AVARITIA BONA EST PART II – AIRPLANE NOISE AND NOT BUILDING A SHOPPING CENTER AS PROMISED
August 21, 2009
Continuing the post from previously published Avaritia bona est, published may 15, 2009 at http://pedrofeliz3b.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/avaritia-bona-est-%E2%80%93-the-new-philadelphia-soccer-franchise-tries-to-speak-latin%E2%80%94and-gets-it-wrong-of-course%E2%80%A6/, we’d to report several more disturbing items about the new soccer stadium and new soccer team;
1) the new soccer stadium is to be built over the direct line of philadelphia airport planes taking off and landing, in an area of almost impossible to bear decibel noise;
2) neither the team management nor the construction group responsible for the stadium has commented on the airport/airplane noise issue, nor has either of them joined the efforts of Delaware County Council legally to restrict the Philadelphia Airport’s growth plans which have resulted in the additional noise levels over Chester, PA; the noise levels being primarly the result of much lower flight paths in and out of the airport directly over chester, pa.
3) the stadium will be located in a crime-ridden area of chester pa which will result in danger to people attending the game, as well as to their cars; no one has stated what the security plans will be to deal with this. Special precautions such as those taken by the Liacouras Center both for the events and the parking will need to be taken by security in order to safeguard both persons attending and also automobiles parked for events, including gated and secured parking areas and constantly patrolling security guards. this will add substantially to the cost of the project.
4) the builders of the stadium promised to build a shopping center for chester, pa, which current currently has no (zero, none) grocery stores or supermarkets for food. this was a requirement of the grants and funding from the states and other sources of funding for the stadium. This issue has been quite publicized by local media, the builders have not even broken ground on the supermarket and now are seemingly trying to avoid building same.
5) the supermarket issue goes to the heart of the soccer stadium. it’s alleged this project will “revitalize chester,” yet the builders of the stadium won’t build the key component of the project, which is a supermarket where chester residents can buy their food. The supermarket was earmarked for development and construction by the various grants the builders received, but the builders used that money for the stadium alone instead. Local Chester politicians and activists are NOT happy about this situation.
6) these three additional issues are very relevant, and only scratch the surface of a project that is far from going right.
7) i want to point out, i strongly support soccer and the revitalization of chester, pa. but so far the signs are that we are not getting a grade A stadium, nor are we getting revitalization in chester.
8) this is no way to bring soccer to philly. this is a first class sports town. even the arena football team won the league championship. the town knows the difference between a fresh hoagie roll and one that’s a day old and a dollar short. they want quality!
9) i say, let the Philadelphia Union lease time and speace in the eagles’ stadium until the issues of the chester stadium are fully worked out completely and fully.
10) since i broke the story of “no j in latin” and debunked the slogan “jungite et perite” back in may of 2009, it’s significant that the Union has completely dropped the latin slogan from its team logo on facebook, http://www.facebook.com/philadelphiaunion, and on
11) to settle the issue of whether there is a “j” in latin, i suggest that we have a soccer match, 11 on 11, of 22 of the finest latin professors in the world, at halftime of the first or second Union game. the match will be between the “J” team and the “IU” team–the winner gets to write the grammar rule and the slogan–
“Jungite et Perite” if the Js win–or
“Iungite et Perite” if the IUs win.
Of course, the losers get an IOU.
–art kyriazis
philly/south jersey
home of the world champion phillies
In court papers filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia, LD Debaters Alex McCobin of Penn and Lily Deng of Harvard have been accused of embezzling more than $37,000.00 from the Penn Parlimentary & LD debate teams, their own non-profit foundation set up to allegedly run an urban debate league in Philadelphia, and from various other organizations and persons as well, according to both the filed court papers and according to an article published in the Daily Pennsylvania on April 2, 2009. Deng was a 2005 graduate of Perkiomen Valley HS outside of Philadelphia; McCobin was originally from York, PA, and the newspaper and court papers allege that McCobin & Deng were boyfriend and girlfriend, and acted in concert at all times, in terms of a conspiracy to defraud the Penn Debate Team and to defraud their own non-profit foundation.
It was not stated whether Harvard University, the University of Pa, or any law schools or state bars, had begun investigations into McCobin’s and Deng’s possibly illegal activities.
Here’s the link to the DP article:
http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com/media/storage/paper882/news/2009/04/02/News/Alum-Sued.For.Embezzling.Funds.From.Debate.Organization-3693518.shtml
Here’s the link to the Philadelphia Court of Common Please docketing site:
http://courts.phila.gov/common-pleas/
Here’s the Daily Pennsylvanian Article in text form:
Issue date: 4/2/09 Section: News
Debate org. sues 2008 alum Alexander McCobin over misappropriation of funds
Perspectives founder McCobin allegedly withdraw $37,000 from group’s bank account
Naomi Jagoda
Daily Pennsylvanian
2008 College alumnus Alexander McCobin has been sued by Perspectives Debate Inc. – a nonprofit organization he founded while a student at Penn to teach high-school students debate skills – for breaching his fiduciary duty to Perspectives and misappropriating its funds, including allegedly withdrawing more than $37,000 from its bank account.
The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas granted an injunction on March 3 preventing McCobin from entering the corporation’s place of business and from issuing any checks or receiving any salary from Perspectives without the approval of its managing director.
A complaint was filed against McCobin and his Perspectives co-founder and fiancee Lilly Deng in February. The couple both resigned from Perspectives in November 2008, yet continued to access Perspectives’ business information and accounts after their departure.
Perspectives’ lawyer, Jonathan Crisp, said he is currently waiting for McCobin’s attorney to respond to the complaint.
According to members of Penn Parliamentary Debate, this is not the first time McCobin has improperly withdrawn money from organizations in which he had a leadership role. McCobin used the club’s debit card for purposes unrelated to Parli during his senior year at Penn.
Background
According to Perspectives’ Web site, McCobin and Deng met in 2002 at a summer debate camp in Boston. Inspired by their experiences at the camp, and disturbed by the expenses and distant locations of existing summer debate programs, McCobin and Deng started the Philadelphia Debate Institute in the summer of 2005.
Perspectives Debate Inc. was formally set up as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization in November, 2005. In addition to running the PDI, it also offers affordable after-school Lincoln-Douglass debate programs to high-school students in the mid-Atlantic region.
In the fall of 2007, McCobin, then a Penn senior, created Penn for Youth Debate as a Penn-affiliated branch of Perspectives focusing on teaching students from the Philadelphia area. Penn students are involved in the group.
“We want to change students lives and not just go through the motions. We want more students in the program and want these students to get into college, gain scholarships and get jobs,” McCobin told The Daily Pennsylvanian about the mission of Penn for Youth Debate in November, 2007.
Penn for Youth Debate is no longer aflliated with Perspectives. The organizations formally separated about two months ago, according to a member of Parli who wished to remain anonymous for fear of repercussions.
The two organizations wstill in high praise from members of Penn’s debate community.
The Parli member who wished to remain anonymous called Penn for Youth Debate a “great organization.”
Wharton senior and former Parliamentary Debate President Daniel Rubin called Perspectives and Penn for Youth Debate “high-quality organizations that shouldn’t be run down by one person.”
In Spring 2008, McCobin graduated from Penn with bachelor’s degrees in Philosophy and Economics and a masters’ degree in Philosophy. McCobin – who was also involved in Parli, founded the Penn Libertarians and was a resident adviser – currently works at the Cato Institute, a think thank in Washington, D.C.
Penn students who knew McCobin through Parli describe him as bright and cunning.
College senior and former Parli Vice President David Marcou said that while McCobin is “very smart,” he is also “very ambitious and willing to bend the rules in his favor.”
Rubin agreed, adding that he “is very good at marketing himself.”
According to court documents, McCobin and Deng, a recent Harvard University graduate, were believed to have become engaged in October, 2008.
The anonymous Parli member described McCobin and Deng’s relationship as “weird” because they did everything together. This sentiment was echoed by the complaint filed by Perspectives against them, which stated that “it was not uncommon for Deng to speak on McCobin’s behalf, or vice versa.”
Current Legal Problems
The lawsuit filed against McCobin and Deng involves their alleged inappropriate attempts to control Perspectives’ board of directors and their alleged withdrawal of money and tampering with Perspectives’ business accounts following their resignations in November 2008.
While serving as directors for Perspectives, McCobin and Deng engaged in a number of activities that were of concern to other members of the organization, according to Perspectives’ complaint.
In 2007, they added members to the board of directors without following the organization’s bylaws, the complaint stated. The bylaws called for three directors, so they should have been amended before adding additional ones.
Deng and McCobin did not make changes to the bylaws before appointing five new directors, however, and they considered all of the directors to have been properly appointed.
Later, the complaint stated, Deng and McCobin became dissatisfied with the performances of two of the recently appointed directors, and put pressure on them to either devote more time to Perspectives or to resign. One of these directors decided to resign, while the other refused and notified the other directors of the pressure put on her by McCobin and Deng.
Prior to the contact, in September 2008, one of the directors resigned for reasons unaffiliated to pressure from McCobin and Deng.
On November 17, 2008 McCobin sent the three remaining directors an e-mail that stated they were not members of the board because they had not been elected properly according to the bylaws, according to the complaint.
The next day, one of the directors sent McCobin and Deng an e-mail disputing their claim, and they suggested the board discuss the issue at a previously scheduled meeting on Nov. 20, 2008.
Instead of meeting with the board, McCobin and Deng resigned from Perspectives on Nov. 19, 2008.
Following their resignation, the remaining Board members removed McCobin and Deng from Perspectives’ business accounts, including its bank account. The Board also directed Perspectives’ managing director and recent Columbia University graduate Matthew Scarola and Perspectives’ program director and College sophomore Allison Huberlie to change the passwords for Perspectives’ accounts.
Additionally, Huberlie requested that McCobin and Deng provide Perspectives with information regarding upcoming grants and turn in their Perspectives’ checkbooks and credit cards, which according to the court documents McCobin and Deng still have not done.
Despite the actions that Perspectives’ took to revoke McCobin’s and Deng’s power, the couple allegedly managed to access Perspectives’ e-mail addresses following their resignation and the e-mails and contacts stored in one of the addresses were deleted. Deng is believed by Perspectives to have accessed the e-mail account.
The online marketing and survey accounts of Perspectives were also accessed shortly after the resignations. The survey account was believed by Perspectives to have been accessed by Deng while she was visiting McCobin’s mother, according to the complaint.
Furthermore, Scarola and Huberlie were blocked from using Perspectives’ PayPal account in late November 2008.
After McCobin and Deng were notified of the accounts’ accesses, Deng sought a lawyer who tried to negotiate a settlement on behalf of McCobin and herself.
According to the terms of the settlement, which were sent to Perspectives on Dec. 11, 2008, Deng and McCobin would only disclose the documents they had pertaining to Perspectives if Perspectives sucummbed to a number of demands, including payment of $3,000 to McCobin and Deng each.
Perspectives had to respond to the demands reqested by Deng’s lawyer prior to Dec. 12, 2008 at 5pm. The board asked for an extension to consider the settlement on Dec. 12 at 12:21 p.m, but there was no response to this request.
At 3:28 p.m. that day, $37,000 was withdrawn from Perspectives’ bank account, nearly all of the accounts’ money. A specialist for the bank said the withdrawal ticket appeared to be signed by McCobin, and the money was withdrawn from a bank near where McCobin works. The incident was reported to the police, and the bank agreed to cease payment on the cashier’s check requested for the $37,000.
Scarola later discovered that McCobin and Deng had withdrawn more money from Perspectives’ bank account prior to the $37,000. These included checks made out to each of McCobin and Deng for $3,000, as well as checks labeled as reimbursement that the board had not been made aware of.
Because of McCobin and Deng’s actions, “the board members felt it was in the best interests of the company” to bring forth a lawsuit against them, Crisp said.
Crisp added that the injunction granted last month only applies to McCobin and not Deng, because Deng has not yet been reached, and he is waiting for McCobin’s lawyers to respond to the complaint.
McCobin wrote in an e-mail that he disputes Perspectives’ allegations and plans to “defend vigorously.”
“I feel confident that legal defense will vindicate what we have done and look forward to a successful resolution of the litigation,” McCobin wrote.
An established pattern
Not only did McCobin allegedly misappropriate Perspectives’ funds, but, according to members of Parli and Penn for Youth Debate, he also engaged in irresponsible financial behavior while holding leadership positions in Penn-affiliated debate activities.
As a member of Parli, McCobin ran the team’s tournament for high-schoolers, called the Liberty Bell Classic. According to Marcou and Rubin, the Liberty Bell Classic was supposed to be a fundraiser for Parli.
In the fall of 2007, McCobin segued the Liberty Bell Classic from being a Parli event to being a Penn for Youth Debate event, which Parli leadership allowed.
In Spring 2008, when Parli’s leadership was trying to determine why the organization had a great deal of debt, they discovered that McCobin was spending money on a Parli debit card that was unrelated to the tournament. The charges included about $1,000 for rent of rooms for Perspectives’ spring debate and $400 for a camera that was never seen by Parli or Penn for Youth Debate, according to Rubin and Marcou. The camera is believed to have been used for personal purposes, they added.
When Parli leadership tried to confront McCobin about his spending, “he was not very pleased,” Rubin said.
Eventually, issues concerning the debt brought on from the tournament were resolved with the Office of Student Life. Penn for Youth Debate assumed most of the responsibility and the debt for the tournament.
OSL associate director Rodney Robinson confirmed that he helped resolve financial issues between Parli and Penn for Youth Debate,but wrote in an email that he was unaware of any “personal purchases” by McCobin.
Now, Parli and Penn for Youth Debate are on good terms with each other, according to Rubin, Marcou and Huberlie, who is the president of Penn for Youth Debate in addition to her role at Perspectives.
Marcou and Rubin also emphasized that it was with McCobin, not with Penn for Youth Debate, that Parli experienced problems.
NOW HERE’S THE DOCKET FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case Description
Case ID: 090201768
Case Caption: PERSPECTIVES DEBATE INCORPORATED VS MCCOBIN ETAL
Filing Date: Thursday , February 12th, 2009
Court: EXPEDITED NON-JURY
Location: City Hall
Jury: NON JURY
Case Type: EQUITY – NO REAL ESTATE (TRO)
Status: LISTED FOR SETTLEMENT CONF
Related Cases
No related cases were found.
Case Event Schedule
Event Date/Time Room Location Judge
PROJECTED SETTLEMENT CONF DATE 02-NOV-2009 09:00 AM City Hall CITY HALL COURTROOM 653 MOSS, SANDRA M
PROJECTED PRE-TRIAL CONF. DATE 07-DEC-2009 09:00 AM City Hall CITY HALL COURTROOM 653 MOSS, SANDRA M
PROJECTED TRIAL DATE 04-JAN-2010 09:00 AM City Hall CITY HALL COURTROOM 653 MOSS, SANDRA M
Case Parties
Seq # Assoc Expn Date Type Name
1 JUDGE DIVITO, GARY
Address: ROOM 229 CITY HALL PHILADELPHIA PA 19107 (215)686-2636 Aliases: none
2 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF CRISP, JONATHAN W
Address: 3601 VARTAN WAY HARRISBURG PA 17110 Aliases: none
3 DEFENDANT DENG, LILLY
Address: 8 GRANT STREET CAMBRIDGE MA 02138 Aliases: none
4 8 DEFENDANT MCCOBIN, ALEXANDER
Address: 1029 NORTH STUART STREET 300 ARLINGTON VA 22201 Aliases: none
5 2 PLAINTIFF PERSPECTIVES DEBATE INCORPORATED
Address: P.O. BOX 42137 PHILADELPHIA PA 19101 Aliases: none
6 TEAM LEADER MOSS, SANDRA M
Address: 392 CITY HALL PHILADELPHIA PA 19107 (215)686-7910 Aliases: none
7 JUDGE FOX, IDEE C
Address: 656 City Hall PHILADELPHIA PA 19107 (215)686-4222 Aliases: none
8 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT BOMSTEIN, MICHAEL S
Address: STE.206,BENJ. FRANKLIN HOUSE,834 CHESTNUT ST. PHILADELPHIA PA 19107 (000)592-8383 Aliases: none
Docket Entries
Filing Date/Time Docket Type Filing Party Disposition Amount Approval/Entry Date
12-FEB-2009 02:29 PM ACTIVE CASE 12-FEB-2009 03:08 PM
Docket Entry: E-Filing Number: 0960339
12-FEB-2009 02:29 PM COMMENCEMENT OF CIVIL ACTION CRISP, JONATHAN W 12-FEB-2009 03:08 PM
Docket Entry: none.
12-FEB-2009 02:29 PM COMPLAINT FILED NOTICE GIVEN CRISP, JONATHAN W 12-FEB-2009 03:08 PM
Docket Entry: COMPLAINT WITH NOTICE TO DEFEND WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS AFTER SERVICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 1018.1 FILED.
12-FEB-2009 02:29 PM PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION CRISP, JONATHAN W 12-FEB-2009 03:08 PM
Docket Entry: 80-09024280 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION/TRO FILED.
17-FEB-2009 08:51 AM WAITING TO LIST CASE MGMT CONF 17-FEB-2009 08:51 AM
Docket Entry: none.
19-FEB-2009 03:26 PM MOTION ASSIGNED 19-FEB-2009 03:26 PM
Docket Entry: 80-09024280 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ASSIGNED TO JUDGE: FOX, IDEE C. ON DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2009
19-FEB-2009 03:26 PM MOTION RESPONSE DATE UPDATED 19-FEB-2009 03:26 PM
Docket Entry: 80-09024280 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION RESPONSE DATE UPDATED TO .
24-FEB-2009 11:29 AM RULE TO SHOW CAUSE ENTERED FOX, IDEE C 24-FEB-2009 12:00 AM
Docket Entry: 80-09024280 UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE VERIFIED COMPLAINT IN THIS MATTER AND THE PETITION OF PLAINTIFF FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, IT IS ORDERED THE DEFENDANT SHOW CAUSE BEFORE THIS COURT ON THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2009 AT 1:30 PM IN COURTROOM 426, CITY HALL, PHILA., PA, WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PROVIDING THE RELIEF SOUGHT IN THE ACCOMPANYING PETITION SHOULD NOT BE ENTERED; AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF SHALL CAUSE A COPY OF THIS RULE, ALONG WITH A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT AND THE AFORESAID PETITION AND ACCOMPANYING PAPERS, TO BE SERVED UPON DFT AT LEAST FIVE DAYS BEFORE THE DATE OF THE HEARING. …BY THE COURT: FOX, J. 2-23-09
24-FEB-2009 11:34 AM MOTION HEARING SCHEDULED 24-FEB-2009 11:34 AM
Docket Entry: none.
26-FEB-2009 12:01 AM NOTICE GIVEN 26-FEB-2009 12:01 AM
Docket Entry: none.
03-MAR-2009 10:33 AM ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FILED BOMSTEIN, MICHAEL S 03-MAR-2009 11:13 AM
Docket Entry: ENTRY OF APPEARANCE OF MICHAEL S BOMSTEIN FILED. (FILED ON BEHALF OF ALEXANDER MCCOBIN)
04-MAR-2009 03:32 PM ORDER ENTERED/236 NOTICE GIVEN FOX, IDEE C 04-MAR-2009 03:32 PM
Docket Entry: 80-09024280 CONSENT DECREE ORDER ENTERED. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS HEREBY GRANTED. SEE ORDER FOR COMPLETE TERMS AND CONDITIONS. BY THE COURT: JUDGE FOX, 3/3/09.
11-MAY-2009 09:44 AM LISTED FOR CASE MGMT CONF 11-MAY-2009 09:44 AM
Docket Entry: none.
13-MAY-2009 12:01 AM NOTICE GIVEN 13-MAY-2009 12:01 AM
Docket Entry: none.
10-JUN-2009 03:33 PM CASE MGMT CONFERENCE COMPLETED SULLIVAN, JOAN 10-JUN-2009 03:33 PM
Docket Entry: none.
10-JUN-2009 03:33 PM CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER ISSUED 10-JUN-2009 03:33 PM
Docket Entry: CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NON-JURY EXPEDITED TRACK – It is Ordered that: The case management and time standards adopted for non-jury expedited track cases shall apply and are incorporated. All Discovery shall be completed not later than 08-SEP-2009. All Pre trial Motions (other than Motions in Limine) shall be filed not later than 05-OCT-2009. A Settlement Conference may be scheduled at any time after 02-NOV-2009. Fifteen Days prior to that date all parties shall serve on all opposing counsel or pro se parties and file a Settlement Memorandum containing the following: a. The plaintiff(s) shall provide a concise statement of the theory of the case. The defendant(s) and additional defendant(s) shall provide a concise statement as to the nature of the defense. b. A statement by the plaintiff(s) itemizing all damages sought by categories and amount; c. Defendant(s) and additional defendant(s) shall identify all applicable insurance carriers, together with corresponding limits of liability. A Pre trial Conference may be scheduled at any time after 07-DEC-2009. All parties shall file and also serve all opposing counsel or pro se parties the following documents by the due dates indicated: 1. Development of Joint Statement of Uncontested and Contested Facts. (a) Plaintiff’s Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Legal Issues for Trial. By 02-NOV-2009, Plaintiff shall provide the Court with a narrative statement listing all facts proposed to be proved by him or her at trial in support of his or her claim(s) as to liability and damages. Additionally, plaintiff shall provide the Court with all relevant conclusions of law based upon his or her proposed findings of fact and any and all legal issues presented thereto. (b) Defendant’s Response and Proposed Facts. By 07-DEC-2009, Defendant shall provide the Court a statement: (1) indicating the extent to which defendant contests and does not contest the plaintiff’s proposed facts: (2) listing all additional facts proposed to be proved by defendant at trial in opposition to, or in special defense of, the plaintiff’s claim(s) as to liability and damages; (3) listing all facts proposed to be proved by defendant at trial in support of any counterclaim(s), and/or third-party claim(s) if such claims exist; (4) listing any and all conclusions of law which arise from all contested and uncontested facts as proposed by the plaintiff; and, (5) listing for the Court all legal issues presented based upon proposed facts and conclusions of law. (c) Statement of Uncontested Facts. By 02-NOV-2009, the parties shall submit a joint statement of uncontested facts. This statement is separate and distinct from any other submitted. As such, agreement or disagreement, which terms are defined below, with any proposed fact by a defendant does not obviate the requirements of this paragraph. 2. Identification of Witnesses and Exhibits. (a) Plaintiff’s Witnesses. By 02-NOV-2009, plaintiff shall provide the Court with a list of all possible witnesses, including a brief narrative of each respective witness’s expected testimony. (b) Plaintiff’s Exhibits. By 02-NOV-2009, plaintiff shall provide the Court with a list of all possible exhibits which he or she may use during the course of trial. (c) Defendant’s Witnesses. By 07-DEC-2009, defendant shall provide the Court with a list of all possible witnesses, including a brief narrative of each respective witness’s expected testimony. (d) Defendant’s Exhibits. By 07-DEC-2009, defendant shall provide the Court with a list of all possible exhibits which he or she may use during the course of the trial. 3. Definitions. (a) Narration of Proposed Facts. In stating facts proposed to be proved, counsel shall do so in simple, declarative, self contained, consecutively numbered sentences. In a case with multiple parties, if a fact is to offered against fewer than all parties, counsel shall indicate the parties against which the fact will (or will not) be offered. (The facts to be set forth include not only ultimate facts, but also all subsidiary and supporting facts except those offered solely for impeachment purposes.) (b) Agreement and Disagreement. Defense counsel shall indicate that he or she does not contest a proposed fact if at trial they will not controvert or dispute that fact. In indicating disagreement with a proposed fact, defense counsel shall so set forth those disagreement(s) as explained above. (c) Objections. Objections to the admissibility of a proposed fact (either as irrelevant or on other grounds) may not be used to avoid indicating whether or not the party contests the truth of that fact. (Counsel shall, however, indicate any objections, both to the facts which they contest and those which they do not contest.) (d) Individual Positions. To the extent feasible, counsel with similar interests are expected to coordinate their efforts and express a joint position with respect to the facts they propose to prove and to the facts other parties propose to prove. Subject to the time limits above, each party may, however, list additional proposed facts to cover positions unique to it. 4. Annotations. For each proposed fact, the parties shall, at the time of proposing to prove the fact, list the witnesses (including expert witnesses), documents, and (with line-by-line references) any depositions and answers to interrogatories or requests for admissions that they will offer to prove that fact. In his or her response, defense counsel shall, if he or she objects to any such proposed fact or proposed proof, state precisely the grounds of their objections and, if they will contest the accuracy of the proposed fact, similarly list the witnesses, documents, depositions, interrogatories, or admissions that they will offer to controvert that fact. Except for good cause shown, a party will be precluded at trial from offering any evidence on any fact not so disclosed and from making any objection not so disclosed. 5. Effect. Preclusion of other Facts. Except for good cause shown, parties shall be precluded at trial from offering proof of any fact not disclosed in their listing of proposed facts (except purely for impeachment purposes). 6. Sanctions. Unjustified refusal to admit a proposed fact or to limit the extent of disagreement with a proposed fact shall be subject to sanctions. Excessive listing of proposed facts (or of the evidence to be submitted in support of or denial of such facts) which imposes obvious burdens on opposing parties shall also be subject to sanctions. 7. Length of Trial. Each counsel shall provide an estimate of the anticipated length of trial. It is expected that the case will be ready for Trial 04-JAN-2010, which is the earliest trial date pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 212.1, and counsel should anticipate trial to begin expeditiously thereafter. All counsel are under a continuing obligation and are hereby Ordered to serve a copy of this Order upon all unrepresented parties and upon all counsel entering an appearance subsequent to the entry of this Order. …BY THE COURT: SANDRA MOSS, J. 10-JUN-2009
10-JUN-2009 03:33 PM LISTED FOR SETTLEMENT CONF 10-JUN-2009 03:33 PM
Docket Entry: none.
10-JUN-2009 03:33 PM LISTED FOR PRE-TRIAL CONF 10-JUN-2009 03:33 PM
Docket Entry: none.
10-JUN-2009 03:33 PM LISTED FOR TRIAL 10-JUN-2009 03:33 PM
Docket Entry: none.
16-JUL-2009 03:24 PM OTHER EVENT CANCELLED 16-JUL-2009 03:24 PM
Docket Entry: none.
This is interesting, no?
–art kyriazis, philly/south jersey
home of the world champion phillies
AVARITIA BONA EST – THE NEW PHILADELPHIA SOCCER FRANCHISE TRIES TO SPEAK LATIN—AND GETS IT WRONG, OF COURSE….
May 15, 2009
With great fanfare, the organizers of the new MLS Soccer Franchise for Philadelphia unveiled their team logo on Monday of this week, an event which was duly reported in the various sports pages of the local newspapers.
The organization which is promoting the new soccer franchise appears to be a group of overweight, entirely male surburban white men, who have absolutely nothing to do, and who have organized themselves into an organization for the promotion of professional soccer in the Delaware Valley/Philadelphia/South Jersey area, known as the “Sons of Ben.”
I only mention this parenthetically, because as it well known, most people who attend soccer games are world/ethnic—they are Latino, Italian, Greek, Caribe’, whatever—anything but white suburbanites.
If these fat white suburban guys driving SUVs buy season tickets to professional soccer, I’d be greatly surprised—and if they do show up, they’ll find a league composed almost entirely of foreign players, for the most part, with a few Americans sprinkled in for show.
Not to mention a stadium full of ethnic segments waving various flags of different countries for their favorite players from those countries, whether it’s Brazil, Germany, Greece, Holland or wherever.
It won’t be the U.S. Flag, I know that.
The Beckham experiment in LA is pretty much par for the course, except that it proved that MLS soccer is so far below the standards of English Premier League, that a guy like Beckham isn’t worth having on your team—it’s like playing Alex Rodriguez in sandlot ball. He doesn’t really help you because people just pitch around him, since all your other players are awful.
Let’s get to the awful LATIN. The logo for the new team is as follows:
PHILADELPHIA UNION
(Picture of Snake)
Jungite aut Perite
see also, the team’s new website,
http://www.philadelphiaunion.com/
which also displays the mistaken latin phrase “Jungite et Perite.”
The organizers assured the press conference that the snake and the latin phrase “Jungite aut Perite” were taken directly from the Newspapers of Benjamin Franklin, and that the phrase means “Join or Die,” and the snake represents the Join or Die emblem employed during the times of the American Revolution.
Ok, except for one huge problem. As Henry Beard, author of “Latin for Even More Occasions” (Villard Books, NY, 1991), states at p. 111 of his very humorous book,
“CONSONANTS….”
“J, W AND Y don’t exist in Latin.”
Beard, Id. at p. 111.
There is no letter “J” in the Latin language.
I believe what the Sons of Ben meant to say was the following:
“IUNGITE AUT PERITE.”
Latin for All Occasions by Henry Beard
As is well known to those of us who have either studied the arcana of the Latin language for several years (I won the Latin Prize at Haverford School) (twice, actually) (now I’m just showing off) (thanks to Steve Dall, by the way, a great Latin teacher), or have gone to Catholic School and been forced to take Latin,
THERE IS NO J W OR Y in the Latin alphabet.
The letter J is approximated by the vowel combination “IU” as in “Iuno,” “Iuvenal,” and so forth.
Thus, there actually was no “Julius Caesar.” His name was “Caius Iulius Caii filius Caii nepos Caesar Imperator” (see wikipedia article on “Julius Caesar”) meaning “Gaius Julius Caesar, son of Gaius, grandson of Gaius, Imperator”. See? No “J”.
Gaius Iuilius Caesar
Thus, in Latin, there would be no “Dr. J”, only a Dr. “Iulius”
And you couldn’t jam the ball, you could only “iuam” the ball.
anyway, I think you get the fundamental point–there is no “j” in latin, either in the alphabet or in the everyday usage of the language. All of the “J”s you see in modern day latin (as when you see “Julius Caesar”) are added as approximations to the ancient lation usage of “Iu” for “J” which is the proper latin.
Now let’s see if the “Sons of Ben” (none of whom claim any actual lineage from Ben Franklin) actually know their Latin:
Iungite, “Join!”, is the plural imperative form of iungo, with principal parts iungere, iunxi, iunctum, “I join” (from which we get many english cognate words such as “conjunction” or “injunction”). The imperatives are “iunge”, join!, singular, addressed to one person, and “iungite”, join!, addressed to two or more persons. (See J. Wohlberb, 201 Latin Verbs, Barrons, NY, 1964, at pp. 94 & 63, the verbs “iungo” and “eo”) (see infra).
See? No “J” in “Iungite”. “Jungite” is just plain WRONG. The proper word is “IUNGITE”. That would be RIGHT.
Are these guys morons or what? Maybe they should try speaking latin in a Latin American soccer league! (I shudder to think what their spanish or italian is like).
Clearly, no matter how much money the Sons of Ben spent on their advertising, logo and presentation budget, it wasn’t enough.
I, along with numerous others like Victor Davis Hanson, have been lamenting the deconstruction and utter loss of the classics, e.g. the loss of the required learning of Latin and Greek for many years now; here is a pertinent example of WHY everyone should known Latin and Greek.
End of Sparta by Victor Davis Hanson
It is completely embarrassing that a major sports team should hold a press conference, insert a logo on their press team that draws from the Latin language, and then GET IT WRONG, when simple fact checking with a high school latin teacher could have straightened them out.
Here was an opportunity to show lots of schoolchildren that latin still matters–but the growups get it wrong. how embarassing.
On the rest of the slogan, they’re ok—aut means “or,” and “perite” is the plural imperative of “per-eo”—I kill—the root verb being “eo, ire, ii or ivi, itum,” with imperatives “I and ite” singular and plural—you just add per- in front of those to get “per-ite.” (201 Latin Verbs, id., cited supra, p. 63).
I guess I conclude here with a translation of the title of this piece, which was supplied by Mr. Beard—”avaritia bona est” can roughly be translated as “greed is good.” (The slogan from “Wall Street”, 1980s, Charlie Sheen, Michael Douglas). (see Beard, id. at p. 14).
Here some other great latin sayings from Beard (id. at p. 24):
Tu, rattus turpis! -
You dirty rat! (Jimmy Cagney)
Ei fer condicionem quam non potest repudiare –
Make him an offer he can’t refuse – Vito Corleone, the Godfather (Marlon Brando)
Age. Fac ut gaudeam. –
Go ahead. Make my day. Dirty Harry (Clint Eastwood).
Fuit mulier quae me potare egit. Nunquam steti gradum ad ei gratias agendas. –
It was a woman who drove me to drink. I never stopped to thank her. (W.C. Fields).
Fasciculum nicotianum fumificum meum quoque amo, sed aliquando eum de ore extraho. –
I like my cigar too, but I take it out of my mouth once in a while. (Groucho Marx).
See you all in remedial Latin class!
Art Kyriazis, philly/south jersey
Home of the World Champion Philadelphia Phillies
Cap and Trade – A Horrible Idea – Let’s Abolish Cars and Build a Real Rail System Instead
May 13, 2009
Cap and Trade Is a very bad idea, right now.
First, a history lesson. President Clinton’s first term was a disaster, in large part, because he spent most of his first two years pursuing three very liberal ideas—gays in the military, universal health care, and a federal tax on BTU usage.
These three ideas were, at the time, in 1993-1995, so controversial, that they not only threatened to sink President Clinton after only one term, but resulted in 1994 in the largest shift in a mid-term election in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate in United States History.
The House lost more than fifty Democratic seats and went Republican for the first time in a long time; and the Senate also suffered huge democratic losses; all due to Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America, which was a direct and overwhelming refutation of Clinton’s liberal agenda.
Much the same thing happened in the first two years of Jimmy Carter’s term; Carter pardoned all of the draft-dodging Vietnam protesters hiding out in Canada, and virtually declared war on the CIA and all of the US military operations around the world, which led to terror operations and revolutions around the world intensifying, culminating in the Iranianian Revolution and the taking of the U.S. Embassy in Teheran and the holding of 52 U.S. hostages for over a year, a spectacle so embarassing to the United States, repeated night after night on national TV as it was, that virtually every Democrat in office lost his seat by 1980, and the Republicans and Ronald Reagan were swept into power, with a whole new agenda of re-arming America and restoring her lost prestige abroad.
Getting back to Clinton, the BTU Tax was an idea very similar to the current notion of Cap and Trade. Cap and Trade, like the BTU Tax, is essentially a tax on carbon usage. The idea is, if we tax carbon-based fossil fuels enough, and make them costly enough, it will force everyone, including consumers and energy companies, to seek non-carbon based alternatives.
There are three basic problems with cap and trade (actually, there are many more, but I will discuss three here) that make it a bad idea for now. First, we are in a recession that is actually more of a depression. Cap and Trade is a large TAX INCREASE that will suck spending power out of the hands of consumers. Consequently, it will kill the marginal propensity of consumer demand, and attack the very object of the Stimulus Bill.
I don’t have to be a doctor to know, that you don’t give a man a sleeping pill, just when you’ve given him a shot to wake him up, while he’s still groggy and coming around.
Right now, the American economy is like a man who can’t wake up. Cap and Trade would be like a sleeping pill to that man. The Stimulus Bill was like a cup of coffee or a shot of epinephrine—a stimulant to wake him.
Cap and Trade is like a sleeping pill that would suck away his vital energy.
Second, in order to invest in, and build, energy alternatives, there has to be a venture capital and investment banking, and regular banking systems, in place. Today, those systems are impaired, crippled or functioning at about half capacity. Consequently, Cap and Trade can’t work under today’s economic conditions. Consequently, no infrastructure would develop under Cap and Trade to produce renewable energy alternatives until the banking and lending systems come back on line.
All we’ll have is a tax that makes oil and gas and coal more expensive, but no alternatives will develop for many years yet, due to the impairments of the banking, VC and R & D systems.
Third, even if the banking, VC and R & D systems were perfect, there is no energy alternative that could come on line sooner than ten years from today to replace current oil, gas and coal based consumption.
Wind and solar currently provide less than 1% of current energy needs; energy needs keep GROWING at an exponential rate, if you include the third world, and none of the so-called renewable energy forms are anywhere close to being ready to assume more than a micro-share of the energy load, whether we’re talking about wind, solar, geothermal, capturing energy from ocean waves, and so forth.
It’s been fifty plus years since the hydrogen bomb, but no one has yet developed and sustained a fusion reaction that can last and power an energy generating plant. That technology seems as remote as the so-called “WARP” engines on the starship Enterprise on STAR TREK.
That leaves us with one, and only one realistic alternative, and that is nuclear power plants. They are tanned, rested and ready, and the newest generation of nukes have much higher capacity factors and higher safety factors than ever before.
The problem with nukes is, you still need about two billion dollars to build a single plant, about 3-4 years to get the necessary permits to build a plant in the U.S. and another 3-4 years to build the plant and get it on line.
That’s 6-8 years and two billion dollars to get each plant on line, and most of the two billion dollars will have to be absorbed by the consumer in electricity costs. Let’s figure that we build fifty of those plants—that’s a hundred billion dollars in construction costs alone that have to be absorbed back again by means of utility bills to the consumer over the next ten-twenty years. That’s on top of the cap and trade tax costs.
In short, it’s a very expensive proposition to jettison oil, gas and coal.
It’s too bad that the United States didn’t commit to a nukes policy back in 1955, when nuclear power was cheap and we could have covered the US with nuclear power plants for a fraction of the cost of today.
If we had committed to such a policy then, we could have been completely independent of Middle Eastern Oil as of 1970.
Even as late as 1975, we still could have committed to nukes for a fraction of today’s costs, and been independent of Middle Eastern Oil by the 1990s.
However, the wacky left and particularly eco-wacky californians, continuously opposed nuclear power in this country for decades. Nuclear power could have given us full independence from the Middle East a long, long time ago, and spared us these last two wars in Iraq and Kuwait.
The problems we face today are a consequence of our leaders living life as if we can’t shape the future. But we can and must shape the future.
The future is not shaped by dice rolling or by random events. The future is shaped by decisions we make and by policies we need to hew to in order to shape the probabilities and likelihoods of the future outcomes to be.
A responsible United States Government would have made us one hundred percent reliant on nuclear energy for our power production as soon as humanly possible, once we unlocked the secrets of the atom, back in the 1950s.
Our failures to do so may have been the result of many causes, and I won’t speculate here on the role of the oil and gas companies, the so-called, Seven Sisters, and their multinational interests linked to Middle Eastern oil producing states, but clearly nuclear energy would have a lot cheaper over the last sixty years than two wars fought directly by the US in the Middle East, and five wars fought by proxy between Israel and the oil-producing states.
Had we eliminated oil dependence early by committing to the atom, we would have changed history decisively and for the better.
Cap and Trade is not the answer.
A federally-sponsored program of accelerated conversion to Nuclear Powered electric generation, followed by a fifty to one hundred year phase in of solar, wind and fusion power, is the answer.
All electric companies should be abolished in favor of one company modeled and based on the Tennessee Valley Authority, that will erect Nukes until the United States is 100% nuclear based electric power, and zero percent coal or oil.
Combing this with a program of converting all cars to electric power would also solve another problem as well. This is clearly doable in the next five-ten years.
This is the kind of program that would involve spending money on a specific problem, creating jobs, and stimulating the economy. It’s better than cap and trade because it puts dollars into the economy instead of taking them out. Also, it federalizes the utilities, which do a horrible job.
Finally, the electric grid needs to be updated using superconductors and the latest electric technologies, including quantum conductors and new metals to conduct electricity. With superconductors, electricity can be sent from location to location without any loss of power or current. This would eliminate the need for transformers and high voltage lines, etc. Again, a vast federal program committed to upgrading the grid is needed.
These steps would be much better than cap and trade.
A final note about cars–Why do Obama and the Democrats want to prop up the car industry if they are truly worried about Global Warming? Cars contribute more than 50% of the hydrocarbon emissions in the US that contribute to global warming.
Instead of paying consumers a $4,000 tax credit to buy new cars with high gas mileage, wouldn’t it make more sense to get people to STOP DRIVING CARS AND TAKE MASS TRANSIT?
In short,
1) Let the U.S. Auto Industry DIE.
2) Put an enormous carbon tax on all car purchases. Make any new car cost around $50,000 to buy.
3) Apply that tax backwards to used cars as well.
4) Massively subsidize AMTRAK and all local mass transit across the nation, and let people ride the trains and Mass Transit free for the next five years. Yes, I said it, FREE OF CHARGE for the next five years. Why? To get them used to doing it. The massive federal stimulus bill to build rail, subway, light rail throughout the US would be in the TRILLIONS of dollars, as well as to subsidize AMTRAK everywhere so it’s FREE OF CHARGE. That would be a net STIMULUS to the economy and create the world’s finest light and heavy rail systems. We could also finally build HIGH SPEED RAIL SYSTEMS modeled on France, England and Japan to cover longer distances that could go 300-400 miles per hour, that could eliminate many shorter airplane routes, unclogging the skies of needless plane flight. This is a win, win, win plan. We get rid of filthy autos and planes and replace them with electric trains. And net net net create jobs.
5) Starting in 2014, you can slowly re-introduce fees again for Mass Transit and AMTRAK once we’ve started to eliminate all of the automobiles.
6) Start reclaiming the inner cities by closing roads and creating pedestrian zones and mass-transit zones, and creating more and more parks in which no cars can come into the city, until finally, all cities will have no cars or trucks at all.
7) The goal would be to eliminate cars and trucks by 2025, and convert everyone to mass transit and rail.
8) Electric cars only would be allowed eventually, powered by the nuclear grid. These would be cheap and affordable.
This is a far reaching and thoughtful plan. Abolish the internal combustion engine as we know it and force all americans out of their cars and onto trains, buses, subways and light rail.
This is the true path to ending global warming and reaching a green economy.
Art Kyriazis
Philly/South Jersey
Home of the World Champion Phillies
up
The Stimulus Bill
May 13, 2009
Was and Is a good idea.
The economy is in a major recession.
The current rate of interest based on prices overall is negative two percent (-2%) and some sectors of the economy are falling far faster than that (car prices and car sales, home prices and home sales, etc.). Home prices in particular are in a death spiral of approximately minus twenty percent annually (-20%). That fact is causing a lot of overly leveraged homeowners (and second homeowners) to rationally walk away from their mortgages as their falling home prices eradicate their equity and cause their loan payoff figures to exceed whatever they could rationally expect to recover on the market in a real estate sale; in many cases, the summary sheet would show a net balance owed to the mortgage company.
This, in turn, is killing the banks.
I needn’t point out at this stage that this particular deflationary spiral of home prices was also a key component of bank failures and economic depression during the Great Depression of 1929-1939 in the United States; so much so, that it was constantly referred to by many of my professors in many of my classes, in both undergrad and grad school.
In short, that was the CLASSIC example of deflationary spiral, falling real estate prices during the 1930s. That was also the focus of specific New Deal programs at the time of the 1930s.
Consequently, it’s fair to characterize the current economy as in a demand-starved recessionary/deflationary spiral that would probably respond best to Keynesian style medicine, that is to say, 1) fiscal policy targeted to drive the demand function back up, e.g. deficit spending on a large scale and 2) monetary policy targeted to counteract the negative interest spiral. And, also, specific programs to help homeowners fix their mortgages, which the administration has also wisely proposed, again copying the 1930s New Deal.
I’m not going to work out the econometrics here. Most people live their lives based on the notion that you can’t predict the future. Economists and market analysts aren’t like that, and neither is the government. The entire history of economics, and particularly econometrics, is grounded on probability and statistics, and more generally, logic and the theory of sets, as well as computer-based calculations and iterative theories of what can and cannot be calculated by a machine, e.g. a Turing Machine or computer, given certain data and an appropriate algorithm.
The fact is, we can see into the future, and if we do the appropriate policies, we can change the future. For more than seventy years now, countercyclical financial manipulations using fiscal and monetary policies at the macro- and micro- economic levels has been discussed in detail in many different academic and scholarly journals, all flowing from the theoretical framework of Keynes and Friedman, as well as the careful study of business cycles by the National Bureau of Economic Research at Harvard (“NBER”), where many prominent economists have labored in the academic vineyards.
The fact remains that just as we can shape our own futures by educating ourselves, working hard, showing up on time and having the right friends, we can obviously shape the economic future of the land by taking appropriate economic actions.
This is not like the fall of the market, which is stochastic, governed by a random walk, and essentially would have to happen at some point. If you’re not sure about this, look up the Gambler’s Ruin problem on Google or in one of your old textbooks. If you gamble long enough for large enough sums, eventually there’s the chance that you will lose everything. The market is no exception to the problem of the Gambler’s Ruin and the random walk that crosses the point of no returns.
However, even in the case of the ruin of the market, countercyclical fiscal and monetary policies could have cushioned the fall much better and more wisely, had the last administration not been so committed to laissez faire policies reminiscent of the 1920s.
Instead of pumping up the boom, the government should have acted to mute it, so that when the crash came, it was not so violent or abrupt.
A tax increase during the boom would have been wise, especially a surtax to finance the war in Iraq, and to suck some wind out of the sails of the almost inflationary boom during 2005-2007.
That would have been wise, but the last administration chose not to do it for political reasons, and because they were married to a laissez-faire doctrine of not taxing under any circumstances.
This was an ill-considered doctrine, because countercyclical management of the economy requires taxation as part of reasonable fiscal and monetary management of the business cycle.
What is even more ill-considered is that the Republican Party continues to advocate this same laissez-faire approach now in opposition to the stimulus bill, when it is obvious that government action is required.
Turning to the current stimulus bill, the Republican right wing response of opposing the stimulus bill, and instead continuing to advocate smaller government and laissez-faire is not only wrong, but historically wrong, since it just repeats the criticisms of the New Deal made in the 1930s by the Republican party, which history shows us were wrong.
The New Deal was right, Glass-Steagall and securities regulation were right, and government interventionism as well as vast government spending to pull us out of the Depression were the correct government policies.
Moreover, the last administration bloated the government with cronyism and friendly contracts to private contractors, both in the Iraqi war sector and in Homeland Security, hardly shrinking the government, and laissez-faire only meant no new taxes—the government was activist on a range of issues important to corporations, especially environmental issues.
Moreover, the value of the stimulus bill has been shown to be historically valuable by the New Deal, and also not only in the 1930s in the U.S., but in 1930s Germany, where vast rearmaments spending and central government spending pulled Germany out of the depression, but also in 1930s Italy, where central government spending ended the depression, and also in 1930s England and 1930s France, the same, and so forth. 1930s Japan also revived itself with Government spending on armaments.
Probability, econometrics and policy at some point merge into the ability to shape the future. One can debate about policies, their merits and demerits, but at some point one has to commit to one policy direction or another, and what is refreshing about the current administration is that they have committed to a certain policy direction. Their economic advisers are experienced and knowledgeable, and probably have worked out the future impact of these policies on Cray Supercomputers several times over by now. I hesitate to say this, but in all likelihood, the Government probably knows better in this case what to do than we do.
The past administration distinguished itself by twisting slowly, slowly in the wind while the economy disintegrated, sticking not to laissez-faire, but to a lot of deficit spending on the Iraq War which mainly went to government contractors with connections to the government in power. The same could be said for the enormously bloated Homeland Security budget contracts, which were exposed in part as fraudulent by incidents such as Hurricane Katrina.
There are many specific problems with the stimulus bill, but overall it’s the right direction.
Art Kyriazis
Philly/South Jersey
Home of the World Champion Phillies
SALARY LIMITS FOR BANKERS AND WALL STREET EXECS
February 23, 2009
In the recent legislation from DC, salary limits have been enacted limiting executive salaries for bankers and executives of companies taking federal aid from TARP and the other programs which will be propping up the banking, investment banking, business and auto communities.
Some commentators are already criticizing these limits, including noted professors, including this story in the Chicago Tribune dated February 17, 2009 by noted famous economics professor Steven Kaplan:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-oped0217payfeb17,0,3623866.story
On limits, I would argue twofold. First, wage and price controls were used successfully during the great depression, during World War II, and also during the Nixon era, all periods when we were having economic distress of the magnitude we are experiencing now.
This is not the time to argue for deregulation and laissez-faire. To the contrary, deregulation and laissez-faire are what got us into this quagmire. What is needed at this point is MORE regulation and plenty of it.
Second, Kaplan’s own studies on executive compensation, particularly a study he did on investment banking compensation, demonstrate that investment bankers have been pulling down way too much money compared to the rest of the working force in the United States. This is the paper he did with Rauh, “Wall Street and Main Street: What Contributes to the Rise in the Highest Incomes?” (july 2007) (cite below).
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=931280
This was an NBER paper and highly quantified, and if anything, is an elegant argument for limiting the compensation of well-paid investment bankers.
I’d probably go farther and say it’s an argument for enacting some kind of tax measure that would retroactively confiscate some of their ill-gotten gains from the last thirty years through some kind of tax on wealth or assessment taxation on all luxury goods, and accumulated wealth. That, along with a highly focused program of IRS audits targeted at persons who have filed returns of $1 million income and higher the last ten years or so, and re-assessing their tax due to much higher levels, should bring in a lot of extra revenue the government needs, which can then be redistributed to the consumer classes which need the money to spend on consumer goods in a keynesian sense.
Finally, I will say right now, if any executive is unwilling, unable or simply refuses to accept a limit on their salary, I am prepared to take over their position, effective immediately.
While not a WASP, I am a golf-playing prep school grad, a harvard and wharton product, and am willing to work mere bankers hours.
I promise to be aloof, boring and devoted to the interests of our depositors.
In addition, I promise to wear only blue, grey and dark suits, and white shirts. I only shop at brooks brothers and polo as it is, but with the recession, I’m willing to start going to Todays Man as necessary.
I drive an old car, I have a paid up house, and I lead a boring but highly satisfying family life with kids.
In short, i believe I’d make the ideal banker.
Moreover, whatever you’re paying the other guy, I’ll take 20% less.
And donate it to charities for the poor. Publicly and loudly. Think of the PR for your bank.
I want no raises and I don’t want any big offices. I’ll bring my beat-up harvard chair with me.
Everything I do will be for the bank.
Also, since I was a lawyer for fifteeen years (did I mention that?) doing corporate, banking and bankruptcy work, I will be able to be in full compliance with any and all Sarbanes-Oxley, Garn-St. Germain and consumer and general banking regulatory legislation that applies without skipping an eyelash–and also I am friends with a couple of super-lawyers who are experts at that stuff who will I’m sure cut their fees to meet new federal regs.
So you can fire your regulatory team as well, since I can cover that as well as do the banking job. Looks like some efficiency savings there.
Also, for what it’s worth, I actually know and have met Professors Elizabeth Warren and Lawrence Summers who are running TARP and the other bailout programs, so if there is a problem affecting your bank, my calls will get returned. We’re all harvard alums, part of the big club, dontcha’ know.
This is about getting your bank back on track. Not about me not about you and not about that greedy guy who won’t accept pay cuts.
Did I mention my house is paid for?
This offer is good for any and all banks needed top level or mid-level management in the united states that would be capped as to salary and have to face a lot of TARP and other regulation.
very truly yours,
Dr. Arthur Kyriazis, M.Sc.E. Penn Engineering (submatriculation Wharton)
philadelphia/south jersey
home of the world champion philadelphia phillies
http://www.linkedin.com/in/kyriazis
COMENT ON TIME’S COVER STORY ON STEM CELL RESEARCH OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009
February 10, 2009
Time Magazine just did a cover story on stem cell research, which is commendable. They also entitled the story “The Quest Resumes,” which is commendable, focusing on the fact that the Federal Government, under the Obama Administration, may finally allow (this may already have been approved by executive order) federal funds for stem-cell research at federally funded research institutions.
However, the subtitle of the article is “After eight years of political ostracism, stem-cell scientists like Harvard’s Douglas Melton are coming back into the light—and making discoveries that may soon bring lifesaving breakthroughs.” Time Feb 9, 2009 at p. 36.
Now, let’s examine that for a second—In Massachusetts, where Prof. Melton plies his craft, the Commonwealth and State of Massachusetts, like the State of California, has voted state support of stem-cell research at institutions of higher education. Therefore in Massachusetts, like California a bastion of biotechnology, the biotech lobby was able to secure state support for stem-cell research during the eight-year long federal ban on such research. So compared to the other 48 states, Prof. Melton was actually at an advantage because his lab was in Massachusetts.
Because of the federal funds ban, a great deal of stem cell-research has begun to spring up in places like Southeast Asia, as the Time Magazine article correctly notes, and as it well-known in the biotech industry. But a lot of it is also staying put in Cali and Mass due to those states putting up seed money for biotech research that is stem cell oriented.
Next, Prof. Melton works as co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute (HSCI), which Harvard has committed substantial resources to supporting over the past eight years and well into the future. According to their 2008 report, their annual spending has grown in the past two years from just over $5 million to over $16 million in fiscal year 2008, most of that culled from private and corporate donations. HSCI currently has no less than eight ongoing challenge grant research projects sponsored for $75,000 each, all of them stem cell oriented.
Now I am a powerful supporter of stem-cell research, and I strongly advocate that the federal government support stem cell research. The question I have for Time Magazine is, and maybe perhaps for the Federal Government, is HSCI the most needy recipient for federal funds for stem cell research? The article omits that HSCI is well-funded by private donors, and omits that Massachusetts provides state support (it is not clear if HSCI accepts Massachusetts money) and therefore the article in Time is somewhat misleading.
The argument for funding HSCI federally has to be this; we, e.g. HSCI, made a good faith effort to get the ball rolling the past three years through private financing, we have already a lab in motion with research projects, so if you fund us, we will be three years closer to getting results than any other academic lab you choose to fun. Consequently, their NIH grant requests will carry a certain heft.
On the other hand, they are not as dramatically in need of the money as some other labs who don’t have any private funding at all.
A more useful article would have been to depict the overall situation in the rest of the United States, and some of the labs outside CA & MA.
This is an interesting issue and one on which arguments on both sides would and could be marshalled.
It should be pointed out that I strongly support the work of Prof. Melton and the work of HSCI. Those initiatives were put into place by then President Lawrence Summers, along with the Broad Institute initiative, a few years back, and clearly they have had the effect of putting Harvard back on the map in terms of genetics and molecular biology research.
The good news about the Time article is that the words “Stem Cells” made the cover, along with a nice bio-photo. If nothing else, Americans this week can forget about the economy and the war for a moment and realize that stem cell research is an answer to many of our problems that don’t involve boundaries and account balances and fumes spewing out of our cars.
–art kyriazis philly/south jersey
home of the world champion phillies
T-CELL SCIENCES, INC. – CASE STUDY – WHARTON SCHOOL CASE STUDY – 1994 – Arthur J. Kyriazis University of Pennsylvania April 22, 1994
January 26, 2009
this is an actual case study I did at Wharton about fifteen years ago for Steve Sammut’s class on advanced patent portfolio management theory. This case is of interest because it concerns a biotech company, and because, re-reading it after a long time, it actually reads very well. Even before I had all the experience I do now, I actually had a good feel for what to do with the management of a biotech company even back then, so here it is. And yes, I did get an “A” in the class, of course. Dr. Sammut used to run the tech transfer office for Penn during the 1990s.
–art k
ps enjoy!
T-CELL SCIENCES, INC. CASE
by Arthur J. Kyriazis
MGMT 898 – PROF. SAMMUT
Wharton School (WEMBA)
University of Pennsylvania
April 22, 1994
Issues
T-Cell Sciences, Inc. (“T-Cell”) is a 1983 Cambridge, MA biotech/pharmaceutical startup sired by Patrick Kung, a “recognized pioneer in immunological research.” The main issue appears to be defining T-Cell’s ultimate market niche even as it undergoes the process of transition from a venture-funded start-up to a more mature publicly held corporation. Specifically, in the coming months and years, should T-Cell (1) concentrate upon basic across the board immunological R&D; (2) concentrate upon basic immunological R&D with a focus on diagnostic drugs and product(s); or (3) focus upon strategic alliances with large pharmaceutical companies with an eye cast towards the development and delivery of therapeutic pharmaceutical drugs?
It would appear that until the arrival of James D. Grant as CEO in November of 1986, the main issue might well have been a different one altogether, namely whether T-Cell would reorganize or liquidate. In early 1986, T-Cell was a company in trouble and one which was not being particularly well-run or well-managed, even though it had brilliant scientists and innovative technologies full of commercial promise. Even though startups might be expected to lose money at the outset, T-Cell’s losses in 1985 and 1986 totalled nearly $2 million, compared with $5.5 million capitalization from December of 1983 throught January of 1986. This apparently necessitated a public offering in May of 1986, which raised $11.1 million, followed by the hiring of Mr. Grant in November of 1986, and his hiring of a well-heeled financial CFO immediately thereafter.
In addition, up through Grant’s arrival, T-Cell had only developed two products of any consequence, ACT-T-SET, and CELLFREE, and only two joint venture/research alliances/R&D contracts of any consequence, the Syntex USA contract and the Pfizer contract, and had failed to show any revenue from product sales through 1986, and only $13 million in revenue from contracts in 1986.
In brief, one may surmise from the case study that a great deal of money was spent at T-Cell, until Grant’s arrival, on basic immunological research, without a very well defined sense of where the research was going, or how it would be profitable or generate a return to the company and to the investors. This might have been a result of Dr. Kung’s diffuse vision of the company’s market niche as somehow doing R&D better or faster, and perhaps a touch of the academic fondness for the intrinsic value of broad based academic research as opposed to targeted research and strategic alliances directed to product development and ultimate profit.
Grant’s arrival placed T-Cell on a radically different footing and he appears to have turned the company around. Losses were reduced by nearly a million dolars from 1986 to 1987, and for the year ending in April of 1987, T-Cell reported positive product sales revenue of nearly $400,000 together with contract revenues of nearly $2 million. In addition, Grant apparently negotiated the deal with Yamanouchi Parmaceutical, which as he characterizes it places T-Cell on a sound cash flow footing for the foreseeable future. In addition, Grant has introduced a sound line of command and professionalized the management of the company by hiring a financial officer and a regulatory affairs officer, paying attention to patent management issues, and spending time painting a sound, attractive picture to shareholders, potential investors and to regulators. Finally, Grant’s status an a former FDA head bodes well for the regulatory hurdles awaiting T-Cell’s products.
T-Cell’s Strengths
T-Cell’s strengths are many. First, it has a distinguished corps of researchers led off by Dr. Kung, who appears to be a leader in the field of T cell research. It is situated in Cambridge, MA, in the heart of the Harvard-MIT research community, and can be expected to easily draw upon an outstanding technical scientific staff for its research needs. Also, the scientific advisory board includes people like Dr. Mark Davis and others who are world-recognized scientific leaders.
Second, T-Cell has introduced two product lines in 1986, the ACT-T-SET and CELLFREE technologies, which assuming patent protection and FDA approval, are potentially product mainstays for the company. These two products are expected to have applicability in the diagnosis of various stages of immune system stimulation and white blood cell activity. Dr. Kung and Mr. Grant expect R&D to eventually identify other new products in the same T cell related vein with applicability in the diagnostic field.
Third, T-Cell has two joint ventures, with Syntex and Pfizer, and now a third, with Yamanouchi, which promise to focus on specific product development, with the obvious potential of delivering a drug to market which can be of wide therapeutic applicability and therefore be a cash mainstay for the company. The Syntex and Pfizer ventures aim to produce therapeutic drugs targeted at common medical ailments, including breast cancer, type 1 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis and cytomegalovirus. The Yamanouchi venture aims to develop products to diagnose rheumatoid arthritis and lung cancer. An added benefit is the global ability to develop and market products and drugs in Japan and the rest of the world while awaiting FDA approval for their sale in the United States.
Fourth, T-Cell now has James D. Grant, who must be reckoned as an important asset of the company at this juncture. His management skills have put T-Cell on a sound business footing; his contacts have resulted in new joint venture(s); and his FDA expertise should translate into FDA product approvals.
Which Fields or Options are Most Attractive for T-Cell?
The basic R&D approach is wrong for this size company. What the company needs to do is ultimately make a decision between developing diagnostic products/drugs on its own, or on developing them with partners. Grant appears to be committed to a strategy of hedging his bets by pursuing both options. He is willing to commit some money to R&D and to diagnostics, while courting and signing deals with large pharmaceuticals for strategic alliance(s) aimed at delivering specific types of therapeutic products/drugs. Grant also feels that the diagnostic(s) division, once profitable, should be spun off because of the competition in that field.
Recommendations
Grant probably has it right. The therapeutic emphasis is the best way for T-Cell to go right now. The joint venture/strategic alliance approach is a sound one. If successful, the development of even one drug marketed to a patient population as widespread as the breast cancer or lung cancer populations promises immediate payoff for T-Cell’s efforts and a handsome reward for its investors.
With diagnostic drugs on the other hand, even if approved and even if proprietary, it is hard to see how T-Cell will be able to exploit the discoveries, so that Grant is probably correct when he surmises that this division or these proprietary discoveries will ultimately be spun off. Of course, licensing and franchising are options we have discussed which absent from Grant’s discussion(s).
The best way for T-Cell to go would be to continue to solicity these contracts and joint ventures. T-Cell has recognized, proven scientific talent and recognized expertise in this very specific area of immunological research.
One specific recommendation is that the company hire a patent portfolio manager and begin to concentrate on patenting more of its discoveries, as well as concentrate on getting products to FDA submission stage. This manager must also concentrate on getting the researchers to recognize when a discovery may or might be patentable or commerciable in some respect. These two steps will make the company attractive to investors and a steady stream of patent application(s) and FDA approval applications are evidence that a company has been doing its homework.
These steps, if followed, should result in a successful new round of equity financing and/or an invitation to buy the company out altogether. In either event, the company will have attained a substantial goal. Finally, T-Cell should keep Grant around. Given the company’s history, investors could get extremely nervous if he were to depart suddenly or unexpectedly.
–Arthur J Kyriazis, 1994
THIS WAS AN ACTUAL CASE STUDY I WROTE FOR THE WHARTON SCHOOL IN THE SPRING OF 1994.
–art kyriazis
Philly/South Jersey
Home of the World Champion Philadelphia Phillies
Home of the Incredible Philadelphia Eagles
Home of the Arena Football League Champion Philadelphia Soul
Making the Playoffs in 2008: The Sixers, the Flyers, the Phillies and the Eagles!
Happy New Year 2009
