Mediaboss Marketing

A group of City Council members wants to add some money for community service programs to Mayor Jean Stotherts proposed 2018 budget.

Theyve proposed four amendments to add money to such programs, plus a fifth amendment that would beef up the city clerks budget after the council approved some increases to the offices salary ranges.

The amendments would make less than $100,000 worth of changes to a $900 million city budget.

If the amendments are approved, the following programs budgets would increase:

The Metropolitan Area Planning Agency would receive an additional $10,000, for a total of $20,000.

MAPA executive director Greg Youell asked the council to increase its funding to $40,000.

Council President Ben Gray proposed the amendment.

The Police Athletics for Community Engagement would receive an additional $10,000, under an amendment proposed by Gray, Pete Festersen and Vinny Palermo.

Stothert had proposed funding of $25,000, up from $20,000 in 2017.

The ReConnect program, which provides job training and other services to young people transitioning from prison, would receive another $10,000 for a total of $55,000, under an amendment from Gray and Council Vice President Chris Jerram.

Gray and Jerram also want to add $20,000 for the Heartland Workforce Solutions job training program.

Council members had asked for about $1 million in funding; Stothert proposed $500,000, up from $440,000 in 2017.

All of the money would be moved from the mayors proposed allocation to citys reserve funds.

The council is scheduled to vote on the budget Aug. 22. Tuesday is the deadline for council members to submit amendments.

Be the first to know when news happens. Get the latest breaking headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Read the original post:
Omaha City Council members look to boost funding for community service programs in Stothert's proposed budget - Omaha World-Herald

Benchmark Capital may have just given another Uber investor some legal ammo by filing a bombshell complaint against the company and its former CEO Travis Kalanick. Central to Benchmarks allegations that Kalanick committed fraud and breach of fiduciary duty is Alphabets self-driving lawsuit against Uber.

According to the complaint, Kalanick did not disclose to the board what he knew about Alphabets allegations of trade secret misappropriation before the board signed off on Ubers acquisition of self-driving startup Otto.

In sum, the Waymo lawsuit presents significant legal, financial, and reputational risks to Uber risks that could have been reduced or avoided if Kalanick had disclosed crucial facts about his own apparent knowledge at the time of the Otto acquisition, the complaint reads. Instead, as noted above, Kalanick repeatedly emphasized to [Bill] Gurley and others at the time that Ubers acquisition of Otto and employment of Levandowski who appears to have taken information from Waymo would be transformative for Ubers business.

The timing of Benchmarks complaint may prove to be material for Alphabet and its case as the company is scheduled to depose Benchmark partner and former Uber board member Bill Gurley at the end of the month. In deposing Gurley, as well as fellow board member Arianna Huffington, Alphabet is attempting to find out what the board knew about former Uber engineer Anthony Levandowskis alleged theft of important files.

Alphabet is claiming Levandowski stole 14,000 files from Alphabet before starting Otto, which Uber later acquired.

The complaint lays out in part what Gurley and the board knew and when, so it stands to reason that Alphabet will use it in its questioning of Gurley. The complaint further alleges that Kalanick tried to block the termination of Levandowski before he left, even after Alphabet sued the company. Alphabet has previously argued that Levandowskis continued employment at Uber signaled the company was okay with his alleged infractions.

Benchmarks complaint also brings up a document that has become a major point of contention in the Alphabet suit.

Before Uber acquired Otto, the company commissioned security firm Stroz Friedberg to conduct a due diligence report to assess, among other things, whether any of the employees took files from Alphabet. Benchmark claims Kalanick did not disclose the findings of that report to the board or partner and former company board member Bill Gurley.

Alphabet has asked the court to compel Uber to produce the Stroz document as part of discovery. Uber has refused. Since Levandowski asserted his Fifth Amendment rights in the case, his as well as Ubers attorneys have argued that the document is privileged and should not be turned over to Alphabet.

The board has since seen the document and its clear Benchmark, at least, thinks it would have made a material difference on some of its decisions. Specifically, the complaint is seeking to reverse a 2016 decision that allowed Kalanick to create three additional seats on the board.

Upon information and belief, if the contents of Strozs interim findings and the Stroz Report had been disclosed to Benchmark at the time, they would have had a material impact on Benchmarks decision to authorize the creation of the three new Board seats and grant control over them to Kalanick, the complaint reads.

The two companies expect to hash out whether Uber has to produce the Stroz report in court again tomorrow. Its likely Alphabet will use Benchmarks complaint to bolster its argument to obtain the document.

As we have long said, there is significant and direct evidence that Uber is using stolen Waymo trade secrets, a Waymo spokesperson said in a statement. There is also significant evidence that Uber leadership knew about Levandowski's misconduct and, rather than do the right thing, tried to conceal it.

Uber declined to comment.

See the original post here:
Alphabet could use Benchmark's lawsuit against Uber in its own lawsuit against Uber - Recode

(Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

Five active-duty service members sued President Trump Wednesday over his intentions to ban transgender personnel from serving in the military.

The directive to reinstate a ban on open service by transgender people violates both the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, states the suit filed in U.S. District Court in Washington by five anonymous Jane Does.

They are represented by the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD).

Trump announced in a series of tweets on July 26 that the United States Government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military.

[Trump announces ban on transgender service members ]

(Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

The military has not issued a policy on how that directive would be carried out. The suit states that upon information and belief, the White House turned [Trumps] decision into official guidance, approved by the White House counsels office, to be communicated to the Department of Defense.

Since the Obama administration lifted the ban on transgender troops in June 2016, hundreds of service members have come out and are serving openly. A Rand Corp. study commissioned by the Pentagon last year estimates that there are about 11,000 transgender troops in the reserves and active-duty military.

All five of the plaintiffs said they relied on the 2016 policy change when they notified commanding officers they were transgender. Besides the constitutional challenges, they ask the court to find Trumps intentions would be a violation of the promises government has made to members of the military.

Because they identified themselves as transgender in reliance on defendants earlier promise, plaintiffs have lost the stability and certainty they had in their careers and benefits, including post-military and retirement benefits that depend on the length of their service, the suit states.

The suit is expected to be the first of several filed once the ban is officially issued.

The plaintiffs are a Coast Guard member who has written a prospective letter of resignation; an Air Force active-duty service member of nearly 20 years who served twice in Iraq; and three Army soldiers.

In a news release, one plaintiff says: My experience has been positive and I am prouder than ever to continue to serve. I am married and have three children, and the military has been my life. But now, Im worried about my familys future.

Read the original here:
Active-duty military members sue Trump over transgender ban - Washington Post

It speaks volumes that the past weekwhich featured an all new presidential agitprop production, rumors that an entire field of shadow GOP primary candidates are emerging to challenge Trump in 2020, and another patented Twitter hissy fitqualifies as a fairly quiet one in the Trump Administration, but that's 2017 for you. Still, boiling beneath the surface of the relative calm are the 16-23 DC-area souls that comprise Robert Mueller's shiny new grand jury. We begin this week's power rankings (see last week's here) with with him...

1. Robert Mueller (Last Week: 2) The Special Counsels impanelling of a grand jury in the Russia investigation, while not uncommon, is significant because it gives Mueller the power to subpoena any documents related to the investigation, and to compel any witness to testify under oath, rather than as a non-binding courtesy, as weve seen in Congressional testimonies to date. What you can expect then, if any crimes were committed, is a lot of pleading the Fifth. Legally speaking, a Fifth Amendment assertion is an admission of guilt of a crime, which, assures indictment and keeps the investigation rolling until heads do as well. Vox reported last week that as many as 10 senior FBI officials will testify, completely throwing out the window the He said, He said defense Trump was hoping to use against James Comey. And again, the fact that Mueller and his team havent so much as raised their head to defend against the administrations attacks should worry the hell out of Trump.

2. Paul Manafort (NA) The Ukrainian oligarchys favorite bank teller will be possibly the hardest target in Muellers investigation, will definitely be called before the grand jury, has almost certainly committed crimes that may have been recorded, and has no position in the administration. He then, is our pick for first player to roll on everyone else.

3. Jared Kushner (10) Last week we said OG Kush was the most likely administration candidate for prison, but was largely skating thanks to the personnel circus happening within the White House. One grand jury announcement later, and it appears Kushner will be facing much oath-swearing and asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege for the foreseeable future. Kushners only below Manafort because he has familial incentive to keep the administration afloat.

4. Donald Trump (3) - Combined polling average today: 36.6% approval In his first Twitter tantrum of the Kelly era, Dear Leader attacked Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal for lying about having served in Vietnam. This line of attack would be more effective coming from someone who hadnt received five deferments during the war and never served himself. In other news, the walls are closing in.

5. Mike Pence (NA) The VP doth protest too much, wethinks.

6. H.R. McMaster (NA) The alt-right and Russian social media bots have turned against the National Security Advisor (who enjoys a largely stellar reputation among the sane) for his alleged anti-Israel, anti-Russia, andmost-importantanti-Bannon views, leaving Trump in the unenviable position of defending him against the only people likely to ever vote for him again.

7. John Kelly (7) A week and a half in, the General doing an admirable job getting the house in order (relatively speaking) and getting a lot of media attention for it. In any other presidency this would be cause for celebration. In this one, you can almost see the praise eating away at the First Orange Veneer.

8. Jeff Sessions (NA) Our esteemed Attorney General continued on his mission to get out of the Prezs dog house by tossing some red meat to the base by launching a war on leaks, upping his Sisyphean crusade against legal marijuana (against his own advisors recommendations) and beginning an all-new crusade against affirmative action. His gambit may actually pay off politically, but he appears to be acting as his own agent, which, history shows, roils the boss.

9. Rod Rosenstein (NA) After the announcement of the Mueller grand jury, the Deputy Attorney General (leading the DOJ in this matter thanks to Sessionss recusal) went on Fox News Sunday and clarified that, despite warnings of red lines from the Trump camp, Mueller has the right to investigate any and all crimes uncovered over the course of his investigation, including those related to Trump family finances. Gulp.

10. Stephen Miller (NA) The leading candidate for White House Communications Director following Mooch got that way thanks to a condescending, hypocritical rant against a CNN reporter over a combination of legislation Trump promised not to pursue and a poem on the Statue of Liberty that has sacrosanct to the American experiment. Hell fit right in, for awhile.

Original post:
10 People Causing the Most Panic In the White House This Week - UrbanDaddy

Topeka lawyer Margo E. Burson faced a formal complaint based on the losses of more than $183,000 by two Topeka women.

The family of one woman said she violated their trust. A nursing home had asked her repeatedly to fill out required paperwork for the other woman.

But when Burson appeared at a disciplinary hearing before the Kansas Supreme Court and was asked what authority she had to remove money from a clients account without a judges approval, she paused.

At this time, I decline to answer, Burson said.

Im sorry. What? Justice Dan Biles asked.

I decline to answer, Burson said.

Are you taking the Fifth Amendment? Biles asked.

Yes, Burson said.

With that, questioning about the status of the money ended. That hearing was June 15.

The Fifth Amendment protects a defendant from testifying to something that might be self-incriminating. A witness may sometimes plead the Fifth in district court cases.

But disciplinary administrator Stan Hazlett said he couldnt recall the protection being used in an attorney disciplinary hearing.

In a letter dated July 18, Burson voluntarily surrendered her Kansas law license, and the Kansas Supreme Court disbarred her a day later.

Burson was facing two complaints filed by the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator, which polices the conduct of Kansas lawyers, based on the losses of more than $183,000 by two Topeka women.

The estate of Dorothy May Harvey, an 89-year-old woman who died in September 2011, and a 96-year-old woman living in a senior care facility reported the losses. The name of the older woman hasnt been disclosed in public documents.

Betrayed

Family members were grateful for Bursons help during Harveys final illness, and Burson got initial accounting to family within days of Harveys death.

We trusted her implicitly, said Don Peters, a brother-in-law of Harvey who is married to her sister, June Peters.

Peters, who lives outside of Kansas, said Harveys obituary even reflected respect for the attorney.

The family expresses their deep appreciation to Margo Burson, who lovingly managed her health care affairs, the obituary said.

But the closing of the estate is still ongoing, Peters said. The Peterses became a little suspicious about a year after Harveys death, and by September 2016, they registered a complaint with the disciplinary administrators office.

In essence, she violated our trust, very seriously, Peters said. We feel betrayed, not so much for the money lost but for the time (lost).

Ten internet transfers totaling $66,000 were made from the Harvey estate account, then were deposited into Bursons operating account, according to disciplinary administrators records.

The transfers started on Aug. 19, 2016, and ended on Jan. 30, 2017, and ranged from $1,000 to $19,000 for each transfer, the records show.

We did trust her for years, unfortunately, until we learned she didnt merit our trust, Peters said. She is now our ex-lawyer.

In the other complaint against Burson, more than $117,249 wasnt paid to the account of a 96-year-old woman living at Brewster Place, officials said.

The disciplinary administrator received a complaint from an individual reviewing accounts on behalf of Brewster Place, where Burson had power of attorney for a resident beginning in 2005.

Records show Brewster Place sent letters and emails to Burson on numerous occasions asking her to fill out and file a Medicaid application, a request that began in March 2014.

By February 2017, the residents balance due to Brewster Place was more than $99,000, and on May 24, the balance was $117,249.

When the complaint was filed in June, Burson hadnt completed the Medicaid application process, and the resident remained at the facility.

Brewster Place does not wish to evict the woman, the complaint said.

Worn out

In an interview last week, Burson said she couldnt talk at length about the disciplinary case.

I am not in a position to discuss it at this time, Burson said.

The disciplinary action coincides with Bursons planned retirement, she said. Burson said she had planned to retire at the end of the fiscal year, which was June 30.

The timing on the other matter happened to coincide with her retirement, she said.

It was a surrender of the license, Burson said, rather than a knock down, drag out (disciplinary hearing). Some of us are worn out and ready to do something else.

A full evidentiary hearing was scheduled for Aug. 17 before a three-member panel of lawyers, but that was canceled after Burson surrendered her license.

During her June 15 appearance before the Kansas Supreme Court, Burson asked for time to complete documents for several other clients. She cited her health as a reason for retiring, saying she developed arthritis in the mid-1980s.

Lawyers facing serious allegations in disciplinary cases appear before the supreme court justices, and hearings are recorded on video. Serious cases include alleged acts of dishonesty, misappropriation of money and extreme misconduct.

The day Burson appeared before justices, they temporarily suspended her law license.

Hazlett, the disciplinary administrator, said she was disbarred a month later as a result of the allegations against her and her decision to surrender her license.

Hazlett said he would turn over the investigative materials to a law enforcement agency, and they can decide on how to proceed.

Contact reporter Steve Fry at (785) 295-1206 or @TCJCourtsNCrime on Twitter.

Read more:
Topeka lawyer for elderly women takes Fifth, disbarred amid ethics questions - Topeka Capital Journal