breach of fiduciary duty

Scumbag Aunt ripped off my Grandma for years, I put my nose in her business and had the IRS financially ruin her.

This is going to be long, so TL; DR; Aunt screwed over my Grandma for years, I put my nose in her business, got parents wise on the fraud and eventually reported her to the IRS. The long dick of the IRS bankrupted her and her husband and now they are destitute and too old to work. 


This happened about 5 years ago. My Grandma was getting old, late 80s/early 90s. She had one wish, to not die in a senior home. Easily done as my Grandpa sold some assets way back when, then invested the money and let it ride for 30+ years; he never touched it and collected a pension.

Way back when my Grandpa died, (about 10 years before this), my Grandma appointed my dad, this shitty aunt and my uncle as the Trustees of the trust. Basically the trusted advisors for her and her care for the foreseeable future. All was well in the beginning, then my dad (Willy) moved further away and couldn’t take care of the day to day upkeep as the Trustee and to see that my grandma was ok. My aunt (Rebecca) told her that she and my uncle (Fred, who lived in Arizona) could take over and all would be fine. It was fine for a while.

Keep reading

“Who the hell are you?”

“Headquarters sent me to assist you.”

“Headquarters knows I work alone.”

“I’m not here as your operational partner, ma’am. I’m here as your legal advisor.”

“My legal advisor?“

“Ma’am, do you realise you unnecessarily violated over fifty local, state and international statutes in the course of your most recent operation?”

“They’ve seriously sent you to –“

“Among other things: kidnapping, grand larceny, aggravated assault –“

“Now hold on just a –”

“– public indecency, unlicensed operation of heavy machinery, desecration of a protected cultural heritage site –“

“Desecration of a what?“

“– contributing to the delinquency of a minor, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of the Endangered Species Act.“

“… that bird had it coming.”

“Mm.”

2

Jailed Cowboys fan suing NFL for $88 billion over reversed call 

A man who is jailed in a Colorado correctional facility filed a lawsuit against NFL officials seeking over $88 billion in damages because of an overturned call.

Terry Hendrix, who we assume is a very dedicated Dallas Cowboys fan, is seeking $88,987,654,321.88 from the NFL in the wake of the controversial replay reversal in the Cowboys’ NFC divisional round loss to the Green Bay Packers.

He names NFL Vice President of Officiating Dean Blandino, referee Gene Steratore and Commissioner Roger Goodell by name in his suit.

In the handwritten lawsuit filed Wednesday, Hendrix asks for the astronomical sum of money “for but not limited to: negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and also reckless disregard.”

Cowboys wide receiver Dez Bryant made what was first ruled a catch on a fourth down pass down the sideline.

After Packers head coach Mike McCarthy challenged the call, it was ruled that Bryant didn’t complete “the process” of a catch.

Reaction to the play and the ambiguous rule primarily followed the “bad rule, good call” narrative. Hendrix believes his team and its fans were cheated.

He calls the video review and reversal a “fraud” and a “gross negligence” that caused “true injury” to the Dallas Cowboys.

Had the pivotal play late in the Jan. 11 game been ruled a catch, Hendrix believes the Cowboys would’ve been in position to secure a win and advance to the NFC Championship.

“Dean Blandino, Gene Steratore, and Roger Goodell are wrong and have stolen a victory from the plaintiffs,” Hendrix wrote in the lawsuit. “The Cowboys’ offensive line would have perfectly created an ‘Autobahn’ for DeMarco Murray to drive into the endzone for the score and victory.”

Hendrix presumably arrived at the figure close to $89 billion because of Bryant’s jersey number — 88. The desired sum begins and ends with the number, and Hendrix refers to the Cowboys’ star wideout as “Dez Bryant #88″ numerous times in the lawsuit.

Hendrix, an inmate at Fremont Correctional Facility in Cañon City, Colorado, states that he appears as counsel for “Dez Bryant, all Dallas Cowboys fans and all people in or from the sovereign republic of Texas.”

The suit seeks permission to move before court within 35 days.

In conjunction with the suit, Hendrix filed an application to continue with the case without paying the court fees.

 

anonymous asked:

A lot of gamers see game publishers as a single, evil entity, the attitude that has annoyed me a lot, especially when combined with eliticism from self-proclaimed 'indie fans' and 'PC master race'. I am wondering about the actual, general opinion that developers have on publishers that are funding their projects. It doesn't have to be a complete answer; it could be a general and abstract, it could be a few isolated case.

A lot of gamers see the publisher as a scapegoat - somebody convenient to pin all the blame on for all the things they dislike about a game. It’s especially evident when they talk about a development studio and game series that they clearly like - they don’t want to insult the developers because they like the game, but they have all these frustrations with it that they can’t abide, so they put the blame on the publisher instead. I see it all the time, especially with the bigger publishers like Electronic Arts and their internal studios like Bioware. It’s rather amusing to me, because the community will slag the publisher for a decision made by the developers, praise the developers for a decision made at the corporate level, or just complain about things that are simply out of our hands collectively thanks to licensing/legal issues.

Keep reading

Respecting Privacy, Safeguarding Data and Enabling Trust


Michelle Dennedy | January 28, 2016 at 6:00 am PST

Data Privacy Day is January 28, and this year’s theme examines issues around respecting privacy, protecting data and enabling trust. Today more than ever, any global company is a digitized company, which means that every company is grappling with challenges around privacy, security and trust. As a result, these challenges are no longer an IT-only responsibility and now must be addressed by everyone: vendor, customer, partner, board member and end-user alike.

While many security and privacy trends facing global companies today may appear to start out as local, some quickly become global. As many industry observers know, a significant number of these trends are starting in Europe.

For example, the Global Data Protection Regulation announced in October 2015 is one of the biggest legal developments in data privacy and security in the past 20 years. While the law still has to go through the parliamentary process in Europe, it is expected to be a game changer for how privacy is protected legally worldwide. This law is introducing new notions about how both citizens think about their data and how companies are obligated to protect it.

When the first laws around electronic data protection and privacy were passed back in 1995, the Internet was not nearly the backbone of economy as it is today. We need laws today that reflect the way data is shared online now. This new law will set the tone for many debates going forward on data privacy, such as the hotly-contested “right to be forgotten.” The industry is waiting to see what the impact of these regulations will be on the global economy at large.

One of the first places where this will have an initial major impact is in the boardroom. The Europeans are now treating data privacy violations as they do breaches of fiduciary duty; that is, as a fineable offense. This means compliance is now a factor to consider, and companies have fiduciary care of data that is subject to compliance and fines. Companies are now obligated to look beyond privacy engineering from a strict security perspective, and beginning instead to explore what it means to transfer information across borders, to have geofencing or to operate in an environment where you’re crossing borders and cultures. In fact, in most parts of the world, privacy is considered a human right as well as its emergent role as a distinct asset class.

Since these regulations are likely to influence laws and standards across the world, it will benefit global companies to begin to figure out how to protect data privacy within their own digitized environments. To get started, it’s helpful to keep in mind that there is a significant, if non-intuitive, difference between security and privacy. It’s easy to conflate privacy with security, but they are in reality complementary fields.

In a nutshell, security is the how, privacy is the why.

Of course, two complex fields such as privacy and security are difficult to distill into simply “how” and “why,” since issues like resiliency, context, content and transparency also come into play. Privacy is thinking about why data should be protected in the way that it is, what data is being sent to which locations throughout the network, whether you should be collecting that data in the first place, who should be able to access it and who should have the ability to destroy it. The privacy person knows that if the company is making a brand promise, then the data needs to be managed and protected in a certain way.

Here at Cisco, we are working to demonstrate verifiable trust through the following methods:

  • The how of security
  • The what of intellectual property
  • Quality information
  • Integrity of data
  • Purity of process
  • Efficiency of data flow

If you’re looking at things from an Internet of Everything perspective, trust is the opportunity to empower the end user to do everything he or she wants to around technology, and still be able to trust that data is being protected and secured. Together, Cisco is working to give our customers the tools they need to excel in today’s digitized economy.

flamma-man  asked:

Aren't VALVe pretty much self sustaining due to Steam and for many of the same reasons as Blizzard? In addition, they don't have to worry about shareholders hounding them about delaying their releases. Or is there more to it?

It really isn’t the same with Valve unless you mean “both get huge amounts of money from something they made”. Unlike Blizzard’s extremely zealous brand management, Valve has no problems trying out new things. If you look at their track record from the past 7 years, you’ll see them adding in (or purchasing) new IPs and gameplay on a pretty regular basis (some of which are hits, some of which aren’t):

  • Portal (2007)
  • Left 4 Dead (2008)
  • Alien Swarm (2010)
  • Dota (2013)

In addition, they also have branched out in other directions - Steam Greenlight, Steam Early Access, the Steam Box, and so on and so forth. Remember, Blizzard gets by with it’s extremely zealous brand management. They are super careful about what they put out with their name on it. Valve, on the other hand, isn’t like that. They’ll try new things and if they don’t work out, it’s ok. They’ll try something else instead. Blizzard doesn’t do this - they are very careful to tightly control their brands and leverage them. So why is Valve the other exception to the rule?

Keep reading