The Todd Henderson & Cynthia Moreno Scandal: Vicious Blog Reactions
People should be careful with what they share and post in the internet. Unlike other platforms, the internet is accessed by millions of people all over the world at any given time. One single statement posted on an internet site can spread to everyone. That is why people should be careful when using the internet. Most of the time, it creates more disadvantages and negative effects if the person is reckless and irresponsible. There are many cases wherein celebrities and well-known personalities posted malicious, controversial and indecent photos and blogs in the internet, with unfortunate outcomes – it either led to their downfall or condemnation.
When using the internet, people should consider a lot of things including the reaction of people coming from different industries and sectors. A lot of people are very quick in jumping to conclusions even though the message posted in the internet site is second-hand, unconfirmed, brief and simple. One single statement can be misinterpreted. The general public is very biased and judgmental when it comes to people. In fact, the good acts and history of the person who made the statement would be ignored and overlooked. This is very evident in the internet since people freely comment and send feedback. Most of the comments are discriminating since most people do not watch and monitor their words.
Todd Henderson: We Are The Super Rich
There are many severe cases wherein a person has been condemned in society due to unwanted attention in the internet. Todd Henderson, a high-profile millionaire blogger is one of the victims who have been recently targeted in many sites and pages due to one single blog that changed how people perceive him. He released a blog discussing sensitive topics during the recession. It was about tax exemptions and cuts for the high-class people. According to him, the taxes imposed on rich people are too much and is unfair since a large bulk of their money are taken.
In his blog, Todd Henderson showed his actual income and tax statement. Todd earned $450,000 dollars a month. This is very substantial to a lot of people since others would have an annual income of less than a hundred thousand dollars. The breakdown of his expenses has also been included. His monthly dues and payments are composed of private school tuition fees for the kids, car bills, house bills, shopping money and other needs. After all the payments including taxes, Todd would only be left with a hundred dollars. Aside from the income statement, Todd also posted his comments regarding money and income. He stated that a monthly income of 250,000 dollars a month would include the person in the high levels of society.
Henderson reiterated on his post, “That makes me super loaded and is subjected to a big tax raise if the president has his way.” He further added, “Mr. President and I are neighbors in Chicago but we’ve never seen each other. If given the chance, I would want him to meet me and my family. Then, give him an honest idea about our lifestyle, the kind which he thinks is competent of financing the vast discourse of governance he is planning to implement. A quick perception at our family budget, which I can willingly share with the White House, will convey him that similar to numerous Americans, we are trying to make ends meet despite seeming to be affluent. We aren’t.”
The blog created by Todd Henderson attracted a lot of attention especially from the lower and middle class parts of society. A lot of people claimed that Todd lived a very materialistic life considering his monthly income is greater than the annual income of many people by two times. Some of the claims are realistic and truthful. But due to the unrestricted access to the blog, hate messages and comments have been sent. The number of haters grew since the criticism created by others has clouded the perception of many people. In fact, many people reacted based on the initial comments created by others.
The reason for the hateful comments towards the blog was due to the current recession. A lot of people lacked the money to pay for their house-related expenses including electricity and amortization, food, and education of the children. People would stay on the streets due to lack of money to pay for their mortgages and loans. Contrary to the current recession, Todd Henderson lived a very extravagant life, buying everything he wants. He lived in a large house with two luxury vehicles. Despite of all his excess and material things, he complained that the tax bracket assigned to the higher class would compromise his lifestyle.
Due to the negativity towards Todd Henderson and his family, he removed the blog posts and the actual web page he was using previously. In fact, a lot of people saw Todd as an ungrateful and spoiled person who did not consider the hardships and lives of others. The main mistake of Todd was being blunt and direct. Some comments should have been kept personal and isolated. The digital age poses a lot of problems especially when it comes to communication with other people. The delivery of one single statement can be altered which would bring out the negative meaning. Everybody should use the internet with caution.
“In my online world, never would I delete such a post but I decided to take down and delete it because my wife, who fervently disagreed with my opinion and would not want to publish this post, opposed in including the private details regarding our family. Looking back, my post awakened other people’s thoughts which led me to believe that it was highly effective but at the same time, extremely unintelligent thing to commit. I can’t imagine all the personal messages I received from my email. These messages were intentionally made to attack and harass me! All of these made my family feel insecure and vulnerable. This is not quite the right time to occur in our family as we recently had very early preemie. Just to clear things up, I only should have said that those proposed tax increases will negatively impact our family and our country and nothing more. I sincerely apologize to my wife, my three children and to those I offended with my post. To those people who I believe have pitchforks in their hands, I feel sorry for you because instead of attacking my message, you attacked me. You don’t know what damage you have caused towards me. My message might not be right, might even be stupid, but there’s no way I deserved what you have done.”
Cynthia Moreno: An Ode to Coalinga
Another person who has been highly criticized in the internet is Cynthia Moreno. During the time of the incident, Cynthia Moreno was only in college. She created a blog about the city of California in one of the famous social networking sites. The blog contained personal views and opinions regarding California. Although no direct negative comment was directly posted, a lot of things have been misinterpreted. A simple criticism regarding the system in California was taken as a major statement. It reached so many people in an instant which drew negative comments and feedback. Only people who know Cynthia Moreno directly would know the meaning attributed to the blog.
Once a certain statement or message has been posted in the internet, it cannot be retracted or reversed. This is the main problem experienced by people using the internet. The internet is a very large place connected by thousands of internet sites. This has been proven especially by celebrities who were destroyed and discriminated for posting pictures, messages and statements which were not received warmly by the general public. This is what happened to Cynthia. It would be hard to reconsider her position since the negativity towards her has grown greater due to the unruly mob commenting against her continually.
The former principal of Cynthia Moreno at her local high school was the one who started the hate messages against her. This goes to show how miscommunication in the internet can happen between two people who know each other. One single post has led many of the people living in the community of Cynthia Moreno to turn against her. Due to this, Cynthia and her family was forced to move out and find another home. The threats were starting to turn physical since their home has been vandalized and damaged by people in the surrounding area. Because of miscommunication, their lives were put in danger.
The nature and psychology of people is to blame and be blamed. People tend to jump to conclusions if ever they read something they do not like. That is why the internet is considered a very dangerous tool. It can bring out the best and worst aspect of a person. People who have been using the internet forget that they are interacting with other human beings using the network. A person has been simplified to a username. Due to this, people tend to overreact and say things that are very degrading to other people. This would definitely create a lot of problems in society.
Viral mentality is the term used by experts when explaining the events which led to the situation of Todd Henderson and Cynthia Moreno. Viral mentality occurs when people are convinced that a person has done something wrong due to the overwhelming comments and feedback found in the internet. Although the people do not know the person being criticized or the reason and accusations being established, they comment negatively. This happens regularly in the internet. It only creates a culture of hate amount people using the internet. That is why many conflicts between two groups or people occur.
People should evaluate and assess their statements before posting anything in the internet. This is necessary to avoid any unwanted comments and feedback regarding the things posted in the internet. People should know that millions of internet users are present on a regular basis. Thousands of users come from different countries which have specific ideals, cultures and perceptions in life. Conflicts can be easily created due to the differences and gaps between the cultures of the two people conversing. People should consider a lot of factors and variables which can be affected through the statements made.
The internet is a melting pot which attracts good and bad people from all over the world. A lot of people would use the internet to hurt and spread negative things about a person. People should also ignore these haters since commenting and reacting would only complicate the issue. There are many filtering software and programs which can block and prevent internet users from seeing a certain person. This is ideal for people who have been misinterpreted and labeled in the internet.
The Best Way to Hire a Lawyer: How It Feels to Be a Judge
Should you wait until you’re sued to hire a lawyer? At that point, the answer is obviously yes – but what if you haven’t been sued? Do you still need a lawyer? How do you find one?
The best way to hire a lawyer is like everything else – by referral. You more than likely know someone who has been sued. Ask them if they’re satisfied with their lawyer. When you’re asking for a referral, you will want to know the answers to several questions.
Does the lawyer communicate on a frequent basis? Do you get copies of all filings and letters? Does your friend or acquaintance have the lawyer’s home telephone number? Does the lawyer promptly return telephone calls? Does the lawyer send a bill each month? Does the lawyer tell you when hearings are scheduled to allow you to attend and watch the lawyer in action?
You should check to see if your lawyer is licensed by checking your local state bar. That site will also tell you whether the attorney has a public record of discipline. Find more about your lawyer’s background information. Assuming all is well and you’re hearing the right responses to your questions, go ahead. But first, set up an appointment for a free consultation, and do your own face-to-face evaluation.
If you’re not engaged in a lawsuit, it’s an even better time to hire a lawyer. With the right advice, you can work to avoid being sued, and spending legal fees and costs to defend yourself.
The truth is that the view from behind the bench is decidedly different than from in front of it. Sitting as a pro tem judge (which I had the opportunity to do today) presents an interesting perspective – how a judge looks at both sides of a case. There’s quite a difference than advocating one side of a case.
As a judge, you look dispassionately at both sides of the case before forming an opinion about the possible outcome. As a lawyer, advocating one position requires you to counter and discount the other side’s argument. The judge’s view is subtly different. As a judge, you have to evaluate which side is believable, which side has the more solid evidence, and what fairness dictates. You can, and must, ignore some of those things as a lawyer to advocate your client’s case.
Lawyers that can evaluate believability, evidence and fairness give their clients an edge, because they tend to look at the end result of the case. That lawyer can also give you better advice about the ultimate outcome of your case. Clients can accomplish the same thing by stepping back and listening – really listening – to the other lawyer. That’s what the judge and the jury have to do.
[thanks to matt from london and j. craig williams via cc]
Scott Rothstein: Ponzi Schemes, Morocco, & Golden Toilets
It seems like only yesterday that many thousands of people were being scammed by Ponzi schemers with elaborate stories and fake investment schemes. I guess that’s because it was yesterday, and every other day, except now it is mostly done with federal bailout money. Every now and then, though, somebody will get too greedy and must take the fall.
At the moment, that is Scott Rothstein. Rothstein is, or was, a lawyer who has been called, among other things, ”the Bernie Madoff of South Florida.” (Other Madoff-related nicknames apparently include “Mini-Madoff,” and “Madoff on Crack,” although those seem inconsistent to me.) His version of a Ponzi scheme was to bring investors into his law firm and tell them that he had clients who would assign the rights to settlement agreements that paid over time, in exchange for getting a lump-sum now. The investors would profit from the difference, later, assuming that they put up their money now. And they did. Put up their money, that is, to the tune of maybe $1.2 billion. They did not profit, because there were no settlement agreements, no clients, and no cases. But prior investors were paid with new investors’ money, the classic Ponzi arrangement.
Huge amounts of money were turned over, because there were absolutely no warning signs of any kind that Rothstein might be a crook. Who doesn’t know a lawyer who owns three Bentleys and up to 20 other luxury cars that he keeps in an air-conditioned warehouse? (At the moment I only have two Bentleys, but I have not been a partner that long.) Also, many’s the time that our staff has thanked me and our other partners for “shower[ing] gifts on all of them, including exotic cars, jewelry and boats.” It’s just the way lawyers operate. And I object especially to the suggestion that you should suspect a man of fraud just because he has gold-plated toilets.
The Gold-Plated Scott Rothstein Toilet
Okay, seriously — if your lawyer or investment manager has a gold-plated toilet, first, DO NOT GIVE THAT PERSON ANY MORE MONEY. THEY HAVE ENOUGH. And you should also officially be on notice at that point that further inquiry is suggested as to how that person came by gold-plated-toilet money to begin with. In my experience, people who made their money honestly do not plate their toilets with it.
Okay, in all fairness, it was just the toilet lids. But on the other hand, he had two of them:
When news of the Ponzi scheme broke, someone sent [Bob] Norman [a reporter covering the story] a photo of Rothstein’s his-and-hers toilets. The lids were gold-plated, each estimated to cost $25,000.
Norman said one of Rothstein’s investors told him: “I was lulled into believing this myth that he created. I really believed he had a golden touch. What better way to perpetuate that myth than by having a golden toilet?”
So, let me see if I understand. You thought the man’s golden toilet was evidence that he had the Midas touch? But you didn’t ask him to sit on anything else to prove it? And is it too late for me to ask you for money?
Rothstein pleaded guilty last month, probably in part because it is difficult to come up with an innocent explanation for why you “wired $16 million to an offshore account and fled to Morocco in a private jet” if you haven’t been up to something. He faces up to 100 years in jail, where the toilets are stainless steel. Although maybe putting his ass in jail will change that.
Why Morocco, and the followup question, why in the world did the guy come back? Good questions.
Not coincidentally, Morocco is one of the countries that has no extradition treaty with the United States, something that Rothstein knew because — and this is possibly my favorite detail of the whole story, short of the golden toilets – he made somebody in his firm research that issue for him. The project was supposedly on behalf of a “client,” but he was in fact having someone research the question of where he should flee to avoid prosecution.
I was sort of hoping he called in an associate and just made that person do it, but it turns out he sent an email, apparently to everyone in the firm (Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler law firm in downtown Fort Lauderdale), saying he had a rush project for an important client. “We have a client that was a United States citizen until about 6 months ago,” Rothstein wrote in the email, probably able to resist making air quotes around “client” only because he was busy typing the word. “He became a citizen of Israel and renounced his United States citizenship. He is likely to be charged with a multitude of crimes in the United States including fraud, money laundering and embezzlement.” (I’m trying to imagine what people at the firm were thinking upon reading this.) Rothstein wanted them to research whether the client could be extradited from Israel, or could be prosecuted for the crimes in Israel. “This client is related to a very powerful client of ours,” Rothstein continued, “and so time is of the essence. Lets [sic] rock and roll….there is a very large fee attached to this case. Thanks Love ya Scott,” he concluded.
“Love ya”? When I was an associate, partners never said “love ya” when asking me to research countries to which they could flee without fear of extradition. Times sure have changed.
Suspicion by Attorneys at Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler Law Firm
The report in which I found this information went on to say that “[a]ttorneys in the firm now believe ‘the client’ was actually Rothstein.” It did not say how long it took them to figure this out, but it does confirm that someone at the firm advised Rothstein that there might be a better choice:
Stuart Rosenfeldt [another named partner at the firm], who was in a 50 percent partnership with Rothstein at the time, said that he and many of the other attorneys in the firm now believe that Rothstein was talking about his own situation and that another attorney in the firm suggested that Morocco was one destination that did not have extradition agreements with either the U.S. or Israel.
Next stop, Morocco.
The report also quoted Rothstein’s lawyer as saying that as far as he knew, the e-mail really was about an actual client, and the trip to Morocco was just sort of a last-minute vacation. “I still don’t know [if there was a client],” he said. “I had nothing further to do with it . . . . He was always intending on coming back [from Morocco]. He came back early. He never intended to flee. He literally went there to clear his head.” Also, the fact that he had just been told Morocco did not have an extradition treaty was literally a coincidence.
I guess ultimately the answer [as to why he fled to Morocco specifically] depends on whether you believe it was a coincidence that not long before the fleeing started, he assigned somebody a research project involving countries that did not have extradition treaties with the United States. If you don’t believe that was a coincidence, the more difficult question is probably: Once safely in Morocco, why the hell did he come back? I don’t think there is a clear answer to this, either, but here are some possibilities.
First, it may not have been all that safe in sunny Morocco. This is hearsay, but one report suggested that “investors in Morocco” had given Rothstein $85 million, and assuming they now realize they are not getting that money back, he might have needed to extradite himself from Morocco on the double. But this report describes Rothstein as being “as happy as ever” during his time in Morocco. Hard to believe he was that way all the time, as his life collapsed, but he didn’t act hunted.
Second, as the Wall Street Journal noted, Rothstein’s partner Stuart Rosenfeldt has claimed that in an email from Morocco, Rothstein listed his options as suicide, life on the run or life in prison, and that Rosenfeldt urged him to “choose life.” Maybe so, but maybe he didn’t mean life in prison, the prospect of which might convince Rothstein to cut a deal.
Which is what he did, and that is not good for a lot of people. For example, recent bankruptcy filings allege that all three named partners engaged in “curious and circuitous movement of law firm funds over the past few years.” These included borrowing millions from the firm and then paying that money back to the firm, themselves, their wives, and various third parties. The filings also allege Rosenfeldt himself spent an awful lot of money — no golden toilets, apparently, but he did put $1 million on his firm-issued American Express card for charges including 72 pieces of jewelry for his wife, home furnishings, clothes, vacations, restaurant meals, and an undisclosed number of “exotic reptiles.” (Maybe this is why the expense reports I submit for my exotic reptiles keep getting rejected.)
Rosenfeldt’s attorney said these allegations would “prove to be overstatements.”
So, third, Rothstein may have a lot to chat about, and maybe having seen Morocco, he decided he might be able to cut a deal good enough to at least make prison reasonable in comparison to that hellhole. Under the plea bargain, prosecutors agreed to recommend a sentence reduction and more lenient prison conditions in exchange for cooperation. As a result, he is expected to get about 30 years rather than the 100 he faces. (Bernie Madoff did not cooperate, and got 150 years.) Still, 30 years is 30 years.
Fourth, Rothstein has maintained that he chose to come back, plead, and help authorities collect stolen assets, because he decided to “do the right thing.” I guess that is not impossible.
Finally, since I don’t really like any of the above explanations, I am going to go with this one: with him in jail, the feds wouldn’t feel obligated to go after his wife. As noted above, all the partners gave lavish gifts — and lots and lots of cash — to their wives, and it is hard to imagine that they did not at least suspect something. But the same was true of Ruth Madoff, who has also not been charged. I am guessing that so long as the primary fraudster is behind bars, prosecutors are probably satisfied.
I haven’t been able to find a better answer than that, so my guess is that Rothstein came back to the U.S. in order to make sure his wife stayed out of jail. And that’s nice, at least.
On the other hand, maybe he just really hates Moroccan food.
[thanks to alkan chaglar and kevin underhill via cc]
