Columns
COMMENTARY: Consequences of a one-sided war coverage are considerable
October 25 ,2024
As I have written often in the last year, the media coverage of the Hamas-Israeli war has been disgraceful and shameful.
:
By Berl Falbaum
As I have written often in the last year, the media coverage of the Hamas-Israeli war has been disgraceful and shameful.
Starting just a few days after October 7, the entire emphasis has been on Israel’s response and, overall, Hamas has been barely mentioned. Israel is endlessly blamed for all the civilian deaths, the destruction in Gaza, and death toll numbers are distorted and skewed.
This one-sided coverage reminded me of a dispute I had with The New York Times in 1997 about its coverage of the general conflict between the Palestinians and Israel.
It was prompted by a letter from The Times’ news editor to a subscriber which implied -- more than implied -- that a double standard exists at the paper on how The Times covers violence by the two parties.
It is worth, I think, revisiting that exchange; it may shed some light on not only The Times’ coverage but the media as a whole. Thus, I went to my files.
In 1997, Sherman Miller, of Longwood, Fla. sent a letter to The Times in which he charged its coverage of alleged torture by Israel and Palestinians was “uneven and lacked professional integrity.”
He said he was surprised by the distortion from a paper which is “supposedly the bastion of actual reporting.”
In a one-paragraph reply, the late William Borders, then news editor, wrote: “The whole point is torture by Israel, a democratic ally of the United States, which gets huge support from (the U.S.) is news. Torture by Palestinians seems less surprising. Surely, you don’t consider the two authorities morally equivalent.”
Miller responded to Joseph Lelyveld, then executive editor, (top dog), with the following:
”If I were to take his [Borders] hypothesis to its conclusion then we would have to assume that the recent Palestinian terrorist bombing in Jerusalem is not news and would not be covered by your paper since it was carried out by [an] amoral authority. How absurd! What an insult to the intelligence of not only me but to your readers.
“So, factual reporting is no longer the issue but the morality of the participants is the criteria for emphasis and coverage.”
In a column I wrote at the time:
“Probably never in the history of journalism has any mainstream publication ever confessed to such a bias and it is nothing short of astounding coming from the executive who has policy responsibilities at this prestigious news organization.”
I joined others is discussing the letter publicly which led Borders to state in an interview: “If I had known it [the letter] would be widely circulated, I would have worded it more carefully. I’m sorry and I repudiate it.”
Borders, who died in 2018, did not deny the double-standard; he just regretted that it became public. Further, to this day, I still don’t know how one repudiates his own letter.
But that was not the end of it. Lelyveld, who died last year, wrote to me, defending The Times.
“I deny we have had a dual moral standard,” Lelyveld wrote, “Bill Borders’ formulation notwithstanding.” Oops, an admission there was something amiss with Borders’ definition of news.
He said Borders was “baited” by Miller (I loved that} and concluded with the following: “Mangling language, you say our policy is ‘incredulous.’ But there is no such policy and there never has been.”
I responded to Lelyveld, stating that I did not know that such a powerful person as poor Mr. Borders could be baited by one subscriber into making such an admission.
Then, I told him that I shared the letter with colleagues at two university journalism departments (Oakland and Wayne State) where I was teaching, and everyone mangled language in interpreting the original letter. So did students whom I assigned to write a paper on the letter.
Through the years, Israel has continually been held to a double-standard. Thus, I raise the issue because there appear to be some parallels that I think might apply to the war in Gaza.
Perhaps the media considers Hamas amoral and gives it a pass on its butchery and savagery and the deaths it causes in the strip. Perhaps the media expect more from Israel and thus places most of the blame on the Jewish state. Maybe that is why the media ignore several other humanitarian disasters that are far worse around the world.
None of that, of course, excuses the slanted coverage by the media, but it helps explain the reality.
Whatever the reasons, the consequences are formidable in that it provides the public with a one-sided view of the war, gives Hamas cover, and, equally condemnable and frightening, stokes antisemitism worldwide.
What’s more, the situation is much more serious in today’s political climate then when Miller challenged The Times in the late ‘90s.
Given attacks from Iran and its proxies, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, Israel faces potentially fatal threats never experienced before.
And that is not mangling language.
————————
Berl Falbaum is a veteran journalist and author of 12 books.
As I have written often in the last year, the media coverage of the Hamas-Israeli war has been disgraceful and shameful.
Starting just a few days after October 7, the entire emphasis has been on Israel’s response and, overall, Hamas has been barely mentioned. Israel is endlessly blamed for all the civilian deaths, the destruction in Gaza, and death toll numbers are distorted and skewed.
This one-sided coverage reminded me of a dispute I had with The New York Times in 1997 about its coverage of the general conflict between the Palestinians and Israel.
It was prompted by a letter from The Times’ news editor to a subscriber which implied -- more than implied -- that a double standard exists at the paper on how The Times covers violence by the two parties.
It is worth, I think, revisiting that exchange; it may shed some light on not only The Times’ coverage but the media as a whole. Thus, I went to my files.
In 1997, Sherman Miller, of Longwood, Fla. sent a letter to The Times in which he charged its coverage of alleged torture by Israel and Palestinians was “uneven and lacked professional integrity.”
He said he was surprised by the distortion from a paper which is “supposedly the bastion of actual reporting.”
In a one-paragraph reply, the late William Borders, then news editor, wrote: “The whole point is torture by Israel, a democratic ally of the United States, which gets huge support from (the U.S.) is news. Torture by Palestinians seems less surprising. Surely, you don’t consider the two authorities morally equivalent.”
Miller responded to Joseph Lelyveld, then executive editor, (top dog), with the following:
”If I were to take his [Borders] hypothesis to its conclusion then we would have to assume that the recent Palestinian terrorist bombing in Jerusalem is not news and would not be covered by your paper since it was carried out by [an] amoral authority. How absurd! What an insult to the intelligence of not only me but to your readers.
“So, factual reporting is no longer the issue but the morality of the participants is the criteria for emphasis and coverage.”
In a column I wrote at the time:
“Probably never in the history of journalism has any mainstream publication ever confessed to such a bias and it is nothing short of astounding coming from the executive who has policy responsibilities at this prestigious news organization.”
I joined others is discussing the letter publicly which led Borders to state in an interview: “If I had known it [the letter] would be widely circulated, I would have worded it more carefully. I’m sorry and I repudiate it.”
Borders, who died in 2018, did not deny the double-standard; he just regretted that it became public. Further, to this day, I still don’t know how one repudiates his own letter.
But that was not the end of it. Lelyveld, who died last year, wrote to me, defending The Times.
“I deny we have had a dual moral standard,” Lelyveld wrote, “Bill Borders’ formulation notwithstanding.” Oops, an admission there was something amiss with Borders’ definition of news.
He said Borders was “baited” by Miller (I loved that} and concluded with the following: “Mangling language, you say our policy is ‘incredulous.’ But there is no such policy and there never has been.”
I responded to Lelyveld, stating that I did not know that such a powerful person as poor Mr. Borders could be baited by one subscriber into making such an admission.
Then, I told him that I shared the letter with colleagues at two university journalism departments (Oakland and Wayne State) where I was teaching, and everyone mangled language in interpreting the original letter. So did students whom I assigned to write a paper on the letter.
Through the years, Israel has continually been held to a double-standard. Thus, I raise the issue because there appear to be some parallels that I think might apply to the war in Gaza.
Perhaps the media considers Hamas amoral and gives it a pass on its butchery and savagery and the deaths it causes in the strip. Perhaps the media expect more from Israel and thus places most of the blame on the Jewish state. Maybe that is why the media ignore several other humanitarian disasters that are far worse around the world.
None of that, of course, excuses the slanted coverage by the media, but it helps explain the reality.
Whatever the reasons, the consequences are formidable in that it provides the public with a one-sided view of the war, gives Hamas cover, and, equally condemnable and frightening, stokes antisemitism worldwide.
What’s more, the situation is much more serious in today’s political climate then when Miller challenged The Times in the late ‘90s.
Given attacks from Iran and its proxies, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, Israel faces potentially fatal threats never experienced before.
And that is not mangling language.
————————
Berl Falbaum is a veteran journalist and author of 12 books.
THE EXPERT WITNESS: Playing loose with real estate and IFCs, part one
October 22 ,2024
Preluding courses that focus on Real Estate, Mortgages, and other
related topics, was life around the dinner table at home. My father had
entered the realm of Real Estate in the late 1920s/early 1930s.
:
By John F. Sase
Preluding courses that focus on Real Estate, Mortgages, and other related topics, was life around the dinner table at home. My father had entered the realm of Real Estate in the late 1920s/early 1930s. My stepmom had worked Burton Abstract and Title for decades. Before studying Real Estate Economics, I absorbed the knowledge that my parents shared with me.
Real Estate trends repeat themselves every couple of decades. Prices of homes and business buildings go up! Then, those prices go down. Eventually, the prices of homes and business buildings go back up as the cycle repeats itself. Most Real Estate brokers tend to remain honest and treat their clients with respect. These brokers value their clients in part because they may be their neighbors and repeat customers in the future.
However, some brokers and their sales staff remain unconcerned with current markets as they believe in a philosophy of “get rich quick” and then move on to other income generating shenanigans.
Whenever times get tough in this business, it seems that more and more con artists promising castles in the air emerge from the woodwork. Many of us citizens, looking for alternatives to the failed opportunities of “Flipping Real Estate,” along with other touts that populate late-night infomercials, have received e-mails tempting the market with both new and old schemes. Nowadays, we hit our Delete keys and move on.
However, the relevance of this e-mail was brought home to me (Dr. Sase) by Bryan Lagalo, a Doctoral Candidate in the Economics Department of Wayne State University. He shared a well-conceived presentation in my class on Financial Economics. He titled his PowerPoint presentation for this class, “Charles Ponzi: The Life of an Infamous Schemer.” Bryan informed a small group of academics about Ponzi, an Italian flimflam man who duped thousands of Americans during the early twentieth century in what now has become known as “the Ponzi Scheme.” Seeing Bryan’s presentation made me stop and think about the parallels that exist between the scams of yesteryear and those repeated today. So, when I read the Scam Mail quoted in Bryans paper, I thought to myself, “It’s the ghost of Ponzi!”
Before watching Bryan’s presentation, I knew as much about Ponzi as the average investor—virtually nothing more than I could express in a single paragraph. However, that has changed since watching Bryan’s PowerPoint show. His audience fought to hold back the laughter of disbelief over a con artist whom I can describe only as a completely amoral sociopath. With the assistance of Contributing Editor Gerard J. Senick and myself, Bryan chronicles Ponzi and his scheme, one which made the Ponzi name synonymous with fraudulent and unsustainable investment scams.
“Aaay! It’s the Ponz!”
(With Apologies to Arthur Herbert Fonzarelli, AKA “the Fonz”)
Over the years, the term “Ponzi Scheme” has evolved into our byword for any act in which financial-market manipulators swindle trusting investors out of billions of dollars in assorted (and sordid) pyramid schemes.
The term continues to appear regularly in the Wall Street Journal and related publications that circulate widely throughout the current political arena and the popular press. The name of Ponzi has spread so profusely that a Google search of the single word “Ponzi” generates over 203,000 hits this week. Our search provided us with the definition from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). It states, “Decades later, the Ponzi scheme continues to work on the ‘rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul’ principle, as money from new investors is used to pay off earlier investors until the whole scheme collapses.” (“Ponzi Schemes”, US Securities and Exchange Commission.
Born in Lugo, Italy, in 1882, Ponzi said that he came from an upper-class family, (though he had a propensity for changing the facts of his life). He attended the University of Rome La Sapienza, but dedicated his time mostly to bars, cafes, and the opera. At the age of twenty-seven, Ponzi immigrated to the United Sates.
Having gambled away his life savings during his passage to America, he arrived in Boston with little but his name. In the Smithsonian magazine, (“In Ponzi We Trust,” December 1998), Mary Darby quotes the “Ponz” as stating that he “landed in this United States with $2.50 in cash and $1 million in hopes, and those hopes never left me.”
Ponzi learned English while working at odd jobs along the Eastern Seaboard. However, after being fired as a waiter for stealing from and shortchanging customers, he decided to move to Montreal, Canada. There, Ponzi took a job as an assistant teller at the newly opened Banco Zarossi, (a bank started by Luigi Zarossi to accommodate the growing number of Italians who had immigrated to Canada). Zarossi offered 6% interest on deposits--doubling the average rate offered by competing banks at that time.
Eventually, Ponzi, who then managed the growing bank, discovered that Zarossi offered high rates simply to attract large deposits that he used to cover interest payments on poorly made Real-Estate Loans (sound familiar?) Fleeing to Mexico, Zarossi took much of the bank’s money with him.
On the plus side after the failure of Banco Zarossi, Ponzi lived at Zarossi’s home and tried to help his family. However, jobless and broke, Ponzi forged a check for $423.58 that he made out to himself, though from the director of a company who had banked with Zarossi. However, after presenting this check for payment, Montreal police arrested Ponzi. Serving three years while in a Quebec prison, Ponzi contrived a cover-up story in a letter to his mother, explaining that he was working as a “special assistant” to the prison warden. However, Mama Ponzi eventually discovered the truth.
Following his release in 1911, Ponzi returned to the United States. However, merely ten days after leaving the Canadian prison, Ponzi was arrested for smuggling Italian immigrants across the border from Canada. Ponzi then spent two more years of incarceration in the Atlanta Prison in Georgia where he worked as a translator for this warden, who was intercepting letters from Italian mobster Iganzio Saietta, known as “Lupo the Wolf.”
After serving his time, Ponzi moved to Boston. There, he met Rose Maria Gnecco, a stenographer. When Ponzi neglected to tell Gnecco about his time behind bars, Ponzi’s mother sent the young woman a letter describing the Ponzi matter in its entirety. Nevertheless, Gnecco married Ponzi in 1918 despite this shared information. Ponzi then worked at various jobs before developing an idea that resembled the present-day Yellow Pages. However, his company attempted to sell advertising space in a circulated catalog that listed various businesses--an idea did not catch on as the company failed soon after.
Prelude to the Famous Ponzi Scheme
In August 1919, Ponzi’s fortunes began to change when he received a letter from a company in Spain inquiring about his failed catalog idea. This letter contained an International Reply Coupon (IRC), a form that allows a person in one country to send prepaid postage for a reply to someone in another country.
Although Ponzi received an IRC priced in pesetas (the Spanish currency of the time), the U.S. Post Office exchanged IRCs for postage priced in stronger U.S. dollars. By the end of World War I, more than sixty countries accepted IRCs and agreed upon regulated postage-exchange rates that reflected the current rate of currency exchange. However, many European countries experienced high levels of inflation at the turn of the decade.
As a result, currencies from countries like Spain and Italy suffered significant devaluation relative to the dollar, though the IRC postage-exchange rates remained the same.
Furthermore, the IRC discrepancy provided Ponzi with an opportunity for arbitrage. Therefore, he developed his simple plan: He enlisted family and friends in Italy to buy the cheap IRCs and send them to him in the United States. Here, he would convert and redeem them to US dollars, a post-war currency of significantly higher value. In turn, Ponzi boasted that his net returns easily exceeded 400%, even after transaction costs.
Nothing in his plan was illegal, at least not technically.
Next, Ponzi borrowed money and sent it to his relatives in Italy, whom he asked to send back in the form of as many IRCs possible. Subsequently, Ponzi sold his arbitrage idea to several friends in Boston, promising that he would provide a 100% return in only ninety days. Ponzi used the funds that he collected to start a company that he registered as the Securities Exchange Company (SEC). (Ironically, his company shared its acronym with the Securities and Exchange Commission founded by the Federal Government a decade and a half later).
Originally, Ponzi limited his issue to notes bearing small principal amounts such as $50, $100, and $1000. However, once his business accelerated, he left a blank line on these notes to allow investors to enter whatever amount they wanted to invest. Through this new company, Ponzi offered investors a 50% return after forty-five days or a 100% return after ninety days on virtually any principal amount.
This offer encouraged a Federal postal inspector to visit Ponzi at his business. The inspector voiced the concern that selling millions of IRCs was not legal. In retort, Ponzi explained that the IRC coupons always could be exchanged in other countries outside of the jurisdiction of the US Post Office.
Though it looked great on the surface, Ponzi’s initial investment scheme did contain substantial holes. For example, in 1920, the nations that accepted IRCs announced new postal exchange rates reflecting a large devaluation in their currencies. Furthermore, the U.S. Post Office limited its issues of IRCs to ten per visit.
Due to the immense volume of IRCs needed per transaction to ensure a profit, the transaction costs eliminated any significant arbitrage profit. Because of these impediments, Ponzi would likely have realized that transporting, unloading, and redeeming the needed volume of IRCs at a post office would prove to be prohibitive. Furthermore, his confiscated business records indicate that he purchased only a small number of these IRCs.
Fortunately for Ponzi, most people had not used an IRC or knew much about them. This public ignorance masked the fundamental problems involved with IRC arbitrage. Therefore, investors quickly flocked into Ponzi’s office.
————————
Dr. John F. Sase teaches Economics at Wayne State University and has practiced Forensic and Investigative Economics for twenty years. He earned a combined M.A. in Economics and an MBA at the University of Detroit, followed by a Ph.D. in Economics from Wayne State University. He is a graduate of the University of Detroit Jesuit High School (www.saseassociates.com).
Preluding courses that focus on Real Estate, Mortgages, and other related topics, was life around the dinner table at home. My father had entered the realm of Real Estate in the late 1920s/early 1930s. My stepmom had worked Burton Abstract and Title for decades. Before studying Real Estate Economics, I absorbed the knowledge that my parents shared with me.
Real Estate trends repeat themselves every couple of decades. Prices of homes and business buildings go up! Then, those prices go down. Eventually, the prices of homes and business buildings go back up as the cycle repeats itself. Most Real Estate brokers tend to remain honest and treat their clients with respect. These brokers value their clients in part because they may be their neighbors and repeat customers in the future.
However, some brokers and their sales staff remain unconcerned with current markets as they believe in a philosophy of “get rich quick” and then move on to other income generating shenanigans.
Whenever times get tough in this business, it seems that more and more con artists promising castles in the air emerge from the woodwork. Many of us citizens, looking for alternatives to the failed opportunities of “Flipping Real Estate,” along with other touts that populate late-night infomercials, have received e-mails tempting the market with both new and old schemes. Nowadays, we hit our Delete keys and move on.
However, the relevance of this e-mail was brought home to me (Dr. Sase) by Bryan Lagalo, a Doctoral Candidate in the Economics Department of Wayne State University. He shared a well-conceived presentation in my class on Financial Economics. He titled his PowerPoint presentation for this class, “Charles Ponzi: The Life of an Infamous Schemer.” Bryan informed a small group of academics about Ponzi, an Italian flimflam man who duped thousands of Americans during the early twentieth century in what now has become known as “the Ponzi Scheme.” Seeing Bryan’s presentation made me stop and think about the parallels that exist between the scams of yesteryear and those repeated today. So, when I read the Scam Mail quoted in Bryans paper, I thought to myself, “It’s the ghost of Ponzi!”
Before watching Bryan’s presentation, I knew as much about Ponzi as the average investor—virtually nothing more than I could express in a single paragraph. However, that has changed since watching Bryan’s PowerPoint show. His audience fought to hold back the laughter of disbelief over a con artist whom I can describe only as a completely amoral sociopath. With the assistance of Contributing Editor Gerard J. Senick and myself, Bryan chronicles Ponzi and his scheme, one which made the Ponzi name synonymous with fraudulent and unsustainable investment scams.
“Aaay! It’s the Ponz!”
(With Apologies to Arthur Herbert Fonzarelli, AKA “the Fonz”)
Over the years, the term “Ponzi Scheme” has evolved into our byword for any act in which financial-market manipulators swindle trusting investors out of billions of dollars in assorted (and sordid) pyramid schemes.
The term continues to appear regularly in the Wall Street Journal and related publications that circulate widely throughout the current political arena and the popular press. The name of Ponzi has spread so profusely that a Google search of the single word “Ponzi” generates over 203,000 hits this week. Our search provided us with the definition from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). It states, “Decades later, the Ponzi scheme continues to work on the ‘rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul’ principle, as money from new investors is used to pay off earlier investors until the whole scheme collapses.” (“Ponzi Schemes”, US Securities and Exchange Commission.
Born in Lugo, Italy, in 1882, Ponzi said that he came from an upper-class family, (though he had a propensity for changing the facts of his life). He attended the University of Rome La Sapienza, but dedicated his time mostly to bars, cafes, and the opera. At the age of twenty-seven, Ponzi immigrated to the United Sates.
Having gambled away his life savings during his passage to America, he arrived in Boston with little but his name. In the Smithsonian magazine, (“In Ponzi We Trust,” December 1998), Mary Darby quotes the “Ponz” as stating that he “landed in this United States with $2.50 in cash and $1 million in hopes, and those hopes never left me.”
Ponzi learned English while working at odd jobs along the Eastern Seaboard. However, after being fired as a waiter for stealing from and shortchanging customers, he decided to move to Montreal, Canada. There, Ponzi took a job as an assistant teller at the newly opened Banco Zarossi, (a bank started by Luigi Zarossi to accommodate the growing number of Italians who had immigrated to Canada). Zarossi offered 6% interest on deposits--doubling the average rate offered by competing banks at that time.
Eventually, Ponzi, who then managed the growing bank, discovered that Zarossi offered high rates simply to attract large deposits that he used to cover interest payments on poorly made Real-Estate Loans (sound familiar?) Fleeing to Mexico, Zarossi took much of the bank’s money with him.
On the plus side after the failure of Banco Zarossi, Ponzi lived at Zarossi’s home and tried to help his family. However, jobless and broke, Ponzi forged a check for $423.58 that he made out to himself, though from the director of a company who had banked with Zarossi. However, after presenting this check for payment, Montreal police arrested Ponzi. Serving three years while in a Quebec prison, Ponzi contrived a cover-up story in a letter to his mother, explaining that he was working as a “special assistant” to the prison warden. However, Mama Ponzi eventually discovered the truth.
Following his release in 1911, Ponzi returned to the United States. However, merely ten days after leaving the Canadian prison, Ponzi was arrested for smuggling Italian immigrants across the border from Canada. Ponzi then spent two more years of incarceration in the Atlanta Prison in Georgia where he worked as a translator for this warden, who was intercepting letters from Italian mobster Iganzio Saietta, known as “Lupo the Wolf.”
After serving his time, Ponzi moved to Boston. There, he met Rose Maria Gnecco, a stenographer. When Ponzi neglected to tell Gnecco about his time behind bars, Ponzi’s mother sent the young woman a letter describing the Ponzi matter in its entirety. Nevertheless, Gnecco married Ponzi in 1918 despite this shared information. Ponzi then worked at various jobs before developing an idea that resembled the present-day Yellow Pages. However, his company attempted to sell advertising space in a circulated catalog that listed various businesses--an idea did not catch on as the company failed soon after.
Prelude to the Famous Ponzi Scheme
In August 1919, Ponzi’s fortunes began to change when he received a letter from a company in Spain inquiring about his failed catalog idea. This letter contained an International Reply Coupon (IRC), a form that allows a person in one country to send prepaid postage for a reply to someone in another country.
Although Ponzi received an IRC priced in pesetas (the Spanish currency of the time), the U.S. Post Office exchanged IRCs for postage priced in stronger U.S. dollars. By the end of World War I, more than sixty countries accepted IRCs and agreed upon regulated postage-exchange rates that reflected the current rate of currency exchange. However, many European countries experienced high levels of inflation at the turn of the decade.
As a result, currencies from countries like Spain and Italy suffered significant devaluation relative to the dollar, though the IRC postage-exchange rates remained the same.
Furthermore, the IRC discrepancy provided Ponzi with an opportunity for arbitrage. Therefore, he developed his simple plan: He enlisted family and friends in Italy to buy the cheap IRCs and send them to him in the United States. Here, he would convert and redeem them to US dollars, a post-war currency of significantly higher value. In turn, Ponzi boasted that his net returns easily exceeded 400%, even after transaction costs.
Nothing in his plan was illegal, at least not technically.
Next, Ponzi borrowed money and sent it to his relatives in Italy, whom he asked to send back in the form of as many IRCs possible. Subsequently, Ponzi sold his arbitrage idea to several friends in Boston, promising that he would provide a 100% return in only ninety days. Ponzi used the funds that he collected to start a company that he registered as the Securities Exchange Company (SEC). (Ironically, his company shared its acronym with the Securities and Exchange Commission founded by the Federal Government a decade and a half later).
Originally, Ponzi limited his issue to notes bearing small principal amounts such as $50, $100, and $1000. However, once his business accelerated, he left a blank line on these notes to allow investors to enter whatever amount they wanted to invest. Through this new company, Ponzi offered investors a 50% return after forty-five days or a 100% return after ninety days on virtually any principal amount.
This offer encouraged a Federal postal inspector to visit Ponzi at his business. The inspector voiced the concern that selling millions of IRCs was not legal. In retort, Ponzi explained that the IRC coupons always could be exchanged in other countries outside of the jurisdiction of the US Post Office.
Though it looked great on the surface, Ponzi’s initial investment scheme did contain substantial holes. For example, in 1920, the nations that accepted IRCs announced new postal exchange rates reflecting a large devaluation in their currencies. Furthermore, the U.S. Post Office limited its issues of IRCs to ten per visit.
Due to the immense volume of IRCs needed per transaction to ensure a profit, the transaction costs eliminated any significant arbitrage profit. Because of these impediments, Ponzi would likely have realized that transporting, unloading, and redeeming the needed volume of IRCs at a post office would prove to be prohibitive. Furthermore, his confiscated business records indicate that he purchased only a small number of these IRCs.
Fortunately for Ponzi, most people had not used an IRC or knew much about them. This public ignorance masked the fundamental problems involved with IRC arbitrage. Therefore, investors quickly flocked into Ponzi’s office.
————————
Dr. John F. Sase teaches Economics at Wayne State University and has practiced Forensic and Investigative Economics for twenty years. He earned a combined M.A. in Economics and an MBA at the University of Detroit, followed by a Ph.D. in Economics from Wayne State University. He is a graduate of the University of Detroit Jesuit High School (www.saseassociates.com).
LEGAL PEOPLE
October 22 ,2024
Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer recently made the following appointments:
:
Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer recently made the following appointments:
—Military Appeals Tribunal
Robert Gardella is an attorney at law at Robert C. Gardella PLLC. He is a former member of State Bar of Michigan Board of Commissioners and the former chairperson of the State Bar of Michigan Representative Assembly. He earned a Bachelor of Arts in journalism from Michigan State University and a law degree from Cooley Law School.
Garella is reappointed as a civilian licensed to practice law in this state for a term commencing October 10, 2024, and expiring April 16, 2027.
The Military Appeals Tribunal has appellate jurisdiction, upon petition of an accused, to hear and review the record in all decisions of a court-martial after the review provided in the Michigan code of military justice.
This appointment is subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.
—Statewide Housing Partnership
Brad Ward is currently the vice president of public policy and legal affairs for the Michigan Realtors Association. He previously held a position at the Michigan House of Representatives as a legislative aid to Representative Nancy Cassis. He is a member of the National Association of Realtors Government Affairs Director Advisory Board, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce Tax Policy Committee, and the John Drypen Foundation. He earned a Bachelor of Arts in political theory and constitutional democracy from Michigan State University and his law degree from Wayne State University Law School.
Ward is reappointed to represent development associations or organizations, which might include organizations representing realtors, builders, and planners, for a term commencing October 10, 2024, and expiring September 30, 2027.
The Statewide Housing Partnership serves as an advisory body within the Michigan State Housing Development Authority. Members include leaders from state, local, and tribal governments, advocates from nonprofit and community organizations, and representatives from the business advocacy world and finance industry.
This appointment is not subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.
—Michigan Wildlife Council
Daniel Cooke is the founder and chief executive officer of Expedition Detroit LLC and the principal attorney of Daniel Cooke Law PLLC. He earned a Bachelor of Arts in international relations from Michigan State University and received his law degree from Wayne State University Law School.
Cooke is appointed as an individual with a media or marketing background, who is not an employee of the department, for a term commencing October 10, 2024, and expiring March 31, 2026. He succeeds Thomas Elliot Shafer, who has resigned.
The Michigan Wildlife Council was created to educate about the importance of wildlife conservation and the role of hunters and anglers in preserving Michigan’s great outdoor heritage for future generations.
This appointment is subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.
• • •
Kotz Sangster Wysocki PC has announced that attorney Douglas Eyre has joined the firm in its Detroit office. Eyre brings more than 20 years of experience in construction law and commercial litigation to the firm. He plans to continue practicing in these two areas at Kotz Sangster, strengthening the firm’s business law practice.
“I’ve spent my career expanding and refining my legal specialties to where they are today, and I’m eager to bring that expertise to my new role with Kotz Sangster,” Eyre said. “I’m excited to take the next steps of my career as part of this talented team.”
Eyre brings experience both in-house and in private practice emphasizing construction law, real estate law, and commercial litigation, most recently as a partner at a boutique construction law firm. He currently serves as a chair on the American Bar Association Business Law Section’s in-house litigation subcommittee.
Eyre earned his B.A. in Political Science from Western Michigan University and his law degree from Michigan State University College of Law. He was also recognized by DBusiness Magazine as a Top Lawyer in Construction Law.
• • •
Foley, Baron, Metzger, & Juip PLLC (FBMJ) is pleased to announce that Silvia Alexandria Mansoor has been elevated to chair of the State Bar of Michigan Young Lawyers Section.
As the chair, Mansoor also maintains her seat with the State Bar of Michigan (SBM) Board of Commissioners.
“I’m excited to serve in this role and represent the Young Lawyers Section. I look forward to a great year ahead working on behalf of my peers,” Mansoor said after assuming her new position during the Section’s annual meeting.
Founded in 1940, the Young Lawyers Section is the oldest and one of the largest sections of the State Bar of Michigan. It is comprised of three districts that represent the entirety of the state’s young lawyers. The section regularly carries out legal and public-facing events and provides a great environment to develop leadership within the Michigan legal community. Mansoor has been an active member of the section since 2017.
As a senior associate attorney with the firm, Mansoor defends health care professionals and organizations in complex medical malpractice claims and business dispute claims.
• • •
Foster, Swift, Collins, & Smith PC welcomes litigator Lino A. Taormina to the firm’s Southfield office. Having practiced in Southeast Michigan for more than five years, Taormina primarily represents insurance carriers in first-party no-fault suits, third-party auto negligence suits, and insurance coverage disputes.
His litigation experience also includes Construction defect suits, Premises liability suits, and large loss pre-suit investigations, along with a variety of tort and contract litigation.
Taormina received his law degree from the University of Toledo College of Law in 2019. While attending law school, he served as law clerk to 38th Circuit Court Judge Daniel S. White. Prior to that, he received his B.S. degree in Accounting from Adrian College.
• • •
Bush Seyferth PLLC is proud to announce the promotion of two new partners: Lena Gonzalez and Ryan Vanderford.
Gonzalez has been with the firm since 2018. She litigates complex commercial and insurance coverage cases in both federal and state courts, representing clients ranging from global manufacturing companies to private individuals. She handles disputes involving commercial contracts, including complex breach of contract and breach of warranty cases, as well as tort defense.
In her insurance coverage practice, Gonzalez represents national insurers in life and auto-insurance no-fault matters. She has served as lead counsel for a national insurance company in defense of false representation claims and for a national manufacturer in breach of contract, breach of warranty, and specific performance cases.
In addition to her practice, Gonzalez serves as BSP Law’s Professional Development & Diversity director. She received her law degree from Wayne State University Law School in 2016.
Vanderford joined the firm in 2021. He focuses his practice representing manufacturers in high-stakes product liability litigation all across the country and also has experience in class action defense, corporate policy holder insurance recovery, mass tort litigation, and white-collar defense.
Vanderford has obtained multiple favorable settlements and dismissals for major automotive manufacturers in high-exposure product liability actions, including cases involving fatalities, traumatic brain injury, and other significant bodily injuries.
In addition to his practice, Vanderford serves as a member of BSP Law’s Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Committee and participates in the firm’s recruiting efforts. He received his law degree from the University of Southern California Gould School of Law in 2015, and his B.A. from the University of Colorado, Boulder in 2012.
• • •
Honigman is proud to announce that the firm has achieved Mansfield Certification for 2023-2024. Honigman is among more than 360 leading law firms that participated in this year’s Mansfield Certification process.
“We are thrilled to achieve Mansfield Certification for 2023-2024, a milestone that reflects our commitment to promoting diversity and inclusion within our firm,” said David Foltyn, chair and CEO of Honigman. “This certification not only recognizes our efforts but also motivates us to continue building a workplace that values diverse perspectives and experiences, ultimately better serving our clients and communities.”
• • •
Dykema recently announced the addition of Alison Furtaw as a senior counsel in its Government Investigations and Corporate Compliance Practice in the firm’s Bloomfield Hills office. Furtaw joins Dykema after serving as assistant U.S. attorney for the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Eastern District of Michigan for three years. Prior to that, she spent more than a decade serving as assistant attorney general for the Michigan Department of Attorney General.
As a former assistant U.S. attorney and state assistant attorney general, Furtaw has experience handling matters at the federal, state, and local levels. During her tenure as an assistant United States attorney in the Eastern District of Michigan, she investigated and prosecuted several complex federal criminal violations. Furtaw has experience serving the Healthcare Fraud Unit in Detroit. She also has regulatory experience from her 12 years of experience working with the Michigan Attorney General’s Office. During her time with the Michigan AG, she prosecuted hundreds of white collar criminal cases and created a position as a cybercrime specialist—prosecuting complicated computer crimes, including a national computer-based Ponzi scheme.
Furtaw’s practice focuses on complex criminal, regulatory, and civil matters, including representing healthcare professionals with licensing issues, issues with the Michigan Attorney General’s Office, or billing issues related to Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) investigations.
Before her government service, Furtaw spent seven years in private practice running her own criminal defense practice law firm.
Furtaw earned a law degree from the Detroit College of Law and a B.A. in Communications from Oakland University.
• • •
Taft’s Paytech and Payment Systems chair Nicole Meisner will speak on three separate panels at the upcoming Electronic Transactions Association (ETA) Payments Compliance Conference. The conference will take place in Pentagon City, Virginia, from Oct. 29 to 30.
This two-day conference will provide vital insight and programming from industry visionaries and regulatory leaders to help navigate the complex regulatory landscape.
Meisner, of Taft’s Detroit-Southfield office, counsels a range of companies in the payments and financial services industries, including acquiring banks, payment processors, independent sales organizations (ISOs), payment facilitators, marketplaces, mobile payment providers, financial technology (FinTech) companies, ACH providers, money transmitters, prepaid access providers, and digital currency companies.
A large segment of Meisner’s client base includes software platforms and other SaaS providers that have embedded or integrated payment processing solutions into their core offering.
• • •
Brooks Kushman attorneys Hope Shovein and Erica Klazmer hosted and International Trademark Association (INTA) Roundtable, “Enforcement: AI and Fair Use,” on October 21. This lunch-and-learn session discussed the important questions surrounding IP ownership in AI.
With more than 20 years of IP experience, Shovein manages trademark portfolios and develops IP strategies, including clearance, prosecution, enforcement, and everything in between, for both domestic and multinational companies. She also counsels on brand protection programs utilizing investigations, demand letters, online and social media platform takedowns, domain name complaints, as well as Trademark Trial and Appeal Board proceedings. She specializes in helping clients enforce their rights in any medium, including the unauthorized use of trademarks and copyright-protected material on the internet.
Shovein is a past chair of both the State Bar of Michigan (SBM) Intellectual Property Law Section and also the Young Lawyers Section. She served as a commissioner on the SBM Board of Commissioners. She has been named to World Trademark Review’s “WTR 1000” since 2018.
Klazmer focuses her practice on trademark clearance, prosecution, enforcement, counseling, and portfolio management. She has experience counseling clients in a wide variety of industries, including technology, finance, food and beverage, fashion, consumer products, entertainment, and gaming.
In addition to managing and growing trademark portfolios both domestically and internationally, Klazmer litigates trademark oppositions and cancellations before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) and counsels clients on copyright matters. Her transactional intellectual property (IP) experience includes trademark coexistence and consent agreements, as well as trademark and copyright assignment and licensing agreements.
—Military Appeals Tribunal
Robert Gardella is an attorney at law at Robert C. Gardella PLLC. He is a former member of State Bar of Michigan Board of Commissioners and the former chairperson of the State Bar of Michigan Representative Assembly. He earned a Bachelor of Arts in journalism from Michigan State University and a law degree from Cooley Law School.
Garella is reappointed as a civilian licensed to practice law in this state for a term commencing October 10, 2024, and expiring April 16, 2027.
The Military Appeals Tribunal has appellate jurisdiction, upon petition of an accused, to hear and review the record in all decisions of a court-martial after the review provided in the Michigan code of military justice.
This appointment is subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.
—Statewide Housing Partnership
Brad Ward is currently the vice president of public policy and legal affairs for the Michigan Realtors Association. He previously held a position at the Michigan House of Representatives as a legislative aid to Representative Nancy Cassis. He is a member of the National Association of Realtors Government Affairs Director Advisory Board, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce Tax Policy Committee, and the John Drypen Foundation. He earned a Bachelor of Arts in political theory and constitutional democracy from Michigan State University and his law degree from Wayne State University Law School.
Ward is reappointed to represent development associations or organizations, which might include organizations representing realtors, builders, and planners, for a term commencing October 10, 2024, and expiring September 30, 2027.
The Statewide Housing Partnership serves as an advisory body within the Michigan State Housing Development Authority. Members include leaders from state, local, and tribal governments, advocates from nonprofit and community organizations, and representatives from the business advocacy world and finance industry.
This appointment is not subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.
—Michigan Wildlife Council
Daniel Cooke is the founder and chief executive officer of Expedition Detroit LLC and the principal attorney of Daniel Cooke Law PLLC. He earned a Bachelor of Arts in international relations from Michigan State University and received his law degree from Wayne State University Law School.
Cooke is appointed as an individual with a media or marketing background, who is not an employee of the department, for a term commencing October 10, 2024, and expiring March 31, 2026. He succeeds Thomas Elliot Shafer, who has resigned.
The Michigan Wildlife Council was created to educate about the importance of wildlife conservation and the role of hunters and anglers in preserving Michigan’s great outdoor heritage for future generations.
This appointment is subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.
• • •
Kotz Sangster Wysocki PC has announced that attorney Douglas Eyre has joined the firm in its Detroit office. Eyre brings more than 20 years of experience in construction law and commercial litigation to the firm. He plans to continue practicing in these two areas at Kotz Sangster, strengthening the firm’s business law practice.
“I’ve spent my career expanding and refining my legal specialties to where they are today, and I’m eager to bring that expertise to my new role with Kotz Sangster,” Eyre said. “I’m excited to take the next steps of my career as part of this talented team.”
Eyre brings experience both in-house and in private practice emphasizing construction law, real estate law, and commercial litigation, most recently as a partner at a boutique construction law firm. He currently serves as a chair on the American Bar Association Business Law Section’s in-house litigation subcommittee.
Eyre earned his B.A. in Political Science from Western Michigan University and his law degree from Michigan State University College of Law. He was also recognized by DBusiness Magazine as a Top Lawyer in Construction Law.
• • •
Foley, Baron, Metzger, & Juip PLLC (FBMJ) is pleased to announce that Silvia Alexandria Mansoor has been elevated to chair of the State Bar of Michigan Young Lawyers Section.
As the chair, Mansoor also maintains her seat with the State Bar of Michigan (SBM) Board of Commissioners.
“I’m excited to serve in this role and represent the Young Lawyers Section. I look forward to a great year ahead working on behalf of my peers,” Mansoor said after assuming her new position during the Section’s annual meeting.
Founded in 1940, the Young Lawyers Section is the oldest and one of the largest sections of the State Bar of Michigan. It is comprised of three districts that represent the entirety of the state’s young lawyers. The section regularly carries out legal and public-facing events and provides a great environment to develop leadership within the Michigan legal community. Mansoor has been an active member of the section since 2017.
As a senior associate attorney with the firm, Mansoor defends health care professionals and organizations in complex medical malpractice claims and business dispute claims.
• • •
Foster, Swift, Collins, & Smith PC welcomes litigator Lino A. Taormina to the firm’s Southfield office. Having practiced in Southeast Michigan for more than five years, Taormina primarily represents insurance carriers in first-party no-fault suits, third-party auto negligence suits, and insurance coverage disputes.
His litigation experience also includes Construction defect suits, Premises liability suits, and large loss pre-suit investigations, along with a variety of tort and contract litigation.
Taormina received his law degree from the University of Toledo College of Law in 2019. While attending law school, he served as law clerk to 38th Circuit Court Judge Daniel S. White. Prior to that, he received his B.S. degree in Accounting from Adrian College.
• • •
Bush Seyferth PLLC is proud to announce the promotion of two new partners: Lena Gonzalez and Ryan Vanderford.
Gonzalez has been with the firm since 2018. She litigates complex commercial and insurance coverage cases in both federal and state courts, representing clients ranging from global manufacturing companies to private individuals. She handles disputes involving commercial contracts, including complex breach of contract and breach of warranty cases, as well as tort defense.
In her insurance coverage practice, Gonzalez represents national insurers in life and auto-insurance no-fault matters. She has served as lead counsel for a national insurance company in defense of false representation claims and for a national manufacturer in breach of contract, breach of warranty, and specific performance cases.
In addition to her practice, Gonzalez serves as BSP Law’s Professional Development & Diversity director. She received her law degree from Wayne State University Law School in 2016.
Vanderford joined the firm in 2021. He focuses his practice representing manufacturers in high-stakes product liability litigation all across the country and also has experience in class action defense, corporate policy holder insurance recovery, mass tort litigation, and white-collar defense.
Vanderford has obtained multiple favorable settlements and dismissals for major automotive manufacturers in high-exposure product liability actions, including cases involving fatalities, traumatic brain injury, and other significant bodily injuries.
In addition to his practice, Vanderford serves as a member of BSP Law’s Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Committee and participates in the firm’s recruiting efforts. He received his law degree from the University of Southern California Gould School of Law in 2015, and his B.A. from the University of Colorado, Boulder in 2012.
• • •
Honigman is proud to announce that the firm has achieved Mansfield Certification for 2023-2024. Honigman is among more than 360 leading law firms that participated in this year’s Mansfield Certification process.
“We are thrilled to achieve Mansfield Certification for 2023-2024, a milestone that reflects our commitment to promoting diversity and inclusion within our firm,” said David Foltyn, chair and CEO of Honigman. “This certification not only recognizes our efforts but also motivates us to continue building a workplace that values diverse perspectives and experiences, ultimately better serving our clients and communities.”
• • •
Dykema recently announced the addition of Alison Furtaw as a senior counsel in its Government Investigations and Corporate Compliance Practice in the firm’s Bloomfield Hills office. Furtaw joins Dykema after serving as assistant U.S. attorney for the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Eastern District of Michigan for three years. Prior to that, she spent more than a decade serving as assistant attorney general for the Michigan Department of Attorney General.
As a former assistant U.S. attorney and state assistant attorney general, Furtaw has experience handling matters at the federal, state, and local levels. During her tenure as an assistant United States attorney in the Eastern District of Michigan, she investigated and prosecuted several complex federal criminal violations. Furtaw has experience serving the Healthcare Fraud Unit in Detroit. She also has regulatory experience from her 12 years of experience working with the Michigan Attorney General’s Office. During her time with the Michigan AG, she prosecuted hundreds of white collar criminal cases and created a position as a cybercrime specialist—prosecuting complicated computer crimes, including a national computer-based Ponzi scheme.
Furtaw’s practice focuses on complex criminal, regulatory, and civil matters, including representing healthcare professionals with licensing issues, issues with the Michigan Attorney General’s Office, or billing issues related to Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) investigations.
Before her government service, Furtaw spent seven years in private practice running her own criminal defense practice law firm.
Furtaw earned a law degree from the Detroit College of Law and a B.A. in Communications from Oakland University.
• • •
Taft’s Paytech and Payment Systems chair Nicole Meisner will speak on three separate panels at the upcoming Electronic Transactions Association (ETA) Payments Compliance Conference. The conference will take place in Pentagon City, Virginia, from Oct. 29 to 30.
This two-day conference will provide vital insight and programming from industry visionaries and regulatory leaders to help navigate the complex regulatory landscape.
Meisner, of Taft’s Detroit-Southfield office, counsels a range of companies in the payments and financial services industries, including acquiring banks, payment processors, independent sales organizations (ISOs), payment facilitators, marketplaces, mobile payment providers, financial technology (FinTech) companies, ACH providers, money transmitters, prepaid access providers, and digital currency companies.
A large segment of Meisner’s client base includes software platforms and other SaaS providers that have embedded or integrated payment processing solutions into their core offering.
• • •
Brooks Kushman attorneys Hope Shovein and Erica Klazmer hosted and International Trademark Association (INTA) Roundtable, “Enforcement: AI and Fair Use,” on October 21. This lunch-and-learn session discussed the important questions surrounding IP ownership in AI.
With more than 20 years of IP experience, Shovein manages trademark portfolios and develops IP strategies, including clearance, prosecution, enforcement, and everything in between, for both domestic and multinational companies. She also counsels on brand protection programs utilizing investigations, demand letters, online and social media platform takedowns, domain name complaints, as well as Trademark Trial and Appeal Board proceedings. She specializes in helping clients enforce their rights in any medium, including the unauthorized use of trademarks and copyright-protected material on the internet.
Shovein is a past chair of both the State Bar of Michigan (SBM) Intellectual Property Law Section and also the Young Lawyers Section. She served as a commissioner on the SBM Board of Commissioners. She has been named to World Trademark Review’s “WTR 1000” since 2018.
Klazmer focuses her practice on trademark clearance, prosecution, enforcement, counseling, and portfolio management. She has experience counseling clients in a wide variety of industries, including technology, finance, food and beverage, fashion, consumer products, entertainment, and gaming.
In addition to managing and growing trademark portfolios both domestically and internationally, Klazmer litigates trademark oppositions and cancellations before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) and counsels clients on copyright matters. Her transactional intellectual property (IP) experience includes trademark coexistence and consent agreements, as well as trademark and copyright assignment and licensing agreements.
COMMENTARY: How to tell if the election was ‘rigged’... or not
October 22 ,2024
There is much concern over whether the upcoming presidential election
will be “rigged” against one candidate, or another. Based on Michigan
election law, MCL 168.1-168.992 and my 16 years working as an election
inspector, here is how you can have a meaningful sense of whether or not
the election was, or could have been, “rigged,” such that your
candidate might have been wrongly deprived of victory.
:
By Scott E. Munzel
There is much concern over whether the upcoming presidential election will be “rigged” against one candidate, or another. Based on Michigan election law, MCL 168.1-168.992 and my 16 years working as an election inspector, here is how you can have a meaningful sense of whether or not the election was, or could have been, “rigged,” such that your candidate might have been wrongly deprived of victory.
Elections are run by the clerks of cities and townships across Michigan. As such, the results for statewide elections, such as the presidential election, are the sum of the results from the 1,521 jurisdictions that run the elections. This diffused management makes it extremely difficult to engage in any large-scale “rigging.”
Crucially, the clerks who run the elections hire “election inspectors” to do the actual work of putting on the elections. Most of these election inspectors live in the city or township where the election is occurring. That is, the folks you see working the polls and who help you vote are your neighbors, typically civic-minded residents who simply want to help self-government function. Each election inspector takes an oath to uphold the U.S. and Michigan Constitutions and perform their duties according to the Michigan election law. MCL 168.680. In this way, elections are similar to juries: conducted by regular folks who, in a quiet yet remarkable way, contribute to the success of what Abraham Lincoln called our “experiment in democracy.”
Very importantly, state law requires that the clerks hire individuals from both of the major parties, and have them working together to complete every single task involved in the election. MCL 168.674. As such, there are mutual “foxes watching the chicken coop,” in real time, throughout the entire election process. So, while the election in which you voted could have been “rigged,” that would mean that multiple members of your party working at the precinct or absent voter count board let the other party engage in some level of election fraud. This is improbable at best. In reality, in order to be sure their respective candidates are treated fairly, the two major parties have conjured a way in which bipartisanship creates an election process with a high degree of integrity.
Moreover, every aspect of the electoral process is open to the public. This applies to the testing of the tabulators, review of the lists of voters, the voting process at the precincts and absent voter count boards, and the review of the election results as they are tabulated and then accumulated by the local clerk. Because of this transparency, it would be very difficult to engage in large-scale fraud. If it did occur, it was because your candidate or party failed to observe and keep an eye on the very public election process. If your party was “on the job,” you can feel confident that the election was not “rigged.”
Other mechanics of the actual voting process impact whether or not the election was “rigged.” As noted above, the tabulators are all tested in public ahead of the election to be sure they have no programming glitches that might improperly allocate the voted ballots. They are then sealed until the morning of the election, when election inspectors unseal them. The tabulators are not connected to the internet; they are “stand alone,” so that they cannot be manipulated from afar.
There are strict controls on the actual ballots. Every ballot is numbered, and they are all accounted for throughout the entire election process. All the ballots used must match the number of voters, as well as the numbers in the tabulators. All of the ballots and other election materials are sealed at the end of the day, again by election inspectors of different political parties, to maintain the integrity of the ballots and the other election materials. The ballots are retained after the election in case of a recount or other irregularities that need to be investigated. Because of the bipartisan oversight of the ballots, “rigging” of the voted ballots is almost impossible.
Finally, the actual voters. To register to vote, an applicant must be a U.S. citizen and a resident of the city or township in which they seek to register, and must provide information to the clerk that is checked by the state for accuracy. The application to register to vote must contain a signature. To obtain an absent voter ballot, the signature of the applicant must match the signature of the registered voter. While conceivably not fool-proof, it would be very difficult to engineer any kind of large-scale fraud in the absent voter process. And to vote at the polls in person, the applicant must present photographic identification or swear that they have such identification. Again, it would be very difficult to engage in large-scale fraud in the in-person voting process.
In truth, the two major parties have enacted comprehensive legislation governing how elections in Michigan are conducted, and have designed a system that is transparent, with built-in protections that create a system with a high degree of accuracy and integrity. If election fraud does in fact occur, it is in the best interests of everyone to know about it and determine how to move forward, particularly given that election results could be adjusted based on the discovery of real fraud. But without presenting actual evidence, claims that an election was “rigged” are no more than gossip; an insult to the thousands of election inspectors who work to deliver election results in which all valid votes are counted; damage the legitimacy of every candidate on the ballot; and undermine our shared system of self-government.
————————
Scott E. Munzel is Of Counsel to Dever Eby Issa PLLC in Ann Arbor. He practices municipal law and real estate law, and related litigation. He has worked as an election inspector for the City of Ann Arbor since 2008, both at the precinct polls and at absent voter count boards.
There is much concern over whether the upcoming presidential election will be “rigged” against one candidate, or another. Based on Michigan election law, MCL 168.1-168.992 and my 16 years working as an election inspector, here is how you can have a meaningful sense of whether or not the election was, or could have been, “rigged,” such that your candidate might have been wrongly deprived of victory.
Elections are run by the clerks of cities and townships across Michigan. As such, the results for statewide elections, such as the presidential election, are the sum of the results from the 1,521 jurisdictions that run the elections. This diffused management makes it extremely difficult to engage in any large-scale “rigging.”
Crucially, the clerks who run the elections hire “election inspectors” to do the actual work of putting on the elections. Most of these election inspectors live in the city or township where the election is occurring. That is, the folks you see working the polls and who help you vote are your neighbors, typically civic-minded residents who simply want to help self-government function. Each election inspector takes an oath to uphold the U.S. and Michigan Constitutions and perform their duties according to the Michigan election law. MCL 168.680. In this way, elections are similar to juries: conducted by regular folks who, in a quiet yet remarkable way, contribute to the success of what Abraham Lincoln called our “experiment in democracy.”
Very importantly, state law requires that the clerks hire individuals from both of the major parties, and have them working together to complete every single task involved in the election. MCL 168.674. As such, there are mutual “foxes watching the chicken coop,” in real time, throughout the entire election process. So, while the election in which you voted could have been “rigged,” that would mean that multiple members of your party working at the precinct or absent voter count board let the other party engage in some level of election fraud. This is improbable at best. In reality, in order to be sure their respective candidates are treated fairly, the two major parties have conjured a way in which bipartisanship creates an election process with a high degree of integrity.
Moreover, every aspect of the electoral process is open to the public. This applies to the testing of the tabulators, review of the lists of voters, the voting process at the precincts and absent voter count boards, and the review of the election results as they are tabulated and then accumulated by the local clerk. Because of this transparency, it would be very difficult to engage in large-scale fraud. If it did occur, it was because your candidate or party failed to observe and keep an eye on the very public election process. If your party was “on the job,” you can feel confident that the election was not “rigged.”
Other mechanics of the actual voting process impact whether or not the election was “rigged.” As noted above, the tabulators are all tested in public ahead of the election to be sure they have no programming glitches that might improperly allocate the voted ballots. They are then sealed until the morning of the election, when election inspectors unseal them. The tabulators are not connected to the internet; they are “stand alone,” so that they cannot be manipulated from afar.
There are strict controls on the actual ballots. Every ballot is numbered, and they are all accounted for throughout the entire election process. All the ballots used must match the number of voters, as well as the numbers in the tabulators. All of the ballots and other election materials are sealed at the end of the day, again by election inspectors of different political parties, to maintain the integrity of the ballots and the other election materials. The ballots are retained after the election in case of a recount or other irregularities that need to be investigated. Because of the bipartisan oversight of the ballots, “rigging” of the voted ballots is almost impossible.
Finally, the actual voters. To register to vote, an applicant must be a U.S. citizen and a resident of the city or township in which they seek to register, and must provide information to the clerk that is checked by the state for accuracy. The application to register to vote must contain a signature. To obtain an absent voter ballot, the signature of the applicant must match the signature of the registered voter. While conceivably not fool-proof, it would be very difficult to engineer any kind of large-scale fraud in the absent voter process. And to vote at the polls in person, the applicant must present photographic identification or swear that they have such identification. Again, it would be very difficult to engage in large-scale fraud in the in-person voting process.
In truth, the two major parties have enacted comprehensive legislation governing how elections in Michigan are conducted, and have designed a system that is transparent, with built-in protections that create a system with a high degree of accuracy and integrity. If election fraud does in fact occur, it is in the best interests of everyone to know about it and determine how to move forward, particularly given that election results could be adjusted based on the discovery of real fraud. But without presenting actual evidence, claims that an election was “rigged” are no more than gossip; an insult to the thousands of election inspectors who work to deliver election results in which all valid votes are counted; damage the legitimacy of every candidate on the ballot; and undermine our shared system of self-government.
————————
Scott E. Munzel is Of Counsel to Dever Eby Issa PLLC in Ann Arbor. He practices municipal law and real estate law, and related litigation. He has worked as an election inspector for the City of Ann Arbor since 2008, both at the precinct polls and at absent voter count boards.
COMMENTARY: Author has his share of explaining to do
October 22 ,2024
Bob Woodward, Washington Post associate editor, journalistic hustler, and huckster is back.
This time with a book titled “War,” in which he claims Donald Trump, after leaving the White House, called Vladimir Putin seven times and sent him COVID kits which would protect the Russian leader.
:
This time with a book titled “War,” in which he claims Donald Trump, after leaving the White House, called Vladimir Putin seven times and sent him COVID kits which would protect the Russian leader.
By Berl Falbaum
Bob Woodward, Washington Post associate editor, journalistic hustler, and huckster is back.
This time with a book titled “War,” in which he claims Donald Trump, after leaving the White House, called Vladimir Putin seven times and sent him COVID kits which would protect the Russian leader.
As usual, Woodward uses anonymous sources, except this time he mentions only one source and admits, according to The New York Times, he could not confirm the information with anyone else.
The Times stated 20 members of the career intelligence community as well as President Biden and former Trump administration officials had no knowledge of any contacts between Trump and Putin.
In the book, as he always does, Woodward uses direct quotes to report on controversial issues when no official transcripts are available. He has never explained this violation of journalistic ethics.
At one point, when President Biden’s son, Hunter, came into the room and chatted with his father, the President just “leaned back in his chair, closed his eyes and sighed.” We can assume Woodward uncovered this information for a secret vault in the White House.
The book also “reveals” profane-laced statements made by Biden when discussing Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. At one point, we are told, he called Netanyahu a “f---- liar.”
We will have to take Woodward at his word.
This book follows one called “Peril” (co-authored with Robert Costa) in which Woodward states Army General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called his counterpart in China, General Le Zuocheng, to assure him that he (Milley) would alert him if the U.S. planned to attack China.
Before I go on, is there anyone reading this who believes that the highest-ranking U.S. military official who spent 40 years in the military, would undermine the president and the country by providing such a warning and vital secret information of a surprise attack to an arch-enemy?
I did not think so. Indeed, when asked during a congressional hearing if he would do that, Milley responded under oath, “Of course, I wouldn’t,” adding, “My oath is to support the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic.”
Woodward also tell us that despite Milley’s assurances, General Li “remained unusually rattled.” Since no source is cited, we must assume that Woodward was sitting in Li’s office in China when Milley made the call.
Throughout the years, Woodward has violated journalistic ethics, not only with his use of anonymous sources or direct quotes that cannot be proven, but also he frequently reported on what officials were “thinking” in meetings they attended decades earlier. At night, I cannot even remember what I “thought” at breakfast.
But I must give Woodward credit for being shrewd in convincing officials to talk to him off-the-record. His sources understand if they answer his questions, they will not have to worry about being implicated in the subjects Woodward explores because he cannot divulge their identities. Woodward cannot criticize his sources even if they are responsible for the very crises Woodward investigates. They have protection.
Woodward knows all that and he exploits this relationship expertly.
In one case, Woodward did reveal a source. In 1985, he said that the late Supreme Court Associate Justice Potter Stewart was his primary source for his book, “The Brethren,” which dealt with the court.
Woodward did so after Stewart died, when the man could not defend himself. Not only did Woodward violate the ethic of keeping sources secret -- you never reveal sources -- but his revelation can only be described as ugly, mean-spirited and self-serving. How does one point a finger at a man after his death? What does that say about character?
Woodward’s career has been rampant with his questionable reporting.
Let’s review another major case involving Woodward’s book, “Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA, 1981-1987. “In the book, published in 1987, Woodward claimed that the late CIA Director William Casey confessed to him about illegal arms sales to Iran in what was called the Iran-Contra scandal.
Casey, at the time, was in the hospital, paralyzed and gravely ill following brain surgery, but Woodward claimed he managed to visit Casey in his hospital room despite strict security.
“You knew, didn’t you?” Woodward wrote, inquiring whether Casey was aware that funds from the sale of arms to Iran were being diverted to the Nicaraguan contras. “His head jerked up hard,” Woodward wrote. “He stared, and finally nodded yes.”
“Why?” Woodward said he asked. Casey replied faintly, “I believed.”
Casey’s family and intelligence officials all said it was impossible for Woodward to have avoided security to gain access into Casey’s hospital room.
At the time, Time Magazine observed: “It was a perfect ending for Woodward’s dramatic spy saga. Too perfect in the view of some…In familiar Woodward style, ‘Veil’ reads as much like a novel as a work of journalism, with scenes, dialogue and characters’ thoughts re-created. Woodward says he talked to more than 250 people, but his revelations are not directly attributed to specific sources.”
When Woodward’s boss, the late Washington Post Executive Editor Ben Bradlee, spoke at the Detroit Press Club years ago, I asked him how Woodward gets away with his “journalistic compromises.” Bradlee admitted, “He [Woodward} takes some liberties.”
The major question is: How did Woodward become such a hero in journalism? Newsweek Magazine, in examining Woodward’s work, asked that question in a 2013 article headlined: “The Myth of Bob Woodward: Why Is this Man an American Icon?”
No one in the business has ever answered that.
(Full disclosure: I have not read “War.” I don’t read much fiction. This column is based on news stories discussing the book’s release due this week).
But I must confess that I am indebted to Woodward. When I was still teaching at Wayne State University, he provided me with lots of material for my classes on ethics in journalism.
————————
Berl Falbaum is a veteran journalist and author of 12 books.
Bob Woodward, Washington Post associate editor, journalistic hustler, and huckster is back.
This time with a book titled “War,” in which he claims Donald Trump, after leaving the White House, called Vladimir Putin seven times and sent him COVID kits which would protect the Russian leader.
As usual, Woodward uses anonymous sources, except this time he mentions only one source and admits, according to The New York Times, he could not confirm the information with anyone else.
The Times stated 20 members of the career intelligence community as well as President Biden and former Trump administration officials had no knowledge of any contacts between Trump and Putin.
In the book, as he always does, Woodward uses direct quotes to report on controversial issues when no official transcripts are available. He has never explained this violation of journalistic ethics.
At one point, when President Biden’s son, Hunter, came into the room and chatted with his father, the President just “leaned back in his chair, closed his eyes and sighed.” We can assume Woodward uncovered this information for a secret vault in the White House.
The book also “reveals” profane-laced statements made by Biden when discussing Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. At one point, we are told, he called Netanyahu a “f---- liar.”
We will have to take Woodward at his word.
This book follows one called “Peril” (co-authored with Robert Costa) in which Woodward states Army General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called his counterpart in China, General Le Zuocheng, to assure him that he (Milley) would alert him if the U.S. planned to attack China.
Before I go on, is there anyone reading this who believes that the highest-ranking U.S. military official who spent 40 years in the military, would undermine the president and the country by providing such a warning and vital secret information of a surprise attack to an arch-enemy?
I did not think so. Indeed, when asked during a congressional hearing if he would do that, Milley responded under oath, “Of course, I wouldn’t,” adding, “My oath is to support the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic.”
Woodward also tell us that despite Milley’s assurances, General Li “remained unusually rattled.” Since no source is cited, we must assume that Woodward was sitting in Li’s office in China when Milley made the call.
Throughout the years, Woodward has violated journalistic ethics, not only with his use of anonymous sources or direct quotes that cannot be proven, but also he frequently reported on what officials were “thinking” in meetings they attended decades earlier. At night, I cannot even remember what I “thought” at breakfast.
But I must give Woodward credit for being shrewd in convincing officials to talk to him off-the-record. His sources understand if they answer his questions, they will not have to worry about being implicated in the subjects Woodward explores because he cannot divulge their identities. Woodward cannot criticize his sources even if they are responsible for the very crises Woodward investigates. They have protection.
Woodward knows all that and he exploits this relationship expertly.
In one case, Woodward did reveal a source. In 1985, he said that the late Supreme Court Associate Justice Potter Stewart was his primary source for his book, “The Brethren,” which dealt with the court.
Woodward did so after Stewart died, when the man could not defend himself. Not only did Woodward violate the ethic of keeping sources secret -- you never reveal sources -- but his revelation can only be described as ugly, mean-spirited and self-serving. How does one point a finger at a man after his death? What does that say about character?
Woodward’s career has been rampant with his questionable reporting.
Let’s review another major case involving Woodward’s book, “Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA, 1981-1987. “In the book, published in 1987, Woodward claimed that the late CIA Director William Casey confessed to him about illegal arms sales to Iran in what was called the Iran-Contra scandal.
Casey, at the time, was in the hospital, paralyzed and gravely ill following brain surgery, but Woodward claimed he managed to visit Casey in his hospital room despite strict security.
“You knew, didn’t you?” Woodward wrote, inquiring whether Casey was aware that funds from the sale of arms to Iran were being diverted to the Nicaraguan contras. “His head jerked up hard,” Woodward wrote. “He stared, and finally nodded yes.”
“Why?” Woodward said he asked. Casey replied faintly, “I believed.”
Casey’s family and intelligence officials all said it was impossible for Woodward to have avoided security to gain access into Casey’s hospital room.
At the time, Time Magazine observed: “It was a perfect ending for Woodward’s dramatic spy saga. Too perfect in the view of some…In familiar Woodward style, ‘Veil’ reads as much like a novel as a work of journalism, with scenes, dialogue and characters’ thoughts re-created. Woodward says he talked to more than 250 people, but his revelations are not directly attributed to specific sources.”
When Woodward’s boss, the late Washington Post Executive Editor Ben Bradlee, spoke at the Detroit Press Club years ago, I asked him how Woodward gets away with his “journalistic compromises.” Bradlee admitted, “He [Woodward} takes some liberties.”
The major question is: How did Woodward become such a hero in journalism? Newsweek Magazine, in examining Woodward’s work, asked that question in a 2013 article headlined: “The Myth of Bob Woodward: Why Is this Man an American Icon?”
No one in the business has ever answered that.
(Full disclosure: I have not read “War.” I don’t read much fiction. This column is based on news stories discussing the book’s release due this week).
But I must confess that I am indebted to Woodward. When I was still teaching at Wayne State University, he provided me with lots of material for my classes on ethics in journalism.
————————
Berl Falbaum is a veteran journalist and author of 12 books.
COMMENTARY: Support is non-modifiable by agreement only
October 22 ,2024
Spousal support is often a hard pill to swallow, even when the parties
agree to the payment and terms. Imagine not having a say, and finding
out from the court that you are stuck paying $2,500 per month ... with
no ability to change it. That was Frank Koy’s nightmare until the
Michigan Court of Appeals stepped in (see Koy v Koy, 274 Mich App 653
(2007)).
:
By Marie E. Matyjaszek
Spousal support is often a hard pill to swallow, even when the parties agree to the payment and terms. Imagine not having a say, and finding out from the court that you are stuck paying $2,500 per month ... with no ability to change it. That was Frank Koy’s nightmare until the Michigan Court of Appeals stepped in (see Koy v Koy, 274 Mich App 653 (2007)).
Now, to be fair, Frank wasn’t exactly portrayed as an angel – his ex-wife Concetta, a widow when they married, testified that he squandered her $400,000 in real estate without her knowledge, leaving her with only $5,000. During their divorce, he didn’t comply with a multitude of court orders, including those related to discovery, which looks a little suspicious. His excuse was that he simply wasn’t good at answering those types of questions, and besides, his wife knew their assets.
On top of his utter lack of respect for court orders, when Frank failed to show up at the settlement conference, the court entered a default against him and declined to set it aside when asked. Frank requested a stay relative to the default judgment of divorce and to set it aside, because Concetta was disposing of assets while his appeal was pending. The trial court agreed to the stay if Frank posted $500,000-plus bond – which he never did.
The trial court entered a default divorce judgment, awarding Concetta non-modifiable spousal support of $2,500 per month. The problem is, only parties can agree to a non-modifiable spousal support award – and Frank certainly didn’t agree. The Court of Appeals noted that “[a]n award of spousal support is subject to modification on a showing of changed circumstances,” and while the award “need not specify that it is modifiable,” the award in this case improperly states that it is “non-modifiable.”
When divvying up the parties’ property, the trial court also failed to make sufficient findings of fact to support its decision. Upon remand, the court could consider redistribution of the assets to achieve the equitable division required.
The Court of Appeals held that the lower court did not abuse its discretion when denying Frank’s motion to set aside the default judgment of divorce, leaving him with a limited do-over on the property, and of course, the spousal support win. This case is an excellent reminder that the court cannot issue a non-modifiable spousal support award absent agreement of the parties – proving that change isn’t always a bad thing.
————————
Marie E. Matyjaszek is a judicial attorney at the Washtenaw County Trial Court; however, the views expressed in this column are her own. She can be reached by e-mailing her at matyjasz@hotmail.com.
Spousal support is often a hard pill to swallow, even when the parties agree to the payment and terms. Imagine not having a say, and finding out from the court that you are stuck paying $2,500 per month ... with no ability to change it. That was Frank Koy’s nightmare until the Michigan Court of Appeals stepped in (see Koy v Koy, 274 Mich App 653 (2007)).
Now, to be fair, Frank wasn’t exactly portrayed as an angel – his ex-wife Concetta, a widow when they married, testified that he squandered her $400,000 in real estate without her knowledge, leaving her with only $5,000. During their divorce, he didn’t comply with a multitude of court orders, including those related to discovery, which looks a little suspicious. His excuse was that he simply wasn’t good at answering those types of questions, and besides, his wife knew their assets.
On top of his utter lack of respect for court orders, when Frank failed to show up at the settlement conference, the court entered a default against him and declined to set it aside when asked. Frank requested a stay relative to the default judgment of divorce and to set it aside, because Concetta was disposing of assets while his appeal was pending. The trial court agreed to the stay if Frank posted $500,000-plus bond – which he never did.
The trial court entered a default divorce judgment, awarding Concetta non-modifiable spousal support of $2,500 per month. The problem is, only parties can agree to a non-modifiable spousal support award – and Frank certainly didn’t agree. The Court of Appeals noted that “[a]n award of spousal support is subject to modification on a showing of changed circumstances,” and while the award “need not specify that it is modifiable,” the award in this case improperly states that it is “non-modifiable.”
When divvying up the parties’ property, the trial court also failed to make sufficient findings of fact to support its decision. Upon remand, the court could consider redistribution of the assets to achieve the equitable division required.
The Court of Appeals held that the lower court did not abuse its discretion when denying Frank’s motion to set aside the default judgment of divorce, leaving him with a limited do-over on the property, and of course, the spousal support win. This case is an excellent reminder that the court cannot issue a non-modifiable spousal support award absent agreement of the parties – proving that change isn’t always a bad thing.
————————
Marie E. Matyjaszek is a judicial attorney at the Washtenaw County Trial Court; however, the views expressed in this column are her own. She can be reached by e-mailing her at matyjasz@hotmail.com.
headlines Oakland County
- Do it all: Attorney turns volunteer work into an art form
- Nessel sues pharmacy benefit managers for role in opioid crisis
- Man charged with embezzling over $350,000 from Gross Pointe Woods wine shop
- Judge rules MDOC gender dysphoria discrimination suit can continue as plaintiff receives requested accommodation
- Detroit murder conviction is overturned 22 years later because of police misconduct
headlines National
- Unbeknownst to corporate lawyer, scammers used her name to file thousands of trademark applications
- Judge accuses high-profile law firms of possible effort to ‘gum up the works’
- Lawyer accused of ‘egregious acts of dishonesty,’ gambling with client cash gets disbarred
- Ex-BigLaw partner hit with prison time, $4.2M restitution order in tax case
- Artificial intelligence in the legal field ‘will lead to an exciting evolution in the ecosystem,’ Airia CEO says
- Florida lawyer says she used trust account funds to avoid becoming homeless
