text:
The Trials And Tribulations Of Note Investing With Guest Host Jamie Bateman
The best note deals often seem to show up in November when people start putting stuff out to close before they run out for the holidays. Then right before the holidays, those are the junk that's left over and get thrown at you. On today's podcast, Chris Seveney and guest co-host Jamie Bateman talk about their note investing deals, particularly the trials and tribulations. From a Qualified Written Response, which was the most expensive note that they've bought to date, to a 15-acre parcel in Arizona, they share some of the lessons they learned as well as some of the things they have done but wished they haven't.
I'm with my co-host Jamie Bateman. Jamie, how are you?
I'm doing all right, Chris. How are you doing?
I'm good. We've got the new voiceover we had recorded for the intro. Did you like it?
Yes, it was cool.
I found this woman Fiverr who does voiceover and I'm like, "Is that really your voice?" She's like, "Yes." I had her do a bunch of stuff and it was cheapest. It's $75 to get that done.
I've used Fiverr for our logo.
We're going to be a little bit all over the place. We're going to talk about a lot of things we've got going on. Some of the lessons learned, some of the things we probably have done and wished we haven't done. This episode is going to be almost the trials and tribulations of a full episode. Where would you like to start, Jamie?
I know in a previous episode I mentioned this QWR, which is Qualified Written Response. This is the most expensive note that we've bought to date and it's a performing note at least on paper. We bought this and I don't even think we've received a payment yet. I've got the Qualified Written Response request, which forces us to comply, respond and forces me to pay $350 to the servicer to make that happen. I was over that, no big deal, but then I get an email from the same borrower that he's got a hardship and he's requesting forbearance. I've got to talk to Erin Quinn and figure out what my options are.
Did the email come from the borrower or an attorney?
It came from this third-party company, Home Matters USA. We're not supposed to have any direct contact.
That's why I was wondering because I remember in a QWR, it mentioned like, "Do not reach out to this person."
I checked FCI's portal and this company has the borrower's contact information. This company has been pinging FCI and me leaving voicemails. I thought it was all about this QWR, but it turns out he's formally requesting forbearance through this company. It's a little bit odd in that there's equity in the property. He was paying. All of a sudden there's a new lender in town. I think he's testing the waters and seeing how far he can push us. His hardship letter was saying that he's a truck driver. Because of the COVID shutdown, he's got back pain, back issues and he was unable to go get his shots in March.
Note Investing: There are certain things like bankruptcy or the person being in the military that you can't foreclose on.
Therefore, he was out of work for several months. Now that he was able to make his payments through family members and friends, whatever. He's back on track with work and everything. He was able to get his shots, but he's now requesting forbearance. To me, the timing is a little odd. Also, the fact that I'm sure he legitimately has back issues, but I've had back issues before and had shots. I've had epidurals. It didn't help too much. I am not putting too much stock into this excuse, to be honest.
I pass on the epidurals. I got a herniated disc in my back. They said, "We can give this to you." I'm like, "It's temporary relief. If I probably lost weight, it would be the best thing I could do." They're like, "Yes." I'm like, "Okay."
My wife has had two kids and she's never had an epidural and I've had several. I don't know what that says about me. I guess I'm the wuss than the family.
Every man is a wuss in the family. I accept it.
I need to figure out what my options are. I'm inclined to say no if that's a possibility, but I need to get legal counsel involved. That's my trial and tribulation.
First, that historic house I sent you that we were going to bid on. A home inspector did a report on this because they said, "The starting bid is $25,000." This house was listed as 5,500 square feet but it was 10,000 square feet with an attic space and everything. This is what's the horror about this property. Whoever previously had it, they started gutting and renovating the inside. The millwork in this house was unbelievable. They're trying to retain the millwork around the fireplaces because I think they had eight fireplaces. They had 8 to 10 bedrooms, which our thought process was, "We'll get it and we'll renovate it."
We'll lease it to somebody who can run it as a bed and breakfast. We were thinking instead of us running a bed and breakfast, we'll lease it to someone in the area to do it. The roof was slate, which was still the original. It was leaking and it had no gutters on the house. The exterior of the house was stucco, which is like a plaster type finished. What was happening was the eaves of the roof had all rotted, but then the water was getting behind the stucco and on the sheathing behind. This house had 50-something windows on the outside, all of them are 6 to 8 feet in height. The stucco and the roof, all of that needs to get completely redone.
You had to rip the skin off this building, reshape it and redo the outside, redo the roof, the windows. We started counting on these things and we're probably $150,000 on the outside. The ARV on this thing is only about $300,000. You still had the hole inside to get redone. We'll go $25,000 to $30,000 may be up to $40,000 on this thing. It was for sale in the spring for $70,000 and nobody would touch it. The thing ended up selling in auction for over $63,000 plus it has a 10% buyer's fee on it. It ended up selling for $70,000. I'm like, "Somebody's going to probably get roasted on this one." That was one little oddity we've had. It's been a crazy week on the note space.
We don't get taught this in note training. I have a borrower who's asking for a forbearance. This is the fourth time this borrower has asked for a forbearance/loan modification. The borrower has stopped paying. He misses about four months. He will make 1 or 2 months payments, missed three months, make two months payments, missed three months then make three months. The loan amount is low. It's like $250, $300. Every time I send a demand letter, it's two of them so it's $200 plus. It's a month's payment stuff. The guy reaches out to the attorney and finally, it was like, "I can start making payments again," this and that and so forth.
I told the attorney, I'm like, "No restatement. I'm sorry, but this guy's for the last eighteen months been saying he's going to pay but he doesn't." He'll make one payment and completely stops. It's not owner-occupied. He's not living in it. I believe it's been a rental that he's probably had trouble with the tenants. His latest is, "I'm selling my other property so I can pay this off in cash." I went back said, "Show me the purchase and sale agreement showing this is under the agreement. Maybe what we'll do is we'll ask for a 30-day extension with the court to have you pay off the loan. Until I see that, we're not going to."
It's all talk. We had talked before about those kinds of borrowers that put that track record where they're almost worse than a straight nonperformer. You're getting teased as the note investor and a lender because like, "He's reinstated. We're good to go." He then goes dark for three months and then your servicing costs go up as well.
I've got another one and this is an interesting one as well. We got a win in the courts on one where there was a contract for deed where the borrower hasn't paid in seven years. We sent a demand letter a couple of years ago, but you couldn't foreclose on the borrower because of something the borrower was involved in. There are certain things like bankruptcy, the persons in the military and stuff. You can't foreclose on them. This one, the borrower hadn't been living in there but the borrower's son had been living in there during the last seven years. He hasn't a penny in taxes. We filed for foreclosure on this and they contested it. We offered them $5,000 Cash for Keys and get them out, which a strong Cash for Keys offer.
Some borrowers put a track record where they're almost worse than a straight nonperformer. Click To Tweet
That's higher than you usually do.
They came back and countered at $25,000. I laughed and said, "No." I told my attorney to keep going. We filed a motion to dismiss their claim to dismiss then we won our court cases. We can proceed with the final summary judgment and then start with the process and so forth. My attorney was like, "Do you want to offer any additional Cash for Keys?" I said, "Reach out to them and see, but at this point in time, I'm not going to give them $5,000 because we've already spent that money. I'll give them $1,000." She reaches out and we can't get in touch with them so we continue to plug along.
It's unfortunate in some of these instances because the reality of it is and we've mentioned this a lot where we try and play ball with borrowers. If they're not willing to play ball, there's not much we can do. In this instance, it was being gracious to the borrower. For me, giving somebody who owes $100,000 and hasn't been paying in seven years, a check for $5,000 and 60 days move out of the house. It's not too bad of a gesture. They rejected it and they're unfortunately probably going to get nothing. It's unfortunate because I've had this happen in the past where you try and work a deal with somebody but for some reason, they think they should have some additional beneficial interest.
How do you see that one playing out?
I see that one playing out that we'll have to get the eviction. I'm probably going to spend about $5,000 cleaning up this mess that they've left behind because it's like a 20-acre property but at the end of the day, we should do okay.
My 2-acre property, which is that same one in Tampa I was talking about. I thought that was a big yard.
I have a 15-acre parcel in Arizona, which I talked about this on another episode where the borrower's wife had passed away. He was a former military and he was having trouble making the payments. He owed what the property was worth. It might be a little underwater. He's in his 60s. I offered him a twenty-year lease with a twenty-year extension, which would bring them to 105 to rent the property. It's got a trailer on it so he'd still own the trailer. I gave him a ground lease for $1 a year. He's responsible for taxes. It's almost liked a commercial lease.
This was one that we'd bought as a nonperformer. We got it for a good price. This guy emailed me like, "I want to let you know the taxes are due November 2nd. I already paid them." He's got a horse and he's a nice guy. I'm like, "What can I do to give back to this person?" He mentioned he doesn't have any family and kids. When we were talking, I'm like, "What do you want to do with the property?" He's like, "I have no one to leave it." Instead of him paying $350 a month on a mortgage, he's going to donate it eventually. Why not keep that $350 so you can enjoy it and spend it? It's almost like a reverse mortgage a little bit.
He's pulling out the equity in a sense.
He pulled out the equity where it's like, "I've leased the property back." I got as creative as I can get sometimes. Jamie, have you bought or tried to buy any assets?
I've been in the process of buying ten loans in New York. I have put in some bids on some other assets as well.
These loans are from me in New York.
Note Investing: Typically, a full boarding process takes about a month.
I probably should have started off with that as my trial and tribulation.
This whole episode is about trial and tribulation. This one makes for a good story as well.
Getting these things boarded is the big hurdle here. Do you want to tell a little bit about the background first?
These were boarded with a servicer who you referred me to. I'm starting to blame you from the outset. Do you like how I already started this?
Facts are facts and that is true.
You referred this and they were servicing these loans for me and they weren't doing that bad of a job, honestly. I'd give them a C-minus. They were there. Compared to some of these others, they look like the Tom Brady of servicing. In June, I bought a few extras and I went to board them with them and all of a sudden, I got an email from them saying, "We're no longer servicing loans in New York and you need to move these." I'm like, "Okay." There are certain servicers who do New York who I won't work with, probably the two main major players.
I was trying to find a smaller one and I spoke with another servicing company, but they wanted a twenty-loan minimum. A lot of them have one of these minimum amounts. One of them I've spoken within the past about moving a large portion of my portfolio over to them. We could never agree on pricing. Round and round, we finally get these boarded. They move them over to this other servicer who's had them since June. I was all over them. Typically, a boarding process takes about a month. This was started in June and in September, they still haven't boarded these. I got my attorney involved. It was ugly.
I decide at that point in time, Jamie was looking for some assets and I'm like, "I've got some assets for you." These are 9 or 10 of them where we went to everyone. Four of them are performing, 3 or 4 of them are nonperforming, one of them is God bless you. I'm upfront with him and told him this. On the same token, I think I sold that one to you for $100. We've been trying now to get these boarded at FCI where Jamie's going to have them boarded for about a month. I am emailing this person every day or every other day. They're like, "I'm not leaving until these are done. I'm not this, I'm not that." I'm committing myself maybe to an institution. Finally, they send out the email that 70% is because they screwed up the goodbye letters in FCI. I got to give FCI credit. People believe I'm saying this. They responded in a timely fashion and like, "We still need this information."
They're thorough on the frontend, for sure.
I'll let you share your opinions on it.
It's two of these. I'm buying ten New York notes from you. Two of them were with another servicer. Those got boarded immediately. It's easy to compare the two, the group of eight and the group of two. I've never seen such incompetence, to be honest with you. I'm sure that the servicer is understaffed, but the fact that it has been a month. The 30th of September was our sale date.
Typically, when we say a month, that's for the full process. This has been a month to send the preliminary data.
We try and play ball with borrowers. If they're not willing to play ball, there's not much we can do. Click To Tweet
This hasn't been a month to get the goodbye letters prepared, which were then prepared and are wrong. I'm trying to get these things boarded and then figure out our plan. We're doing an addition on our house and you're welcome to come use it at any time instead of paying you for the loans. I was staying out of New York as a hard and fast rule. I read an article about judicial versus non-judicial states and how it can be a big misconception. Many note investors immediately target non-judicial states. I don't want to go off too far of a tangent here, but I'm excited to play in the New York field.
Most people forget that New York's a big state. When you get out of the southeast corner of New York in the city area and you get up towards Canada, there are some cities up there that do pretty well, Rochester and some areas up in that area. It's a completely different world up in that area compared to being down in the city. You can foreclose in that area. You can also go through the federal courts is what some people will do to speed up the process. It's different than down in New York City, the types of courts in the systems and how things run.
You almost got to look at it in two completely different states. The challenge that I have for me personally is because I burned too many bridges with servicers and I'm trying to find someone to service those and there are not many because the regulations, the service in New York are overwhelming. For example, the company has to have three people sign. Most people stay out of New York. It's expensive to get a servicing license. From a services perspective, it's like, "If I only have twenty loans, it's not worth us to go spend all this money, get licensed and only service was a small amount of loans in that area."
It's the bigger servicers that end up doing it competently.
I do want to go back to get an understanding about this article you read because it was going to beg the next question. Are you looking at some newer states to invest in?
Let's get these New York loans boarded. I had made a promise to my wife that we wouldn't expand any further. I was pretty quickly in about 8 or 9 states for recording purposes. All the courts and everything is different with each state. We still have our eleven states that were focused on. I'm not looking to expand further. I'd like to buy more in Georgia. Get that licensing cost back and go from there. I'm certainly not opposed to expanding geographically. Maybe 2021, but I think at this point I'm focusing on these New York assets. Our portfolio is probably the prudent way to go. We'll be up to about 34, 35 notes at this point plus some that we hold in our IRA. This is decent amount at this point.
Let me guess the eleven states you have. Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, New York and Arizona. How about Tennessee?
No, I've bid on some there.
How about Missouri?
Yes. I got a few in Missouri. There's a big one that's probably half of our portfolio.
Indiana, Michigan or Ohio?
We have a couple in Indiana and Michigan is our big one. I'm excited about Birmingham. We did a mod and I bought it from Gail. I think this one could be profitable if we can hold it for another eight months or so and sell it. The nightmare on Elm Street, that was the only Maryland one and none in Virginia. Texas and Mississippi are the last one. I've got two in Mississippi.
Note Investing: Most people stay out of New York because it's expensive to get a servicing license.
One that I tell you that's tough if you start moving further west, Oklahoma is a tough state. Pennsylvania is a tough one, but I like Pennsylvania for some reason. I'm attracted to Pennsylvania for some unknown reason.
For my list, we go through the states we purchased in. For years, we'd go through the short-list of states
I'll run off. I've got Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri and Montana. Nevada, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. That's 37.
You have more states than we have notes.
I have no interest in Oregon, Pacific Northwest and Northeast. I saw one in Massachusetts even though I'm from there. One thing I'll mention to tag along what we were originally going to somewhat talk about was the end of year deals and what we may see and stuff like that coming towards the end of the year. I'll throw out there. A little teaser, typically November is when I see the best deals. People start putting stuff out in November to close before people run out for the holidays. Right before the holidays, that's the junk that's leftover will get one last growth throw at you.
I feel like I've seen a slight uptick in assets available. I'm hoping that's something that's indicative of the next month or so.
I'm looking at a tape. It's got about twenty assets on it. The acquisition is probably about $750,000. I'm talking with the seller trying to get something. It's somebody who I bought a lot from, but it's a different asset manager within this fund. This guy has been painful. I bid on these things and I never even got a counter or response and it's like, "We're not going to sell them now." I got an email. Did you get the email about interest in CFD? Somebody has got 60 CFDs. I replied. I'm like, "Yes, but tell me what their pricing expectation is because if they want $0.95 on the dollar, go pound sand." If it's something that's realistic, it'll be something. I did read somewhere that I thought I saw another lawsuit pop-up but against Vision Properties. It was an article where it said they were targeting minorities as part of these loans in these low-income neighborhoods to sign up on these high interest, high payment loans and stuff like that. We got an attorney general going after them.
Another thing we're working on is CFD conversions.
October 1st in the National Mortgage News, "Predatory lending suit alleges Vision Properties targeted black buyers," is the article. I'm stating what the article says. I have no opinion on it because I don't want somebody saying, "You said this."
It's one more indication that the whole CFD world may not be what it was.
For people who want to hear a history of CFDs. During the downturn, Fannie and these GSEs were selling all these properties as our REOs. This is where the media personally went a little overboard. They were selling these properties for a few thousand bucks apiece. It's like when you buy a pool, but these were pools of 10,000 homes or whatever it was. Some of them are going to be worth more. Some are going to be worthless. They wrap and say, "We're buying these 10,000 for $10 million," or whatever the magic number is. They may allocate an even split for every house.
When people say, "This person bought this house for $5,000, did not fix it and then turned around and sold it to somebody for $30,000." The reality is it doesn't matter what that person bought it for. That's the same thing with some of these where I had a borrower say, "The deed says you paid $4,000 for this." I said the same thing. "It doesn't matter what we bought the thing for." I explained to the borrower, I said, "I buy these in pools of many. I can also show you a house that for $15,000 I bought in the house has burned down. There's not a house there and it's got $30,000 in taxes and it's worthless. I'll sell you that for $15,000, if you want it." I don't even like to entertain the conversation because it is completely irrelevant.
The truth is always somewhere in the middle. Click To Tweet
The whole predatory lending thing brings back memories. I was a title settlement officer notary mostly doing refinances years ago. This is when right before the crash in 2002 to 2004. It's when I was doing this job. This is when nobody thought interest rates could go any lower than 6% and 5.5%. I had a lot of firsthand experience with mortgage brokers who were shady. I would be sent to these closings to get the documents signed, notarized them, explain the documents. I'm the closing agent. If you've ever done a refinance, you've dealt with this person before. I'm not the one selling them this. I'm not their mortgage broker, but we don't get paid as a title company unless we close the deal.
There is certainly pressure on me to close this. Some of the times I'd get a call from the mortgage broker, the loan officer on this deal who most of the time didn't even show up at closing. They would never even meet the borrower. I'd get a call from some of these loan officers and they would say, "Don't go over the numbers with them." Some things may have changed a little bit when they signed the initial paperwork. Have them sign everything and then get the closing done. I've had borrowers walk out because it wasn't anything like what they were expecting to sign. It's always tough because the truth is always somewhere in the middle it seems. Yes, there are predatory lenders out there, but there's also the fact of individual responsibility. You're not forced to sign this. Every case is different.
I'll share an example because I recall vividly. The problem is nowhere in our education system we teach finance, truly teach people how to manage money. I graduated college and I had a Civil Engineering degree, which I think is a good degree. In my twelve years of high school and four years of college, never did I sit down and looking at it, "I want to go buy a car." It was a $30,000 car at 6%. I started looking at the numbers. I'm like, "I'm going to pay all this interest on this? That's a lot." Nowhere did they ever teach you any of that. In 2004, I was looking for a property. We get pre-approved and stuff and the mortgage broker tells us, "This is the big interest time with 80/20 loans."
They're like, "You can afford a $600,000 home at 6%." I'm like, "The payment was something ridiculous." At the time, between the 1st and 2nd, with tax and everything, it was over $4,000 per month. At the time, I'm running the numbers and the payment was $4,600 or something. I'm like, "I only bring in $5,000 a month." "I got cars, groceries and bills." How can I spend 90% of what I take home? This is what the numbers say. I said, "Where are you getting these numbers? Because clearly, this doesn't work." The problem is, it goes back to, yes, I should know and I should run the numbers, but most people like a teacher or somebody else, when somebody comes to you and says, "This is what you can afford and this is what they're licensed in," you want to believe them.
They're an authority on the matter. A lot of people got in a lot of trouble that way. A lot of borrowers did during that time period.
It's one thing. It's on the borrower at the end of the day. Here's where I'll go back to the other side. Here's how much can you afford side, but then there's the condition of the property. If you're getting a property from somebody on a land contract or something and the property is being sold for $30,000 and it doesn't have electric or anything else on that property, they should know after going to look at this property to have some insight what's entailed and realize, "I'm not moving into the penthouse at the Ritz." This thing is going to need some sweat equity. They probably aren't going to understand that every little detail because they probably didn't have a home inspection, but they should at least understand like, "This is going to still need a decent amount of work." There's that happy balance.
I do think there's a legitimate business model as far as buying a distressed property, fixing them up, selling them with some form of seller financing. I think that's going to be even more prevalent here in the next few years. That's not the same thing as what you're describing where this buyer has never even been inside the property. The property needs $50,000 in work. They have no idea what they're doing with the rehab or personal finance or any of it. That person's being taken advantage of. I don't know how some people sleep at night, to be honest.
Jamie, I think we've had a mixed bag of topics. Why don't we roll into our Note and Bolt? Do you have one?
My Note and Bolt might sound a little elementary for the more experienced note investors out there. For new people, when you're getting forced place insurance on a CFD. It's appropriate for our CFD conversation, make sure you get liability coverage. If you're brand new and you've never bought a CFD before, you may not even know what I'm talking about. When you go to get FPI, whether it's through your servicer or an outside company like JB Lloyd. When you own a CFD, you have legal title to that property. The borrower has what's called Equitable Title, but you're the one on the deed. That sounds great, but there are a lot of headaches that can come with that and liability. If somebody trips and falls on your property whether it's the borrower or not, you could be liable for that. The point I wanted to make, not everybody even thinks about that when you're buying these CFDs. Make sure you get liability coverage that may or may not cost more on your policy. On a traditional note and mortgage, it's not necessary. You're not responsible, you're not on the deed.
I'll tag into that. Having an umbrella policy that wraps all your properties as well.
How do you do that? We have an umbrella policy, but I'm curious how you've done that, Chris.
I've got several different insurances I've got. Through JB Lloyd, they have different policies and that's one thing. Understand your policy and make sure you walk through it. They have a lender type policy and they have an investor policy. The investor policy is what I have. It's more expensive but it has a lot more coverage. One of those has got a $2 million umbrella that covers all my properties. I've individual liability on each property and then an umbrella that covers. Through a local insurance agency, I also have general liability errors and omissions and a bunch of other random things as well for insurance.
Note Investing: There are predatory lenders out there, but there's also the fact of individual responsibility.
Insurance is one of those topics. Homeowners' insurance specifically is one that I don't love, but it's important.
That's one of those things that you don't know what you got until something happens and then you get burned. My Note and Bolt is a little different. My wife and I had our ten-year anniversary. We're joking what to get and stuff. I was thinking the kids maybe like an Oculus or something like that and so forth. For me, I'm a simpleton. She got a membership to what's called Mindvalley. I don't know if anyone's ever heard of it. It's like a self-development. It's more based on the theory that from a learning perspective, most people are taught to cram in as much information as quickly as possible and think that they're retaining a lot of that where studies have shown when you read a book the next day, 80% of it you've forgotten.
When you think about taking note investing and doing training or something, do a day or a weekend course. If you're only retaining 20% of it, but then the 20%, you don't know what you don't know. You don't even know what's important to retain and not, how much value we're getting? What I like about this is it has a lot of self-development about how to be a better marketer, how to be a better speaker, how to be more entrepreneurial. It was a lot different. Also, how to remember people's names. That's the first one I took because I forget everyone's name. I think it was $600 for a yearly membership and you have access to everything.
What I like about is every lesson is daily and it's only about 10 to 20 minutes a day. You can't advance. You can't skip and go three days ahead. What they have is a forum for each quest where it's almost like a membership group site and stuff where they go through this stuff. You can then hear other people's stories. The other thing is it's a lot of like-minded people. You can network with other people. I was networking with somebody and we're just sharing stories, tell them what I do. People are amazed at what you do. That's my Note and Bolt where I never even heard of it.
My wife's like, "Try this and stuff." For people, trying to self-educate sometimes. It's something that's a little different. People don't like to read, I'm not a big reader. From that perspective, it's cool how it has these videos and so forth. The guy who created it has an interesting story. He was a computer engineer who worked for Microsoft. He was a VP at Microsoft and said, "Screw this. This isn't what I was meant to do." He went and started being a meditation teacher for a while. He thinks outside the box that the way our education system is antiquated. The new way of educating people is information and snippets so people can try and retain it. You take what you've learned from that day and try and implement it in some strategy.
That's interesting.
It's fun to throw it out there. I think it's Mindvalley.com. They are not paying, sponsoring or anything along these lines. It's something that I started taking, I've been doing it for a week. I think it's cool. In 2 to 3 months, I'll give more of a thorough review because sometimes things start out good and realize it's not. I find for somebody who is looking for some direction, it might be beneficial especially if you're trying to start a business and you haven't had management experience or any type of sales, marketing, or presentation skills. It's something that I think somebody could find a lot of value from.
I would think anybody could benefit from that kind of thing. We all need coaching. We all need to take a step back and look at where we're headed and what we are trying to do here.
A lot of people who are teaching these classes, if you Google them, they're very successful. Jamie, do you have any final thoughts before we wrap up this episode?
No. Go out and do some good deeds.
Thank you all for reading.
Jamie Bateman
MindValley.com
Join the Good Deeds Note Investing movement today:
GoodDeedsNoteInvesting.com
Chris Seveney Facebook
Chris Seveney Twitter
Chris Seveney Instagram
Gail Greenberg Facebook
7EInvestments.com
7E Investments Facebook
7E Investments YouTube
7E Investments Google+
WinWinNotes.com
Win Win Notes Facebook
Win Win Notes Twitter
← PREVIOUS: Why You Should Not Invest In Notes Today With Jamie Bateman %next →
Contact Us to Learn More About becoming part of the Seveney Family of investors
The Success Mindset: Manage Your Focus With Rod Khleif
One of the most critical things that separate successful people from those who are not is the mindset. No...
Jamie Bateman On His 2021 Goals And Expectations
Even though 2020 was a rocky year for many, there is still no reason not to be excited for the new year and...
Bookkeeping Essentials For Note Investors With Debbie Mullins
Bookkeeping is arguably the most important of any business, including note investing. If you're looking to run...
Top 5 Strategies You Should Implement Before Investing With A Sponsor
Plus, the 20-questions you should ask during your consultation.
Thank you for subscribing. Check your email to confirm and get your free advice!
* By clicking subscribe you are consenting to receive future communications from Seveney Investments in the future.
We promise no spam.
Seveney Investments is a Virginia-based leading mortgage note investment firm that will source, analyze, acquire, manage, and liquidate performing and non-performing residential mortgage debt for investors.
Chris Seveney
Good Deeds Note Investing
design & strategy by
Kristen Good Collective & Big Picture Branding


text:
public class UsoMetodiStatici {

	static void m() {}

	public static void main(String[] args) {
		// di math
		double x = Math.sin(3.14);
		System.out.println(x);

		System.out.println(Math.PI);

		System.out.println(Math.max(6, 7));

		// classe string
		// da int a String
		String h = String.valueOf(4);
		// String -> int
		Integer.parseInt("1");

		m();

	}
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


As a general rule, BISSELL will not sell, rent or loan your personally identifiable information to others for advertising or similar purposes. BISSELL will use the information you provide to fulfill your request, as well as enhance your relationship with BISSELL and its strategic partners. For example, if you purchase goods through this website, you will need to provide your credit card information to BISSELLwhich will be encrypted and stored on a secure server and provided to our credit card processor and authenticator for payment purposes, and your name and address to the company that ships our merchandise. If you sign up for our member services and join our email list, BISSELL and its partners may occasionally distribute information and offers that may be of interest to you. To make changes to your email subscription without logging in, please visit Email Subscriptions. If you would like to edit your name and personal information or be removed from our email list, please do so at My Profile. To make any of these changes or delete your account, contact us at Customer Care or send your request to BISSELL Homecare, Inc., 2345 Walker Avenue NW, Grand Rapids, MI 49544.
BISSELL protects the security of your information, including credit card information provided for purchases, which it encrypts, using Secure Socket layers (SSL), for transmission to our secure servers. While we consider online security a priority, we cannot provide absolute assurances against, and will not be liable for, any breaches of confidentiality due to system failures or unauthorized access by third parties.


Discover the ultimate bush and beach vacation with a 10-day tour that explores East Africa's most loved destinations.
Arriving in the bustling city of Nairobi, you will have the opportunity to relax in a quiet and upmarket suburb or enjoy some of Nairobi's top attractions which include the Karen Blixen Museum, Nairobi National Park, Karen arts and crafts centers, Giraffe Centre and the David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust. The Hemingways Hotel offers world-class guest facilities and comfortable rooms, should you rather choose to rest up for the next leg of your journey.
Your safari adventure begins with three days in a private concession that borders with the unfenced and world-renowned Masai Mara National Reserve - famous for its vast savannah plains and rolling hills that teem with wildlife, including the Big Five.
Travelers from across the world flock to the Masai Mara during the annual Great Migration, to witness almost two million wildebeest, zebra, and other antelope move through the Mara in search of greener pastures. This spectacle is action-packed with predators closely following the herds, waiting for an opportunity to strike. The Masai Mara offers phenomenal game viewing all year-round, making it one of the world's most celebrated game reserves. Bateleur Camp is the perfect base from which to explore the beauty of this region.
Your journey continues into Tanzania where you will find the breathtaking world heritage site known as the Ngorongoro Crater. Discover the world's largest caldera volcano that is approximately three millions years old and is home to some of Africa's most incredible wildlife. The Ngorongoro Crater Lodge offers convenient access to crater floor which is known for having the densest known population of lions and is home to the big five.
After an exciting safari experience in the African bush, it is time for some well deserved rest and relaxation as you embrace the beach lifestyle and Zanzibarian way of life. Over the next three days, you can look forward to one of the finest swimming beaches in Africa, cultural attractions, a wide selection of watersports, and stunning accommodation on offer at Zuri Zanzibar.
Solo travelers, couples, and families are sure to enjoy this extraordinary safari and tropical beach getaway.
Today you arrive at Kenya's Jomo Kenyatta Airport where you will be met and transferred to your hotel for check-in.
After your travels, you may wish to relax at the hotel and enjoy a dip in the heated swimming pool or a revitalizing treatment at the Hemingways Spa.
Nairobi is the start of a remarkable safari experience with many of its top attractions focused around the conservation of wild animals. Depending on your time of arrival, you may decide to venture out and explore the Nairobi National Park or visit the Daphne Sheldrick Orphanage for rhinos and elephants. The choice is yours to make.
For your evening meal, you may be interested in an "out of Africa" dining experience with a visit to Nairobi's Carnivore Restaurant.
Today your safari adventure begins as you transfer by road to Wilson Airport for your scheduled flight to the Masai Mara. On arrival at the airstrip, you will be met and then travel by road for approximately 30 minutes before reaching the camp.
Over the next three days, you will have the opportunity to explore this pristine wilderness by partaking in a number of activities which include twice-daily game drives, night drives, guided bush walks, hot air balloon rides, and cultural interactions with the Maasai people.
The Masai Mara teems with wildlife and includes 60 mammal species and over 570 bird species.
During the months of July to October, you may have the opportunity to witness the World's Greatest Mammal Migration; a spectacle not to be missed.
After an exciting safari experience in the Masai Mara National Reserve, your journey continues as you transfer back to the airstrip for your scheduled flight to Lake Manyara Airstrip. On arrival, you will be met and then travel by road in a closed vehicle for approximately one and a half hours to your lodge.
During your stay, you can look forward to game drives on the Crater floor, guided walking safaris, crater floor banquets, and day trips to Olduvai Gorge and Shifting Sands.
Known for the Big Five and packs of lions, Ngorongoro promises to be a truly rewarding safari experience whilst offering the most breathtaking views.
After a sumptuous breakfast, you gather your belongings and bid farewell to the African bush as you transfer to Lake Manyara Airstrip for your scheduled flight to Zanzibar.
After an exciting safari, the idea of taking a refreshing swim in the warm turquoise waters, sinking your toes in the white sands, and basking in the beautiful sunshine is a welcoming experience.
Zanzibar is a town rich in history and culture so travelers can look forward to unique activities which include a visit to Stone Town, spice tours, and dhow cruises. The hotel is a water sports enthusiasts dream with a diving and watersport center on site. Enjoy a number of non-motorized water sports, fishing trips, and beach games.
Today you may wish to take one last walk on the beach before sitting down to enjoy a hearty breakfast. You then bid farewell to the tropical island of Zanzibar and transfer by road back to Zanzibar Airport, where you will connect with your onward travel arrangements.
Includes: Local flights, road transfers, accommodation, all meals and local brand beverages except at Hemingways Hotel where breakfast is included, teas and coffees, scheduled safari activities at the safari lodges, laundry, park and conservation fees, and emergency medical insurance.


text:
Left on the Move
The global recession melts the economy: who will pay the bill?
Israel Dutra and Thiago Aguiar 22 Apr 2020
Together with the Covid-19 pandemic, which continues to spread throughout the world, another "virus" threatens society: that of recession. The economic and social effects of the combined crisis – health, political and social – are still unpredictable. In Europe, still in the eye of the hurricane of the spread of the disease, all the economic indices collapsed in the first quarter: the retraction in countries like France, Italy, England and Germany oscillates between 4 and 6%. Not to mention the destruction of jobs and the reduction in the wage bill.
On Tuesday, April 14, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) stated that the "great paralysis", as the present crisis of the world economy is being called, will lead the planet to a recession even worse than that of 2008. The IMF states that the current crisis can only be compared to that of 1929.
In Brazil, the situation is even more serious. There is a political battle against Bolsonaro, which denies the real situation of the pandemic, retrofeeding the most acute elements of the general crisis. In the absence of coordinated work, the "war effort" – which requires more centralization and cooperation – produces less effect, either by social isolation "by half" or by the government's inability to manage the country on the edge of the cliff.
The workers' and youth movement still has few conditions to intervene, hard hit by the objective condition and, on top of it, by the weakness of the opposition, incapable of offering a path.
Faced with this scenario, it is necessary to debate who will pay the bill. It is ironic that Boris Johnson interviewed last Sunday when he left the hospital ICU, in which he thanked the public health system and the immigrant health professionals for their cure. The rage of neoliberals in destroying public services is transformed into gratitude out of place.
Social and economic genocide
If the pandemic leaves terrible marks in Europe, where the standard of well-being is still much higher than in the countries of the periphery, what should we think of the arrival of the peak in Latin America and the global South? The effect of covid-19 on the Latin American continent, with its pockets of misery, scrapped public services and a large part of the workforce in informality, will be terrible. What we are witnessing in Ecuador, with bodies left out in the open, is a harbinger of a general reality of health collapse, but also of economic collapse.
The measures of Bolsonaro and Guedes put the solvency and profitability of banks, the financial system, public debt creditors and large companies in first place. The MP that allows the reduction of workers' wages and working hours has already pushed one million workers to live with reduced wages and enormous difficulties. In turn, spokespeople for the bourgeoisie are scared by the economic news, demanding that the opportunity of the crisis be taken to approve measures that they have long desired, such as cutting civil service salaries, increasing outsourcing, an end to stability and to competitions. The working class, both formal and informal, in the public and private sectors, is being condemned to insecurity, indebtedness, impoverishment and unemployment – it is estimated that the number of unemployed in Brazil could double in the coming months.
The Bolsonaro government is to blame
In Brazil, the pandemic has already surpassed 25 thousand cases and 1.5 thousand deaths. There is a possibility of massive underreporting: some sources say there are 10 times more cases of covid-19 in the country. A tragic example of the rapid spread and its consequences is the situation of Manaus (AM), whose health system has already collapsed.
Bolsonaro is largely responsible for the worsening of poverty. By relativizing the coronavirus, making fun of it, visiting businesses and encouraging the "carreatas da morte", the individual who occupies the presidency exposes millions of Brazilians to risk. Together with Guedes, he proposed that the basic emergency income should be only 200 reais. His only concrete proposal is to resort to hydroxychloroquine, a drug whose effectiveness against covid-19 has not been proven.
At the same time, its anti-grassroots and anti-national orientation, of complete submission to Trump, creates more difficulties for the arrival in the country of the devices and inputs necessary to face the disease, as in the shameful case of "confiscation" by the U.S. government of material purchased by Brazilian state governments with Chinese suppliers.
This is a real policy of death, as the neo-fascist supporters of Bolsonaro unbelievably point out in the diffusion of "humorous" montages on the Internet in which the president appears laughing and dancing while carrying a coffin.
Fighting for the emergency program
It is necessary to follow the demand for measures to tackle the spread of the disease and mitigate the effects of economic paralysis on workers. It is necessary to speed up the payment of basic income; promote industrial reconversion to produce inputs and equipment, such as respiratory ventilators, needed in hospitals; defend health workers; in addition to promoting massive testing, combating underreporting and helping the isolation of patients. Who will pay the costs of the crisis? Millionaires must be taxed, through a tax on large fortunes and large inheritances; taxes on profits and dividends; in addition to the taxation of banks and the financial system. There are a number of other fundamental measures, such as the revision of the spending ceiling and the Fiscal Responsibility Law, and the auditing of public debt (as, by the way, established in the 1988 Constitution). As Luciana Genro's video series has shown, Brazilian billionaires – and not workers and public servants – should pay the bill for the crisis!
Via Movimento Magazine
Israel Dutra es secretario de Relaciones Internacionales del PSOL y dirigente del MES.
Thiago Aguiar Thiago Aguiar é doutorando em Sociologia (USP) e diretor da Revista Movimento.
Subscribe to receive our newsletters by email
WORLD HEALTH DAY: DEFENDING SUS AND LIFE
Danilo Rezegue 8 Apr 2020
About a month ago, the WHO declared the state of a global pandemic caused by the new coronavirus. Since the first cases were recorded in China, the spread throughout Europe and the consolidation of the US as the epicenter of the crisis, the pandemic turned the world upside down and changed the whole geopolitical atmosphere […]
Revista Movimento 6 Apr 2020
WORLD HEALTH DAY On Tuesday, April 7, 2020, we must register as a day of struggle in defense of life and health professionals. The health and economic crisis hits the system globally. In Brazil, the coronavirus pandemic takes on enormous proportions and an exponential escalation. However, President Bolsonaro against science has encouraged people to take […]
Bolsonaro was knocked over in Brazil?
Alp Altinörs 14 Apr 2020
There's no classic coup. Bolsonaro, very incompetent in the face of the coronavirus crisis, was circumvented in many important decisions, especially related to the pandemic. Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro's denialist attitude towards the coronavirus pandemic is weakening the political terrain beneath him on a daily basis. Describing the pandemic as a "simple flu," Bolsonaro opposes […]
THE CORONAVIRUS IS BORN FROM BARBARISM
SÚMATE 29 Mar 2020
When we closed these lines, the number of infected is around 243 000 cases in 169 countries, and the deaths in the world are around 10 000 people, mostly in China and Italy; and the outbreak has already spread to our continent. The Covid-19 statistics are alarming, despite the barriers and quarantines of millions of […]
A new page to support and build new alternatives in Latin America and the world, defending the power of the workers and people against the 1% of the rich and privileged, and a society without exploitation.
Writing office
The content on this site, except if originated from other sources or if specified otherwise, is licensed under Creative Commons by-sa 3.0 BR.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Luckett v. Centerline Charter Corp.
Loud v. Transit Team, Inc.
App. 1985) (footnote omitted). Relator cites this court's unpublished opinion in Luckett v. Centerline…
Full title:Jovita Luckett, Relator, v. Centerline Charter Corporation, Respondent…
Court:STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS
Date published: Sep 26, 2011
A11-251 (Minn. Ct. App. Sep. 26, 2011)
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS
In Luckett, the ULJ found that an employee was discharged from her position as a bus driver for employment misconduct in providing diluted urine samples and failing to disclose a speeding ticket and injury in her job application.
Summary of this case from Loud v. Transit Team, Inc.
See 1 Summary
Jovita Luckett, Relator, v. Centerline Charter Corporation, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Jovita Luckett, St. Paul, Minnesota (pro se relator) Centerline Charter Corporation, St. Paul, Minnesota (respondent employer) Lee B. Nelson, Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent department)
STONEBURNER
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2010).
Stoneburner, Judge
Schellhas, Judge, dissenting
Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 25063577-5
Jovita Luckett, St. Paul, Minnesota (pro se relator)
Centerline Charter Corporation, St. Paul, Minnesota (respondent employer)
Lee B. Nelson, Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development,
St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent department)
Considered and decided by Schellhas, Presiding Judge; Klaphake, Judge; and Stoneburner, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
STONEBURNER , Judge
Relator challenges the determination of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she is ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits. Because we conclude that relator's conduct does not constitute employment misconduct that would make her ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits, we reverse.
Relator Jovita Luckett applied for employment as a bus driver with respondent Centerline Charter Corporation in May 2009. The application asked whether the applicant had been convicted of traffic-law violations in the last five years. Luckett failed to disclose that she had been issued a speeding ticket in February 2009. Centerline checked Luckett's driving record on May 13, 2009. Centerline hired Luckett in August 2009 even though her driving record revealed the February 2009 speeding ticket.
Luckett was required to complete a pre-employment physical examination to determine her fitness for being a bus driver. She completed a questionnaire in connection with the examination and responded "No" to a question asking whether she had incurred illness or injury within the past five years. Luckett attested to the truthfulness of her answers even though she did not disclose having been involved in a car accident in February 2009 that resulted in chiropractic treatment, which was ongoing at the time she filled out the questionnaire.
On December 8, 2010, Luckett was involved in an unavoidable work-related accident. Centerline's policy required that Luckett submit a urine sample for drug and alcohol testing. The test results were negative but showed that the sample was diluted. Luckett was required to submit another urine sample. The test results on this sample were again negative, but again showed that the sample was diluted. Centerline intended to discuss the diluted tests with Luckett, but due to the Christmas break and a leave of absence that Luckett took for a non-work-related injury one day after she returned to work from the Christmas break, Centerline did not discuss the test results with Luckett and did not mention the diluted test results to Luckett until her employment was terminated more than three months later.
While Luckett was on leave, she spoke with several of Centerline's staff members and was informed that, in addition to return-to-work clearance from her treating doctor, she was required to have a "return to work" physical examination approved by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (DOT) before she could return to work. The examination was scheduled for March 9.
Luckett was instructed to immediately provide the results of the DOT physical examination to Centerline. Luckett called Centerline and explained that she had another appointment that would prevent her from going immediately to Centerline after the examination. She was told to "drop off" the examination results. When she dropped off the examination results, she was asked to wait "two minutes" for her supervisor to complete a meeting so that Luckett's return to work could be discussed. Luckett said she was not able to wait, and she left.
Luckett telephoned Centerline later on March 9 and left an angry message questioning whether Centerline was going to continue to make her "jump through hoops" and whether she should contact a lawyer. On March 11, Luckett telephoned Centerline and was told that her file was being reviewed. She was asked to attend a meeting on March 19. Luckett was unable to attend the March 19 meeting, but she met with Centerline personnel on March 26. During the meeting, her employment was terminated because of the March 9 voicemail, which Centerline stated was the "last straw," demonstrating that Luckett was not an appropriate representative of Centerline.
Luckett applied to respondent Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) for unemployment benefits. She was initially found eligible for benefits. Centerline appealed, submitting a statement to DEED asserting that Luckett's employment was terminated for failing to meet with a supervisor as requested and for leaving a rude telephone message. After a hearing, the ULJ determined that Luckett was discharged for unsatisfactory work performance that did not constitute employment misconduct and was, therefore, eligible for unemployment benefits.
Centerline requested reconsideration and submitted additional evidence in the form of documents discrediting Luckett's testimony that the February 2009 traffic ticket had been "thrown out" and her testimony that she had not disclosed her February 2009 injury at the time of her pre-hire physical because the doctor who performed the examination had examined her before and already knew about the February 2009 accident and treatment. In its request for reconsideration, Centerline argued that Luckett was discharged for "a pattern and history of dishonesty, repeated lying, placing her needs above those of the job, [and] avoiding critical calls and meetings that were necessary to her continued employment."
The ULJ granted reconsideration and ordered a new hearing. After the hearing, the ULJ set aside the earlier findings and decision. The ULJ found that Luckett was discharged for (1) the March 9 voicemail message; (2) two negative but diluted drug tests; and (3) inaccuracies in her employment record. The ULJ again found that the March 9 voicemail message constituted simple unsatisfactory conduct that did not make Luckett ineligible for unemployment benefits. But the ULJ concluded that "the other incidents" that led to her discharge "rise to the level of employment misconduct," making Luckett ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits. This appeal followed.
Employees discharged for employment misconduct are disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 4(1) (2010). "Whether an employee engaged in conduct that disqualifies the employee from unemployment benefits is a mixed question of fact and law." Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp., 644 N.W.2d 801, 804 (Minn. 2002). Whether an employee committed the alleged act is a fact question. Scheunemann v. Radisson S. Hotel, 562 N.W.2d 32, 34 (Minn. App. 1997). This court defers to the ULJ's credibility determinations and findings of fact that are supported by substantial evidence. Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc., 726 N.W.2d 525, 529 (Minn. App. 2007). But whether a particular act constitutes employment misconduct under the terms of the relevant statutes is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo. Schmidgall, 644 N.W.2d at 804.
Luckett challenges the ULJ's determination that she was discharged for employment misconduct. On certiorari appeal, a reviewing court examines whether a petitioner's substantial rights were prejudiced because the findings, inferences, conclusion, or decision are affected by error of law or unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the whole record. Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d)(4), (5) (2010). Substantial evidence is "(1) such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion; (2) more than a scintilla of evidence; (3) more than some evidence; (4) more than any evidence; or (5) the evidence considered in its entirety." Minn. Ctr. for Envtl. Advocacy v. Minn. Pollution Control Agency, 644 N.W.2d 457, 466 (Minn. 2002). Applying these standards, we examine the basis of the ULJ's ineligibility determination.
I. Diluted test samples
After the first hearing, the ULJ found that the diluted drug test results did not evidence misconduct because the tests "d[id] not show [that] Luckett was under the influence of drugs" and her explanation for the diluted samples—that she drank a lot of water before the tests in order to be able to provide a sample—"is logical and convincing." After the second hearing, the ULJ determined that Luckett's testimony was not credible, "[t]herefore, her explanation for the diluted drug tests is also called into question. . . . As other testimony Luckett provided at the first evidentiary hearing has been shown to be false, it is not unreasonable to assume that her explanation for the diluted tests was also not credible." The ULJ gave no further explanation for its conclusion that the diluted samples therefore constituted employment misconduct that made Luckett ineligible for benefits.
On appeal, Luckett argues that the diluted samples were only a pretext for her discharge and that she was fired only because of the March 9 voicemail, and specifically because she threatened to contact a lawyer. An applicant for unemployment benefits cannot be determined to be ineligible to receive benefits unless the alleged employment misconduct is the reason for discharge. Harringer v. AA Portable Truck & Trailer Repair, Inc., 379 N.W.2d 222, 224 (Minn. App. 1985).
Centerline's initial submission to DEED states that Luckett was discharged for "unprofessional behavior involving inconsistency in behavior, lack of direct communication, inability to follow clear directives, rude, insubordinate telephone message." In response to a question about the timing of the discharge, Centerline stated that Luckett "failed to follow directions" after her return-to-work physical examination. "She was asked to wait for 2 minutes but refused saying she had other appointments. Within a short period of time, she left an unprofessional, rude message." Centerline's representative stated that "the last straw . . . was the phone message." See Monyoro v. Marriott Corp., 403 N.W.2d 325, 328 (Minn. App. 1987) (concluding that incidents not related in time or tenor, that might be minor infractions, when taken as a whole, demonstrated a lack of concern for the job and the type of disregard of the employer's interests encompassed in the definition of misconduct). But the ULJ did not address the "last straw" argument. Instead, the ULJ found that Luckett was discharged because of employment misconduct consisting of the diluted urine samples and failure to disclose the speeding ticket and her February 2009 injury in the application process.
The ULJ asked directly whether Centerline intended to discharge Luckett for the diluted tests, and Centerline's representative stated only that Centerline was "intending to . . . talk to her about the results." In fact, Centerline never discussed the samples with Luckett. The "[l]apse of time between the alleged misconduct and discharge, absent circumstances that would explain the delay, may tend to negate a causal relation between the misconduct and the discharge." Redalen v. Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co., 504 N.W.2d 237, 239 (Minn. App.1993). Although the Christmas break and Luckett's leave of absence may have postponed the discussion, Centerline scheduled a return-to-work physical examination without raising the issue of the samples and did not initially assert the diluted samples as a basis for discharge.
We conclude that the record does not support the ULJ's finding that the diluted drug samples were a basis for Luckett's discharge. Therefore, even if dilution of the samples constituted employment misconduct, that misconduct cannot disqualify Luckett from receiving unemployment benefits.
II. Nondisclosure of medical information for pre-hire physical examination
Luckett failed to disclose a February 2009 injury and subsequent treatment for that injury during her pre-hire DOT physical examination. But this injury was the reason Luckett gave Centerline for her January 2010 leave of absence, so Centerline knew about the undisclosed injury almost three months before terminating Luckett's employment. The ULJ nonetheless found that non-disclosure during the pre-hire examination constituted employment misconduct that was one of the bases for Luckett's discharge despite the fact that Centerline had scheduled a return-to-work physical examination for Luckett and wanted to discuss Luckett's return to work with her before she left the March 9 voicemail. Luckett argues that her February 2009 injury was not material to her application for employment and that her omission of that fact was only a pretext for firing her for threatening to contact a lawyer on March 9.
In Santillana v. Cent. Minn. Council on Aging, this court discussed whether an employee engaged in employment misconduct when the employee provided inaccurate information during the hiring process, concluding that
a material misrepresentation during the hiring process continues to fit within the statutory definition of employment misconduct. Intentionally misrepresenting a fact that is material to employment shows a substantial lack of concern for the employment. See Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6(a). A person making a material misrepresentation during the hiring process is therefore ineligible for unemployment benefits if he or she is later discharged because of the misrepresentation.
791 N.W.2d 303, 307 (Minn. App. 2010). But nonmaterial misrepresentations do not disqualify applicants from receiving unemployment benefits. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 709 v. Hansen, 412 N.W.2d 320, 322-23 (Minn. App. 1987).
Whether a misrepresentation is material depends on whether "a truthful answer to the question would . . . have prevented [the applicant] from being hired." Santillana, 791 N.W.2d at 308 (quotation omitted). Here, Centerline did not assert and the ULJ did not find that a truthful answer would have precluded relator's employment. In Heitman v. Cronstroms Mfg., Inc., this court remanded for findings regarding whether failure to disclose a back injury was material to a particular applicant's employment as a welder. 401 N.W.2d 425, 427-28 (Minn. App. 1987). The Heitman court noted that the issue was not whether the employer had good cause to fire the employee for the misrepresentation, but whether the misrepresentation was material to the employment sought and thereby grounds for establishing employment misconduct and denying unemployment benefits under the statute. Id. at 428. Similarly in this case, Luckett's misrepresentation may have given good cause for termination of employment, but, without a determination that the misrepresentation was material to Luckett's employment, does not constitute employment misconduct. Because Luckett passed her pre-hire physical examination and Centerline was apparently willing to continue Luckett's employment after she passed her DOT return-to-work physical examinations following her leave-of-absence, a remand is not necessary. The record in this case would not support a determination that earlier knowledge of the injury would have precluded Luckett's employment. Because Luckett's nondisclosure was not material to her employment, it does not constitute employment misconduct that makes her ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits.
III. Nondisclosure of the traffic ticket
Centerline's employment application asked applicants to report "[t]raffic convictions and forfeitures for the past 5 years." Luckett's asserted reason for not disclosing the February 2009 traffic ticket was that she paid a fine and did not consider the ticket a "conviction." But she also provided inconsistent assertions about the ticket having been "thrown out." The ULJ found that Luckett deliberately misrepresented her driving record and that this misrepresentation constituted employment misconduct. But, as stated above, whether misrepresentation of facts during the application process constitutes employment misconduct that later makes the applicant ineligible for unemployment benefits turns on whether the employer would have refused to offer the applicant employment had the applicant answered truthfully. Santillana, 791 N.W.2d at 308. In this case, the record shows that Centerline had knowledge, at least constructively, of the traffic ticket when it checked Luckett's driving record before it offered employment to Luckett. And Centerline personnel did not testify that the traffic ticket made Luckett ineligible for employment. The record, therefore, does not support a finding that a truthful answer would have prevented Luckett's employment. Luckett's misrepresentation was not a material misrepresentation that fits within the definition of employment misconduct.
Because neither of Luckett's misrepresentations constituted disqualifying employment misconduct, and the record does not support a finding that Luckett's discharge was based on the diluted urine samples, the ULJ erred in concluding that Luckett is ineligible for unemployment benefits.
Reversed. SCHELLHAS, Judge (dissenting)
I respectfully dissent from the majority's decision to reverse the ULJ's decision. The majority concludes that Luckett's misrepresentations on her employment application and in her pre-employment physical examination were not material to her employment and therefore did not constitute employment misconduct because (1) Centerline had constructive knowledge of Luckett's traffic conviction when it hired her, and (2) "the record ... would not support a determination that earlier knowledge of [her neck] injury would have precluded Luckett's employment." With respect to Luckett's diluted urine samples, the majority concludes that the record does not support the ULJ's finding that the diluted urine samples were a basis for Luckett's discharge. I disagree with the majority's conclusions.
The ULJ found that Centerline discharged Luckett from employment "due to the voicemail message on March 9, 2010, inaccuracies in her employment record, and two negative but diluted drug tests." The ULJ decided that Luckett engaged in employment misconduct with respect to the inaccuracies in her employment record and the two negative but diluted urine samples she provided. For the reasons set forth below, I would affirm the ULJ's decision.
Inaccuracies in Employment Record
In her application for employment as a school-bus driver, Luckett made misrepresentations by failing to disclose a traffic conviction. Luckett also made misrepresentations in her pre-employment physical examination by failing to disclose a neck injury, for which she was undergoing treatment at the time of her application.
Nondisclosure of Traffic Conviction
In her employment application, Luckett noted that she drove a school bus for Sunburst Transportation in Minneapolis from "2007 - Current." She also disclosed that she had a Class B Minnesota driver's license with an expiration date of September 4, 2009, with endorsements for "School Bus - Passenger." Luckett left blank the section of the application that called for a list of "Traffic convictions and forfeitures for the past 5 years (exclude parking violations)."
The majority notes that "Centerline checked Luckett's driving record on May 13, 2009" and hired Luckett in August 2009, "even though her driving record showed that she had received a speeding ticket in February 2009 that she did not disclose on her application." But when the ULJ asked Centerline's office manager, Teresa Fenne, when Centerline was "first aware of the speeding ticket," she responded:
I believe when we had the negative dilute become an issue. . . . We started reviewing all of Ms. Luckett's file. One of the things we noticed was that some of her employers hadn't responded to employment verifications that we had mailed out to them. So we refaxed and mailed those out. Again at that time either a second or third time. By law we're required to have those in their file. When we got some of those back that's when we noticed that there were inconsistencies in her employment record . . . and, in finding those inconsistencies then we reviewed all of her file and found that there were many inconsistencies which raised a bunch of flags for us at that point.
And the ULJ again asked Fenne, "[S]o when was it that you were first aware of the speeding ticket," and she said, "December [20]09, January 2010." The ULJ then asked Fenne, "[C]an you explain to me why this one document we have then has the date of May 13, it looks like she wasn't hired until August 13[?]," and she replied, "Yup, this would be when an employee comes in and fills out an application, the HR person runs this record on them and it gets put in their file." The ULJ then asked the obvious question, "[D]o you typically compare [the driving record] exhibit 11 with the application when you run it[?]," and Fenne replied, "I'm, that is not my area. I would say it is a consideration and the application is reviewing their motor vehicle record, yes."
During the first hearing before the ULJ, Luckett testified that the speeding ticket in question was thrown out, and the ULJ noted in her decision that "[t]he ticket was later thrown out." The ULJ summarized Luckett's testimony about why she did not list the speeding ticket on her application, as follows: "Luckett testified that she did not consider the ticket a conviction, and, therefore, did not list it on the application. Her explanation is persuasive. In addition, the ticket was later thrown out." But, after the second hearing, at which Centerline produced evidence that the speeding ticket had resulted in a traffic conviction, contrary to Luckett's testimony, the ULJ stated in her decision:
[Luckett] failed to list a speeding ticket she received. The preponderance of the evidence shows Luckett was convicted of speeding in February 2009. Her testimony to explain the conviction on her record was concocted and not believable. As she had received a speeding ticket in February 2009, she should have included the ticket on her application. Her failure to do so was likely intentional, and at least negligent.
The majority concludes that because Centerline obtained Luckett's written driving record before it hired Luckett, it had constructive knowledge of her traffic conviction and "[t]he record, therefore, would not support a finding that a truthful answer would have prevented Luckett's employment and the misrepresentation was not a material misrepresentation that fits within the definition of employment misconduct." The majority's conclusion implicitly embraces Luckett's argument that Centerline's reasons for her discharge were pretextual. Centerline's representatives testified about its reasons for terminating Luckett's employment, and the ULJ made credibility determinations based upon their testimony. I disagree with the majority's disregard of the ULJ's credibility determinations. See Skarhus v. Davanni's Inc., 721 N.W.2d 340, 344 (Minn. App. 2006) (stating that reviewing court defers to ULJ's credibility determinations).
I also disagree with the majority's conclusion that because of Centerline's constructive knowledge of Luckett's traffic conviction, Luckett's "misrepresentation was not a material misrepresentation ... within the definition of employment misconduct" reached without citation to legal authority. And I can find no legal authority that supports a conclusion that constructive knowledge by an employer diminishes or negates the materiality of an employee's misrepresentation.
I further disagree with the majority's conclusion because I believe that it contravenes long-standing law that supports the reasonableness of an employer's expectation that an employee will be honest in the hiring process and instead rewards Luckett's dishonesty. "Intentionally misrepresenting a fact that is material to employment shows a substantial lack of concern for the employment." Santillana v. Cent. Minn. Council on Aging, 791 N.W.2d 303, 307 (Minn. App. 2010). By hinging the materiality of an employee's misrepresentation on whether the employer knew or should have known about the misrepresentation, the majority disregards an employee's duty of honesty and shifts to the employer a burden to show that it neither knew nor should have known about the misrepresentation. Such a burden may be relevant to an employer's liability for damage caused by the employee to a third party. See Johnson v. Peterson, 734 N.W.2d 275, 278 (Minn. App. 2007) (holding that "liability for intentional torts is imposed when the employer knows or should have known" of employee's violent or aggressive nature). But it is not relevant to a determination of employment misconduct for the purposes of unemployment-benefits eligibility.
In Heitman v. Cronstroms Mfg., 401 N.W.2d 425, 428 (Minn. App. 1987), we held that in order for a misrepresentation on an employment application to constitute misconduct, the misrepresentation must be material to the position that is obtained. A misrepresentation is material if a truthful answer would necessarily have prevented the applicant from being hired. Santillana, 791 N.W.2d at 308. Here, Genevieve Rossow, an officer of Centerline, testified that Luckett's failure to "include the speeding ticket" in the section of her job application, which asked for traffic convictions and forfeitures for the past five years, is "extremely important" in a driving position. Fenne testified that "[Centerline] transport[s] children to and from school and it is our job to make sure the drivers are qualified and physically capable to do so." Further, the parents of the children its school buses transport and the school district it serves "expect us to do flawless work" when transporting their children every day, and "we have a high standard that we set to meet that expectation," of which Luckett was aware. In Rossow's closing statement, she stated that those at
Centerline have the unique privilege and immense responsibility of safety and I wish to emphasize safely transporting children . . . to and from school . . . through all
extremes of weather and road conditions. . . . We require the individuals at the wheel of our school buses to be knowledgeable, consistent, professional and fully aware of their important duties. Therefore, these characteristics are part of our school bus driver's job description.
Although the ULJ did not explicitly discuss the materiality of Luckett's nondisclosures to the position she sought, I would conclude as a matter of law that Luckett's traffic conviction is material to her position as a Centerline school-bus driver. The ULJ's decision, as supported by substantial evidence in the form of the Fenne's and Rossow's uncontradicted testimony, demonstrates that the omission of the information about the speeding ticket on Luckett's job application was material as a matter of law. The ULJ concluded that "[a]n employer has a right to expect that its employees will provide accurate information on their applications for employment," that "[t]he preponderance of the evidence shows Luckett was convicted of speeding in February 2009," and that Luckett failed to disclose the speeding ticket on her employment application. The ULJ concluded that these actions "displayed clearly a serious violation of the standards of behavior an employer has the right to reasonably expect of its employees." And I would further conclude that, as the ULJ found, an employee's misrepresentation about her driving record on an employment application for a position as a school-bus driver constitutes employment misconduct.
Nondisclosure of Neck Injury
In her pre-employment physical examination, Luckett failed to disclose a neck injury, for which she was undergoing treatment at the time of her employment application. The majority concludes that the record "would not support a determination that earlier knowledge of the injury would have precluded Luckett's employment." But Luckett passed her pre-employment physical examination only after failing to disclose her neck injury to the treating physician and Centerline. The physician's clearance on fitness to drive was based, in part, on Luckett's misrepresentation that she had no injuries. Yet the record shows that at the time she applied for employment, Luckett was treating her neck injury. Centerline was not aware of Luckett's injury and treatment until January 2010.
Centerline's policy regarding employees' non-work related injuries that cause employees to be absent from work requires that they provide a statement from their own doctor that they can return to work driving a school bus and that Centerline's own physician must also ensure that they are qualified to return to work. Centerline's job is "to make sure the drivers are qualified and physically capable" of transporting children to and from school. In her closing statement, Rossow said that Luckett had failed to list "physical conditions on the preemployment medical exam report for commercial driving fitness." Luckett herself agreed that it was important to provide accurate medical information on the medical examination report, although she admittedly did not do so.
The ULJ stated in her decision:
As for the injury to her neck, Luckett should have disclosed the injury on the medical documentation she completed. Her testimony that she had discussed the injury with the doctor who performed the physical is not credible. The employer has since provided the full medical form, indicating a different doctor performed Luckett's physical from the one she testified she had informed. The preponderance of the evidence shows Luckett failed to disclose her injury on the medical form, to the treating physician, and to the employer.
Again, although the ULJ did not explicitly discuss the materiality of Luckett's nondisclosure on her medical information form, the ULJ's decision demonstrates that she found the omitted disclosure to be material. As discussed above, the ULJ concluded that Luckett's conduct—the omission of the speeding ticket and the medical information— "displayed clearly a serious violation of the standards of behavior an employer has the right to reasonably expect of its employees." This is supported by substantial evidence in the record, based on the testimony by Fenne as well as testimony by Luckett herself, which shows that the omitted disclosure was material to the position. Contrary to the majority's conclusions, I would conclude that Luckett's misrepresentation about her neck injury, for which she was treating at the time of her application, was material as a matter of law, was based on substantial evidence in the record, and supports a determination in this case that earlier knowledge of Luckett's neck injury would have precluded her employment with Centerline.
Diluted Urine Samples
The ULJ also found that one of the bases for Luckett's discharge was her provision of diluted urine samples. The majority concludes "that the record does not support the ULJ's finding that the diluted urine samples were a basis for Luckett's discharge, therefore, even if dilution of the samples constituted employment misconduct, that misconduct cannot disqualify Luckett from receiving unemployment benefits." I disagree.
Centerline's policy required that Luckett provide a urine sample for drug and alcohol testing after she was involved in an accident. Luckett provided two diluted urine samples. Rossow testified that it was Centerline's policy to terminate an employee who provides a diluted urine sample and that Centerline
would have terminated [Luckett] but after that there was a break at Christmas and so we were off at that time as was she and so we were prepared to bring her in after that and discuss that and then she was not able—did not return to work because of her personal injury.
The ULJ asked Rossow to identify the reasons for Luckett's discharge, and Rossow replied, "There were several reasons over a period of time." Rossow explained that one of the reasons was that "[Luckett] had a couple of drug tests that were diluted." Later, when the ULJ asked Fenne what Luckett was told about why she was being discharged, Fenne said, "Based on the last straw of events being the very rude and insubordinate voicemail that she left on Ms. Rossow's voicemail, together with all the other events leading up to that point." Additionally, the record contains a document entitled, "Chronological employment information," which Centerline submitted in its appeal from DEED's initial determination of eligibility. The document identifies, among other events, the dates of Luckett's two urine tests and notes that they were both diluted. The last entry, the date of Luckett's discharge, reads as follows:
Terminated [Luckett] based on "Last Straw" of events, with the voicemail that was left on March 9, 2010 in a very rude and insubordinate manner being the last straw. As an employer we felt that [Luckett] did not show a conduct of behavior that we felt was professional and representative of our company.
The ULJ stated the following regarding Luckett's testimony about the diluted drug tests:
[Luckett's] explanation for the diluted drug tests is also called into question. At the first evidentiary hearing she testified that she drank a lot of water in advance of the test in order to provide the sample needed for the test. As other testimony Luckett provided at the first evidentiary hearing has been shown to be false, it is not unreasonable to assume that her explanation for the diluted tests was also not credible.
The ULJ's finding that Luckett was discharged from employment because of the two diluted drug tests is supported by substantial evidence in the record. See Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d)(5) (2010) (stating that reviewing court considers whether findings are supported by "substantial evidence in view of the entire record"). Substantial evidence is "more than a scintilla of evidence." Minn. Ctr. for Envtl. Advocacy v. Minn. Pollution Control Agency, 644 N.W.2d 457, 466 (Minn. 2002).
Based on the record as a whole, I conclude that the ULJ's factual finding that the diluted drug tests were a basis for Luckett's discharge is supported by substantial evidence in the record. And I would affirm the ULJ's conclusion that Luckett's provision of the diluted drug tests constituted employment misconduct.
Unemployment benefits are for those who are "unemployed through no fault of their own." Minn. Stat. § 268.03, subd. 1 (2010). I would conclude that Luckett engaged in employment misconduct when she misrepresented her driving record in her in her employment application for the position of school-bus driver, when she misrepresented her physical condition in her pre-employment physical examination, and when she provided two diluted urine samples.
I would affirm the ULJ's decision that Luckett was discharged for employment misconduct and is therefore ineligible for unemployment benefits.


17 year old high schooler, Andrew Jin, is this week's honorary New Looker! What he's achieved is #BIGGERTHAN and Powered by Service! Check it out below. Way to go, Andrew! We see you.
This entry was tagged #BIGGERTHAN, Career, Education, Honorary New Looker, Honorary New Lookers, Powered by Service, STEM.


Come and visit the archaeological excavations of Roselle of which we can admire the ancient Etruscan walls, now illuminated even at night, the city of Grosseto, located in the middle of the Maremma plain, with its Medicee walls, the historical center with its shops and the weekly market for shopping, both distant from the farm only ten minutes; in addition, the various craft markets are present throughout the territory, offering typical products of Maremma.
Many cultural and musical events that take place during the summer, among which we remember FestAmbiente which takes place in August at the former ENAOLI of Rispescia. In the trattorias and in the numerous country fairs in the surroundings you can enjoy wholesome food, typical dishes of the Maremma cuisine, ranging from meat, salami, game, fish, tasting extra virgin olive oil and DOC wines. There are many clubs on our coast where you can spend pleasant evenings and, for lovers of "small hours", there are pubs and discos.
Heading inwards, we can meet many ancient villages from which towers and castles stand out. I highly recommend a visit to the old town of Massa Marittima one of the best preserved medieval realities of Tuscany.


What you think; Kanye West.
It's hurting a lot of people, and I can see this happening again and again unless we do something about it, like repealing the 27th amendment.
This is a common misconception. Raising the debt ceiling does not mean the federal government is allowed to borrow more money, it means that we can try to pay back the money we already owe. Because if we hit the debt ceiling, suddenly our interest rates skyrocket and the dollar isn't the reserve currency in the world anymore, essentially "benching" (as in baseball) the United States from being an economic hegemon until we're able to raise our credit rating.
This is very basic misunderstanding of the law... Obamacare doesn't create public health insurance, it regulates private health insurance. It tells gives insurance companies certain standards that they have to abide by, (such as rejecting someone for a pre-existing condition, or returns when they spend 20% of your money on overhead). Also, I certainly hope that nobody is unwilling to raise the debt ceiling... Defaulting on our loans would be catastrophic.
Hey, welcome. You'll find a lot of others like yourself, being not religious. We accept all. That's real tough, though, stay strong. also I had no idea we were being recommended by doctors?
I'm a bit concerned with Abbott's promise to remove the Carbon Tax.
Matthew 25:21 by the Mountain Goats. Especially sad if you know someone with cancer.
I agree. The U.N. Security Council is useless in both that it can't get anything done and that it's undemocratic.
I don't know if this was sarcastic... but if it was, you've misunderstood the cause of globalization. The root cause isn't the U.N., it's NAFTA, SAFTA, CEFTA, ect. The only purpose the U.N. serves is to moderate international relations. The main cause of globalization is the gigantic neoliberal trade agreements that outsource jobs, encourages harsh working conditions in other countries, and relinquishes the State as an economic leader. If you weren't being sarcastic... well, then, I don't know.
dude do you not see what's been happening with globalization in the past decade?
While I hardly ever agree with Vladimir Putin, he strikes a chord with me when he said this: "In line with international law, only the U.N. Security Council could sanction the use of force against a sovereign state. Any other pretext or method which might be used to justify the use of force against an independent sovereign state are inadmissible and can only be interpreted as an aggression."


Currently, and this applies to 4.x and 5.0, I have to include all the taglibs used on every single page in IDEA so I get the code completion. I'd like to put the taglibs in a single file, maybe called taglib.jsp, include it on every page via jsp:include or some such method, and have the editor use that imported page to autocomplete my taglibs.
If this is not possible, I'll make this a feature request.
Had to edit the subject line.


Oil Capsules Are Utilized When utilizing a vape pencil there's a need to utilized atomizers and in the case of essential or herbal oils oil cartridges are used as atomizers.
These oil cartridges have been the acceptable standard for vaping essential oils. In a world in which there are a lot of entrepreneurs and distributors of petroleum cartridges for vape pens, so you might find it confusing to choose one that's acceptable for your requirements. SkyBlueVapor oil cartridges offer specifications which are acceptable for your specific requirements.
510 oil capsules offer a leak-proof cartridge to the essential oils. It is in fact thought to be the lightest weight crucial oil optimizer. It is designed for a luxurious vaping experience with a flavor that comes from the substances which compose its cartridge. Its cartridge is made up of stainless-steel components, medical grade glass and ceramic parts. This atomizer was intended for those who want a more lavish vaping encounter with a taste that only comes in the medical grade ceramic, glass, and stainless-steel parts that make up this cartridge. It is very simple to change cartridges it all only requires is unscrew the cartridge in the 510-thread adapter that's included and then screwing in a empty or pre-filled cartridge.
Then place yourself apart by using not just the best but also the safest manufacturer of Oil cartridges.


text:
Alan Dershowitz at NEP Studios in New York, Feb. 3, 2016 (Photo/JTA-John Lamparski-Getty Images for Hulu)
Israel on Campus
Dershowitz speech finally set for Oct. 11 at Berkeley Law
By Rob Gloster | October 4, 2017
Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz plans to make "The Liberal Case for Israel" at UC Berkeley next week after an invitation from the university's law school allowed him to bypass a campus rule requiring eight weeks notice for such a speech.
Dershowitz is scheduled to speak on Wednesday, Oct. 11, thanks to the invitation from Berkeley Law dean Erwin Chemerinsky. The talk, which will be hosted by the Chabad Jewish Student Center and the pro-Israel student club Tikvah, will be held at the law school's 360-seat Booth Auditorium.
The Harvard professor said last week in an interview that he hoped another UC Berkeley department would sponsor him as well, so he could speak elsewhere on campus during his visit, but Chabad director Rabbi Gil Yosef Leeds said yesterday that the hosts could not find another department willing to make such an offer.
"There's only going to be one event. We did reach out to other departments, but there were no other departments that were interested in co-sponsoring," Leeds said. "The process has definitely been more challenging than we expected, but we are grateful to the law school for accommodating us and bringing this speaker to the greater campus."
Until the law school extended its invitation to Dershowitz, it appeared he might be blocked from speaking at UC Berkeley because Chabad and Tikvah didn't give campus police the proper notice for the event — a requirement that applies only to nondepartmental applicants. Leeds said an initially approved 500-seat classroom was pulled because of the advance notice requirement.
The school's "Major Events Hosted by Non-Departmental Users" interim policy statement announced on Aug. 14 states that a request form must be submitted to campus police "at least eight weeks prior to the event" for audiences of more than 200 people.
Dershowitz charged last week that UC Berkeley faced "a serious constitutional question" if he failed to get a department to sponsor him but departments had sponsored "anti-Israel speakers" in the past.
"If a department has a policy of never sponsoring a speaker, that would be one thing," he said. "But if there's content discrimination, that would be illegal under the First Amendment."
Tikvah co-president Adah Forer insisted yesterday that was the case, telling J. in an email, "This double standard is evident on our campus, as multiple departments refused to host Prof. Dershowitz but have hosted anti-Israel speakers in the past. We are glad that the law school has invited him to speak to show its support for dialogue and academic integrity."
Susan Gluss, a spokesperson for Berkeley Law, said yesterday that Chemerinsky reached out to the Harvard professor after being contacted by the law school's Jewish Students Association.
"The dean immediately called him and then sent him an email inviting him," Gluss said. "He has known Mr. Dershowitz for a long time and thinks very highly of him."
Dershowitz, an emeritus professor of law at Harvard, wrote the book "The Case for Israel" in 2003 and often addresses the issue on college campuses, including an event last week at Columbia University in New York.
Rob Gloster
Rob Gloster was J.'s senior writer from 2016-2019.
Tags: UC Berkeley, Alan Dershowitz
Dershowitz talk back on at UC Berkeley
Will Dershowitz talk at UC Berkeley be allowed to go ahead?
Dershowitz makes case for Israel at U.C. Berkeley
UC Berkeley chancellor rebukes student paper over anti-Semitic cartoon


Carrera MFI 2.7: It's Alive!
Jeff Gamroth and the gang at Rothsport Racing have finished rebuilding the engine and it not only runs like the snarling beast a 911/83 really is, but also looks like serious business. After a year of separation both the engine and type 915 5-speed gearbox will finally be reunited with the chassis this weekend.
This was a top level concours engine rebuild which meant the entire production was turned up to 11. This required extreme attention to detail by Rothsport and every single part on the entire engine was refurbished, replated, or, if absolutely necessary, replaced. To give an idea how serious this process was everything was removed, anything out of alignment was straightened, all the studs were replated, and even the hot air flapper was disassembled so the little Phillips screws could be replated! The engine is absolutely a piece of mechanical jewelry.
That said a few details still are on the punch list to get perfectly original. This includes adjusting the fan strap to the alternative placement used in 1976, applying the correct decals, replacing the heater hoses with the correct dull gray-brown finish, etc. Enjoy the photos and sound of the engine on the dyno! It doesn't get better than this.
The original coil indicated by the April 1976 date stamp.
Overlooking the engine being warmed up for a dyno run from the control booth.
Scott tweaking the fuel adjustment on the MFI pump prior to the final dyno run.
...and the moment we've all been waiting for.
Even with glass between the dyno room and control room the engine wails.