Richard Keyt, Author at KEYTLaw's Blog

About Richard Keyt

This author has not yet filled in any details.
So far Richard Keyt has created 75 blog entries.

Phoenix Deficit $242 Million Not Counting $300 Million Owed for Expansion of $600 Million Convention Center

Phoenix is $242 million in the red, but that number does not include the $300 million it owes on the $600 million new and expanded Phoenix Convention Center. Arizona Republic: “City Manager David Cavazos proposed shutting down senior centers, libraries and sports complexes, and laying off hundreds of police officers and firefighters for the first time in decades. . . . Cavazos’ proposal would eliminate 1,379 of the city’s 16,000 positions . . . . The Police Department would lose about 353 sworn positions, from patrol officers to assistant chiefs. The Fire Department would cut 144 sworn jobs.”

In a shocking story in today’s Arizona Republic we learn that Phoenix’ new $600 million convention center is a very expensive money pit. The Republic story says:

The center has been forced to cut its own operating budget, its revenue is falling and it is soon expected to struggle to make payments on its construction debt. . . . the center is struggling, largely because of the structure of its funding system. It relies mostly on a certain portion of city sales taxes, which includes a part of the hotel bed tax but comes largely from purchases involved in construction. Those tax revenues plummeted amid the economic slump. . . . City taxes provide 80 percent of the convention center’s revenue. Receipts from the taxes that fund the center are falling and are expected to generate $34.8 million this fiscal year, 30 percent less than previous projections. . . . The center is having trouble paying the $14.9 million annual payment on its $300 million city debt. The city and the state split the original $600 million cost. . . . Just 20 percent of the convention center’s operations budget is funded by income from conventions, such as rental fees.

Yikes! The center only generates 20% of the money needed to operate it and that number does not include the annual debt service on the $300 million! The Republic article did not say how much money is needed to operate the convention center each year. What happens if the city cannot make the payments on the construction debt? Will the near bankrupt State of Arizona pick up the tab? This is what happens when government spends money it does not have. Maybe the City of Phoenix should follow the lead of the State of Arizona and sell some of its assets to get the money to pay its deficits and keep the new convention center. I am sure Phoenix could sell the light rail system that has exceeded rider projections for a lot more than the $1.4 billion cost of the system. Surely the value of the Phoenix light rail has increased since its completion.

Two Men Who Lied About Earning Military Medals are Charged with Felonies

New York Times: “Courts to decide whether First Amendment protects lies about being a war hero. The federal courts are wrestling with a question of liberty and patriotism: Does the First Amendment right to free speech protect people who lie about being war heroes? At issue is the Stolen Valor Act, a three-year-old federal law that makes it a crime punishable by up to a year in jail to lie about receiving a U.S. military medal. It is a crime even if the liar makes no effort to profit from his stolen glory. . . . One of the men challenging the law is Xavier Alvarez of Pomona, Calif. He had just been elected to a water district board in 2007 when he said at a public meeting that he was a retired Marine who received the Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest military decoration.”

The audacity of a dope! The scuzz-ball’s defense is “I should be able to lie about winning the highest medal for valor given by the United States because the First Amendment protects my right to lie.” The guy claimed he was in the Marines, but never served. Another case involves a man named Rick Strandlof who claimed he was a Captain in the Marines who was got a Purple Heart and a Silver Star for action in Iraq. This guy didn’t stop at just telling the lies. He used the lies to help create the Colorado Veterans Alliance and get donors to give money to the organization. Do we really want to let people lie about earning military medals that our military heroes earn with the blood and lives?

The reason Congress passed the Stolen Valor Act was to try to stem the growing tide of people who lie about military service and earning medals. I am particularly sensitive about this problem because I spent six years in the United States Air Force, including five years flying the F-4 Phantom supersonic fighter-bomber and combat missions in Vietnam in 1972. A great book that details hundreds of these types of cases is “Stolen Valor” by B.G. Burkett and Glenna Whitley, which I recommend. The book jacket says:

B.G. Burkett, in over ten years of research in the National Archives, filing hundreds of requests for military documents under the Freedom of Information Act, uncovered a massive distortion of history, a distortion that has cost the U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars. Mr. Burkett’s work has toppled national political leaders and put criminals in jail. The authors show killers who have fooled the most astute prosecutors and gotten away with murder, phony heroes who have become the object of award-winning documentaries on national network television, and liars and fabricators who have flooded major publishing houses with false tales of heroism which have become best-selling biographies. Not only do Burkett and Whitley show the price of the myth has been enormous for society, but they spotlight how it has severely denigrated the service, patriotism and gallantry of the best warriors America ever produced.

Virginia Senator and former Secretary of the Navy James Webb said, “Stolen Valor is a tough, courageous book . . . . Its central thesis should make American mainstream media cringe in the shame from their decades of negligence and collusion in this defamation of those who served with honor.”

Joseph L. Galloway, Co-author of “We Were Soldiers Once . . . and Young” said, “Stolen Valor exposes more fraud than the Justice Department. Every veteran who served honorably owes Burkett a debt of gratitude.”

Guenter Lewy, author of America in Vietnam and Professor Emeritus, University of Massachusetts/Amherst, said “Stolen Valor is required reading for everyone interested in historical truth rather than lie and myth. I recommend it highly.

Malcolm McConnell, author of Inside Hanoi’s Secret Archives” said, “Stolen Valor, compelling and authoritative . . . Every American searching for the true history of that long war and its continuing aftermath will find it a compelling work.”

U.S. Department of Justice Seeks to Hire Mentally Retarded Trial Lawyers for Voting Division

From the United States is doomed department. There is evidence of hope and change at the United States Department of Justice today. The U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, is seeking up to 10 experienced attorneys for the position of Trial Attorney in the Voting Section in Washington, D.C. These attorneys will be responsible for enforcing the voting laws of the United States. The ad states:

The Civil Rights Division encourages qualified applicants with targeted disabilities to apply. Targeted disabilities are deafness, blindness, missing extremities, partial or complete paralysis, convulsive disorder, mental retardation, mental illness, severe distortion of limbs and/or spine.

In case the DOJ idiots realize that maybe mentally retarded lawyers trying voting rights cases might give the other side a distinct advantage and cause the idiots to remove the online ad, you can find a pdf copy of it here on my website. The text below is taken from the online ad for trial lawyers at the DOJ. Note the duties that the trial lawyers must perform. I submit that the requirements of the job may be over the heads of most mentally retarded trial lawyers. Note: I recognize that there are people who would say that all lawyers are retarded.

The Civil Rights Division is primarily responsible for enforcing federal statutes and executive orders that prohibit, among other things, unlawful discrimination in voting, education, employment, housing, police services, public accommodations and facilities, and federally funded and conducted programs. The Voting Section enforces federal statutes designed to safeguard the right to vote. These statutes include the Voting Rights Act, as amended; the National Voter Registration Act; the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act; and the Help America Vote Act. Trial attorneys are responsible for conducting investigations, litigation, and other activities addressing all aspects of the Voting Section’s enforcement duties. These positions may require extended hours and some positions may involve significant travel.

The core duties of Trial Attorneys in the Voting Section are: conducting investigations to assess alleged violations of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and other voting statutes enforced by the Section, including reviewing investigative files, materials and records, and applying relevant case law, interviewing witnesses, requesting additional information and documents, analyzing data and evidence, and drafting written recommendations for further investigation and/or enforcement litigation; developing cases for trial, including conducting written discovery and depositions, developing litigation and trial strategy, drafting complaints, motions and other court filings, representing the United States in federal court at arguments, evidentiary hearings and trial; negotiating settlement agreements and/or consent decrees resolving enforcement matters; assisting in coordinating the federal observer program during elections; and assisting in the administrative review of voting changes submitted pursuant to the preclearance requirements of the VRA. The complexity of the matters assigned, and the level of supervision required, varies depending on the Trial Attorney’s years of specialized experience.

REQUIRED QUALIFICATIONS:

Applicants must possess a J.D. degree, be an active member of the bar in good standing (any jurisdiction), and have a minimum of three (3) years post-J.D. experience. Applicants must have substantial litigation experience, such as handling discovery, litigation strategy, motions practice, brief writing, interviewing witnesses, taking and defending depositions, trial preparation, trial practice, and negotiations. Applicants must have excellent interpersonal skills, be mature and self sufficient, communicate effectively orally and in writing, and possess excellent professional judgment.

PREFERRED QUALIFICATIONS:

In addition, the following qualifications are preferred: (1) substantive knowledge of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and other statutes enforced by the section; (2) familiarity with the various analytical approaches utilized to review voting changes under Section 5 of the VRA; (3) experience investigating and/or litigating voting rights or civil rights cases; (4) federal judicial experience; (5) experience serving as the lead attorney in federal court cases; (6) familiarity with statistical methodologies used in civil rights cases; (6) and fluency in Spanish, Chinese, Korean, or vietnamese languages.

The Civil Rights Division encourages qualified applicants with targeted disabilities to apply. Targeted disabilities are deafness, blindness, missing extremities, partial or complete paralysis, convulsive disorder, mental retardation, mental illness, severe distortion of limbs and/or spine.

Government Lunacy: New York Pays Teacher $100,000 a Year to Sit in Room and Do Nothing

It’s easy to see why New York City has a $4 billion deficit. New York City bureaucrats are idiots. Years ago the teachers’ union negotiated a deal with the NY Department of Education where teachers who were fired were not actually fired, but sent to the “rubber room” to sit for 7 hours a day for years while receiving full pay and benefits for doing nothing. Although the teachers were found unfit to teach, they continued on the payroll indefinitely. No sane person/government/business would ever agree to such a stupid scheme, but the DOE did. This is what happens when government spends taxpayers’ money, i.e., government doesn’t care about the cost of anything because IT’S NOT SPENDING IT”S MONEY! It’s spending our money.

New York Post: “Easy money for millionaire exile. A Queens teacher who collects a $100,000 salary for doing nothing spends time in a Department of Education ‘rubber room’ working on his law practice and managing 12 real-estate properties worth an estimated $7.8 million, The Post found. Alan Rosenfeld hasn’t set foot in a classroom for nearly a decade since he was accused in 2001 of making lewd comments to junior-high girls and “staring at their butts,” yet the department still pays him handsomely for sitting on his own butt seven hours a day. . . . Rosenfeld simply collects his $100,049 salary — top scale for teachers — plus full health benefits and the promise of a fat pension, about $82,000 a year if he were to retire today.”

Arizona Secretary of State Ignores Arizona Law & Refuses to Advance into the 21st Century

Earlier this week I submitted a Certificate of Limited Partnership to the Arizona Secretary of State for filing. The document contained a photocopy of the general partner’s signature. It did not have an original signature. The Arizona Secretary of State rejected the document because it claims “all applications for Limited Partnerships . . . must be an original signature.” I called the Secretary of State’s office and asked why the Arizona Secretary of State requires an original signature. The first response was “because that’s always been our requirement.” I asked to speak to a supervisor.

The next day Joann Cota of the Secretary of State’s management team

[(602) 542-6187] called and reiterated that a Certificate of Limited Partnership must have the original signature of the signer and that a photocopy is not acceptable. I asked why the Arizona Secretary of State would not accept a photocopy of a signature and she said, “that’s the way we have always done it.” At first she said an original signature was needed on the Certificate of Limited Partnership because it was a contract. I told her that the document was not a contract and even if it was, Arizona law recognizes and enforces contracts with photocopied signatures. I also pointed out to her that the Arizona Corporation Commission does not require original signatures on any document related to forming Arizona corporations and limited liability companies, but Ms. Cota said the Arizona Secretary of State didn’t care what the ACC does because the ASS has its own rules. I asked Ms. Cota if the position of the Arizona Secretary of State was based on Arizona law, but she could not give me a statute on point.

I asked Ms. Cota if the Arizona Secretary of State had an in house state lawyer who advised the Arizona Secretary of State with respect to complying with Arizona law. She said no, the Arizona Secretary of State uses the Arizona Attorney General, but no specific attorney. I was surprised to hear that the Arizona Secretary of State did not have an in house lawyer. Maybe that is one reason the Arizona Secretary of State is unaware of Arizona statutory law applicable to forming Arizona limited partnerships.

Arizona law requires that Arizona limited partnerships file a Certificate of Limited Partnership with the Arizona Secretary of State to form the partnership. Arizona Revised Statues Section 29-308.A states:

In order to form a limited partnership a certificate of limited partnership shall be executed and filed in the office of the secretary of state. The certificate shall set forth all of the following:

The name of the limited partnership.

The address of the office and the name and address of the agent for service of process required to be maintained by section 29-304.

The name and the business address of each general partner.

The latest date, if any, on which the limited partnership must dissolve.

Any other matters the general partners determine to include therein.

Note the statute does not say that the Certificate of Limited Partnership must contain “an original signature.” The original signature requirement has been invented by the Arizona Secretary of State. The word “executed is not defined in Arizona Revised Statutes Section 29-301, the statute that contains definitions applicable to Arizona LPs.

Arizona Revised Statues Section 29-311.A states: “Each certificate required by this article to be filed in the office of the secretary of state shall be executed in the following manner: . . . An original certificate of limited partnership shall be signed by all general partners.” This statute refers to “an original certificate,” whatever that is. Note that this statues DOES NOT say that the signature of the general partners MUST be an “ORIGINAL” signature. If the Arizona legislature had wanted the Arizona Secretary of State to require “original signatures” on the Certificate of Limited Partnership, it would have included that word in the statute. The Arizona Secretary of State has simply made up the requirement that certificates of limited partnerships must have original signatures of the general partners.

It gets worse. The Arizona Secretary of State is blatantly and intentionally violating clearly stated Arizona law. Arizona Revised Statutes Section 29-313.A states:

Two signed copies of the certificate of limited partnership . . . shall be delivered to the secretary of state.

The public is directed by this statute to deliver TWO SIGNED COPIES of the certificate to the Arizona Secretary of State. It is not possible for a document with original signatures to be a copy. A copy by definition cannot be an original. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “copy” as: (i) “an imitation, transcript, or reproduction of an original work,” or (ii) “one of a series of especially mechanical reproductions of an original impression.” The public must make two copies of the certificate with the original signature on it and deliver the two copies to the Arizona Corporation Commission for filing. Arizona law could not be clearer. I asked Ms. Cota how the Arizona Secretary of State could ignore Section 29-313.A’s express statement that the public must deliver copies of the certificate to the Arizona Secretary of State. She said because the statute does not say “photo” copy. Huh? Sorry, but you lost me Ms. Cota.

The Arizona Secretary of State is stuck in the early 20th century. The Arizona Secretary of State willfully ignores the clear and express Arizona law set forth in Section 29-313.A. The most troubling aspect of my encounter with the Arizona Secretary of State’s office is that the Arizona Secretary of State simply is not interested in helping the citizens of the State of Arizona. It’s an old school government bureaucracy that sets arbitrary rules and could care less about the affect of its rules on the public.

Contrast the Arizona Secretary of State’s office with the Arizona Corporation Commission. The vast majority of entities formed in Arizona are formed with the Arizona Corporation Commission. The Arizona Corporation Commission accepts signatures on documents that are photocopies, other types of copies and faxed copies. The ACC understands we are in the 21st century and that there have been advances in technology that require it to change old ways of doing business. Also, my experience with the Arizona Corporation Commission is that it is very much interested in helping the public. Many times the staff of the Arizona Corporation Commission has gone out of its way to help me and my clients. Unlike the Arizona Secretary of State, the Arizona Corporation Commission wants to serve the public, not create problems for the public.

The Arizona Corporation Commission does have an in house lawyer named Patricia Barfield who talks to the public about legal issues affecting the Arizona Corporation Commission and its job of regulating Arizona corporations and limited liability companies. Ms. Barfield advises the Arizona Corporation Commission with respect to Arizona law. Recently the Arizona Corporation Commission announced that Articles of Organization for an Arizona limited liability company could not list a husband and wife as Homer Simpson and Marge Simpson, 2424 Linger Lane, Springfield, IL, but instead must list them as: Homer Simpson, 2424 Linger Lane, Springfield, IL, and Marge Simpson, 2424 Linger Lane, Springfield, IL. I asked Ms. Barfield if Arizona law required the change. She contemplated the issue for a few weeks then sent an email to me and others that said the Arizona Corporation Commission reversed its opinion and that the public could list members of an LLC in the Articles of Organization however it desired. Bottom line was Arizona statutes did not require the change and the Arizona Corporation Commission’s counsel recognized that fact.

Previous 1415