Ethics and the Truth! Is What Used to be Trump University a Scam?

An interesting article was posted on CNN recently that discussed dramatic increases in Higher Education.  Two things seemed a bit strange to me: (1) the Federal Government was investigating the tuition increases at the same time they were cutting funding to Higher Education; and (2) featured in the middle of the article was an “out of place” video report on what used to be called “Trump University”.

The video and it’s content caught my eye.  Here’s the video for you to review.  Then let’s talk…

OBSERVATIONS:

What would motivate anyone to sink $35,000 into a three day school and pay for it by maxing out credit cards?  Funny, but a scammer knows the human emotions that motivate people to make uncommon choices that typically lead to disaster.  In this case, the motivation – “the desire to be rich!”  Reality check…the rich get that way through hard work and understanding how to take advantage of a situation.  Trump is a master of that art.  If you think you’ll be rich from taking a three day course – you’re delusional.

“I thought I’m gonna be a millionaire because Donald Trump is a millionaire.”  A simple expression that exemplifies the power of thought and how one can easily be duped into helping the millionaire stay a millionaire!  Trump knows that success does not come easy, yet the marketing of his course opens the flood gates of money (to him and his organization) from folks who generally know no better.

The coach never met with the subscriber/student.  “If you offer something and you don’t deliver – you are stealing!”  Well…that’s true.  The question is – does the Trump organization recognize the ethical issue with offering something or promising something and then not deliver?

The Better Business Bureau gave Trump University a grade of D-  Ouch.  Wonder if this were The Apprentice if Trump would allow that to take place.  Seems that this is tarnishing his reputation!  Or maybe it supports his reputation as it is not as spotless as he might think.

Investigated for consumer fraud and deceptive business practices – The New York Attorney General is looking into issues related to Trump University.  Likewise Trump got into trouble with the Education Dept in the State of New York and the name – TRUMP UNIVERSITY – has been changed to TRUMP ENTREPRENEUR INITIATIVE…

QUESTIONS:

Have any readers had first hand experience with Trump University or Trump Entrepreneur Initiative?  If so, how would you evaluate your experience?

Do you think that Trump is ethical in his representation of the value of the Trump University experience?

YOUR COMMENTS ARE ALWAYS WELCOME!

Elisea Frishberg – “Money Money Money!” What a difference two years makes!

From 2009 on Fox 26 to today…sometimes its hard to hide the truth.  Then Elisea Frishberg was a multi-millionaire – now we find that the millions she bragged about were scammed from unsuspecting investors. Before reading the discussion below and sharing your comments…watch this video.  It’s quite telling!

The interviewer said, “You’re a multimillionaire, but you were not born with a silver spoon in your mouth.”

Elisea responds, “In everyone’s book what I’ve done is impossible.  I am the co-founder of BizRadio Network.  We reach millions of lives and improve their lives.  We buy businesses.  We build cities.  We have monetary financial advantages, material advantage that I could never imagine I could reach.”

STOP FOR A MOMENT…I’ve got a question.  Does the news media do any (ANY) due diligence on their guests.  Come on – “We build cities.”  What a crock…

The interviewer asks in so many words how did you do this?

Again Elisea states, “For 48 years I wished someone would have come up with a box – a set of instructions – to lower my pain and anxiety.  So that makes you ask what makes you inspired to write this book? So I said I’ll box them up.  I’ll box up everything I’ve learned to get to where I am and I’m inspired and excited and want to give it to your listeners…”

HUM…PERHAPS THE BOOK SHOULD BE USED BY THE FBI…cause if you’ve boxed up all you’ve learned you should find the content to include chapters on: (1) how to scam unsuspecting investors out of their money; (2) How to live off of other people’s money (that they will never get back); (3) How to con the media into believing in the illusion instead of searching for the truth; (4) How to lie with a straight face; and (5) How to thumb your nose that those who supported your vision of a valuable business radio station.

HERE POINTS:  (Ya gotta check these out)

1. Face Yourself
2. Do Not Lie To Yourself (wonder if she’s O.K. with lying to others since that seems to be what happened?)
3. Know What You Really Want (again wonder if she knew that was other people’s money?)

Elisea ends the interview by saying what people really want is MONEY…MONEY…MONEY!  Well…she got it.  The problem was it was other people’s money.  Wonder now what she has to say about that show?

YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME!

One Step Ahead of the SEC – The Mystery behind Dan Frishberg – The Brains Elisea Frishberg – who knew?

I feel like I owe my readers an apology.  All this time I thought that “The Money Man” Dan Frishberg was the brains behind the massive theft involved with what is now known as BizRadio.  But it looks like I was wrong.  Seems that all was an illusion.  Perhaps Dan was not that smart after all, cause now the truth behind the myth appears – Elisea!  Shocked…well no, rather mystified.  Read this recent announcement by Elisea and then let’s talk…

I’m Elisea Frishberg and I’ve served as Executive Producer of “The MoneyMan Report” for twenty years. For all that time, when Dan has been on the radio, CNBC,  or Fox, I have been right there behind the scenes.

Through all these years, our show has been about helping people get themselves off the emotional roller coaster so they can be among the very few who actually make money in the markets AND KEEP IT.

Here is a picture of that roller coaster.

From despondency to depression to hope to relief, on to optimism then excitement and euphoria, and the herd’s emotional roller coaster ride starts back down into anxiety, denial (where they feel the market can’t fall any further,) and finally to capitulation. Then the whole thing starts all over again.

It’s all so human isn’t it?

I want to propose a solution – an easy way to escape from the herd and start to enjoy the markets.

Join us for our No B.S., Plain English, No Jargon, Everyone-Can-Do-It…

The MoneyMan’s Live Training…

BECOMING INVESTOR 2.0.

Morning Session: Becoming Investor 2.0

We’ll learn once and for all how to free ourselves from the emotional roller coaster most investors stay stuck on all their lives.

Find out how, at each stage, the markets serve as the primary mechanism to transfer wealth from the uninformed to the smart money, and find out how to make sure you’re on the winning side. Once you’re free, you’ll know there is a profitable play for every situation, just as in baseball.

Take a look at the small space between DEPRESSION and HOPE on the right hand side of the picture. Between those two little dots, investors go through highly predictable emotions…

Contempt: According to the cycle, a bull market typically starts when a market is at a low and investors scorn stocks.

Doubt and suspicion: They try to decide whether what they have left should be invested in a safe haven, such as a money market fund. They’ve burnt their fingers on stocks, and vow never to invest again.

Caution: The market then gradually starts showing signs of recovery. Most remain cautious, but prudent investors are already drooling at the possibility of profit.

What does the smart money do at that point?

First the big hitters begin to buy convertible bonds. Solid companies issued bonds that are paying only about 5% or 6% because they companies are so solid, but in this coming out of panic situation, panicked investors are still afraid to take action, so highly desirable and safe bonds are selling for 70 or 80 cents on the dollar. It happens in every cycle, and now that you’ve learned how to escape from the herd, you’ll be right there, ready to take advantage of the opportunity.

In fact, you’ll wonder how making money could be so easy, and how you missed all these opportunities for all these years.

Next, once they see the high yield bonds start to recover, they know the stock market won’t be far behind, so they take their profits on the bonds, then back up the pickup truck and load up.

While the experts are claiming to be in a “stock pickers’ market” as usual, the educated investor knows very well that at this stage, buying the whole market is better. There will be plenty of time for fine tuning later in the cycle, when the herd is moving between the OPTIMISM and EXCITEMENT stages.

Is it really that easy?

I don’t want to kid you. It really is that easy to understand, but being able to actually execute the right strategies and tactics takes courage, brains, and the ability to resist the hypnosis of the herd. That’s the part you’ll have to practice for the rest of your life.

Cycles constantly repeat. We move through the same seasons every year, and we’ve all learned how to anticipate the changing seasons. We follow the weather, the harvest and the sports cycle every year of our lives. We easily adapt to the cycle of the seasons, so they never surprise us. In fact, we learn to love each season, because we anticipate the predictable changes, and we successfully plan our activities to match.

For example, when the stock market rallies, stockholders win.

At the moment of EUPHORIA or maximum confidence, some chinks in the armor start to show up, suggesting the early signs of economic slowing. Stock prices go down, and the new winners are…

• the short sellers,
• the bond buyers
• the patient investors who kept their cash ready,
• the put buyers,
• and the smart investors who Rent Out Stocks.

They all prosper when the rally stalls. Who loses? Simple! Those who blindly buy into the intoxicating euphoria of the herd.

Learn the winning play for every situation. The reason experienced investors and traders are able to achieve better results over time, is that they understand exactly what the herd is going through.

Why? Because this isn’t their first rodeo!

In the afternoon session: Master R.O.S. and you will know…

1. How to increase your annual returns by 20%-30% per year in a sideways stock market.

2. How to pinpoint your most accurate economic and market forecast, then choose the exact right tactics for that precise situation.

3. How to pinpoint your exact risk profile, then choose the exact right tactics to fit.

4. How to decide if collecting rent on a stock is a better deal than just holding the stock.

5. How to take consistent profits from a sideways consolidating market

6. How to choose which stocks make the best long term holds, so you can collect your rents while you minimize the downside risk of owning stocks.

7. How to tell when the speculators are paying too much for their long options.

8. How to understand the profit potential is in an option, so you can consistently outsmart your renters, by out-timing them.

9. How to consistently buy stocks cheaper than their ticker prices.

10. How to know which month’s options offer the best rental rates

11. How to know which stocks in which industries make the best “rental properties.”

12. How to take advantage of market fluctuations to increase market profits by over 35%

13. Learn how the top pros can consistently spot THE optimum moment to collect their rents, by knowing how to estimate future volatility. This skill will also help you know when and how to protect the downside in you equity holdings.

14. How to understand more about how to price the rents on your stocks than the speculators and gamblers whose money you collect.

15. How to use time decay to consistently make the optimum rentals on your long term stock holdings.

16. How to know when to make a above the market offer, and when to accept the current market price.

17. How to know when to pass on a high rent, to keep more upside in your stock holdings.

18. How to read the market trends and directions.

19. The three most common mistakes investors and traders make in reading market trends.

Also Includes a Special Lesson On Iron Condors, the more advanced play for a sideways market. Warning: This technique works terrific in when markets chop and don’t go anywhere, but it may require some more study and practice for some themoneymanreport.com/newsletters-a-reports/item/767-learn-more–sign-up.htmlstudents.

Most people assume that when the markets aren’t moving you can’t make money. Not anymore. Low volatility markets can be extremely profitable.

With the Iron Condors strategy, we will trade a single complex option spread which includes the simultaneous vertical spreads in the same expiration month.

The strategy will advise on market neutral and well defined risk iron condors with limited profit. Each month we will identify an index or ETF that is range bound, allowing us to profit from the non-directional movement. The main advantage to trading this strategy is that it will give you near-term hedging with defined and manageable risk characteristics.

Click here for a short video on exactly what the smart money is already doing at every turn.

Sincerely,

Elisea Frishberg

The MoneyMan Report

Radio Wall Street

Click here if you would no longer like to receive emails from us.

9800 Richmond Avenue Suite 250 Houston, Texas 77042 United States (713) 785-7100

WOW…DO YOU SUPPOSE THIS VEILED ATTEMPT WILL WORK?

Let’s consider the fact that the SEC was supposed to have shut up Dan Frishberg from offering investment advice.  Why?  Cause he was actively involved in defrauding investors according to SEC reports.  Dan and the SEC agreed on the outcome.  From my perspective Dan was to have gone to www.zipit.com with his glorious investment advice.

Ah…but there is nothing to muzzle the mouth of Elisea and apparently she was the brains behind the man…after all she was the Executive Producer of “The Money Man Report”.  Well…let me ask some questions:

1. Elisea…if you were the Executive Producer – did you know that your husband was cheating many people out of their life time savings to support your failed business and personal lifestyle?
2. No…you say, well then how smart were you?  Shouldn’t (as Executive Producer) you have known that financially BizRadio was in the tank and that you should have helped Dan cut back on lavish expenses?  Oh…I guess not as I’ve been told that you pushed for those lavish indulgences.
3. And, lastly Elisea – do you have any remorse for those who lost their money at what you now seem to admit was your and Dan’s hand?  What are you doing today to make restitution?  Do you even care?

My strong suspicion is that Elisea won’t answer these questions – as it seems that it’s business as usual for the Frishbergs.

WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS?

James Ray – Self-Help Guru and the Power of Influence… The Sweat Lodge Deaths

An interesting article was recently written by Kent Greenfield.  The Title: The “Sweat Lodge Guru” Guilty Verdict: Recognizing the Deadly Influence of Authority.  Greenfield stated, “the jury understood that sometimes people are actually not responsible for their own decisions when they are under the powerful psychological influence of authority figures.”    A like to Kent’s article is here.

In the article Greenfield states:

Toward the end of the retreat, the “warriors” were to stay alone in the desert without water or food for thirty-six hours, followed by a return to camp for a two-hour “purge” in a sweat lodge, vaguely modeled after structures used in some Native American religious ceremonies. There was barely space for the fifty participants to squeeze in around a fire pit, kept hot by fresh coals brought in by Ray’s assistants. Ray sat outside the tent flap, keeping it sealed.

[Update: Some readers with knowledge of the event indicate that Ray was inside the tent rather than outside during the sweat-lodge ceremony. The police report after the event indicates that Ray was "sitting in a chair in the shade" outside the tent, but it is unclear in the report whether he was there for the entire event or only at the end. Other news reports are unclear as to his location.]

About halfway through the ceremony, some of the participants started to become ill. Ray urged them to press on. As the heat grew more oppressive, one man tried to lift up one of the walls of the lodge to allow fresh air to circulate, but Ray chastised him. When some people vomited, Ray explained that vomiting was good for them. Ray hovered by the door, intimidating people if they tried to leave. A few people struggled out, but most stayed. “Play full on,” Ray insisted. “You are not going to die. You might think you are, but you’re not going to die.”

At the end of the ordeal, several of the participants were indeed near death. Two died that evening; another fell into a coma and died a few days later. In all, almost half of the participants ended up in the hospital suffering from injuries as severe as scorched lungs and organ failure.

What happened? Why did people stay in the lodge, risking their lives? Any of them could have left at any time, but did not. Ray did not exert physical force.

Here’s where it gets interesting.  Greenfield answers his question – WHY – by citing a 50+ year old study referred to as “the famous Milgram studies.”  And article in the New York Times defines the studies and raises interesting questions.  Here’s the link to the Times article:  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/health/research/01mind.html

In the Times article, Dr. Thomas Blass stated, “The power of the Milgram work was it showed how people can act destructively without coercion,” he said. “In things like interrogations, we don’t know the complexities involved. People are under enormous pressure to produce results.”  Greenfield postulates that the “Sweat Lodge Participants” did things against their own safety in order to produce the results that were either expected by Ray or perhaps themselves since they paid large sums of money for the experience.

Greenfield goes on to state:

The “warriors” may have seen the sweat lodge purge as a test of courage. In hindsight, we understand that the purge was seen that way only because Ray had identified it as such. Staying in the lodge was in fact dangerous and harmful, with no real benefit. It was courageous only in the way that forcing yourself to break your own finger with a hammer is courageous. The genuine act of courage was to question Ray’s methods, ask about the risks, demand care for those in distress, and leave the lodge. But that demanded wherewithal to challenge the authority figure. It is a measure of the difficulty of such a challenge that most people in the lodge were more willing to risk death than push their way through the tent flap.

And it is a measure of the jury’s understanding of human nature that they held Ray responsible, rather than the victims themselves.

QUESTIONS:

Is Greenfield right in his assumption – the sweat lodge participants did so out of blind trust of Ray?  Were the participants victims of the Milgram model?  Did Ray use an undue and unsafe power of influence over the folks who paid for the experience?

SENTENCING:

Jurors will consider their testimony in determining whether aggravating factors figure into James Arthur Ray’s sentence. Ray was convicted on three counts of negligent homicide.  A finding of aggravating factors could increase Ray’s sentence. Probation also is an option.

OUTCOME:

What do you think the sentence should be in this case?

YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME!

James Ray – Guilty of Negligent Homicide – What’s Next for the Self-Help Author? What’s to be Learned from this Tragedy?

At times even the best intentions can result in unintended consequences.  The question here is whether Self-Help author and speaker, James Ray, became blind to the risks and was too focused on the outcome?  This week Ray was found guilty on three counts of negligent homicide in the deaths of three people who died at his sweat-lodge event near Sedona in October 2009.

A charge of negligent homicide could carry penalties of up to 11 years. He was found not guilty on three counts of the more serious charge of manslaughter.

Three participants in the sweat lodge died: Kirby Brown, 38; James Shore, 40; and Liz Newman, 49.

It took jurors a bit less than eight hours over two days to reach their verdict.  When the verdict was announced, Ray was not taken into custody but rather allowed to remain free on bail.

On Tuesday the jury will hear from both sides regarding aggravating factors in advance of sentencing.  Found guilty of negligent homicide, Ray could be eligible for probation.  If aggravating factors are found, the defendant could be sentence to 3.75 years per count. Aggravating factors include being convicted of more than one offense, and mitigating factors, which could reduce a sentence, include whether a defendant has no prior convictions.

The sweat lodge was the culmination of a five-day “Spiritual Warrior” retreat near Sedona, for which some 50 participants had paid up to $10,000 each to attend.  Participants in the sweat lodge gathered in a long, low, wood-framed structure covered with blankets and tarps. Stones were heated on a fire outside, then brought in by volunteers before each of eight roughly 15-minute rounds and placed in a hole near the center. Ray controlled the length and number of rounds, the number of stones used and how much water he poured over them to create steam.

James Ray conducted these sort of ritual processes – this was old stuff to him.  People flocked to him to for the experience and knew that there were risks.  Yet, none anticipated those experiences would include their death.  So…with all the publicity what are the practical ramifications?  Did Ray become callous to the risks and fail to see the obvious warning signs as people passed out?  Is it possible that we can become so caught up in the illusion of what we do that we miss the obvious?

And, regardless of the Jury’s guilty verdict – do you think Ray should serve time in prison or be sentenced to probation?

YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME!

Is Business Acumen an Ethical Issue? Jack Howe’s – Drum Beat News asks the question! Comments by Business Ethics Speaker Chuck Gallagher

Regularly I receive the Drum Beat News from Jack Howe and this week’s email report caught my attention.  I believe in servant leadership.  Quoted from the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership:

“The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions…The leader-first and the servant-first are two extreme types. Between them there are shadings and blends that are part of the infinite variety of human nature.“

“The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant-first to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served. The best test, and difficult to administer, is: Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And, what is the effect on the least privileged in society? Will they benefit or at least not be further deprived?“

As I read that quote, it is striking that we would not likely find the number of ethical challenge that seem to be bubbling to the surface today if we had more of an attitude of Servant Leadership pervasive in our business operations today.  That said, Jack Howe brought that back to the surface with his comments below:

Is Business Acumen an Ethical Issue?

This week was transformational for me. I was able to spend three full days renewing my spirit and my intellect. For less than a legion of others, this week will have passed as unremarkable. The reason for my joy? The 21st Annual Greenleaf Foundation Convention, was held here in Dallas, Texas. But lest we forget that our mission in this section is business acumen and that our definition of business acumen is to understand in advance, how our decisions will impact all the stakeholders of our enterprise.

Who or what is the Greenleaf Foundation? Robert Greenleaf was a student of leadership and training who spent his career working in corporate America. In his seminal work The Servant as Leader he wrote:

The failure (or refusal) of a leader to foresee may be viewed as an ethical failure; because a serious ethical compromise today (when the usual judgment on ethical inadequacy is made) is sometimes the result of a failure to make the effort at an earlier date to foresee today’s events and take the right actions when there was freedom for initiative to act. The action which society labels ‘unethical’ in the present moment is often really one of no choice. By this standard, a lot of guilty people are walking around with an air of innocence that they would not have if society were able always to pin a label ‘unethical’ on the failure to foresee and the conscious failure to act constructively when there was freedom to act. How would your business acumen be judged if reviewed under this set of criteria?

It is easy to judge looking backward!  Ethics in application today are based on facts today.  Yet, there are actions that are taken today that are, in my opinion, unethical while being quite legal.  Let me share a simple example.  If a drug company manufactured and sold a drug to the public, and then bought put options betting on the drugs failure… that would likely represent an ethical issue.  Failure to tell the buyer of the drug that the pharma company expected it to fail and their stock to drop would be unconscionable.  Yet, that is exactly what happened at the beginning of the recession.  Wall street on one hand sold subprime loans to unsuspecting buyers with AAA ratings while at the same time effectively bet on their failure.

So…those leaders who had the presence of mind to foresee the lack of value of the securities being sold were, in my opinion, unethically acting as they tried to protect their companies from the risks associated with the sale of worthless paper.

Is Business Acumen an Ethical Issue?  WHAT DO YOU THINK?

For information on Drum Beat Productions click here.

Ethics Mr. Weiner? My What a Tangled Web We Weave when we Tweet our wiener and then Deceive!

There are times when actions taken defy explanations!  This is the case with “the talented Mr. Weiner” – oops…that should read “the lying Mr. Weiner!”  First you tweet a picture of your wiener (covered up of course) and then you try to cover it up?  What?  This is beyond a Comedy Central South Park script.  Only in real life can  you find something this bizarre!

From the movie Porkys (with minor modification): “I can identify that wiener,” yet early on Mr. Weiner was challenged with clearly recognizing who’s wiener was in the tweeted picture.

Sensational?  Yes!  Worthy of this blog – well only in a few ways.

It is not my intention to tear someone down when they have been foolish in their choices.  As an ethics speaker, my opening line is – “Every Choice Has A Consequence!”  That is true and like Representative Weiner, I, too, have had to face the consequences of my choices.  Perhaps they were not a embarrassing as his, but the consequences were every bit as great.

Now called upon to resign, embattled and embarrassed Anthony Weiner is just now beginning to experience the consequences of his Tweet!  “The chairman of the Republican Party said Tuesday that Rep. Anthony Weiner should resign after admitting to sexually charged online relationships with several women and lying about his misdeeds.”  Beyond calls for his resignation, in a Washington Post article the following was stated:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has written to the chairman and ranking Democrat on the House Ethics Committee formally requesting an investigation into whether Rep. Anthony Weiner broke House rules, after the New York Democrat admitted that he had repeatedly liedto cover up his inappropriate communications with several women online.

“On June 6, 2011, Representative Anthony Weiner disclosed conduct which he described as inappropriate,” Pelosi wrote in the letter, which she sent Tuesday to Ethics Committee Chairman Jo Bonner (R-Ala.) and Rep. Linda Sanchez (Calif.). “An investigation by the Ethics Committee to determine whether the Rules of the House of Representatives have been violated is warranted.”

CHOICES AND ETHICS:

The issue for me isn’t what the consequence should be.  I am not the judge nor jury…that is for others to decide.  Rather, for me the entire conversation centers around choices and consequences!  To put this into perspective, I was talking today with a client for whom I’ll be speaking soon.  Folks with the Florida Association of Counties have asked me to come and speak at their annual meeting on ETHICS.  They, like many around the nation, have seen the devastating impact that unethical choices have on elected officials, government employees and all connected with them including their families.  In fact, this article was sent to me today that outlines the serious impact of our ethical or UNETHICAL choices.

Over a ten year period over 800 public officials were convicted on charges and that number does not reflect the much larger number of folks that did not face prosecution due to challenges with cases or circumstances where the violation could be resolved without public prosecution.

But in a time when things move more quickly than ever before, the actions we take today may very well make the headlines tomorrow.  The Washington Post describes Weiners actions as follow: “

Here is what we’ve been dealing with: We’ve been dealing with four sad, grainy photos of Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) in various states of undress, looking pathetic in the pathetic way exclusive to men who are trying their best to look sexy. He sat shirtless at his desk. He sat shirted on his couch. In one particularly artful photo, he sat next to a picture of a dog in a sweater and held up a piece of paper with an arrow pointing to his own face. It said, “Me.” He apparently sent these photos to a single mom named Meagan Broussard, who responded with her own grainy pouts. He also texted with several other women.

He was guilty, but of what?

Here is what we are dealing with: We are dealing with the gray space where fidelity meets Facebook and with the boundary between our “real” lives and our online lives, which is constantly being pushed, and never where you expect it.”

Weiner contends that his actions were private and personal.  He used his own computer and it had nothing to do with his role as a United States Representative.  All that may be true, but it doesn’t change the action(s) he took and the judgment surrounding them.  The problem is two fold: (1) the choices we make do have direct and profound consequences (I know as I’ve experienced them in federal prison) and (2) in this day and age, the speed at which we make our choices and receive our consequences makes taking the time to think about them much more profound.

Again, best stated in the Washington Post article:

But 20 years ago, Weiner would have had to load his Nikon with film before pointing it at his crotch. He would have had to take this film to the Fotomat, wait 24 hours before picking it up, find an envelope, lick a stamp. In every preceding era, there were built-in checkpoints, moments in which one could ask oneself, “Is this a good idea? Does she want to see my dog in a sweater? Am I a congressman? Should that influence my decision?”

There was, in fact, a literal red flag: the one you flicked up on the mailbox to signal to your postal carrier that your correspondence was ready for the world.

WHERE FROM HERE?

Well, for Representative Anthony Weiner – I don’t know, but I suspect that he’s soon be out of office.  This is far to public and too political for it to die a quiet and quick death.

From my end, as I prepare to speak at the Florida Association of Counties meeting, I am confident that many in the room will identify with choices and consequences and perhaps, when faced with someone who has been there and done that, perhaps they will think (that’s the operative word – THINK) before they go off half cocked and do something stupid like tweeting one’s wiener!

YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME.

Ethics in Prosecution – Will John Edwards win his case on the Campaign Contribution Indictment?

Every choice has a consequence!  In this case, the question my be the choice the prosecution has made to indict John Edwards and the consequence of that indictment.  With two critical witnesses dead, one 100 years old and the fourth recently held in contempt of court, one might ask if the choice made by the prosecution is going to yield the consequence that they expect – a conviction.

As a ethics speaker, I’ve previously said – John Edwards is rolling the dice on this one!  A prior blog with more detailed information is here.

So…the ethics question seems to flow in two directions: (1) Should John Edwards get off with little to no consequence since the prosecution’s foundation is weak; and/or (2) Should the prosecution indict if there is a chance that they will not gain a conviction?  Which is the ethical action to take?

According to the Washington Post in an article published June 4 (the complete article is here) the following was stated:

Government attorneys are relying on an untested legal theory to argue that money used to tangentially help a candidate — in this case, by keeping Edwards’ pregnant mistress private during his 2008 presidential run — should have been considered a campaign contribution. Edwards’ attorneys counter with an argument that’s reprehensible but could raise reasonable doubts with a jury: He was only interested in hiding the affair from his cancer-stricken wife, who died in December.

The six-count indictment accuses Edwards of conspiracy, taking illegal campaign contributions and making false statements. On Friday, appearing both defiant and contrite, he insisted he did not break the law.

Some legal experts tend to agree.

At the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which typically criticizes the Justice Department for not pursuing enough cases against public officials, executive director Melanie Sloan questioned why federal officials were spending resources on this one. She said it is unlikely prosecutors can prove that participants of the scheme intended for the money to aid Edwards’ candidacy, and Sloan said it was a stretch to argue that private plane flights provided to mistress Rielle Hunter should somehow be considered campaign contributions.

“This is a really broad definition of campaign contribution,” said Sloan, a former federal prosecutor. “It has never been this broadly interpreted.”

Now candidly stated, when the executive director of CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) has her doubts about the outcome of the case, it raises a series of interesting questions.

• Did John Edwards act ethically when he accepted a substantial amount of money to be used to keep quiet his relationship with Hunter?

Edwards says that the money was not intended as campaign contributions.  So, is it O.K. then to accept hush money if the action that created the need was nontheless wrong?  Yet, the likely outcome would have been that had his relationship come to light, it would have destroyed his campaign.  That argument is what, in part, prosecutors are using to connect the money with campaign contribution laws.  However, defining intent is difficult as one contributor is dead and the other 100 years old.  Kinda makes you wonder if he didn’t seek money from old folks knowing that if the issue ever arose, the folks who could testify would be incapacitated or dead.

• Is it ethical to prosecute when the likely outcome will end in no prosecution?

There are many who have privately argued to me that the government is acting ethically – that ethics dictate an indictment – regardless of the likely outcome of a win.  Perhaps that is true, but others quickly state that it is a witch hunt that the government was hoping would force John Edward to succumb to and the failure of Edwards to play ball and face jail time has created an untenable position for the Government.

CREW’s article on the Edward’s prosecution states:

Sen. Edwards’ conduct was despicable and deserves society’s condemnation, but that alone does not provide solid grounds for a criminal case.  DOJ’s scattershot approach to prosecuting public officials is incomprehensible and undermines the integrity of the criminal justice system.

THE QUESTION FOR YOU!

Do you think the government is acting ethically and properly in indicting John Edwards, even knowing that their case is based on shaky legal footing?

YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME!

John Edwards – Guilty before trial! What happened to our system of Justice?

As news of the indictment of John Edwards hit the wire I began to hear many people speak of joy and hope that he would be punished!  Comments like, “Well, I’m glad.  For too long those with money and power seem to get away with their crimes.”  Yet others said, “Look what he did to his poor wife, he deserves whatever punishment he gets!”

As I heard those words I began to wonder what has happened to our system of justice 0r maybe better asked, what has happened to our moral compassion?  Did John Edwards do wrong?  Well, he says he did, but regarding the consequence, seems to me that’s for the legal system to decide…yet, what I do know is that Every Choice Has A Consequence.  John Edwards choices are leading to the consequences he is facing today.

Pleading NOT GUILTY to a federal grand jury indictment on six counts, including conspiracy, issuing false statements and violating campaign contribution laws, John Edwards, former Democratic vice presidential nominee and two-time presidential candidate, acknowledged that he had “done wrong,” but denied breaking the law.

“There’s no question that I’ve done wrong,” Edwards told reporters. “But I did not break the law and I never, ever thought I was breaking the law.”

I understand Edwards comments…I really get the truth in what he is saying.  Yet, “ever thinking about breaking the law” and breaking the law are two different things.  As a convicted felon (not proud of that fact, but it is a fact), I never thought I was doing wrong until I had to face the truth and see that the illusion I created was in fact nothing more than an elaborate lie – the truth was I was then (not now) a liar and a thief.  Perhaps now Edwards is coming to see reality – not the illusion he lived under for so long.

Released on his own recognizance, Edwards was ordered to surrender his passport and remain within the lower 48 states and if convicted on all counts, Edwards would face up to 30 years in prison and a maximum fine of $1.5 million.

THE ILLUSION?

The question is whether money given to support Edwards’ mistress, Rielle Hunter, by benefactors of Edwards should have been considered campaign donations, a contention Edwards’ team has disputed.  Here is the foundation of the illusion.  Is it possible that cover up (some $900,000) money given for a person running a public campaign can be anything other than a campaign donation?

A CNN Report states the following:

While prosecutors believe the monetary help given to Hunter by two of Edwards’ political backers should have been considered campaign donations, Edwards’ attorneys disagree.

“This is an unprecedented prosecution,” Craig said. “No one would have known or could be expected to know that these payments would be treated as campaign contributions, and there is no way Senator Edwards knew that fact either.”

Craig said the government’s theory of the case “is wrong on the facts and wrong on the law.”

The government is believed to be building its case that Edwards violated campaign finance law based on an 11-year-old advisory opinion issued by the Federal Election Commission, which asserted that a gift to a candidate for federal office would be considered a campaign contribution, a source with knowledge of the inquiry told CNN this week.

The decision, dated June 14, 2000, is known as “Harvey.” It’s named after a man named Phillip Harvey who sought guidance from the FEC because he wanted to give money to someone who was preparing to run for federal office, but didn’t want the money to be used for campaign purposes.

The opinion is important because Hunter received more than $1 million from two contributors, 100-year-old philanthropist Rachel “Bunny” Mellon of Virginia and attorney Fred Baron, who has since died.

Edwards’ attorneys have said that the payments were not and should not be considered political contributions. If they weren’t political contributions, what were they? The most widely reported theory — which the Edwards team has publicly neither confirmed nor denied — is that the money was given to keep Edwards’ wife, Elizabeth, from finding out about his mistress and child.

The source with knowledge of the inner workings of the case and other legal observers have noted that the Harvey advisory opinion is shaky ground to base a federal prosecution on because it is not a black-letter federal statute, and apparently has not been cited in any important case law, or as legal authority behind any important court decisions.

Some experts have said the Justice Department will have a strong case in court if it can prove Edwards knew about the funds and what they were being used for — a contention he has denied.

WHERE FROM HERE?

John Edwards has made choices – the consequences he must now face.  The only issue I have (at least for the moment) is why we – the general public – are so willing to seal his fate and find joy in his indictment, conviction and punishment?  Is it possible that those who so quickly point fingers are unwilling to look in the mirror and see the illusions that they work hard to maintain?

WHAT DO YOU THINK?  YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME!

Fidelity National Title Insurance Company – When a presentation hits the Mark – Comments by Chuck Gallagher Business Ethics Speaker

For most of us in the speaking profession, we diligently work to make sure that what we share makes a difference.  While there is no criticism in being called a Motivational Speaker – the fact is – as a Business Ethics speaker – I want to make a lasting difference when I share with an audience.  Far more important to me for someone to walk away with something of value, than to get a standing ovation for a performance that folks will forget two weeks later.

Each presentation begins with the words – “Every choice has a consequence!”  If there is a take away – remembering that simple phrase can make the difference in folks making ethical choices that are empowering or finding the consequences of their unethical choices painful.

Recently I had the opportunity to speak to Fidelity National Title Insurance Company in Florida.  The crowd was responsive, yet I find that often my pointed presentation hits buttons for some creating emotional reactions.  Yet others (fortunately typically 98%) get the message.

Just a few days ago I receive an email from the meeting planner stating the following:  “I thought you would really like this Chuck.  Confirmation that your presentation really hit the mark.  Thanks again.”  Attached was a link to a recent blog post…a portion is reproduced below and the full link is here.

The Man in Handcuffs

Submitted by Stephen Collins on Mon, 05/23/2011 – 8:18am

How interesting do you think a title insurance conference is?  As good as this blog—hardly!  But Fidelity National Title Insurance Company does have a reputation for production, and I’m not just talking number of policies sold.  They put on a conference in a fair atmosphere, but when they talk ethics, they’re all business—need and opportunity do NOT justify stealing.

Fidelity National is an underwriter for Land Title of America, and we’re used to their non-conventional presentation of material.  If it’s a really boring subject, they’ll make it like a game show with Ozzy Osbourn and Minnie Pearl—you’re not going to forget the information!  For their talk on business ethics, the speaker wore an orange jumpsuit and his hands were cuffed behind him.  We thought he was another one of their gimmick speakers.  He was not.

True…a gimmick speaker I am not!  There is nothing funny about making unethical choices, losing everything (other than the love of my two sons) and spending time in federal prison.  Yet, that experience, as gnarly as it was – turned out to be one of the best things that could ever happen to me.  The consequences that followed my seriously poor unethical choices have provided a powerful framework today for sharing with others about the power of choices and ethical behavior.  Beyond theory, I share from the heart in a way that people can relate to – my message is one of choices, consequences and hope.  We are more than our mistakes and often we can avoid those mistakes if we connect the dots between choices and consequences.

Stephen Collins posts ends – “He had committed fraud and he faced up to it.  He lost his family and he served time for what he did, wearing an orange jumpsuit like that every day.  The difference now is that he holds the key to his handcuffs, and he’s come a long way through a lot of trials to say Don’t commit fraud.  When you have need and opportunity, don’t justify it to do something you know is wrong.”

Thanks to the folks at Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, it was my honor to be a part of their commitment to ethics and ethics training.