Wednesday, July 30, 2014

It Shall Be a Jubilee Unto You (from 2002)

from yesmagazine.org  2002

Every complex society has a dilemma to solve—wealth and power tend to concentrate until the divide between haves and have-nots threaten the social fabric. Some Native American cultures have massive give-aways (potlatches) in which the giver is honored and all benefit from the largesse. The prophets of the Old Testament also cried out for redistribution

posted Sep 30, 2002

Agrarian life is full of risks: drought, flooding, infestation, and other natural disasters, capped throughout antiquity by wars. Farmers must often borrow to get themselves through the lean months, while hoping that nothing prevents them from bringing in crops that will allow them to repay their debts. In ancient times, failure to repay loans could cost farmers their land, possessions, enslavement of family members, or their own freedom. For millennia, the problem confronting rulers was how to prevent the destabilization that occurs when large portions of the population are forced off the land or into debtor's prison for failure to repay loans.

And so there developed throughout the ancient Near East a tradition of clean-slate edicts, which “proclaimed justice” or decreed “economic order” and “righteousness” by canceling debts and restoring forfeited land to farmers. Clean-slate proclamations date from almost as early as the first interest-bearing debt, starting in Sumer around 2400 years BCE. Eventually, the tradition became known as the Jubilee Year, but by that time it was taken out of the hands of kings and placed at the core of Mosaic law.

Radical as the idea of the Jubilee seems to modern eyes, these “restorations of order” were a conservative tradition in Bronze Age Mesopotamia for 2,000 years. What was conserved was self-sufficiency for the rural family-heads who made up the infantry as well as the productive base of Near Eastern economies. Conversely, what was radically disturbing in archaic times was the idea of unrestrained wealth-seeking. It took thousands of years for the idea of progress to become inverted, to connote irreversible freedom for the wealthy to deprive the peasantry of their lands and personal liberty.

The clean-slate tradition was so central to Israelite moral values that it framed the composition of both the Old and New Testaments. Yet so far has the modern idea of market efficiency and progress gone that today, although the Bible remains our civilization's defining book, its economic laws are rarely taken seriously. The Ten Commandments and Golden Rule have become so dissociated from the economic legislation of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy that whoever takes these laws in earnest is considered utopian and anachronistic. Yet these laws formed the take-off point for Jesus upon his return to Nazareth's synagogue and for his denunciation of the money-changers who had taken over Jerusalem's temple. As recently as medieval Spain, the tradition of the Jubilee Year was kept alive by the Jewish sages Maimonides and Ibn Adret. To dismiss these laws is thus to remove much of the Bible from the context of its times.

Laws that periodically canceled debts, freed Israelite debt-servants, and returned lands to their traditional holders have confused Biblical students for centuries. They have long been virtually ignored by historians on the ground that, to modern eyes, they would seem to wreak economic havoc.

Recent discoveries of Bronze Age Near Eastern royal proclamations dating from 2400 to 1600 BCE leave no doubt that these edicts were implemented. During the Babylonian period they grew more elaborate and detailed, capped by Ammisaduqa's Edict of 1646 BCE. Now that these edicts are understood, the Biblical laws no longer stand alone as utopian or other-worldly ideals; they take their place in a 2,000-year continuum of periodic and regular economic renewal based on freedom from debt-servitude and from the loss of access to self-support on the land.

The revolutionary Israelite contribution to the tradition was its removal from the hands of rulers to become a sacred popular compact, to be preserved by the Israelites in memory of the fact that they had once been enslaved and must never again permit economic oppression to develop. The Israelites are portrayed as having made a covenant to protect the economically weak by holding the land as the Lord's gift to support a free rural population: “Land must not be sold in perpetuity, for the land belongs to me, and you are only strangers and guests. You will allow a right of redemption on all your landed property,” and restore it to its customary cultivators every 50 years (Lev. 25:23-28). Israelite debt-slaves likewise were to go free periodically in the Jubilee Year, for they belonged ultimately to the Lord, not to any person (Lev. 25:54).

The Bible is a unique composite, embedding ritual traditions and laws of social behavior in a dramatic context of stories and legends intended to appeal to the widest possible audience. This popularization was greatly aided by the spread of alphabetic writing, which made documents accessible to the population at large, in contrast to cumbersome syllabic cuneiforms prevalent prior to the first millennium BCE. But the great innovation was to democratize liturgical texts that earlier Near Eastern societies had restricted to temple priesthoods. Deut. 31:10 directs that the laws be read aloud publicly every seven years, in the year of canceling debts (shemitta), so that all the population would know they were to be freed from bondage.

Jesus later sought to restore the archaic ethic by overturning the banking tables in Jerusalem's temple and preaching anew the promise of Jeremiah to proclaim equity and liberty (deror) throughout the land. Indeed, it was specifically on this principle of restoring freedom to debt-slaves and unburdening the land that Christianity elaborated its ideas of redemption. In addition to redeeming souls, early Christians redeemed their co-religionists from worldly bondage. When Handel staged the first performance of his Messiah in Dublin in 1742, it was no coincidence that the proceeds were used to free debtors from prison. For thousands of years, redeeming people and land from debt was the primary and most concrete form of redemption. Indeed, when Christians pronounce “Hallelujah,” they repeat the ritual term alulu, chanted upon the freeing of Babylonian debt-slaves.

Echoes of the doctrine can also be heard in American tradition. The Liberty Bell in Philadelphia is inscribed with a quotation from Leviticus 25:10: “Proclaim liberty throughout all the land, and to all the inhabitants thereof.” The Hebrew word translated as “liberty” is deror, cognate to the older Akkadian andurarum—to move freely as running water, as freely as debt-slaves liberated to rejoin their families. The full verse in Leviticus speaks of freeing debt bondsmen and freeing the land from debt generally: 
“Hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land and to all inhabitants thereof; it shall be a Jubilee unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his family.”

Rome was the first society not to cancel its debts. And we all know what happened to it. Classical historians such as Plutarch, Livy, and Diodorus attributed Rome's decline and fall to the fact that creditors got the entire economy in their debt, expropriated the land and public domain, and strangled the economy.

Michael Hudson is distinguished research professor of economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City, and author of Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire(new edition forthcoming November 2002). This article is based on “Reconstructing the Origins of Interest-Bearing Debt and the Logic of Clean Slates,” in Debt and Economic Renewal in the Ancient Near East, by Michael Hudson and Marc Van De Mieroop.

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Court Advances Case of Yelp's Faulty Filters

from courthousenews.com



     LOS ANGELES (CN) - A disgruntled restaurant owner can pursue claims that Yelp misrepresents how well it filters out biased customer reviews, an appeals court ruled.

     In 2005, Yelp introduced filtering software to address the problem of biased reviews from paid reviewers, family members and relatives of business owners and competitors. Filtered reviews are not used to calculate a business's rating and do not appear on its main page.

     Business owners can view filtered reviews and post responses on a special page for such reviews, but cannot alter or delete ratings that appear on their main page.

     Mammoth Lakes businessman James Demetriades sued Yelp in 2012, claiming that the Yelp advertising he bought for one of his restaurants did not work as advertised.

     Among other things, Demetriades claimed Yelp's filters suppressed many trustworthy reviews, let unfiltered posts show up on his business page, and did not catch posts from biased reviewers.

     According to Demetriades' complaint, Yelp's filters also let a reviewer named Travis I. post false allegations against Demitriades's businesses and caught several positive reviews on grounds that they were supposedly made by someone associated with his restaurants.

     Demetriades asked a court to bar Yelp from making misleading statements about the efficacy of its filters and stating that all unfiltered reviews were unbiased.
     But Yelp moved to strike Demetriades' complaint, arguing that its statements about its software's filtering abilities are protected speech activities under California's anti-SLAPP statute.
     The company also claimed Demetriades failed to show actual injury and lacked standing to pursue claims that the anti-SLAPP statute's commercial speech exemptions applied. A reasonable person would understand that its statements about the filter were not guarantees of perfect performance, Yelp argued.

     Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Yvette M. Palazuelos sided with Yelp in 2013, finding the company's claims about its filters qualified as free speech and that Demetriades failed to prove the anti-SLAPP commercial speech exemption.

     But a panel for the Second Appellate District revived Demetriades' claims last week, agreeing that Yelp's statements about the efficacy and quality of its filters are commercial speech since it made those statements to promote its advertising services. The anti-SLAPP statute does not apply to statements made by people or businesses to promote their goods and services or to attract customers, the appeals court said.

     "Although Yelp's website is a public forum and contains matters of public concern in its reviews of restaurants and other businesses, its statements about its review filter - as opposed to the content of the reviews themselves - are commercial speech about the quality of its product (the reliability of its review filter) intended to reach third parties to induce them to engage in a commercial transaction (patronizing Yelp's website, which patronage induces business on Yelp to purchase advertising," Judge Jeffrey Johnson wrote for the panel. [Parentheses in original.]

     "Yelp's statements about the efficacy of its review filter consist of representations of fact about its services, and are not mere puffery or opinion," Johnson continued, noting that unlike vague, subjective statements, statements that make specific claims about a product's characteristics or performance are actionable since they are meant to induce potential customers to buy Yelp's advertising services.

     "Thus, it is illogical to conclude that Yelp's statements that all reviews on its website are filtered are intended to mean anything other than that," Johnson wrote. "If Yelp intended the statements as puffery or opinion, in the context of Yelp's advertising-driven website such statements would have limited utility; thus Yelp would have had no legitimate purpose in making those statements about its review filter."

     Yelp's statements also qualify as commercial speech because the intended audience is businesses that would consider buying the services, according to the ruling.

     Johnson noted that Demetriades does not want to stop Yelp from using its filters, but instead to remove the allegedly inaccurate statements about their efficacy. If Demetriades obtains an injunction against Yelp, it would not interfere with Yelp's ability to advertise or users' ability to post reviews, Johnson said.
     The judges also shot down Yelp's claim that the Federal Communications Decency Act blocks Demetriades's claims because Demetriades does not want to hold Yelp reliable for statements made by third parties, but "for its own statements regarding the accuracy of its filter," according to the ruling.

     Demetriades is represented by Robert Waxman and David Tarlow with Ervin, Cohen & Jessup of Beverly Hills. Laura Brill and Nicholas Daum with Kendall, Brill & Klieger argued for Yelp.
 

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Arizona governor orders review of execution after inmate takes 2 hours to die




See realtime coverage

Execution of Joseph Rudolph Wood, Arizona inmate, takes 2 hours



Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer ordered a review of the state's execution process after a convicted double murderer gasped and snorted for more than an hour and a half before his death Wednesday. 
Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne's office said Joseph Rudolph Wood was pronounced dead at 3:49 p.m. local time, one hour and 57 minutes after the execution started.
Wood's lawyers had filed an emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court while the execution was underway, demanding that it be stopped. The appeal said Wood was "gasping and snorting for more than an hour."
In ordering the review, Brewer said she was concerned by the length of time the administered drug protocol took to kill Wood. 
"One thing is certain, however," Brewer's statement continued, "Wood died in a lawful manner and by eyewitness and medical accounts he did not suffer. This is in stark comparison to the gruesome, vicious suffering that he inflicted on his two victims - and the lifetime of suffering he has caused their family."
An Associated Press reporter who witnessed the execution saw Wood start gasping shortly after a sedative and a pain killer were injected into his veins. He gasped more than 600 times over the next hour and 40 minutes.
An administrator checked on Wood a half dozen times. His breathing slowed as a deacon said a prayer while holding a rosary. The 55-year-old finally stopped breathing and was pronounced dead 12 minutes later.
Defense lawyer Dale Baich called it a botched execution that should have taken 10 minutes.
"Arizona appears to have joined several other states who have been responsible for an entirely preventable horror — a bungled execution," Baich said. "The public should hold its officials responsible and demand to make this process more transparent."
Family members of Wood's victims said they had no problems with the way the execution was carried out.
"This man conducted a horrific murder and you guys are going, let's worry about the drugs," said Richard Brown, the brother-in-law of Debbie Dietz, who was 29 when she was killed in 1989. "Why didn't they give him a bullet, why didn't we give him Drano?"
Wood looked at the family members as he delivered his final words, saying he was thankful for Jesus Christ as his savior. At one point, he smiled at them, which angered the family.
"I take comfort knowing today my pain stops, and I said a prayer that on this or any other day you may find peace in all of your hearts and may God forgive you all," Wood said.
The case has highlighted scrutiny surrounding lethal injections after two controversial ones. An Ohio inmate executed in January snorted and gasped during the 26 minutes it took him to die. In Oklahoma, an inmate died of a heart attack in April, minutes after prison officials halted his execution because the drugs weren't being administered properly.
Arizona uses the same drugs — the sedative midazolam and painkiller hydromorphone — that were used in the Ohio execution. A different drug combination was used in the Oklahoma case.
"States have been scrambling over the past many months to find new sources of drugs. They have been experimenting," said Megan McCracken, of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law's Death Penalty Clinic. "These procedures are unreliable and the consequences are horrific."
States have refused to reveal details such as which pharmacies are supplying lethal injection drugs and who is administering them, because of concerns over harassment.
Woods filed several appeals that were denied by the U.S. Supreme Court, including one that said his First Amendment rights were violated when the state refused to reveal such details.
Wood argued he and the public have a right to know details about the state's method for lethal injections, the qualifications of the executioner and who makes the drugs. Such demands for greater transparency have become a new legal tactic in death penalty cases.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had put the execution on hold, saying the state must reveal the information. But the Supreme Court has not been receptive to the tactic, ruling against death penalty lawyers on the argument each time it has been before justices.
Deborah Denno, professor of criminal law and criminal procedure at Fordham Law School, said it may be up to Legislatures or the public to bring any change.
"I think every time one of these botches happens, it leads to questioning the death penalty even more," she said. "It will reach a point where the public will question the value of these execution procedures generally, and perhaps the death penalty itself."
Wood's execution was Arizona's third since October and the state's 36th since 1992.
He was convicted of fatally shooting Dietz and her father, 55-year-old Gene Dietz, at their auto repair shop in Tucson.
Wood and Debbie Dietz had a tumultuous relationship during which he repeatedly assaulted her. She tried to end their relationship and got an order of protection against Wood.
On the day of the shooting, Wood went to the auto shop and waited for Gene Dietz, who disapproved of his daughter's relationship with Wood, to get off the phone. Once the father hung up, Wood pulled out a revolver, shot him in the chest and then smiled.
Wood then turned his attention toward Debbie Dietz, who was trying to telephone for help. Wood grabbed her by the neck and put his gun to her chest. She pleaded with him to spare her life. An employee heard Wood say, "I told you I was going to do it. I have to kill you." He then called her an expletive and fired two shots in her chest.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

U.S. court rulings create new uncertainty over Obamacare

from reuters


WASHINGTON Tue Jul 22, 2014 4:00pm EDT





Arminda Murillo, 54, reads a leaflet at a health insurance enrollment event in Cudahy, California March 27, 2014.  REUTERS-Lucy Nicholson
1 OF 2. Arminda Murillo, 54, reads a leaflet at a health insurance enrollment event in Cudahy, California March 27, 2014.
CREDIT: REUTERS/LUCY NICHOLSON

RELATED TOPICS

(Reuters) - Two U.S. judicial panels on Tuesday injected new uncertainty into the future of President Barack Obama's healthcare law, with conflicting rulings over whether the federal government can subsidize health insurance for millions of Americans.
The appeals court rulings, handed down by three-judge panels in Washington, D.C., and Richmond, Virginia, augured a possible rematch before the U.S. Supreme Court, which in June 2012 narrowly upheld the Democratic president's 2010 healthcare overhaul.
The twin rulings fell in line with partisan disagreements over healthcare reform, with two judges appointed by Republican presidents deciding against the administration in the District of Columbia and three judges appointed by Democrats ruling in favor in Virginia. The rulings also reignited the debate over Obamacare on Capitol Hill and on the campaign trail to November congressional elections. Republican opponents of the law welcomed the D.C. decision as a further step toward dismantling Obama's signature domestic policy. The cases deal with the government's ability to offer premium tax credits to people who purchase private coverage through the federal insurance marketplace that serves the majority of the 8 million consumers who signed up for 2014.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in a 2-1 decision that the language in the Affordable Care Act dealing with subsidies shows they should only be provided to consumers who purchase benefits on exchanges run by individual states.
Most states including Florida and Texas, which have some of the largest uninsured populations, opted to leave the task of operating a marketplace to the federal government.
But plaintiffs in the D.C. Circuit case, known as Halbig v. Burwell, claimed that Congress did not intend to provide subsidies through federally operated marketplaces. The plaintiffs were identified as a group of individuals and employers from states that did not establish their own marketplaces.
NO IMMEDIATE IMPACT
The D.C. Circuit judges suspended their ruling pending an appeal by the administration. Administration officials said they would appeal to the full circuit court, a process that could take up to six months, and stressed the ruling would have no impact on consumers receiving monthly subsidies now.
Hours later, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia ruled unanimously to uphold the same provision in the case of King v. Burwell, saying the wording of the law was too ambiguous to restrict the availability of federal funds.
The appearance of a split between separate circuit courts over the question of Obamacare subsidies could increase the chance of Supreme Court intervention. But legal experts and some Republicans on Capitol Hill said the full D.C. Circuit court, dominated by appointees of Democratic presidents, was likely to overturn its panel's ruling or at least revisit it.
The Supreme Court upheld the Obamacare law on constitutional grounds in 2012 but allowed states to opt out of a major provision involving Medicaid coverage. Last month, the high court's conservative majority ruled again on the law, saying closely held for-profit corporations could object to Obamacare's contraception provision on religious grounds.
“Today’s ruling is also further proof that President Obama’s healthcare law is completely unworkable. It cannot be fixed," House Speaker John Boehner said in a statement.
Obamacare advocates welcomed the Virginia ruling, which House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said "affirms the intent of the Affordable Care Act: to make quality, affordablehealth insurance available to every American in every state."
Outside the political sphere, stock market reaction to the rulings was muted for health insurers like WellPoint Inc and Aetna Inc, which sell plans on many Obamacare exchanges. Industry officials predicted that a final decision would take "months or longer" to sort out, with no immediate impact expected on their business.
"In the meantime, health plans remain focused on ensuring stability, affordability and accessibility for consumers," said Brendan Buck, spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, a main lobbying and trade group.
FIVE MILLION
Analysts estimate that as many as five million people could be affected if subsidies disappear from the federal marketplace, which serves 36 states through the website HealthCare.gov. Subsidies are available to people with annual incomes of up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level, or $94,200 for a family of four.
"This has got probably more rounds of appeals and so forth, so nothing is going to really happen right now," said John Holahan of the nonpartisan Urban Institute.
"Some states may jump into action to set up their own exchanges to qualify as state-based exchanges," Holahan added. "Others won't, in which case there will be a large number of uninsured that will remain and possibly grow."
The two-judge majority in the D.C. Circuit case, judges Thomas Griffith and Arthur Randolph, wrote: "The fact is that the legislative record provides little indication one way or the other of congressional intent, but the statutory text does. (It) plainly makes subsidies available only on exchanges established by states. And in the absence of any contrary indications, that text is conclusive evidence of Congress’s intent."
The D.C. panel's dissenting judge Harry Edwards, appointed by Democratic president Jimmy Carter, wrote the majority's judgment defied the will of Congress and ignored the authority Congress vested in agencies to interpret and enforce the healthcare law.
The Virginia appeals court, while siding with the administration, was lukewarm in its support, saying: "The court is of the opinion that the defendants have the stronger position, although only slightly."
(Additional reporting by Lawrence HurleySusan CornwellSusan HeaveyJulia Edwardsand Emily Stephenson in Washington; and by Caroline Humer and David Ingram in New York; Editing by Michele GershbergHoward Goller and Grant McCool)

Monday, July 21, 2014

Letter to Press

Letter to Press

7-21-2014



July 18, 2014



Letter to Press:

Dear Editor and fellow American:


For over 12 years I have fought for a judicial hearing or trial to make a Wall Street Banker, Chase Manhattan, and their perfidious service agent, Ocwen Federal Bank FSB, face justice in a court of law for undeniable violations of federal bankruptcy law, which cost my family home of 26 years in Corona California  and my home based business, Residential Fire Sprinklers, operated from that home since leaving Microsoft in 1991.

I had two attorneys fighting for me but when my money ran out, I had to continue to fight, pro-se, or give up.  I have appealed through the federal legal hierarchy three times all they way to the US Supreme Court. It is incredible to me, that judicial eyes from the Bankruptcy Court, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the 9th circuit, the US District Court, the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court  apparently did not see anything wrong, with the actions of these banksters, and turned a blind eye, to these unlawful actions, three times!  And remember, this is just to gain a hearing or trial to present the facts of my case. The violation is undeniable and the law is settled, but you have to get them in court, I need the court to order a trial. 

My story does have the properties of a 'man bites dog' story in that the judicial system, charged with upholding law, has been the invisible wall, keeping the guilty out of court, and denying me my day in court.  It's the court that has stymied my pursuit of justice by denying me a hearing.  The judge from the bankruptcy court ruled she lacked jurisdiction after my case was dismissed, so jurisdiction has been the legal hot potato, that causes all the courts to summarily dismiss my case. My fourth opening brief, submitted to the 9th Circuit can be found on my blog page www.garyo.info

I don't know if my story is newsworthy or not, but if I am rejected for a hearing again, for a fourth time, by the 9th Circuit, It will definitely be newsworthy for every American who values the rule of law. 

Gary Ozenne

firesprinklers@gmail.com
951-496-7525

July 18, 2014  

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Franchisees Call 7/Eleven 'Almost Pathological'

from courthousenews.com







RIVERSIDE, Calif. (CN) - After a Japanese corporation bought the 7-Eleven chain, it began illegal surveillance of franchisees, turned business owners into low-level employees, and pushed out hard-working South Asian immigrant store-owners, transforming "the American Dream into an American Nightmare," a class action claims in Federal Court.

     "Tragically, 7-Eleven has now become a cautionary tale of the dangers of corporate greed in the franchise context," the complaint states. "7-Eleven has become an unfortunate example of the tragic results that occur when a franchisor ceases to consider its franchisees as valuable, independent contractors and business owners and to see them merely as disposable assets to be exploited for short-term profits, then discarded once their value has been extracted."


     FOAGLA Inc., a franchise owners association, and five 7-Eleven operators filed the lawsuit against 7-Eleven Inc., alleging racial discrimination, invasion of privacy and illegal surveillance retaliation against franchisees, and misclassification of employment relationship with franchisees.


     "Throughout the 20th century, 7-Eleven pioneered and grew the 'convenience store' concept and helped make it a standard part of American life," the complaint states. "What fueled 7-Eleven's growth was its franchise arrangement with small business owners, many of them South Asian immigrants from such countries as India and Pakistan, who paid upfront franchise fees and operated the 7-Eleven franchised stores in exchange for a percentage of the store profits.


     "7-Eleven found that the South Indian cultural traits of hard work, family unity, respect for authority, and community-mindedness made South Asians ideal owner/operators for 7-Eleven stores."


     But things changed when Tokyo-based Seven and I Holdings Co., one of the largest retail conglomerations in the world, took over the 7-Eleven chain in 2005, the franchisees say. Staffing many of its top management positions with West Point graduates, the company took a "cold, predatory and militaristic approach to business."


     The new regime saw an opportunity to exploit the franchisees and transform the goodwill they had built in their local markets into corporate profit by expelling franchisees, paying them nothing, and selling their franchises for enormous profit, according to the complaint.


     "In fact, they realized that they could increase their profits exponentially by reselling valuable stores over and over - an industry practice known as 'churning,'" the franchisees say.


     7-Eleven diminished the role of the franchisee from independent contractor and small business owner to the role of a low-level employee with no say in the operation of their store, the complaint states.


     The franchise controls the day-to-day operations of its franchisees, exerting "a heightened and almost pathological level of control by 7-Eleven over franchisees," according to the complaint.


     For example, 7-Eleven controls the maintenance of the equipment in franchisees' stores, the volume on their televisions, and employees' payroll and paychecks, the lawsuit states.
     It also employs illegal surveillance to spy on franchisees and has hired unlicensed private investigators to follow franchisee activities outside of the store, the franchisees say.


     In addition to having unfettered access to franchisees' electronic surveillance DVR systems, 7-Eleven now seeks to impose a more intrusive surveillance system, purportedly to protect franchisees. The systems "are actually being used as a 'sword' to monitor and harass franchisees where they would otherwise have a reasonable expectation of privacy," the complaint states.


     These combined actions have been particularly discriminatory toward franchisees of South Asian descent, as 7-Eleven has "implemented tactics designed to exploit South Indian cultural and societal traits - such as respect for authority and fear of being shamed in their communities - to its full advantage," the complaint states.


     7-Eleven has "resorted to tactics against South Asian franchisees ranging from stalking, spying, bullying, and interrogation to coerce these franchisees into giving up their stores without compensation," according to the complaint.


     The company also threatens to make public any claims of franchisee impropriety, even when false, knowing that such claims carry with them "a great deal of shame to the family within the tightly knit South Asian community, thereby making it even easier to coerce these franchisees," according to the lawsuit.


     According to Professor Jaideep Singh, "7-Eleven is 'aware of and exploits the social vulnerability of South Asian American immigrants' in which 'everyone knows everyone else, and often the intimate details of their personal business' and where threats by 7-Eleven investigators of incarceration and public censure leads to 'community level shaming' which, in turn, will lead to 'social exclusion' and 'inflict a 'social death' upon shunned community members,'" the complaint states.


     7-Eleven has sued many South Asian franchisees through the country and "even resorted to police-like interrogation tactics to create a fear of criminal exposure and deportation to innocent, but frightened and impressionable minority franchisees," with the ultimate goal of disenfranchising them, according to the complaint.


     "As a result of 7-Eleven's illegal and discriminatory actions, numerous South East Asian franchisees have already been targeted and lost their business and this protected group, of which FOAGLA is substantially comprised, continues to be targeted and harassed to date."


     The franchisees seek declaratory judgment that 7-Eleven's actions violate federal and state laws, including civil rights law, "by purposely targeting, harassing and threatening FOAGLA members and all franchisees of South Asian descent," by invading their privacy, churning their stores to retaliate against "outspoken and minority franchisees," and court costs.


     They are represented by Eric Schindler.


     7-Eleven did not immediately respond to a request for comment.



Monday, July 14, 2014

Two Families - Bill Moyers

from pbs



Friday, June 20, 2014

frontline



July 9, 2013