All of our courses - in the U.S. and over seas, begin with the same message - ETHICS is the keystone of our profession and our success. It's a shame that famed litigator - Richard "Dickie" Scruggs forgot that lesson.
In yesterday's Washington Post, the headline reads; "Famed Litigator Gets 5-Year Term for Conspiracy to bribe Judge". For those who are not familiar with him, Scruggs became one of the wealthiest and most famous lawyers in the country by taking on tobacco, insurance and asbestos companies.
What did he do? Well, for starters (and what they were able to prove), he attempted to bribe Lafayette County Circuit Court Judge Henry Lackey by offering him $50,000.00. U.S. District Judge Neal Biggers Jr., called Scruggs' conduct "reprehensible" and told him that he picked the wrong Judge to bribe. In addition to the 5 year jail term, he was fined $250,000.00 and lost his law license.
You really got to love it when Justice is rightfully served. Unfortunately, it makes me wonder how many more sleazy lawyers around the country and unethical Judges are not getting reported and prosecuted. It is a little too hard to believe that Scruggs is the only dirt-bag in the legal profession. We welcome the message it sends out; "nobody is above the law".
Like most, if not all common criminals, Richerd Scruggs became greedy. In 1990, Scruggs became famous for suing tobacco companies and winning lawsuits that resulted in a $206 BILLION dollar settlement. If his take of that was just 10%, he walked away with a cool $20.6 Billion dollars. A film was even made about the case - "The Insider" starred Al Pacino and Russell Crowe.
A decade later he is trying to bribe a Judge with $50,000? I would say it was a combination of greed and power going to his head. Maybe that is why the "Post" reported that he nearly fainted and swayed from side to side when the Judge scolded him. He had to sit down before the sentence was read out. He must have believed that he was untouchable.
It's just a shame that he wasn't touched with a heavier sentence. A twenty year sentence would have sent out an even more powerful message. Still and all, the idea of wearing a prison jumpsuit and eating balogna sandwiches is probably like a life sentence to someone who believed themselves to be above the law.
The article claims that many high profile friends petitioned Judge Biggers for leniency when sentencing Scruggs. He's lucky I am not the warden at his jail. I think he would be a perfect candidate for the toilet cleaning squad.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Even the Rich and Famous pay the price for being Dishonest and Unethical
Thursday, June 26, 2008
If you are headed to Pakistan - watch your back
So much goes on in the murky world of Polictics that we often do not know what is afoot until long after the fact. Take a look at today's bombshell for instance.
Everyone seemed to be shocked to hear that North Korea came clean about their nuclear weapons capability and were rewarded by the lifting of some sanctions. This is a total "180" from their behavior not that long ago when they were flexing their nutrition-deprived muscles and thumbing their noses at the rest of the world.
This in turn is making me wonder about the threats from Afghanistan's President Karzai to Pakistan. President Karzai has been very vocal regarding Pakistan's involvement in his country's border area and his warnings suggesting Afghanistan's intent to attack their neighbor seems to be starting to agitate the Paskistani authorities. Which makes me wonder....is Karzai's theatrics a way to open the door for his U.S. protectors to launch an attack on the Pakistani border?
If this is the case, than Americans travelling to Pakistan should really consider if they need to be there and if they do, they should give serious consideration to their safety while there. We were recently contacted by a U.S. company who had business in Pakistan and rightfully so, they were worried for their safety. There are no doubt, many sympathizers in Pakistan, especially near the Afghan border who have little love for America or it's citizens. Further strikes (no matter how justifeid they may be), will only heighten this dislike/distrust.
If you are headed to that region, be well aware of what might lay ahead and plan accordingly.
D.C. Gun Ban Lifted - Thank You Supreme Court!
The news came like music to my ears (and to hundreds of thousands of other ears across the country, I dare say). Law abiding citizens in the District of Columbia would be allowed to protect their homes and families.
The vote was not unanimous by any means - the historical decision was arrived at by a 5 to 4 vote to remove the ban prohibiting District residents from obtaining handguns. In a WTOP radio interview today, the NRA lobby spokesman, Chris Cox, spoke about the need for cities such as Chicago and San Francisco to fight to have their Second Ammendment rights re-instated.
Mr. Cox also gave notice to D.C. Mayor Fenty that he would have to honor the Supreme Court's decision, even though it is well known that the Mayor is a fierce opponent of allowing law abiding citizens to protect themselves and their loved ones with the aid of a firearm. Mayor Fenty was later qoted as saying; "More guns will mean more crimes".
Apparently the Mayor's flawed and at this stage, thread-bare reasoning, did not influence the majority of Supreme Court Justices. I would dearly love to be able to ask the Mayor this one question; how has the ban on handguns, which has been in effect in the District of Columbia for the past 32 years, helped to cut down on violent crime involving the use of ILLEGAL firearms? I am sure that I am not the only one who has heard D.C. referred to as; "The murder Capital of the World". Are drive-bys, and drug/gang related homicides ever committed by a law abiding citizen? How could having a firearm in one's home lead to more crime?
I put it to you Mr. Mayor, that the exact opposite would/will happen. All of those two-bit gun wielding punks on your streets who think they are big and bad because they have a "piece" jammed in their waist bands will think twice before burglarizing the home of a law abiding citizen who just might be pointing the noisey end of a 45 pistol at them. It is a well known fact that D.C. and Maryland criminals are very reluctant to break into a Virginia home as they know that Virginians have easy access to weapons.
Of course this latest ruling does not in any way mean that we'll all be walking around downtown with concealed firearms. Far from it, I am sure. Justice Scalia pointed out that restrictions will still be in place. As it should be. Law abiding citizens do not want to see convicted Felons carrying guns nor should those suffering from mental disorders or with a history of violent domestic abuse be allowed to access guns. Similar to what we have in Virginia, it is realistic to expect that guns will be banned from Government buildings and schools.
As the owner of a security firm who protects clients from harm and as someone allowed to carry concealed in Virginia and Maryland, I would hope that those of us who are properly licensed and insured in the District will be able to carry concealed there. I wouldn't even mind if the Mayor acted like a proper politician and found a way to tax us for the privilege.
He can even insist that all future gun holders undergo a mandated safety course. Being a certified security training school, we're ready to get on board with the training program today!
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Is this a case of; "Do as I say, not as I do"?
I think it is a shame when a Police Officer acts like a Politician. It seems like this might be what happened to the Police Chief in San Francisco.
It has leaked out that Chief Heather Fong has not qualified with her service weapon in years. She actually admits to it but blames the lapse on her busy schedule. This poses two really pressing questions. Firstly, what would she do if she was getting into her vehicle going to or coming from work and she witnessed a grievous felony taking place? If she pulled her weapon, she would most definitely not be able to respond in a manner befitting a trained Police Officer who had undergone requalification every 6 months as is her Department's policy. Would she even be qualified/legally covered to use her weapon after going years without re-training?
Secondly, how is she able to administer punishment to other officers who have failed to re-qualify when she herself is facing disciplinary charges? What kind of message is she sending out? Apparently, in San Francisco there seems to be one law for the street cops and another for high ranking officers. This must do wonders for morale.
Of course we know that you have a busy schedule Chief, but it is hard to believe that you couldn't find an hour once every six months to run out to the range and "pop a few off". You would hardly have to wait in line like everyone else. Have you forgotten what every Police Officer (and armed security officer for that matter) is taught, that using a weapon is based upon muscle memory? In other words, if you don't use it, you lose it.
People like Chief Fong are supposed to lead by example and shame on them when they don't. Do the right thing Chief, bring a sandwich to work with you and go out to the range on your lunch break. You shouldn't put yourself above the law.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Attention - Lawyers and Private Investigators!
Lawyers are always in need of process servers to serve civil papers. More often than not, they use the services of a Private Investigator or process service company.
If the P.I. or process server is credible and ethical, there should not be a problem. If on the other hand, the server "claims" to have served the paper, charges the Law Firm for services rendered but does not actually effect the necessary service, it could be the makings of a significant lawsuit. This is what happened in Massachusetts.
The plaintiff in that casewas awarded $3,000,000.00 when the State Court ruled that the Bermuda businessman, Donald P.Lines, had not been served by the company hired to effect the service, Boston based "Stokes & Levin". It later transpired that the company had used pre-fabricated stamps of the signature of a process server who no longer worked for the company. It did not enhance the image of the Securities and Exchange Commission either as the SEC were the ones who hired "Stokes & Levin".
I have heard stories of one elderly P.I. in Virginia who gets confused when he serves civil papers and sometimes puts the same time on two different papers even when they are served 20 miles or more apart. Yet, he continues to get requests for service from lawyers that he has known a while. I hope this story serves as a reminder to him and those who hire him that you stand to lose a lot if you don't get it right - both in reputation and finacial terms. There's no shame in hanging up the gun belt when the sun starts to set on your career. It's always better to go out a winner than a defendant.
When does a bodyguard need to shoot into a crowd?
A story out of Mumbai,India caught my attention today. A politician's bodyguard shot into a crowd of people and killed a man.
While professional Executive Protection Agents no longer refer to themselves as "bodyguards", if we nonetheless examine that "handle", we can break it down as; "a person who guards (protects) the body of another". If I was tasked with the investigation of this shooting incident in India, one of the very first places I would look at would be the training manuals of those involved. If they were Policemen, I would demand to be allowed to inspect that Department's training guides that were used when training their "bodyguards". Same thing would apply if they belonged to a private company/entity.
I very seriously doubt that I would find any directive anywhere authorizing those assigned to the protective detail to fire haphazzardly into a crowd of people. To me, this suggests that the bodyguard either panicked or was placed in the position without any professional training (most probable explanation). Anyone who has spent more than 15 minutes in E.P. training knows that the responsibility of the Protective Agent(s) is to evacuate their client (Principal). Shooting into crowds of people would be out of place, even in far-fetched Hollywood. I am quite sure that Indian society is nothing near as litigious as it is here in the Western world, but I still suspect that there is a smart lawyer somewhere in India trying to contact the victim's family. I believe the case will be his for the winning.
Ironically, I contactd a company in India a couple of months back with a proposal to train their Executive Protection staff. Without ever hearing a price, they contacted me back and said they were sure they couldn't afford us (eventhough they are one of the largest employers in India). Which makes me wonder, how do you put a price on a human life and what would you consider a fair price to have your people professionally trained so that you were not sued by the family/next of kin of someone killed by one of your employees? By the way, this question can be asked of any employer anywhere in the world who is in the business of either safeguarding their own employees, or protecting the life of others.
In Real Estate it is about; "Location, Location, Location". In security, it is about; "Training, Training, Training". I sincerely hope that many get to know of this incident (including nearly all of the Hollywood stars who allow their Protectors to assault people on a regular basis)and begin to realize the importance of having a professionally trained person taking care of them. Hiring some big guy with a couple of years military experience is not good enough.
That would be like hiring a person for a plastic surgery procedure whose only experience was carving the Thanksgiving turkey. Who'd be the turkey then?
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Why would the Government hire a security consultant and then not listen to him?
I received an interesting piece from one of my friends in Homeland Security. It concerns Juval Aviv, the Bodyguard for Golda Meir and the person she sent out to track down those responsible for killing the Israeli athletes during the Munich Olympic games.
Apparently Mr. Aviv delivered a lecture in New York City a couple of weeks ago. He made some startling predictions. One of these is the fact that he believes the next attack(s)on the U.S. will occur in the next few months and it will involve suicide and non-suicide bombers where large numbers of people congregate. This will not come as any surprise to those of us who have seen the Al Qaida training types showing training scenarios aimed at football stadiums, shopping malls, golf tournaments, etc.
Interestingly, Aviv claims that these threats are well known by the U.S. Govt. but they do not want to "alarm citizens" with the facts. Aviv just might know what he's talking about there since he currently serves as a special consultant to the U.S. Congress and other policy makers. There is no doubt that he knows what he is talking about when he describes what is needed at U.S. airports.
I have long known that U.S. airports are not as safe as people would like to think. Apart from all of the "mistakes" and the prohibited items that make it past the security check points, there is the procedure whereby bags remain unchecked in any form until people have gained access to ticket desks and the internal front area of the airport. The people themselves are not screened until they head for the gates. What would happen if a terrorist self-detonated in the middle of a crowded airport without ever trying or expecting to make it on a plane? Scary thoughts, but thoughts nonetheless about which someone should be thinking and being concerned enough to address it.
Should Aviv be taken serious? Well, he predicted the London bombing on the Bill O'Reilly show on Fox News stating publicly that it would happen within a week. At the time, O'Reilly laughed and said that in a week, he wanted him back on the show. Unfortunately, within a week the terrorist attack occurred.
It would be nice to know that the Government was doing all it could for us, but reading and hearing things like this does not exactly instill confidence. Then again, there were probably those who felt safe seeing Army reservists with rifles in our airports in the days following 9-11. That is, if you didn't think about it for more than a minute.
Like charity, security starts at home. Now more than ever, it may be a case of; "the Lord helping those who help themselves."
