the court and master sommeliers across the country, and the careers that have already been bulldozed and gaslit, it seems like much too little, much too late.

from Eater - All https://ift.tt/35OHF0C via Blogger https://ift.tt/2TBg0L1