#mahoney (your employee!)

[meltyclownstudio]

So, I probably already know the answer to this but. . .

[cultofdreams]

BOULDER, Colo. — More than a month has passed since the mass shooting at the King Soopers on Table Mesa in Boulder. For the first time, employees who were at the store that day when 10 people died share what they saw to 9NEWS.

Several of the victims were employees themselves.

"It definitely doesn't feel like over a month," said Logan Smith, a barista at the Starbucks inside the Boulder King Soopers. "Every single day has felt like just one day."

Smith was working at the Starbucks when he heard the gunfire. He visits the store several times a week to pay his respects at the memorial. On the day of the shooting he was not sure he was going to walk out of the King Soopers alive. 

"Perched up against the wall, I day dreamed three different realities of how I was going to get killed," he said. 

He said he watched the shooter kill his friend and co-worker Rikki Olds as he called 911 for help. He said her laugh lit up any room.

"There are times at night I have survivor’s guilt and I am like, why couldn’t it have been me who was one of the 10," he said. 

Emily Giffen was a manager at King Soopers. She now lives in Pennsylvania with her family. Giffen said she had put in her two weeks notice so she could move back home to take care of her mom. 

"Five days before my last day is when this happened," she said. 

She was taking a smoke break outside when the gunman arrived. Giffen believes that saved her life. 

"Hearing the stories of my coworkers hiding in the chip aisle and hiding in cupboards and cabinets, it breaks my heart," she said. 

Over her heart, Giffen now has a tattoo that reads "Boulder Brave." She also got another tattoo with the initials of the 10 shooting victims. 

"With everything that happened and everything I saw, I needed to localize the pain. It is so hard to even comprehend seeing your neighbors get shot, to seeing your coworkers get shot," she explained.

A chain-link fence is still up around the parking lot of the King Soopers. Recently, employees had an opportunity to go inside the store again. 

"Unbelievably grateful is all I could say," said Smith. "No one should have to go through this."

It will take more time before the store reopens to the public. When it does, fear will not keep employees away. 

Smith said he plans to return to work at King Soopers. 

"To be a part of the family again. To stay strong is what I value most and that is why I would return," said Smith.

Giffen said she will fly to Colorado to be there for the reopening, too.

"Boulder is a good place and this guy is not going to ruin it for us," she said. 

All nine civilians who were killed when the gunman opened fire were killed prior to police arriving at the store, prosecutors said in late April.

Boulder Police Officer Eric Talley, who was among the first three officers to enter the store on Table Mesa Drive, is the 10th victim of the shooting.

The suspect now faces a total of 54 counts related to the March 22 shooting.

He had previously faced 10 counts of first-degree murder and one count of attempted murder. Prosecutors filed a motion to amend the charging document this week and it now has a total of 54 charges which include the following:

10 counts of first-degree murder

33 counts of attempted first-degree murder

One count of first-degree assault

10 counts of using a prohibited large capacity magazine during a crime

About 115 people were inside the store when the shooting began and another 25 were in the parking lot, according to prosecutors.

Below is a list of the victims as they're named in the charging document:

Neven Stanisic, 23

Kevin Mahoney, 61

Tralona Bartkowiak, 49

Rikki Olds, 25

Denny Stong, 20

Lynn Murray, 62

Teri Leiker, 51

Jody Waters, 65

Suzanne Fountain, 59

Eric Talley, 51

[christophermphillips]

Blatant Electronic Harassment of a gay person by IBM and Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Denver

Faith Mahoney and Minnie Davie love are COWARD ASS STALKING CUNTS AND THEY DOD SOME WERID THINGS TO ME AT FATIH MAHONEYS HOME ON OLEANDER DR. TRIED TO CHARGE THEM AT GOLDSBORO NC POLICE DEPT BUT ITS CONSIDERED SEXUAL BATTERY AND IT HAS A TWO YEAR LIMITATION. YOU CAN SUE AFTER THE LIMITATION HAS EXPIRED. I HAVE ALL POLICE REPORTS

I Christopher Michael Phillips was an employee of IBM and Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Denver from 09/19/17 until the end of May 2018. During that time, I was being constantly harassed. I a 47-year-old gay male. During this time, I was also being harassed by the apartment above me. I called different law agencies and they would not help me. I resigned from my job end of May 2018 due to the harassment. I witnessed employees doing unscrupulous things with patients because that was the way they were trained by Anthem. After I resigned, I reported them to the EEOC, and strange things started to happen to me after that. I have pictures and documents.please visit my blog for more information.

!!!PLEASE PLEASE HELP ME!!!

Thank you for your time

Christopher Michael Phillips

Raleigh NC 27613

I update my blog weekly, please check back for updates.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/christopher-m-phillips-b913b830/

https://christophermphillips.blogspot.com/?m=1

[kevintor]

I Watch a Movie I Should Have Seen: “Moonstruck”

What did I know? I knew Nicolas Cage was in it. Normally Nicolas Cage is enough for me but I also knew this was Early Nicolas Cage. Back when he was still cutting his teeth. Learning how to chew scenery. Figuring out that the Nicolas Cage way of acting is to always make the unexpected choice in a scene and, usually, that unexpected choice is the wrong one. But, when done with conviction as he always does, it’s fun wrong. Also, I knew Cher was in it.

My thoughts:

You have to start with “That’s Amore” or we wouldn’t think a movie with Danny Aiello in it dealt with Italian people. Although, I will say this is his least Italian character. He’s probably playing someone who’s only 94% Italian.

The funeral home owner gets butter on his tie. Cher tells him to take it off so they can clean it. AND HE DOES! It’s so hard to tie a tie. I have to do it twice a year and it is brutal. This scene stayed with me more than any scene in the movie.

Danny Aiello says, “A man who can’t control his woman is funny.” Maybe this is why people think I’m funny. Let’s say, as an experiment, I wanted to control my wife. Let’s allow this experiment to include alternate universes. That gives me infinite versions of my wife which would result in infinite failures at control. Even Stepford Loly, after my order, would scratch her perfectly-powdered nose with her middle finger.

Cher is a widow. Her husband got hit by a bus. She’s 37 and, to reflect the difficulties of her life, they made her look like a 60-year-old high school math teacher.  

Danny Aiello asks Cher to marry him at a restaurant. He doesn’t want to get on a knee. He not only doesn’t have a ring, he doesn’t seem to realize he needed one. The man is a catch. It’s understandable why Cher would say yes.

Danny Aiello goes to Sicily to be with his dying mother. This should give Cher some time to ponder what a pile of garbage he is.

Cher lives with her parents and grandfather and FIVE DOGS! Dogs should never outnumber humans in a house. Maybe this is why she said yes so fast to Danny Aiello - to get out of the dog house.

She toasts her dad over the engagement with champagne and two sugars. I’ve never thought to put sugar in champagne. Would that make it better? I know when I have sugar in the school parking lot at pickup, it makes that better.

Cher’s father is a lot. He’s a cross between Rodney Dangerfield and Ralph Kramden but not the good parts.

Cher calls Nicolas Cage (Danny Aiello’s brother who has not spoken to in years) to get him to come to the wedding. He hangs up on her. The tension is already palpable.

Nicolas Cage is so passionate. He yells. He throws things. He’s like a toddler if a toddler had an absurd amount of chest hair.

Cher’s dad is having an affair. That feels like an unnecessary wrinkle for the movie. Why do we need that too? To give Olympia Dukakis an Oscar?

Nicolas Cage flips the table after Cher cooks him dinner and they get it on. I hope Cher made him clean it up after sex. Even chest haired toddlers have to learn responsibility.

Nicolas Cage invites Cher to a night at the opera. Nicolas Cage has two loves: the opera and being moody.

Strong foreshadowing as Cher passes a dress shop that has two dresses in the window: a wedding dress and a going out dress. I feel sorry for the employee who has to change the window display every time a woman walks by. “Jennifer, a nice woman named Helen is walking by next. She just lost her uncle but she was also invited to a luau the night of the wake. Work your magic!”

Cher goes to “Cinderella Beauty Shop” to get rid of her greys. It may have taken all the hairspray in New York City but the “Fairy Godmothers” turned her into an 80s queen. Or Mother Gothel after Rapunzel sang her rejuvenation song.

Nicolas Cage thanks Cher for getting pretty. Real smooth.

SINCERE THOUGHT ALERT: I could watch the scene with Olympia Dukakis and John Mahoney eating dinner together for a long time. I’d want it to be the whole movie. Two great actors.

Danny Aiello returns to reveal his mom miraculously recovered but decides he can’t marry Cher because he thinks his mom will die if he does. I’m not sure I follow the logic but Cher doesn’t want to marry him so it works.

Nicolas Cage cuffs his dress shirt sleeves up to the middle of his biceps and asks Cher to marry him. She says yes to a life of flipped tables and yelling, followed by sex.

This movie was fine. I don’t know why it won so many awards. 

[kilyra]

Convince Me, Murdock.

Matt Murdock (Daredevil) One-Shot from prompt list This is the conclusion to the arc of “Can’t Tell Me What To Do, Murdock” and “Hold Me, Murdock”. (Find these in my Masterlist post linked in my bio)

A/N: I received an anon request from List B: Angst/fluff Prompt List: 2 - “Stay here tonight”, 77 - “We're meant for each other”, 94 - “I won't lose you too”. 

After the events of the previous stories, you are still trying to put the pieces back together. You still don’t quite feel settled and are hoping the key is to get your life settled back to how it was.

Warnings: Steamy PG13 bits!  Guys, you are seriously in for a treat here! The really fun stuff was written by the incredible @suitsofwo3 and worked into the end of this fic. It was so much fun to play around with and I hope you guys enjoy it!

You froze when you heard the door to the apartment open. He was early. Silently, you reminded yourself that you were doing nothing wrong, just simply trying to put the pieces back together. Hastily, you shoved a few more clothes from the pile into the suitcase.

As Matt came inside, his cane was already folded in his hand. With his suit and tinted glasses, he looked like a different person from the man who lounged around the apartment with you. And definitely bore no resemblance to the devil.

Setting the cane on the table by the door, he smiled at you as he took off his glasses and set them down too. Because of course he knew you were sitting in the one spot where you could see him at the entrance. 

“You're home early,” you said in as light of a tone as you could, ignoring the heaviness that grew in your gut.

Briefly, his eyebrows flickered towards each other at your words. He paused, but when he spoke, it was in as equally light of a tone. “Yeah, the meeting with the DA wrapped up early.”

At even the mere mention of the case, the heaviness in your stomach churned. Clutching more shirts in your hand, you set them on your lap as you watched Matt come into the apartment, loosening his tie.

“Must be slow at the office if you call it a day after one meeting.”

“Karen and Foggy can handle it for an afternoon, it's fine,” he said, shooting a lopsided grin your direction before making his way to the cupboard and pulling out a glass. Without a single misstep or hesitation, he casually went to the sink, staring forward as he filled up his water.

“Just as we suspected, the files you handed over were so iron clad that none of this is going to trial. Everyone implicated has either already pled guilty or are signing off on plea deals, giving up bigger names. It's everything I told you would happen but now it's official. It's done.”

And yet the fear still weighed on you.

Coming to lean on the edge of his kitchen counter, his lopsided grin grew. “And it's especially great that you don't have to testify because I heard them with their lawyers behind closed doors. None of them saw you enter with me that night. As far as they know, which they had confirmed by a leaked report, you came in the front to do some overtime and got caught in the crossfire. You’re of no interest to any of them.”

“But that's not...what report?”

Matt's voice took on a gentler edge. “Mahoney put in his report that you were just an employee who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. When you could finally give your statement, it didn't help the case any to change that. And it was safer for you that way. So he left it how it was, and it somehow got leaked so...”

“So...everyone thinks that's what happened?”

After taking a sip, he set the glass down on the counter. “Everyone.”

Softly, you let out a scoff. “So you didn't have to convince them the devil made me do it?”

Returning your scoff with a chuckle, he ran his hand down his tie. “No. Which is good because I'm not sure the devil can make you do anything.”

Because he would have made you stay home that night. Matt didn't say it but you knew that was on his mind.

A faint smile played on your lips. Until you looked down at the clothes in your hand. It faded as you set them on the suitcase.

Cocking his head, Matt's eyes scanned over the room and trailed towards the ceiling before he turned his face towards you. “Y/n? What's going on?”

Your pulse started to pick up. Slowly, he came around the edge of the couch, easily avoiding the boxes you had in the corner since you started staying there. He stopped by the coffee table and frowned. “Are you unpacking more or...?”

Swallowing heavily, your heart pounded as you took a deep breath to reply. “I-“

“Lets just…” He interrupted, catching you off guard. “Can we skip past the part where you lie to me and move on to the truth?”

“How can you expect to have a normal relationship with anyone if you cut out all the lies?" Attempting to diffuse with a joke was all you could think of because, in truth, you didn't know what to say.

His eyebrows furrowed deeply as he lifted his chin. “Anyone? Or you?”

You danced around the question. “I don't...I didn't mean it like that. Look, I found a place actually. It's just a room, but I can move in this afternoon. And I'll find a storage unit for the rest of my stuff by the end of the week, I promise.”

His eyes moved slightly, not quite fixed on you, but he was otherwise still. “Really? A room?”

Grabbing more clothes from the pile beside you, you folded them neatly, clutching at the fabric through each step. “Yeah. I mean, it’s something at least, I can't keep just crashing here. My new job has been going well and I’ve sorted out payments for the bills. The last thing I needed was somewhere to live so I can move forward and maybe start feeling like myself again.”

Stooping, he sat on the edge of the coffee table somehow being mindful of the suitcase near your feet. “So what, you were just going to leave? Is that why you didn't want me back so early?”

Desperately, you tried to think of how to answer as your heart pounded harder, but apparently, Matt figured it out.

“Wow, really? Were you even going to tell me?”

“Yeah, of course.”

As his tongue darted out, Matt huffed through his parted lips and shook his head in disbelief.

“Eventually...after I got settled there this afternoon.”

His eyebrows shot up as his gaze darted upward. Rubbing down over his mouth, he tugged at the corner of his lips before dropping his hand in his lap with a sigh. “Y/n. I need you to be straight with me right now. Are we over too? Is that what’s happening here?”

A knot sharply twisted in your stomach at the idea. But wouldn't that be the best for Matt – to have the chance to meet someone who wasn't such a basket-case?  

“Definitely seems like we’re meant for each other – I didn’t get the difference between taking space and pushing people away either. Just ask Foggy and Karen. And I told myself I was doing it for their own good but that wasn't true.”

The knot tightened, creeping up to clamp around your throat. Could he stop reading your thoughts for just a minute? “No. I’m not ending things. I just…I just need to get my life back on track. Get back to something normal.”

Slightly nodding, Matt’s stare settled on the pile of boxes. “But why does that mean leaving? I see you Y/n. I see the pain and the…the desperation to feel normal again. But I promise you, this won’t help the way you want it to.”

Working your throat to speak, nothing was coming out. Sighing, you pulled yourself to your feet and stepped away from the chair. He was right, and that was frustrating. You wanted to believe that if you got back all the pieces that fell apart when you were shot, you would be your old self again and everything would be fine.

But living out of a small, sad rented room didn't feel like a step in the right direction either.

You heard his feet shuffle as he navigated around the suitcase and clothes pile. Coming behind you, he set his hands on your shoulder and you could feel the heat through the fabric of your light shirt. The knot  loosened at his touch. You didn't want to lose him.

When he spoke you could feel his breath on your neck. “You don’t need leave here to move forward. If you go, you’ll find that out for yourself and I'm worried you'll retreat even further. And I’ll…”

Hearing his words fall away, you slowly turned to face him. His lips pursed tightly as his eyes rolled upward; you could almost see him arranging his thoughts before he finally spoke.

“I won’t lose you too, Y/n. You just need to give yourself time. Just…stay here tonight at least. If you need space, I'll go stay with Foggy.” Deftly, he stepped closer until his body was just inches from yours and it suddenly dawned on you that this was the closest he had been to you since he got home. The closest in days, actually.

“Oh yeah, Marcy would just love that,” you said, weakly. Lightly, the toes of his work shoes touched your bare feet as you inhaled the fresh scent of his shower gel. A dull ache started forming.

Blinking slowly, he smiled as his breath fanned your face. “Marcy is a good person. She’ll understand.”

Cocking his head slightly, you could tell Matt was trying to read your heartbeat, listening for some kind of confirmation you wanted this as much as he did. Your heart was hammering against your chest so hard you had no doubt he could hear it. And yet, you watched as he wordlessly took one of your wrists in his hand and gently pressed his thumb against the pulse point.

“Move in with me, Y/n. Stop crashing and unpack your boxes.”

When you finally felt brave enough to lift your head, you found yourself looking into the eyes of the man you loved. For once Matt's eyes weren't looking just past you. They roamed over your face, almost as if he could see you, before settling to rest on your own.

Slowly, his fingers traced away from your wrist, gliding along your skin the same way you'd seen him read braille. In your time together, he had learned to road-map your skin, no longer traversing you as though you were forbidden, untraveled territory. Which is why, when his hand slid underneath your shirt, it easily found its destination. Your now-healed bullet wound.

Flinching slightly, you didn't push his hand away. Running his tongue over his lips, he hummed, gently prodding for an answer as he thumbed small circles over the scar that speckled your abdomen. The dull ache grew, becoming more demanding.

Your breaths were uneven as you reached up to cup his face. Rubbing your thumb along his cheekbone, your fingers lightly caressed the soft hair behind his ear.

Matt was still looking at you as he folded into your touch, making your pulse jump. The grin that formed on his lips made it abundantly clear he picked up on it.

Running your free hand up his chest, you wrapped your fingers around his tie. “Interesting proposal. But I'm not sure.”  

“Really? Because your heartbeat is so loud, Y/n, it's deafening.” His lips brushed against your ear before softly grazing along your jaw as he gently walked you backwards. In a few steps, your back was flush against the wall by his bedroom door. In a painfully slow motion, he moved his hand to grip one of your hips while his free hand found your neck, running his thumb over your lips.

Leaning into him, you couldn't help your growl as you tugged on his tie. “Convince me, Murdock.”

Before you could utter another word, Matt's lips captured yours as you shoved his suit jacket over his shoulders. Quickly shedding it, he took both your wrists in one hand and pinned them above your head interlocking his fingers with yours.

Again, your heartbeat spiked as Matt took control, sliding his suited thigh between your knees as his mouth continued to dance with yours. His free hand firmly gripped your hip pulling you to him, closing the gap. Releasing your hands, he seized your other hip, encouraging you to wrap your legs around his waist. Clasping his shoulders, you pressed against him as his tongue swirled along your neck, his kisses growing urgent. Gripping your thighs, he started moving toward the bedroom.

When he finally answered, his voice was low and raw with passion. “I think I can do that.”

[cannabislicense-blog]

Weed Stop Club Just Expedited The Dispensary License Application Process

Weed Stop Club is a social club for cannabis enthusiasts and industry entrepreneurs. The Club offers social forums, business products and do-it-yourself solutions for the legalized and recreational cannabis industry. For more information visit: https://www.weedstopclub.com/forms http://www.twitter.com/weedstopclub http://www.facebook.com/weedstopclub http://www.instagram.com/weedstopclub Los Angeles, California-based business to entrepreneur company Weed Stop Club has launched its self-service, document creation tool for those individuals and businesses trying to apply for their Marijuana Licenses.

 The content you submit to any State Department for your marijuana license is serious business. You're competing for the attention of government employees who are receiving pitches by many other potential licensees at the same time. To succeed, your State response should be informative, mutually equitable to the Department of Health, and completely transparent.

 That’s where the Weed Stop Club can help. The Club’s offering is clear and concise, “create customize documents for your marijuana license application at a fraction of the price it would cost through a traditional lawyer. Answer a few plain-English questions, and we'll create your cannabis license document for you.” Enough said!

 I have been searching for something like this since my State’s Bureau of Cannabis started accepting marijuana license applications. It's so great to just enter a few pieces of key information about my company and have the rest of the wording written for me.

 First you select your document or form. Then answer simple questions about your company that are required for that specific document. Within a few steps, you’ll have a completed document that’s ready for submission.

 Completing a marijuana license application is no small feat. It requires detailed operations plans, procedures and company policies for at least 20 different areas of business! A significant amount of time will be spent writing, organizing and working with consults to get it done. Luckily, Weed Stop Club can do the heavy lifting for you, while giving you the freedom you need to brand the document with your own content (ie. Name, Address, Product Offering, et cetera). In the end, what you’ll get is complete, professional content to present to your State Department.

 When a State Department of Health evaluates a company for a marijuana license, they are looking for the best microbusiness who can be compliant with all of their regulations, rules and policies.

 The Club’s documents & letters gives license evaluators the proper context around why your business came into existence and who you are before reading about the services you intend to offer patients or patrons.

 Available now are prewritten, ready to use:

 1.      Business Plans

2.     Security & Surveillance Procedures

3.      Sanitation & Waste Disposal Policies

4.     Tracking and Receiving Inventory Plans

5.     Transporting Marijuana Practices

6.     Marijuana Product Packaging & Labeling Guidelines.

 You can customize by adding your company information and then print or share any of the documents they offer.  It’s really that simple!

 The Club organizes the documents into different sections, such as policies, procedures, plans, personnel, technology, et cetera. This makes it easy for the license evaluator to understand the different parts of your application and the different operation plans you plan to utilize.

“We don't just dive right into the strategy and the processes. We set expectations up front and entice the evaluator to read more,” says Ms. Cheryl Mahoney, senior editor.

Weed Stop Club knows exactly how to structure the response to the government. That’s why the content focuses more on your State Department’s need to “check all the boxes”, rather than on your own company’s product offerings. But the prewritten documents do include professional proof that illustrates your company’s professionalism and ability to understand and mitigate their particular statewide issues. 

 This spring, the Club is releasing state and business type specific documents and forms. In their pipeline are documents that relate specifically to:

 ·        Growers

·        Cultivators

·        Producers

·        Retailers

·        Dispensaries

·        Distributors

·        Testing Labs

·        Microbusinesses

·        Non-Profit Organizations

 Remember, the responses to the State are competitive in nature. This puts an added pressure on creativity and detail in composing your response. Getting it right the first time, should get your dispensary or microbusiness licensed quicker. And using Weed Stop Club’s fill-in-the-blank documents can definitely save you a lot on preparation costs.

Weed Stop Club is a social club for cannabis enthusiasts and industry entrepreneurs. The Club offers social forums, business products and do-it-yourself solutions for the legalized and recreational cannabis industry. For more information visit: https://www.weedstopclub.com/forms http://www.twitter.com/weedstopclub http://www.facebook.com/weedstopclub http://www.instagram.com/weedstopclub

[atlanticcanada]

'Butterfly Effect' strives to encourage more conversation between generations

Colin McCrae is a busy man.

At the young age of 83, he keeps up an active lifestyle and spends much of his time volunteering.

"I liken it to an old 19th century motorcar, and it won't go unless I have fuel, and that fuel is the community," he explains.

McCrae enjoys spending time with seniors and youth alike.

Most recently, he got involved with a campaign for National Seniors Day called 'The Butterfly Effect,' an initiative that strives to encourage more conversation amongst generations.

"Butterflies, in my mind," he says, "are the epitome of gracefulness, of frailty, of diligence."

Katie Mahoney's association, We Are Young, grants wishes for seniors, they partnered with RBC for the campaign.

About 150 RBC employees created five-thousand butterflies that were distributed to seniors across Nova Scotia.

Mahoney says the butterflies symbolize the trials, tribulations and challenges that seniors have overcome.

She encourages seniors to share their wisdom with the younger generations, or caterpillars, as she refers to them in the campaign.

"Most people don't realize, or kind of forget, that they are the ones who paved the way for the life and opportunity that we live today," Mahoney explains. "They are a generation that is pure and humble and selfless, and we can learn a lot from them."

The CEO of Canadian's National Seniors Advocacy Organization, CanAge, says on this National Seniors Day, it is important to reflect on the past 19 months and look at how we and government can support seniors now more than ever, as we continue to navigate through the pandemic.

"Early on we were told that seniors needed to stay at home, and of course, the Atlantic provinces really took that seriously," Laura Tamblyn Watts explains. "That meant for many people, not seeing family and friends for a year and a half, and we know that doesn't just hit your mental health, it his your physical health, too."

That's why Katie Mahoney is doing her part, to help improve the wellbeing of seniors in our communities.

"I think it's just being conscious that, you know, we're going to walk into their shoes," she says. "We want people to advocate for us as we get older. And I think the biggest take home message on today, especially, is if we are lucky enough to get old, it is a privilege to be a senior, and I think that message is often times lost."

"Life is worth living," adds McCrae. "But live it in a honest, and truth and caring, compassionate way."

Words of wisdom from both the younger and older generation, working together to create a beautiful future for everyone.

from CTV News - Atlantic https://ift.tt/3mi4FgX

[bestcryptocurrencyexchange1]

Cryptocurrency's Rocky Road: China's ICO Ban

Inside wake of China's ICO ban, what befalls the world of cryptocurrencies? The biggest event in the cryptocurrency world just lately was the declaration of the Chinese authorities to shut down the exchanges on which cryptocurrencies are traded. As a result, BTCChina, one of the largest bitcoin exchanges in China, said that it would be ceasing trading activities by the end of Sept. This news catalysed a sharp sell-off that left bitcoin (and other currencies such as Etherium) plummeting around 30% below the record highs that were reached earlier this month. So , the cryptocurrency rollercoaster continues. Using bitcoin having increases that surpass quadrupled values from December 2016 to September 2017, some analysts forcast that it can cryptocurrencies can recover from the recent falls. Josh Mahoney, a market analyst at IG comments that will cryptocurrencies' "past experience tells us that [they] will likely brush these latest challenges aside". Nevertheless these sentiments don't come without opposition. Mr Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, remarked that bitcoin "isn't going to work" and that it "is a fraud... worse than tulip bulbs (in reference to the Dutch 'tulip mania' of the 17th century, recognised as the world's first speculative bubble)... that will blow up". He goes to this extent of saying that he would fire employees who were stupid enough to trade in bitcoin. Speculation separate, what is actually going on? Since China's ICO ban, other world-leading economies are taking a fresh look into how the cryptocurrency world should/ can be regulated in their regions. Rather than banning ICOs, other countries still recognise the technological benefits associated with crypto-technology, and are looking into controlling the market without completely stifling the growth of the currencies. The big issue with regard to these economies is to figure out how to do this, as the alternative nature of the cryptocurrencies do not allow them to be classified under the insurance coverage of traditional investment assets. Some of these countries include Japan, Singapore and the US. These economies seek to establish sales standards for cryptocurrencies, mainly in order to handle money laundering and fraud, which have been rendered more elusive due to the crypto-technology. Yet, most regulators do recognise that there seems to be no real benefit to completely banning cryptocurrencies due to the commercial flows that they carry along. Also, probably because it is practically impossible to shut down the crypto-world for as long as the online market place exists. Regulators can only focus on areas where they may be able to exercise some control, which seems to be where cryptocurrencies meet fiat currencies (i. e. the Best Cryptocurrency Exchange). While cryptocurrencies seem to come under more scrutiny since time progresses, such events do benefit some countries like Hong Kong. Since the Chinese ICO ban, several founders of cryptocurrency projects have been driven from the mainland to the city. Aurelian Menant, CEO of Gatecoin, claimed that the company received "a high number of inquiries from blockchain project founders based in the mainland" and that there is an observable surge in the number of Chinese clients registering on the platform. Looking slightly further, companies like Nvidia have expressed positivity from the event. They claim that this ICO ban will only fuel their GPU sales, as being the ban will likely increase the demand for cryptocurrency-related GPUs. With the ban, the only way to obtain cryptocurrencies mined with GPUs may be to mine them with computing power. As such, individuals looking to obtain cryptocurrencies in China now have to obtain more computing electrical power, as opposed to making straight purchases via exchanges. In essence, Nvidia's sentiments is that this isn't a downhill spiral for cryptocurrencies; in fact , other industries will receive a boost as well. In light of all the commotion and debate surrounding cryptocurrencies, your integration of the technology into the global economies seem to be materialising hastily. Whether or not you believe in the future of the technology, or feel that it is a "fraud... that will blow up", the cryptocurrency rollercoaster is one worth your attention.

[conferencespeakers]

WHY IS ACCOUNTABILITY KEY TO INNOVATION?

The Industrial Revolutions of the past have always disrupted the job market though they have not decreased levels of employment, in fact levels of employment rose. Technology makes some goods and services cheaper, freeing up more money to spend on other things. Technology also makes it easier to meet old needs and creates new needs never envisioned.

The issue is not technology, the issue is we need to change the services we as human capital exchange for money. And no change occurs without first taking accountability for your change. Victims don’t change!

Accountability falls under Emotional Intelligence as accountability enables you to own, identify and manage your emotions and thus utilize them more effectively for tasks such as thinking and problem- solving both of which are key to innovation.

Article written by Wendy Mahoney and view her full profile at Conference Speakers

“If your emotional abilities aren’t in hand, if you don’t have self-awareness, if you are not able to manage your distressing emotions, if you can’t have empathy and have effective relationships, then no matter how smart you are, you are not going to get very far.”

WHAT IS ACCOUNTABILITY IN BUSINESS?

Accountable employees have high levels of self-awareness that enables them to better understand themselves and their impact on stakeholders. They are not as sensitive to stakeholder criticism, remaining focused on results and deadlines rather than being side-tracked by offense. This also enables them to learn at a faster rate from mistakes which is key to innovation and harnessing support from others through respect for their actions.  

These employees are usually your change agents as they understand how key change is to results and of course innovation. Accountable employees are aware of their weaknesses and constantly strive to develop themselves making them more likely to possess a growth mindset essential to innovation as opposed to a close mindset.

Accountability and responsibility are often used interchangeably, but these words have distinct meanings that separate them and their roles in the workplace. Responsibility is task-oriented. Every person on a team may be responsible for a given task that is required to complete a project. Accountability is what happens after a situation has occurred. It is how you respond and take ownership over the results.

HOW DO YOU CULTIVATE ACCOUNTABILITY IN BUSINESS?

Accountability is about delivering on a commitment, not simply taking blame when something does not go accordingly. It is a focus on outcomes as opposed to tasks and about taking initiative and considered, strategic follow-through.

In order to foster an environment of accountability people need to know what is expected of them, how to exercise authority and take responsibility for their results. It is crucial then that roles being clearly clarified including key deliverables. McKinsey state accountability as a key driver in organisational performance.

During the economic slowdown of 2008, Starbucks took a hit whereby 600 stores closed and profit fell by 28%. Leadership during that time blamed the economy and increased price of dairy for the downfall. That was until Howard Shultz came back as CEO after leaving eight years prior. He held leadership accountable rather than blaming things that cannot be controlled, like the economy and dairy prices..

WHY IS ACCOUNTABILITY KEY TO INNOVATION?

Some ways in which to build accountability are to:

Ask questions: Questions help people deconstruct the details of performance and consider alternatives without becoming defensive.

Create humiliation-free zones: Performance standards should not be intended to “name and shame.” It is the leaders responsibility to create a safe space where problems can be solved, rather than simply blaming individuals.

Break big goals into specific elements: Analysing the details that accumulate to produce either failure or success can make it easier to identify steps for improvement. This also makes it easier to find strengths as well as weaknesses.

WHAT IF YOU DON’T FOCUS ON ACCOUNTABILITY IN BUSINESS?

Teams operating without WHY IS ACCOUNTABILITY KEY TO INNOVATION? are more likely to breed mediocrity and resentment between team members with differing standards, miss deadlines and rely too heavily on discipline to alter a course of action.

Without accountability one cannot adapt and in the Exponential Age it’s as simple as adapt or die.

Leadership Insights:

14 Essential Leadership Skills During The 4th Industrial Revolution

These are the industries most likely to be taken over by robots

How healthy is the internet?

Diversity matters in the workplace. It is an important social issue, and a performance imperative.

Notes on AI Bias

Innovation Insights:

Startup Ispace envisions a bustling lunar economy by 2040

AI for Molecular Design

The New Nuclear: How A $600 Million Fusion Energy Unicorn Plans To Beat Solar

SpaceX’s Starhopper moves closer to its first flight

Amazon Go opens for the first time in New York. And the cashier-free store will accept cash

Zipline, which launched in Rwanda, now a unicorn.

[christophermphillips]

Blatant Electronic Harassment of a gay person by IBM and Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Denver

Faith Mahoney and Minnie Davie love are COWARD ASS STALKING CUNTS AND THEY DOD SOME WERID THINGS TO ME AT FATIH MAHONEYS HOME ON OLEANDER DR. TRIED TO CHARGE THEM AT GOLDSBORO NC POLICE DEPT BUT ITS CONSIDERED SEXUAL BATTERY AND IT HAS A TWO YEAR LIMITATION. YOU CAN SUE AFTER THE LIMITATION HAS EXPIRED. I HAVE ALL POLICE REPORTS

I Christopher Michael Phillips was an employee of IBM and Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Denver from 09/19/17 until the end of May 2018. During that time, I was being constantly harassed. I a 47-year-old gay male. During this time, I was also being harassed by the apartment above me. I called different law agencies and they would not help me. I resigned from my job end of May 2018 due to the harassment. I witnessed employees doing unscrupulous things with patients because that was the way they were trained by Anthem. After I resigned, I reported them to the EEOC, and strange things started to happen to me after that. I have pictures and documents.please visit my blog for more information.

!!!PLEASE PLEASE HELP ME!!!

Thank you for your time

Christopher Michael Phillips

Raleigh NC 27613

I update my blog weekly, please check back for updates.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/christopher-m-phillips-b913b830/

https://christophermphillips.blogspot.com/?m=1

[netflixliving-blog]

This week is going to be about the amazing and infamous show called ‘The Office’. Even though I haven’t finished the whole series, I talked to many fans of the show that have very strong opinions on it. Liv VanOrden from Concord, MA has watched the whole series and says, “The Office has changed my life not only has it made me lazy and lose eyesight but it has given me millions of hours of laughter and helps the bonding with my family...The Office is the best show ever!!”. The Office is a family friendly show that brings joy right to your screen. Netflix currently has all nine of the seasons and is consistently being watched by people everywhere. Delia Mahoney has been a fan of the show for a while and she says, “I usually watch the Office when I am sad and it takes me to a different reality to make me happy and motivated to keep going on like the character do”. The stars of the show are Steve Carrell as Micheal Scott, Jenna Kischer as Pam Beesly, John Krasinski as Jim Halpert, and Rainn Wilson as Dwight Schrute. The show is about a mediocre paper company in the hands of Scranton, PA branch manager Michael Scott. This mockumentary follows the everyday lives of the manager and the employees he "manages." The crew follows the employees around 24/7 and captures their quite humerous and bizarre encounters as they will do what it takes to keep the company thriving. Throughout the show, we meet new characters with familiar faces, such as Mindy Kaling, BJ Novak, Ed Helms, Oscar Nunez, Ellie Kemper, Craig Robinson and James Spader. With 9 seasons and 201 episodes, the Office has picked up an amazing fandom and reputation the past 12 years. If you are off from work or school, in between shows, or just interested, I definitely recommend giving this show a chance. I am currently in the process of finishing it and I do not regret it.

[greysfic]

Economies of Scale - Preview

Jac felt the rain on her hat like a thousand drumming fingers. Harsh white neons cast the towering city blocks in monochrome and illuminated nothing. She recognized nothing of the street; no helpful annotations or navigational overlays flickered across the bare concrete and slick black road. No signs distinguished one window from another, no graffiti marked territory, no music droned from clubs or dens. It dawned on her that there weren’t even any alleys.

Her service weapon felt too heavy to carry. Her boots filled with rainwater.

The city would be washed away. Something looming up behind her, something with too many eyes, would make it so.

“Good morning, Detective Hobbes.”

She woke drenched in sweat, eyes wide and staring at the blank ceiling of her flat. Her morning feeds crawled from the edge of vision, lambent text on the off-white plaster. She blinked, banishing it, sitting up and reaching for water on her bedside table.

“The time is eight AM exactly,” the Municipal Information System said inside her head. “The rain is scheduled to continue for one more hour, and will resume at 2PM."

Civic Centre calls it Sally; all in the push for a ‘friendlier Califresco.’

Jac toyed with disabling the wake-up as she hauled herself out of bed and into the shower. On the other hand, she didn’t want another snide little reprimand about ‘governmental unity’ and ‘encouraging metrics.’ She wondered if uptower folks got the same pressure, or if they even noticed, so accustomed to a steady stream of ads they must be.

She switched to audio feed while getting dressed.

“...brief public disturbance in Such’s Square ably contained by Galathi Inc.’s new deterrent drones…”

Jac cast the coroner's’ intake list on the back wall, banished it again when the schedule section filled up with the word ‘incineration’. Ably contained, she frowned, buckling on her holster.

“...manual drive required between Grand and Fifth as installation of new guidance lines continues. Commuters should expect some delays and be prepared to work from your vehicles...”

“...solute disgrace, Jordan, an absolute disgrace, it really is tampering with the Lord’s design when the mind is so perfect and sacred…”

“SO HUNGRY YOU COULD JUST EAT SOMEONE?! COME ON OVER TO THE PULLED PIG; GENUINE CLONED HUMAN MEAT…”

“...expecting the Keymaker probe to arrive on Yrva next month, but scientists are still unsure if mana obeys the same laws on other planets…”

Jac killed the feed, switched to Dispatch, and stepped out of her flat into the bare beige hallway. The identical doors stretching along the walls always inspired a feeling akin to vertigo. Lewisham insisted she needed her entoptics recalibrated. The door locked behind her; the lift opened ahead of her and automatically selected parking. Her car was already running when she reached it, driver’s door popping gently ajar for her convenience.

Her father had hated that, but it’d saved Jac’s life at least twice.

On the road, she enabled automatic and fished for a cigarette. The sleek blue-black vehicle smoothly joined the Civic lane and carried her across town. The city blocks towered up to the thick, black clouds and the rain came down like bullets from heaven. The roads were narrow valleys amid concrete cliffs.

Citizens and blacklines crowded the pavements and underpasses. Drones for advertising and drones for security drifted overhead like glowing, bloated ticks. The rain was like the surface of an oil-slick, a riot of colour from the neons on every shopfront, the holoprojections and spotlights.

The smoke curling from Jac’s nostrils was whisked away by discreet vents in the ceiling. She half-watched it, devoting more attention to the words sliding down her windshield. Robbery in Vinter; owners aren’t insured for an investigation. Assault at Wilmund and Cross; victim paid on the spot for full prosecution. A raft of illegal weapon discharges which meant a turf war had turned into a massacre. Jac made a note to look into that later - someone on the force got paid for that. She may not be able to catch them for it, but at least she would know.

The Precinct’s shutters rolled up to admit her car. Jac climbed out and watched it get added to the stack below, stubbing out her smoke and tossing it on her way through the inner door.

Desk Sergeant Mahoney, rail thin with hunched shoulders and a quietly mean streak, barely glanced up as she passed. An assistant civic prosecutor hustled paperwork to the Captain's office, and a few uniforms chatted with coffee cups steaming in their hands.

“Hey, Hobbes.”

Jac paused at the door to The Pen as a skinny guy, a lurid blue-glass gem where a left eye should have been, strode toward her.

“Mornin’ sir,” she replied, and let the door close, standing back to wait for him.

“Don’t fuck about, Hobbes,” he snapped, as if the rod up his ass spoke for him, “don’t pretend you can’t feel the heat. This is a very simple question - were you at Cuveil Street last night?”

Hobbes folded her arms and pursed her lips, pulling up the station alerts. A riot, according to official sources, but she knew better.

“No, sir.”

“I know you disable your tracker when you’re off-duty, Hobbes. Don’t repeat history.”

Tensing, she held herself still and passed him her cached location data; never left her flat.

“Good, then it’s your turn,” said DCI Slater, turning on his heel.

“My turn?” Hobbes half-shouted after him, “you had to tell me that personally?” she added, but he was already boarding the lift at the end of the hall.

Jac swore under her breath and entered The Pen, where a dozen good detectives were slowly turning into comfortable desk jockeys who would later turn into the kind of pricks who make superintendent. She mumbled hellos on her way through the dull beige cubicles to her desk. By the time she sat down, her neural spike had wirelessly booted her terminal and logged in, at which point the actual device became largely irrelevant. Jac felt better about a physical keyboard for reports than letting the software in her head sneakily edit her entries for better optics.

Immediately all her casework was pushed offscreen and out of her feed by a pulsing orange box marked PRIORITY ASSIGNMENT.

Gang violence at Cuveil Street just after the nightly storm started. At least a three dead according to the census data, and that was already entered into the report. Jac smiled, brittle and mirthless; the actual bodycount was likely higher. It would take an hour to resolve, and a lifetime to forget.

She rolled her chair into the aisle and called over the nearest cube wall. “Campbell, are you busy?”

Campbell looked up with the expression of someone relieved not to have been caught browsing skin at the office.

“Will I regret saying no?” They replied, bioplastic eyebrows cycling from businesslike black to playful silver. Campbell claimed that they were a necessary tool for communication, but Jac always suspected that was one implant the willowy detective chose out of vanity.

“Strike broken on Cuveil last night,” she replied, lips curling bitterly, “I’m the rubberstamp and I’d like some company.”

“This is a favour, then…”

“If returning it involves the phrase ‘plus one’, save it for lunch,” Jac said, rolling her eyes and enabling her remote link as she stood to put her coat back on.

“Deal. I’m driving,” Campbell said, and followed her to the carpool.

The problem with mass-produced unmarked cars is that, sooner or later, people know what a silver-gray sedan is doing in the neighbourhood. Jac busied herself with official census data for the blocks around Cuveil while Campbell hummed along to their tailored playlist. Distinctly lower class area, right near the slums, with a registered civilian population in the low hundreds. Which meant at least twice that in blacklines, the unregistered criminal class; no rights, no records, no civic services. She ran a quick scan of the citizens in the area, rifling through their lives like a dispassionate god; an affair in that apartment, chronic anxiety there, the thousand small moments those people liked to believe were private. One office clerk’s behavioural record was flagged with moderate-high suicide likelihood, but the police software precluded any intervention: she wasn’t insured for emergency services to care.

The rest of the Redlines were safe and well-behaved, holed up in their apartments or away at work to avoid the inevitable police investigation at the intersection.

“This was WavTec again, right?” Campbell asked aloud, though they both knew the answer.

“Yeah,” Jac replied, “I mean, probably. They’ve got a history of employee mistreatment and they’re right around the corner.”

“Ah, ah, ah,” Campbell wagged a finger, letting the autopilot compensate for inattention, “You mean ‘minor persistent morale deficit ‘“

Jac snorted, “Employee Gratitude Shortfall.”

“That was last year’s rhetoric.”

“Hm,” Jac grunted, staring out the window, “flagged as a gang skirmish, so I guess someone had a legitimate grievance this time around.”

“Or enough money for a lawyer.”

“You have any informants locally?”

“Ha,” Campbell exclaimed, “you actually want to treat this like a real investigation?”

“I want,” Jac smirked, looking over at them, “to make Slater work overtime.”

Campbell shook their head, “you’re gonna find contraband in your desk one of these days.”

“Yeah, yeah, runs in the family,” Jac replied, looking away with a dismissive wave of the hand.

“Sorry,” Campbell said, and went back to manual drive.

“The dead are buried, Campbell, I wouldn’t get bunched up about it.”

The car rolled smoothly to a halt a few inches from the police tape, beyond which a pair of uniformed officers slouched against the wall of an apartment block with half-eaten burgers in hand. A pair of vans waited on the opposite of the intersection; competing sanitation companies bidding for the cleanup. The two detectives climbed out of the vehicle, Campbell pressing their lips into a thin line as they approached the uniforms.

“Really, guys?”

The taller of the two took a bite of his burger, the shorter shrugged; “Already been ‘round with the scent control stuff, so if you just don’t look you can keep your lunch down.”

“This is lunch?” Campbell went on, “it’s not even midday.”

“Oooh,” the shorter cop turned to her partner, “you hear that, Dave? Detective I-Get-A-Regular-Shift think we’re slacking off.”

“Must be nice to to start work after sunrise,” the taller agreed, talking around a mouthful of artificial beef.and Pretty Bready™ bun.

“You wanna talk to our manager, or is that just your haircut?” the short cop continued.

Jac ignored them and crouched under the tape, walking a slow circuit of the intersection. The smell was gone, but the bodies were pale and rigid, faces mostly frozen in screams. The rain had washed most of the blood away, left the corpses soaking, their open mouths full of water.

She made notes as she went, adding them to her internal memory.

Three dead citizens, Redlines still broadcasting flat vitals.

Thirty other bodies, strewn across the wide intersection, dressed in a mix of cheap office attire and outsider fashions.

She crouched beside the body of a boy who can't have been much past eighteen, a neat hole from a beamcaster in his temple and dyed hair wilting out of a styled fan. A fresh tattoo resembling a Seizers Legion tag stood out on his arm; Jac pulled on a glove and ran her thumb over it. It smeared a little, would’ve bled if he’d still been alive. Applied post mortem, like the shiny new gun clenched in his hand.

Knowing what to expect, she checked it for a chip and found none, nor any ammunition. Anything but the manufacturer would be scrubbed from the body of the weapon.

Jac stood and put her hands on her hips, knitting her brows as she looked around at the corpses again. A few more identical weapons wrapped in bloodless fingers, corpses lying atop each other like they tripped over the fallen before joining them. Her frown deepened and she took a few steps forward, stepped over a pair of bodies, two steps more, pausing at a stack of three corpses.

Campbell strolled over to join her, looking queasy.

“Ready to stamp this and go?”

Jac shook her head, “not just yet - can you pull any drone recordings?”

“Sure. gizza minute or two,” Campbell said, tilting their head, “you hoping to find something specific?”

“Maybe,” she replied, squinting up to where the towering blocks disappeared into the tamed clouds. Whether you loved or hated this, feel free to comment. This will proceed based on demand - check out the whichonenext tag to see the other contender for my next webserial.

[sogivemecoffeeandtvhistory]

Murder In Upper Georgetown

When Pour Your Heart Into It – Howard Schultz’s book on the factors that turned Starbucks into a ubiquitous part of everyday life – was reissued in 1999, its dedication was amended to read that it includes “all my partners at Starbucks, especially Mary Caitrin Mahoney, Aaron David Goodrich, and Emory Allen Evans. You live on in our hearts.”

Mahoney, 25, was an assistant manager at the Starbucks on Wisconsin Avenue, in the quiet Georgetown neighborhood of Burleith in Washington, D.C. When Mahoney was first hired by Starbucks in 1995, she had already graduated from Towson State University, volunteered for Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign, was among the first interns to serve in the hectic early months of the Clinton White House, and worked at several restaurants and coffeehouses in Baltimore and D.C. Evans, 25, had moved to Washington in 1995 after being admitted to Howard University but was unable to attend because he could not afford the tuition. A series of temporary jobs in the area to raise the money, including an eight-month stint working at the Washington Hospital Center cafeteria, led him to a part-time job at the Wisconsin Avenue Starbucks in June 1997, where he began working weekend nights. Goodrich, 18, had moved to Washington to live with his father, who helped him get a job working at the Wisconsin Avenue Starbucks near their home in April 1997.

Mahoney, Evans, and Goodrich were the first employees to have been murdered at a Starbucks. They were shot to death, execution-style – a total of ten times – sometime after the store closed for the evening on Sunday, July 6, 1997.

"Things Like This Just Don’t Happen In Georgetown”

Councilman Jack Evans (D-Ward 2), who has represented Georgetown and Burleith in the D.C. City Council since 1991 and chaired the Council Judiciary Committee at the time, captured the shock of the murders when he told reporters: "To have a triple homicide anywhere in the District of Columbia is an unusual event. To have a triple homicide in Georgetown is extraordinary. Georgetown has never been a place where crime has been a problem.” It was Georgetown’s first murder case in a year-and-a-half. Evans pointed out that of the 397 murders in Washington in 1996, only six even occurred west of 16th Street.

Washington, D.C., may have had the reputation in the early 1990s of being “the murder capital of the country” – it made significant progress over the decade – but Georgetown has always had a distinct and rarefied reputation. Established in 1751 as a port town, it predates Washington as its oldest neighborhood and is also one of its wealthiest, having long housed congressmen and senators and several generations of political elite. It is distinguished by its history, architecture, culture, and the growth of a vibrant commercial and retail district on Wisconsin Avenue and M Streets, which intersect at the 1200 block. Walking up Wisconsin Avenue to the 1800 block, where the Starbucks is, the crowds and foot traffic of Georgetown slowly tapers off. Burleith, in Upper Georgetown, is a remote and residential area. The Burleith Citizens Association website touts, “Burleith has one of the lowest crime rates in the area.” Walking into town, it’s hard to miss the prominently positioned yin-yang logo of the Safeway, which is open 24 hours. One block over from the Starbucks is a school. 

At the time of the murders, Starbucks had over 1,200 locations around the world – including 62 in the greater Washington area alone, and 10 in the city itself. The Starbucks on Wisconsin Avenue first opened in the summer of 1994; it was previously a used car dealership called Georgetown Motors. Mary “Caity” Mahoney had worked there for 20 months, including five as assistant store manager, and by all accounts loved her role there. In one anecdote recounted in The Baltimore Sun, when then-First Daughter Chelsea Clinton did not have the money to pay for coffee one time, she paid for the drink herself before anyone else could intervene. Mahoney had aspired to a top job with Starbucks in Baltimore, where much of her family and many of her friends lived. Goodrich, who was still in his junior year of high school when he began working at Starbucks, had aspired to be manager.

The bodies of Mary Mahoney, Emory Evans, and Aaron Goodrich were found by the assistant manager who arrived to open the store at 5:15 a.m. the next morning, Monday, July 7. After witnessing the scene, the woman ran from the store and flagged down a Metro bus driver, Warren Wingfield, who called his dispatcher and alerted the police. More than a dozen officers were on the scene by 6 A.M. and had closed off several street blocks by the time business owners arrived to open shop along Wisconsin Avenue. They were closed until noon that day.

The officers were confronted with an unusually gruesome crime and a puzzling crime scene:

Mahoney was shot five times, including a bullet that pierced her hands and hit her face and a shot in the back of the head. Her body was found in the hallway outside the office. Evans was shot in the left shoulder at point-blank range and then in the head and chest. Goodrich was shot once in the left arm, but the bullet hit both lungs and his heart. Bullets and shell casings were recovered from the crime scene but no weapons were found.

A receipt showed that one of the employees purchased a pound of coffee at 8:40 p.m. Several residents in the neighborhood observed, both to the police and the media, that the store’s lights were on late into the night: A witness who passed by at 9:15 said he saw Evans and Goodrich cleaning up but that the door was locked when he tried to get in. Two separate witnesses who passed by at around 9:30 said the door was unlocked and that they got no response when they entered. Georgetown is known for having a robust community patrol – the Burleith Citizens Association was established in 1925 – but there were never any reports of sounds of gunfire, which led to speculation a silencer may have been used. 

The assistant manager who discovered the bodies had to unlock the doors that morning, which suggests the assailant would had to have entered somehow after Mahoney, Evans, and Goodrich began cleaning up for the evening. There were no signs of forced entry or tampering with the locks. The back door was locked as well.

There was no attempt to open the safe, which contained as much as $10,000 at the end of the July 4 holiday weekend. The alarms at the store’s two back doors never went off the night of the murders or the morning after. Although the victims were pickpocketed, none of Mahoney’s keys were missing and the two cash registers went untouched.

A bullet hole was found in the ceiling of the office (in some instances reported as being above the safe), which could have been a warning shot or a sign of struggle. Mahoney, the only employee who knew the combination, was farthest from it and separate from the bodies of Evans and Goodrich.

There was a shoe print by the front door that did not match any of the victims.

Mahoney’s car – a silver 1994 Saturn, a gift from her grandmother – was still in the parking lot, with a flat tire on the front passenger side.

The crime scene did not suggest a self-evident motive but the most prevalent theory in the aftermath of the murders was that a former employee may have been involved, a suspect first mentioned by the assistant manager who discovered the crime scene. In its first report on the murders, The Washington Post quoted a police source at the scene saying detectives were working “a solid lead” and “definitely checking” out the former employee. The former employee in question had been let go, by Mahoney, after being accused of stealing $300 from the register. As her mother told the Post, “She struggled with the issue before having to fire him.” A law-enforcement official suggested to The New York Times that the employee could have returned to the store shortly after it closed to confront Mahoney, which led to an argument that ended in the shootings. The police were forced to start from scratch within days after questioning and releasing the former employee in question and searching his home. The man explained he worked out a way to pay back the money and was out of town the night of the murders. Questions would linger.

Another early lead had it that a man was overheard on the phone at the Four Seasons on Pennsylvania Avenue in Georgetown saying that he killed some people in an attempt to reach his lawyer. Nothing came of that, or from any of the surveillance tapes reviewed by the police. There was not, at the time, a surveillance camera at the Starbucks, a point of contention later raised by Mahoney’s mother.

Detectives investigated the background of each victim, as well as all local employees and former employees who may have had a grudge. It was later reported that district police hired Brad Garrett, a now retired FBI special agent best known for capturing and helping prosecute Mir Aimal Kansi, the Pakistani terrorist who killed two CIA employees at agency headquarters in 1993, to help investigate Starbucks employees and additional leads. (Garrett would later work on the Chandra Levy case.)

Theories and rumors abounded as the police conducted dozens of interviews. Preliminary ballistics tests showed that two guns were used for the murders – later found to be a .38-caliber revolver and bullets and a .380-caliber semiautomatic weapon – strongly suggesting multiple assailants.

Many significant facts of the case were leaked in the first two weeks – how many times the victims were shot and where, the investigation of the former employee, the surveillance tapes – and Eric Holder, who had just been sworn in as Deputy Attorney General, told The Washington Times that he was “concerned about the number of leaks and the amount of detail that has gotten out there.” (This would not be the last time the Justice Department expressed an opinion about the case.) Assistant Police Chief Rodney Moore later acknowledged: “You had some individuals that had some knowledge of the case – but who weren’t responsible for the case – passing out information. There was uncorroborated information and misinformation that was leaked. That hurt the department.”

The murders upended a sense of complacency, and the disparity in media coverage of the Starbucks murders and the typical homicide in Washington did not go unnoticed. Jack Evans acknowledged the location was a factor: “Things like this just don’t happen in Georgetown. They just don’t.”

The Georgetown community was shaken by the brutality and senselessness – and so was the Starbucks corporate family. Dean Torrenga, a regional director for Starbucks, said at the time, “Nothing in the history of company, 26 years, has ever happened like this.” Howard Schultz, at the time Starbucks’ chairman and CEO and now its executive chairman, was on vacation with his family in the Hamptons at the time of the murders. When Howard Behar, then-president of Starbucks North America, was alerted of the murders in the middle of the night in Seattle, he informed Schultz, who cut his vacation short. Behar later recounted in a piece for the online journal InCharacter.org:

I got the call at about three in the morning, Seattle time. It was Dean Torrenga, the senior operational leader for the D.C. area. In our worst nightmares we could never have imagined that out of a simple cup of coffee we’d face a catastrophe like this — the three young people who died and the traumatic effect this tragedy had on their families, the community, and ourselves.

As corporate leadership coach Michael Lee Stallard pointed out, “What Schultz didn’t do, says a lot about his character. He didn’t call Starbucks’ public relations people or lawyers. Instead, Schultz chartered a plane and headed straight to Washington, D.C.” Schultz was in Washington by 9 a.m. the morning after the murders and he stayed for a week.

Starbucks moved quickly to address the concerns being raised by hiring security guards for several stores in the Washington area. Schultz attended a counseling session for employees, visited branch locations, and personally expressed his condolences to the families of the victims. In the days that followed, Starbucks offered a $50,000 reward for information leading to an arrest and conviction in the case, later raised to $100,000 and then $125,000. Starbucks also offered to pay for the funerals of the victims and establish a memorial fund, as well as lump-sum payments to the victims’ families. (The Georgetown Business Association also offered a $10,000 reward for information.)

Starbucks was faced with the difficult question of whether to ultimately reopen the store. While employees were traumatized in the immediate aftermath, dozens of merchants in the area issued a plea for Starbucks to reopen. Schultz announced at a memorial service for Mahoney, Evans, and Goodrich attended by employees at Starbucks from the Washington-Baltimore area that the store would eventually reopen as a “living memorial” to the slain workers and that all future profits from the store would go to an organization concerned with victims of violent crime or preventing violence. 

Fall 1997

As summer turned to fall, the Starbucks triple homicide investigation receded from public view until its main points were highlighted in a segment for a September 1997 episode of FOX’s America’s Most Wanted. Police had questioned 40 people by this point but had developed no new leads on suspects, and began to theorize that perhaps the crime was perpetuated by a panicked and inexperienced burglar.

The investigation was then complicated by two developments that indicated how off track the investigation had become, and at a time when Washington’s rate of solved homicides had fallen to 34 percent and the police department was under increasing scrutiny. 

In late September 1997, the radio station WTOP reported that when the former employee was questioned shortly after the murders, homicide detectives failed to seize a pair of shoes that had a dark stain that an evidence technician later suggested could have been blood. Sgt. Joe Gentile, a police spokesman, told reporters that investigators subsequently obtained a warrant to seize the shoes and that the FBI’s tests showed that the stain was not blood and also argued that bloodstains could not have been removed between the time of the interview and the time the shoes were taken. The Baltimore Sun reported that the former employee, who was said not to have had an ironclad alibi, moved to California after the murders and hired a lawyer. Mahoney’s family denounced the police for allowing a suspect to walk away with potential evidence, and suggested the shoes could have been swapped. The family also publicly complained that the police had not interrogated various leads, including two women who had unsuccessfully tried to sue Mahoney after kicking her out of a shared apartment.

D.C. Police Chief Larry Soulsby resigned in late November 1997, amid controversy over a luxury apartment he shared with a lieutenant who was under federal investigation. However, inefficiency, morale, and budgetary concerns were all contributing factors, and the unsolved Starbucks case was not least among them. The police department’s homicide division was already under fire by Washington’s control board for collecting significant overtime pay despite its low case-closure rate. In addition, the department underwent a controversial restructuring the week before the murders, which slashed the number of detectives operating out of the homicide division. Soulsby had ousted the leadership of the homicide division in September and conducted a review of all detectives in the division. Of the six murders in Washington that occurred on the July 4 holiday weekend in 1997, only one would be resolved by July 1998.

The police investigation came into public view once again at the end of the year, when The Washington Post reported on the bizarre saga of Eric Butera, a drug user and police informant, who died after being beaten to death outside a row house on Delaware Avenue in Southwest Washington. Detectives accompanied Butera to the neighborhood and gave him $80 in marked bills to buy cocaine as a pretense to ask around after telling detectives he had overheard occupants of the house discuss the Starbucks case. Police were quick to clarify they did not consider Butera key to the case, only that he had a tip worth following up on.

Three men – Keith Mathis, Renaldo Mathis, and Robert Walker – were charged with felony murder in connection with his death; none were occupants of the house. Keith Mathis and Robert Walker pleaded guilty to robbery and assault charges in the case, and Renaldo Mathis was convicted of second-degree murder in April 1999. No connection was established between assailants and the Starbucks case and none of the occupants of the Delaware Avenue house that were interviewed provided any relevant information. The Washington Post later reported that an eyewitness submitted an affidavit revealing that when Butera knocked on the door of the Delaware Avenue house and it went unanswered, he went over to a walkway along the back of the row houses where he was approached by the two men, one of whom demanded his money before they began beating him until he was unconscious and then brutally beaten by a third man. It has never been revealed what Butera believed tied the Delaware Avenue house to the Starbucks murders. Butera’s mother, Terry, filed a $115 million lawsuit against the police, arguing they ignored proper procedures in sending him into “one of the most notorious drug markets, after dark, without so much as a single officer monitoring progress.” After a two-week trial in October 1999, a jury found the police negligent and liable and ordered the District to pay Terry Butera $70.5 million in compensatory damages and $27.5 million in punitive damages, in the largest jury verdict returned against the D.C. government. That was later reduced to $1.1 million in damages, after the D.C. Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that most of the jury findings lacked legal foundations, upholding only the negligence claims and punitive damages levied against the officers.  

The Starbucks at Wisconsin Avenue began renovations at the end of 1997. In Starbucks’ annual report, Schultz and then-Starbucks President Orin Smith wrote:

“This commitment to our partners is why we continue to struggle with the senseless tragedy we experienced over the Fourth of July weekend. We lost three wonderful partners when Mary Caitrin Mahoney, Aaron David Goodrich and Emory Allan Evans were brutally murdered in our Georgetown, Washington D.C. store. The police investigation is still ongoing. Starbucks is offering up to $100,000 leading up to the arrest of the murderer(s), and we have promised the families of the victims that we will not rest until the perpetrator(s) of this heinous crime is found. We will re-open the store in the second quarter of fiscal 1998 as a living memorial to our partners.”

Dean Torrenga observed to The Washington Times as the year came to an end that the urgency in solving the murders “could have been better.”

Anatomy Of A Conspiracy Theory: How Caity Mahoney Ended Up In The Clinton Body Count

The “Clinton Body Count” is one of the more well-known Internet phenomena. The conspiracy theory that Bill and Hillary Clinton have orchestrated the murders of dozens of so-called associates, witnesses, and friends has persisted for decades, even though their prominent opponents appear to be perfectly healthy. As Snopes has pointed out, these allegations are easy to make when no connection is too tenuous and facts are optional or otherwise open to interpretation and revision. Mahoney’s internship at the Clinton White House was suggested as a factor worth investigating in tips to the police in the weeks after the murders. There was Internet chatter on message boards like alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater, raising eyebrows about the lack of progress in the mysterious unsolved murder of a former White House intern.

Mahoney’s White House internship, which followed her volunteer work on the 1992 campaign, was relatively brief but not an inconsequential post. She interned in the Office of Public Liaison, which at the time was headed by Alexis Herman (who served as Labor Secretary in Clinton’s second term) and Deputy Director Doris Matsui, who has served in the House since 2005. Matsui told The Baltimore Sun that Mahoney “had this wonderful way of loving life, and she was very eager to be helpful.” Matsui and Herman, it is sometimes noted in conspiratorial interpretations of the Starbucks murders, have had roles in Clinton fundraising scandals pursuant to their roles in the Office of Public Liaison: Matsui reportedly helped John Huang, a central figure in the 1996 campaign fundraising scandals who later pleaded guilty to a felony violation of campaign finance laws, devise a strategy to raise millions of dollars from Asian-American donors by offering them perks, including White House access. Herman was implicated in a White House plan to sell seats on international trade missions to raise campaign funds. Regardless, this seems far beyond the pay grade of even the most impressive intern. As Snopes points out, “Mary Mahoney did once work as an intern at the White House, but so have hundreds of other people who are all still alive. There is no credible reason why, of all the interns who have served in the Clinton White House, Mahoney alone would be the target of a Clinton-directed killing.” Reasons would be offered, but they were hardly credible.

Mahoney was politically active and outspoken. In a June 1994 New York Times report on the Gay Games IV and Cultural Festival, Mahoney, who was identified as “a 21-year-old lesbian student,” was quoted saying, “This is exactly what I was hoping for: it’s one big gay world.” At Towson, Mahoney was remembered for having organized many discussion groups and rallies on women’s issues, such as domestic violence and campus sexual assault. At the time of the murders, Mahoney served on the board of directors of 31st Street Books, which, despite its name, was not a bookstore but a Baltimore-based feminist collective. According to her obituary in the Washington Blade, Mahoney was also a founding member of a political activist group called the Baltimore Lesbian Avengers.

I came across a blog entry posted by a friend of Mahoney’s on the tenth anniversary of the Starbucks murders. Her friend, who went by the nom-de-blog Artemis Spawn, wrote: “I, for one, would like to know what really happened. Why? I knew her personally. She was a friend and neighbor of mine, and I spent time with her the day before she died.” The woman recalls that Caity loved her job at Starbucks and talked about how she was “very excited about direction that her life was taking” the day before the murders. The woman also recalls that they both attended a farm picnic in Pennsylvania two days before the murders, and concludes by noting: “She rode to that party from Baltimore with three other women (I was one of them), but she left before dark without saying good-by to me. I heard it was because she had to go to work. She did not mention having to leave early on the way there, so this is puzzling to me, but I do not have any other information about this at this time. That is all I can think of for now.”

A purported White House connection to the Starbucks murders assumed lurid new meaning after the affair between President Clinton and another former White House intern, Monica Lewinsky, was exposed, in a January 17, 1998 Drudge Report item revealing the blockbuster world exclusive that Newsweek “killed a story” by Michael Isikoff about the affair.

The Starbucks murders, coincidentally (and nothing more), occurred at a notable turning point in the Clinton-Lewinsky saga. According to the timeline reconstructed in the Starr Report, on July 3, Lewinsky sent President Clinton a letter in which she suggested that if he was not going to be able to secure another White House job for her, she would “need to explain to my parents exactly why that wasn’t happening.” They met in the Oval Office the next morning where he first told her, “It’s illegal to threaten the President of the United States.” At the end of their lengthy and emotional conversation, Lewinsky informed the President that Isikoff was working on article reporting the claim by Kathleen Willey that he sexually harassed her during a 1993 Oval Office meeting. Without naming Linda Tripp, Lewinsky told Clinton of a Pentagon colleague who had previously worked in the White House, knew Willey, and was approached by Isikoff. That same day, the Drudge Report revealed that Isikoff was “hot on the trail of a woman who claims to have been sexually propositioned by the President on federal proper” but gave no other information. (Drudge hinted the tip came from one of Isikoff’s own colleagues.) On July 28, Drudge named the woman in question: “WILLEY’S DECISION: White House Employee Tells Reporter That President Made Sex Pass.” Isikoff’s story ran in Newsweek’s August 11 issue.

The first direct allegation tying the cases together appeared to come in the January 23, 1998 issue of Strategic Weekly Briefings, a former subscription newsletter for investors by Craig S. Karpel and distributed by the economic advisory firm Agora Financial. Karpel is a longtime investigative journalist and author of The Retirement Myth, a critique of the American retirement system. However, Karpel’s contributions to Strategic Weekly Briefings were of a more conspiratorial nature. (In 1977 and 1978, Karpel wrote a series of essays for Penthouse about the pervasive influence of the Trilateral Commission on the Carter administration. The thesis of these essays was: “It would be unfair to say that the Trilateral Commission dominates the Carter Administration; the Trilateral Commission is the Carter Administration.”)

Karpel alleged,

“According to my sources, when Monica Lewinsky first met with Vernon Jordan in November 1997 she told him she didn’t want to end up like Caity Mahoney. Jordan professed not to know whom Lewinsky was referring to until she identified Mahoney as the former White House intern who was murdered last summer in a Starbucks. … 

“My sources tell me that Jordan gently told Lewinsky not to let her imagination run away with her and assured her that she was in no danger of being murdered on orders from Bill Clinton or anyone associated with Bill Clinton. 

“According to my sources, Lewinsky wasn’t convinced. When she later met with Jordan in the back of his limousine, Lewinsky is said to have tearfully told him that Linda Tripp never believed Vincent Foster didn’t commit suicide, and that neither she nor Tripp wanted to end up like Foster.”

On the subject of the Mahoney murder, Karpel advised in a message directed to the D.C. police: “Caity Mahoney interned for Doris Matsui. Check it out.”

What is true is that Lewinsky once confided in Tripp, who was wearing a wire for Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr’s prosecution: “I would not cross these people for fear of my life.”

The allegation was raised again in the February 9, 1998 issue of The Washington Weekly, a newsletter distributed by conservative journalist Carl Limbacher. After noting the unusual circumstances of the murder and the allegation in Strategic Weekly Briefings, Limbacher provides the transcript of his unsuccessful attempts to get information from Tony Patterson, one of the detectives in charge of the case, particularly on the subject of the beating death of Eric Butera:

QUESTION: May I ask you some questions? 

PATTERSON: It depends. Which case? 

QUESTION: About the Starbucks murder. May I ask you some questions? 

PATTERSON: No, no. I can't discuss that case. 

QUESTION: You can't discuss that case? 

PATTERSON: Not right now. 

QUESTION: Can you discuss it off the record? 

PATTERSON: No. 

QUESTION: You can't discuss your informant who was beaten to death? 

PATTERSON: No, that's what I said. Too much has been released to the press already. 

QUESTION: Can you discuss aspects of the case that would not affect your investigation? 

PATTERSON: No sir. 

QUESTION: You can't discuss anything? You can't describe the murder scene? 

PATTERSON: That's already known. 

QUESTION: It's known from press accounts, but what is not known so well is what you have to say. 

PATTERSON: I have nothing else to say about it.

Limbacher also contacted Starbucks spokesman Kenny Fried. Among Limbacher’s questions:

QUESTION: There is a lot of speculation going around on the internet about who could have had a motive for this killing. And this is being connected to the fact that this young lady was a former White House intern, and that rumors were circulating in Washington at this time that an intern was going to come forward with information about the President's activities in the White House. Have you heard stories like that? 

FRIED: No, I haven't. 

QUESTION: Do you have any comment on that? 

FRIED: I'm not the right person to comment on that. I can see if there is anyone at headquarters who could comment on that. 

QUESTION: Do you know of any apparent motive in this slaying? 

FRIED: No, we don't, nothing. There was speculation that it was robbery. 

QUESTION: Was there any indication from the crime scene that it was an attempted robbery? 

FRIED: That's all a police matter.

The theory was perpetuated at the fringes of the Clinton-Lewinsky saga throughout 1998, by talk-radio conservative pundit types and conspiracy publications like Steamshovel Press. There were two versions. Both paint Mahoney as an inconvenient woman who knew too much:

Mahoney was the victim of a contract hit because she was believed to be the former White House employee in talks with Isikoff about a White House staffer being propositioned by the President. Some variations have it that it was known that Isikoff was speaking with a former White House intern with the initial “M”. 

Years after her internship ended, Mahoney somehow became something of a confidante or den mother to other White House interns and knew of President Clinton’s transgressions. A variation of this has it that Mahoney even knew Lewinsky. I have seen people cite a passage from All Too Human, George Stephanopoulos’ memoir about his tenure in the Clinton Administration, in which Lewinsky approached him one Sunday morning in late 1996 at a Starbucks near his apartment – which was in Georgetown at the time – and asked him, “Does your president tell the truth?” (Of course, nothing in this passage suggests this would even be the same Starbucks.)

The rumor was further rehashed when WorldNetDaily (WND) editor-in-chief Joseph Farah rehashed it in an October 1, 1998 column. Farah alleged, “I have reports from sources close to Lewinsky quoting her as saying she feared ending up like ‘Caity’ Mahoney. Who knows why Mahoney died? Who knows what she knew? … Yet, no one – not Kenneth Starr, not Congress, nor any other investigative agency in government or the press – has bothered to look into this suspicious murder.”

A purported White House connection and the allegation that Lewinsky once said something along the lines of not wanting to end up like Caity Mahoney, as its sketchy provenance demonstrates, has never been credible. Even Newsmax eventually acknowledged it was unable to confirm the validity of the quote. It distorts something Lewinsky actually did say: In her grand jury testimony, Lewinsky was asked whether she ever told Linda Tripp that she felt “physically at risk.” Lewinsky responded: “I think so. I think I told her something about … Mary Jo what’s-her-name [Kopechne],” a reference to Ted Kennedy’s passenger at Chappaquiddick.

“The Pressure Is There”

The Washington Post reported on the progress, or lack thereof, in the Starbucks murder investigation in a mid-February 1998 piece. Citing the words of the father of one of the victims – “Keep in mind, my son went to work and hasn’t come yet” – Lt. Brian McAllister acknowledged, “The pressure is there” and emphasized that three detectives are assigned to the case full time. Mahoney’s stepmother, Ginny, was quoted suggesting “all that internal turmoil” at the police department could have had an impact on the investigation. She continued, "I don't want to be unduly critical. … But I am anything but satisfied. I hope the pressure is kept up so they don't forget about solving this case.” (She died in December 1999.)

On February 20, 1998, the Starbucks on Wisconsin Avenue reopened with a relatively understated event, but with significant media attention – students from a public relations class at the George Washington University even attended as part of an assignment on how Starbucks had handled the matter. A memorial for Mahoney, Evans, and Goodrich was unveiled. It was announced that Starbucks and the Community Foundation for the National Capital Region would administer a Starbucks Memorial Fund to give grants to nonprofit organizations, violence-prevention and skills-training programs.

The occasion also underscored the lack of momentum in the case.

The D.C. police department was again embarrassed in May, when The Washington Post reported that the department, which was the first local law enforcement agency in the country to receive access to the Integrated Ballistics Identification System to analyze and compare test-fired bullets with bullets and shell casings from crime scenes, had a backlog of as many as 2,500 bullets and shell casings. A source familiar with the police unit responsible for the ballistics system told the Post that the backlog included bullets and shell casings from weapons of the calibers of the guns used in the Starbucks murders, which meant it could not be concluded whether those weapons were also involved. The next day, Assistant Police Chief Moore announced that he ordered an immediate analysis on all bullets and shell casings similar to those used in the murders, among other corrective measures.

The first anniversary of the Starbucks murders was by all accounts a restrained occasion, again shadowed by the lack of progress. “It’s still very much on all of our minds,” Lawrence Broome, the manager of the Starbucks, told The Washington Times. “We will never forget.” Starbucks held a candlelight vigil to commemorate the anniversary. Amid renewed media interest about the investigation, Moore emphasized that two homicide detectives, two homicide supervisors, and an FBI agent were working on the case full time, and that they pulled in additional resources as needed. 

There was generally a reluctance by the police to discuss details of the investigation, with one exception. Several law-enforcement sources optimistically told The Washington Times that police had trimmed their list of suspects from 35 down to five. The list was said include the employee who had been fired by Mahoney. But as it would later turn out, he was no longer the primary suspect.

A Long Game

On June 20, 1998, FOX re-aired the America’s Most Wanted segment on the Starbucks case in an attempt to draw new attention. In fact, after the broadcast, a woman who was dating someone who knew Carl Derek Havord Cooper informed the police that the man told her boyfriend that he was behind the Starbucks murders. The woman later explained that her boyfriend told her of Cooper’s involvement in the aftermath of the murders but she did not believe him at first. When she saw the America’s Most Wanted segment on the murders, she confided what she knew about the murders to her mother, who insisted she call the show, which she did. The day after, she met with the police.

As it happens, Det. Jim Trainum, who was on the case since the first morning, received the first tip that led him to suspect Cooper almost three months after the murders, and worked extensively with Brad Garrett to build it out. It was later revealed that, at 11 p.m. on September 28, a caller with the ID number 234 informed him that two guys, including one named Carl, were responsible for the murders and that Carl lived on Gallatin Street SE with his family. 234 called back a few days later and claimed that Carl had killed before and that he “always uses a partner when he’s doing a robbery. He killed his last partner because he gave up his name.” Using Department of Motor Vehicle and criminal history databases, Trainum zeroed in on Cooper. 234 also told Trainum that Cooper’s accomplice worked in a barbershop on Bladensburg Road in Maryland.

Cooper was a small-time criminal, whose record included charges of armed robbery, auto theft, and drug possession. He had been the main suspect in the shooting death of his former associate Montee Goodman, who implicated Cooper in a 1989 armed robbery, for which he served a two-year sentence. in one arrest, police found ammunition for two different caliber handguns in Cooper’s car. Cooper lived in the northeast section of Washington with his wife, mother, and 4-year-old son. Trainum’s investigation led him to discover that the year before the Starbucks murders, Cooper’s wife, Melissa Musgrove, purchased a 9mm handgun using a Maryland driver’s license with her maiden name. That information came from Goodman’s ex-girlfriend, who had been friendly with Cooper and his associates until Goodman was murdered.

Cooper was implicated in the 1996 shooting of Bruce Howard, an off-duty Prince George’s County officer. Intriguingly, The Washington Post reported that Cooper had been implicated in the shooting of Officer Howard more than six months before he was arrested. What happened was a woman in prison in Pennsylvania, who had been a lover and accomplice to one of Cooper’s best friends and criminal associates, told St. George’s County police that Cooper called her the night after he shot a man, only to learn that the man was a police officer and that he survived. The man was shot with a 9mm gun. The woman also estimated they stole around 50 cars and did 15 robberies in 1995 and 1996, but she had no knowledge of the Starbucks murders.

An arrest was postponed at the request of the authorities investigating the Starbucks case, who escalated their surveillance by wiretapping Cooper’s phone and pager and installing a camera on a utility pole outside his home after using the evidence of the robberies to argue that it qualified as a racketeering offense. The wiretap was defended as a necessary measure in court filings: There was no physical evidence, Cooper was known to have moved guns around, and interrogating Cooper and his associates or using an undercover agent or even physical surveillance of the neighborhood was unlikely to be effective. In a test of the wiretap, Det. Trainum and Agent Garrett showed up at the home of Cooper’s mother-in-law and even though she told them she no longer had any contact with her daughter because of her marriage to Cooper, they told her they were investigating a recovered gun with all but three of the serial numbers removed. Cooper’s wife was paging him within minutes.

The Washington Post Magazine and the true-crime documentary series FBI Files episode revealed a tense and bizarre episode that followed. Cooper called the police to complain about the visit to his mother-in-law and offer that his wife’s gun was in storage but available for inspection. Cooper did not get through to Trainum but when Trainum learned of the call, he and Garrett responded by visiting Cooper’s wife at Best Buy, where they brought up his criminal record and asked about the gun. She volunteered to retrieve it from her grandfather’s apartment in Maryland. When Cooper finally got through to Trainum, he complained about the way he brought up his criminal record and offered cooperation in turning over the gun for testing. At the apartment, Cooper confronted Trainum and Garrett, and when his wife presented them with a gun – in a box on a dining room table where several members of her family were sitting – Cooper tried to limit their access to it. Trainum had to remind Cooper that he had “no control over this gun” and then seized it as evidence. Cooper left the room and came back out with a video camera. In the commotion, another FBI agent who accompanied Trainum and Garrett informed Cooper they could seize the gun without a warrant. Cooper called 911 to complain of “a District officer here trying to take a weapon out of a Maryland residence without a warrant” and the officer who showed up only confirmed the FBI’s jurisdiction. The ballistics tests showed that the barrel of the gun had been replaced, but the firing pins and ejectors on the shells matched the casings in the Howard shooting.

Meanwhile, the girlfriend of Cooper’s friend agreed to wear a wire and was sent to buy cocaine from her boyfriend’s nephew in order to get him to talk about the murders, which she did by telling him that she needed somebody to “go hard” in a plan to rob some Jamaican drug dealers, which got him to mention Carl. The Baltimore Sun reported that someone was even sent to Cooper’s home with a tape of a TV report on the case in an attempt to convince him that the cops were closing in. What happened was one of Cooper’s longtime friends, who agreed to cooperate after being held on an arrest warrant, showed up at his house on February 25, 1999 with a tape of the tabloid news show Hard Copy that featured the Starbucks case. But Cooper demurred.

The friend, Earnest Burwell, then proposed that he get back in touch with Cooper and even claim he shot at Trainum and Garrett when they confronted him, which inspired the move: On February 28, Burwell told Cooper that the detectives wanted to talk about “some racketeering shit” and were trying to link a 9mm to the Starbucks murders. Cooper told him, “I don’t know. I don’t care. Because as my, as my hand to God, on my father’s grave, on my son’s life, I had nothing to do with the Starbucks shit.” (Cooper’s father, who died when he was 17, was a deacon.) When Burwell suggested Cooper’s fingerprints were found at the crime scene, he shot back, “That’s a place of business. I done been in the motherfucker.” 

Cooper then went on to vent, in very blunt and menacing terms, about Garrett and Trainum, describing the former as “a little tricky motherfucker … but he ain’t never disrespected me or my wife.” Cooper added that he had once followed Garrett in a parking lot, unnoticed, but that if it had been Trainum, “the outcome would have been different.” Cooper also talked about killing Trainum’s entire family, saying that if he were “petty” he would take time off work to follow Trainum home. 

The Curious Case Of Carl Cooper

Cooper was with his son in front of his house in the early evening of March 1, 1999, when FBI Agent Brad Garrett and Special Agent Bob Oxley discretely placed him under arrest on a warrant related to the 1996 robbery and shooting of Bruce Howard. Cooper did not resist and even thanked Garrett for being “low-key.” Curiously, according to court documents, the media was already present when Cooper was arrested. Even more curiously, by the time the first reports about Cooper’s arrest were published, it was already known that he was being asked what he knew about the Starbucks murders.

The circumstances of Cooper’s questioning were unusual, to say the least. As The Washington Post reported, Prince George’s County police detectives arranged for Cooper to sleep at police headquarters rather than take him to the county jail when Maryland court rules require defendants to be presented in court within 24 hours of arrest. Cooper was ultimately questioned for a total of 61 hours and 41 minutes and asked about a number of violent crimes, but by all accounts was well accommodated and he never complained and willingly signed all the appropriate Miranda waivers. The night he was arrested, Cooper was interviewed at an FBI Field Office from 8:20 p.m. until 3:24 a.m. After denying his involvement with the 1996 shooting and robbery, Garrett brought up the Starbucks case. According to court documents, Cooper wanted to talk and signed a written Miranda waiver before denying his involvement, saying that murder was “not his style” and that he was under suspicion because of his reputation and the reward money, but that two associates had asked him for advice on robbing the Georgetown Starbucks and that he advised against it. It was recorded that at 11:24 p.m., he became emotional and appeared defeated. At one point he said, “I’m in it for life. I’m in dirt. … You’re gonna charge me with Starbucks. I didn’t do it.” He asked to be taken to Prince George’s County. Garrett testified that reaction is “common in people who want to admit what they’ve done” and Cooper recovered, but ultimately backed away from taking a polygraph test.

On the morning of March 2, 1999, a public defender, Eduardo Juarez, represented Cooper at an extradition hearing in the D.C. Superior Court, where he waived extradition and asserted Cooper’s “rights to have counsel present during questioning” on “some alleged crimes that happened in Washington D.C.” as well as his right to remain silent. At the time, Juarez knew Cooper could be charged with the Starbucks murders.

Two Prince George’s County detectives who were not involved in the case and not authorized to question Cooper, drove him to Maryland after the extradition hearing. During that car ride, Cooper repeatedly mentioned that he was wrongfully a suspect in the Starbucks case and that he had changed his mind about taking a polygraph.

Cooper arrived at Prince George’s County Criminal Investigations Division at 12:47 p.m. and his second round of questioning began at 1:10. It was noted that Cooper immediately brought up the Starbucks murders, even as officers were collecting biographical information, and he quickly waived his Miranda rights. Cooper insisted the D.C. police was framing him in the 1996 shooting but that he wanted to prove he was not involved in the Starbucks case first. Sgt. Joseph McCann advised him for the first time to take a computerized voice stress analysis (CVSA) test, though Cooper had so many questions about the procedure that it was decided he was not yet ready to take it.

It was explained to Cooper that he was in Maryland because he was being charged with the robbery and shooting of Officer Howard. After signing a written Miranda waiver, Cooper began what would be the first of seven written statements. According to Cooper’s account, he got into a confrontation with Officer Howard after witnessing him having sex with a woman in a parked car late one night, and the man was shot in a struggle over the gun. Cooper had two guns on him at the time, one of which fell out of his pocket. Cooper did not know the man was a police officer. Cooper was then asked about and signed a written statement concerning a number of robberies in Prince George’s County. For the first time, Cooper referenced his longtime friends and co-conspirators, James “Man” Speight and Earnest Burwell, as well as James’ girlfriend, identified only as “Haley,” and their involvement in various robberies. It was Haley who became an informant for the police in the summer of 1998.

In the evening of March 2, Cooper once again brought up the Starbucks case and asked about taking the CVSA test, which he did at around midnight on March 3. The results showed signs of deception to the questions: “Did you shoot the people at Starbucks?” and “Do you know who shot the people at Starbucks?” Cooper became tense and McCann brought up the fact that both Cooper and one of the victims, Emory Evans, knew a man named Keith “Boo” Covington. Cooper said it was an inside job, placed the blame on Covington and said he was only the driver. (The results of the CVSA were admitted as evidence in the pretrial hearing but, like a polygraph, would not be admissible at trial.)

On March 3, 1999 at 1:12 a.m., Cooper gave the first of three written statements about the Starbucks murders. In this version, Covington approached him a month before the murders with the idea and implied he had a friend who could help from the inside. Cooper claimed to have told Burwell about the plan but did not follow up, because Burwell and Covington did not know each other. Cooper wrote that he had used his mother’s car, that he did not see Covington use a mask or gun, that Covington was in Starbucks between five minutes and a half-hour before fleeing the scene. Cooper claims he first learned about the murders on the news the next day.

Cooper slept from 3:30 a.m. to approximately 2:20 p.m. When the interview resumed, detectives told Cooper that while they were looking into Covington, they believed he was also inside in the Starbucks and it was again suggested his fingerprints were found inside. Cooper admitted to being inside the Starbucks but claimed that he did not shoot anybody.

At 3:29 p.m., Cooper began writing his second statement on the Starbucks murder. In this version of the robbery, Cooper entered the Starbucks with a 9mm handgun and Covington with two guns. Covington put a gun to Evans’ head, and he told the “two white employees” to cooperate. Cooper was inspecting the scene as Covington got into a confrontation with Mahoney over opening the safe and that he heard, but did not see, two shots while keeping an eye on the door, and that whatever happened in the back room was out of his line of sight. Covington and Cooper fled the scene, and Cooper expressed concern both that Covington might shoot him and that the blood already on Covington would stain his mother’s car. In this statement, he claimed that his violence was “not his style” and that he was sorry for the deaths.

After submitting the second written statement, McCann made a point of asking why Cooper was so anxious to talk about the Starbucks murders when he was just collecting basic personal information. Cooper answered, “Initially I wanted to take a lie detector to show that I wasn't involved. Also, when I knew my name was out there, I wanted to set the record straight.”

Cooper was then told that Burwell revealed his involvement in the 1993 murder of Sandy Griffin, a security guard. Cooper explained that he and Burwell planned to rob the guard of his gun but that when Cooper approached Griffin at his station in the lobby of a D.C. apartment building, he feared for his life when the guard cocked the gun while still in its holster and then removed it. Cooper shot the guard in the head and lifted his gun. Cooper also clarified that the gun he used to shoot the guard was the gun he dropped after shooting Officer Howard. Cooper then gave a statement about the Montee Goodman murder, implicating James Speight and claiming that while he was uninvolved in the planning and execution, the gun that was used was the gun he stole after killing Officer Griffin and that he advised Speight to bury the gun.

After midnight on March 4, 1999, Cooper was advised of Maryland’s rule requiring a suspect to be presented before a Maryland Court Commissioner within 24 hours. When asked whether he wanted to stay and talk, Cooper agreed to cooperate and signed a right of presentment waiver. He went to sleep at approximately 12:40 a.m.

D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey said, “We are at a very sensitive point in this investigation. We are aggressively following up on all the leads, and we feel very good about this recent break.” Many close observers of the case, including Mahoney’s stepmother and Starbucks regional director Dean Torrenga, expressed hope in response to the recent developments. Once again, there was renewed interest in the case and the plight of the victims and their families.

When the interrogation resumed at 12:50 p.m. on March 4, Cooper was told that Covington had been arrested (on an outstanding warrant) but that he was adamantly denying involvement in the Starbucks murders – only that he knew one of the victims. And besides, at the time Covington was recovering from a severe gunshot wound to the stomach. Cooper then confessed that Covington was not involved and that he acted alone. (Keep in mind the original tip was that two men were involved.)

In fact, Covington was released after 15 hours of questioning and a polygraph exam. The U.S. attorney’s office dismissed the outstanding warrant. Covington told The Washington Post in an interview afterwards, “If I killed them, I’d say I killed them. But that’s not me. I’m not saying I’m a saint, but I’m not going to go out and kill people.” It was also reported in the Post that Cooper had already given a statement that was “100 percent consistent with the evidence” found at the crime scene by the time he implicated Covington and, reportedly, an alleged other man (although this is not mentioned in a court summary of Cooper’s interrogation). It was believed that law enforcement sources brought up Covington’s name as a trap because they knew of his incidental connection to Evans.

In his third and final written statement on the Starbucks murders, Cooper claimed that Covington did not participate at all. It was Cooper who devised a plan to rob a Starbucks one month before the murders and he did bring up the plan to Burwell, but that he could not reach him the day he had planned for and that he did not want to miss his “window of opportunity.” In casing the joint, Cooper knew there were no surveillance cameras at the Starbucks. 

According to the court summary of Cooper’s written statement:

“He entered the Starbucks through an open door, pulled two guns (a .38 and a .380), and announced he was robbing the place. A white female identified herself as the manager. There were two other male employees, one black and one white. Cooper attempted to force everyone into the back room where the safe was located but the female employee would not comply so he fired a warning shot into the ceiling. The female attempted to run. Cooper caught her near the door and fought with her to get the keys. The female attempted to grab the .380 pistol (the .38 was in Cooper's waistband) and it went off. Cooper stated ‘everything else [was] like a dream’ and he just started shooting. He shot the woman two or three times with the .380 and then once with the .38. The white man tried to run but Cooper shot him. The black man was injured and crying. Cooper said he had to stop the man's pain so he shot him two more times in the head. He left the store without any money because he realized what had happened and he just wanted to run. He buried the guns in a plastic bag outside St. Anne's Infant Home. He wasn't sure if he had blood on his clothes but he tasted the girl's blood in his mouth so he washed his clothes to be on the safe side. He took his car to the car wash. A while later, after he lost his job at Wang, Cooper tried to retrieve the buried guns because he was ‘thinking about doing robberies again to make money,’ but could not find them. Cooper claims he lied about Covington's involvement because he did not want to go jail. He was worried because he ‘killed three people and I'm afraid of jail.’”

After submitting his final statement on the Starbucks murders, Cooper was questioned further about the whereabouts of the guns he used but he gave several different stories. Despite his claim to have buried the guns outside St. Anne’s Infant and Maternity Home, the weapons were never recovered. The police claimed to the media to have searched the area around St. Anne’s, and that they did not notify its administrators. 

On March 5, 1999, Cooper was charged with three counts of first-degree felony murder in connection with the Starbucks shootings, which held a maximum sentence of life sentence without parole. Det. Patterson told reporters, “At this point, it appears he was the lone gunman, that he was the only gunman.” As Cooper was charged and the investigation continued, police sources were quick to back the lone-killer theory in background comments to reporters. Cooper was again questioned about the guns on March 8 but told officers that his wife was securing legal representation and this time declined to sign a Miranda waiver.

Cooper agreed to be transported back to Washington on March 16 to face the murder charges in Superior Court. Agent Garrett accompanied Cooper and during the drive, Cooper told Garrett that he “admitted to everything under the sun, whatever they told me to say I did” but that his statements would be suppressed. Cooper denied any involvement in the Starbucks murders and would now claim it was all a product of coercion, duress, and deceit. The numerous waivers he agreed to and signed made clear – as the court later ruled – that his statements were “clearly voluntary, readily and eagerly initiated, and provided free of coercion and duress.”

The affidavit filed by Lt. Brian McAllister with D.C. Superior Court was unsealed and released to the press. It highlighted the claim of one witness, who said Cooper approached him prior to the Starbucks murders and told him he had determined it would be a good target for an armed robbery, although Cooper never followed up on the conversation and the witness did not hear about the murders until after they occurred.

According to McAllister’s affidavit, Cooper committed the murders after Mahoney refused to give him the keys to the safe. His account:

“Cooper had planned to rob the Starbucks in Georgetown for about a month prior to the triple murder. He chose Sunday, July 6, 1997 as the date to commit the robbery with the expectation that the proceeds from the weekend's business would be on hand. That morning, he visited Starbucks in order to case it out and make sure that it was doing a brisk business. That evening, Cooper drove by himself to the rear of the Starbucks coffee shop and parked his car. Armed with a .380 caliber handgun and a .38 caliber snub-nose revolver, Cooper walked into the shop and announced the robbery to the three employees who were present - a white female, a white male and a black male. He then forced the three employees into a rear office at gunpoint. 

“Cooper ordered the white female employee, who identified herself as the manager, to open the safe that was inside that office. When she refused to comply, he fired a warning shot from the .38 caliber revolver into the ceiling. At that point, the female employee ran out of the office. Cooper caught her in the hallway and started wrestling to gain control of the keys to the safe. When she resisted, he shot her with the .380. Cooper then shot her several more times with both guns. 

“After shooting the female manager, Cooper turned to the male employees who were still inside the office and shot both of them. He specifically recalls shooting the black male employee three times. The first gunshot dropped the black male employee to the ground, but did not kill him. When he continued to move and moan, Cooper shot him twice more in the head to put him out of his pain. Once the shooting stopped, Cooper ran out of the store without stopping to take any money. He fled back to his home, where he disposed of the guns and washed the blood out of his clothes. 

… 

“Cooper's version of events is corroborated by a number of facts and pieces of evidence that have been developed during the investigation of these murders. First, the victims are of the race and gender that Cooper uses to describe them. Ms. Mahoney is a white female; Mr. Evans a black male; and Mr. Goodrich a white male. Second, the pattern and number of times that he describes shooting the victims is consistent with the autopsies and the evidence from the murder scene. The autopsy of Ms. Mahoney and the crime scene reveal that she was shot five times with both the .380 caliber handgun and the .38 caliber revolver. The autopsy of Mr. Evans and the crime scene demonstrate that Mr. Evans was felled by a shot to the chest that struck the spinal column but did not kill him. He was then shot twice in the head as he lay on the ground. Also, a firearms expert has examined a photograph of the contact gunshot would to Mr. Evans' chest and determined that the imprint left by that gunshot is consistent with having been left by a snub-nose handgun. Third, the warning shot that Cooper describes firing from the .38 caliber revolver in the rear office is evidenced by a .38 caliber slug that was recovered by crime scene technicians from the ceiling in that office.”

At a preliminary hearing in April, prosecutors released Cooper’s signed and handwritten statements to Prince George’s police.

Dominick Dunne referred to the case in a May 1999 report in Vanity Fair about his time in Washington for the Clinton impeachment trial. Dunne recounted how a D.C. cop told him of the “gangland-style murders” of former White House intern Caity Mahoney and her fellow employees. Dunne noted the strange circumstances of the case, that police categorized the triple homicide as an attempted robbery despite the fact that there were no signs of forced entry and nothing was taken, and that Cooper had been charged with the murders.

Cooper was indicted in August – on 48 counts of federal racketeering violations, including first-degree murder, conspiracy, robbery, and weapons offenses. Cooper was implicated not only in the Starbucks murders and the Howard shooting, but the 1993 killing of Sandy Griffin, and a string of robberies in D.C., Maryland, and Pennsylvania. U.S. Attorney Wilma A. Lewis referred to Cooper as the leader of a “small but violent racketeering enterprise” and claimed that all evidence indicated that he acted alone in the Starbucks murders. Federal racketeering charges of this kind are atypical. At the time, it was only the second instance in which the government filed Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act charges in a case that did not involve an illegal drug organization. 

The federal charges related to the Starbucks murders meant prosecutors could seek the death penalty. A Washington Times editorial implored that Attorney General Janet Reno’s Justice Department “must consider” the option: “How much more violence will prosecutors tolerate before a killer – convicted by a jury of his peers – faces the ultimate sanction?”

As Cooper was arraigned in U.S. District Court, his defense attorney, Steven R. Kiersh, protested the circumstances of his interrogation and vowed that he would “vigorously contest the indictment and prepare for trial before a jury that can hear both sides of this very contested matter.” Kiersh would later argue that the police tricked Cooper by falsely declaring they found his fingerprints at the crime scene. In fact, while Cooper’s fingerprints had not been found at the crime scene, it was used because police knew from intercepted communications that Cooper had discussed the issue before.

After Cooper waived his right to a speedy trial, a federal judge set an April 10, 2000 trial date, which was later moved to May 2. A hearing on whether Cooper’s interrogation was admissible was scheduled for January 12.

In November, federal prosecutors filed nearly 400 pages of documents related to the investigation to counter the defense’s motion to suppress evidence and to outline the seriousness of the racketeering charges. The documents publicly named the two childhood friends – Earnest Burwell and James “Man” Speight – with whom Cooper committed most of his crimes.

The documents confirmed that when the first search warrant for Cooper’s home and cars was executed, the Starbucks killings were not mentioned in the charges.

At the January 12 evidentiary hearing, Cooper repeated the claim that he only admitted to the crimes under duress in interrogation, and that he told the police what he thought they wanted him to say. In particular, the defense attorneys contested the fact that when Cooper waived extradition to Prince George’s County for the officer shooting charge, his public defender said Cooper would not speak with law enforcement without an attorney, and yet he began making statements, including the three written statements about the Starbucks murders, at Prince George’s police headquarters. The prosecution argued based on the law enforcement testimony that Cooper’s statements were given voluntarily and that he waived his right to an attorney.

FBI Agent Brad Garrett testified that Cooper disavowed his admissions and said at one point, “I swear on my father’s grave and my son’s life that I didn’t do Starbucks.” This is similar to what he told Burwell the day before his arrest, when he also easily deflected many of the pointed questions trying to link him to the crime. 

Accounts of Cooper’s recanted confession were picked up by none other than Carl Limbacher, now at Newsmax, in a January 23 report, which went much further, and reprinted allegations made by investigative author David Hoffman in the tabloid magazine Globe – that Mahoney was a “den mother” to young White House interns; that a former White House intern was about to come forward at the time of the murders; and that Lewinsky was “rumored” to have said, “I don’t want to wind up like Caity Mahoney”, the claim now in quotes. (It was several weeks after this that Newsmax disclosed it “has been unable to confirm reports” of the quote. It quickly followed, “But the more famous of the two Clinton interns did make repeated references to fears she might be killed, in conversations recorded by Sexgate whistleblower Linda Tripp.”)

On February 1, U.S. District Court Judge Joyce Hens Green denied the motions to suppress Cooper’s statements to the police.

On February 7, Assistant U.S. Attorney Kenneth L. Wainstein announced that the government would seek the death penalty against Cooper, a move that was advocated by Attorney General Reno. D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton had backed a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Norton described the case as “essentially a homicide matter with federal charges tacked on” and told The New York Times that “serious equal protection questions are raised” when a high-profile case is chosen for the death penalty. Kiersh promised to challenge the decision “on the substantial and ethical disparity.” He and his co-counsel, Francis D. Carter, had presented arguments against the death penalty at meetings with U.S. Attorney Wilma Lewis and the Justice Department review committee, in which they argued that of the 301 murders that occurred in D.C. in 1997, this was the only case being charged as a capital offense.

Francis D. Carter, coincidentally and curiously, served as Monica Lewinsky’s first attorney, during the crucial week of January 9-16, 1998. His representation of Lewinsky was arranged by President Clinton’s close friend Vernon Jordan, who escorted her to his downtown office after she received a subpoena to testify in the Paula Jones case. (Carter and Jordan were not particularly close.) Lewinsky submitted her affidavit denying a sexual relationship with Clinton to Carter on January 7. Curiously, Carter did not file the affidavit in court until January 16, though he denied the delay had anything to do with Jordan’s efforts to secure Lewinsky a public relations job in New York. In any case, once Lewinsky was confronted by Starr’s investigators on January 16, her father arranged for family friend William H. Ginsburg to take over her legal representation (and the rest is history). As part of the investigation, Starr subpoenaed records of Carter’s conversations with Jordan and involvement in the creation of the affidavit and a judge ordered him to turn over those records to the grand jury investigation. Carl Limbacher noted another unlikely legal link: Among the lawyers to publicly express support for Reno’s decision to pursue the death penalty was William R. Martin, who told The Washington Post that he did not believe jurors would be turned off by the decision. Martin is one of Washington’s most high-profile attorneys, and he represented Lewinsky’s mother, Marcia Lewis, after Starr’s prosecutors sought to subpoena her to testify against her daughter.

Because Justice Department protocol calls on the U.S. Attorney to notify the defense lawyers if she were to seek the death penalty, and no such notice was given, it was strongly implied that Lewis did not back the decision and that Reno overruled her. In fact, two law enforcement sources told The Washington Post, the consensus in the U.S. attorney’s office had been that the Starbucks case did not merit capital punishment and that Reno’s decision “flabbergasted” some in the office. When Reno was asked about the report, she said only that “it would be inappropriate” to comment. Then-Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) questioned the decision at a press conference, saying, “As we saw recently here in the District of Columbia, in the so-called Starbucks case, it is now fairly easy for the Justice Department to sweep into a local jurisdiction, take over a case and seek the death penalty, regardless of the will of the people of a particular state, regardless of whether they have refused to adopt capital punishment in their own law.”

The decision to pursue the death penalty was a flashpoint, and not just because of how rare it is in D.C. Amnesty International USA called on President Clinton to override Reno. A Washington Post report contrasted the Starbucks case with a 1995 triple homicide at a McDonald’s in Southeast Washington, which did not end in death penalty charges. Unlike the Starbucks murders, the McDonald’s triple homicide was not an alleged botched robbery attempt, but a premeditated murder. The article posited, “Was it because the alleged Starbucks killer is black and two of the victims were white? All of the McDonald's victims and the perpetrator were black.”

Out of “an abundance of caution,” Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder subsequently announced that Attorney General Reno directed him to investigate racial disparities in the federal death-penalty system, though he said the request was made before a decision was announced in the Starbucks case.

The prosecution continued to bolster the case for capital punishment. In a 35-page document filed in U.S. District Court on February 14, prosecutors argued that the scope of Cooper’s criminal activities extended far beyond the 48-count indictment, including a number of robberies, drug transactions, and threats that demonstrated a “consistent lack of remorse.” The court document disclosed that Cooper threatened to kill five potential witnesses and had issued threats against Trainum and Garrett.

On February 29, the District Court issued a ruling denying Kiersh and Carter’s motions to dismiss the RICO indictments; to strike some of the murder and robbery indictments, including the Starbucks case; and to hold a pretrial hearing to determine the existence of a conspiracy and determine the admissibility of co-conspirator statements, which would have forced the prosecution to present much of its case upfront.

On April 14, the District Court issued a ruling denying Kiersh and Carter’s motions to dismiss the decision to seek the death penalty, and denied in part a motion to request an evidentiary hearing on the sufficiency of the aggravating circumstances alleged by the government.

The suspense over what would come of the trial and the politics of the death penalty came to an abrupt end on April 25, 2000 – one week before the trial was scheduled to begin – when Cooper pleaded guilty to 47 federal charges, including the triple homicide at Starbucks. (One of the 48 counts was dismissed on a technicality.) As part of the plea bargain, Cooper avoided the death penalty and received a life sentence with no chance of parole, and prosecutors agreed not to pursue lesser charges against Cooper’s wife and mother. This was reportedly a matter of great concern to Cooper, who unsuccessfully sought to suppress all communications with his wife intercepted by the wiretap under the protection of marital privilege. Cooper had also tried to suppress evidence collected in the search warrant that “may have been derived from wire interceptions.”

It was reported Kiersh and Carter raised the possibility of a plea bargain after assessing their narrowing legal options and the witness list being prepared by the prosecution. Prosecutors had planned to solicit testimony from several of Cooper’s former criminal associates, including Earnest Burwell, and many had already testified before the grand jury. 

At no point at the plea-bargain hearing did Cooper express remorse. Rosa Griffin, the mother of the security guard Cooper killed, told the Washington Post, “You could just detect a demon inside this young man’s body.”

The Metropolitan Police Department concluded in its 1999-00 annual report, “The arrest and conviction in this case brought some measure of closure to the victims’ families and the community. It also demonstrated our agency’s determination to solve serious and violence crimes, and our effectiveness in working with other law enforcement agencies in these types of complex cases.” It would appear so.

[asfeedin]

GamesBeat Summit Digital: Here’s our final agenda for April 28-29

This year GamesBeat Summit Digital is going to be digital online-only. And it is finally coming up on Tuesday and Wednesday.

We’ve revised the agenda and optimized our virtual conference for your viewing pleasure. If you are interested in attending GamesBeat Summit online, please sign up here.

After careful thought about the COVID-19 (coronavirus) pandemic, we decided not to use centralized studios or physical locations. But we think we can serve our GamesBeat community well with a fully distributed, digital event.

The health and safety of our GamesBeat community, attendees, employees, and sponsors remains our top priority. In this digital event, attendees can watch livestreamed and recorded talks, take part in online networking sessions and digital roundtables, access our gaming partners virtually, and more.

Event details

GamesBeat Summit Digital will provide the same great content and create digital networking experiences, all available remotely. We’ve very grateful that the overwhelming number of our speakers (which we originally recruited for our physical event) and our sponsors have stayed with us. We hope to live up to their belief in us with our talks around the theme of Dawn of the Next Generation.

We will continue to be proactive in our communication and will follow up with more information about technology platforms and logistics in the coming days. It looks like we’re heading toward an even larger even with about 120 speakers in 59 sessions on two simultaneous stages over two days. Here’s the final agenda.

For attendees, you’ll be getting invitations to join using the email you used to register.

Agenda

Tuesday, April 28, 2020 (all times Pacific time)

Above: Dean Takahashi plays on a Origin PC laptop.

Image Credit: Marla Takahashi

8:55 a.m. – 9:10 a.m.

Tutorial for watching and participating in the event

9:10 a.m. – 9:15 a.m.

Thanks to sponsors and other announcements by Alex Olshonsky, vice president of sales at VentureBeat

9:15 a.m. – 9:30 a.m.

Introductory remarks by Dean Takahashi, lead writer for VentureBeat’s GamesBeat (on both the Boss Stage and Hero Stage)

9:30 a.m. – 9:45 a.m.

Above: “Communities That Last for Years” with Owen Mahoney, President & CEO of Nexon and moderated by Michael Pachter at GamesBeat Summit 2019.

Image Credit: Jason Wilson/GamesBeat

Boss Stage/Hero Stage: “Serious money going into esports and gaming: Mergers, acquisitions, and fundraising trends” with Alina Soltys, founder of Quantum Tech Partners

​9:45 a.m. – 10:15 a.m.

Boss Stage: “The rise of new independent publishers” with Michael Worosz, executive vice president for corporate development and independent publishing at Take-Two Interactive, moderated by Michael Metzger, partner at Drake Star Partners

Hero Stage: “The future of gaming is user-generated content” with Matt Curtis, VP of Developer Relations at Roblox

10:15 a.m. – 10:45 a.m.

Boss stage: “The world has changed,” with Owen Mahoney, CEO of Nexon, moderated by Michael Pachter of Wedbush

​Hero Stage: “Esports beyond the hype — challenges and realities of running an esports business in 2020” with Neo Liu, head of publishing for Tencent North America; Karim Farghaly of Bandai Namco; and Jacob Navok, CEO of Genvid Technologies; moderated by David Hoppe of Gamma Law

Above: Mike Morhaime is former president of Blizzard Entertainment.

Image Credit: Mike Morhaime

10:45 a.m. – 11:15 a.m.

Boss Stage: Fireside chat with Mike Morhaime, cofounder and former president of Blizzard Entertainment, moderated by Seth Schiesel

​Hero Stage: “The Leisure Economy” with John Linden, CEO, Mythical Games, moderated by journalist/author Harold Goldberg

11:15 a.m. – 11:45 a.m.

Boss Stage: “Championing the video game industry and culture” with Stanley Pierre-Louis, CEO of the Entertainment Software Association, moderated by Keisha Howard of Sugar Gamers

​Hero Stage: “Choose your own adventure: The evolution of storytelling through the next generation” with Gary Whitta of Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, moderated by Tina Amini of IGN

​11:45 a.m. – 12:15 p.m.

Boss Stage: “Gaming’s future as the best form of entertainment,” Jon Goldman of Greycroft, Skybound, and GC Tracker Fund; moderated by Andreea Enache of Blind Squirrel Entertainment

​Hero Stage: “We are who we pretend to be” with Edward Saatchi of Fable Studio, moderated by Dean Takahashi, lead writer for GamesBeat

Above: Jon Goldman is general partner of GC VR Gaming Tracker Fund and a Greycroft venture partner.

Image Credit: Jon Goldman

​12:15 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.

Networking roundtables, Slack Q&A, community Discussion

Roundtable Sessions: 1. “Dealing with Disruptive Behaviour in Games” moderated by Carlos Figueiredo of Two Hat Security 2. “Hyper-casual Games – Beyond Short-term Success” moderated by Chris Lefebvre of Lion Studios Canada 3. “Frontiers in Game AI” moderated by Christoffer Holmgård and Julian Togelius of Modi.ai

12:15 p.m. – 12:45 p.m.

Boss Stage/Hero Stage

“The Power of Games for Climate Change” with Alan Gershenfeld of E-Line Media; Mathias Norvig of Sybo; Pietari Päivänen of Supercell; moderated by Sam Barratt of UN Environment

1:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.

Boss Stage: “How to succeed in free-to-play? Compete with yourself” with Scopely co-CEO Javier Ferreira, moderated by Michael Metzger of Drake Star Partners

Hero Stage: “Game investments in the age of the coronavirus” with Ryan McDermott of Resolute Partners Group

​1:30 p.m. – 2:00 p.m.

Boss Stage: “Facebook creative testing: Why the control video ad is so hard to beat” with Brian Bowman, CEO of Consumer Acquisition )

Hero Stage: “Using AI for game testing,” with PinkLion CEO Jennifer Bonine

​2:00 p.m. – 2:30 p.m.

Boss Stage: “Console cycles: The old, the new, and the future” with Rob Dyer, chief operating officer at Capcom, moderated by Mike Vorhaus of Vorhaus Advisors

​Hero Stage: “Bulletproofing your brand strategy in the age of influencers” with Doron Nir, CEO of StreamElements

​2:30 p.m. – 3:15 p.m.

Boss Stage: “What to expect in early-stage fundraising” with David Gardner of London Venture Partners; Gregory Milken of March Capital Partners; and Shanti Bergel of Transcend Fund; moderated by David Chang of Juno Capital

​2:30 p.m. – -3:00 p.m.

Hero Stage: “Productivity without crunch in game academia and industry” with Richard Lemarchand, associate professor at USC Games Program, moderated by Brandon Sheffield of Necrosoft Games

​3:00 p.m. – 3:45 p.m.

Hero Stage: Series A/B Panel with Phil Sanderson of Griffin Gaming Partners; Michael Cheung of Makers Fund; Rick Yang of NEA; moderated by Eric Goldberg of Crossover Technologies

3:45 pm – 4 p.m. Hero Stage break

Above: Jenova Chen is cofounder of Thatgamecompany, creator of games like Journey, Flower, Flow, and Sky.

Image Credit: Dean Takahashi

​3:15 p.m. – 4 p.m.

Boss Stage: “How Thatgamecompany enabled a wholesome community in Journey and Sky” with Jenova Chen, cofounder of Thatgamecompany

​4:00 p.m. – 4:30 p.m.

Boss Stage: “Building out charity in the games space” with Stephen Machuga of Stack Up

​Hero Stage: “What games can tell you about people” with Chethan Ramachandran, CEO of Skillprint; moderated by Keisha Howard of Sugar Gamers

​4:30 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.

Boss Stage: “The next generation of multi-dimensional games and large-scale VR development,” with Peter Akemann, CEO at Skydance Interactive, moderated by Mike Minotti of GamesBeat (Start of Oculus Venues recording)

​Hero Stage: “The realities of crossplay and managing live services” with Jesse Houston, CEO of Phoenix Labs; moderated by Dean Takahashi

​5:00 p.m. – 5:30 p.m.

Boss Stage: “The art of inspiration: ideas on a deadline” with Glen Schofield, founder of Striking Distance Studios

​Hero Stage: “External development stories” with Mihai Pohontu, CEO of Amber Studios

​5:30 p.m. – 5:50 p.m.

Boss Stage: Reception begins. GamesBeat Summit Visionary Awards with Don Daglow and Pete Hines

5:50 p.m. Josh Tsui, director of Insert Coin, introduces his film excerpt from documentary on Midway Games. Shows excerpt of the film on Oculus Venues and Hearo.Live.

Reception continues until 7 p.m.

Connect with the community online. Join online Q&A, breakout sessions, and try fun and new digital event technology.

​Wednesday, April 29, 2020 (all times Pacific)

Above: Andrea Rene

8:00 a.m.

Women in Gaming Virtual Breakfast, Presented by Niantic. Speakers include Kellee Santiago of Niantic, Nonny de la Peña of Emblematic Group, and Elizabeth Howard of Aspyr (invitation only)

9:30 a.m.-9:45 a.m. Tutorial video rerun

9:45 a.m. – 9:50 a.m.

Boss Stage/Hero Stage: Sponsor thanks and announcements by Gina Joseph, director of strategic partnerships at VentureBeat

​9:45 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.

Boss Stage/Hero Stage: Opening remarks — Mike Minotti, reviews editor at GamesBeat

Above: MissesMae is a former nurse turned popular livestreamer.

Image Credit: MissesMae

​10:00 a.m. – 10:30 a.m.

Boss Stage: “How to run a great writers room” with Adam Foshko of HBO; Derek Kolstad, screenwriter, moderated by Mark Long of Neon Media

Hero Stage: “The future of gaming influencers” with Mari Takahashi of Smosh Games; Joshua Ovenshire of Arcade Cloud; MissesMae; moderated by Andrea Rene of What’s Good Games

10:30 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.

Boss Stage: “Recapturing the history of games,” Josh Tsui of Ten Point Oh and Blake Harris, author of Console Wars and A History of the Future; moderated by Dean Takahashi

Above: Blake Harris’ most recent book is The History of the Future.

Image Credit: Blake Harris

Hero Stage: Lightning Round Talks: 1. “Play with My Emotions: A Case for (more) Romance & Sex in Games’ with Zsuzsa James, Team Finland coordinator for video games and esports 2. “The Blue Ocean of Interactive Storytelling” Andrew Maximov, CEO of Promethean AI 3. “GPEG: A new type of stream for games, a new type of Instant Interactive content for cable and OTT audiences” with Barry Jenkins, CEO and cofounder of Primal Space Systems and Instant Interactive 4. “The Potential of Voice for Games” with Jeferson Valadares, Co-founder & CEO of Doppio Games

​11:00 a.m. – 11:30 a.m.

Boss Stage: “Why gaming will be at the center of the future entertainment universe” with Josh Yguado, cofounder and president of Jam City, moderated by Amy Allison of Skydance

​Hero Stage: “Games to play in quarantine” with Elan Lee, cofounder of Exploding Kittens; moderated by Theresa Duringer of Temple Gates Games

Above: Mitch Lasky of Benchmark

11:30 a.m. – 12:15 p.m.

Boss Stage: Fireside chat with Mitch Lasky of Benchmark Capital; moderated by Eric Goldberg of Crossover Technologies

​11:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

Hero Stage: “How game developers can adapt to the world after COVID-19,” with Renee Gittins, executive director of IGDA, moderated by Justin Berenbaum of Xsolla

​12:00 p.m. – 12:30 p.m.

Boss Stage: “Dawn of a new era: COVID-19, the games industry, and #PlayApartTogether” with Bernard Kim of Zynga; moderated by Patrick Shanley of The Hollywood Reporter

12:15 p.m. – 12:30 p.m.

Boss Stage “Spatial audio: Why you should care” with Andy Vaughan, developer relations manager at Dolby, moderated by Jamil Moledina of XP Consulting

12:30 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.

Boss Stage: “Esports and GaaS in the Asia Pacific region” with Tim Guhl of Singtel, moderated by Lisa Cosmas Hanson of Niko Partners

Hero Stage: “The future of world-building and narrative in games” with Danny Bilson, head of USC Games; chair of interactive media, games division at USC, moderated by Peter Levin of Griffin Gaming Partners

Above: Danny Bilson is head of USC Games.

Image Credit: USC

​12:30 p.m. – 1:15 p.m.

Offscreen: Networking Roundtables, Slack Q&A, Community Discussion

Roundtable Sessions: 1. “Lightning Round Speakers Q&A” moderated by Zsuzsa James, Andrew Maximov, Jeferson Valadares, and Barry Jenkins 2. “Facebook Creative Testing & Creative Research” moderated by Brian Bowman, CEO of Consumer Acquisition 3. “Spatial Audio: Why You Should Care – Session Q&A” moderated by Andrew Vaughan of Dolby and Jamil Moledina of XP Consulting

1:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.

Boss Stage: “Gaming has always paved the way in mobile and user acquisition” with Paul Muller, CTO of Adjust; moderated by Dean Takahashi

Hero Stage: “The EVE Effect” with Hilmar Pétursson, CEO of CCP

1:30 p.m – 2:00 p.m.

Boss Stage: “The Metaverse is Coming” with Philip Rosedale of High Fidelity; Matthew Ball of Epyllion Industries; Raph Koster of Playable Worlds; Frederic Descamps of Manticore Games; moderated by Sam Englebardt of Galaxy Interactive

Hero Stage: “The mainstreaming of esports,” panel including Mark Chang, head of gaming and esports at Intel; Ari Segal, CEO of Immortals Gaming Club; Joe Barnes, director of Bud Light Sports Marketing; Grace Dolan, vice president of integrated marketing at Samsung Electronics America; moderated by Dean Takahashi

​2:00 p.m. – 2:30 p.m.

Above: John Smedley of Amazon Game Studios

Image Credit: SOE

Boss Stage: “Location-based entertainment in a post-COVID-19 world” with Brent Bushnell, CEO of Two Bit Circus, moderated by Blair Herter, senior vice president of partnerships of Advncr

Hero Stage: “Strategies for mental wellness in gaming,” speakers John Smedley of Amazon Game Studios; Mark Chandler, founder of The International Game Summit for Mental Health; and Eve Crevoshay, executive director of Take This.

​2:30 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.

Boss Stage: “The real world games of the future: Designing AR/Geospatial/Purposeful games,” with Greg Borrud of Niantic, moderated by Amanda Farough of F-Squared

​Hero Stage: “Diversity and inclusion: How to create virtual and accessible resources for marginalized communities during a pandemic” with Nika Nour, executive director of IGDA Foundation, moderated by Jessica Chobot

Above: Nika Nour(left) is the new head of the IGDA Foundation and Renee Gittins is executive director of the IGDA.

Image Credit: IGDA

​3:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.

Boss Stage: “Can mobile games be a $1 trillion business this decade?” with Neil Young, CEO of N3twork; moderated by Bing Gordon of Kleiner Perkins

Hero Stage: Blockchain panel with Sebastian Borget of The Sandbox; Peter Kieltyka of Horizon Blockchain Games; and Eric Schiermeyer of Blockchain Game Partners; Taehoon Kim, CEO of nWay; moderated by James Zhang of Concept Art House

​3:30 p.m. – 3:45 p.m.

Break

​3:45 p.m. – 4:15 p.m.

Boss Stage: “Games M&A: Open for business?” with Michael Chang of NCSoft; Nick Tuosto of LionTree; and Affan Butt of Aream & Co.; moderated by Mark Stevens of Fenwick & West

​Hero Stage: “Games in China – demand doesn’t cease” with Bill Wang of Skystone Games; Amy Huang of Mattel163; Cynthia Du of Cocos; Jeff Lyndon of iDreamSky; moderated by Lisa Cosmas Hanson of Niko Partners

Above: Mike Frazzini, vice president of Amazon Games.

Image Credit: Dean Takahashi

4:15 p.m. – 4:45 p.m.

Boss Stage: “Working backward from the players: Amazon’s approach to games,” with Mike Frazzini, vice president of Amazon, moderated by Dean Takahashi

Hero Stage: “Player behavior: Your secret growth tool,” with Carlos Figueiredo of Two Hat Security, Clara Siegel of Facebook, and Kim Voll of Stray Bombay; moderated by Kate Edwards of The Global Game Jam

​4:45 p.m. Closing remarks by Dean Takahashi

4:50 p.m. – 7 p.m.

Networking reception. Join online Q&A, breakout sessions, and try fun and new digital event technology.

  Source link

Tags: 2829, agenda, April, Digital, Final, GamesBeat, Heres, Summit

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2Y64tH1 via IFTTT

[godfreyymuwonge]

Forging EO Richmond: Lessons Learned from Launching an EO Chapter

In EO’s 30-year history, members have led the formation of 196 chapters. With 14,000-plus members, only a few hundred have taken on the significant challenge of forming a new chapter. We asked EO Richmond President Michael Mahoney what it takes to launch a new chapter. And while every chapter and every launch is unique, entrepreneurs around the world will certainly relate to his journey of building something from nothing.

Launching an EO chapter is exactly like launching a start-up company. You have to go into it with the mindset that you are launching a start-up nonprofit as a volunteer. That means you are doing everything from the very beginning, using templates and guides from EO.

As an enthusiastic EO DC member since 2003, I missed the camaraderie, connections and learning events with my EO family after moving to Virginia. So, I decided to start a new EO chapter—starting from scratch, with no established connections in my new city.

It was an intense journey filled with cold-calling potential new members, leveraging resources, producing events that appeal to both strategic alliance partners (SAPs) and potential members, and implementing the strategies and structure for a successful organization.

Every EO chapter launch is unique, but there are underlying struggles we all have in common. Here are nine strategies I learned that may prove helpful if you’re considering starting an EO chapter.

1. Hire a strong chapter manager.

If your chapter can afford one—even part-time—a strong chapter manager can make or break your chapter. This person must possess specific skills and, in an ideal scenario, is a full-time employee. In addition to strong verbal and written communication, attention to detail, organizational and follow-through skills, your chapter manager must be assertive and have a thick skin to handle criticism and direct communication and to push back when needed. They’ll be dealing with EO members, and we all know entrepreneurs can be both demanding and determined.

While interviewing for our chapter manager, I leveraged techniques from previous EO learning events that provided insights for interviewing and hiring the right person for this critical seat, including:

• Before our phone interview, I sent a long, detailed email to candidates asking them to call me and role-play. They were to pretend they already had the job and were inviting me to attend an EO event. During the call, I pushed back on why I was too busy to attend. It was on them to research EO and provide logical, persuasive reasons why I should attend. This helped me discover: Could they do the research? How good were their pitch skills? Did they seem stressed? Robotic? Natural? • I casually asked candidates to bring two copies of their resume, unfolded in manila envelopes, and two No. 2 pencils. This showed whether they would do what they were asked, and do it exactly. • I pushed with a few intentionally contentious comments about obvious resume holes—e.g., I asked directly about not finishing a four-year college degree. I wanted to see how they’d handle it in terms of body language and attitude. Could they shrug it off and stay positive and confident in their reply? • I requested—and analyzed—writing samples.

2. Leverage EO mentors and Chapter Launch experts in the EO leadership.

They brought key experiences, connections, guidance and know-how but, more importantly, they provided good judgment and moral support. Working with them was one of the significant benefits of being in EO. I developed meaningful, trusting relationships, while also avoiding many mistakes, thanks to experience sharing from those who have “been there, done that.”

3. Score SAPs, both big and small.

You can’t run a startup without funds. Strategic alliance partners (SAPs) can provide your chapter with invaluable contributions to make more events and programs possible. You do not need to wait until you have lots of members to score SAPs. Just the opposite: We landed the No. 1 law firm in town with just seven chapter members. Their cash helped significantly, and their high-end facilities provide status and image. But don’t neglect small SAPs, who can help you recruit potential members, provide cash or in-kind contributions, lend credibility and offer free event space.

“Starting EO Richmond was a trial by fire—both incredibly difficult and incredibly rewarding!” – Michael Mahoney, EO Richmond President

4. Create a spectacular learning calendar.

Leverage EO Global events, regional events, and nearby chapter events if you’re in the fortunate position of having another chapter nearby. Schedule quality—but free—speakers for local events, including members from other chapters, local luminaries, or others trying to break into the speakers’ circuit. Paid speakers visiting a nearby chapter will often add your chapter to their trip for a nominal cost, or sometimes just travel expenses.

5. Make events multi-purpose.

A learning event should also be a recruiting event and a spousal integration event, and can be followed by a social event. Squeeze value from every gathering.

6. Run Test Drives every six weeks.

Yes, that’s aggressive, but you have to be relentless. Make the Test Drive location a draw in itself. For example, Top Golf or a local micro-brewery. Invite prospects’ spouses to attend. Again, transform the event into a multi-purpose event, so it’s new member integration, spousal integration, member recruiting, SAP recruiting and a social event.

7. Identify your closer.

I can’t overstate the importance of finding that specific someone in your membership who can close new members and SAPs. It’s a skill. It’s rare. It’s essential. If necessary, leverage a regional leader who will work these contacts by phone for you.

8. Leverage nearby chapters for big, resource-intensive events such as chapter retreats or Accelerator program.

Programs like these require significant time and money, but are occasional and definitely worth the travel. We are fortunate to have two thriving chapters within a two-hour drive of our city—EO DC and EO Southeast Virginia—which empowered us to offer big chapter benefits at little or no expense on our end.

9. Momentum breeds momentum.

You either grow or die. Don’t take your eyes off the prize: Chapter members and prospects feed off the energy of growth. When new members are coming in, there’s excitement, fresh experiences, new connections, and people feel like they’re part of something vibrant. Recruit continually to keep the excitement and enthusiasm revving.

While some EO chapters form as spin-offs of existing chapters, others—such as EO Richmond—start completely from scratch, with a devoted champion cold-recruiting every single new member until they attract 16 qualifying members, the threshold for chapter status.

It’s a daunting challenge, one that EO Richmond president Michael Mahoney started in mid-2017 and mastered in about 20 months, with the help and guidance of EO’s Chapter Launch team and knowledgeable regional resources. The new chapter officially launched in February 2019 and is in integration and growth mode. Michael is also the founder and executive director of Ideal Body Wellness, which provides the tools and guidance necessary for people to achieve and maintain their ideal body weight.

The post Forging EO Richmond: Lessons Learned from Launching an EO Chapter appeared first on Octane Blog – The official blog of the Entrepreneurs' Organization.

from Octane Blog – The official blog of the Entrepreneurs' Organization https://blog.eonetwork.org/2020/02/forging-eo-richmond-lessons-learned-launching-eo-chapter/ via IFTTT

[dinafbrownil]

When Aid-In-Dying Is Legal, But The Medicine Is Out Of Reach

Last summer, Neil Mahoney was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. Mahoney had to spend his last days fighting to find doctors willing to help him end his life.(Heidi de Marco/KHN)

This story also ran on The Guardian. This story can be republished for free (details).

GOLDEN, Colo. ― The call came the last week of September, when Neil Mahoney could still stagger from his bed to the porch of his mobile home to let out his boisterous yellow Lab, Ryder.

Rodney Diffendaffer, a clinical pharmacist in Longmont, 45 miles away, had left a message.

Your prescription is ready, it said.

Mahoney, a once-rugged outdoorsman now reduced to bones, his belly swollen with incurable cancer, sighed with relief. After months of obstacles, the frail 64-year-old finally had access to lethal drugs under Colorado’s 2016 End of Life Options Act, one of a growing number of U.S. state laws that allow terminally ill patients to obtain medications to end their lives.

Even as an increasing number of U.S. states have legalized aid-in-dying laws, exercising that option is challenging for patients in a country where most large hospital systems have deep religious ties and the religious right is powerful. One in 6 hospital patients is now cared for at a Catholic hospital, according to the Catholic Health Association. Aid-in-dying is a legal right, but desperate patients are often left feeling they are doing something terribly, morally wrong.

Centura Health Corp., the Christian-run hospital where Mahoney sought treatment for his cancer, regards the practice as “intrinsically evil,” citing the firm’s governing rules, the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services. The hospital has barred its doctors from following the state law. In August, it fired his physician, Dr. Barbara Morris, for consulting with Mahoney with the aim of carrying out his wishes.

As his condition deteriorated over the summer, Mahoney left the lawsuit, with Morris still unable to assist him. She sued the hospital for wrongful dismissal; the case is pending. In December, Centura officials filed a countersuit that says the hospital’s actions are protected by the U.S. and state constitutions’ freedom of religion guarantees.

Mahoney had access to lethal drugs under Colorado’s 2016 End of Life Options Act, a law that allows terminally ill patients to obtain medications to end their lives. He was the patient at the center of a legal battle over whether a Christian-run hospital system could bar its doctors from following the law.(Heidi de Marco/KHN)

In opposing the practice, the country’s religious institutions have received support from the Trump administration, which has consistently given providers wide latitude to refuse to participate in medical interventions they object to on religious grounds, though that previously applied primarily to abortion and contraception.

That leaves dying patients like Mahoney feeling abandoned during the most vulnerable time of their lives. When Centura fired Morris for encouraging “a morally unacceptable option,” Mahoney lost both his doctor and the confidence that he would be able to end his life when the suffering became too great.

So the brief message on his phone meant an important victory.

“This way I can say, ‘Yes, I can go,’” he said last summer. “I can call them up with a couple days’ notice and do it.”

Legal But Not Accessible

Oregon was out front in permitting aid-in-dying, approving it more than two decades ago. In recent years, eight other states and the District of Columbia have allowed the practice. It’s being considered in more than a dozen others.

Even when the practice is legal, it often isn’t accessible. Some doctors are barred from participating by their employers. Others refuse to do so. In some cases, the drugs themselves may be too expensive. A dose of Seconal, which was once the most commonly prescribed drug for the practice, can run more than $3,000. The government and some private insurers won’t cover it.

One of nine siblings in a close Catholic family, Mahoney seemed an unlikely candidate to test the Colorado law.

Left: Neil Mahoney (wearing a tie in the front row) in a 1962 family portrait in Denver; Right: Mahoney in Boulder, Colorado, in April 2013(Photos courtesy of Patrick Mahoney)

Weathered and rangy, with a reddish crew cut and broad hands, he’d never had a major illness or injury despite years of physical labor. For the past five years, he managed planting crews at Welby Gardens, a wholesale nursery near Denver.

“The dahlias have always been one of my favorites,” Mahoney said. “Just because of the flowers, the way those millions of petals can open up. That just still baffles me.”

He lived with Ryder, his 6-year-old golden Lab, and Lakewood, a sleek calico cat.

Mahoney was never comfortable around doctors, said his youngest brother, Patrick Mahoney, 60, who supported his older brother’s efforts to obtain help in planning his death.

“Neil had a long belief that health systems, including physicians, capitalize on those that are ill,” Patrick Mahoney said.

Mahoney, who worked at a local landscape company, said he’d never had a major illness or injury despite decades of physical labor.(Heidi de Marco/KHN)

Mahoney lived alone with his dog, Ryder, and cat, Lakewood. (Heidi de Marco/KHN)

Neil Mahoney started feeling sick last January, then worse in April and May. By mid-June, he couldn’t ignore a bout of stomach cramps, nausea and vomiting that sent him to urgent care.

Doctors ordered a CT scan, which showed multiple masses on his liver and likely in his lymph nodes, plus tumors at the junction of his stomach and esophagus. In July, tests at a local cancer center confirmed the bad news: stage 4 adenocarcinoma, a cancer that forms in the body’s glands.

There’s no cure, the doctor said. Without treatment, Mahoney could expect to live four more months. With chemotherapy, he might make it a little more than a year.

Neil Mahoney immediately asked about medical aid-in-dying. He was among 65% of Colorado voters who supported the law in 2016, and now he expected to use it. The medical oncologist turned him down flat.

Neil Mahoney recalled: “I feel like I got slapped in the face.”

Mahoney struggled to move around despite the use of his cane. Mahoney eventually lost more than 50 pounds from his 185-pound frame.(Heidi de Marco/KHN)

‘The Healing Ministry’

Mahoney’s primary care doctor had no qualms about participating. At 65, with 40 years of experience, Morris said that, in her view, medical aid-in-dying should be part of a continuum of care for dying patients.

“We cannot know when a person has reached their limit of suffering,” she said. “Only that person knows.”

Dr. Barbara Morris was fired by Centura Health Corp. in August 2019 for wanting to help her patient, Neil Mahoney, under the guidelines of Colorado’s End of Life Options Act.(Heidi de Marco/KHN)

But Centura, jointly run by Catholic and Seventh-day Adventist churches, describes its work as “the healing ministry of Christ.” When it became aware of the plans in the works, Centura fired Morris, contending that Morris had violated an employment contract requiring her to abide by its faith-based rules.

Morris immediately lost her malpractice insurance and access to a medical office, leaving her unable to prescribe drugs or provide care for Mahoney ― and 400 geriatric patients.

The lawsuit she and Mahoney filed in August alleged that Centura’s faith-based policy violates both the End of Life Options Act and Colorado laws barring health systems from interfering with medical judgment. It sought to clarify whether Centura could prevent Morris from helping Mahoney as long as he wasn’t on the health system premises.

“We believe it is a morally unacceptable act, regardless of how you couch it, and we are not going to participate in it,” Centura chief executive Peter Banko told Kaiser Health News.

In December, Centura officials hired Nussbaum Speir Gleason, a Colorado law firm that specializes in religious freedom cases. In its counterclaim, Centura officials are asking a judge to declare that a health care organization cannot be forced to allow its employees to support or carry out provisions of Colorado’s End of Life Options Act.

Mahoney didn’t have the time to let the legal battle play out in the courts. By July, he’d lost 30 pounds from his 185-pound frame. He grew weaker, wrenched with pain from tumors at the junction of his stomach and esophagus.

The Mahoney children had watched their mother, Charlotte Mahoney, endure a slow decline two weeks before her death in 2007 at age 85.

“I did not want to face an agonizing death without any means to help control when and where I will die,” Neil Mahoney told lawyers.

With his own doctor’s hands tied, a desperate Mahoney resorted to a backdoor route to exercise his legal right.

Mahoney was never comfortable around doctors and typically handled health issues on his own. In the weeks preceding his death, he had to take multiple medications to ease nearly constant pain.(Heidi de Marco/KHN)

Rodney Diffendaffer, a pharmacist who runs a network that quietly connects terminally ill patients in Colorado with doctors willing to follow the law, reached out after reading about Mahoney’s dilemma.

“It’s his choice to have that drug,” said Diffendaffer, 51, who works at the independently owned Flatirons Family Pharmacy in Longmont. “No one else should even have a say.”

In the past two years, Diffendaffer and his fledgling group, Dying With Dignity of the Rockies, have helped more than 50 terminally ill Coloradans obtain medications to end their lives.

“I have seen the pure torture that people went through,” said Diffendaffer, who grew up on a farm and says dying animals are treated more humanely.

Instead of planning for retirement, I’m planning for death.

Neil Mahoney

Although nearly 4,000 people in the United States have used a medical aid-in-dying law, under-the-radar groups like Diffendaffer’s have emerged to match patients with doctors willing to help — but not willing to be included on a public list.

“They don’t want to be labeled ‘Dr. Death,’” said Lynne Calkins, a board member for End of Life Choices California, a volunteer group formed in that state last spring.

The problem grows not just from powerful religious medical centers, but also the loud voice of the religious right in national politics as well as a genuine discomfort among some physicians who are loath to use their skills to end lives rather than save them.

Email Sign-Up

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

Sign Up

Please confirm your email address below:

Sign Up

Dr. Ira Byock, founder and chief medical officer at the Institute for Human Caring at Providence St. Joseph Health in Gardena, Calif., has long opposed the practice he calls “hastened death.” He said his objections are based on his understanding of his profession, not on faith.

“I can only say that from my perspective, and that of many non-Catholic practitioners, it is outside the scope of medical practice,��� he said. “Ending somebody’s life intentionally is not part of medical practice. It is something else.”

In Vermont, where the practice has been legal since 2013, few doctors outside larger cities such as Burlington are trained to administer the law and few pharmacies are equipped to supply the drugs, said Betsy Walkerman, president of the group Patient Choices Vermont.

“The rest of the state is very thin on medical presence,” Walkerman said. “It’s much more difficult.”

In New Jersey, which enacted a law in August, the family of Zeporah “Zebbie” Geller contacted 40 doctors before they found two willing to help. Geller, 80, a retired teacher, had been diagnosed with terminal lung cancer and died on Sept. 30 after ingesting the prescribed medication.

Mahoney made arrangements for his beloved companion to live with his close friend after his passing. “I feel like he knows what’s happening,” said Mahoney. After his death, his cat went to live with Mahoney’s sister.(Heidi de Marco/KHN)

Neil Mahoney’s Choice

Dr. Glenda Weeman, 60, a family physician who operates an independent practice in Longmont, agreed to prescribe aid-in-dying drugs for Mahoney after two exams, which confirmed he met the law’s requirements.

Weeman had prescribed the drugs for only one patient before Mahoney under Colorado’s relatively young law.

“My role is to relieve pain and suffering. That is my job,” Weeman said. “I have to help people understand that there are choices. If you don’t know the choices of how to die, I’m going to help you figure that out.”

By late September, Mahoney had his prescription, which included two anti-nausea drugs and a cocktail of four medications that would induce death. He paid about $575 for it all, out-of-pocket.

Still, he wasn’t sure when — or if — he’d use them. About a third of people who get the drugs don’t wind up taking them, data from Oregon and Washington show.

“It’s a little spooky,” Mahoney said on Sept. 30, sitting in his small, cluttered mobile home. A green T-shirt hung from his bony shoulders; he’d lost another 20 pounds. Around his neck was a pendant that said DNR: Do not resuscitate.

Mahoney still had a list of things to do. A friend had promised to care for Ryder, the dog. The cat might do OK on her own, though his sister later offered to take her. He wanted to write a will.

“It’s quite a turnaround,” he said quietly. “Instead of planning for retirement, I’m planning for death.”

Mahoney and Ryder in late August. On Nov. 5, surrounded by family, Mahoney took his prescribed end-of-life medication. He died within an hour. The once-rugged outdoorsman, now reduced to gaunt bones and a swollen belly, was determined that he ― not the disease ― would decide when he died.(Heidi de Marco/KHN)

Over the next few weeks, Neil grew frailer day by day. Patrick Mahoney, who quit his job to help, said that he and another brother, John, took turns sleeping on their brother’s couch.

Neil Mahoney knew he had a window of time where he could take the medicine. If he waited too long, he wouldn’t be able to swallow it. Then he’d lose his chance to make the choice.

On Tuesday, Nov. 5, he decided it was time.

At 9:45 p.m., in bed, surrounded by family, Neil Mahoney took the drugs to halt anxiety and nausea. Minutes later, using a straw, he quickly drank the rest of the medications, dry powders mixed with raspberry-flavored liquid. Then they waited.

“It was perhaps the hardest hour of our lives,” Patrick Mahoney said.

About 10:45, Patrick “felt for his pulse. I put my hand on his chest to check his respiration rate, and then I said, ‘He’s gone.’”

Reached by email, Barbara Morris was somber about the death of a patient whom the religious teachings of her former employer had prevented her from helping. She has found another place to practice, starting in the new year.

“It was great honor to know Neil both as his doctor and his friend,” she wrote. “Out of respect for his memory, we will continue to advocate for care focused on patient values and wishes.”

from Updates By Dina https://khn.org/news/when-aid-in-dying-is-legal-but-the-medicine-is-out-of-reach/