Category: rcutooqh

Category: rcutooqh

first_img With both sides wary of tampering, a government professor tries to game the game on what tactics could follow a close result How white evangelicals tour the nation’s capital and redeem a Christian America Related How to change an election COVID procedural complications, crises of voter confidence promise a rocky ride The qualitative component looks at the content and rhetoric spread from March through August, digging into the top tweets, public Facebook posts, and online articles about voter fraud during these time periods. It also accounts for critical examples of voter fraud shared on cable TV news from political hosts. Through this analysis, the researchers again found that Donald Trump, members of the Republican National Committee, Republican officials, and other public figures were strikingly prominent in tracing the peaks of attention paid to the false voter fraud narrative.Benkler and the research team found that the disinformation campaign, led by Donald Trump and the Republican party, was also enabled by practices of objective journalism which favor neutrality and sharing perspectives from “both sides.” This approach is failing, the researchers argue, because it’s further spreading the false voter fraud narrative in a flawed attempt at “balanced” reporting.“We constantly talk about social media disinformation, Facebook fact checking, or counterintelligence against Russian interference. But our research suggests that these play a secondary role in the most important disinformation campaign likely to affect voter participation and public perceptions of legitimacy of the election’s outcomes,” Benkler said.Instead, as the report concludes, “it will be critical for editors of these national and local media, particularly on the television stations trusted by the least politically pre-committed and often least politically attentive citizens not to fall for the strategy that the president has used so skillfully in the past six months, not to capitulate to the inevitable charges of partisanship that will befall any journalists and editors who call the disinformation campaign by its name, and not to add confusion and uncertainty to their readers, viewers, and listeners by emphasizing false equivalents or diverting attention to exotic, but according to our research, peripheral actors like Facebook clickbait artists or Russian trolls.”The research team, in addition to Benkler, includes Casey Tilton, Bruce Etling, Hal Roberts, Justin Clark, Robert Faris, Jonas Kaiser, and Carolyn Schmitt. Voter fraud by mail-in ballots is rare. Yet claims of  “mail-in voter fraud” are spreading through mainstream media, cable and local television, and on social media sites in the lead up to the 2020 U.S. presidential election.A new report from Harvard Law School Professor Yochai Benkler ’94 and a team of researchers from the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society shows that this disinformation campaign — intentionally spreading false information in order to deceive — is largely led by political elites and the mass media. The report also shows that President Donald Trump, the Republican National Committee, Republican officials, and other public figures are central to fueling the dissemination of and attention to voter fraud claims online.“We recognized the narrative that Donald Trump starting spreading earlier this year was going to play a significant role in the turnout and legitimacy of the 2020 election,” said Benkler, the Berkman Professor of Entrepreneurial Legal Studies and co-director of the Berkman Klein Center. “Surveys are telling us that concerns of voter fraud are disproportionately held by Republican voters, which is reflective of the deeply asymmetric media ecosystem, as we showed in our work on the 2016 election. This false narrative may have critical implications for the outcome of the 2020 election and democracy at large.”,Using Media Cloud, an open-source tool that provides access to data from online media sources, as well as data from Twitter and public Facebook posts, the team used quantitative and qualitative methods to trace and analyze the discourse surrounding voter fraud in the U.S. media ecosystem. This method revealed that throughout the media ecosystem, conversations about voter fraud, in online news, Twitter, and Facebook, largely followed an agenda set by Donald Trump through tweets, media appearances, and press conferences.First, the team created network maps to illustrate the relationships between media outlets across the political spectrum. The team used data from Twitter to characterize the audience mix of different media outlets divided into quintiles: left, center-left, center, center-right, and right. One of the maps they share is based on linking data from online media outlets. In addition to showing how Fox News and right-wing media still exist in their own, distinct cluster, while the rest of the media ecosystem, from the center to the left, forms a single connected ecosystem, it also highlights how central Donald Trump’s Twitter account is to discourse about mail-in voting fraud.“What we found striking from this network map in particular is the placement of Donald Trump’s Twitter account closer to center and center-left leaning media outlets. This image captures how well the president was able to command coverage and set the agenda of American public debate over mail-in voting, communicated through major media outlets like CNN, the Washington Post, the New York Times. It also emphasized the large impact of syndicated news producers like the Associated Press and NPR,” said Benkler. “This false narrative [about voter fraud] may have critical implications for the outcome of the 2020 election and democracy at large.” — Yochai Benkler Challenges mount for election officials Faith in the ballotlast_img read more


Category: rcutooqh

first_img View Comments While most shows faced a slump over Halloween, the Great White Way picked itself back up this past week as almost every production celebrated a box office increase, many by more than $100,000. King Charles III, which opened to glowing reviews on November 1, made over $200,000 more than it did in the previous week. Additional shows to receive significant bumps include perennial hits Matilda, Kinky Boots and Wicked. Hamilton, which added an additional performance on November 2 for a Democratic Party fundraiser, topped the charts. Meanwhile, new Hand to God star Bob Saget increased the show’s capacity by almost 20% in his first week of performances, though the play still held the bottom spot by both capacity and gross. It is scheduled to close on January 3, 2016.Here’s a look at who was on top—and who was not—for the week ending November 8:FRONTRUNNERS (By Gross)1. Hamilton ($1,772,253)*2. The Lion King ($1,764,832)3. Wicked ($1,583,873)4. The Book of Mormon ($1,500,520)5. Aladdin ($1,486,244)UNDERDOGS (By Gross)5. Sylvia ($387,731)4. Fool For Love ($276,741)3. Dames at Sea ($258,915)2. Lord of the Dance: Dangerous Games ($231,662)***1. Hand to God ($210,937)FRONTRUNNERS (By Capacity)1. The Book of Mormon (102.58%)2. Hamilton (101.35%)*3. The Lion King (99.75%)4. China Doll (99.36%)**5. Aladdin (99.02%)UNDERDOGS (By Capacity)5. Les Miserables (68.36%)4. Spring Awakening (66.23%)3. Sylvia (64.02%)2. Lord of the Dance: Dangerous Games (58.47%)***1. Hand to God (55.94%)* Number based on nine regular performances** Number based on six preview performances***Number based on four preview performancesSource: The Broadway Leaguelast_img read more


Category: rcutooqh

first_imgThe chief executives of Vermont s leading businesses seem cautious over sales prospects and employment levels for the spring and summer when compared to their fourth quarter 2008 forecasts, and they are unlikely to make broad capital investments. But the attitude of the business community appears to have stabilized. The mood was assessed at the end of the first quarter and released today by Vermont Business Roundtable Chair Bill Stritzler and President Lisa Ventriss. Interestingly, our members responses appear to be very similar to last quarter, which suggests that employers are in a wait and see frame of mind.With economic stimulus monies and the summer tourism season on the horizon, employers are not ready to commit themselves until they see further developments. Ventriss said.Chair Stritzler, who is managing director of the Jeffersonville-based Smugglers Notch Resort, says the results of the CEO survey reflect the realities of the marketplace. The news has been full of bad reports for business over the past three months, so CEOs wariness of business prospects over the next six months is understandable. A good summer tourism season, however, could change a lot of perspectives.The Roundtable s CEO Economic Outlook Survey provides a forward-looking view of the economic assumptions and attitudes of chief executive officers for 100 of the state s top employers. Vermont s agriculture, construction, education, health services, finance, real estate, insurance, hospitality/leisure, manufacturing, information, utilities, professional/business services, wholesale trade, and non-profit industries are represented. The response rate for this quarter was 46 percent. Historically, rates have varied from 40 to 73 percent.1. How do you expect your company s sales to change in the next six months?  Sales INCREASE NO CHANGE DECREASE Q1 2004 83% 13% 4% Q2 2004 80% 15% 4% Q3 2004 71% 25% 4% Q4 2004 77% 22% 1% Q1 2005 78% 19% 3% Q2 2005 75% 23% 2% Q3 2005 74% 24% 2% Q4 2005 72% 24% 4% Q1 2006 78% 20% 2% Q2 2006 78% 22% 0% Q3 2006 69% 25% 6% Q4 2006 73% 23% 4% Q3 2008 51% 35% 14% Q4 2008 27% 46% 27% Q1 2009 33% 30% 37%Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.2. How do you expect your company s capital spending to change in the next six months? Capital INCREASE NO CHANGE DECREASE Q1 2004 62% 30% 8% Q2 2004 43% 41% 15% Q3 2004 51% 42% 7% Q4 2004 45% 46% 9% Q1 2005 55% 37% 8% Q2 2005 49% 43% 8% Q3 2005 57% 38% 5% Q4 2005 50% 35% 15% Q1 2006 45% 45% 10% Q2 2006 53% 40% 7% Q3 2006 40% 50% 10% Q4 2006 56% 39% 5% Q3 2008 38% 42% 20% Q4 2008 17 % 43% 40% Q1 2009 12% 38% 50%Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.3. How do you expect your company s employment to change in the next six months? Employment INCREASE NO CHANGE DECREASE Q1 2004 57% 38% 4% Q2 2004 50% 48% 2% Q3 2004 59% 37% 4% Q4 2004 58% 39% 3% Q1 2005 55% 38% 7% Q2 2005 49% 42% 9% Q3 2005 49% 44% 7% Q4 2005 60% 35% 5% Q1 2006 54% 39% 7% Q2 2006 50% 45% 5% Q3 2006 43% 49% 7% Q4 2006 53% 41% 5% Q3 2008 40% 42% 18% Q4 2008 25% 35% 40% Q1 2009 23% 37% 40%Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.The Roundtable is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization of 100 CEOs of Vermont’s top private and nonprofit employers, representing geographic diversity and all major sectors of the Vermont economy. The Roundtable is committed to sustaining a sound economy and preserving Vermont s unique quality of life by studying and make recommendations on statewide public policy issues.last_img read more


Category: rcutooqh

first_imgFloridaKirk L. GravelleJacksonvilleLetter of Admonition New YorkTodd M. DudonisEast NorthportLetter of Admonition CaliforniaGene BaynesSan DiegoRevocation New YorkJoseph L. DowneyMassapequa ParkLetter of Admonition FloridaHenry T. GoodeMelbourneSuspension OregonJo Rae PerkinsAlbanyRevocation ArizonaDavid B. GarrisonTonopahSuspension OregonDavid W. GwynnEugeneRevocation New YorkDavid ChinNew York CitySuspension MassachusettsRobert L. O’NeilMedfordSuspension TexasCraig R. BrockmanPlanoRevocation MarylandWilliam F. ColeCaliforniaSuspension MichiganDavid Philip GlobigSpring ArborLetter of Admonition Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, Inc. announces public disciplinary actions against the following individuals’ right to use the CFP® certification marks, effective immediately.Public disciplinary actions taken by CFP Board, in order of increasing severity, include letters of admonition, suspensions and permanent revocations.  The basis for each decision can be found in a Disciplinary Action Report below and on CFP Board’s Web site. Consumers may check on any planner’s disciplinary history and certification status with CFP Board at www.CFP.net/search(link is external) .CFP Board’s Standards of Professional Conduct, which includes the Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Rules of Conduct and Financial Planning Practice Standards, sets forth the ethical standards for financial planners who hold the CFP® certification.  CFP Board enforces its ethical standards by investigating incidents of alleged unethical behavior, and following the procedures established in CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures.  In cases where violations are found, CFP Board may impose discipline ranging from a private censure or public letter of admonition to the suspension or revocation of the right to use the CFP® marks. The Disciplinary Rules and Procedures set forth a fair process for investigating matters and imposing discipline where necessary.CFP Board’s enforcement process is a critical consumer protection.  CFP® professionals agree to abide by CFP Board’s Standards of Professional Conduct, which sets forth their ethical responsibilities to the public, clients and employers. CFP® practitioners agree to act fairly and diligently when providing clients with financial planning advice and services, putting the clients’ interests first.  STATENAMELOCATIONDISCIPLINE New YorkScott M. FitzgeraldMelvilleLetter of Admonition MarylandKathy W. GordonSnow HillSuspension IllinoisRichard KonstChicagoLetter of Admonition New YorkMatthew D. WeitzmanArmonkRevocation OhioJoseph D. BonannoCantonRevocation TexasLinnie Logan PhebusAustinLetter of Admonition TexasLance R. McCollumItascaSuspension DISCIPLINARY ACTION REPORTLETTERS OF ADMONITIONFLORIDAKirk L. Gravelle (Jacksonville):  In October 2010, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued a Letter of Admonition to Mr. Gravelle.  This discipline followed CFP Board’s investigation of allegations that Mr. Gravelle intentionally misidentified solicited transactions as unsolicited in an effort to circumvent his firm’s “Do Not Solicit” list.  Mr. Gravelle was suspended and fined by his employer as a result of this action.  The Commission determined that Mr. Gravelle’s conduct violated Rules 102, 201, 406, 606(b) and 607 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility, and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(a) of CFP Board’sDisciplinary Rules and Procedures.  Accordingly, the Commission admonished Mr. Gravelle with regard to the above-mentioned conduct.ILLINOISRichard Konst (Chicago): In October 2010, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued a Letter of Admonition to Mr. Konst.  This discipline followed CFP Board’s investigation of allegations that Mr. Konst facilitated market timing in the mutual fund sub-accounts of a client’s variable annuities.  The National Association of Securities Dealers (“NASD,” now known as the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. or “FINRA”) censured and fined Mr. Konst as a result of his market timing activities.  The Commission determined that Mr. Konst participated in the implementation of a market timing strategy that was designed specifically to avoid detection by insurance companies trying to monitor excessive trading in variable annuities.  The Commission determined that Mr. Konst’s conduct violated Rules 102, 201, 406, 606(a), 606(b) and 607 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility, and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(a) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures.  Accordingly, the Commission admonished Mr. Konst with regard to the above-mentioned conduct.  MICHIGANDavid Phillip Globig (Spring Arbor): In October 2010, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued a Letter of Admonition to Mr. Globig.  This discipline followed CFP Board’s investigation of allegations that Mr. Globig entered into a Consent Order with the State of Michigan Office of Financial and Insurance Services in which he agreed to: 1) cease and desist from conducting business as an investment advisor in the state without being registered; 2) pay a civil fine; and 3) disgorge advisory fees collected from clients.  The Commission determined that Mr. Globig’s conduct violated Rules 201, 606(a), 606(b) and 607 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(a) of CFP Board’sDisciplinary Rules and Procedures.  Accordingly, the Commission admonished Mr. Globig with regard to the above-mentioned conduct.  NEW YORKTodd M. Dudonis (East Northport):  In October 2010, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued a Letter of Admonition to Mr. Dudonis.  This discipline followed CFP Board’s investigation of Mr. Dudonis’ 90-day suspension by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”).  Without admitting or denying FINRA’s findings, Mr. Dudonis consented to the finding that he signed his branch office manager’s name on a “Change of Agent of Record” form without the branch office manager’s authorization, knowledge or consent, in violation of NASD Conduct Rule 2110.  The Commission determined that Mr. Dudonis’ conduct violated Rules 102, 201, 406, 606(a), 606(b) and 607 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility, and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(a) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”).  Accordingly, the Commission admonished Mr. Dudonis with regard to the above-mentioned conduct.  Joseph L. Downey ( Massapequa Park): In October 2010, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued a Letter of Admonition to Mr. Downey.  This discipline followed CFP Board’s investigation of allegations that Mr. Downey referred clients’ accounts to a registered investment adviser who had not been approved by Mr. Downey’s firm, without the clients’ authorization, knowledge or consent, in violation of the firm’s policy.  The Commission determined that Mr. Downey’s conduct violated Rules 102, 201, 406, 606(b) and 607 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility, and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(a) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures.  Accordingly, the Commission admonished Mr. Downey with regard to the above-mentioned conduct.  Scott M. Fitzgerald (Melville):  In October 2010, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued a Letter of Admonition to Mr. Fitzgerald.  This discipline followed CFP Board’s investigation of allegations that Mr. Fitzgerald entered into a stipulation with the New York Insurance Department in which he agreed to a fine and the finding that he violated New York insurance law when he neglected to complete the proper forms in connection with the replacement of a client’s annuity contract.  The Commission determined that Mr. Fitzgerald’s conduct violated Rules 201, 606(a), 606(b) and 701 of the CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility, and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(a) of the Disciplinary Rules and Procedures.  Accordingly, the Commission admonished Mr. Fitzgerald with regard to the above-mentioned conduct.TEXASLinnie Logan Phebus (Austin):  In October 2010, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued a Letter of Admonition to Ms. Phebus.  This discipline followed CFP Board’s investigation of Ms. Phebus’ 2007 conviction for felony assault, which led to Ms. Phebus’ statutory disqualification by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”).  Ms. Phebus did not report her criminal conviction to CFP Board within ten calendar days of receiving notification of the conviction, as required by Article 12.2 of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”).  The Commission determined that Ms. Phebus’ conduct violated Rule 607 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility, and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(a), 3(c), and 3(e) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules.  Accordingly, the Commission admonished Ms. Phebus with regard to the above-mentioned conduct.UTAHRobert P. Aamodt (Farmington):  In October 2010, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued a Letter of Admonition to Mr. Aamodt.  This discipline followed CFP Board’s investigation of Mr. Aamodt’s Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) suspension and fine for personally reimbursing losses in a client’s account in violation of NASD Conduct Rules 2330(f) and 2110.  CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”) determined that Mr. Aamodt’s conduct violated Rules 201, 202, 406, 606(a), 606(b), 607 and 701 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility, and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(a) and 3(d) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures.  Accordingly, the Commission admonished Mr. Aamodt with regard to the above-mentioned conduct.INTERIM SUSPENSIONILLINOISAlgird M. Norkus (Oak Brook):  In December 2010, CFP Board issued an Interim Suspension Order suspending Mr. Norkus’ right to use the CFP® certification marks.  CFP Board initiated interim suspension proceedings following: 1) notification by the Illinois Securities Department of a Temporary Order of Prohibition and Suspension of Registration against Mr. Norkus for alleged fraud in the sale of securities; and 2) discovery of allegations that the SEC barred Mr. Norkus following the issuance of an SEC Complaint that alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for engaging in fraud in the sale of promissory notes.  Mr. Norkus failed to respond to CFP Board’s Order to Show Cause within 20 calendar days of the date of service, as required by Article 5.1 of CFP Board’sDisciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”).  Accordingly, pursuant to Article 5.4 of theDisciplinary Rules, the allegations set forth in the Order to Show Cause were deemed admitted, and CFP Board issued an Interim Suspension Order, effective December 22, 2010. Under the Interim Suspension Order, Mr. Norkus’ right to use the CFP® certification marks is suspended pending CFP Board’s completed investigation, and possible further disciplinary proceedings.  SUSPENSIONSARIZONADavid B. Garrison (Tonopah):  In October 2010, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued an order suspending Mr. Garrison’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for one year and one day.  The suspension followed CFP Board’s investigation of Mr. Garrison’s 2010 Chapter 7 Bankruptcy filing.  The Commission determined that Mr. Garrison’s conduct violated Rule 6.5 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(a) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”).  Accordingly, the Commission suspended Mr. Garrison’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for one year and one day, pursuant to Article 4.3 of the Disciplinary Rules.  Mr. Garrison’s suspension is effective from December 23, 2010 to December 24, 2011.      FLORIDAHenry T. Goode (Melbourne):  In October 2010, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued an order suspending Mr. Goode’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for three years.  The suspension followed CFP Board’s investigation of Mr. Goode’s: 1) termination from his broker dealer following a customer complaint wherein it was alleged Mr. Goode failed to execute the client’s order; 2) entering into a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) in which he consented to a suspension and fine for the same conduct; and 3) 2010 Chapter 7 Bankruptcy filing.  The Commission determined that Mr. Goode’s conduct violated Rules 201, 406, 606(b), 607, and 701 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics, andRule 6.5 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(a) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”).  Accordingly, the Commission suspended Mr. Goode’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for three years, pursuant to Article 4.3 of the Disciplinary Rules.  Mr. Goode’s suspension is effective from December 20, 2010 to December 20, 2013.      Andrew W. MacGill (Tampa):  In October 2010, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued an order suspending Mr. MacGill’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for six months.  This discipline followed CFP Board’s investigation of allegations that Mr. MacGill recommended an unsuitable level of concentration in reverse convertible notes (“RCNs”) in clients’ accounts.  As a result of the unsuitable recommendations, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) suspended Mr. MacGill for 15 days, and ordered him to pay a$10,000 fine and disgorge $2,023 in commissions he had earned on the sale of the RCNs.  Mr. MacGill did not report his suspension to CFP Board within ten calendar days of receiving notification of the suspension, as required by Article 12.2 of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”).  The Commission determined that Mr. MacGill’s conduct violated Rules 201, 406, 606(a), 606(b), 607, and 701 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility, and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(a), 3(d), and 3(e) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules.  Accordingly, the Commission suspended Mr. MacGill’s right to use the CFP® certification marks, pursuant to Article 4.3 of the  Disciplinary Rules.  Mr. MacGill’s suspension is effective from December 2, 2010 to June 2, 2011.MARYLANDWilliam F. Cole (California):  In October 2010, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued an order suspending Mr. Cole’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for one year and one day.  The suspension followed CFP Board’s investigation of Mr. Cole’s 2010 Chapter 7 Bankruptcy filing.  The Commission determined that Mr. Cole’s conduct violated Rule 6.5 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(a) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”).  Accordingly, the Commission suspended Mr. Cole’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for one year and one day, pursuant to Article 4.3 of the Disciplinary Rules.  Mr. Cole’s suspension is effective from December 20, 2010 toDecember 21, 2011.      Kathy J. Gordon (Snow Hill): In December 2010, following a hearing before CFP Board’s Appeals Committee, CFP Board issued an order affirming the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission’s (“Commission”) revocation of Ms. Gordon’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for four years.  This discipline followed CFP Board’s investigation of Ms. Gordon’s: 1) recommendation to her clients to purchase promissory notes from her son’s real estate development company; 2) failure to timely renew her CFP® certification; 3) November 2007 entry into a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) wherein she agreed to a three-month suspension; and 4) entering into a December 2008 Consent Agreement with the State of Maryland related to the promissory notes, pursuant to which she received a fine and became subject to special supervision for three years.  The Commission determined that Ms. Gordon’s conduct violated Rules 102, 201, 401(a), 606(a), 606(b), 607 and 612 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(a), 3(d) and 3(e) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”).  Accordingly, the Commission suspended Ms. Gordon’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for four years, pursuant to Article 4.3 of the Disciplinary Rules.  Ms. Gordon’s suspension is effective from March 27, 2009 through March 27, 2013.MASSACHUSETTSRobert L. O’Neil (Medford):  In October 2010, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued an order suspending Mr. O’Neil’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for one month.  The suspension followed CFP Board’s investigation of a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) inquiry that resulted in a Cautionary Action Letter.  Following a hearing, the Commission found that Mr. O’Neil: 1) signed the names of 24 clients on account transfer documents; and 2) violated NASD Conduct Rule 2110, which requires FINRA members to observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principals of trade.  The Commission determined that Mr. O’Neil’s conduct violated Rules 102, 201, 406, 606(a), 606(b) and 607 of CFP Board’sCode of Ethics and Professional Responsibility, and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(a) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”).  Accordingly, the Commission suspended Mr. O’Neil’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for one month, pursuant to Article 4.3 of the Disciplinary Rules.  Mr. O’Neil’s suspension was effective from December 15, 2010 toJanuary 14, 2011.NEW YORKDavid Chin (New York):  In October 2010, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued an order suspending Mr. Chin’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for thirty days.  This discipline followed CFP Board’s investigation of allegations that Mr. Chin signed a customer’s name on documents without the customer’s consent.  As a result, Mr. Chin was suspended for 30 days and fined by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) for violating NASD Conduct Rule 2110.  The Commission determined that Mr. Chin:  1) signed a customer’s name without the customer’s consent; 2) failed to report his 30-day FINRA suspension to CFP Board as required by Article 12.2 of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”); and 3) improperly used the CFP® certification marks by using the CFP® mark in his email address.  The Commission determined that Mr. Chin violated Rules 102, 201, 406, 606(a), 606(b), and 607 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility and Rules 6.1 and 6.5 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct, providing grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(a), 3(d), and 3(e) of the Disciplinary Rules.  Accordingly, the Commission suspended Mr. Chin’s right to use the CFP® certification marks, pursuant to Article 4.3 of the Disciplinary Rules.  Mr. Chin’s suspension was effective from December 14, 2010 toJanuary 12, 2011.PENNSYLVANIABradley K. Adams (Newtown):  In October 2010, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued a suspension of one year and one day to Mr. Adams.  This discipline followed CFP Board’s investigation of Mr. Adams’ entry into a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) in which he consented to: 1) the finding that he failed to supervise a registered representative; 2) a 30-day suspension; and 3) a $15,000 fine.  CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”) determined that Mr. Adams’ conduct violated Rule 201, 606(a), 607, 701 and 705 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(a) and 3(d) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”).  Accordingly, the Commission suspended Mr. Adams’ right to use the CFP® certification marks for one year and one day, pursuant to Article 4.3 of the Disciplinary Rules.  Mr. Adams’ suspension is effective from December 16, 2010 to December 17, 2011.TEXASLance R. McCollum (Itasca):  In October 2010, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued an order suspending Mr. McCollum’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for three years.  The suspension followed CFP Board’s investigation of Mr. McCollum’s felony conviction for driving while intoxicated.  Following a hearing, the Commission determined that Mr. McCollum was found guilty of a third offense or more of driving while intoxicated, a third degree felony.  The Commission determined that Mr. McCollum’s conduct violated Rule 6.5 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct, and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(a) and 3(c) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”).  Accordingly, the Commission suspended Mr. McCollum’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for three years, pursuant to Article 4.3 of the Disciplinary Rules.  Mr. McCollum’s suspension is effective from December 15, 2010 toDecember 15, 2013.VERMONTCarol A. Geske (South Burlington):  In October 2010, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued a suspension for three months to Ms. Geske.  This discipline followed CFP Board’s investigation of Ms. Geske entering into: 1) a Consent Order with the Vermont Securities Division; and 2) a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) in which she consented to a finding that she affixed a client’s signature on an account enrollment form without the client’s authorization or consent, which led to a suspension and fine.  The Commission determined that Ms. Geske’s conduct violated Rules 102, 201, 406, 606(a), 606(b) and 607 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility, and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(a), 3(d) and 3(e) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”).  Accordingly, the Commission suspended Ms. Geske’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for three months, pursuant to Article 4.5 of the Disciplinary Rules. Ms. Geske’s suspension is effective from December 23, 2010 to March 23, 2011.REVOCATIONSCALIFORNIAGene Baynes (San Diego):  In October 2010, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued an order permanently revoking Mr. Baynes’s right to use the CFP® certification marks.  This discipline followed CFP Board’s investigation of allegations that Mr. Baynes filed for bankruptcy and was the subject of criminal charges.  Following a hearing, the Commission determined that Mr. Baynes: 1) was found guilty of assault and disorderly conduct in 2007; 2) is the subject of an outstanding warrant relating to the assault and disorderly conduct convictions; and 3) filed for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in 1993, and again in 2009.  The Commission determined that Mr. Baynes’ conduct violated Rule 607 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility and Rule 6.5 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct, providing grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(a) and 3(c) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”).  Accordingly, pursuant to Article 7.4 of the Disciplinary Rules, the allegations set forth in the Complaint were deemed admitted, and CFP Board issued an Order of Revocation.  The permanent revocation of Mr. Baynes right to use the CFP® certification became effective on December 23, 2010.NEW YORKThomas W. Laundrie (Garden City): In October 2010, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued an order permanently revoking Mr. Laundrie’s right to use the CFP® certification marks.  This discipline followed CFP Board’s investigation of Mr. Laundrie’s: 1) entering into a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) pursuant to which he was suspended and fined for failing to review or monitor his firm’s market making activities; 2) involvement in four FINRA arbitrations related to his failure to supervise employees; and 3) 2009 Chapter 7 Bankruptcy filing.  The Commission determined that Mr. Laundrie’s conduct violated Rules 201, 606(a), 606(b) and 701 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility and Rule 6.5 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(a) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”).  Accordingly, pursuant to Article 4.4 of the Disciplinary Rules, the Commission permanently revoked Mr. Laundrie’s right to use the CFP® certification marks.  The permanent revocation of Mr. Laundrie’s right to use the CFP® certification became effective on December 23, 2010.  Matthew D. Weitzman (Armonk):  In October 2010, CFP Board issued an order permanently revoking Mr. Weitzman’s right to use the CFP® certification marks.  This discipline followed CFP Board’s investigation of allegations made by the U.S. Attorney’s Office that Mr. Weitzman fraudulently obtained clients’ funds by:  1) submitting false documents to a brokerage firm, purporting to reflect clients’ authorizations to access their funds; and 2) lying to clients about the purpose for which he would use their funds.  Mr. Weitzman pleaded guilty to one felony count of investment adviser fraud, two felony counts of securities fraud, and five felony counts of wire fraud.  CFP Board’s Complaint alleged that Mr. Weitzman’s conduct violated Rules 102, 201, 406, 606(a), 606(b) and 607 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility and Rules 2.1, 4.3, 4.4, 5.1, 6.1, and 6.5 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct, and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(a), 3(c) and 3(e) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”).  Mr. Weitzman failed to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within 20 calendar days of the date of service, as required by Article 7.3 of CFP Board’sDisciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”).  Accordingly, pursuant to Article 7.4 of theDisciplinary Rules, the allegations set forth in the Complaint were deemed admitted, and CFP Board issued an Order of Revocation.OHIOJoseph D. Bonanno (a/k/a Timothy W. Hyde) (Canton): In October 2010, CFP Board issued an order permanently revoking Mr. Bonanno’s right to use the CFP® certification marks.  This discipline followed CFP Board’s investigation of allegations that Mr. Bonanno was indicted by the United States on one count of Wire Fraud, two counts of Aggravated Identity Theft, two counts of False Statements, and one count of False Statements in Application for a Passport.  The indictment alleged that from 1992 until March 2009, Mr. Bonanno represented himself as ‘Timothy W. Hyde’ when his legal name was Joseph D. Bonanno.  Mr. Bonanno pleaded guilty to one count of Wire Fraud, one count of Aggravated Identity Theft, two counts of False Statements and one count of False Statements in Application for a Passport.  CFP Board’s Complaint alleged that Mr. Bonanno’s conduct violated Rules 102, 606(a), 606(b) and 607 of CFP Board’sCode of Ethics and Professional Responsibility and Rule 6.5 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct, and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(a), 3(c), 3(d) and 3(g) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (’Disciplinary Rules’).  Mr. Bonanno failed to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within 20 calendar days of the date of service, as required by Article 7.3 of CFP Board’sDisciplinary Rules and Procedures (’Disciplinary Rules’).  Accordingly, pursuant to Article 7.4 of theDisciplinary Rules, the allegations set forth in the Complaint were deemed admitted, and CFP Board issued an Order of Revocation.OREGONDavid W. Gwynn (Eugene):  In October 2010, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued an order permanently revoking Mr. Gwynn’s right to use the CFP® certification marks.  This discipline followed CFP Board’s investigation of allegations that Mr. Gwynn: 1) engaged in excessive trading and a pattern of unsuitable trades in a client account; and 2) entered into a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) in which he consented to a suspension from association with any FINRA member for 10 days for exercising discretion in a non-discretionary customer account.  The Commission determined that Mr. Gwynn’s conduct violated Rules 102, 201, 202, 401(a), 406, 606(a), 606(b), 607, 701 and 703 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(a), 3(d) and 3(e) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”).  Accordingly, pursuant to Article 4.4 of the Disciplinary Rules, the Commission permanently revoked Mr. Gwynn’s right to use the CFP® certification marks.  The permanent revocation of Mr. Gywnn’s right to use the CFP® certification became effective on December 23, 2010.Jo Rae Perkins (Albany): In October 2010, CFP Board issued an order permanently revoking Ms. Perkins’ right to use the CFP® certification marks. This discipline followed CFP Board’s investigation of allegations that: 1) Ms. Perkins’ employer terminated her employment in 2008 for violations of firm policy; and 2) Ms. Perkins filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2009.  CFP Board’s Complaint alleged that Ms. Perkins’ conduct violated Rules 201, 406, 606(b), 607 and 701 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(a) of CFP Board’sDisciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”).  Ms. Perkins failed to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within 20 calendar days of the date of service, as required by Article 7.3 of theDisciplinary Rules. Accordingly, pursuant to Article 7.4 of the Disciplinary Rules, the allegations set forth in the Complaint were deemed admitted, and CFP Board issued an Order of Revocation.TEXASCraig R. Brockman (Plano): In October 2010, CFP Board issued an order permanently revoking Mr. Brockman’s right to use the CFP® certification marks.  This discipline followed CFP Board’s investigation of allegations that Mr. Brockman: 1) failed to timely file a client’s tax returns, resulting in penalties imposed on the client; and 2) filed for Chapter 7 personal bankruptcy on April 11, 2007.  CFP Board’s Complaint alleged that Mr. Brockman’s conduct violated Rules 102, 201, 606(b), 607 and 701 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(a) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”).  Mr. Brockman failed to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within 20 calendar days of the date of service, as required by Article 7.3 of the Disciplinary Rules.  Accordingly, pursuant to Article 7.4 of the Disciplinary Rules, the allegations set forth in the Complaint were deemed admitted, and CFP Board issued an Order of Revocation.Brian Y. Horne (El Paso): In December 2010, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Appeals Committee, CFP Board issued an order permanently revoking Mr. Horne’s right to use the CFP® certification marks.  This discipline followed CFP Board’s investigation of allegations that pursuant to a settlement, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) barred Mr. Horne from association with any broker, dealer or investment adviser for: 1) failing to supervise a registered representative; and 2) permitting his firm to participate in securities offerings in violation of a prior NASD discipline.  The Commission determined that Mr. Horne’s conduct violated Rules 201, 406, 606(a), 606(b) and 607 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(a), 3(d) and 3(e) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”).  Following a hearing in June 2010, the Commission revoked Mr. Horne’s right to use the CFP® certification marks, pursuant to Article 4.4 of the Disciplinary Rules.  Mr. Horne appealed the matter, and CFP Board’s Appeals Committee affirmed the Order of Revocation.ABOUT CFP BOARDThe mission of Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, Inc. is to benefit the public by granting the CFP® certification and upholding it as the recognized standard of excellence for personal financial planning. The Board of Directors, in furthering CFP Board’s mission, acts on behalf of the public, CFP® certificants and other stakeholders. CFP Board owns the certification marks CFP®, CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNERâ ¢, and the federally registered CFP (with flame design) in the U.S., which it awards to individuals who successfully complete CFP Board’s initial and ongoing certification requirements.  CFP Board currently authorizes more than 61,000 individuals to use these marks in the U.S.SOURCE Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, Inc. WASHINGTON, Feb. 15, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ FloridaAndrew W. MacGillTampaSuspension UtahRobert P. AamodtFarmingtonLetter of Admonition VermontCarol A. GeskeSouth BurlingtonSuspension PennsylvaniaBradley K. AdamsNewtownSuspension TexasBrian Y. HorneEl PasoRevocation New YorkThomas W. LaundrieGarden CityRevocation IllinoisAlgird M. NorkusOak BrookInterim Suspensionlast_img read more


Category: rcutooqh

first_imgPanel created to study rule allowing law student internships Panel created to study rule allowing law student internships The Florida Bar rule that governs the program allowing law school students to serve as legal interns for state attorneys, public defenders, and legal aid agencies is getting a review, courtesy of a special Supreme Court panel. an administrative order in February, the court created the Task Force to Review Rules Governing the Law School Practice Program, which is Chapter 11 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. Justice Fred Lewis will be liaison to the group. The court named Fourth Circuit Chief Assistant Public Defender William P. White III as chair of the task force and also appointed 17 other members. Most are prosecutors, public defenders, legal aid officials, and law school professors who work with the clinical programs, but also included were Florida Board of Bar Examiners Executive Director Kathryn Ressel, Supreme Court Clerk Tom Hall, and Bar General Counsel Paul Hill. White split the task force into two committees, one to examine rule sections 11-1.1 through 11-1.5 and the other to examine sections 11-1.6 through 11-1.10. Both committees held their initial meetings last month. After several years with only minor changes, White said, the task force was formed to address problems that have developed with the program. “There have been some abuses and there are some questions about who gets certified and who makes sure they can do the work,” White said. He noted in one case, a law student was sent to do work for a state attorney’s office, which was prosecuting that same student for breaking the law. In other cases, students who have been convicted of felonies and have not had their rights restored have been sent to work in public defender or state attorney offices. Also, when the program was set up, the interns were used primarily in legal aid, state attorney, and public defender offices. That has expanded to several state agencies and some private law firms, White said. Under the program, law school deans are supposed to certify student interns are of good moral character and have taken a clinical training course. But White noted that law schools don’t have the resources to do extensive background checks, and many times the FBBE doesn’t have information because the students are not planning to practice in Florida after graduation. There is also no standard on what constitutes clinical training, he said, and some out-of-state schools count trial courses as the necessary training, he said. The panel will also be looking at the rule that allows out-of-state attorneys to practice, if supervised by a Bar member, for up to a year while they apply and take the bar exam. “I think the rule says what exactly it needs to say, but over the years I think it’s been given some really liberal interpretations,” White said. “It may not be so much that we need to change the rule as to give it some commentary.” He said the subcommittee will be doing detailed exploration of the rule before the committees meet again in June. It’s possible the task force could finish its review and make recommendations by the end of the year, White said, although it’s too early in the process to set an exact day. May 15, 2001 Regular Newslast_img read more


Category: rcutooqh

first_imgSign up for our COVID-19 newsletter to stay up-to-date on the latest coronavirus news throughout New York Suffolk police showed up at a Long Island man’s home after being tipped off by his former employer about ‘suspicious’ Internet searches.Internet users were spooked by a viral story about a couple’s Long Island home being searched by investigators curious why a man searched Google with the terms “pressure cooker bombs” and “backpacks.”Michele Catalano, a journalist who was at work during the search, wrote about the experience as told by her husband on her blog this week after being led to believe that authorities tracked the searches through the search engine—not an unreasonable belief after the depth of the NSA’s Internet spying was exposed this summer.After being swamped by press requests for more information about the case, Suffolk County police released a statement Thursday explaining that the tip came from her husband’s former employer, a Bay Shore-based computer company, not the Internet’s most-used website.“After interviewing the company representatives, Suffolk County Police Detectives visited the subject’s home to ask about the suspicious Internet searches,” police said in the statement, noting that the searches were found on the man’s former workplace computer. “The incident was investigated by Suffolk County Police Department’s Criminal Intelligence Detectives and was determined to be non-criminal in nature.”The statement came hours after such shocking headlines as: “Yes, The FBI is Tracking American Google Searches” on Gizmo.do, “Is the FBI snooping on our Google searches?” in The Christian Science Monitor and “Whatever you do, don’t search online…for anything” in Network World.Catalano, who has since updated her blog to correct the record, unleashed the media feeding frenzy and resulting epidemic of panic attacks among computer users everywhere with her initial post, titled “pressure cookers, backpacks and quinoa, oh my!”“They were peppering my husband with questions,” she wrote. “Where is he from? Where are his parents from? They asked about me, where was I, where do I work, where do my parents live. Do you have any bombs, they asked. Do you own a pressure cooker? My husband said no, but we have a rice cooker. Can you make a bomb with that? My husband said no, my wife uses it to make quinoa. What the hell is quinoa, they asked.”The confusion in which agency was involved came when Catalano’s husband told her the investigators identified themselves as members of the joint terrorism task force, an FBI-led collaboration with local law enforcement. They left less than an hour later, satisfied that the searches were harmless curiosity about the bombs used in the Boston Marathon attacks and not the plotting of a locally based al-Qaeda sympathizer.LI has had three, including Bryant Neal Vinas of Patchogue, who admitted aiding a terrorist plot to blow up the Long Island Rail Road, Samir Khan of Westbury, the editor of the al-Qaeda propaganda magazine Inspire, who was killed in a drone strike, and Justin Kaliebe, a Babylon and Bay Shore resident who pleaded guilty in June to trying to join al-Qaeda.It was also the second time Suffolk authorities were compelled to address blog posts that turned into news stories in as many years. Last May, District Attorney Tom Spota released a statement discrediting false Internet rumors that the Long Island Serial Killer had been identified.It also wouldn’t have been the first time a journalist on LI was eyed by investigators for Internet issues. Secret Service agents held this reporter for three hours for questioning while searching his computer at the 2008 Presidential debates at Hofstra University, citing “volatile” WiFi signals.last_img read more


Category: rcutooqh

first_img 2SHARESShareShareSharePrintMailGooglePinterestDiggRedditStumbleuponDeliciousBufferTumblr Prudential. Cetera. Allstate. Thrivent. Modern Woodmen of America. They’ve all recently empowered their massive field force of advisors and agents to text clients and prospects.As the trend continues to accelerate, regulators are watching with increasing scrutiny.FINRA released Regulatory Notice 17-18 last year, which reaffirmed the requirement that financial services companies archive business-related texts in the same way that they would email or written communication, as required by SEC Rules 17-a3 and 17a-4, and FINRA Rules 4511 and 2010.This essentially means that regardless of your company policy, an audit of your advisors’ texting activities could be requested.It’s not just FINRA and the SEC. According to an August 2017 study by the Institute of Legal Reform, litigation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), a law that regulates commercial text messaging, has increased by 46 percent since July 2015; of that number, nearly 36 percent of all TCPA litigation target the financial services industry. continue reading »last_img read more


Category: rcutooqh

first_img ShareShareSharePrintMailGooglePinterestDiggRedditStumbleuponDeliciousBufferTumblr The first three are unmet by traditional retirement plans and perfectly aligned to credit unions’ strengths. By focusing on these needs for their employees, credit unions can better align their impact strategy and product strategy. Remarkable Credit Union · Maximum Impact: How to Reimagine Your Credit Union’s Product StrategyWant to make a meaningful difference in your community? Maybe it’s time to align your impact strategy with your product and marketing strategy. As Judah Musick, former Chief Innovation Officer at Red Rocks Credit Union, has learned firsthand, you can connect the dots by focusing on employers as the key to sustainable community impact that scales and produces financial results.That’s to say, if you’re wondering what your community needs, think first about what your employees need. From a financial wellness standpoint, the hierarchy of employee needs typically are not met by most HR departments. Musick joins us on The Remarkable Credit Union to address this month’s BIG question: How can credit unions better align their product strategy and impact strategy, and might employee benefits be one piece of the puzzle? Key takeawaysThe lack of dignity in the way support nonprofits are set up means that 90% of those suffering will never get help. Anonymous support is the key.Working with employers to address employee needs is the key to scalable and sustainable community impact. The hierarchy of employee needs are:Create positive cash flow and get out of high-interest debtCreate emergency savingsGet out of consumer debtSave enough for long term major expenses and retirement (401k / Wall Street’s strategy)Give back to the community This post is currently collecting data… This is placeholder text continue reading »last_img read more


Category: rcutooqh

first_imgAs part of the Belgrade Tourism Fair, the 24th BeoWine Fair will be held until February 9, which, in addition to winemaking, also promotes wine tourism.The fair is attended by the most prominent domestic and regional wine producers and distributors, more than 17o exhibitors, and organized by the Croatian Chamber of Commerce presents ten Croatian wineries / companies: Kutjevo, Belje, Iločki podrumi, Dalmacijavino, Vinoplod, Vina San Martino, Dingač Skaramuča, Degrassi, Osilovac ( Feravino) and Credo.”After two EU projects with a series of promotional activities and traditional participation in the Belgrade Fair, in the last four years the wines of Croatian wineries have been in the permanent offer of Belgrade restaurants. Our wines are traditionally well received by Belgrade consumers, who have a very refined taste for good food and wine”, Said the secretary of the Wine Association of the Croatian Chamber of Commerce Igor Barbarić at the opening of BeoWine.Serbia is our sixth export market, to which we exported wines worth 11 thousand euros in the first 2017 months of 632, ie 1120 hectoliters of wine. There is a visible increase of 51 thousand euros compared to the same period in 2016. In the same period in 2017, we imported wines from Serbia worth about 280 thousand euros, or 2044 hectoliters. “As every year, BeoWine is very important for Croatian winemaking because it is an opportunity to present Croatian wines to a wide audience in Serbia and the region, and the participation of Croatian wineries is important for further building the image of the Croatian wine brand “Vina Croatia – vina mosaica”. without which there is no significant positioning for Croatian wines in the world”, Continued Barbarić, adding that it is important to emphasize that the export of wine from Croatia shows a tendency to grow.Photo: HGKOwner of San Martino winery from Labin Miljenko Vretenar he recently placed his wines on the Serbian market. ”I do not hide that our expectations are high because consumers in Serbia know about quality Istrian wines, they especially like Malvasia, and great interest has been shown for Muscat Yellow, especially among younger consumers. The potential of the market is great, and we have a great product that the market will surely recognize. This is exactly the kind of event that serves as a springboard for us”, Said Vretenar.Boris Nejdanović, an importer of wine from the Feravino winery, claims that Serbia is an excellent market for selling Croatian wines. “In a year and a half of breaking into the Feravina wine market, I have not noticed any resistance among caterers, in fact. Although due to the popularization of Serbian wines, there has been a recent tendency to reduce the number of imported wines on offer, most wine lists in restaurants have Croatian wines.”.Producers of brandies and other spirits joined the winemakers a few years ago, and this year’s novelty is the promotion of craft breweries and beers, all accompanied by producers of premium cheeses, cured meat products and other gastronomic specialties. In addition to the presentation at the fair, the Croatian Chamber of Commerce also organizes a joint dinner for exhibitors, distributors and journalists with a masterclass by the president of the Association of Sommeliers of Vojvodina Igor Luković, who will present Croatian wines.Related news:THE THIRD VINART GRAND TASTING WILL BE HELD SOON IN LAUBA IN ZAGREBlast_img read more


Category: rcutooqh

first_imgTopics : Google Forgot Password ? Log in with your social account Two city-owned developers Perumda Pembangunan Sarana Jaya and PT Jakarta Propertindo (Jakpro) are in the spotlight in a “preliminary examination” launched by law enforcement authorities into alleged graft in the businesses.The National Police’s Criminal Investigation Department (Bareskrim) has questioned Sarana Jaya officials about alleged graft, while the Corruption Eradication Commission has done the same with Jakpro.“Yes, we are conducting a preliminary examination in Sarana Jaya,” National Police spokesperson Brig. Gen. Argo Yuwono told The Jakarta Post on Thursday.The move was taken after the police received a tip indicating that the company might have been involved in graft and money laundering activities in the purchase of a plot of land to build its zero-rupiah down payment apartment complexes from 2018 to 2020. He confirmed that several … Linkedin LOG INDon’t have an account? Register here BUMD corruption Jakarta-administration KPK DPRD National-Police jakpro Pembangunan-Sarana-Jaya investigation Facebooklast_img read more