Podcasts about us attorney's office

AARP Nevada presents a special audio town hall meeting on how to protect yourself from COVID-19 scams and crooks. Nevada US Attorney for the District of Nevada Nicholas Trutanich, and FBI Assistant Special Agent in Charge Ray Johnson talk about how you can protect yourself from fraud and scams related to the Coronavirus, and how to report suspected fraud and scams.

SDNY podcast 1: #6ix9ine's release not opposed by US Attorney's Office; now awaiting Judge Engelmayer's order, any GEO #Coronavirus #COVID19 quarantine period?

SDNY Excludive Jan 8: Virgil Griffith indictment alludes to another person to be arrested, Inner City Press has asked US Attorney's Office and will continue as at corrupt UN of SG @AntonioGuterres

H. Robert Showers Esq. has had a long and storied career in law. Prior to founding Simms Showers LLP, he was a principal at Gammon & Grange in charge of the litigation department, and before that was with the U.S. Department of Justice where he was acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General, a federal prosecutor and Chief of the Civil Section in the US Attorney's Office, and was Founder and Executive Director of what is now the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS). Episode Summary For many years, sexual harassment complaints were filed away without any action taken. This approach exacerbated the issue. These complaints–whether true or false--need to be taken seriously and investigated. Now with the emergence of the #MeToo Movement, institutions increasingly are seeing sexual harassment or sexual misconduct complaints filed by students, staff and faculty members. Therefore, institutional leaders need to be proactive in creating policies, procedures and training regarding these types of allegations. Increasing Number of Sexual Harassment Cases Expected Charges of sexual misconduct, particularly sexual harassment, are increasingly being taken seriously in the public eye. In the wake of the #MeToo movement with many high-profile offenders being found guilty of sexual harassment and sexual violence, higher education leaders need to be aware that their institutions have an increased risk of being caught up in the publicity of these types of allegations. College students have a higher risk of experiencing sexual violence than any other crime. Studies indicate that 80 percent of female students who have suffered an attack do not report sexual violence to law enforcement; however, that number will change. More than 50 percent of the college sexual assaults are against freshmen students, which also triggers child abuse laws that require mandatory reporting and increased scrutiny. These factors may lead to a tsunami of allegations that could swamp both secular and religious institutions of higher education. Therefore, all higher education leaders need to determine if their institution has appropriate policies, training, transparency and preventative measures in place in regards to sexual harassment. The Effects of the Court of Public Opinion The citizens who are selected to serve as jurors during trials are influenced by social and mainstream media. Previously, these jurors may have judged someone accused of sexual harassment or an institution that didn’t handle sexual harassment claims appropriately by saying that they were innocent until proven guilty. However, the #MeToo Movement has shifted the paradigm where many citizens are saying that these individuals and institutions are guilty until they prove themselves innocent. Ramifications of Not Taking Action Showers has worked on numerous cases in which a student lodged a sexual harassment complaint against a professor, who then gave the student the choice of remaining in the class or failing. The institution could have easily put the student in another class or allowed him/her to take another academic avenue to completing the course during the investigation. Instead, the leaders opted to have the student remain in the class with the alleged abuser. In several instances where this type of situation occurred, the students were re-victimized because they had to continue to interact with the alleged abuser. This approach led to a public relations nightmare as well as having additional financial damages awarded to the plaintiff following a court case. In the Michigan State case, additional ramifications included a decline in freshman student applications due to safety concerns. Changes to Title IX The first of the changes narrows the definition of sexual assault. The old standard was “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” and the new standard is “unwelcome sexual conduct; or unwelcome conduct on the basis of sex that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively denies a person equal access to the recipient’s education program or activity.” The Ed Department justified this by saying it is in line with the Supreme Court guidance, but survivors’ advocates have come out forcefully and said that this new definition will put survivors’ education at risk. The second major change is the standard by which sexual assault is adjudicated. Previously, the standard was that the assault was “likely to have happened.” However, the new guidance provides for a higher standard, i.e., “preponderance of evidence,” the same standard used in civil suits. This is lower than “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the standard used in criminal trials, but it still creates a higher burden on the victim to prove that the incident happened.  In its guidance, the Ed Dept stated that institutions can use either standard, but this potentially opens the institution up to lawsuits, e.g., institutions may face a lawsuit by the accused if they use the lower standard or the victim if the institution uses the higher standard. The third major change has to do with holding universities responsible. Under the previous guidance, universities and colleges could be held responsible if they “knew about or reasonably should have known” about an incident. However, under the new guidelines, the institution must have “actual knowledge” of the incident in order to be held responsible; this requires the victim to make a formal complaint through official channels. Telling a professor or resident adviser isn’t sufficient – it must be reported to someone who can do something about it, such as a school official who is involved in enforcement. Additionally, schools can only be held responsible for incidents that happen on school property or at school-sponsored events, not at private, off-campus residences. Thus, if a fraternity house is located off-campus and an assault takes place there (as was the allegation in the Judge Kavanaugh – Christine Blasey Ford incident), the institution cannot be held liable, even if they have knowledge that these events have taken place in the past. Lastly, the accused will have the chance to cross-examine the victim under the new guidance, and many feel this will discourage victims from coming forward and reporting incidents. A Robust Policy on Sexual Harassment As we all know, the Department of Education released its new Title IX guidance in November, which provides guidance on sexual harassment.  However, some universities and colleges – especially religious institutions – are not subject to these rules. Therefore, it’s important for these leaders to review their institutional policies to identify and close gaps that would make it easier for individuals to bring sexual assault and sexual harassment charges against the college or university. A sexual harassment policy that will stand up to scrutiny includes: A clear definition of sexual harassment A statement that unambiguously says that this type of conduct is strictly prohibited A clear description of how to lodge a complaint and the process for starting and completing an investigation A prohibition of retaliation for reporting harassment A confidentiality statement about complainants An assurance that complaints are promptly investigated by objective professionals A way to separate the alleged victim from the alleged perpetrator A clear statement that makes clear that if the allegations are substantiated, a disciplinary action will follow and the investigation will be concluded A training process that moves the policy into practice so that all employees and volunteers are on the same page Training Employees and Volunteers The training process for recognizing and dealing with sexual harassment and sexual assault should offer awareness so that employees and volunteers understand what is considered to be sexual harassment. This training should include: The definition of what sexual harassment or sexual assault is, which involves unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature. For example, Title IX’s standard is unwelcome sexual conduct or unwelcome conduct on the basis of sex that is so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it effectively denies someone equal access to education. This is significantly different than the previous guidance from the Obama administration, which was “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.” All allegations should be taken seriously. The individual who brings the allegation needs to be reassured that their voice will be heard and the charges will be investigated without delay or bias. The person who leads the investigation needs to be someone who is objective, thorough and timely. Investigations Institutional leaders need to decide how to maintain an objective investigation that’s unbiased. Many cases can be investigated internally. However, internal investigators may know the alleged abuser so the investigation may be tainted, regardless of what is discovered, because the decision will not be taken seriously. In some cases an external investigation is needed. In these situations, Showers recommends that institutional leaders hire a law firm that is skilled in this area and is able to maintain appropriate protections for both the university and the victim. These types of cases provide tangible but objective results. Sexual harassment claims are particularly difficult to investigate because oftentimes it’s a “he said, she said” situation without much (if any) corroborating evidence.  These cases often have a lot of direct testimony where one person says that “This happened” and then the other person said, “No, it didn’t happen.” This is one reason why it’s important to retain an objective, unbiased and professional investigator who will keep confidentiality for both the alleged victims and perpetrators, as well as the university. Most colleges have outside or internal legal counsel. These types of cases need to be run by counsel because their expertise can help guide the decision as to whether an internal or external investigation is needed. This is important because the stakes today are high financially as well as in regards to the institutional image. It’s important that colleges and universities get these investigations right the first time. Additionally, historical sex abuse allegations, as illustrated by the Brett Kavanaugh case, are very, very complex to investigate. These cases, which happened years or decades ago, are especially difficult because memories fade, witnesses are lost and any tangible evidence is lost. Therefore, these cases provide even more reason to hire someone who understands and has done these cases before and who will be objective. Changes to Title IX The first of the changes narrows the definition of sexual assault. The old standard was “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” and the new standard is “unwelcome sexual conduct; or unwelcome conduct on the basis of sex that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively denies a person equal access to the recipient’s education program or activity.” The Ed Department justified this by saying it is in line with the Supreme Court guidance, but survivors’ advocates have come out forcefully and said that this new definition will put survivors’ education at risk. The second major change is the standard by which sexual assault is adjudicated. Previously, the standard was that the assault was “likely to have happened.” However, the new guidance provides for a higher standard, i.e., “preponderance of evidence,” the same standard that is used in civil suits. This is lower than “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the standard which is used in criminal trials, but it still creates a higher burden on the victim to prove that the incident happened. In its guidance, the Ed Dept stated that institutions can use either standard, but this potentially opens the institution up to lawsuits, e.g., institutions may face a lawsuit by the accused if they use the lower standard or the victim if the institution uses the higher standard. The third major change has to do with holding universities responsible. Under the previous guidance, universities and colleges could be held responsible if they “knew about or reasonably should have known” about an incident. However, under the new guidelines, the institution must have “actual knowledge” of the incident in order to be held responsible; this requires the victim to make a formal complaint through official channels. Telling a professor or resident adviser isn’t sufficient – it must be reported to someone who can do something about it, such as a school official who is involved in enforcement. Additionally, schools can only be held responsible for incidents that happen on school property or at school-sponsored events, not at private, off-campus residences. Thus, if a fraternity house is located off-campus and an assault takes place there (as was the allegation in the Judge Kavanaugh – Christine Blasey Ford incident), the institution cannot be held liable, even if they have knowledge that these events have taken place in the past. Lastly, the accused will have the chance to cross-examine the victim under the new guidance, and many feel this will discourage victims from coming forward and reporting incidents. Bullet Points The #MeToo Movement, the resulting cultural shift related to sexual harassment and data related to sexual harassment of students suggests that higher education institutions will increasingly be dealing with sexual harassment and sexual abuse issues. Studies indicate that 80 percent of female students never report sexual violence to law enforcement. More than 50 percent of the college sexual assaults are against freshmen students, which triggers sexual harassment as well as child abuse laws that require mandatory reporting and increased scrutiny. Citizens who are selected to serve as jurors during trials are influenced by social and mainstream media. The #MeToo Movement has shifted the paradigm in favor of the victim and institutions are getting caught in the whirlwind. Higher education leaders need to review their institutional policies to identify and close gaps that would allow individuals to bring sexual assault and sexual harassment charges against the college of university. Institutions also need a strong training program to help educate employees and volunteers about the university’s processes related to charges of sexual harassment. This training should include defining sexual harassment and sexual assault, identifying the investigation process and ensuring that the process will be objective and concluded in a timely manner. Investigations need to be objective, thorough and done in a timely manner. Some cases can be investigated by internal team; however, these cases may be tainted by perception since some investigators may know the alleged perpetrator.  External investigations offer an outside viewpoint that can be seen as neutral in high-profile cases. It’s important to have a law firm that can offer appropriate protections for the victim and alleged perpetrator as well as the university. Higher education leaders should seek their institution’s internal or external counsel to get feedback on whether to create an internal or external investigation. This is important because of potential settlements as well as public relations fallout on specific cases. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: Simms Showers LLP Title IX Guidance Guests Social Media Links: H. Robert Showers LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/robert-showers-133a618/ Simms Showers LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/simms-showers-llp/about/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/simmsshowerslaw Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SimmsShowersLLP The Change Leader’s Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com

SPECIAL EDITION - We are covering the #BREAKING NEWS out of Northern Virginia and New York City where 1) A federal jury has found former Trump Campaign Chair Paul Manafort GUILTY on 8 felony charges and 2) In a deal with the US Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York, former Trump Attorney and self-proclaimed "fixer" has pleaded guilty to 8 felony counts AND possibly points the finger at the President as UN-NAMED CO-CONSPIRATOR !  All of this and more... this week on BACKROOM POLITICS

If you're a new parent and you're finding it much more work and a lot less fun than you thought it would be, you're really going to gain a lot from this show. Today, in the first episode, Tom explains that his idea for the show came from his own experience as a father of four children and the juxtaposition of two books, Jennifer Senior's All Joy And No Fun and Bruce Feiler's The Secrets Of Happy Families. Listen in discover how you can live a happy life, even though you have children.   Today, Tom explains that Jennifer Senior's book is about the phenomenon that parents generally score lower on happiness surveys, when compared with people without children and that this flies in the face of the common belief that having children is the crowning achievement in life. Ms. Senior profiles parents who struggle with expectations placed on them, often by themselves, to raise well-adjusted children, with increasingly fewer available resources, such as time, money, or a network of support from family. Thomas points out that the book does, however, have a silver lining, in that most parents do experience a significant amount of joy and meaning in their lives, due to having children. Bruce Feiler's book, on the other hand, points to some possible solutions to the dilemma of parenting. He looks to the lessons learned in business and in other fields, to see if these methods can be used to teach families to function better. He gives an example from the book, of a family who adopted the use of agile management, a project management tool used in the software industry, to help with family meetings and to streamline the hectic morning routine.    Tom says that he hasn't managed to replicate agile management in his house, however, he does dream! Today, Tom tells you what you can expect to hear in his future episodes and he explains that although solutions are great, at times, it really helps just to know that the problems faced by parents are both common and survivable. Listen in today, as Thomas shares his own parenting story by reading the relevant chapter from his book, You're Pregnant, You're Fired.   Some highlights include:    How he was offered a position as an Assistant to the US Attorney for the District of Columbia, in 2005, when he was thirty-three years old, married and had a ten-month-old son. How little idea he had, prior to the birth of his son, of how much work it would involve to be a parent. Sharing the responsibilities of parenting with his wife, who was also an attorney. Their dog, Sawyer, who had health problems and added to the stress of parenting. His decision to spend as much time as possible with his son. His joining the US Attorney's Office in the fall of 2006 – a harrowing situation for all new prosecutor's, given the long hours and stress. The stress of coming home to a strung out kid and a stressed out wife, after a demanding day at work. His battle with insomnia. How his own routine became more extreme. He was learning a lot, but it was difficult. The birth of his second son, Jonah. How unprepared he was for having two children- no one ever got a break! Being diagnosed with Generalised Anxiety Disorder. That no one at work knew what he was going through. A survey that showed that men with families have it easier than women with families do, in the workplace, yet men tend to be more heavily penalized for taking time off work. His realization that he could no longer maintain the way he was working, trying to balance work and family. His work move to a less stressful situation and his coming down with respiratory tract infection. Opening his own firm and dealing with the guilt of his departure from the US Attorney's office- in the midst of an economic meltdown. His realization that it was having children that had made his balancing act so difficult. Making the choice- career or family? The lack of support by the government, for working families and policy matters that are worth debating in this regard.   Link:   Tom's website: www.spigglelaw.com/podcast    

From the founder of the Pharmacy Podcast Show, Todd Eury releases today the Gavel & Pestle Podcast Show with host - Darshan Kulkarni. The Gavel & Pestle Podcast is the fusion of Law and Pharmacy.  Darshan is a PharmD and Lawyer who's focused on providing legal, regulatory, and clinical assistance to pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical products, especially starting at the point of post-IND assistance through commercialization of the product.  Darshan helps US based and international companies manage the myriad of regulations from FDA, HHS, OIG, US Attorney's Office, DOJ, etc. as are applicable to the discovery, manufacture, and sale of pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical products. He also has legal, clinical, teachin

It appears that hackers proved the makers of Google’s Chrome OS wrong.  Security was one of the biggest selling points, saying it had better built in security than other operating systems.  However, hackers were able to get into the system.  It’s a war of words for cyber security companies and it appears that the winner depends on whom you believe.  On Tuesday, antivirus vendor McAfee described a five year hacker operation that infiltrated more than 70 U.S. and foreign government agencies, defense contractors and international organizations to plant malware that in some cases hid on networks for years. A California man turned himself in and faces some serious charges after using Facebook to target his victims.   Last month, a San Jose, California, grand jury indicted Sanford Wallace on three counts of intentional damage to a protected computer and two counts of criminal contempt, according to the US Attorney's Office in the Northern District of California. Wallace allegedly compromised approximately 500,000 Facebook accounts during three separate attacks on the social-networking company between November 2008 and March 2009. Also tune in for the job of the day.