Oatmeal at McDonalds…Ethical and Healthy Choices for Consumer Benefit…

O.K. so this is a deviation from my normal blog in both content and length, but I have to share.  So, I’m sitting in my car in the drive through line at McDonalds (yes I know that sitting in a car is wasting gas) preparing to order my (very healthy) double cheeseburger and sweet tea (and Mickey D’s does make some good sweet tea)…when an auto play announcement comes on and says:

For your fun and enjoyment, McDonalds is now offering “Oatmeal” all day long!”

Say what?  Oatmeal?  Surely I must have misunderstood.  But, as I looked at the display – there is was front and center – piping hot delicious “Oatmeal” topped with (as they describe it) crisp fresh apples, plump raisins and sweet cranberries.  I am amazed!

Now for you “Oatmeal” lovers, this blog is written to announce that you should make a run at McDonalds – as they have now moved from healthy salads to fun and enjoyable meal that many crave – “Oatmeal”!

For the rest of us, well…it provides a good laugh and interesting conversation at the drive through.  By the way, I asked the young lady that served me as I drove up – “How many oatmeals do folks order?”  She laughed sharing that she doesn’t remember any…

Meanwhile…I suspect the Association of Oat Growers is pleased that for once “Oatmeal” is now receiving the national attention it deserves…  Hum…wonder how one eats “Oatmeal” while driving down the road?  Oh…and I can see it now…a lawsuit from someone who sues because eating sticky oatmeal requires more than one hand and thereby is the root cause of an accident…!

If you’ve ever had McDonalds “Oatmeal” please comment on how fun and enjoyable it was…PLEASE.

Dr. Lillian Glass vs Marsha Petrie Sue – Does being found liable of “Copyright Infringement” equal an NSA Ethics Violation? Part 1 of 2

Have you ever had one of those issues that seem to stare you right in the face – an issue that forces you to look in the mirror and ask yourself – “What am I going to do with this one?”  This issue is one of those defining questions that forced me to think carefully and evaluate “ethically” what I should do.  Do I ignore a major ethics question and issue within my profession, leave it alone, sweep it under the rug (so to speak), or do I discuss what, to many, is a subject that should see the light of day for the benefit of the profession?   I suspect that many will doubt the choice that I am making, but I have to say that “transparency” and “truth” for me prevails, as I ask the tough questions related to a major legal and ethics issue.

In the middle of December, 2010 – major news outlets from USA today to Businessweek to CNBC were reporting on the unanimous jury verdict in the trial of Dr. Lillian Glass in her copyright infringement trial against Marsha Petrie Sue – an NSA member and CSP (Certified Speaking Professional).  The decision was handed down in a Federal Court – 2:09- cv-08570-RGKL-SH, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles).

According to a news release that followed: “Dr. Glass had alleged that Petrie Sue’s 2007 book “Toxic People” had wrongfully copied from two lists in Dr. Glass’ 1992 book “He Says, She Says.” The jury of eight agreed and Bloomberg reported that, “According to a December 9 court filing, the jury awarded her $31,000 for the unauthorized use of content from her work.”

In communication with Dr. Glass she said she discovered Petrie Sue’s word for word copying of her materials after doing an Amazon search for her own book called “Toxic People.”  Surprised to see another book with the same main “Toxic People” title, Dr. Glass ordered Petrie Sue’s 2007 book and was even more surprised to find similarities in stories and examples.

So what happens – ethically that is – when someone is found guilty of what would appear to be a violation of one of the eight specifically listed Code of Ethics Standards established by the National Speakers Association?  Note, I said, “appears” because as of this writing there is no active ethics complaint or investigation underway with the National Speakers Association.

The NSA Ethics Standards are listed below:

Article 1 – Representation

The NSA member has an obligation to oneself and to NSA to represent oneself truthfully, professionally and in a non-misleading manner. The NSA member shall be honest and accurate in presenting qualifications and experience in the member’s communication with others.

Article 2 – Professionalism

The NSA member shall act, operate his/her business, and speak in a most professional and ethical manner so as neither to offend nor bring discredit to oneself, the speaking profession or one’s fellow NSA members.

Article 3 – Research

The NSA member shall exert efforts to understand each client’s organization, approaches, goals and culture in advance of a presentation, in order to professionally apply one’s expertise to meet each client’s needs.

Article 4 – Intellectual Property

The NSA member shall avoid using – either orally or in writing – materials, titles or thematic creations originated by others unless approved in writing by the originator.

Article 5 – Respect & Collegiality

The NSA member shall maintain a collegial relationship with fellow members that is based on respect, professional courtesy, dignity and the highest ethical standards.

Article 6 – Confidentiality

The NSA member shall maintain and respect the confidentiality of business or personal affairs of clients, agents and other speakers.

Article 7 – Business Practices

The NSA member is obligated to maintain a high level of ethical standards and practices in order to assist in protecting the public against fraud or any unfair practice in the speaking profession and shall attempt to eliminate from the profession all practices that could bring discredit to the speaking profession.

Article 8 – Diversity

The NSA member shall not participate in any agreement or activity that would limit or deny access to the marketplace to any other speaker, to a client, or to the public. This includes, but not limited to, economic factors, race, ethnicity, creed, color, sex, age, sexual orientation, disability, religion, or country of national origin of any party.

SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS:

Just the other day, being interviewed as a business ethics speaker and author on a radio show, I was asked about the definition of “ethics”.  While many would think the answer would be simple – the reality is – ethics and ethical choices are those choices that are “right” based on the facts and circumstances of the situation at the time they are made.  Beyond ethics – right and wrong choices that have a moral fiber running through them – is the question of legal.  Sometimes what may be unethical may nevertheless be legal.  Many would say that actions that our financial institutions took with sub-prime mortgages were unethical – yet, they were legal.

Some might question whether raising the question (as an NSA member) is a violation of Ethics Article 5 – Respect & Collegiality. I hope that those who read understand that discussing or opening a forum for dialogue about ethics within our profession is not, in and of itself, disrespectful.  Likewise, for clarity, I have interviewed, in one form or another, both Dr. Lillian Glass and Marsha Petrie Sue – seeking their input first as this forum is opened.

But what if a choice made is illegal?  Does that make it also unethical?  That seems to be the issue that likely will be facing an NSA colleague – Marsha Petrie Sue.  As a speaker in leadership and a leader herself in NSA, having earned the coveted CSP (Certified Speaking Professional) designation, the likelihood is that an ethics investigation resulting from her conviction will happen sometime in 2011.  According to a conversation I had with Stacy Tetschner, CAE and Executive Vice-President of NSA, an ethics investigation will only happen if a formal complaint is filed with NSA.

Beyond the specific Ethics Standards, NSA has clear guidelines related to “Intellectual Property Guidelines” when it comes to presenters and presenting at NSA Conferences.  The guidelines are listed below:

1. Understand the definition of intellectual property. Intellectual property is broadly defined as the original expression of ideas, as well as symbols and words that represent the products or services of a company or person.
2. Respect the intellectual property of others. Below is a partial list of items considered to be intellectual property: cartoons, speeches, photographs, written material, overheads, signature stories, videos, logos/trademarks, movie/TV clips, drawings, audio-taped artwork, interviews, and other proprietary music materials.
3. Comply with the law and the code of ethics. If you utilize any type of intellectual property that is not your own, get permission from the owner. Either obtain a formal license or obtain written permission to use the material. Please note that in some cases, the creator of the property is not the owner.
4. Share with the audience that you have that permission. Include a simple, brief statement such as, “These photos are used with the permission of….” Sometimes the owner may require you to use a more formal notice, including for example, a copyright notice.
5. If you use handouts that duplicate intellectual property with permission, be sure to add the phrase, “Used with permission of….” Your handouts might also explain that you have permission to use other materials (cartoons, photos, music, etc.) in your presentation. For example: “All of the materials presented in this presentation are either original, licensed or used with permission.”
6. Know that NSA has obtained some limited rights to music. NSA has secured certain performance rights for your presentation from leading performing rights organizations. This will allow you to sing or play certain music during your presentation. This allows you to play certain prerecorded music as well. However, if you wish to synchronize your music to another media (sound on slide, video, etc.), then you must obtain a separate synchronization license. This is your responsibility, not that of NSA. In other words, NSA has obtained licenses for you to sing or play a CD of many (but not all) of the latest hit songs. As soon as you play it in conjunction with a slide show, you are breaking the law, unless you have obtained the further necessary permissions yourself.
7. Notify NSA’s recording partner, Content Management Corporation, if you intend to use music. Then they can (at their option) either secure a mechanical license to duplicate the music or else they will need to edit out the musical selections from the tape of your program. Because it is unlawful to duplicate intellectual property without permission, you should also help CMC obtain the permissions necessary to fulfill their legal responsibility. In other words, you can sing songs NSA has obtained a license for. Should CMC duplicate/ distribute your performance, however, without a mechanical license, they might be breaking the law. For video-taped programs, the same notification is required for any visual media that would be reproduced, such as photos or cartoons.
8. Tell the audience when you have created or commissioned your own intellectual property. If you have gone to the expense of creating and/or commissioning your own intellectual property, the NSA audience needs to know. You might use a brief phrase such as: “I had these cartoons especially created for my seminars.”
9. Remember, as an NSA presenter, you represent the standard of ethical behavior.

Since NSA has gone to the trouble of listing specific guidelines with respect to the use of intellectual property, it would seem logical that being found liable in Federal Court of copyright infringement (violating intellectual property) would create quite a stir.

COULD IT BE ETHICAL BUT ILLEGAL?

Some might say I’m grasping at straws here, but is it possible that something could be found liablous (by a jury in a court of law) and not be found to be an ethics violation?  In communication with Dr. Lillian Glass – she says, in her opinion, no.  But what does Marsha Petrie Sue have to say?  In the interest of fairness, I raised a number of questions directly with Marsha Petrie Sue which, (in the interest of space), will appear in Part Two of this business ethics article.  For now, what is clear is that there are significant unanswered questions.

WHAT’S NEXT?

Whether there is an NSA ethics challenge is a function of whether a formal complaint is filed.  Assuming one is filed – the ethics committee will review the relevant material and make their determination based on the facts and circumstances.  Their findings will be published in the Speaker magazine and could include the following: (1) no action (assuming no violation is found); (2) letter of censure either public or private; (3) NSA CSP designation be revoked; and/or (4) NSA membership be revoked or suspended.  Likely, any action taken would be any of the above or a variation on the theme based on what NSA feels it appropriate.  Certainly, the negative publicity is, in and of itself, significant.

YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME… (see Part Two for the Marsha Petrie Sue Interview and comments)

Dr. Lillian Glass vs Marsha Petrie Sue – Does being found liable of “Copyright Infringement” equal an NSA Ethics Violation? Part 2 of 2

As I began the first part of this series, which oddly enough began as an exploration of NSA’s code of ethical conduct, I raised questions related to Martha Petrie Sue’s being found liable of “Copyright Infringement” and the ethical impact it might have related to her membership and designation within NSA (the National Speakers Association).

As part of my work, I felt that since I had reached out to Dr. Lillian Glass to gain her perspective – much of which she would not allow me to publish as she stood by her news release – it was appropriate to provide the same opportunity to extend the same to a fellow speaker and NSA colleague.  In the interest of fairness, I did find Dr. Glass to be open in her expressions related to the case and I felt that, while the win was limited in scope to two lists, my interpretation was that Dr. Glass felt that not only had she stood up for her intellectual property, but in doing so struck a victory for others demonstrating that those who copies another’s intellectual property would experience consequences.  For those that follow my work you know that I open each presentation on ethics with the phrase – “Every Choice has a Consequence.”  I believe in the power of choice and the inevitability of consequence!

But, (I know you never start a sentence with ‘but’)…but – when I reached out to Marsha Petrie Sue, I, too, found a person who was very open to sharing her side of the story – and we all know that every story has two sides.  Below you will see the questions I posed to Marsha Petrie Sue and her responses verbatim.  Beyond her comments, from time to time you will find my own and I will do my best to make sure that mine are clearly noted so as not to be confused with Marsha’s words.

INTERVIEW:

1.     In December 2010 you were found liable, by a jury in Federal Court, of “Copyright Infringement”.  Were you surprised by the verdict?

“Shocked because I did nothing wrong.  I prevailed on the majority of the lawsuit.  See below!”

2.     Assuming you were (if not skip this question), before this ever got to Federal Court, what attempts did you make to settle the dispute that arose between you and Dr. Glass?

“Yes – many.  See PDF 154-24.  We tried mediation and Glass would not even be in the same room as me.  Finally she agreed and would not shake my hand or even recognize that I was there except when she yelled abusive and vile comments at me.  Her lack of maturity and hate for me, for whatever reason, were very apparent.”

3.     Did Dr. Glass – when (I assume) she raised the issue at the beginning of copyrighted material request a non-court settlement?  And if so, what were her demands?

“Partly, but her settlement requests were ridiculous.  For example, in the original claim she said that she coined “Sticks and Stones will break my bones and names will never hurt me” and that I had stolen that from her books.  I believe it was Rudyard Kipling.  She said I should never be allowed to use that statement again.”

4.     According to published media reports, you had material (two lists) in your book, “Toxic People” that was previously included in Dr. Glass’s book – “He Says, She Says.”  How did you come about that material?

“Many years ago, as people often do, I was sent two lists with very generic information concerning men and women in the workplace. I asked the person if I could use their information and they said yes. The language was so common and the information so generic, containing 132 words that I didn’t think there was an original author and that the person that approved this was the originator. Being a professional speaker and author people often send me quotes, quips, lists and other information they deem of interest. I’ve even had people pass me notes after a presentation. Glass’s He Says, She Says, where the lists originally printed is a full chapter, Paragraph style and over 1900 words.  So they are NOT exact.”

5.     Were you aware of Dr. Glass’s book – “Toxic People” – before you penned your book?

“No and I never heard of her either.  I began writing “Toxic People” in 2004 and Google searching was not something I did.  My original submission to Wiley had the title of “Decontaminate Toxic People” and they changed the name to “Toxic People.””

6.     Based on your earlier email (Chuck’s voice here – I had sent an email requesting an interview) in which you said or inferred that the lists were sent to you by a connection, did you make any attempt to search the wording to find out if it was copied from another source?

“The lists are VERY generic.  I knew many people had come up with similar information.  They were too common to search.”

CHUCK’S VOICE  – There are ways to scrub your material to compare it to copyrighted material and/or to evaluate whether it might be subject to a claim of plagiarism.  Apparently this is how many in the academic community are now being discredited with respect to former writing.  Years back technology was not available to scrub material in the same way it is today.  Was it available in 2004/2005?  I don’t know, but I would assume that publishers would protect themselves and their authors by using such technology.  Perhaps they don’t!

7.     As you know from the Dr. Lillian Glass website – Stanford University Professor Robert I. Sutton accused Marsha Petrie Sue, an Arizona professional speaker, of “plagiarism” – what comments do you have regarding the Sutton allegation?

“I’ve never heard of him, and don’t know who he is.  He never contacted me. You might also find interesting http://www.pogowasright.org/?tag=dr-lillian-glass”

8.     NSA has specific rules related to “intellectual property” and being found liable in Federal Court of “Copyright Infringement” would seem to fly in the face of those rules.  As a CSP and respected NSA member, what comments would you make regarding your conviction and the NSA position on “intellectual property”?

“I have done nothing wrong.  I have no control over a vindictive person who in the summary judgment had all issues thrown out except for the 132 words in the list.  The case is not finished.  Please also refer to below information re: details of the case – and I have more.”

9.     Likewise, NSA has specific ethics rules that we (NSA members) are held accountable to follow.  Some would say that you violated Article 4 – Intellectual Property.  What would you say in defense of that ethics violation claim (please note I am aware that no such claim has yet been made – however some at NSA feel that a formal complaint will be forthcoming)?

“Gosh – and this is the first I’ve heard of it.  I guess my colleagues and friends would rather solve this problem behind my back.  No. I have done nothing wrong.”

CHUCK’S VOICE:  I regret the manner in which the question was asked as it inferred I had some inside information with NSA and I do not!  Rather, I have heard from a number of NSA leading speakers that they expected that a formal complaint would be filed since a finding of being liable of  “Copyright Infringement” would almost certainly be deemed by most to be a clear ethics violation, especially since that is directly connected to “intellectual property” and NSA has taken a clear stand on such issues.  I accept responsibility for my poorly worded question and apologize to Marsha and NSA if I inferred something inaccurate.

10.  From a different ethics perspective, it seems that Dr. Glass has gone to extraordinary lengths to expose your being found liable including material front and center on her website, notices on Facebook and a make shirt blog on WordPress.  What do you make of all the public and national attention this case seems to have received?

“I believe Glass is trying “ruin” me because she is jealous and vicious. Also believe that she is trying to sell her own books creating a platform from my visibility. I think she should be pitied.”

11.   I have been told your book – “Toxic People” – can now NOT be sold since it contains “Copyright Infringement” material – is that accurate?

“Not true.  She settled with Wiley with no monetary exchange.  They still sell the book on all outlets (Amazon, B&N, etc.)  The book is still there and I am still selling.”

12.  Do you plan on revising the book to remove the offensive content and then reissue?

“The content was not offensive nor copied. This is Wiley’s call not mine.

Here are my lists – and her list was over 1900 words and set as an entire chapter – and in paragraphs.

What women need to do in the business world when working with men:

1.     Do not minimize your accomplishments at work.

2.     Keep discussions to job-related issues or news events.

3.     Lower the pitch of your voice.

4.     Get to the point and include who, what, when, where and how.

5.     Do not use tag endings, such as “isn’t it?” or “right?”

6.     Drop your tone down to make a declarative statement.

7.     Monitor your head-nodding and smiles.

8.     Do not apologize unless you are wrong.

What men need to do in the business world when working with women:

1.     Use more terms of politeness like “Please” and “Thank you.”

2.     Do not be afraid to ask for help – forget about your ego.

3.     Provide more facial and verbal feedback.

4.     Make more polite requests instead of barking out commands.

5.     Control your temper and handle yourself in a professional manner.

6.     Be aware of addressing women with condescending terms like honey, sweetheart, babe or dear.

7.     Do not interrupt or monopolize conversations. “

13.  According to your website – the publisher was John Wiley and Sons, the publisher of record – wouldn’t they “scrub” the book for content and compare it to other material so any issues of plagiarism or “copyright infringement” would be discovered in advance of printing?

“The material is so generic that is would be very, very difficult to “scrub” – see above comment.”

14.   If you were on the NSA Ethics review board (it may not be called that) – as a CSP – if this came up for another member and you were to judge whether an ethics violation had occurred – what would your opinion be?  And, what outcome do you feel would be appropriate considering all the facts and circumstances?

“I would want to fully understand out members side and why this has come about.  She sued Wiley and me in New York – and the case was thrown out (maybe not the right term) Her attorneys work on contingency and I believe this round of attorneys is her third group. And with a settlement of $31,000 – they and she lost a considerable about of money.

Pat the member on the back for not stooping to Glass’s level of vile attack and upholding the character and professionalism of NSA.”

FOLLOWING ARE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS MADE BY PETRIE SUE (in her words and unedited):

Glass was not the prevailing party because there can only be one “prevailing party” and Glass was not such a party. Glass alleged that I infringed copyrights to four of Plaintiff’s books: Say It Right; The

Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Men and Women; Toxic People: 10 Ways to Deal with People Who Make Your Life Miserable; and He Says, She Says. This Court granted Ms. Petrie Sue’s motion for summary adjudication on first three of those books. Although Glass prevailed at Trial on the fourth book, that is not enough to overcome the fact that her copyright claim as to three of her books had no merit as a matter of law.

A plaintiff who prevails on one copyright claim, but loses on even more copyright claims (as well as all of her non-copyright claims), see Riffer Decl. ~~ 2-4, is not “the” prevailing party.

Glass’s motion which cites 24 cases, does not even address the dispositive fact for this motion — that she lost more copyright claims than she won. This is further evidence (as explained below) that

Glass’s counsel looked at this case as creating a billing opportunity.

Glass had no interest in resolving her dispute with me in a reasonable manner. She wanted a Trial, irrespective of the value of her case or the cost of litigation. She retained her attorneys on a contingency, so cost did not matter to her; her attorneys viewed the case as an opportunity for an attorney fee award, so the higher the cost, the better. She viewed the Trial as a publicity event that could generate stories about her to help her sell her books. Her final settlement demand ($233,000) was more – about $85,000 more — than the maximum a jury could award her ($150,000) for statutory damages.! The $85,000 figure was no coincidence either.

Her counsel candidly admitted that she really wants to go to trial – again publicity stunt material. I believe her counsel’s motivation was to create a billing opportunity. Her motivation was to generate publicity to help her sell her books.  Taking the energy and resources needed to tear me down could have been used to sell her latest books – and even the old ones.

Why would I pay more to settle than it risked even if lost a Trial, especially after such I had prevailed on all the other (copyright and non-copyright) claims in the case?

So, Glass received her wish. She had her Trial.  She so she claims to have ‘won’, even though she:

~ lost on three of her four copyright claims; ~ lost on every other claim in the case; and ~received a jury verdict of $31,000 when her last settlement demand, made only a few days before Trial, was $233,000.

Obviously, anyone who is “very happy” with such “results” had her own agenda, which was not to resolve the case in a reasonable manner, but rather to generate publicity to sell her other books.

REMOVED COMMENT  due to factual dispute… Couple that with her counsel having their own agenda as well. Obviously, anyone who represents to a Federal Court that the outcome of this case — a $31,000 jury verdict on one claim after losing all other claims — was “exceptional,” “very successful” and an “excellent result” had his own agenda, which was not resolving the case in a reasonable manner.

WHERE FROM HERE?

I guess I now need to retake the content control and say – WOW!  My intent was to open the door to an ethics discussion and I think I got a bit more than I bargained for.  While I am sure both parties will take offense to my next comment I suspect that those who care to read will agree…this is a bit of a cat fight!

Dr. Lillian Glass, who I will admit handled herself professionally in my interview of her, clearly had a strong emotional charge to the outcome and the fact that (whether Petrie Sue likes it or not) Glass won in a federal court.  Whether you win one count, four or forty…being convicted is being convicted!  Based on my personal experience, and I’ve had personal experience in Federal Court, if you’re found guilty – a good dose of humility and reflection is in order.

Marsha Petrie Sue, on the other hand, is (in my opinion) in defensive mode related to her conviction.  That is common when someone finds that they are in unfamiliar territory and for most, being convicted in Federal Court is unfamiliar territory.

Rather than making a judgment on Dr. Lillian Glass’s or Marsha Peterie Sue’s actions – pre or post jury decision, I’d rather quote from my book as I leave the issue of an ethics violation to NSA and you – the readers.

Every choice we make in life will have either a negative consequence or a positive result. The outcome we receive is directly connected to the choices we make. As we live our outcomes, the more aware we become of how our choices impact the results we live, the greater power we have to produce the outcomes we desire.  Choices made without self-integrity or ethics result in negative results, while choices made with self-integrity result in positive results. My life demonstrates both extremes. –

from SECOND CHANCES: Transforming Adversity into Opportunity – by Chuck Gallagher

Perhaps it’s time for both Glass and Petrie Sue to look in the mirror and ask the more significant question – what choices am I making today that reflect self-integrity and will be deemed to empower and benefit others?

Meanwhile…is it possible that one can become the title of one’s book?

YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME!

Ethics and Redemption – Do Sexual Abusers Deserve a Second Chance?

From time to time I open my blog for guests who have unique insights related to ethics and choices.  I am proud to feature an interesting and perhaps controversial entry by a dear friend and colleague – Mary Auda.  Mary helped me in writing my new book “Second Chances.”  She is a skilled writer and pulled from me many emotional ties that made “Second Chances” really connect with readers.  For her help I am truly grateful.  Here, Mary is opening up herself and sharing not only an interesting perspective but a part of herself as well…as Mary has been a victim of child sexual abuse.  I am proud of what she has done to find healing in her life and know that her comments below will open debate around a very sensitive subject.

“Mary, I want to apply as a lay counselor in the counseling ministries,” George said.

I was a bit surprised.  I didn’t know George very well other than he had spent time in prison.  “That is great,” I replied.   I am one who believes we all deserve second chances in life.  I’ve often said when judgment would arise “There by the grace of God go I”.  None of us are perfect.  If you believe in sin, then sin is sin.  There are no degrees of sin.

“You may think differently after I share my story,” George said.  After taking a deep breath he continued “I went to prison because I sexually abused my two daughters.”

I took a moment to breathe to center.  Hearing his words touched my pain deep inside as I had been sexually abused as a child by my father.  I knew it was important for me to hear his story.  I had only just begun dealing with my issues and really had no desire to hear his story.  For some reason unknown to me, I said “Tell me about it.”  I didn’t mean to say those words.  What I wanted to say is “You need to leave and have no right to even speak with me about it.”

He proceeded to tell me about the events leading up to his incarceration.  He shared why he sexually abused his children, how he felt about what he did and the time spent in prison.  He demonstrated a lot of remorse, sadness and shame.

“Are you feeling remorseful because you were caught and had to go to prison or are you feeling remorseful because of the pain you inflicted upon your daughter?” I asked.  I needed to know.

“I loved my daughters and can’t believe that I sexually abused them.  I rationalized it that I was teaching them about sex.  It was my sick mind.  They did nothing wrong.  I was wrong,” he replied.  There were tears in his eyes.

I felt a myriad of things: compassion, anger, hurt, confusion.  For me personally I wanted to appear that I was not affected by my experience of being sexually abused.  Somehow I thought that made me stronger when in reality it was simply a layer of protection. I was quiet.  George alternately looked down at his hands and up at me.  I finally willed myself to speak.

“George,” I said, you served your time.  Because of the nature of your crime, I need the Counseling Center Board approval and the Elder Board approval.”  Although I was the Executive Director of the Counseling Center, certain decisions needed board input.

George said, “I want to help people.  I want this to have some meaning greater than the sexual abuse of my daughters.  I want to help people because I hurt people.”

“I understand,” I replied.  “I will get back with you and let you know.  By the way, thank you for sharing your story.  That took a lot of courage.  I will let you know what the boards say.”

George walked out of my office that day.  I sat for a while staring out the window.  I was feeling a little sick to my stomach because sexual abuse is a major issue for me.  I didn’t share with him my story.  I was angry with him for what he did to his daughters knowing that they had a lifetime of dealing with the effects of having been raped by their father – the one man in their life with whom they should feel safe.  I was also still in a lot of denial about the extent of the effects of my being sexually abused by my father.

I didn’t know if he should be trusted in a counseling situation.  I really believed, and still believe that redemption and mercy are available to everyone regardless of their choices.  I believe that all people are divine expressions of God and that their choices, no matter how heinous, should not define them.  I am not saying there are no consequences, there are certainly consequences and we all must experience the consequences of our choices.

Now I was being challenged in a way that affected me deep within my soul.  Could I accept George as a child of God who sexually abused his children?  Is he not as valuable as anyone else?  After much mulling it in my head and heart, I picked up the phone and initiated the process for review by the board.

There would be much debate by the boards.  Some were clearly on the side of forgiveness and he should be allowed to participate in the counseling ministry of the church in some capacity.  Others were clearly on the side of once a rapist, always a rapist and he can’t be trusted in such a capacity.  Still others were concerned only about how it would be perceived if we allowed a convicted child molester to counsel.  Would we lose credibility and would some people leave the church?  I suggested that perhaps we could limit his ministry to men only and he be subjected to intense supervision by the licensed therapists.

Eventually it was decided that he could not be active in the church counseling ministry, consequences still were active with respect to the choices George had made.  In this case, because he was caught, prosecuted, convicted and open and honest about the nature of his crime, the boards made a decision that he could not participate as a lay counselor.  Had he not had a conviction and been honest, the decision may have been different.

I told George the board decisions.  He was sad.  He had hoped to make a difference in this world and just not leave a legacy of pain.  I told him that there were consequences to every choice we make and this was just part of the consequence.

“I understand the decision.  I served my time,” he said. “Is there ever an opportunity that I might be given a second chance to show the world that I am not a demon?”

It was a fair question.   I shared with him at that moment my story.  We talked about his daughters never being able to get back what they lost physically, emotionally, spiritually and would never have a healthy relationship with their father.  He understood and once again expressed deep remorse.

Many years have passed and George and I are not in contact.  I’ve spent 57 years either being abused or healing from the abuse.    I’ve gone from all sexual abusers ought to be put to death to a better understanding and openness to forgiveness.  I thought about George the other night and the question that arose is – do sexual abusers deserve a second chance or is it unethical, because of the nature of their crime, to give them a second chance?  Does the crime define whether he should be given a second chance?  Perhaps he doesn’t get to work with children but why not be able to work with men?

I know the long term effects of being sexually abused.  I’ve lived them.  I know I can never go back to regain the life I could have had had I not been sexually abused.  I also know through choosing to move out of my prison of victimization, that I get a second chance to have a fulfilling life now.  To live totally free means that I choose to not hold onto bitterness and resentment.  Perhaps by giving this man a second chance it assists in changing his daughter’s experience.  Perhaps by giving this man a second chance it can help other men who are abusers to stop and get help even if it means jail time.  Perhaps his second chance will help heal the world.

I thank Mary for her openness and boldness in sharing this story and posing this interesting question regarding SECOND CHANCES.  As I read this I had an interesting question myself – and that relates to how one’s SECOND CHANCE manifests.  Perhaps George has found his “Second Chance” but not in the manner that he was initially seeking.  Perhaps, we try to define how, where or when we get our “Second Chance” when, in fact, in divine order our “Second Chance” may come in ways we least expect and in manners that provide greater meaning.  What do you think?  Should some people ever be given a “Second Chance”?

YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME!

_____________________________________________

Chuck Gallagher is the author of the new book SECOND CHANCES: Transforming Adversity into Opportunity.  The book – SECOND CHANCES – carries you on a journey that is transformative, inspirational and opens the door to exploring life changing choices that through determination can create the Opportunity you need to enjoy the Success you desire!

This book, called an “Inspirational self-help masterpiece” was written over the scope of many years and through the experience of many hard lessons learned.  I hope that through  this book, you too, may uncover the keys to unlock your prison and find a happier life. You have the power to unlock those chains that bind you and turn adversity into opportunity. You have the power of choice.

Former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick was back in federal court facing more indictments!

A 38-count indictment alleging bribery and racketeering charges faced former mayor Kwame Kilpatrick and his father, Bernard Kilpatrick, who is also charged and will make his first appearance as a criminal defendant.  Likewise, Kwame Kilpatrick’s one time chief of staff Derrick Miller and good friend businessman Bobby Ferguson are named in the incitements.

After indictments are read and pleas were entered, Kwame Kilpatrick returned to Milan prison where he is serving an 18 month sentence for probation violation in his perjury case.

Prior entries on Kwame Kilpatrick are listed here:

http://chuckgallagher.wordpress.com/2008/01/27/detroit-mayors-affair-costs-city-9-million-choice-and-consequences-ethics-speaker-chuck-gallagher-comments/

http://chuckgallagher.wordpress.com/2008/03/25/detroit-mayor-kwame-kilpatrick-and-christine-beatty-plead-not-guilty-to-perjury/

http://chuckgallagher.wordpress.com/2008/10/28/lying-prison-detroit-mayor-kwame-kilpatrick-sentenced-to-prison/

http://chuckgallagher.wordpress.com/2010/05/26/kwame-kilpatrick-sent-packing-to-prison-choices-and-consequences-comments-by-business-ethics-speaker-chuck-gallagher/

Every Choice has a Consequence.  Do you think the outcome for Kilpatrick is just?

YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME!

Sen. Chuck Grassley’s Media-Based Ministries “witch hunt” is over! To many prayers are answered…

November 2007 was when it began – the “witch hunt” that is – started by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, when he sent a massive informational request to six major media-based ministries.

Substantial financial inquiries were sent to:  Joyce Meyer Ministries, Benny Hinn of World Healing Center Church, Randy and Paula White of Without Walls International Church, Eddie Long of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church, Kenneth and Gloria Copeland of Kenneth Copeland Ministries, and Creflo and Taffi Dollar of World Changers Church International/Creflo Dollar Ministries.

When the Grassley issued his extensive financial requests cries erupted from many in the various segments of the faith based community.  Claims that Sen. Grassley was over reaching rang far and wide and many suggested that the separation of church and state was at play here.  I, as a business ethics speaker, on the other hand felt that full disclosure was appropriate.  If you had nothing to hide, then why resist?  Obviously, some listed above agreed.

The issue Grassley was investigating was weather the tax exempt status of the ministries should be revoked based on the lavish lifestyles ministry leaders lead.

According to a CNN article written by Eric Marrapodi:

The review by the committee did not impose new rules on the religious organizations or suggest they be stripped of their tax-exempt status. But it did bring to light compensation practices that may raise eyebrows in the non-profit community and lead to a discussion of new tax policies for religious organizations.

“The staff review sets the stage for a comprehensive discussion among churches and religious organizations,” Grassley said in a prepared statement. “I look forward to helping facilitate this dialogue and fostering an environment for self-reform within the community.”

SO WHO COMPLIED?

Two of the six ministries contacted were willing to fully comply:  Joyce Meyer Ministries and Benny Hinn of World Healing Center Church.  Both groups reported that they were working on reforming financial practices of their respective ministries.

Again the CNN states: “Committee staff members Theresa Pattara and Sean Barnett wrote in the staff review, “The reforms undertaken by Pastor Hinn and Joyce Meyer are extensive and are to be commended.” Joyce Meyer Ministries, based in St. Louis, went so far as to join the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability.”

Randy and Paula White of Without Walls International Church, Eddie Long of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church, and Kenneth and Gloria Copeland of Kenneth Copeland Ministries submitted incomplete responses to the senator’s questions.

Atlanta-based Creflo and Taffi Dollar of World Changers Church International/Creflo Dollar Ministries did not participate at all, declining the senator’s requests, according to released correspondence between Grassley and Dollar’s attorneys.

GRASSLEY REPORT FINDINGS:

A 61 page report was presented and can be found here -  SFC Staff Memo to Grassley re Ministries 01-06-11 FINAL.

“While the majority of churches and religious organizations operate with policies and procedures that make them accountable to their members, it is the small minority that don’t that are subject to scrutiny by the members and the public, including the press. These outliers present tax policy issues for consideration,” the review said.

Grassley made the following comment as this phase of his worked seemed to come to an end, “The challenge is to encourage good governance and best practices and so preserve confidence in the tax-exempt sector without imposing regulations that inhibit religious freedom or are functionally ineffective.”

QUESTION:

Do you think that the actions taken by the six ministries was appropriate and sufficient?

YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME!

Second Chances – Michael Vick to Ted Williams – What a Difference a Week Makes!

At the end of 2010 President Obama congratulated the Eagles for giving Michael Vick a “Second Chance” and a media fire storm erupted.  Guess 2010 went out with a bang!  Then the first week of 2011 Ted Williams “golden voice” was discovered and “Second Chance” offers poured in.  What a difference a week makes!

Living in the light of a SECOND CHANCE – I have to honestly say, I was a bit discouraged by the response from the country related to President Obama’s statements about Vick.  Of course, Tucker Carlson’s (from FOX) opinion was shared far and wide that Vick should have been executed.  That’s absurd.  Yet, most of the comments seemed to have a common thread like this comment: “Perhaps the President should praise the many who have committed crimes, chosen to turn their lives around, and still live in poverty.”  It seemed that while folks were warm to the idea of a “Second Chance” there was a underlying feeling that success should allude those who have done wrong.  And, well, Michael Vick’s return to success so soon seemed to be a bit much for folks to swallow.

REALITY CHECK!

Second Chances don’t come easy – don’t come without a great deal of pain – and don’t typically come quick.  Reality is – “Second Chances” generally come – if they are even recognized – after life cleansing experiences that prepare the person for a new way to experience life.  And so seems the story of Ted Williams.   SEE THE VIDEO HERE!

The Ted Williams story – going from homeless to viral media sensation, like Michael Vick in many ways, is unusual.  Doral Chenoweth, a web producer for the Columbus Dispatch is the one who filmed the video that for Ted Williams was life changing.  But the story didn’t just happen the first week of 2011, rather, it was a series of mishaps that turned into the choice that made it happen for Mr. Williams.

According to an article by Jeff Labrecque – this story was almost a non-story.  It was ONE CHOICE that made a big difference.  And before sharing the story, think about those few words above.  It is true – ONE CHOICE – is all it takes to turn your life around or find the power of SECOND CHANCES!  Labrecque’s story reads in part as follows:

He’d (Chenoweth) first encountered Williams, his cardboard sign, and his baritone pipes a few weeks before that when he and his wife were driving past on their way to the store. “He just let loose with that velvety, old-school voice,” Chenoweth tells EW. “We had a good time, but you know, life goes on. The light turns green. I threw him a dollar and off we went.”

About a week later, though, Chenoweth, who’s worked for Dispatch for 20 years and calls himself a modern-day backpack journalist, endured a slow news day and needed something — anything — to shoot. He found Williams at the same corner, and this time when he said, ‘Say something with that great radio voice,” he had his FlipCam rolling. “It was so touching,” recalls Chenoweth. “I thought it was sweet.”

But Chenoweth had no clue he had gold. He felt the video’s ending was awkward and the clip ran a little too long. So he sat on the footage for weeks. Then, on Monday, when he needed something fresh, he dug up the video on his computer and popped in on to the paper’s website. And… nothing special. “It kind of did an average number of hits for a video on our website on a Monday,” says Chenoweth. “But Tuesday, some guy from Ohio State calls me out of the blue and says, ‘Your video is about to go viral.’ By Tuesday night, it was skyrocketing. And Wednesday was just a media frenzy.”

Chenoweth has spent the last few days witnessing Williams’ surreal ride from homelessness to mega-stardom. “It’s probably easier getting through to Obama [now] than Ted,” he jokes, adding that Williams is handling the transformation “like you might expect. He’s kind of excited, frazzled, but sharp all at the same time.”

About to fly home after a whirlwind trip to New York City, Chenoweth was reflective, hopeful for Williams, and still amazed by the events. “Maybe if I had released the video the week before Christmas, it never would’ve gained any traction in the national media,” he points out. “God’s in control of everything and God’s in control of this video. Ted’s got a real good outlook on it and so do I.”

I like what Chenoweth said, “God’s in control of everything and God’s in control of this video.”  Perhaps those words are worth reflecting on.  For those of us who believe in God – and I do – I agree 100% God is in control of everything.  While I have “free will” to make some stupid choices – and I did – God was in control, knowing that I, like everyone, had to experience the consequences that were perfect for me.  Likewise, “Second Chances” don’t come just because, they or the opportunities for them appear when we are ready to make life changing choices.

I welcome Ted Williams unique opportunity for his “Second Chance” and know that his story has inspired many.  Perhaps as we move from 2010 into 2011 – from one decade into another – we will find a spirit of hope and a knowing that when we make the right choices we, too, can find our “Second Chance”!

YOUR COMMENTS WELCOME!

_____________________________________

My path of choices which produced some “negative consequences” and powerful “positive results” is chronicled in my new book – SECOND CHANCES: Transforming Adversity into Opportunity.    If you’d like to read some excerpts click here.  Otherwise, if you’d like to know how to gain your “Second Chance” I, with humility say, I think my book will provide some needed insight into how you can transform your life and choices into opportunity and success.

Dan Frishber’s BizRadio: Tax Relief for Scammed Investors – Maybe? Section 165

So…I’m not a tax adviser!  I used to be, but frankly screwed that up many years ago based on the unethical choices I made.  My choices cost me my license, my career and earned me a coveted (just kidding) spot in the federal pen!  How’s that for a disclaimer?

That now said, I know many of you who have followed my work on the Dan Frishberg – BizRadio scam have lost substantial sums of money with little hope of any significant recovery.  So, as the pages of the year 2010 turn into a new year – 2011 – the question is – what kind of tax relief can you expect to receive considering your losses at the hand of Dan “The Money Man”?

Last year this time I was reporting on the same thing, but this time it was for those who had losses from other Ponzi schemer’s like Bernie Madoff and Gordon Grigg.  So let me dredge through some past information and see if this might be of help to the Frishberg’s victims.

As a busines ethics and fraud prevention speaker, I believe in giving credit where credit is due.  Today I received a response to two blog postings I made by Moira Souza Shiver who reminded me about a provision of the Internal Revenue Code that, in many ways, is little known.  Her website can be found here and it states the following:

My name is Moira Souza-Shiver and I am the founder and President of MSS Advocacy Group, LLC (MSSAG).  I’m extremely proud to have established an organization whose main mission is bringing help to victims by attaining the assistance they deserve and were promised.  Working in the investment fraud industry for the past 10 years has created in me a passion to fight for what’s right and even more, has instilled in me a deep respect for victims and the suffering they endure.

My decision to establish MSSAG came from what I describe as a desperate need within the 165 industry.  After serving 6 years with JK Harris 165 Services, LLC, it was clear there was little being done in the form of victims’ advocacy and an organization was needed to help alleviate their suffering.   Believing that investment fraud victims deserve the same rights allotted to other victims, MSSAG was born.

MSSAG is committed to doing everything it can for this cause, including aligning itself with other organizations and advocates that can provide complimentary assistance through established programs.  By combining forces with these types of organizations, we intend to maximize all available sources of assistance and bring hope back to victim’s lives.

Now, before you assume that I have a financial interest in promoting Moira or Section 165, let me clarify that I do not.  But like Moira, I do have an interest in making sure that all aspects of ethics and fraud (including prevention and recovery) are explored.

An excellent article was written in the Journal of Accountancy related to Section 165.  A portion of the article is reproduced below:

When a client is the victim of fraud or embezzlement, for example, CPAs can reduce the client’s ordinary income, recoup any previously paid taxes and minimize future tax obligations by using IRC section 165(c)(2).

Be aware that CPAs who prepare and defend an investment loss deduction under IRC section 165(c)(2) must meet numerous technical requirements and make certain determinations based on examining the circumstances. Section 165(c)(2) deductions also frequently prompt IRS oversight, and in many instances, the standard tax preparation software does not adequately address this deduction, since it’s generally geared to the more familiar section 1211 capital loss treatment. But while section 1211 is an appropriate treatment, using it may result in clients’ paying more taxes than are required.

If a client suffers an investment loss as a result of a fraudulent investment or unethical sales practice, probably the most prudent action a CPA can take, even though there is no requirement to do so, is to suggest the client first discuss it with his or her lawyer. Taxpayers are required to take reasonable action to recover a loss and not doing so disqualifies it for section 165(c)(2) treatment. If the lawyer feels there was malfeasance and it is not practical to pursue recovery due to a lack of recoverable assets, the cost of litigation or other reasons, the loss probably is deductible in the current period. Losses from embezzlement, blackmail, kidnapping for ransom, burglary, larceny, extortion and threats also may qualify for section 165 treatment.

A WORD OF CAUTION:

If you’re considering taking advantage of this section of the Internal Revenue Code – FIND A COMPETENT ADVISER.  Not every CPA or tax specialist is competent to assist you with this complicated section of the Internal Revenue Code.  I strong suggest that you find someone who will provide references and that you verify the results those references received.  DON’T BE SCAMMED TWICE!

Here are some other links that were provided to me that might be of help as well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/04/AR2009040404341.html

http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/Issues/2005/Apr/MaximizeTaxBenefitsUnderIrcSection165.htm

http://www.traderstatus.com/section165theftloss.htm

http://www.taxreliefinc.com/165services2.htm

http://chuckgallagher.wordpress.com/2009/03/02/madoff-grigg-dryer-investment-fraud-victims-tax-relief-through-irc-section-165-c2/

http://www.crimes-of-persuasion.com/Victims/theft_loss_deduction.htm

Thanks to Vince Rowe for reminding me of the tax provisions that might help the Frishberg victims.  By the way, if any of you have a recommendation of someone who is competent to provide tax help in this matter in the Dallas or Houston area…feel free to respond to this blog and I’ll be delighted to share.

YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME!

Dan Frishberg – BizRadio: Salem Communications settles Lawsuit with Rehan Siddiqi

It’s been almost a year since the world that Rehan Siddiqi lived in was dramatically changed.  Kicked off a radio station that he was joyfully buying, he found himself embroiled in a meltdown of major proportions created by BizRadio’s leader Dan Frishberg – also known as “The Money Man” – although it would appear that Dan’s money to support BizRadio was nothing more than an elaborate scam.

As a refresher, Rehan Siddiqi had entered into an agreement to lease/purchase the former station that BizRadio was aired on in early January 2010.  Asia Vision took the air the first of January on what Rehan thought was their new home.  Dan Frishberg took BizRadio to another station – one that cost him less and seemed to be a solution for the financial failure he was experiencing.

ONE MONTH…that’s all it lasted.  Frishberg (now well documented) couldn’t meet the financial obligations on the new station (he had no credit) and the result – SIDDIQI WAS KICKED OFF HIS NEW STATION.

The result was a lawsuit filed by Rehan Siddiqi for $18 million in damages against multiple parties including but not limited to:  Dan Frishberg, Elisea Frishberg, and Salem Communications.

Today, now almost a year later, this new year is starting with some good news for Rehan Siddiqi.  From reliable sources, it appears that Salem Communications has settled their issue with Siddiqi and as a result – Salem Communications – is no longer a party to the lawsuit filed by Rehan Siddiqi / Asia Vision.  What are the terms of the settlement – I don’t know.  But, this settlement opens the door for one major step forward with respect Dan Frishberg and his issues with the SEC (which still seem to be unresolved – and a lot of folks are wondering why) that is the sale of the station can now move forward with the Siddiqi lawsuit settled.

To be clear – Siddiqi’s settlement with Salem Communications does not mean he has settled with Dan Frishberg or Elisea.  The lawsuit for tortious interference against them still stands – although collecting from Dan or his wife should Siddiqi win the suit might be difficult at best.

I suspect that, based on Tom Taylor’s efforts (the SEC Receiver) the sale of the station will move forward fairly quickly in early 2010.  Who will buy it?  That remains to be seen.  Salem is an obvious candidate as they expressed interest in the station.  Likewise, Siddiqi, at one time, was interested.  Either way, whom ever buys the station, it would appear that this chapter might soon come to an end.  For the investors, however, I don’t suspect that the money from the sale will come close to making you whole as you look at your losses.

THE NEW YEAR’S QUESTION:

With things now open to move forward with the sale of the station, what action is the SEC going to take with respect to Dan Frishberg?  There seems to be sufficient evidence that he was an active part in the defrauding of numerous investors – most of whom will not come close to getting their principle losses back.  Al Kaleta lost his license as an investment advisor.  Dan Frishberg, on the other hand, has not.  Why?

Frishberg – “The Money Man” brand – is expanding with the conversion of Salem Stations to talk business stations, so it seems that Dan buys his suits with kevlar material…as thus far nothing seems to stick to him when it comes to law enforcement – either his investment license (SEC authority) or criminal – FBI, US Attorney or others.  Perhaps 2011 will bring some resolution to this sad affair.

PRIOR POSTS ARE HERE:

http://chuckgallagher.wordpress.com/2010/02/12/biz-radio-and-rehan-siddiqi-when-the-dust-clears-will-siddiqi-be-a-victim-or-a-victor/

http://chuckgallagher.wordpress.com/2010/03/03/dan-frishberg-and-bizradio-slapped-with-18-million-lawsuit-rehan-siddiqi-and-asia-vision-strike-back/

Meanwhile – YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME!

2010 in review

The stats helper monkeys at WordPress.com mulled over how this blog did in 2010, and here’s a high level summary of its overall blog health:

The Blog-Health-o-Meter™ reads Wow.

Crunchy numbers

The Louvre Museum has 8.5 million visitors per year. This blog was viewed about 200,000 times in 2010. If it were an exhibit at The Louvre Museum, it would take 9 days for that many people to see it.

 

In 2010, there were 199 new posts, growing the total archive of this blog to 660 posts. There were 155 pictures uploaded, taking up a total of 21mb. That’s about 3 pictures per week.

The busiest day of the year was December 9th with 1,160 views. The most popular post that day was Facebook – Nude Student Photos and a College IT Administrator: Robert T. DeCampos, Jr. – Dumb and Dumber!.

Where did they come from?

The top referring sites in 2010 were boards.radio-info.com, en.wordpress.com, tax-debtrelief.com, facebook.com, and chuckgallagher.com.

Some visitors came searching, mostly for wesley snipes in jail, wesley snipes, hannah montana, bill gates, and facebook nude.

Attractions in 2010

These are the posts and pages that got the most views in 2010.

1

Facebook – Nude Student Photos and a College IT Administrator: Robert T. DeCampos, Jr. – Dumb and Dumber! March 2009
5 comments

2

Tough guy Wesley Snipes fighting to stay out of Prison. Doubt he’ll win that battle! January 2010
25 comments

3

Sex after Prostate Cancer Surgery – What Can You Expect? Comments by Motivational Speaker and Cancer Survivor Chuck Gallagher February 2008
44 comments

4

Hannah Montana and An Ethics Meltdown – Anything For Success? Ethics Speaker Chuck Gallagher Comments! December 2007
2 comments

5

Paul Pogue – Texan Guilty of Tax Evasion – it is that time of year! February 2010
22 comments