Blockchain Authenticated, Un-Blockable,,Unstoppable, Anonymous Messenger

Blockchain Public Key Exchange

Blockchain Authenticated

Self Destructing Messages

German Cyber Security company unveils an Un-Blockable, Decentralised Instant Messenger. Freedom Of Speech Protecteed.

The best way to protect personal information is to not collect it.”

— Vadim Andryan

DüSSELDORF, GERMANY, February 19, 2019 / — In a world of increasing surveillance, security threats, and personal data gathering, privacy is under threat. Crypviser Secure Messenger is built to allow everyone to benefit from the highest levels of security.

The world’s first decentralized, blockchain authenticated, anonymous and TRUE end to end encrypted messenger makes its debut with the commercial release of Crypviser Secure Messenger.

German Cyber Security Company Crypviser GmbH has leveled the playing field in the world of instant communications.
Crypviser GmbH has developed the worlds first Decentralized, Blockchain Authenticated, Anonymous Instant messenger.
By incorporating a blockchain for public key exchange they have eliminated the possibilities of Man in the Middle attacks.

Blockchain Authentication: The most crucial aspect of Crypvisers Secure Instant Messenger is the Blockchain Authentication Model. By setting up contacts via Blockchain, the transfer of Public Keys is authenticated by the nodes on the Blockchain. Therefore the keys cannot be altered, manipulated, or exchanged for anyone else's via man in the middle attack. The user is assured that the person they are communicating with, is truly that person, and no one else, TRUE End to End Encryption. Crypviser is the first to implement this procedure, a real life use of Blockchain Technology, put into the hands of everyone.

Being decentralized and running on an open source network run by users spread throughout the globe, they have the distinct advantages of being able to operate in countries which tend to block other messengers, such as Russia, Iran, China, India etc. This will ensure the voices of the people within said countries will still be able to reach the outside world against their Governments wishes.

Decentralization: Because Crypviser is a decentralized network, there is no single point of attack, no single server to hack, shut down or block. Crypviser runs on a network of Nodes, spread out across the globe if one is blocked the others take its place, ensuring the communications continue to get through.

Encryption: Elliptic Curve Cryptography, Stream Symmetric Cipher, SALSA 20/20, SHA3–512 Hash, are all reliable technologies which are under the hood of Crypvisers Secure Messenger. Combined with Blockchain Authentication, Crypviser has given everyone a level of Security that had never been available in a mobile messaging app.

Crypviser is an anonymous messenger. Since all verification is done over a blockchain there is no need for a mobile number, name, or e-mail address. This shields the identity of each and every user. Granted the company Crypviser knows who has downloaded their app by the information supplied by Apple or the Google Playstore, though once the app is downloaded the user creates his or her own distinct username. So where Crypviser knows the real names of it's customers, they can not pair the Username the customer selects, to the real name of the paying customer.

Crypviser strongly believes in Free Speech and Right to Privacy.

Mark Aaron Babbitt
Crypviser GmbH
+49 1517 5048745
email us here
Visit us on social media:

Source: EIN Presswire

Austin Attorney Stephen Nagle Sheds Light on E-Scooter Accidents

Austin Attorney Stephen Nagle

Austin Attorney Stephen Nagle

Nagle highlights the fact that company waivers do not necessarily provide legally binding protection against lawsuits for a variety of reasons.

The fact is the situation is not entirely black or white given that as an operator of a scooter, a rider has the same rights—and consequently the same responsibilities—as automobile drivers.”

— Austin Attorney Stephen Nagle

AUSTIN, TX, USA, February 18, 2019 / — Electric scooters, or e-scooters, have seen plenty of business in town for good reason: many claim they are convenient, easy to use, and quick. However, recent events (including the city’s first scooter-related death) have opened up discussion on the legal ramifications of riding scooters downtown. Many Austinites have questions related to issues such as auto insurance, liability insurance, and who is at fault during accidents.

Stephen Nagle is an injury attorney in Austin, Texas. He recently addressed these questions in a video interview with™, clearing the air on what to expect with scooters, whether riding one or facing one on the road.

For starters, from Nagle’s personal perspective, those scooters seem to be “a little dangerous to maneuver and subject to shocks.” He then brings up an important point: if in an accident, is there any chance of responsibility falling on the manufacturer or company of the scooter? Potentially, he said:

“The fact is the situation is not entirely black or white given that as an operator of a scooter, a rider has the same rights—and consequently the same responsibilities—as automobile drivers." Nagle stated that "A rider has a responsibility to safely ride scooters in the same way they drive cars, hence it is not as easy as it may seem to file a claim against a company if you are injured while on a scooter. In the same way that if you crash your car into a pole, you cannot sue Ford if the accident was your fault.”

According to Nagle, Texas law asserts that any company must provide a reasonably safe product. If any lawsuit were to occur, proof of defect must be shown. There are also other factors to take into account, such as scooter training, helmet provisions, and especially waivers.

Nagle highlights the fact that company waivers do not necessarily provide legally binding protection against lawsuits for a variety of reasons. Additionally on the subject of intoxication, even if you are not in an actual vehicle, you may still receive citations for DUIs and DWIs.

If you are in an accident involving a scooter, contact Stephen Nagle for a consultation on your rights and your options. Reach him directly at 888-592-0926 for more information. Learn more about his expertise and experience here:

Kimberly Busch™, LLC
+1 970-239-1453
email us here
Visit us on social media:

Interview: Austin Attorney Stephen Nagle on E-Scooter Accidents

Source: EIN Presswire

How to Achieve and Maintain a Positive Mental Attitude? Author Veera Mahajan Explains

“UNREPORTED; Learning to LIVE” Author Veera Mahajan, Photo Credit: Leonard Monje.

Image: “Unreported: Learning to LIVE free” Author Veera Mahajan; Photo Credit: Michael Cimorelli, all rights reserved.

"Unreported: Learning to LIVE Free" Author Veera Mahajan Reveals How to Achieve and Maintain a Positive Mental Attitude, and How to Get Self-Discipline

If you are constantly getting bad results from the doing the same thing over and over, you have to stop being merely "optimistic," and be "realistic.”

— Veera Mahajan, author; "UNREPORTED: Learning to LIVE free"

MALIBU, CALIFORNIA , USA, February 17, 2019 / — Esteemed Author, Mediator, and Public Speaker; Veera Mahajan is one of Malibu’s most valued community leaders. The beautiful and intelligent woman is also author of the critically acclaimed book “Unreported: Learning to LIVE free," about recognizing and overcoming domestic abuse and stopping domestic violence. Veera Mahajan is also a highly praised Educator, Mediator, and Publisher, having created and published the landmark publication "Malibu Chronicle."

Veera did an exclusive interview with The Hollywood Sentinel recently, and the following is the second part of an excerpt of that highly valuable, important and educational discussion, concerning how to improve one's life through self-esteem, and a positive mental attitude.

Veera Mahajan; Exclusive Interview, Courtesy of The Hollywood Sentinel:

Hollywood Sentinel: You have stated that love is stronger thank hate. Please explain further why this is?

Veera Mahajan: It all starts with how much you love yourself. Since our childhood, we are taught to be nice to others and love others. Most of us are not taught or encouraged to love ourselves. Most of us never learned self care. Since the very beginning, we are made to feel bad about taking care of ourselves. We are told it is selfish if we think about our own happiness. So we learn to take care of other people and when we don’t get the care back, we start building resentment. We expect people we care about to care about us and when we don’t get it, we are disappointed and hate it. Hate makes us fight and be mean to each other. If we teach our children to love themselves, they will have better expectations from their relationships. We expect less than respect because we don’t love ourselves enough to believe that we deserve the best.

Hollywood Sentinel: That's powerful. What is the best way to get self-discipline?

Veera: The best way to get self-discipline is having a positive goal. Once you make a goal, it helps to make a plan and steps of how you are going to reach that goal. Have a ledger of constant positive growth steps you have taken to achieve the goal.

Losing Weight

For example; if the goal is to lose excess weight, you have to have a clear final weight goal. Come up with a plan for workout and healthy meals including foods and times. Then try to stick to the plan. If you make a mistake, it may take a few mess-ups before you can stick to the plan, but don’t give up. Keep an eye on the goal. It helps to have a visual reminder, like keeping a skinny picture of yourself or someone else you would like to look like when you reach the goal. Periodically weigh yourself to make sure you are staying on track and not going too far off the goal in the opposite direction. Don’t buy clothes in bigger sizes. Be uncomfortable in smaller clothes till you fit in them comfortably. When you reach your mark; Hooray! You stayed disciplined and you attained your goal.

Hollywood Sentinel: That's great. do you feel it is always important to be optimistic? Why or why not?

Veera: It is definitely important to be optimistic most of the time. When you or anyone is working hard and smart towards any goal and you have setbacks on the way, it is good to stay optimistic and not give up. You learn from your mistake of what not to do, and what to do next time until you reach your goal.

But, if you are constantly getting bad results from doing the same thing over and over, you have to stop being merely "optimistic," and be "realistic," and realize that "doing the same things in the same way and expecting different result is insanity," and find something else to do. Just like living with an abuser, who keeps promising to try and be better next time, buys another time for them to keep hurting you, you need to stop being simply "optimistic," see things for what they are, and make the change.

Hollywood Sentinel: I love it. What is the best way to achieve and maintain a positive mental attitude?

Veera: A healthy mind, and a healthy body! Taking care of your physical health by regular workout's and maintaining healthy eating habits will make you feel better about yourself. Feeling good about yourself is very important for making sure you respect yourself in all aspects of your life, whether it is in business or personal situations. Taking care of your physical self lets you see the positive results. Once you learn that positive things happen with healthy habits, it teaches you to build a healthy and positive attitude towards everything else you do in life. So, I think to maintain a positive attitude; maintain a healthy body. It takes a positive self-image and positive mental attitude to maintain good physical health.

Order Veera’s book through Amazon here:

Veera Mahajan Official LinkedIn

Veera Mahajan, Official Website

Press / Media: To schedule an interview with the author, and for all lecture bookings, please contact:
(+1) 310-226-7176.

Bruce Edwin
Hollywood Sentinel Public Relations
+1 310-226-7176
email us here
Visit us on social media:

Source: EIN Presswire

Family law attorney Janet Reed reviews NC case about proper parties and venue where a juvenile suffered abuse

Janet P Reed North Carolina attorney

Janet P Reed North Carolina attorney

Janet P Reed, Attorney in North Carolina

Janet P Reed, Attorney in North Carolina

Janet Pittman Reed lawyer in North Carolina

Janet Pittman Reed lawyer in North Carolina

Janet Reed Attorney in North Carolina

Janet Reed Attorney in North Carolina

Janet Pittman Reed lawyer in North Carolina

Janet Pittman Reed lawyer in North Carolina

Janet Pittman Reed, based in North Carolina, has published a case comment on "In the matter of: A.P.", involving determination of proper parties and venue

The Law Office of Attorney Janet Pittman Reed (N/A:N/A)

The Supreme Court noted that the fundamental principle underlying North Carolina’s approach to controversies involving child neglect is that the best interest of the child is the polar star”

— Janet Pittman Reed, lawyer in North Carolina

JACKSONVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA, UNITED STATES, February 15, 2019 / — Attorney Janet Reed, based in North Carolina, has published a new case comment on proper parties and venue in a case involving a juvenile. The complete comment will be published on her Blog at

Ms. Reed explains that "In re: A.P." is a case about a juvenile named A.P. who was born on August 2, 2015. When A.P. was two months old, A.P.’s mother was committed to a mental health facility in Mecklenburg County. Prior to her commitment, the mother was living in a group home located in Cabarrus County. While in the mental health facility, A.P.’s mother met with a social worker from Cabarrus County Department of Human Services and expressed an intention to move into her grandfather’s home with A.P. upon her release from the mental health facility. During the mother’s commitment, A.P. was placed with the mother’s case worker from the group home, who resided in Rowan County. Cabarrus County transferred the case to Mecklenburg County, where the grandfather resided.

On November 25, 2015, Mecklenburg County received report of a concerning situation and found the mother living in unacceptable conditions with A.P. and the mother was alleged to have used drugs. The mother agreed to place A.P. back with the case worker in Rowan County. Subsequently, the case worker informed Mecklenburg County that she could no longer care for A.P. and Mecklenburg County “filed a juvenile petition with the District Court in Mecklenburg County alleging that A.P. was a neglected and dependent juvenile.” District Court granted the petition.

The mother objected to the petition based on the argument that Mecklenburg County “lacked standing to file the juvenile petition under the relevant provisions of the Juvenile Code, and therefore, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case.” On appeal, “[t]he Court of Appeals held that [Mecklenburg County] lacked standing because it was not the proper party to file the juvenile petition under N.C.G.S. § 7B-401.1(a), and it vacated the trial court’s order on that basis.” N.C.G.S. § 7B-401.1(a) provides that “[o]nly a county director of social services or the director’s authorized representative may file a petition alleging that a juvenile is abused, neglected, or dependent”. Further, N.C.G.S. § 7B-400(a) provides that “[a] proceeding in which a juvenile is alleged to be abused, neglected, or dependent may be commenced in the district in which the juvenile resides or is present”.

The North Carolina Supreme Court explained that “this rigid interpretation of isolated provisions in the Juvenile Code is unsupported by the whole of the statutory text and creates jurisdictional requirements beyond those which the legislature intended to impose.” “When read holistically with other provisions in the Juvenile Code, the statutory sections governing ‘[p]arties,’ N.C.G.S. § 7B-401.1(a), and ‘[v]enue,’ id. § 7B-400(a), do not mandate dismissal of the juvenile petition in this case. Although subsection 7B-401.1(a) states that ‘[o]nly a county director of social services or the director’s authorized representative may file a petition alleging that a juvenile is abused, neglected, or dependent,’ the statute does not identify which county director of social services must file the petition. Nor does the statute limit the class of proper petitioners to only a subset of county directors of social services.” (internal citation omitted). The Court explained that this contrasted with how “[t]hroughout the Juvenile Code, the legislature intentionally differentiates between references to a director of a department of social services and a particular director of a department of social services.” The Supreme Court also noted that it’s decision “is guided and supported by our oft-recited recognition that ‘the fundamental principle underlying North Carolina’s approach to controversies involving child neglect and custody [is] that the best interest of the child is the polar star.’” The case is In the matter of: A.P., No. 145PA17.

About Janet Pittman Reed

Janet P. Reed is an attorney in Jacksonville, North Carolina, and handles Family Law cases such as Divorce & Separation, Personal Injury, Traffic, Criminal Law, Driver’s License Restoration Services, and Civil Litigation cases.

Attorney Profile:

Janet P. Reed
The Law Office of Attorney Janet Pittman Reed
+1 910-381-1758
email us here
Visit us on social media:

John Locke Foundation: North Carolina’s Juvenile Justice System: An Overview and Raising the Juvenile Age

Source: EIN Presswire

Business Attorney Richard A. Kranitz publishes comment on the issue of arbitration clauses in business agreements

Richard Kranitz, Business Coach in Wisconsin

Richard Kranitz, Business Coach in Wisconsin

Richard A Kranitz, Business Lawyer in Wisconsin

Richard A Kranitz, Business Lawyer in Wisconsin

Attorney Profile Richard Kranitz

Attorney Profile Richard Kranitz

Office of Richard A Kranitz in Wisconsin

Office of Richard A Kranitz in Wisconsin

Think Business Blog by Richard A Kranitz, Wisconsin

Think Business Blog by Richard A Kranitz, Wisconsin

In Midwest Neurosciences Associates, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed whether a dispute should be arbitrated and contemplated the parties' intent

Office of Richard A. Kranitz (N/A:N/A)

In Midwest Neurosciences Associates, the Wisconsin Supreme Court noted that only those disputes that the parties have agreed to so submit to arbitration are relegated to proceed in that forum”

— Richard A. Kranitz, business attorney in Wisconsin

GRAFTON, WISCONSIN, UNITED STATES, February 15, 2019 / — Richard A. Kranitz, in a newly published comment, reviews the issue of arbitration clauses in business agreements. The full comment will be published on his Blog at

Mr. Kranitz explains that, in a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, the Court considered whether a dispute should be arbitrated where the original operating agreement contained an arbitration clause, but the subsequent agreement did not.

In 2015, three doctors, acting through their own legal entities were members of Midwest Neurosciences Associates, LLC (hereinafter “Midwest”). “[O]n August 1, 2005, the parties at issue executed an Operating Agreement which modified a previous operating agreement of August, 2002 so to admit, among others, Dr. Pannu to Midwest. Dr. Pannu executed the Operating Agreement as President of Great Lakes and also signed a personal guaranty for the obligations of Great Lakes. The Operating Agreement contains the arbitration clause at issue.” On March 6, 2006, Dr. Pannu signed the Ancillary Restrictive Covenant that addressed covenant not to compete. “The Ancillary Restrictive Covenant, however, did not specifically incorporate by reference Section 13.7, the arbitration section, of the Operating Agreement.”

The members of Midwest decided to dissolve the LLC in 2015 and dispute arose over whether during the negotiation, parties entered into the Redemption Agreement, which among other things, voided the non-compete provision. Eventually, Midwest and one of the doctor’s entity, NEA, sued Dr. Pannu and his entity, Great Lakes Neurosurgical Associates, LLC. “Before a responsive pleading was filed, Midwest and NEA moved to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration in accordance with Section 13.7 of the Operating Agreement. Midwest and NEA argued that the Operating Agreement was the governing contract between the parties and that Section 13.7 within that agreement unambiguously required the parties to arbitrate violations of Section 8.13 of the Operating Agreement and the Ancillary Restrictive Covenant.” Dr. Pannu filed a responsive pleading asserting that the Redemption Agreement was a valid agreement and thus voided the Operating Agreement and the Ancillary Restrictive Covenant.

“On March 16, 2016, the circuit court issued a written order granting Great Lakes and Dr. Pannu's motion and declaring that the Redemption Agreement was a valid contract. The court determined that as of March 31, 2015, the Operating Agreement and the non-compete provisions of the Ancillary Restrictive Covenant were invalid, unenforceable and/or inapplicable to Great Lakes and Dr. Pannu. The order also denied Midwest and NEA's motion to stay the action and compel arbitration.” Midwest and NEA appealed.

“On December 20, 2017, the court of appeals issued its decision concluding that the ‘determinative question is whether the circuit court erred by not ordering the parties to submit their dispute to arbitration.’ The court of appeals held ‘that the question of whether the arbitration clause was superseded should have been submitted to arbitration.’ As such, the court of appeals declined to address the multiple other issues that Midwest and NEA raised on appeal and reversed and remanded, instructing the circuit court to grant Midwest and NEA's motion to compel arbitration.” (internal citations omitted).

Wisconsin Supreme Court provided a general overview of the principles governing arbitration clauses and noted that “[c]onsequently, only those disputes that the parties have agreed to so submit to arbitration are relegated to proceed in that forum. A court should order arbitration ‘only where the court is satisfied that neither the formation of the parties' arbitration agreement nor (absent a valid provision specifically committing such disputes to an arbitrator) its enforceability or applicability to the dispute is in issue.’” (internal citations omitted).

Noting the various conflicting provisions amongst the Operating Agreement, the Ancillary Restrictive Covenant, and the Redemption Agreement, Wisconsin Supreme Court concluded that “[d]ue to the foregoing, Midwest and NEA failed to demonstrate ‘clear and unmistakable’ intent to arbitrate. Thus, the question of whether the parties agreed to arbitrate must, in this instance, be decided by the circuit court.” The case is Midwest Neurosciences Associates, LLC v. Great Lakes Neurosurgical Associates, LLC, 2018 WI 112.

About Richard A. Kranitz

Richard Kranitz is an experienced attorney and business consultant in the areas of corporate, securities and tax planning for corporations, partnerships, joint ventures, limited liability companies, multi-unit enterprises, and a variety of different non-profit entities. In addition, he has counseled their owners and executives in compensation planning, estate plans, and asset protection.

LinkedIn Profile:
Attorney Profile:
News at:

Richard A. Kranitz, Esq.
Richard A. Kranitz, Esq.
+ + +1 262-375-0625
email us here
Visit us on social media:

CNBC News: Google to make arbitration in harassment cases optional

Source: EIN Presswire

Michael D. Finn, Founder of the Finn Law Group, Explains the “Unconscionable Suppression” of the Timeshare Market

Michael D. Finn, Founder of Finn Law Group

“What’s the difference between a used car and a used timeshare? Value.” – Michael D. Finn

LOS ANGELES, CA, UNITED STATES, February 15, 2019 / — Michael D. Finn, the founder of Finn Law Group, has been a practicing attorney for over 40 years, working on behalf of consumers with real estate, timeshare and fractional ownership issues. In addition, he’s been able to assist clients with mortgage modifications, foreclosure defense and bankruptcy alternatives. Now, the talented attorney shares his views on the “unconscionable suppression” of the timeshare market.

“What’s the difference between a used car and a used timeshare? Value,” states Finn, “A continuously maintained large timeshare unit in a nice resort does not retain its ‘value,’ while a four-year-old sedan with over 50,000 miles on it could be easily resold in the secondary vehicle market with a recovery of over half of its original cost.”

This cavernous disparity in values occurs because there are relatively healthy secondary markets for many consumer products and next to none for timeshares. If someone takes a look at the timeshare industry’s tightfisted control of their markets, where no viable secondary market is permitted to exist, let alone thrive or prosper, they will begin to understand the complexity of the issue. For example, each and every one of the timeshare developers who file documents with the Securities and Exchange Commission to support their public filing requirements have included language in each of their filings that specifically addresses the secondary resale market as a threat to their bottom line. A direct quote from Bluegreen’s SEC filing states, “The resale market for VOIs [vacation ownership interest] could adversely affect our business.”

“It is clear that these developers, in their own words and in their own public filings, all express open antagonism to the very existence of a secondary timeshare resale market!” exclaims Finn. “These developer resort SEC filings conclusively establish that even simply stepping out of the resale channel and permitting other market forces to come in to help stabilize the resale timeshare marketplace without interference from the developers is not an option to be considered, clearly because of the perceived threat to their bottom line.”

While starving the resale market may initially be good for the bottom line, the long-term disadvantages are more dire. Buyers will, over some period of time, get laid off or lose their job, get divorced or otherwise lose their spouse, become sickly or disabled, or die. What happens next in the absence of a structured secondary resale market?

“What if that triggering event happens sooner rather than later and there is still a significant mortgage balance due to the developer?” Finn demands. “What if, balance or not, the developer refuses to take back the interest, leaving ongoing and rising maintenance fees running? Legally that owner remains personally liable for those fees, despite the fact that they purchased the timeshare at full retail cost and supported the resort as long as they could afford to.”

Resort personnel often will then recommend the services of a so called “resale company” who will, more often than not, require an upfront fee to “list” the interest on a website where no one can accurately determine who will see it. The timeshare industry’s position is not only short sighted and socially irresponsible, it’s not sustainable.

A strong resale market will strengthen the industry. There is no better time than now to make the important and essential changes that might, in the short term, slow down profitability, but in the long term, turn the timeshare industry into a more socially responsible and far more sustainable industry for decades to come.

“Timeshare developers should take a hard look at themselves and their industry,” concludes Finn, “Take pride, not just profit, from making family vacations an affordable part of the American lifestyle by opening up that opportunity to even more folks.”

Aurora DeRose
Aurora DeRose
+1 310-396-6090
email us here

Source: EIN Presswire

Former Ohio AG Dann asks Ohio Supreme Court to force OPERS to release info on troublesome investments

Former Ohio AG Dann and investigative reporter are concerned that corruption has crept into the retirement system investment process

CLEVELAND, OHIO, UNITED STATES, February 15, 2019 / — In a pleading filed on Wednesday, February 13, former Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann asked the Ohio Supreme Court to order the release of documents related to the Ohio Public Employee Retirement Systems (OPERS) $300,000,000 investment in hedge funds managed by Glouston Capital Partners, LLC. Dann is seeking a Writ of Mandamus from the Court because OPERS and Glouston have repeatedly refused to comply with public records requests submitted by investigative journalist John Damschroder.

The pleading and documents may be viewed by following the links below:

Damschroder, whose interest in the funds was spurred by reports of the high costs and low returns associated with the state’s hedge fund investments, began filing public records requests with OPERS in June of 2018. Pension system officials were slow to comply and the materials they did provide were heavily redacted including those related to Glouston-controlled single-investor funds Ohio Midwest 1, Ohio Midwest II, Ohio Midwest III and Equity Opportunities. Glouston claimed the redactions were justified because they either involved trade secrets or were protected by confidentiality agreements between the firm and OPERS.

Unsatisfied with Glouston’s response, especially because some of the redacted information was posted on the company’s website and there was no evidence that the confidentiality agreements the firm referenced actually existed, Damschroder resubmitted his public records request on November 15, 2018. Neither OPERS nor Glouston has responded.

In the meantime, Damschroder became concerned that corruption had crept into the investment process when he learned that the Securities and Exchange Commission imposed a $100,000 fine on an Ohio fund manager for violations of the SEC’s “pay-to-play” rules. The Commission noted that persons associated with the fund had made campaign contributions of nearly $50,000 to Ohio’s Governor, Treasurer, and candidates for governor. The SEC Order also noted that the Governor and Treasurer were involved in the decision-making process for the investment of Ohio public pension monies.

The unjustified refusal to turn over public documents combined with the existence of possible corruption motivated Damschroder to reach out to former AG Dann. Ironically, both Dann and Damschroder played key roles in unraveling the Coingate scandal that rocked Ohio government in 2005 and 2006. At that time, the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation refused to release records related to the BWC’s decision to invest more than $50,000,000 in a rare coin fund managed by Republican Party official and major donor Tom Noe.

Eventually, the Ohio Supreme Court ordered the BWC to turn over the documents which revealed a web of corruption that sent Noe to federal prison, cost a number of state employees their jobs, and led to Bob Taft becoming the only governor in Ohio history to plead guilty to crimes while in office. Dann is seeking the Writ of Mandamus on the basis of the Court’s decision in the Coingate case.

Both Dann and Damschroder are concerned about the parallels between the Coingate affair and the Glouston-managed hedge funds—a concern intensified by the fact that Glouston has invested money in Drive Capital, a private equity fund co-founded by Mark Kvamme, a venture capitalist who is close to former Gov. John Kasich. Kasich recruited Kvamme to move from California to run JobsOhio in 2011, a position he left a year later.

“You would have to be blind to miss the similarities between the two situations,” Dann said. “Any time a government agency works this hard to keep secrets you just have to wonder what they have to hide. Maybe it’s nothing, maybe it’s something, but the public has a right to know and we’re going to fight to protect that right.”

The Dann Law Firm
email us here

Source: EIN Presswire

"Read the Fine Print Before Accidentally Giving Away Your Technology" – article by attorneys Frank Lauletta & Randy Ford

Office of Lauletta Birnbaum, Frank Lauletta, Partner

Office of Lauletta Birnbaum, Frank Lauletta, Partner

Lauletta Birnbaum, Attorney Frank A. Lauletta

Lauletta Birnbaum, Attorney Frank A. Lauletta

Frank Lauletta, Partner at the Law Firm Lauletta Birnbaum

Frank Lauletta, Partner at the Law Firm Lauletta Birnbaum

Frank Lauletta, Attorney Profile at

Frank Lauletta, Attorney Profile at

591 Mantua Blvd, location of Lauletta Birnbaum and Vert Properties (Frank Lauletta, Attorney)

591 Mantua Blvd, location of Lauletta Birnbaum and Vert Properties (Frank Lauletta, Attorney)

Beware and be careful not to give away your valuable intellectual property when distributing your goods or services.

Lauletta Birnbaum (N/A:N/A)

No matter how imposing or non-negotiable a customer’s form of agreement may appear, don’t be afraid to ask for a change.”

— Frank A. Lauletta & Randy Ford, Attorneys at Lauletta Birnbaum

SEWELL, NEW JERSEY, UNITED STATES, February 15, 2019 / — Seller beware. Whether you are a software company, cloud-based service provider, data provider, IT vendor, research firm, or any other business that sells products or services based on proprietary technology or concepts, beware and be careful not to give away your valuable intellectual property when distributing your goods or services.

Businesses that sell a technology or other proprietary service are often selling to larger more established companies. Many large companies have a standard one-size-fits-all form of vendor services agreement used for everything from staplers to sophisticated software. Often the form agreement is written based on the assumption that you (the vendor) are creating the technology, concept, or idea specifically for this customer and that the entire work product being delivered belongs to the customer. Another common provision that is less onerous but can nonetheless be problematic is when the form agreement states that you (the vendor) own the underlying concept or technology but that any modifications, enhancements, or customizations completed in connection with the services belong to the customer.

In either event, signing such a vendor agreement could have a long-term, negative impact on your ability to grow and expand your business in the future. In the first situation, you have arguably sold your entire technology to your customer. In the second situation, you have kept the underlying technology or know-how, but have limited your ability to sell or license functionality or know-how you may have developed while working with that customer to other potential customers. It is not uncommon that your other customers and prospective customers have the same or similar functionality requirements but just haven’t contacted you yet. You do not want to restrict your ability to work with other customers requiring similar work for which you have experience in providing.

Read the Fine Print

Just because the agreement looks like a preprinted form with dense type and hard to read paragraphs doesn’t mean it isn’t enforceable. In fact, it probably is and, furthermore, a customer that believes it purchased proprietary technology from you may very well seek to protect that ownership. The customer most likely does not intend to go into your business itself, but the customer may be very interested in keeping its competitors from benefitting from the services that you provided to them. In sum, any vendor agreement form presented by a potential customer should be reviewed carefully to ensure that it does not jeopardize your ability to continue to market and distribute your technology, concept or services to others.

If You Don’t Ask, the Answer is “No”

No matter how imposing or non-negotiable a customer’s form of agreement may appear, don’t be afraid to ask for a change. If a potential customer objects to making any changes you can always agree to sign it later, but if you don’t ask, you have no chance of protecting yourself. It is rare that a potential customer will walk away simply because you asked to make a change to an agreement, and if the potential customer does, it may likely be an excuse as opposed to a reason. Finally, failure to suggest any changes to an agreement may be viewed as a red-flag by the customer that your business is not taking appropriate risk avoidance measures or is under-funded.

Ask Nicely

Negotiating changes to a vendor agreement does not need to be a hard-nosed adversarial process. Ask nicely. Point out that the form agreement does not fit the circumstances of your particular product or service. A potential customer is much more likely to agree to change its form agreement to reflect that you retain ownership of your technology during the negotiation process before you sign the agreement, than cede ownership of it after you sign.

About the Authors:

For more information related to negotiating and finalizing licensing agreements, distribution agreements and other commercial contracts, contact Frank Lauletta ( or Randy Ford ( of Lauletta Birnbaum LLC.

About Frank A. Lauletta

As a general corporate attorney, Frank Lauletta’s practice focuses heavily on representing and counseling a broad array of emerging growth and established companies in both the public and private sectors. With his broad legal experience, executive-level background, and vast relationships in the legal, venture capital, and high technology communities, Frank is uniquely suited to serve as outside general counsel to clients. Working closely with executive management teams, Frank currently serves in this capacity to a number of software, telecommunications, and high technology companies throughout the United States.

Bio of attorney Frank Lauletta on law firm website:
Attorney Profile:
Blog of Frank Lauletta:
LinkedIn Profile:
Law Directory:

Caitlin Mattera
Lauletta Birnbaum
+1 856-232-1600
email us here
Visit us on social media:

Source: EIN Presswire

AAAPG Presents Tampa Guardianship Event

Educate, Advocate, Legislate present a daylong symposium on abusive guardianship followed by he Florida pemiere of "The Guardians"

Abusive guardianships are on the rise.For victims and their families trapped in this opaque and highly intrusive, complex legal system, the abuse and vilification they all suffer is unspeakable.””

— Sam J Sugar

International Award-winning documentary “The Guardians” comes to Tampa Theater
FREE Event “Preventing Abuse and Protecting Rights” Open to Public

(Tampa, FL – January 29, 2019) – Imagine a system of justice in this country that strips its citizens of their Constitutional rights, voids their existing legal documents, gives others the right to spend their money and sell their assets, isolates them, and limits the time they can spend with their loved ones.

This actually is reality to an estimated 3 million American adults who have been placed into guardianships, including as many 65,000 Floridians who are deemed “wards of the state.” Due to the aging US population, from longer life spans and 10,000 baby boomers turning 65 every day, the number of wards are increasing at a rate of 10% annually. Deemed the crime of the century, current figures show that it has become an over $1.5 trillion market; a heinous “cottage industry” of greed waging war against vulnerable adults and their families

“Abusive guardianships are on the rise,” says Dr. Sam J. Sugar, founder of Ft. Lauderdale-based Americans Against Abusive Probate Guardianship (AAAPG). “Although they may constitute a minority of guardianships, for victims and their families trapped in this opaque and highly intrusive, complex legal system, the abuse and vilification they all suffer is unspeakable.”

Sugar, a licensed physician and Certified Florida Probate Court Examiner, is the organizer of the free #TampaGuardianshipEvent on February 20, 2019. It will be held from 2:00 – 11:00 pm EST at the Tampa Theatre, 711 North Franklin Street, Tampa, FL 33602. The public is invited and admission is free.

National guardianship and elder justice experts will share critical information that the public needs to be aware of to prevent guardianships as well as actions to protect their rights and those of their loved ones. Additional topics include current legislative activities, accounting procedures for families, disability rights as well as coping techniques for the isolation, over-medication, and estate liquidation often seen in abusive guardianships.

Besides Sugar, who authored Guardianships and the Elderly, The Perfect Crime (a 2018 Amazon #1 Best New Release), speakers include: Judge Michelle Morley, FL Fifth Circuit Court; Linda Fieldstone, FL Supreme Court Certified Family Mediator; Eileen Leslie, CPA, CFE; Thomas F. Coleman Esq, Spectrum Institute; Rick Black, Director at CEAR; and Tampa attorney J. Ronald Denman of Bleakley Bavol Denman & Grace, Attorneys at Law.
The jaw-dropping and unnerving documentary “The Guardians,” will make its Florida debut at the 7 pm evening session, followed by a panel discussion with probate attorneys from Tampa's Bleakley Bavol Denman and Grace law firm. With all the trappings of a Hollywood movie – kidnapping, corruption, lies, theft, and deceit – producer Billie Mintz has poignantly brought to the big screen the reality of daily life for many elderly people caught up in America’s corrupt court system. This 2018 documentary depicts true stories of Las Vegas, NV seniors with guardians who are forcibly removing them from their homes, isolating them from families and emptying their bank accounts. “This is a film where the phrase ‘seeing is believing’ has never rung truer,” states Sugar.

For more information, go to For FREE reservations and admission tickets, click:
Link for Reservations
# # #

Sam J Sugar
+1 855-913-5337
email us here

Source: EIN Presswire

Kenneth Saffren, Attorney, Explains What Property Damage Claim Time Limits Are

Ken Saffren, Attorney, explains property damage time limits.

Ken Saffren, Attorney, explains property damage time limits.

Ken Saffren Attorney

Ken Saffren Attorney

Saffren and Weinberg - Personal Injury Attorneys

Kenneth Saffren, attorney at the firm Saffren & Weinberg, explains how property damage claims have time limits.

One of the most important elements to understand in a civil lawsuit is the statute of limitations and how your state applies it to your case.”

— Kenneth Saffren, Esq.

JENKINTOWN, PA, UNITED STATES, February 14, 2019 / — +

At Saffren and Weinberg, Kenneth Saffren, Attorney and Kenneth Scott Saffren, Attorney are partners. The firm’s tagline is “The People’s Voice In Court.” They make themselves available via phone at (215) 309-9577 or by email on the Saffren and Weinberg website. Saffren and Weinberg provide a no-charge, complimentary case review and answers questions for prospective clients.

What are Property Damage Claim Time Limits in NJ and PA?

Whether you are in Pennsylvania or New Jersey, if you have suffered property damage at the hands of someone else’s intentional action, you may be considering filing a civil lawsuit. One of the most important elements to understand in a civil lawsuit is the statute of limitations and how your state applies it to your case.

The “Statute of Limitations” is a state law that sets a strictly-enforced deadline for initiating a case in civil court. If the deadline is missed, you lose your legal right to bring a case before the court. Both New Jersey and Pennsylvania have passed the statute of limitations for various types of civil cases.

What is Pennsylvania’s Property Damage Lawsuit Filing Deadline?

Property damage claims involving “real” property (houses, buildings, or physical land) and personal property (including vehicle damage) carry the same statute of limitations for filing deadlines. The Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes sets a two-year filing deadline for: 1) an action for “taking, detaining, or injuring personal property” or 2) an action for injury or trespass to real property.

So, any vehicle damage claim following a car accident must be made within two years to meet the property damage claim time limit. This same deadline applies to all homeowners’ insurance lawsuits filed by homeowner’s seeking recovery for physical damage to the exterior of their home that was caused by someone else, such as a neighbor.

The clock begins to run on the day of the accident that caused the damage. An attorney at law can help you potentially push the filing deadline back by showing that you, the property owner, had no way to have reasonably known of the damage or discovered it right away.

What Happens if You Miss the Filing Deadline in Pennsylvania?

There are certain situations in which a property damage attorney will be able to help you extend the lawsuit filing deadline. For example, in Pennsylvania, if a property owner is under the age of 18 when the damage occurs to the property, the property owner will have two full years to file a lawsuit after their eighteenth birthday.

Another situation in which the statute of limitations to file can be extended involves actions of the defendant. If the defendant leaves the state in which the damage occurred, before a lawsuit is filed against them, the time in which they are missing will typically not be counted against the two-year limitation. This rule is provided in Title 42 Section 5532.

What is New Jersey’s Filing Deadline?

The filing deadlines in New Jersey apply to property damage lawsuits where the plaintiff is seeking repair or replacement of damaged real property (houses, buildings, or physical land) or personal property (including vehicle damage). New Jersey Revised Statutes provides a six-year window for claims to be brought for any negligent conduct that results in injury to real or personal property. It is important to remember that this filing deadline will apply to any claim that is brought in an effort to recover monetary damages for damaged property. This includes both standalone suits or single parts of larger legal actions.

What Happens if You Miss the Filing Deadline in New Jersey?

New Jersey allows the time limit to be extended if the defendant leaves the state after damaging your property. If he or she cannot be served with legal papers, the clock may be suspended for the length of time in which the defendant cannot be located. New Jersey also provides the same exception and extension of time for property owners who are under the age of 18 at the time that property damage occurs as Pennsylvania.

If for some reason you are unable to fill out your property damage claim form, there may be other exceptions in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey to extend your statute of limitations and offer you a legal remedy for the property damage you have suffered.

If you have a deadline that is rapidly approaching or if the filing deadline has passed, contact Saffren & Weinberg at 215-576-0100 for the best in legal counsel.

Kenneth Scott Saffren / About the author

Attorney Kenneth Saffren, Esq, is a partner of Saffren & Weinberg located in Jenkintown, PA, practicing in workers’ compensation, social security, and personal injury litigation. He is a member of both the United States District Court of New Jersey and Eastern District of Pennsylvania Supreme Court, as well as PHN Epsilon Roe.

This release was drafted by Results Driven Marketing, LLC: a full-service digital marketing, public relations, advertising and content marketing firm located in Philadelphia, PA

Related Materials:

Ken Saffren – Attorney in Jenkintown

PA Workers’ Compensation Attorney Kenneth Saffren

PA Back Injury Attorney Kenneth Saffren

Ken Saffren, Partner
Saffren & Weinberg
+1 215-393-8700
email us here

Source: EIN Presswire