#Florida law unauthorized occupancy | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

socialjusticeartshare · 4 years ago

Text

Thousands of Migrant Children Detained in Resumption of Trump-Era Policies

President Biden vowed to create a humane approach to immigration. But thousands of children who crossed the border alone are being confined in government shelters.

LOS ANGELES — Thousands of unaccompanied migrant children have been making their way to the southwestern border in recent weeks, presenting a new challenge for the Biden administration as it strives to create a humanitarian approach to unauthorized immigration.

Most of the children, who are arriving from Central America by the hundreds each day, are being placed under Covid-19 quarantine for 10 days and then shuttled to shelters around the country — prompting complaints that President Biden is returning to one of the most controversial practices of the Trump administration, the extended detention of migrant children.

In the last week, the Border Patrol intercepted more than 2,000 young migrants traveling without adults, most of them in their teens but some as young as 6. There is widespread concern that their numbers in coming months could break the record set in May 2019, when 11,000 underage migrants were encountered by the Border Patrol.

“We are seeing minors up and down the line. In South Texas, we are being hammered,” said one Homeland Security official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to talk publicly about the situation.

The arrival of unaccompanied children in large numbers compounds a difficult situation already in the making, with migrant families and single adults arriving at the border in ever larger numbers in recent months.

Many migrants — not all — are being turned back by U.S. authorities under an emergency public health law invoked by former President Donald J. Trump at the onset of the coronavirus pandemic. But the Biden administration has decided not to refuse entry to minors, and they are now crowding border processing facilities and straining government shelters.

Human rights groups have criticized the decision to hold children in detention during the weeks or months it takes to place them with relatives, a policy they say harks back to the Trump administration’s construction of tent camps along the border to hold an overflow of migrant children.

Last week, the Biden administration reopened a temporary shelter in Carrizo Springs, Texas, to house up to 700 migrant teenagers. The shelter, which faced a barrage of criticism, was closed in July 2019 after the number of children arriving at the border sharply declined.

“It seems this administration can’t think their way through to a new way to handle the situation,” said Joshua Rubin, an activist with Witness at the Border, which was preparing to stage protests outside a soon-to-reopen migrant children’s center in Florida. “Spending time in these large, impersonal places traumatizes them.”

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat from New York who was a longtime critic of the Trump administration’s immigration policies, said on Twitterthat “this is not okay, never has been okay, never will be okay — no matter the administration or party.”

Your Coronavirus Tracker: We'll send you the latest data for places you care about each day.

Critics of the administration’s policies say most of the children arrive with the address and phone number of a relative in the United States and should be allowed to promptly join their families. Covid-19 quarantines are not necessary for children who test negative for the virus at the border, they say.

Pressure on the border had waned after the Trump administration put into place a bevy of policies that effectively blocked migrants from entering the United States to request asylum.

Within days of taking office, Mr. Biden swiftly signed a series of executive orders to reverse several of those measures. But the pressure seems to be escalating before his administration has had time to make the preparations it says are needed to manage a substantial number of new arrivals — ramping up border facilities, adding to the staff and coordinating with Mexico. The latest arrivals are fueled in part by deteriorating conditions in Central America and perceptions by migrants that they will receive a friendlier reception from Mr. Biden.

“The reality is, we had to pull the pin out of Trump’s brutal policies, and Biden is trying to do it in a responsible, sequenced way,” said Seth Stodder, a former assistant secretary of homeland security in the Obama administration. “But some of the dynamics are not in his control.”

The pandemic has exacerbated the challenge.

The Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement, which is responsible for overseeing the care of migrant children who arrive alone, operates a shelter network with 13,000 beds around the country. To comply with Covid-19 protocols, the agency has reduced the facilities’ occupancy to 60 percent. At least one shelter operator said his network was adhering to that capacity.

Faced with a housing crunch, the agency this week opened the temporary emergency shelter at Carrizo Springs and is reportedly preparing to reopen an even larger facility, in Homestead, Fla., which inspectors previously had deemed unhealthy and unsafe for children. A search is underway across federal property for places where additional shelters can be erected.

These shelters have been criticized because they generally hold hundreds of children in soft-sided structures, such as tents, that do not have the amenities of longer-term shelters, which are licensed and inspected.

“If they haven’t done a substantial remodel, they are opening a place like Homestead that has dangerous conditions for children,” said Hope Frye, a lawyer who was a member of an inspection team that visited in 2019.

Shelter operators around the country said they have been told that the Homestead facility would be reopened, but a Health and Human Services official said the agency had not made a formal decision yet. “We are not going to take any shortcuts,” the official said. “We are not going to put kids in dangerous situations.”

By law, the government cannot keep migrant children in holding facilities at the border for more than 72 hours; it must either transfer them to a shelter or release them. The Homeland Security official said many children in recent weeks have been stranded in the border processing centers for longer. “We can only get them out of our care as fast as H.H.S. can accept them,” the official said.

During the surge of Central American migrants in 2019, the Trump administration came under attack after child welfare inspectors found that overcrowding had turned the temporary shelters into filthy, dehumanizing environments where children suffered neglect.

“Children must be swiftly transferred to state-licensed shelters for children, as required by law, and not detained for weeks in Border Patrol facilities that are fundamentally inappropriate and unsafe for children,” said Neha Desai, director of immigration at the National Center for Youth Law in Oakland, Calif. She is one of the lawyers charged with ensuring that the government follows standards for migrant children established by a 1997 court settlement decree, known as the Flores agreement.

Once the children are in shelters, the Office of Refugee Resettlement arranges to send them to family members, following guidelines to make sure they are not released to traffickers and will be well cared for in their new homes. But releases in recent weeks have been delayed by a requirement that the young migrants remain in quarantine for 10 days and twice test negative for the coronavirus.

During a news briefing this week, Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, conceded that the administration faced a “tough choice.”

Their options are to send children back to danger in their home countries or to families in the United States who have not been properly vetted, she said.

“Our best option, in our view, is to get these kids processed through H.H.S. facilities where there are Covid protocols in place, where they are safe, where they can have access to education and medical care,” Ms. Psaki said.

In an attempt to expedite releases and free up beds, the government advised shelter operators in a memo this week that it would pay airfare for young migrants to join sponsors in cases where families could not pay for tickets themselves. The government said it would also pay airfare for an escort when necessary.

Family members who serve as sponsors have long been required to pay transportation costs, though the requirement was temporarily waived by the Obama administration in 2016. Paying airfare, in the end, may be cheaper than holding children: Costs at a temporary emergency shelter like Carrizo Springs average about $700 per child a day because of the need to install infrastructure like a kitchen, generators and showers.

The United States began to see a significant increase in the number of unaccompanied children arriving from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras in 2011, many of them facing threats of violence from gangs. Those problems continue to plague the region. Hurricanes battered Guatemala and Honduras recently, and climate change has rendered land less productive, further pushing people to journey to the United States in a gamble for a better life.

This year, shelter operators said they expected that the numbers of young people could dwarf what was seen during the Obama and Trump administrations.

The Trump administration faced widespread criticism for summarily deporting minors who had arrived at the border without an adult. In November, a federal judge in the District of Columbia prohibited such expulsions, but an appeals court stayed the ruling last month.

Mr. Biden opted not to resume the expulsions, a decision that was applauded by immigrant advocates and essentially opened the floodgates.

“If Trump hadn’t expelled all these children, the arrivals would have been staggered and we wouldn’t be where we are now,” Ms. Frye said.

Migrant families, expecting a more relaxed border policy, began gathering on the Mexican side of the border even before Mr. Biden took office. His announcement that the public health emergency would not be lifted, and that adults would not be allowed to enter the country in large numbers, did not dissuade them.

Upon release from Customs and Border Protection custody, families are dropped off at a bus station in Brownsville, Texas, where they are tested for the coronavirus.Ilana Panich-Linsman for The New York Times

Since U.S. border authorities began processing migrant families in small numbers this month along the Texas border, thousands of people who had been turned back elsewhere, from as far away as Tijuana, have flocked to the Mexican towns near those border posts, hoping to apply for asylum.

Aid groups are rushing to try to help provide shelter and supplies for the stranded families.

One memo circulating among volunteers laid out the problem clearly: “DIAPERS ARE NEEDED EVERYWHERE.”

Article Source

#migrant children #separated families

0 notes

ericfruits · 4 years ago

Text

Carolina In My Mind

As I have previously mentioned, I am an unabashed fan of the bar discipline transparency of the web page of the North Carolina State Bar.

One the the unique features are periodic reports of the Office of Counsel and the Disciplinary Hearing Commission.

The July 2020 Office of Counsel report offers a treasure trove of information that includes summaries of recent decisions and pending matters.

Among the pending cases

Blitzer, of Reidsville, was the elected district attorney of Rockingham County. Blitzer pled guilty in Wake County Superior Court to misdemeanor willful failure to discharge duties. In August 2017, the Chair of the DHC entered an order of interim suspension of his law license. It is alleged that while serving as the District Attorney, Blitzer benefitted from his wife’s State employment knowing that she did not perform any meaningful work for the benefit of the State; personally took, and asked staff to take, online academic classes for his wife on State time; and failed to provide discovery in criminal cases. Hearing has not been scheduled.

Megaro, of Orlando, Florida, represented two clients with IQs in the 50s, both of whom were sentenced to death and imprisoned for decades after being wrongfully convicted of the rape and murder of a child. They have now been exonerated. It is alleged that Megaro embezzled his clients’ money, charged a “nonrefundable” fee, charged an excessive fee, made misrepresentations to his clients, made misrepresentations to tribunals, aided others in the unauthorized practice of law, and did not act with diligence. Hearing was continued and has not been rescheduled.

Flint, of Charlotte, was found guilty by a jury in federal court in California of entering an airport area in violation of security requirements, a felony. Flint was sentenced to fourteen months in prison. In October 2019, the chair of the DHC entered an order of interim suspension of his law license. It is alleged that Flint was convicted of a felony reflecting adversely on his fitness as a lawyer, presented false diplomatic credentials to TSA agents to avoid having his bag searched before boarding an airplane, and falsely asserted that he was a diplomat for the International Human Rights Commission. The case is stayed until Flint is released from prison. Hearing has not been scheduled.

Among the pending appeals

Springs, of Mecklenburg County, posted on her YouTube channel a link to the video deposition of an opposing party’s representative. The DHC concluded that posting the video served no substantial purpose other than to humiliate or embarrass the witness. Springs maintained the link on her YouTube channel for eleven months after a federal court ordered her to remove it. The DHC reprimanded her. She appealed. The State Bar filed its brief on March 27. All briefs have been filed. The Court will decide the case on August 12 without oral argument. The Order of Discipline is stayed pending appeal.

One of the occupational hazards of being a bar prosecutor is getting sued by unhappy complainants and accused attorneys.

North Carolina seems to get more than its share of these suits and the report describes each of them.

For example

Allen was convicted of murder in Durham. His conviction was vacated in one of the cases that led to removal of Tracey Cline as Durham County District Attorney. Allen has filed multiple pro se complaints in federal court against numerous parties directly and indirectly associated with his case. This lawsuit alleges that the State Bar and several of its employees violated his civil rights because his grievances were not properly considered. The trial court dismissed the complaint on its own motion following a frivolity review. Allen gave notice of appeal. On April 17, 2020, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the trial court per curiam. Allen filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on April 20. The Court’s docket shows that the petition will be considered at its September 29, 2020 conference.

Polidi surrendered his law license and was disbarred by the Wake County Superior Court in 2014. In July 2017, he filed this action against Carmen Bannon, State Bar deputy counsel, in her official and individual capacities. Polidi makes vague, generalized allegations relating to his decision to surrender his law license and consent to be disbarred. He has never served Bannon. If he does, the OOC will represent her.

This is a purported tort claim alleging that the State Bar failed to “stop, act or prosecute” Daniel Zamora. Arroyo has previously filed other claims in state and federal courts against the State Bar which have been dismissed. The deputy commissioner dismissed the claims with prejudice on June 29, 2020. Arroyo appealed. The Attorney General represents the State Bar.

Exum filed a grievance, which was dismissed. Exum demanded an explanation for the dismissal. The State Bar sent Exum a letter in response. Exum alleges that the letter was unsolicited, that it contains false and unfounded information about him, and that it served no purpose other than to embarrass and harass him. The OAH dismissed Exum’s claim. He appealed to Wake County Superior Court. No hearing has been scheduled. The Attorney General represents the State Bar.

And a fond farewell to my erstwhile NOBC colleague Root Edmonson

Despite my many efforts, Root will retire on August 7 and Mary will retire on September 30. Root and Mary have spent illustrious careers serving the people of North Carolina and the legal profession. They are beloved by their colleagues in the OOC.

(Mike Frisch)

https://ift.tt/3jfWWwF

#IFTTT #Feedly

0 notes

solacekames · 8 years ago

Photo

SOLD FOR PARTS

One of the most dangerous companies in the U.S. took advantage of immigrant workers. Then, when they got hurt or fought back, it used America’s laws against them.

by Michael Grabell, ProPublica, May 1, 2017 This story was co-published with The New Yorker. / Leer en Español.

BY LATE AFTERNOON, the smell from the Case Farms chicken plant in Canton, Ohio, is like a pungent fog, drifting over a highway lined with dollar stores and auto parts shops. When the stink is at its ripest, it means that the day’s 180,000 chickens have been slaughtered, drained of blood, stripped of feathers and carved into pieces — and it’s time for workers like Osiel López Pérez to clean up. On April 7, 2015, Osiel put on bulky rubber boots and a white hard hat, and trained a pressurized hose on the plant’s stainless steel machines, blasting off the leftover grease, meat and blood.

A Guatemalan immigrant, Osiel was just weeks past his 17th birthday, too young by law to work in a factory. A year earlier, after gang members shot his mother and tried to kidnap his sisters, he left his home, in the mountainous village of Tectitán, and sought asylum in the United States. He got the job at Case Farms with a driver’s license that said his name was Francisco Sepulveda, age 28. The photograph on the ID was of his older brother, who looked nothing like him, but nobody asked any questions.

Osiel sanitized the liver giblet chiller, a tublike contraption that cools chicken innards by cycling them through a near-freezing bath, then looked for a ladder, so that he could turn off the water valve above the machine. As usual, he said, there weren’t enough ladders to go around, so he did as a supervisor had shown him: He climbed up the machine, onto the edge of the tank, and reached for the valve. His foot slipped; the machine automatically kicked on. Its paddles grabbed his left leg, pulling and twisting until it snapped at the knee and rotating it 180 degrees, so that his toes rested on his pelvis. The machine “literally ripped off his left leg,” medical reports said, leaving it hanging by a frayed ligament and a five-inch flap of skin. Osiel was rushed to Mercy Medical Center, where surgeons amputated his lower leg.

Back at the plant, Osiel’s supervisors hurriedly demanded workers’ identification papers. Technically, Osiel worked for Case Farms’ closely affiliated sanitation contractor, and suddenly the bosses seemed to care about immigration status. Within days, Osiel and several others — all underage and undocumented — were fired.

Though Case Farms isn’t a household name, you’ve probably eaten its chicken. Each year, it produces nearly a billion pounds for customers such as Kentucky Fried Chicken, Popeyes, and Taco Bell. Boar’s Head sells its chicken as deli meat in supermarkets. Since 2011, the U.S. government has purchased nearly $17 million worth of Case Farms chicken, mostly for the federal school lunch program.

Case Farms plants are among the most dangerous workplaces in America. In 2015 alone, federal workplace safety inspectors fined the company nearly $2 million, and in the past seven years it has been cited for 240 violations. That’s more than any other company in the poultry industry except Tyson Foods, which has more than 30 times as many employees. David Michaels, the former head of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, called Case Farms “an outrageously dangerous place to work.” Four years before Osiel lost his leg, Michaels’s inspectors had seen Case Farms employees standing on top of machines to sanitize them and warned the company that someone would get hurt. Just a week before Osiel’s accident, an inspector noted in a report that Case Farms had repeatedly taken advantage of loopholes in the law and given the agency false information. “The company has a 25-year track record of failing to comply with federal workplace safety standards,” Michaels said.

Case Farms has built its business by recruiting some of the world’s most vulnerable immigrants, who endure harsh and at times illegal conditions that few Americans would put up with. When these workers have fought for higher pay and better conditions, the company has used their immigration status to get rid of vocal workers, avoid paying for injuries and quash dissent. Thirty years ago, Congress passed an immigration law mandating fines and even jail time for employers who hire unauthorized workers, but trivial penalties and weak enforcement have allowed employers to evade responsibility. Under President Obama, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agreed not to investigate workers during labor disputes. Advocates worry that President Trump, whose administration has targeted unauthorized immigrants, will scrap those agreements, emboldening employers to simply call ICE anytime workers complain.

While the president stirs up fears about Latino immigrants and refugees, he ignores the role that companies, particularly in the poultry and meatpacking industry, have played in bringing those immigrants to the Midwest and the Southeast. The newcomers’ arrival in small, mostly white cities experiencing industrial decline in turn helped foment the economic and ethnic anxieties that brought Trump to office. Osiel ended up in Ohio by following a generation of indigenous Guatemalans, who have been the backbone of Case Farms’ workforce since 1989, when a manager drove a van down to the orange groves and tomato fields around Indiantown, Florida, and came back with the company’s first load of Mayan refugees...

https://www.propublica.org/article/case-farms-chicken-industry-immigrant-workers-and-american-labor-law

#amputation tw #immigration #case farms

3 notes · View notes

anthonyekoehler · 6 years ago

Text

Law Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC

Debt collectors like theLaw Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC cannot harass you over a debt. You have rights under the law, and we will stop the harassment once and for all.

THE BEST PART IS…

If theLaw Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC violated the law, you will get money damages and they will pay your attorney’s fees and costs. You won’t owe us a dime for our services. Plus, some of our clients also receive debt relief and cleaned-up credit reports. You have nothing to lose! Call us today at 888-572-0176 for a free consultation.

Who is the Law Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC?

TheLaw Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC, despite its name, is a debt collection agency based in Livonia, Michigan. The agency was founded in 2009 and reportedly has fewer than ten employees, but has been the subject of numerous complaints and lawsuits for aggressive collection tactics and other violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

The Law Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC’s Address, Phone Number, and Contact Information

TheLaw Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC is located at 13750 Merriman Rd, Livonia, MI 48150. The main telephone number is 734-425-1903 and the main website is https://drclawmi.com/

Phone Numbers Used by the Law Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC

Like many debt collection agencies, theLaw Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLCmay use many different phone numbers to contact debtors. For an advanced search, visit www.agrussconsumerlaw.com/ and click “Number Search” in the “Lookup” dropdown menu. Here are some phone numbers theLaw Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLCmay be calling you from:

248-327-4326

248-479-1243

248-876-3437

734-425-1903

734-456-6047

The Law Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC Lawsuits

If you want to know just how unhappy consumers are withtheLaw Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC, take a look at the lawsuits filed against the agency on the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (“PACER��). PACER is the U.S.’s federal docket which lists federal complaints filed against a wide range of companies. A search for the agency will display 4 active lawsuits filed which involve violations of consumer rights and/or the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

The Law Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC Complaints

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) is a federal law which applies to everyone in the United States. In other words, everyone is protected under the FDCPA, and this Act is a laundry list of what debt collectors can and cannot do while collecting a debt, as well as things they must do while collecting debt. If theLaw Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLCis harassing you over a debt, you have rights under the FDCPA.

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) protects you from robocalls, which are those annoying, automated, recorded calls that computers make all day long. You can tell it’s a robocall because either no one responds on the other end of the line, or there is a delay when you pick up the phone before a live person responds. You can receive $500 per call if theLaw Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLCviolates the TCPA. Have you received a message from this agency that sounds pre-recorded or cut-off at the beginning or end? These are tell-tale signs that the message is pre-recorded, and if you have these messages on your cell phone, you may have a TCPA case against the agency.

The Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) protects electronic payments that are deducted from bank accounts. If theLaw Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLCtook unauthorized deductions from your bank account, you may have an EFTA claim against the agency. TheLaw Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC, like most collection agencies, wants to set up recurring payments from consumers; imagine how much money it can earn if hundreds, even thousands, of consumers electronically pay them $50 – $100 or more per month. If you agreed to this type of reoccurring payment, the agency must follow certain steps to comply with the EFTA. Did theLaw Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLCcontinue to take electronic payments after you told them to stop? Did they take more money from your checking account than you agreed to? If so, we can discuss your rights and potential case under the EFTA.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) works to ensure that no information reported to your credit report is false. In essence, it gives you the right to dispute those inaccuracies that you find on your credit report. We’ve handled many cases in which a debt collection agency reported debt on a consumer’s credit report to obtain leverage over the consumer. If theLaw Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLCis on your credit report, they may tell you that they’ll remove the debt from your credit report if you pay it; this is commonly known as “pay for delete.”If the original creditor is on your report rather than the debt collector, and you pay off the debt, both entities should accurately report this on your credit report.

Several states also have laws to provide its citizens an additional layer of protection. For example, if you live in California, Florida, Michigan, Montana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, or Wisconsin, you may be able to add a state-law claim to your federal law claim above. North Carolina, for example, has one of the most consumer-friendly statutes in the country: if you live in NC and are harassed over a debt, you may receive $500 – $4,000 in damages per violation. We work with a local counsel in NC and our NC clients have received some great results in debt collection harassment cases. If you live in North Carolina and are being harassed by a debt collector, you have leverage to obtain a great settlement.

How do we Use the Law to Help You?

We will use state and federal laws to immediately stop theLaw Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC’s debt collection. We will send a cease-and-desist letter to stop the harassment today, and if theLaw Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLCviolates the FDCPA, EFTA, FCRA, or any state law, you may be entitled to money damages. For example, under the FDCPA, you may receive up to $1,000 in damages plus actual damages. The FDCPA also has a fee-shift provision, which means the debt collector will pay your attorney’s fees and costs. If you have a TCPA case against the agency, we will handle it based on a contingency fee and you won’t pay us a dime unless you win.

THAT’S NOT ALL…

We have helped thousands of consumers stop phone calls. We know how to stop the harassment and get you money damages. Once again: you will not pay us a dime for our services. We will help you based on a fee-shift provision and/or contingency fee, and the debt collector will pay your attorney’s fees and costs.

What if the Law Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC is on my Credit Report?

Based on our experience, some debt collectors may credit-report, which means one may mark your credit report with the debt they are trying to collect. In addition to or instead of the debt collector, the original creditor may also be on your credit report in a separate entry, and it’s important to properly identify these entities because you will want both to update your credit report if or when you pay off the debt.

THE GOOD NEWS IS…

If theLaw Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLCis on your credit report, we can help you dispute it. Mistakes on your credit report can be very costly: along with causing you to pay higher interest rates, you may be denied credit, insurance, a rental home, a loan, or even a job because of these mistakes. Some mistakes may include someone else’s information on your credit report, inaccurate public records, stale collection accounts, or even being a victim of identity theft. If you have a mistake on your credit report, there is a process to dispute it, and my office will help you obtain your credit report and dispute any inaccurate information.

REMEMBER…

If a credit reporting agency violates its obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), you may be entitled to statutory damages up to $1,000, and the credit reporting agency will be required to fix the error. The FCRA also has a fee-shift provision, which means the credit reporting agency will pay your attorney’s fees and costs. You won’t owe us a dime for our services. We have helped hundreds of consumers fix inaccurate information on their credit reports, and we’re ready to help you, too.

Complaints against the Law Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC

Based on 10 reviews on Google, theLaw Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLCreceives a 1-out-of-5 rating. Here are some of the reviews on Google:

“Clearly a scam. I had a recorded message call me from a 248 number asking me to pay off an alleged debt, but not saying what the debt was for.”

“Clearly a scam, if you get a letter from here directly call whoever it says is charging you (for us it was a mysterious Beaumont Laboratories) and check in with them. Do not call any of the numbers they provide, they only lead to billing departments and/or someone who’s willing to create an entire storyline surrounding their claims.”

“Absolutely awful. They do not follow the laws and will try to intimidate you.”

Cases We’ve Handled Against the Law Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC

I think you’ll agree when we say that threats and harassment from collection agencies can be pretty intimidating. However, we can stop the harassment and get you money damages under the law, and the collection agency will pay your attorney’s fees and costs. Here are two cases we’ve handled against theLaw Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC:

Kanisha N. v. Law Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC – In September 2018, Kanisha of Wayne County, Michigan, filed a claim against the Law Offices of Donald Conrad for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Michigan Occupational Code (MOC). Complaints consisted of harassing phone calls, including at unlawful hours and after the plaintiff requested that the calls stop.

Maria M. v. Law Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC – In September 2018, Maria of Macomb County, Michigan, filed a claim against the Law Offices of Donald Conrad for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Michigan Occupational Code (MOC). Complaints consisted primarily of unlawfully disclosing the plaintiff’s debt-related information to an unauthorized person.

What Our Clients Say about Us

Agruss Law Firm has over 825 outstanding client reviews through Yotpo, an A+ BBB rating, and over 110 five-star reviews on Google. Here’s what some of our clients have to say about us:

“Michael Agruss handled two settlements for me with great results and he handled them quickly. He also settled my sister’s case quickly and now her debt is clear. I highly recommend Michael.”

“Agruss Law Firm was very helpful, they helped me solved my case regarding the unwanted calls. I would highly recommend them. Thank you very much Mike Agruss!”

“Agruss Law Firm was very helpful to me and my veteran father! We were harassed daily and even called names for a loan that was worthless! Agruss stepped in and not only did they stop harassing, they stopped calling all together!! Even settled it so I was paid back for the problems they caused!”

Can the Law Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC Sue Me?

Although anyone can sue anyone for any reason, we have not seen theLaw Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLCsue consumers, and it’s likely that the agency does not sue because they don’t always own the debt they are attempting to collect, and would also need to hire a lawyer, or use in-house counsel, to file a lawsuit. It’s also likely that the agency collects debt throughout the country, and it would be quite difficult to have lawyers, or a law firm, licensed in every state. However, there are collection agencies that do sue consumers; for example, Midland Credit Management is one of the largest junk-debt buyers, and it also collects and sues on debt. Still, it is less likely for a debt collector to sue you than for an original creditor to hire a lawyer or collection firm to sue you. If theLaw Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLChas threatened to sue you, contact Agruss Law Firm, LLC as soon as possible.

Can the Law Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC Garnish my Wages?

No, unless they have a judgment. If theLaw Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLChas not sued you, then the agency cannot get a judgment. Barring limited situations (usually involving debts owed to the government for student loans, taxes, etc.), a company must have a judgment in order to garnish someone’s wages. In short, we have not seen this agency file a lawsuit against a consumer, so the agency cannot garnish your wages, minus the exceptions listed above. If theLaw Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLChas threatened to garnish your wages, contact our office right away.

The Law Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC Settlement

If you want to settle a debt with the law Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC, ask yourself these questions first:

Do I really owe this debt?

Is this debt within the statute of limitations?

Is this debt on my credit report?

If I pay this debt, will theLaw Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLCremove it from my credit report?

If I pay this debt, will the original creditor remove it from my credit report?

If I pay this debt, will I receive confirmation in writing from theLaw Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLCfor the payment and settlement terms?

These are not the only things to consider when dealing with debt collectors. We are here to help you answer the questions above, and much more. Whether it’s harassment, settlement, pay-for-delete, or any other legal issue with the law Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC, we at Agruss Law Firm are here to help you.

Top Debt Collection Violations

Debt collection laws provide a laundry list of what collectors can and cannot do while collecting a debt. Based on our years of experience handling thousands of debt collection harassment cases, here’s what collection agencies most often do to violate the law:

Called you about a debt you do not owe.

Called you at work after you told them you cannot receive calls at work.

Left you a message without identifying the company’s name.

Left you a message without disclosing that the call is from a debt collector.

Called third-parties (family, friends, coworkers, or neighbors) even though the collection agency knows your contact information.

Disclosed to a third-party (family, friends, coworkers, or neighbors) that you owe a debt.

Contacted you after you said to stop calling.

Threatened you with legal action (such as a lawsuit or wage garnishment).

Called you before 8:00 AM or after 9:00 PM.

Continued to call you after you have told the collector you cannot pay the debt.

Communicated (phone or letter) with you after you filed for bankruptcy.

Failed to mark the debt on your credit report as disputed after you disputed the debt.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do I have to pay your fees and costs for helping me with my consumer rights case? We handle consumer rights cases based on a fee-shift provision and/or a contingency fee. That means either the other side pays your fees and costs, or we take a percentage of your recovery. Whether it’s a fee-shift case or a contingency-fee case, we don’t get paid unless you get paid, and you’ll never owe us a penny for our time.

What are the damages I can get under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act? If a collection agency violates any section of the FDCPA, you are entitled to damages up to $1,000.00. You may also be entitled to actual damages if the violation caused you out-of-pocket expenses. For example, if a collection agency threatens you with legal action to induce you to pay the debt, you may be able to get your payment back as actual damages.

What are the damages under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act? You can get $500 per robocall, or $1,500 per robocall if the robocalls were willful. In any type of settlement, Defendants often pay much less than $500 per call. However, if there are 50 calls at issue, even at $250 per call, your case could settle for $12,500.00.

What type of debt is covered under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act? Only consumer debt, such as personal, family, and household debts. For example, money you owe on a personal credit card, an auto loan, a medical bill, or a utility bill. The FDCPA does not cover debts you incurred to run a business, or debts regarding unpaid taxes, or traffic tickets.

Does the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act apply to banks or credit card companies? Only third-party debt collectors are bound by the FDCPA. Original creditors, such as banks and credit card companies, are not bound by the FDCPA.

Are there state laws that protect me from original creditors? Yes! Several states also have laws that provide its citizens an additional layer of protection. If you live in California, Connecticut, Florida, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Nevada, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, or Wisconsin, you have additional state-law rights.

Are mistakes on credit reports common? Yes! Are you one of the 40 million Americans who have a mistake on their credit report? Mistakes on your credit report can be very costly. Along with causing you to pay higher interest rates, you may be denied credit, insurance, a rental home, a loan, or even a job because of these mistakes. Some mistakes may include someone else’s information on your credit report, inaccurate public records, stale collection accounts, or maybe you were a victim of identity theft.

What do I do if I have a mistake on my credit report? If you have a mistake on your credit report, there is a process to dispute them. My office will help you pull your credit report and dispute any inaccurate information. If a credit reporting agency violates its obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), you may be entitled to statutory damages up to $1,000.00, plus the credit reporting agency will be required to fix the error. The FCRA also has a fee-shift provision, which means the credit reporting agency pays your attorney’s fees and costs. Therefore, you will not pay me a penny for my time.To speed up the process, please get a free copy of your credit report at annualcreditreport.com. You can also learn more about the FCRA and your rights at http://www.agrussconsumerlaw.com/practices/common-credit-report-errors/.

Share your Complaints against theLaw Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC Below

We encourage you to post your complaints about theLaw Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC.S haring your complaints against this agency can help other consumers understand what to do when this company starts calling. Sharing your experience may help someone else!

HERE’S THE DEAL!

If you are being harassed by theLaw Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLCover a debt, you may be entitled to money damages – up to $1,000 for harassment, and $500 – $1,500 for illegal robocalls. Under state and federal laws, we will help you based on a fee-shift provision and/or contingency fee, which means the debt-collector pays your attorney’s fees and costs. You won’t owe us a dime for our services. We have settled thousands of debt collection harassment cases, and we’re prepared to help you, too. Contact Agruss Law Firm at 888-572-0176 to stop the harassment once and for all.

The post Law Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC appeared first on Agruss Law Firm, LLC.

Law Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC published first on https://agrusslawfirmllc.tumblr.com

#Debt collection law #consumer law #Debt relief

0 notes

agrusslawfirmllc · 6 years ago

Text

Law Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC

Debt collectors like theLaw Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC cannot harass you over a debt. You have rights under the law, and we will stop the harassment once and for all.

THE BEST PART IS…

Who is the Law Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC?

The Law Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC’s Address, Phone Number, and Contact Information

TheLaw Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC is located at 13750 Merriman Rd, Livonia, MI 48150. The main telephone number is 734-425-1903 and the main website is https://drclawmi.com/

Phone Numbers Used by the Law Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC

248-327-4326

248-479-1243

248-876-3437

734-425-1903

734-456-6047

The Law Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC Lawsuits

If you want to know just how unhappy consumers are withtheLaw Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC, take a look at the lawsuits filed against the agency on the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (“PACER”). PACER is the U.S.’s federal docket which lists federal complaints filed against a wide range of companies. A search for the agency will display 4 active lawsuits filed which involve violations of consumer rights and/or the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

The Law Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC Complaints

How do we Use the Law to Help You?

THAT’S NOT ALL…

What if the Law Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC is on my Credit Report?

THE GOOD NEWS IS…

REMEMBER…

Complaints against the Law Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC

Based on 10 reviews on Google, theLaw Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLCreceives a 1-out-of-5 rating. Here are some of the reviews on Google:

“Clearly a scam. I had a recorded message call me from a 248 number asking me to pay off an alleged debt, but not saying what the debt was for.”

“Absolutely awful. They do not follow the laws and will try to intimidate you.”

Cases We’ve Handled Against the Law Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC

What Our Clients Say about Us

Agruss Law Firm has over 825 outstanding client reviews through Yotpo, an A+ BBB rating, and over 110 five-star reviews on Google. Here’s what some of our clients have to say about us:

“Michael Agruss handled two settlements for me with great results and he handled them quickly. He also settled my sister’s case quickly and now her debt is clear. I highly recommend Michael.”

“Agruss Law Firm was very helpful, they helped me solved my case regarding the unwanted calls. I would highly recommend them. Thank you very much Mike Agruss!”

Can the Law Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC Sue Me?

Can the Law Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC Garnish my Wages?

The Law Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC Settlement

If you want to settle a debt with the law Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC, ask yourself these questions first:

Do I really owe this debt?

Is this debt within the statute of limitations?

Is this debt on my credit report?

If I pay this debt, will theLaw Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLCremove it from my credit report?

If I pay this debt, will the original creditor remove it from my credit report?

If I pay this debt, will I receive confirmation in writing from theLaw Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLCfor the payment and settlement terms?

Top Debt Collection Violations

Called you about a debt you do not owe.

Called you at work after you told them you cannot receive calls at work.

Left you a message without identifying the company’s name.

Left you a message without disclosing that the call is from a debt collector.

Called third-parties (family, friends, coworkers, or neighbors) even though the collection agency knows your contact information.

Disclosed to a third-party (family, friends, coworkers, or neighbors) that you owe a debt.

Contacted you after you said to stop calling.

Threatened you with legal action (such as a lawsuit or wage garnishment).

Called you before 8:00 AM or after 9:00 PM.

Continued to call you after you have told the collector you cannot pay the debt.

Communicated (phone or letter) with you after you filed for bankruptcy.

Failed to mark the debt on your credit report as disputed after you disputed the debt.

Frequently Asked Questions

Share your Complaints against theLaw Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC Below

HERE’S THE DEAL!

The post Law Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC appeared first on Agruss Law Firm, LLC.

#Debt collection law #consumer law #debt relief agency

0 notes

maxwellyjordan · 6 years ago

Text

Judge Kavanaugh on work law

Charlotte Garden is an associate professor at Seattle University School of Law.

This post analyzes Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s most significant work-law opinions. Although several are already receiving attention and analysis – especially his dissent in a case that arose after a killer whale killed a trainer – Kavanaugh has drafted dozens of other opinions in labor and employment-discrimination cases. Overall, these opinions reflect that Kavanaugh tends to interpret narrowly the limits that work law places on employers, resulting in judicial and agency deference to employers’ decisions. For example, Kavanaugh has interpreted statutes or controlling Supreme Court cases in ways that exclude certain workers from coverage or bar certain types of claims. When he writes in cases in which he parts ways with his colleagues, it is often because he has a more employer-friendly view of the law than they do.

“Playing with dangerous animals”

SeaWorld of Florida v. Perez is already receiving significant attention. The case involved a penalty imposed on SeaWorld following a tragic incident in which a killer whale named Tilikum “grabbed [a trainer] and pulled her … into the pool, refusing to release her.” The trainer drowned; worse, this was the second time Tilikum had killed a trainer. The Department of Labor found, and the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission and a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed, that SeaWorld had violated OSHA’s general duty-clause. The majority held that the commission was not unreasonable in concluding that SeaWorld was aware of the danger posed by working with killer whales in general, and Tilikum in particular, and the company could have taken safety measures that would have lessened the risk to the trainer – including measures that SeaWorld had already implemented by the time the case reached the court.

Kavanaugh dissented, writing that the Department of Labor could not apply the Occupational Safety and Health Act to killer-whale performances (or sports events or entertainment shows). Kavanaugh’s argument was threefold: first, that the DOL had not previously taken jurisdiction over certain inherently dangerous jobs; second, that DOL “irrationally and arbitrarily distinguishe[d]” SeaWorld’s killer-whale show from the NFL or NASCAR; and third, that Congress did not intend OSHA to reach sports and entertainment.

Kavanaugh’s dissent is infused with the idea that employers should be free to decide to market an experience that is dangerous for workers, and workers should be free to participate, without interference from “paternalistic[]” regulators. (Here, there are certain parallels to Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion in the “frozen trucker” case, in which Gorsuch described the prospect of waiting in a dangerously cold, disabled truck for help to arrive as an “option” given by the driver’s employer.) For example, Kavanaugh began his opinion by asserting that “participants in [dangerous sports and other activities] want to take part … despite and occasionally because of the known risk of serious injury.” In contrast, he continued, the “bureaucracy at the U.S. Department of Labor has not traditionally been thought of as the proper body to decide whether to … separate the lions from the tamers at the circuit, or the like.” Later, in the course of expanding on the first of his reasons for reversing the DOL, Kavanaugh wrote that “playing with dangerous animals” was an inherent part of animal shows, and that it was largely up to “[m]anagement and participants” to “decide what their competition or show consists of and how to market it to spectators.”

Labor law cases

Kavanaugh has written a number of opinions reviewing National Labor Relations Board decisions; in many of these cases, he voted to reverse the board.

Agri Processor v. NLRB arose after a meat wholesaler refused to bargain with its employees’ newly elected union, claiming that the election was invalid because a number of the employees who voted in it were not authorized to work in the United States. The timing suggested that the employer may have investigated its employees’ immigration status because it was unhappy with the results of a union election; as the majority opinion, written by Judge David Tatel, noted, “the company claimed that after the election it put the Social Security numbers given by all the voting employees into the Social Security Administration’s online database and discovered that most of the numbers were either nonexistent or belonged to other people.”

The case turned on whether undocumented workers qualify as “employees” under the National Labor Relations Act, an issue that the Supreme Court answered affirmatively in 1984, in Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB. The Agri Processor majority held that Sure-Tan controlled, even though Congress had since amended immigration law (but not the NLRA) to prohibit employers from hiring unauthorized workers; Henderson wrote separately to criticize the outcome, but nonetheless agreed that “we must follow Sure-Tan[].” Kavanaugh dissented, characterizing the issue in the case as follows: “Their immigration status apparently unbeknownst to their employer, illegal immigrant workers voted in a union election and affected the election’s outcome. The employer later discovered that the workers were illegal … and sought to overturn the tainted union election.” In Kavanaugh’s view, Sure-Tan tied “the NLRA’s definition of ‘employee’ to the immigration laws’ prohibition or non-prohibition on employment of illegal immigrant workers.” In other words, he thought Sure-Tan required the court to reconcile the NLRA and immigration law by excluding from NLRA coverage anyone who could not legally be hired in the United States.

Kavanaugh also dissented in Island Architectural Woodwork v. NLRB, in which the court was charged with reviewing the NLRB’s conclusion that an employer, Island, had set up an alter ego in order to evade its obligation to bargain collectively. The new company, Verde, was managed by former employees of Island – including its owner’s two daughters, who also owned a majority stake in the new company. Verde also operated out of a building owned by Island (rent-free for a time), employed former Island employees, and worked with Island to produce a product for Island’s main customer. Further, none of these arrangements were memorialized in contracts until the NLRB began to investigate. That investigation was prompted when Island, whose employees were unionized, asked the union during collective bargaining to “waive any claim to represent workers at Verde.” The union refused, and then Island refused to agree to a CBA.

The board decided that Verde was an alter ego of Island, meaning the existing CBA should have applied to Verde’s employees, and that Island had committed an unfair labor practice by demanding that the union disclaim interest in Verde’s workers as a condition of reaching an agreement. The court majority held that the board’s conclusion was supported by substantial evidence. But Kavanaugh would have decided that the companies were not alter egos, because they lacked common ownership and management, did not share employees, and did not mingle funds. In light of those facts, Kavanaugh wrote that the countervailing considerations on which the board and the majority relied “[did] not remotely support a finding of alter ego status.”

Kavanaugh wrote majority opinions in three significant cases overturning the NLRB; of those, two were unanimous. The outlier was Verizon New England v. NLRB, in which Kavanaugh wrote an opinion in which Judges Karen Henderson and Sri Srinivasan each concurred in part. Verizon arose after a unionized employer ordered three employees to stop displaying pro-union picket signs in the windows of their cars, parked in the company lot. That order would have violated the NLRA, but the employer argued that the applicable collective-bargaining agreement waived the employees’ rights to display the signs. An arbitrator agreed, because the CBA stated that employees would not “picket[] … any of the Company’s premises.”

The union appealed that decision to the NLRB, which at the time upheld arbitral awards that were not “clearly repugnant” to the NLRA. Despite that deferential standard, the board overturned the award, reasoning that the CBA’s purported waiver was not “clear and unmistakable,” as it was required to be, because displaying a sign in a car lacked the “confrontational” aspect that characterizes picketing. Kavanaugh and Henderson voted to reverse the NLRB, with Kavanaugh writing that the “arbitration decision was far from egregiously wrong,” and that the NLRB had previously included stationary signs within the definition of “picket.” (Kavanaugh also interpreted the controlling legal standard in a way that was somewhat more deferential to the Board than did Henderson.) Srinivasan would have affirmed the NLRB’s decision, emphasizing the court’s obligation to defer to reasonable board decisions.

Kavanaugh wrote for a unanimous court, vacating board decisions in both Southern New England Telephone Co. v. NLRB and Venetian Casino Resort v. NLRB. In Southern New England, the court rejected as unreasonable an NLRB decision that AT&T Connecticut committed an unfair labor practice by banning employees from wearing union shirts that said “Inmate” and “Prisoner of AT$T.” Because the NLRA usually protects employees’ right to wear union shirts, the question was whether there were “special circumstances” that justified the ban. Of note, Kavanaugh seemed to limit the deference with which he reviewed the board’s decision, citing an earlier D.C. Circuit decision stating that the board’s “expertise is surely not at its peak in the realm of employer-customer relations.” Kavanaugh credited the employer’s assertion that it believed the shirts might harm its relationship with its customers over the board’s contrary conclusion. And in Venetian Casino, Kavanaugh held that an employer who called the police in good faith to report that union picketers were trespassing on its property was entitled to immunity from unfair-labor-practice liability under the First Amendment doctrine known as Noerr-Pennington immunity. (The court then remanded to determine whether the employer’s call was made in good faith.)

Kavanaugh sometimes wrote in affirmance of the board as well. In New York-New York, LLC v. NLRB, a unanimous panel upheld an NLRB decision that employers cannot “bar employees of an onsite contractor from distributing union-related handbills on the property.” (Henderson concurred to emphasize aspects of the decision, but also joined the majority opinion.) And United Food and Commercial Workers v. NLRB, another unanimous panel affirmed a board decision that employees working in a Wal-Mart meat department were no longer an appropriate bargaining unit once Wal-Mart made the decision to change the department’s responsibilities from cutting meat onsite to selling pre-cut packaged meat.

Finally, Kavanaugh reviewed labor arbitration decisions in a handful of cases. In National Postal Mail Handlers Union v. American Postal Workers Union, Kavanaugh wrote for the majority, enforcing an arbitrator’s “probably erroneous” decision that a jurisdictional dispute between two unions was arbitrable, in light of the deference due to labor arbitrators’ decisions. Then-Chief Judge David Sentelle dissented because, in his view, the award relied on the arbitrator’s “external legal theories” instead of drawing its essence from the contract, as required. And Kavanaugh vacated an arbitrator’s decision in United States Department of the Navy v. Federal Labor Relations Authority – a unanimous decision that turned on the court’s view that the arbitrator’s decision, which required the Navy to bargain with its employees’ union before discontinuing its practice of supplying bottled water, was inconsistent with statutory limits on unnecessary federal spending.

Employment-discrimination cases

Employment-discrimination plaintiffs often have a difficult time winning in federal court, as perhaps reflected in a number of Kavanaugh’s unanimous opinions affirming grants of summary judgment or motions to dismiss to employers in such cases. These cases include Adeyemi v. DC, Baloch v. Kempthorne, Brady v. Office of the Sergeant at Arms, Foote v. Moniz and Johnson v. Interstate Management Corp. Each of these cases was unanimous, although Judge Patricia Millett concurred in Johnson, which involved both discrimination and OSHA claims, indicating that she disagreed with how Kavanaugh characterized the record. In one other case, Jackson v. Gonzales, Kavanaugh wrote for the majority to affirm a grant of summary judgment for the defendant-employer, the federal Bureau of Prisons. Kavanaugh saw the case as a straightforward example of a more qualified candidate being chosen. But Judge Judith Rogers, dissenting, would have allowed the plaintiff-employee to argue to a jury that the employer’s late-stage identification of a hiring criterion that was not included in the original job listing reflected an attempt to conceal a hiring decision that was infected by racial bias.

Kavanaugh has also written opinions in a number of cases in which he diverged from his colleagues. These fall generally into two categories: first, cases in which Kavanaugh construed the applicable law more narrowly than his colleagues; and second, cases in which Kavanaugh concurred with his colleagues in reversing a grant of summary judgment for an employer, but would have adopted a more bright-line rule about what kinds of incidents can give rise to discrimination suits.

Narrow readings of discrimination law

On three occasions, Kavanaugh disagreed with one or more of his colleagues about the scope of anti-discrimination law. Miller v. Clinton concerned an employee who was fired from his job as a safety inspector at the U.S. embassy in Paris because he reached the age of 65. The State Department did not dispute that account, but argued that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act did not apply to Americans working for the government overseas. Although the ADEA itself does not exempt such workers from its coverage, the government relied on 22 U.S.C. § 2669(c), a provision of the U.S. Code that governs the use of funds by the Secretary of State. That provision states that the secretary may use funds to:

employ individuals or organizations, by contract, for services abroad … and such contracts are authorized to be negotiated, the terms of the contracts to be prescribed, and the work to be performed, where necessary, without regard to such statutory provisions as relate to the negotiation, making, and performance of contracts and performance of work in the United States.

In an opinion by Judge Merrick Garland, the majority held that the most natural reading of this language was as an exemption from certain government-wide procurement regulations, and not from discrimination law. Among other reasons, the majority wrote that the key language had been copied nearly verbatim from an earlier statute, the Foreign Service Buildings Act of 1926, which had been interpreted that way. The majority also thought it unlikely that Congress would exempt a class of employees from anti-discrimination law using such vague language, and viewed the ADEA not as a statute that is “related” to the “performance of work,” but rather as one that bans discrimination on a basis that is “unrelated to the actual performance of work.”

Dissenting, Kavanaugh wrote that Miller’s contract “plainly” fell within the relevant exception because the ADEA “is a ‘statutory provision[]’ that relates to the ‘performance of contracts and performance of work in the United States.’” Kavanaugh viewed this outcome as consistent with congressional policy designed to remove an impediment to hiring U.S. workers – that is, the obligation to comply with laws that would not apply to non-U.S. workers. Kavanaugh also repeatedly took the majority to task, writing that the result was “not a close call,” because the statute was “not remotely ambiguous or difficult to apply in this case.”

In Howard v. Office of the Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives, the court considered whether the Constitution’s speech or debate clause barred an employment discrimination and retaliation suit against the Office of the Chief Administrator. The majority allowed the suit to proceed, reasoning that the plaintiff’s theory of the case did not require the factfinder to probe the content of speech covered by the clause – that is, “legislative acts or the motivation for legislative acts.” That was because the plaintiff did not dispute the underlying sequence of events that the OCAO stated led to her firing; instead, she simply argued that OCAO used those events as a pretext for firing her because of her race.

In contrast, Kavanaugh would have dismissed the plaintiff’s suit based on the likelihood that in order to defend the case effectively, the OCAO would be “forced to produce [] evidence of legislative activities.” Kavanaugh also implied that discrimination plaintiffs would be better off with no federal case than a limited one: “A plaintiff saddled with a stipulation that she was really lousy at performing her legislative duties is not a plaintiff who is likely to even get to trial, much less to win, in a discrimination case. So the majority’s opinion’s promise of a federal court forum in these circumstances is a fairly empty promise.”

A similar dynamic played out in Rattigan v. Holder, a Title VII case concerning the scope of Department of the Navy v. Egan, which bars courts from reviewing employment actions based on denials or revocations of security clearances. Tatel, writing for the majority, held that Egan applied to decisions by the FBI’s Security Division, but not to line employees’ decisions to transmit knowingly false information to the division. Kavanaugh, however, read Egan to bar all claims related to any aspect of a potential security-clearance revocation, including reporting. Citing separation-of-powers concerns identified in Egan, Kavanaugh urged the government to file a petition for rehearing en banc. (The government later did so, but the petition was denied.)

Events giving rise to discrimination claims

Although the two cases in this section are thematically similar, the first stands out because Kavanaugh identified it in his Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire as one of the 10 most significant cases in which he participated. In Ayissi-Etoh v. Fannie Mae, the plaintiff alleged multiple instances of employment discrimination and retaliation, including that a company vice president had once yelled at him to “get out of my office n—–.” In a per curiam opinion, the court reversed a grant of summary judgment to the employer, writing that the “get out of my office” comment “might well have been sufficient to establish a hostile work environment,” but that in any event, that incident combined with Ayissi-Etoh’s other allegations certainly did. Kavanaugh concurred, writing that “being called the n-word by a supervisor … suffices by itself to establish a racially hostile work environment,” because “[n]o other word in the English language so powerfully or instantly calls to mind our country’s long and brutal struggle to overcome racism and discrimination against African-Americans.”

And in Ortiz-Diaz v. US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Kavanaugh concurred with an opinion by Rogers reversing a grant of summary judgment for the employer. The case turned in part on whether an employer’s refusal to grant a requested job transfer qualified as an adverse employment action that could form the basis of a Title VII lawsuit. Rogers answered that question “yes” under the circumstances of the case, but Kavanaugh wrote separately to suggest that the court should hold in an appropriate case that discriminatory transfers or transfer denials could always qualify as adverse employment actions.

Kavanaugh’s other work-law cases

Finally, Kavanaugh wrote opinions in a handful of important cases that are not easily grouped.

First, Kavanaugh dissented in National Federation of Federal Employees v. Vilsack, a Fourth Amendment challenge to suspicionless drug testing of all employees working at Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers run by the Forest Service, a unit within the Department of Agriculture. The majority held that the department had failed to identify any particular need for the testing, such as evidence of a drug problem among staff. However, Kavanaugh would have affirmed summary judgment for the employer, writing that “common sense” supported the program because “[i]n residential schools for at-risk youth … it seems eminently sensible to implement a narrowly targeted drug testing program for the schools’ employees. … [I]ndeed, it would seem negligent not to test.” Conversely, Kavanaugh downplayed employees’ privacy concerns about the testing, which he described as entailing “only a urine sample produced in private” that would “reveal[] only whether the employee has used drugs.” (Orin Kerr also wrote about this decision in his post about Kavanaugh’s Fourth Amendment cases, here.)

Second, Kavanaugh has cautioned against finding implicit statutory private rights of action in two cases. In International Union, Security, Police & Fire Professionals of America v. Faye, Kavanaugh dissented from a decision holding that the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act implicitly creates a private right of action allowing unions to sue officers who breach their fiduciary duties to the union. And he likewise refused to find an implied cause of action in Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act in Johnson v. Interstate Management Co., in an opinion that was unanimous on that point.

Retired Justice Anthony Kennedy was relatively inclined to defer to employers and to interpret work law narrowly. The safe prediction is that, if confirmed, Kavanaugh will do the same, or perhaps take the law in an even more employer-oriented direction. Of course, the usual caveats apply – it is impossible to say with certainty what a justice will ultimately do on the Supreme Court. But Kavanaugh’s opinions to date reflect a general skepticism about agencies or courts second-guessing employers’ decisions, and a lack of skepticism about the employers’ decisions themselves – giving employees and unions cause for concern.

The post Judge Kavanaugh on work law appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from Law http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/08/judge-kavanaugh-on-work-law/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

#law #justice

0 notes

amberdscott2 · 6 years ago

Text

Hanging Up on Mobile in the Name of Security

An entrepreneur and virtual currency investor is suing AT&T for $224 million, claiming the wireless provider was negligent when it failed to prevent thieves from hijacking his mobile account and stealing millions of dollars in cryptocurrencies. Increasingly frequent, high-profile attacks like these are prompting some experts to say the surest way to safeguard one’s online accounts may be to disconnect them from the mobile providers entirely.

The claims come in a lawsuit filed this week in Los Angeles on behalf of Michael Terpin, who co-founded the first angel investor group for bitcoin enthusiasts in 2013. Terpin alleges that crooks stole almost $24 million worth of cryptocurrency after fraudulently executing a “SIM swap” on his mobile phone account at AT&T in early 2018.

A SIM card is the tiny, removable chip in a mobile device that allows it to connect to the provider’s network. Customers can legitimately request a SIM swap when their existing SIM card has been damaged, or when they are switching to a different phone that requires a SIM card of another size.

But SIM swaps are frequently abused by scam artists who trick mobile providers into tying a target’s service to a new SIM card and mobile phone that the attackers control. Unauthorized SIM swaps often are perpetrated by fraudsters who have already stolen or phished a target’s password, as many banks and online services rely on text messages to send users a one-time code that needs to be entered in addition to a password for online authentication.

Terpin alleges that on January 7, 2018, someone requested an unauthorized SIM swap on his AT&T account, causing his phone to go dead and sending all incoming texts and phone calls to a device the attackers controlled. Armed with that access, the intruders were able to reset credentials tied to his cryptocurrency accounts and siphon nearly $24 million worth of digital currencies.

According to Terpin, this was the second time in six months someone had hacked his AT&T number. On June 11, 2017, Terpin’s phone went dead. He soon learned his AT&T password had been changed remotely after 11 attempts in AT&T stores had failed. At the time, AT&T suggested Terpin take advantage of the company’s “extra security” feature — a customer-specified six-digit PIN which is required before any account changes can be made.

Terpin claims an investigation by AT&T into the 2018 breach found that an employee at an AT&T store in Norwich, Conn. somehow executed the SIM swap on his account without having to enter his “extra security” PIN, and that AT&T knew or should have known that employees could bypass its customer security measures.

Terpin is suing AT&T for his $24 million worth of cryptocurrencies, plus $200 million in punitive damages. A copy of his complaint is here (PDF).

AT&T declined to comment on specific claims in the lawsuit, saying only in a statement that, “We dispute these allegations and look forward to presenting our case in court.”

AN ‘IDENTITY CRISIS’?

Mobile phone companies are a major weak point in authentication because so many companies have now built their entire procedure for authenticating customers on a process that involves sending a one-time code to the customer via SMS or automated phone call.

In some cases, thieves executing SIM swaps have already phished or otherwise stolen a target’s bank or email password. But many major social media platforms — such as Instagram — allow users to reset their passwords using nothing more than text-based (SMS) authentication, meaning thieves can hijack those accounts just by having control over the target’s mobile phone number.

Allison Nixon is director of security research at Flashpoint, a security company in New York City that has been closely tracking the murky underworld of communities that teach people how to hijack phone numbers assigned to customer accounts at all of the major mobile providers.

Nixon calls the current SIM-jacking craze “a major identity crisis” for cybersecurity on multiple levels.

“Phone numbers were never originally intended as an identity document, they were designed as a way to contact people,” Nixon said. “But because of all these other companies are building in security measures, a phone number has become an identity document.”

In essence, mobile phone companies have become “critical infrastructure” for security precisely because so much is riding on who controls a given mobile number. At the same time, so little is needed to undo weak security controls put in place to prevent abuse.

“The infrastructure wasn’t designed to withstand the kind of attacks happening now,” Nixon said. “The protocols need to be changed, and there are probably laws affecting the telecom companies that need to be reviewed in light of how these companies have evolved.”

Unfortunately, with the major mobile providers so closely tied to your security, there is no way you can remove the most vulnerable chunks of this infrastructure — the mobile store employees who can be paid or otherwise bamboozled into helping these attacks succeed.

No way, that is, unless you completely disconnect your mobile phone number from any sort of SMS-based authentication you currently use, and replace it with Internet-based telephone services that do not offer “helpful” customer support — such as Google Voice.

Google Voice lets users choose a phone number that gets tied to their Google account, and any calls or messages to that number will be forwarded to your mobile number. But unlike phone numbers issued by the major mobile providers, Google Voice numbers can’t be stolen unless someone also hacks your Google password — in which case you likely have much bigger problems.

With Google Voice, there is no customer service person who can be conned over the phone into helping out. There is no retail-store employee who will sell access to your SIM information for a paltry $80 payday. In this view of security, customer service becomes a customer disservice.

Mind you, this isn’t my advice. The above statement summarizes the arguments allegedly made by one of the most accomplished SIM swap thieves in the game today. On July 12, 2018, police in California arrested Joel Ortiz, a 20-year-old college student from Boston who’s accused of using SIM swaps to steal more than $5 million in cryptocurrencies from 40 victims.

Ortiz allegedly had help from a number of unnamed accomplices who collectively targeted high-profile and wealthy people in the cryptocurrency space. In one of three brazen attacks at a bitcoin conference this year, Ortiz allegedly used his SIM swapping skills to steal more than $1.5 million from a cryptocurrency entrepreneur, including nearly $1 million the victim had crowdfunded.

A July 2018 posting from the “OG” Instagram account “0”, allegedly an account hijacked by Joel Ortiz (pictured holding an armload of Dom Perignon champagne).

Ortiz reportedly was a core member of OGUsers[dot]com, a forum that’s grown wildly popular among criminals engaging in SIM swaps to steal cryptocurrency and hijack high-value social media accounts. OG is short for “original gangster,” and it refers to a type of “street cred” for possession of social media account names that are relatively short (between one and six characters). On ogusers[dot]com, Ortiz allegedly picked the username “j”. Short usernames are considered more valuable because they confer on the account holder the appearance of an early adopter on most social networks.

Discussions on the Ogusers forum indicate Ortiz allegedly is the current occupant of perhaps the most OG username on Twitter — an account represented by the number zero “0”. The alias displayed on that twitter profile is “j0”. He also apparently controls the Instagram account by the same number, as well as the Instagram account “t”, which lists its alias as “Joel.”

Shown below is a cached snippet from an Ogusers forum posting by “j” (allegedly Ortiz), advising people to remove their mobile phone number from all important multi-factor authentication options, and to replace it with something like Google Voice.

Ogusers SIM swapper “j” advises forum members on how not to become victims of SIM swapping. Click to enlarge.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

All four major wireless carriers — AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon — let customers add security against SIM swaps and related schemes by setting a PIN that needs to be provided over the phone or in person at a store before account changes should be made. But these security features can be bypassed by incompetent or corrupt mobile store employees.

Mobile store employees who can be bought or tricked into conducting SIM swaps are known as “plugs” in the Ogusers community, and without them SIM swapping schemes become much more difficult.

Last week, KrebsOnSecurity broke the news that police in Florida had arrested a 25-year-old man who’s accused of being part of a group of at least nine individuals who routinely conducted fraudulent SIM swaps on high-value targets. Investigators in that case say they have surveillance logs that show the group discussed working directly with mobile store employees to complete the phone number heists.

In May I wrote about a 27-year-old Boston man who had his three-letter Instagram account name stolen after thieves hijacked his number at T-Mobile. Much like Mr. Terpin, the victim in that case had already taken T-Mobile’s advice and placed a PIN on his account that was supposed to prevent the transfer of his mobile number. T-Mobile ultimately acknowledged that the heist had been carried out by a rogue T-Mobile store employee.

So consider establishing a Google Voice account if you don’t already have one. In setting up a new number, Google requires you to provide a number capable of receiving text messages. Once your Google Voice number is linked to your mobile, the device at the mobile number you gave to Google should notify you instantly if anyone calls or messages the Google number (this assumes your phone has a Wi-Fi or mobile connection to the Internet).

After you’ve done that, take stock of every major account you can think of, replacing your mobile phone number with your Google Voice number in every case it is listed in your profile.

Here’s where it gets tricky. If you’re all-in for taking the anti-SIM-hacking advice allegedly offered by Mr. Ortiz, once you’ve changed all of your multi-factor authentication options from your mobile number to your Google Voice number, you then have to remove that mobile number you supplied to Google from your Google Voice account. After that, you can still manage calls/messages to and from your Google Voice number using the Google Voice mobile app.

And notice what else Ortiz advises in the screen shot above to secure one’s Gmail and other Google accounts: Using a physical security key (where possible) to replace passwords. This post from a few weeks back explains what security keys are, how they can help harden your security posture, and how to use them. If Google’s own internal security processes count for anything, the company recently told this author that none of its 85,000 employees had been successfully phished for their work credentials since January 2017, when Google began requiring all employees to use physical security keys in place of one-time passwords sent to a mobile device.

Standard disclaimer: If the only two-factor authentication offered by a company you use is based on sending a one-time code via SMS or automated phone call, this is still better than relying on simply a password alone. But one-time codes generated by a mobile phone app such as Authy or Google Authenticator are more secure than SMS-based options because they are not directly vulnerable to SIM-swapping attacks.

The web site twofactorauth.org breaks down online service providers by the types of secondary authentication offered (SMS, call, app-based one-time codes, security keys). Take a moment soon to review this important resource and harden your security posture wherever possible.

from Amber Scott Technology News https://krebsonsecurity.com/2018/08/hanging-up-on-mobile-in-the-name-of-security/

0 notes

jennifersnyderca90 · 6 years ago

Text

Hanging Up on Mobile in the Name of Security

Terpin is suing AT&T for his $24 million worth of cryptocurrencies, plus $200 million in punitive damages. A copy of his complaint is here (PDF).

AT&T declined to comment on specific claims in the lawsuit, saying only in a statement that, “We dispute these allegations and look forward to presenting our case in court.”

AN ‘IDENTITY CRISIS’?

Nixon calls the current SIM-jacking craze “a major identity crisis” for cybersecurity on multiple levels.

A July 2018 posting from the “OG” Instagram account “0”, allegedly an account hijacked by Joel Ortiz (pictured holding an armload of Dom Perignon champagne).

Ogusers SIM swapper “j” advises forum members on how not to become victims of SIM swapping. Click to enlarge.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

Mobile store employees who can be bought or tricked into conducting SIM swaps are known as “plugs” in the Ogusers community, and without them SIM swapping schemes become much more difficult.

After you’ve done that, take stock of every major account you can think of, replacing your mobile phone number with your Google Voice number in every case it is listed in your profile.

from https://krebsonsecurity.com/2018/08/hanging-up-on-mobile-in-the-name-of-security/

0 notes

nedsvallesny · 6 years ago

Text

Hanging Up on Mobile in the Name of Security

Terpin is suing AT&T for his $24 million worth of cryptocurrencies, plus $200 million in punitive damages. A copy of his complaint is here (PDF).

AT&T declined to comment on specific claims in the lawsuit, saying only in a statement that, “We dispute these allegations and look forward to presenting our case in court.”

AN ‘IDENTITY CRISIS’?

Nixon calls the current SIM-jacking craze “a major identity crisis” for cybersecurity on multiple levels.

A July 2018 posting from the “OG” Instagram account “0”, allegedly an account hijacked by Joel Ortiz (pictured holding an armload of Dom Perignon champagne).

Ogusers SIM swapper “j” advises forum members on how not to become victims of SIM swapping. Click to enlarge.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

Mobile store employees who can be bought or tricked into conducting SIM swaps are known as “plugs” in the Ogusers community, and without them SIM swapping schemes become much more difficult.

After you’ve done that, take stock of every major account you can think of, replacing your mobile phone number with your Google Voice number in every case it is listed in your profile.

from Technology News https://krebsonsecurity.com/2018/08/hanging-up-on-mobile-in-the-name-of-security/

0 notes