Ethics – Do They Change Based On Generations? – Sidebar Update!

In the Wall Street Journal Law Blog and interesting post appeared this morning by Peter Lattman relating to “file sharing” copyright infringement and the University of Oregon.

It seems that when the Recording Industry Association of America subpoenaed the school for records of students who were uploading songs on a file-sharing network, the school fought back saying that the request was violating the student’s privacy rights.

The blog is shared (?) as follows:

Today’s NYT Sidebar column spotlights the University of Oregon and its legal battle against the music industry. Go Ducks!

The Recording Industry Association of America subpoenaed the school in September, asking it to identify 17 students who were uploading songs onto a file-sharing network. The school, represented by state AG Hardy Myers, fought back, moving to quash the subpoena. It said the RIAA was violating its student’s privacy rights and engaging in questionable investigative practices.

The music industry has sued thousands of illegal file sharers, and most of them settle for a few grand rather than engage in a lengthy court battle. And its litigation crusade is expanding, says the Times. The RIAA gets most schools to identify alleged file sharers and pass along “prelitigation letters” to them. It told the NYT it has provided some 150 schools about 4,000 letters which offer students the chance to settle for $3,000 by punching in a credit card number at www.p2plawsuits.com.

“Certainly it is appropriate for victims of copyright infringement to lawfully pursue statutory remedies,” the AG reportedly wrote in his motion. “However, that pursuit must be tempered by basic notions of privacy and due process.” He added: “The larger issue is whether plaintiffs’ investigative and litigation strategies are appropriate.”

While Adam Liptak reports that the Oregon AG’s legal argument has little chance of success and says no one should feel too badly for music stealers, he writes “it is nonetheless heartening to see a university decline to become the industry’s police officer and instead to defend the privacy of its students.” He concludes: “All the university is saying, after all, is that the record industry must make its case in court before the university will point a finger at one of its own.”

So the ethical question that seems to be moving front and center is which protection has greater value – privacy or copyright protection. As previously mentioned, the ethical standards are becoming much more grey as technology changes the medium of distribution.

As an Ethics Speaker, I often get the opportunity to speak to young people and their choices and the consequences that follow. http://www.chuckgallagher.com A teen ethics survey is being planned for 2008 in the North Dallas area sponsored by the Choices Foundation. Do you think that teens have a strong foundation for making ethical choices?

Your thoughts on the ethics of file sharing and teen values changing.

Ethics – Do They Change Based On Generations? Ethics Speaker Chuck Gallagher Reviews

As a professional speaker, from time to time, I receive helpful e-mails that are useful in illustrating my point about ethics, choices and consequences. On of my primary interests is Teen Ethics and how we, as leaders, influence the choices made by those who will inherit the future.

A very interesting e-mail was sent entitled “The Generational Divide in Copyright Morality” written by David Pogue. The link is here for the full copy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/technology/personaltech/20pogue-email.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

The article goes on to state: “It was early in 2005, and a little hackware program called PyMusique was making the rounds of the Internet. PyMusique was written for one reason only: to strip the copy protection off of songs from the iTunes music store.

The program’s existence had triggered an online controversy about the pros, cons and implications of copy protection. But to me, there wasn’t much gray area. “To me, it’s obvious that PyMusique is designed to facilitate illegal song-swapping online,” I wrote. And therefore, it’s wrong to use it.

Readers fired back with an amazingly intelligent array of counterexamples: situations where duplicating a CD or DVD may be illegal, but isn’t necessarily *wrong.* They led me down a garden path of exceptions, proving that what seemed so black-and-white to me is a spectrum of grays.

I was so impressed that I incorporated their examples into a little demonstration in this particular talk. I tell the audience: “I’m going to describe some scenarios to you. Raise your hand if you think what I’m describing is wrong.”

Then I lead them down the same garden path:

“I borrow a CD from the library. Who thinks that’s wrong?” (No hands go up.)

“I own a certain CD, but it got scratched. So I borrow the same CD from the library and rip it to my computer.” (A couple of hands.)

“I have 2,000 vinyl records. So I borrow some of the same albums on CD from the library and rip those.”

“I buy a DVD. But I’m worried about its longevity; I have a three-year-old. So I make a safety copy.”

With each question, more hands go up; more people think what I’m describing is wrong.

The exercise is intended, of course, to illustrate how many shades of wrongness there are, and how many different opinions. Almost always, there’s a lot of murmuring, raised eyebrows and chuckling.

Recently, however, I spoke at a college. It was the first time I’d ever addressed an audience of 100 percent young people. And the demonstration bombed.

In an auditorium of 500, no matter how far my questions went down that garden path, maybe two hands went up. I just could not find a spot on the spectrum that would trigger these kids’ morality alarm. They listened to each example, looking at me like I was nuts.

Finally, with mock exasperation, I said, “O.K., let’s try one that’s a little less complicated: You want a movie or an album. You don’t want to pay for it. So you download it.”

There it was: the bald-faced, worst-case example, without any nuance or mitigating factors whatsoever.

“Who thinks that might be wrong?”

Two hands out of 500.

Maybe all this is obvious to you, and maybe you could have predicted it. But to see this vivid demonstration of the generational divide, in person, blew me away.

I don’t pretend to know what the solution to the file-sharing issue is. (Although I’m increasingly convinced that copy protection isn’t it.)

I do know, though, that the TV, movie and record companies’ problems have only just begun. Right now, the customers who can’t even *see* why file sharing might be wrong are still young. But 10, 20, 30 years from now, that crowd will be *everybody*. What will happen then?

Questions:

1. Do you think “file sharing” is unethical?
2. Should a persons creation be copyright protected?
3. Is reprinting with acknowledgements a violation of copyright protection – as has been done above?

Most Important Question:

Should we assume that ethical values change with technology and generational attitudes?

Since technology makes it easy to copy and paste perhaps protection or compensation for artistic expression needs to change as the ethical attitudes about its use changes.

Your comments are welcome.

Hannah Montana – No Tickets For False Essay – Ethics Speaker Chuck Gallagher Comments

The Problem:

As reported, a six year old girl in Garland, TX had, what was thought to be a winning entry in a Hannah Montana essay contest. The essay started with the words, “My daddy died this year in Iraq.”

Problem was…that statement was false. The essay was a lie and created to win the contest.

According to the Dallas Morning News the child’s mother stated, ” “We wrote whatever we could to win,” she said. “It said to write an essay. It never said it had to be true. I never said it was true. … It was just an essay. We wrote whatever we could to win.”

Now isn’t that a skewed perspective. Lie in an essay to win and then think that such an action is alright!

The Outcome:

The prize was withdrawn according to Club Libby Lu’s chief executive officer, Mary Drolet. For more information about the withdrawn prize the following was contained in the Dallas Morning News article written by Tawnell D. Hobbs:

Asked why the prize was withdrawn, spokeswoman Robyn Caulfield referred to a prepared statement from Ms. Drolet. The statement said the company had wanted to take ample time to gather facts and make an “appropriate decision” on whether to award the concert tickets and other prizes to the family. It said the company had learned the essay was false after awarding the grand prize.

“We value honesty and integrity, and in order to uphold those values, we have made the decision we have made,” Ms. Caulfield said, referencing Ms. Drolet’s statement.

The company will award the concert trip to another girl, according to Ms. Drolet’s statement. The name of the new winner is being withheld to maintain the family’s privacy, the statement said.

The Lesson(s):

Every choice has a consequence. This is a statement that is made in most every presentation I give. http://www.chuckgallagher.com

Whether it is to a business organization, an association, or a group of teens or college students, ethical behavior has one common thread – you cannot escape the consequences of the choices you make.

Certainly in this case the consequences fell into several areas:

1. One the little girl was taught a lesson from her mom – Winning at all costs will not yield a positive result if the win comes from a dishonest foundation.
2. Mom has shown her ethical foundation based on the comments she made and considering the publicity she has received, she is the recipient of consequences as well.
3. The example shown by Club Libby Lu as set a standard and example for young girls “tweens” as they are called. I respect Ms. Drolet for taking the stand for ethical behavior and allowing the consequence for unethical behavior to take place.

Perhaps this simple chapter might make a life long impression on the life of a little six year old and be a message for others to take head from.

Every choice has a consequence and doing “whatever we could to win” will not always yield positive results.

Your comments are welcome. Do you agree with the position taken by Club Libby Lu?

Texas District Attorneys – Houston and Dallas – In The News – Choices and Consequences?

Every choice we make has a consequence. It seems that two Texas District Attorneys are making the news for two very different reasons and it’s all because of their choices.

First let’s go to Houston:

It’s a few days after Christmas and what to my wondering eyes do I see, but the Houston DA playing e-mail with (well his secretary it seems).

According the the AP Texas news, Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal apologized to his family, friends and co-workers when his affectionate relationship with his secretary was released from e-mails he sent.

Before we move through the story…the first point of attention here: E-mail doesn’t go away and one should not say something in an e-mail that they would not want to have made public – or else, you might find yourself in the same hot water that this Houston, TX District Attorney has found himself in.

Here’s a link to the full story:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5408753.html

Although the DA called the release of e-mails, obtained as part of a federal civil rights lawsuit, “bare knuckle politics.” According the the AP article:

“the district attorney issued a written statement saying the release has been “wake-up call to me to get my house in order, both literally and figuratively.”

“I understand that I have said some things that have caused pain and difficulty for my family, my co-workers and friends,” Rosenthal said in the statement. “I deeply regret having said those things.”

None of the 51 e-mails between Rosenthal and Kerry Stevens are explicit, according to the Houston Chronicle, which obtained the documents before they were resealed. But they contain the phrase “I love you” more than a dozen times, and Rosenthal asks Stevens to let him hold her.

“The very next time I see you, I want to kiss you behind your right ear,” Rosenthal wrote Stevens in an e-mail dated Aug. 10, 2007.

“I always want to see you,” Rosenthal wrote in another e-mail. “You own my heart whether you want or not.”

Rosenthal said earlier this week he is not having an affair with Stevens. He said he had an affair with her in the 1980s when he was married to his first wife, but said the relationship did not lead to his divorce.”

Every choice has a consequence. In this case, the consequence thus far has been public embarrasment and pain to his family and himself.

Of course, there will likely be public outcry from his opponents. That’s to be expected. But the DA is human and subject to human feelings and emotions. The lesson for all is not so much what we think, but how we act on those thoughts. Ethics aren’t defined so much by our thoughts but mostly by our actions.

Now on to Dallas:

In this time of a constricting economy, it is important to pay your bills on time, especially if it’s your annual dues to retain your law license.

It seems that the Texas state bar suspended Craig Watkins’ law license for failing to pay his annual dues on time. Hum, a DA without a license – you gotta find some comedy in that.

Anyway, the story was reported on December 27th by the Dallas Morning News (a link to which follows)

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/122807dnmetwatkins.59450853.html

Now, Mr. Watkin’s license has been reinstated after he learned that the amount had not been paid. According to the article written by Kevin Krause:

Mr. Watkins apologized for the lapse and said it won’t affect any criminal cases. But he was still under the impression as of Thursday afternoon that he hadpaid his annual bar dues back in September.

News of the suspension sent officials in his office and in other county offices scrambling for answers as to what it would mean.

All criminal indictments and plea bargains are issued in Mr. Watkins’ name.

“It’s a mistake that is embarrassing to me but doesn’t affect the citizens of Dallas County,” Mr. Watkins said.

Watkins has received national attention for talking about crime prevention and supporting using DNA evidence in overturning or reviewing old criminal convictions. In fact, Texas Lawyer named Craig Watkins “Impact Player of the Year.” Excerpts are reprinted below:

…Watkins has every intention of breaking with tradition. He is the first African-American elected district attorney in Texas history, the first Democrat elected Dallas County DA in 20 years, and the first Dallas County district attorney who, in less than a year, has radically altered the traditional law-and-order role of the prosecution.

…Watkins’ focus is as much on preventing crime as it is on prosecuting it. Taking a more holistic approach to his job, he speaks of re-entry programs for ex-inmates and drug treatment programs, as well as garnering the social-service energies of the community to prevent small-time crooks from becoming big-time crooks and to prevent citizens from becoming victims in the first place.

Hey Craig…you don’t need this kind of coverage especially since you do stand for justice. How about putting on your calendar now to pay your dues on time next year.

Remember – Every Choice Has A Consequence. As a business ethics speaker, I know all too well the effect that choices can have on one’s life. My best to both of these men as they have placed themselves on the line for law and justice. There jobs are hard and regardless of anyones political persuasion, we should support those who commit to public service.

Your comments are welcome.

Hannah Montana and An Ethics Meltdown – Anything For Success? Ethics Speaker Chuck Gallagher Comments!

A sad story out of Garland, Texas (not far from my home in Southlake, TX). A story of Iraq, a little girl, compassion and all for Hannah Montana tickets.

The little girl was six years old who won Hannah Montana tickets to a sold out concert for the touching essay she wrote. What a special reward for a girl who touched the hearts of those who read.

The essay was a fake – the story told a lie! All done to influence the judges and win the tickets. Ethical choices gone bad and at six years old (and get this) with the knowledge (and likely help) of her mother.

The Associated Press story featured on CNN is shown below: http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Music/12/29/fake.essay.ap/index.html

Here’s what took place:

• Club Libby Lu, a store that sells clothes, accessories and games intended for young girls based out of Chicago, sponsored a contest which included airfare for four to a sold-out Hannah Montana concert on January 9th in Albany, NY.
• The little girl who won had an essay whose first line began with: “My daddy died this year in Iraq.”
• The story wasn’t true!
• Priscilla Ceballos, the little girls mother, told an interviewer with KDFW (a Dallas, TX TV station), “We did whatever we could to win.”

Mary Drolet, the CEO for Club Libby Lu stated, “We regret that the original intent of the contest, which was to make a little girl’s holiday extra special, has not been realized in the way we anticipated.” The company is considering taking away the girls tickets.

What should the outcome be?

I seriously doubt that a six year old girl could come up with a deception that contrived on her own. She had to have had help and her mother has as much admitted her part in the overall deception.

If the little girl were allowed to keep the prize, including the tickets, it would send a clear message that unethical behavior (regardless of who made the decision) is alright. It’s not alright!

If the little girl had the tickets revoked, while she would likely be hurt, it would demonstrate at a very young age, something that I state to groups all over the country, that every choice has a consequence. Reality is, by your choices you determine the consequences you receive – negative consequences (loss of the tickets) or positive results (enjoyment of the prize).

Either way, her mother, through national attention, has been exposed as a liar and a person who was willing, as she put it, to do “whatever we could do to win.” The likely outcome for their family will play out in many ways for time to come.

What do you think the outcome should be? Your comments are welcome.

Do you think that children and teens are taught ethics or is ethical behavior instinctive? Again, your comments are welcome.

For now, Motivational and Ethics Speaker, Chuck Gallagher signing off.

Golf, Coca-Cola, Beer, San Francisco, Dogs and Other Year End Useless (but interesting) Tidbits

From time to time one needs to break the serious contemplation of thought centered around choices and consequences. In fact, several who read this have asked if my “motivational” presentations are actually fun – since the topics I write about are often heavy. Well, yes…of course they are fun – otherwise, I wouldn’t be a motivational speaker. Duh.

Well, to change the tempo of my writing here are some helpful tidbits that, if nothing else, will help provide a different perspective and can change the energy in a meeting when used (another helpful tidbit to those presenters out there).

• I n the 1400’s a law was set forth in England that a man was allowed to beat his wife with a stick no thicker than his thumb. Hence we have “the rule of thumb.”
• Many years ago in Scotland, a new game was invented. It was ruled “Gentlemen Only…Ladies Forbidden” and thus the word GOLF entered into the English language.
• The first couple to be shown in bed together on prime time TV were Fred and Wilma Flintstone.
• Every day more money is printed for Monopoly than the U. S. Treasury
• Men can read smaller print than women can; women can hear better.
• Coca-Cola was originally green.
• It is impossible to lick your elbow.
• The state with the highest percentage of people who walk to work: Alaska
• The cost of raising a medium-size dog to the age of eleven: $16,400
• The average number of people airborne over the US in any given hour: 61,000
• Intelligent people have more zinc and copper in their hair.
• The first novel ever written on a typewriter: Tom Sawyer
• The San Francisco Cable cars are the only mobile National Monuments.
• 111,111,111 times 111,111,111 = 12,345,678,987,654,321
• If a statue in the park of a person on a horse has both front legs in the air, the person died in battle. If the horse has one front leg in the air the person died as a result of wounds received in battle. If the horse has all four legs on the ground, the person died of natural causes.
• Only two people signed the Declaration of Independence on July 4th, John Hancock and Charles Thomson. Most of the rest signed on August 2nd, but the last signature wasn’t added until 5 years later.
• Most boat owners name their boats. What is the most popular boat name requested? Obsession
• What do bulletproof vests, fire escapes, windshield wipers, and laser printers have in common? All were invented by women.
• What is the only food that doesn’t spoil? Honey
• Which day are there more collect calls than any other day of the year? Father’s Day
• In Shakespear’s time, mattresses were secured on bed frames by ropes. When you pulled on the ropes the mattress tightened, making the bed firmer to sleep on. Hence the phrase – “good night, sleep tight.”
• It was the accepted practice in Babylon 4,000 years ago that for a month after the wedding, the bride’s father would supply his son-in-law with all the mead he could drink. Mead is a honey beer and because their calendar was lunar based, this period was called the honey month, which we know today at the honeymoon.
• In English pubs, ale is ordered by pints and quarts. So in old England, when customers got unruly, the bartender would yell at them “Mind your pints and quarts, and settle down.” It’s where we get the phrase “Mind you P’s and Q’s.”
• Likewise, many years ago in England, pub frequenters had a whistle baked into the rim, or handle, of their ceramic cups. When they needed a refill, they used the whistle to get some service. “Wet your whistle” is the phrase inspired by this practice.
• At least 75% of the folks who read this will try to lick their elbow!
• Read this next part and don’t delete. I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteerrs in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh?

You’ll kno you living in 2007 and moving into 2008 when…

1. You accidently enter your pin on the microwave.
2. You haven’t played solitaire with real cards in years.
3. You have a list of 15 phone numbers to reach your family of three.
4. You e-mail the person who works at the desk next to you.
5. Your reason for not staying in touch with friends and family is that they don’t have e-mail addresses.
6. You pull up in your own driveway and use your cell phone to see if anyone’s home to help you carry in the groceries.
7. Leaving your house without your cell phone, which you didn’t even have the first 20, 30 or 50 years of your life, is now cause for panic and you turn around to go and get it.
8. You get up in the morning and go on line before getting your coffee.
9. You’re reading this nodding and laughing.
10. and, now U R laughing at yourself.

Happy New Year – and remember – Every Choice Has A Consequence. Let’s make our 2008 choices powerful and full of positive results.

Ohio – Big Week For Mortgage Fraud Indictments – Comments By Business Ethics Speaker Chuck Gallagher

As the year draws to a close (2007 that is) it seems that there is no vacation when it comes to indictments for those who have chosen a life that will being unpleasant consequences. Prison isn’t fun! There, in reality, is no amount of gain that is worth the cost. Soon many folks in Ohio will be finding that out as indictments turn into prosecutions and then into punishment. Let’s review.

Case One For Ohio:

A two-year investigation in the Akron, Ohio area charges 17 people and two companies with 147 counts related to mortgage and securities scams. Oh, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. More to come.

Below are excerts from an article found on Ohio.com- for the full report click on this link: (http://www.ohio.com/news/12695602.html)

Authorities paused Thursday to announce a 147-count indictment against 17 people and two Akron investment and mortgage companies alleging a web of predatory borrowing and securities scams that allegedly bilked investors, homeowners and lenders out of at least $16 million.

More charges are promised across the state as authorities try to attack one aspect of the foreclosure and mortgage fraud crisis facing Ohio.

Authorities say Evergreen Investment, Evergreen Homes and Carnation Banc had been involved in the alleged schemes since 2002.

Those named in the indictment include Evergreen President David Willan and Carnation Banc President Craig Conner.

Willan, 37, was indicted on charges ranging from engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity to aggravated theft to money laundering to mortgage fraud. He was being held in the Summit County Jail while awaiting an arraignment hearing.

Prosecutors said Willan sold more than 300 homes in two years. Currently, more than 40 percent are in foreclosure, resulting in $6 million in losses and neighborhoods riddled with vacant homes, prosecutors said.

In all, the investigation involved about 446 properties and as much as $10 million in securities fraud, prosecutors said.

Guilty plea

In court Thursday, Conner pleaded guilty to charges of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity and 21 counts of mortgage fraud, prosecutors said.

The schemes involved predatory borrowers, as opposed to predatory lending, authorities said.

”They are the financial criminals who overvalue homes, borrow money under false statements and sell securities backed by worthless second mortgages,” Summit County Sheriff Drew Alexander said. ”These crimes against our citizens can’t be ignored anymore than we can ignore vacant, abandoned houses that blight our neighborhoods.”

The investigation is ongoing and involves county authorities, Akron and Cuyahoga Falls police, the Ohio Attorney General’s Office and Ohio Department of Commerce.

Pension-fund investment

Attorney General Marc Dann told re
porters that the scheme even touches on some state employee pension funds. He said the state is looking at bringing a civil case on behalf of the funds, which invested in companies that had purchased investment bonds connected to the fraud scheme.

Dann said the indictments and lawsuits will continue across the state, with hundreds being charged or sued in related and unrelated cases.

Authors of the article on Ohio.com are: Phil Trexler can be reached at 330-996-3717 or ptrexler@thebeaconjournal.com. Rick Armon can be reached at 330-996-3569 or rarmon@thebeaconjournal.com. Beacon Journal staff writer Betty Lin-Fisher contributed to this report.

From an investigative standpoint, I can’t imagine how tedious this process has been. According to reports there were nearly 800,000 documents related to this case.

The process was complex. One scenario went like this. Buyer would find a home for $50,000 then offer the homeowner $60,000. If you were the seller you’d have to be pleased if not thrilled. The next step. The buyer conspires with an appraiser to inflate the value of the property to $125,000 (for example) and obtain a loan for the higher amount. Next…the buyer would pay the homeowner the amount agreed to ($60,000), provide a kickback to the appraiser and pocket the difference. Finally, the mortgage would be sold to another lender that was unaware of the fraud committed. Home then would sit vacant and eventually be foreclosed on. Fraud complete.

Another approach listed in the indictments is the use of “straw buyers” – in other words people who never intended to live in or use the home. The “straw buyer” would receive a kickback for allowing mortgages to be placed in their name.

In this scheme it is stated that there were more than 500 victims.

Case Two for Ohio:

5 people were indicted for mortgage fraud and ponzi schemes in Ohio. The charges were conspiracy to commit mail fraud, wire fraud, securities fraud, money laundering, mortgage fraud, and bank fraud – to name a few. The indictment charges that two of the five solicited investments that, in reality, did not exist. The program was a classic Ponzi scheme. The funds from some of the investors were used to pay “interest” to other investors to give the illusion of reality – when in fact it was not.

A Ponzi scheme is where one set of investors’ funds are used to pay supposed interest payments to other investors to encourage others to invest, or re-invest, and to keep investors from realizing that there are no investments and that they have been defrauded.

(Side note: Not proud of this, but that is in effect what I was convicted of in the early ’90’s and for which I served time in Federal prison) Today, I am a Senior Sales Executive in a public company and speak nationwide on Choices and the Truth About Consequences. http:www.chuckgallagher.com

The mortgage fraud part of the indictment related to the purchase of property using, yet once again, a “straw buyer”. The purchase price was inflated in order to make the purchase work at 100% financing and provide funds to pay for the fraud. False employment and asset information were provided to the bank and resulted in charges for bank fraud.

Summary:

First, let’s say Ohio law enforcement has been busy. Every choice has a consequence. Based on the time and depth of the charges – it is clear that the consequences won’t be pleasant for these folks. Having been there myself, I can categorically state that prison is no fun. The price that these folks will pay will far outweigh the short-term benefit that they might have received from the money scammed. Perhaps those who read this will think twice about similar schemes or be able to better detect patterns of abuse.

If you have been the victim of a mortgage fraud or have been invited to participate in an investment that is too good to be true…please comment. We’d love to hear from you!

Business ethics speaker (see YouTube Demo Video) – Chuck Gallagher – signing off.

 

 

 

Over 24 Years In Prison for Mortgage Fraud – Ethics Speaker Chuck Gallagher Comments

There is a statement that is true – You will reap what you sow!

I know. I speak from experience.

Every time I address an audience speaking on the Truth About Consequences, the audience knows full well what that statement means. Hopefully, they walk away with a renewed understanding about their choices.

The US Attorneys Office in the Western District of Washington (state) issued the following news release (reprinted in full below):

CHARLES W. GRIFFIN, 36, of Federal Way, Washington was sentenced today to just over seven years in prison, five years of supervised release and $241,492 in restitution for Conspiracy to Commit Identity Theft, Bank Fraud, and one count of Aggravated Identity Theft. The massive identity theft scheme used personal identifying information provided by insiders at a mortgage company and escrow firm. U.S. District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez sentenced both GRIFFIN, the ring leader, and RAYNETTE ARMSTRONG, 31, of Seattle. ARMSTRONG, worked at a Bellevue escrow firm, and provided GRIFFIN with personal and financial information on clients of the escrow firm. ARMSTRONG was sentenced to 6 months of home confinement, five years of probation and $29,519 in restitution.

Members of the conspiracy took over bank accounts and drained them, and opened credit accounts in victim names and ran up thousands of dollars in bills. In all more than $335,000 in fraud was linked to this conspiracy. In his sentencing memo Assistant United States Attorney Mark Parrent quoted one of the victims of the ring saying “these people have ruined my life and my credit for a very long time. We spent hours and hours trying to solve all of this, not counting the money and all of the frustration that my family had to go through with this ordeal.”

GRIFFIN recruited ARMSTRONG and others with access to private financial information, to provide personal and financial information that belonged to customers of mortgage companies and escrow firms. Using this information, GRIFFIN and other conspirators were able to locate the victims’ bank accounts and other personal financial information. GRIFFIN recruited two other co-conspirators to make counterfeit drivers licenses, using the names and information of the victims, but bearing the photographs of the co-conspirators. GRIFFIN worked with a number of other co-conspirators to use the fake ID’s to pose as bank account holders. The conspirators traveled to various banks in Oregon and Washington to drain bank accounts. The conspirators also opened credit accounts and racked up huge charges at large stores such as Lowes, Home Depot, Best Buy, and Wal-Mart. They also hit jewelry stores such as Friedlanders and International Jewelers.

Some of the co-conspirators are already serving lengthy prison terms. The primary “runner,” who used the stolen identities, Elizabeth Angous, was sentenced October 13, 2006, to nearly eight years in prison for bank fraud, wire fraud, social security fraud, credit card fraud and Aggravated Identity theft. Belinda Stuckey, was sentenced November 17, 2006 to 42 months in prison for Bank Fraud and Aggravated Identity Theft. Lamont Jefferson was sentenced to 45 months in prison for Conspiracy to Commit Identity Theft, Bank Fraud and Aggravated Identity Theft on November 2, 2007.

These sentences are the result of an eighteen month investigation by a joint task force composed of the Social Security Office of Inspector General, the FBI, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), United States Probation, the Lynwood Police Department, the Samamish Police Department and the Seattle Police Department.

The case was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Norman Barbosa and Mark Parrent..

For additional information please contact Emily Langlie, Public Affairs Officer for the United States Attorney’s Office, at (206) 553-4110.

Considering one of the last conspirators was just recently sentenced to 18 months, it appears that the total time for this group is over 24 years. The ring leader, Charles W. Griffin, age 36, will find that his life (just in the prime of his life) will dramatically change as he will have to serve almost 6 years of his 7+ year sentence.

He will miss 6 Christmas’s with his family and turn 40 in prison. Likewise, he will work practically everyday doing something insignificant earning 12 cents or so an hour. He will be known as a number and sleep on a metal bed with a 4 inch mattress. His life will change – an when he emerges he will be monitored closely for 5 more years with probation officers assuming that he will commit another crime – for which they will send him back to prison. He will find it hard to obtain employment upon his release, as he will be way behind in job skills and any company that will pay well won’t be interested in hiring him as he’s a convicted felon.

Every choice has a consequence.

As we end 2007 the individuals mentioned above are finding the statement above to be true. But the real consequences aren’t just an active prison sentence. That’s just part of the consequences they will face the rest of their lives.

Is there hope?

Yes! Every choice has a consequence. Reality is – the choices we make daily have consequences. If we make good choices, we can achieve positive results (even outstanding results), if we don’t the consequences will be negative.

Interesting…positive results or negative consequences – the choice is yours!

Mortgage Loan Officer Sentenced To Prison – Business Ethics Speaker Chuck Gallagher Comments

An article in Seattlepi.com from the Associated Press reports that a Washington mortgage loan officer was sentenced to 18 months in prison for conspiracy to commit identity theft.

A portion of the article is shown below:

36-year-old Juanita Booker, of Seattle, was a loan officer at a Bellevue mortgage company.

She also was sentenced to $199,666 in restitution.

Booker provided identity theft ring leader Charles W. Griffin with personal financial information on people who had applied for a mortgage at her company.

Booker supplied Griffin with the personal and financial information on at least 16 different people who had applied for mortgages at the Bellevue company.

While I have reported on many folks who have either been indicted for mortgage fraud or been convicted of mortgage fraud and sentenced to prison, this is one of a few that I’ve seen where the conviction and sentence is for conspiracy.

Every choice has a consequence. Including thinking about doing something wrong and taking action.

Let me share a story from prison. Inmate Henry was convicted and sentenced to 5 years in federal prison for conspiracy to sell drugs. What did Henry do? Seems from official transcripts from his hearing, he told a known drug dealer where to find another drug dealer…thus conspiring to sell drugs.

Let’s look deeper. Henry was not a user or dealer of drugs. His sister did use and took up with a drug dealer who got busted. As part of the dealers agreement with the government, in order to reduce his sentence, he would turn states evidence against others. Seems that he (the busted drug dealer who dated Henry’s sister) told Henry that his supplier had been busted and he was wondering where he could buy cocaine. Henry refused information not once but twice (as Henry wasn’t a user and could have cared less).

Finally, on this guys third attempt Henry told him that while he did use and didn’t even approve of him dating his sister, there was a guy from high school who did, “Talk to him and quit asking me.”

Well…the guy took his advice, bought drugs from him, and turned him in. But, he also turned in Henry. Henry’s comments amounted to conspiracy to sell drugs and that earned Henry the designation of convicted felon with a 5 year sentence.

Now, what does this have to do with mortgage fraud, you might ask? Well, the issue isn’t the type of fraud but rather how and what one can be convicted of. Here, the issue is providing information in order that a crime might be committed. It is not necessary to commit the crime. Intent is critical and here the intent was called conspiracy.

While some readers might not think much of an 18 month sentence, I can speak from experience and say it can be life changing.

As a business ethics speaker, I routinely address groups around the country about choice and consequences. Having made bad choices that earned me a stint in federal prison and now serving as a Senior Sales Executive in a public company and national motivational speaker, I know the truth about consequences.

Never forget…every choice has a consequence. As we approach the new year, it’s important with the growing evidence of mortgage fraud, that we make well thought out choices that will provide positive results. Cause, from experience, the negative consequences suck!

Chapel Hill Restaurant Closed – You Gotta Pay Your Taxes!

As reported on Charlotte News channel 9 – a popular Chapel Hill North Carolina restaurant – the Ratskeller – is closed. A note on the door stated it was closed for failure to pay taxes. What a shame!

Every choice has a consequence!

As we approach tax season, many of us will begin the process of closing out our business years and accumulate data for our individual returns. Many people will begin thinking about their tax saving strategies in an effort to minimize what is due. That is just good tax planning.

However, failure to comply with federal or state tax laws is just unwise! As a business ethics speaker I know full well the effect of not paying taxes – I served time in prison for my unethical choices. While I am not proud of my past behavior, I do speak to groups nationally about choices and consequences.

For the Ratskeller the cost – business closure (at least for now). In the long run, the cost will likely be greater. Minimize your taxes – just makes sense. Failure to pay taxes will yeild an outcome that – I promise – you won’t want.

If you’ve enjoyed the food and fellowship at the Ratskeller…post a comment. Perhaps, it will be reopened and legal!