Trump University Playbook Reveals the Manipulative Techniques Trump Used to Bilk Consumers

by Nomad

Unsealed documents from Trump University reveal some of the sophisticated techniques the recruiters used to break down prospective students' resistance. Many of them paid a very heavy price for their trust in Trump and his university.

One of the documents I stumbled across was the 48-page sales manual for the university (PDF embedded below). After a quick glance at the material, it is not a surprise that Republican candidate Trump would be plenty peeved that the federal judge allowed it to be released to the public. 

The manual- Exhibit D in the trial- does not paint a very flattering portrait of the operation nor the man behind it. 

Overall, the university playbook sounds nothing like an educational institution and much more like a high-pressure telemarketing sales campaign. That is confirmed by insiders who witnessed the operations for themselves. 

Said one top university official in her testimony:

In my experience, the focus of Trump University was on making sales rather than providing quality educational services. Trump university would lure consumers into the initial free course based upon the name and reputation of Donald Trump, and then, once they were there, Trump Univeristy personnel would try to up-sell consumers to the next course using high pressure sales tactics. Far from providing a "complete real estate education," as advertised, Trump University only provided enough information to get students to sign up for the next seminar or program.

That claim is supported by the sales manual and, importantly, that manual was not the work of some underling in the organization. 

According to depositions by former Trump University staffers, Trump personally approved of many of the ads and may have been integrally involved in crafting some of the "deceitful scripts that school reps used to con prospective students."

Meanwhile, Back at the North Carolina State Legislative Building Restroom...

by Nomad

Gravitas of a Grifter: Why Trump's Art of the Deal is all about the Art of Butt-Kissing and Betrayal

by Nomad

In a recent deposition, Republican Presidential candidate Trump  allowed us a peek at his true nature. It wasn't pretty and reveals a man very different than his supporters see onstage. 

The Two Faces of Trump

As we have come to know, Republican front-runner Donald Trump likes to portray himself as a politically-incorrect kind of guy who says the first thing to comes to his mind. 
If it is childish, irresponsible or just plain racist, then that's who he really is. He's not been groomed and manicured and cultivated like a hot-house orchid. Trump is Trump, and he doesn't give a damn who likes it and who doesn't.

For that, his supporters love him.

His appeal is based primarily on the premise that he may be rough around the edges but he is, at least, honest. If he goes too far sometimes, it is, if nothing else, a step in the right direction, they'll tell you. 
Sure, he may rub a lot of people the wrong way, his supporters say, but he makes good points and gives a voice for angry people who feel forgotten. Trump may be a joke but he isn't a phony, they'll tell you.
If nothing else, Trump's a breath of fresh air and not part of the political game-playing that has made Washington such a despised place. 

However, the problem for Mr. Trump is that this particular persona is really a new innovative, more based on his reality-TV character. The real story, his actual history is radically different.

Recording the Police: When Your Constitutional Protections Mean Nothing

by Nomad

You may not know this but you really do have a constitutionally-protected right that is routinely ignored by law enforcement. And worse than that, there's not a lot you can do about it.

Civil liberties attorneys will tell you straight up that you have a right to photograph and videotape any public official doing their jobs when plainly visible in public spaces. And yes, that includes on-duty police officers. 

The Interference Limitation

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) adds that it is perfectly legal and that right includes recording the "outside of federal buildings, as well as transportation facilities, and police and other government officials carrying out their duties."

Delroy Burton, chairman of D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Union and a 21-year veteran on the force joins that chorus:

As a basic principle, we can’t tell you to stop recording. If you’re standing across the street videotaping, and I’m in a public place, carrying out my public functions, [then] I’m subject to recording, and there’s nothing legally the police officer can do to stop you from recording.”

There are some important limitations, of course.
In the course of recording, you do not have the right to put your life or the lives of others in danger. You cannot break the law in order to record, such as trespassing or disturbing a crime scene. You should not interfere with officers attempting to keep the peace in, for example, a riot or civil disturbance.  

The recording should be done in a transparent manner, and not in a surreptitious or covert way. If you record public servants without their knowledge, you could be accused of - get this- eavesdropping. Privacy laws protect the police too.

As Burton puts it succinctly "Record from a distance, stay out of the scene." As long as you are not directly involved, nothing more than a citizen witness, the police have no right to tell you to stop recording.

That's the theory, anyway.

Planned Parenthood Files Lawsuit Against Arkansas for Blocking Healthcare for Poor Women

by Nomad

In an attempt to abolish abortion on a state by state basis, governors of a few states have cut Medicaid contracts with Planned Parenthood, a non-profit organization which provides reproductive health and maternal and child health services.. The problem is the action is, say lawyers for organization, illegal and they plan to sue.

Check out this reprinted article from Medical Daily.

Planned Parenthood Is Suing The State Of   Arkansas

Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit with the American Civil Liberties Union that alleges Governor Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark) “acted illegally” when he moved to terminate Medicaid contracts with the organization last month, The Hill reported. “Governor Hutchinson has no business telling women in Arkansas where they can and cannot go for cancer screenings, birth control, HIV tests…

Why Immunity for Bush and Cheney May Not Be the Final Word

by Nomad

Claims of immunity might have so far protected former Bush officials (including the ex-president and former vice president Dick Cheney) but as this post explains, treaty obligations demand that action be taken. 

In light of the revelations of CIA torture, some people have rightfully begun asking why the people involved- who have admitted that they authorized the interrogation techniques- should not be held accountable. Isn't it clear that the things done were illegal? 

How is it possible that a US government official, like Dick Cheney, can escape accountability even though he/she had all but admitted human rights crimes, as defined by international standards

The exact legal means for escaping accountability wasn't recently devised especially for the Bush administration. It was, in fact,  established back in 1988.

Criminalizing Charity: The Shame and Hypocrisy of a Christian Nation

by Nomad

Do city ordinances which forbid the feeding of the homeless violate the religious liberty of Christians? Why has there been so much more outcry about gay wedding cakes and yet barely a whisper when it comes to outlawing a core commandment of the Christian faith?

There's no denying that, from the time of the struggling Puritan settlers until this day, Judaic-Christian values have had a profound influence on American culture. Certainly more than any other religious teaching. This is true not merely in the so-called Bible Belt but in other regions and other aspects of American social life.

Of course, no fair minded person would say that America has no room for diversity of religious thought or that Christianity should be forced upon any citizen. Simply because a religion has an influence doesn't mean it has any more right to become the only faith or the national governmentally-endorsed religion. Yet, it is true that much of American morality has roots in this particular faith.

Despite what Justice Scalia has recently said, the government is constitutionally mandated to remain wholly neutral, neither supporting nor rejecting any religion. At the same time, according to past Supreme Court rulings, the government must also steer clear of interference with degrees of religious faith: from the devout to the unbeliever, all must be respected.

Even with the equally-strong belief in secularism (when it comes to religion and government), on a person level, the humanitarian principles found in Judaic-Christian teachings are generally considered the bedrock of American philosophy. 

Among those Christian unchallengables is the call to charity, a command to help those in need, to feed the hungry and to clothe the naked. This idea, of course, is not unique to Christianity but it is generally where Americans draw their inspiration for doing good works.  

After loving the Lord with the second uppermost command is that we "love our neighbors as we love ourselves." And the two points cannot be separate in the Christian theology as the Book of John observes:

If someone has enough money to live well and sees a brother or sister in need but shows no compassion--how can God's love be in that person?

The Book of James one can find:

If one of you says to them, "Go in peace; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it?

In the Old Testament too one can find similar thoughts. Proverbs 14:31 for example:

Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God.

And in the same book:

Whoever shuts their ears to the cry of the poor will also cry out and not be answered.

With regular outraged anguish about "religious liberty" the Far Right Christians seem strangely silence and disinterested when it comes to criminalizing one of Christianity's most noble articles of faith.

*   *   *

Only last month we featured a post about laws against feeding the homeless. Here's what it looked like in action when a 90-year-old man was arrested in Fort Lauderdale, Florida last weekend. 

Prohibited Person: What Happens If Texas Governor Rick Perry Becomes a Convicted Felon

by Nomad

Here's a quick peek into what Governor Perry's life might be like if he is convicted on felony charges.

It's a post title I never thought I'd write, that's for sure.

By now most people have heard the news that Texas governor Rick Perry has been indicted for abuse of power after carrying out a threat to veto funding for state public corruption prosecutors. Of course the most serious result of any conviction would be hard time in prison. A conviction on those charges carries with it a maximum punishment on the first charge is five to 99 years in prison. The second is two to 10 years.

While the charge and the possible punishments are not something about would dismiss lightly, nobody should be foolish enough to think that a conviction is a sure thing, of course.

This is, after all, Texas.

The possibility that Perry will ever walk down "Broadway" in an orange one-piece and state-issued bo-bos is fairly remote. However, supposing the judicial system can withstand the enormous political pressure that will doubtless be exerted, and Perry is actually convicted of these felonies, he might find life a little less lovely.

Even without any time in the Big House.

There are other legal limits imposed on a convicted felon For example he will no longer be allowed to serve on a federal grand or petit jury jury, according to Texas and federal laws.

Big Whoop, right? But that's the least important restriction. Let's take a look some others.

Threats and Poison Letters to the President Land Texas Actress in Prison for 18 years

by Nomad

A Texas Court threw the book at a woman for threats to the president. Politics may have had little to do with this case but threatening the president's life has become all too common.

Shouldn't the Secret Service and the courts be doing more to make this a less attractive way to get attention?

Straight from the "But.. I'm a victim too" category.

The Poison Post Plot

Shannon Guess Richardson, a 39-year-old actress from Texas, was sentenced to 18 years in prison this week for sending a trio of poison letters to politicians, including the President.

At her trial, Richardson threw out every stop to win the heart of the judge. She might have hoped to win a reduced sentence by pleading guilty to the charge of possessing and producing a biological toxin. If so,the legal ploy wasn't too successful.  

At the sentencing phase, Richardson explained that she "never intended for anybody to be hurt," and added that she was  "not a bad person; I don't have it in me to hurt anyone."

Judge Michael H. Schneider was unconvinced and gave her the maximum sentence and ordered her to pay restitution of around $367,000. He also noted that Richardson had put many lives in danger and threatened public officials.

Shannon Richardson's acting career was limited to minor roles in TV series, such as "The Walking Dead"  (Third zombie from the right.) But, due to her poorly-thought-out and very dangerous plotting,  that is all gone now. 

Shutting It Down: The Costs of Silencing Occupy Dissent

by Nomad

Shutting down dissent is costly. After a court ruling this week on police handling of Occupy Wall Street protesters, we learned how much such tactics by law enforcement cost the American taxpayer. Of course, the American taxpayer has had to foot the bill,  not once, but twice.

This week, lawyers for the organization Lawyers for the Rest Of Us. issued a statement announcing the largest settlement to date regarding the Occupy Wall Street protesters and the City of New York. In addition to the public relations nightmare, the city has agreed to pay a staggering out $583,024 to 14 who were falsely arrested. 

According to the source:

On January 1st, 2012, in a federal lawsuit, Peat v. City of New York, 12-cv-8230, filed in the Southern District of New York on November 13, 2012. The lawsuit alleged that the plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights to free speech and assembly were violated by their arrests.

This settlement is notable as it is  the largest single settlement to date for an Occupy Wall Street-related civil rights lawsuit in New York. The details of the case are worth reviewing since it may not be the last of its kind.

The fourteen plaintiffs were arrested at 2nd Avenue and 13th Street in Manhattan during a peaceful march of Occupy Wall Street supporters. At that location, police officers accompanying the march stopped the march from continuing forward and enclosed the marchers within police lines composed of scooter patrol officers and officers on foot. High-ranking NYPD officers, including then-Chief of Patrol James Hall, Deputy Chief Theresa Shortell, Deputy Inspector Daniel O’Donnell, and Captain William Taylor were present at the scene and directly participated in making the arrests.

The plaintiffs were charged with blocking pedestrian traffic under Penal Law 240.20 (disorderly conduct). The District Attorney’s office later declined to prosecute the criminal cases against the plaintiffs.

The point was to get them off the street and, others might say, to intimidate them into silence.

Comparing Justice: Breivik, Manning and Calley

by Nomad

Let's take a look at three very different crimes and three very different forms of justice. What can we learn from the comparisons between a mass murderer, a whistleblowing soldier and a soldier that committed war crimes? How does justice reflect a society's values and what does it say about a nation's values?

How a nation hands down justice and who it punishes and how it punishes reveals a lot about its values and its people. In fact, I would say that it's a defining benchmark. Where the courts are corrupt is where civilization ends. And where it is justice prevails is where fairness and civilized society flourishes. The law of the jungle was not after all intended to be a model for humanity.

As George Washington reminds us:

The administration of justice is the firmest pillar of government.

With this idea in mind, I thought I'd explore three very different cases to examine how justice was administered and what could be learned about how values change from country to country and over time. 

Breivik in Norway

In the summer of 2011, Anders Behring Breivik conducted a carefully-planned attack on government buildings in Oslo, Norway, which killed eight. While police sifted through the rubble looking for clues, Breivik traveled to camp on the island of Utøya. There he systematically hunted down and murdered 69 victims, mostly teenagers.

According to his 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, Breivik's apparent motive for his acts of terrorism revolved around his far-right militant ideology which included hatred for Islam, feminism, and Zionism.

The tone of the national response to the painful events was set by the prime minister Jens Stoltenberg in his address at the memorial service in Oslo cathedral two days after the tragedy:

"We are still shocked by what has happened, but we will never give up our values," Stoltenberg said. "Our response is more democracy, more openness, and more humanity." Norway, he suggested, would not seek vengeance as America had done after the 9/11 attacks." We will answer hatred with love," he said.

Washington District Court Judge Landmark Ruling: You Are Not Your IP Address

by Nomad

A Washington judge's ruling in a copyright infringement case may have profound implications on the ability to prosecute cybercrime and to issue surveillance warrants by the NSA.

According to Judge Robert Lasnik, a United States federal judge, on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, evidence made up purely of IP addresses does not meet the legal requirements of pleading standards for pursuing the case against online pirates. He has ruled that IP address alone do not provide a sufficient means of identification.  

According one source:

The fact of the matter and the law is that it is almost impossible to associate piracy based on the IP address and the IP address alone. The actual culprit might have been a family member, guest, or even a hacker. At the very least, the subscriber with that IP address can be scolded for not safeguarding his or her home computer.

In other words, the evidence may show that a particular IP was used but that doesn't mean that the accused in the courtroom is the one who used that IP address. 

That's really not news. The big law firms who have made a fortune bounty hunting for large media giants, have been successful using this prosecutorial method for years. 

Courts have been not questioned it. But they are starting to wake up, it seems.

ACORN and James O’Keefe III: The Tiny Crumb of Justice

by Nomad

Mr. James O’Keefe III has always been a useful tool for the conservatives. 

The right wing  can distantly applaud his antics under the pretense of social good works, and at the same time, they can disapprove of his controversial techniques. He can do things that no respectable journalist would dream of doing and, best of all, he can be painted as hero to naive but politically-mind young conservatives. 
By friends and foes, O'Keefe has been called many things: a hero, a prankster, a provocateur, guerilla reporter, a film-maker, an activist, a douchebag, even- though more rarely- a journalist.

Last week, 28-year- old O’Keefe was back in the news, but this time he was not in control of the spotlight. 

In the past, we have examined O’Keefe’s pivotal role in bringing down the community action organization, ACORN. Here’s a follow-up to that story.