Friday, November 15, 2019

Yamiche Alcindor Reports On Roger Stone Wikileaks Conviction For Bearing False Witness To Congress

Yamiche Alcindor breaks all the hottest, exclusive news.

Trump associate Roger Stone found guilty of lies that protected Trump

WASHINGTON, DC - NOVEMBER 15: Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch acknowledges audience from members of the public in the audience as she concludes her testimony before the House Intelligence Committee in the Longworth House Office Building on Capitol Hill November 15, 2019 in Washington, DC. In the second impeachment hearing held by the committee, House Democrats continue to build a case against U.S. President Donald Trump's efforts to link U.S. military aid for Ukraine to the nation's investigation of his political rivals.  (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Impeachment hearing ends with fireworks and applause

Trump doubles down on tweets attacking witness
Roger Stone, former adviser to President Donald Trump, holds a bible as he arrives at the E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse, on November 15, 2019 in Washington, DC.
Trump associate Roger Stone found guilty on all counts

Former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch testifies before the House Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, Nov. 15, 2019, during the second public impeachment hearing of President Donald Trump's efforts to tie U.S. aid for Ukraine to investigations of his political opponents. 

Yovanovitch: Trump's attacks are 'very intimidating'
(CNN)Longtime Trump political adviser Roger Stone was found guilty on Friday of lying to and obstructing Congress in a case that has shed new light on President Donald Trump's anticipation of the release of stolen Democratic emails in 2016 by WikiLeaks.

Stone, a political operative and Trump's friend, was found guilty of all seven counts brought by the Justice Department, a victory for special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation. Stone was found guilty of five counts of lying to Congress, one of witness tampering and one of obstructing a congressional committee proceeding. Among other things, he misled Congress about his communications with Trump campaign officials in 2016, the jury unanimously decided.

What Roger Stone's trial revealed about Trump and Mueller
The verdict out of Washington marks a stunning conclusion to one of the highest-profile prosecutions to emerge from the Mueller investigation -- a case that began with one of Trump's most vocal supporters arrested during a predawn raid as the special counsel's investigation wound down and since then has gradually revealed new information about the Trump campaign's positive reception to foreign interference in the 2016 US election.

Stone had no audible reaction as the courtroom deputy read the jury's verdict, but he slouched, standing, with a frown. His movements were slow and deliberate as he took a sip of water while each juror stated their position, confirming their unanimous decision, then hung behind in the corner of the courtroom, rarely speaking to others as attorneys and onlookers filed out.

His wife, too, simply looked straight ahead, though a friend of Stone's, Michael Caputo, turned his back to the jurors when all in the courtroom stood to watch them leave. As those in the courtroom dispersed, Stone kissed his wife on the cheek.

Thirty minutes after the jury delivered its verdict, Trump tweeted about his displeasure with it.
"So they now convict Roger Stone of lying and want to jail him for many years to come. Well, what about Crooked Hillary, Comey, Strzok, Page, McCabe, Brennan, Clapper, Shifty Schiff, Ohr & Nellie, Steele & all of the others, including even Mueller himself? Didn't they lie?" the President wrote on Twitter, citing his political foes who either worked on or contributed information to the Russia investigation. "... A double standard like never seen before in the history of our Country?"
Prosecutors asked the judge to take Stone into custody immediately, but she declined. After considering that he may have communicated with right-wing commentator Alex Jones this week -- potentially violating a gag order on his case that prevents him from speaking about it -- Judge Amy Berman Jackson said she would keep a gag order on him as he awaits sentencing. He may return home to Florida, and his sentencing is set for February 6.

Stone potentially faces prison time, but his sentence will be entirely up to the judge. For the most serious of his crimes, witness tampering, he faces a maximum sentence of 20 years.

"He has been here for every court appearance. I have no reason to believe" he won't come to his next appearance, Jackson said Friday.

After leaving the courthouse and arriving where he's been staying in Washington, Stone told CNN, "No comment," when asked if he would seek a pardon from the President.
In recent months, Trump has weighed pardoning Stone if he was convicted, multiple people familiar with his thinking say.

Several of Stone's allies have lobbied the President to do so, but multiple people also have advised the President that doing so would be a terrible idea politically and have cautioned against it, people familiar with the situation have told CNN.

These discussions were happening while a conviction was still hypothetical. Now that a federal jury has convicted Stone, it's not clear where the President stands.

The charges
According to prosecutors, Stone lied during testimony and failed to turn over documents to Congress in 2017 showing he had sought to reach WikiLeaks the previous year. He lied about five facts, obscuring his attempt to use intermediaries to get information that could help then-candidate Trump in the election against Hillary Clinton.

WikiLeaks had released emails in July 2016 that the Russians had hacked from Democratic Party servers, and followed up with drops of emails stolen from the Clinton campaign's chairman in October 2016, continuing until Election Day.

Stone's trial at a federal courthouse in Washington revealed the extent to which the longtime Trump friend was directly in touch with Trump and other campaign officials about Wikileaks' 2016 release of hacked Democratic emails.

When the House had asked Stone in September 2017 if he had discussed WikiLeaks, its founder Julian Assange or the Democratic hack with the Trump campaign, Stone had denied it under oath , saying his legal team "found nothing" of those types of communications.

Prosecutors argued that witness testimony, along with Stone's texts, emails and phone records, showed Stone's interest in reaching WikiLeaks about the hacked documents it had and speaking to the Trump campaign and even Trump himself about it. Prosecutors said Stone had lied to Congress out of a desire to protect Trump.

"It would look really bad for his longtime associate Donald Trump" if the truth had come out, prosecutor Jonathan Kravis had said in his closing argument on Wednesday.

Stone's defense team countered that Stone didn't have a motive to protect Trump when he testified to the House in 2017, because Trump already had won the election and become President.

Witnesses in the trial included a cast of Trump-world characters like former White House strategist Steve Bannon and former Trump campaign deputy chairman Rick Gates, a key cooperator in Mueller's investigation. Both emphasized the campaign's interest in hacks and leaks dating back to April 2016.

During the trial, prosecutors revealed several phone calls between Trump and Stone, including a July 2016 conversation in which, Gates testified, Trump and Stone spoke about the planned release of hacked Democratic emails.

In his written answers to Mueller, Trump said he didn't recall his conversations with Stone, nor discussions about WikiLeaks and the Democratic hack.

Prosecutors argued that Stone's alleged failure to tell Congress about the attempts to reach WikiLeaks left the House Intelligence Committee with a blind spot in its investigation -- causing the committee's final report on Russian interference in the election to be inaccurate.
Stone threatening his once-friend Randy Credico, a comedian and radio host, compounded problems for the House, prosecutors argued.

Stone had told the House that he had an intermediary, whom he later identified as Credico, trying to reach Assange during the campaign. But prosecutors alleged another man had sought to get to Assange on behalf of Stone and the campaign, making Stone's claims about Credico false.

When Credico was called before Congress following Stone's testimony, Stone sent him emails and texts directing him to lie or to refrain from sharing the truth. Credico warned him that Stone may have perjured himself already, but Stone persisted, quoting over and over again lines from the film "The Godfather: Part II," referring to a character who is pressured by the Mafia family to lie to Congress.

Inside the courthouse
The trial got off a chaotic start on November 5 -- Stone missed some of the jury selection because he felt ill -- and brought out a memorable cast of characters both as witnesses and in the audience of the courtroom. At times, the proceedings drew laughs from the courtroom, with Credico even offering to do celebrity impressions in the witness box. But as the trial went on, the mood became more somber. By Friday morning, the second day of jury deliberations, Stone carried a Bible with him into the courthouse.

Stone's wife, Nydia Bertran Stone, was by his side throughout the trial, along with a cadre of supporters, including some who have identified themselves as part of the Proud Boys, a far-right group, and a man dressed in floor-length black-and-white robes who Stone described as his "spiritual adviser" and who led Stone's wife and others in prayer.

Prosecutors hit a stirring, philosophical note just before sending the case to the jury, making a broad appeal for the truth in the final words of their closing argument. Prosecutor Michael Marando had latched onto a phrase used in the defense's closing argument, "So what?"

"So what? ... Well, if that's the state of affairs that we're in, I'm pretty shocked. Truth matters. Truth still matters, OK?" Marando said to the jury.

"I know we live in a world nowadays with Twitter, tweets, social media, where you can find any view, any political view you want. ... However, in our institutions of self-governance, courts of law or committee hearings, where people under oath have to testify, truth still matters," he added, before asking for the jury to find Stone guilty.

The jury of nine women and three men, including a former congressional candidate and a federal government lawyer, deliberated over two days. During their almost nine hours discussing Stone's charges, the jury asked the judge questions that indicated a close reading of prosecutors' wording of the charges. At 11:11 a.m. Friday, the jury wrote to the judge: "WE HAVE REACHED A VERDICT."
Stone had been arrested last January in a predawn raid at his home in Florida by armed federal agents, caught exclusively on camera by CNN. That kicked off weeks of Stone's attempts to draw support, especially on social media. But he crossed a line by posting on Instagram a photo of the judge with crosshairs behind her head -- and Jackson then limited his ability to speak publicly about the case.

Jackson oversaw the weeklong trial in Washington's federal district court, cementing her status as one of the most significant arbiters over Mueller's work. She previously sentenced Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort to a years-long prison term following his guilty plea in the Mueller investigation, and is set to sentence Gates on December 17.

Trump campaign and WikiLeaks
Gates' testimony in Stone's trial was an especially telling reminder of Mueller's finding that the Trump campaign had welcomed the release of hacked documents that could help them in the 2016 election.

Gates testified he had witnessed Trump take an evening phone call from Stone as they rode to New York's LaGuardia Airport from Trump Tower in late July 2016. Stone and Trump apparently discussed WikiLeaks' planned release of hacked Democratic emails.

"After Mr. Trump got off the phone with Mr. Stone, what did Mr. Trump say?" prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky asked Gates on Tuesday. "He indicated more information would be coming," Gates responded.

The call happened days after WikiLeaks' first release on July 22, 2016, of emails the Russian military had allegedly hacked from the Democratic National Committee.

Gates said WikiLeaks' announcement that it had pending information on then-presidential candidate Clinton was a "gift."

"It was in a way a gift that we had not sought," said Gates. "There were a number of us who felt it would give our campaign a leg up."

Bannon, another high-profile witness, testified that he and the Trump campaign viewed Stone as an "access point" to WikiLeaks.

Credico spent the longest time in the witness box during the trial.

He wasn't in court to hear the verdict but told CNN afterward that he was "stunned," "shell-shocked" and "not rejoicing."

"The whole thing is depressing. It started out as a fender bender that turned into a 21-car, tractor-trailer pileup," Credico said.

"It's a sad, man-made tragedy that could have been avoided."

 Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Another Example Of How To File A Child Welfare Grievance With ADA Resolution

If you have an issue, file a complaint with in the proper venue, bearing witness in your name, as verification of a claim, and not on social media.

Get Off Facebook And Engage Stakeholders: A Response To Legally Kidnapped

How to File an Americans with Disabilities Act Complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice

OMB Control No. 1190-0009. Form Expiration Date: September 30, 2021
You can file an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) complaint alleging disability discrimination against a State or local government or a public accommodation (private business including, for example, a restaurant, doctor's office, retail store, hotel, etc.). A complaint can be filed online using the link below, by mail, or by facsimile.
To file an ADA complaint online:
Americans with Disabilities Act Discrimination Online Complaint Form
Instructions for submitting attachments are on the form.
To file an ADA complaint by mail, send the completed ADA complaint form to:
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Civil Rights Division
Disability Rights Section
Washington, D.C. 20530
To file an ADA complaint by facsimile, fax the completed ADA complaint form to: (202) 307-1197
Please keep a copy of your complaint and the original documents for your own records.

The United States has entered into an agreement with a national daycare provider to resolve an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) lawsuit. In the lawsuit, the United States alleged that Spring Education Inc. (SEI), formerly known as Nobel Learning Communities Inc., discriminated against a 3-year-old child and her parents in violation of the ADA by refusing to make reasonable modifications to its toileting policy and then expelling the child on the basis of her disability. The child had toileting delays resulting from her disability.

Civil Action No. 17-366 (NLH) (JS)


    1. This Agreement is entered into by the United States of America and Nobel Learning Communities, Inc., n/k/a Spring Education, Inc. d/b/a Chesterbrook Academy (“SEI”).1
    2. The United States is authorized to investigate alleged violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-89, and to bring a civil action in federal court in any case that raises an issue of general public importance. 42 U.S.C. § 12188(b).  
    3. Title III of the ADA prohibits a public accommodation from discriminating against an individual on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of its goods and services.  42 U.S.C. § 12182(a); 28 C.F.R. § 36.201.  
    4. SEI is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Pennsylvania, which operates a network of private schools in 18 states and the District of Columbia.  SEI is a public accommodation subject to the requirements of Title III of the ADA because it owns and operates a place of public accommodation.  28 C.F.R.
      § 36.104.
    5. M.M., a minor, and her parents lodged a complaint with the United States Department of Justice alleging that SEI’s Chesterbrook Academy in Moorestown, New Jersey, discriminated against M.M. and her parents when it disenrolled M.M. in March of 2015 on the basis of disability. Specifically, M.M.’s parents alleged that SEI disenrolled M.M. based on M.M.’s failure to meet a certain deadline by which M.M. would have to be toilet-trained.
    6. On January 18, 2017, the United States filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that SEI violated Title III of the ADA, and its implementing regulation, 28 C.F.R Part 36.  In its Complaint, the United States alleged that SEI: 1) failed to make reasonable modifications to its policies, practices, or procedures for M.M.; 2) disenrolled M.M. due to M.M.’s disability; and 3) excluded or otherwise denied equal goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations, or other opportunities to M.M.’s parents because of the known disability of M.M.
    7. On November 2, 2017, SEI answered the Complaint, denied the United States’ allegations that it violated the ADA, and asserted affirmative defenses. The United States and SEI agree that it is in the Parties’ best interests, and the United States believes it is in the public interest, to fully and finally resolve this matter on mutually agreeable terms and without resorting to continued litigation.  The Parties agree that by entering into this Agreement, SEI does not admit any allegation made by the United States; nor does SEI admit liability, wrongdoing, or violation of the ADA or any other statute, regulation, or provision of the United States Constitution, or any state constitution or law.  The Parties have therefore voluntarily entered into this Agreement, agreeing as follows:
    1. Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date (as defined by Para. 20, below) of this Agreement, SEI will add a statement to its current Non-Discrimination Policy that states: “At all SEI facilities where diaper changing or toileting assistance is provided, SEI will provide toileting assistance, including diaper changing, for a child with a disability 2 where such assistance is necessary because of disability, unless SEI can demonstrate that making such a modification would fundamentally alter the nature of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations SEI provides.  A fundamental alteration analysis requires an individualized inquiry that could include, for example, the nature of SEI’s services, the child’s needs, configuration of a “facility” (as that term is defined in 28 C.F.R. § 36.104), and applicable laws or licensing requirements that are essential to SEI’s services.”
    2. SEI will continue to engage an ADA Compliance Officer and will continue to indicate in its Non-Discrimination Policy that the ADA Compliance Officer is the decision-maker on requests for modifications.  The ADA Compliance Officer shall ensure that SEI adopts and implements the policies, practices, and procedures set forth herein.  SEI will provide the ADA Compliance Officer with sufficient authority and resources to perform the tasks required by this Agreement, including review of all toileting reasonable modification requests and all decisions to exclude from enrollment or dis-enroll a child from an SEI facility where the child has a toileting delay that is related to a disability.  The ADA Compliance Officer will maintain records regarding his or her review of all toileting reasonable modification requests and all decisions to exclude from enrollment or dis-enroll a child with a disability for not less than the term of the Agreement.
    3. Within sixty (60) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, SEI shall submit to the United States for review, revised reasonable modification policies and procedures relating to toileting modifications, pursuant to Title III of the ADA. SEI will consider in good faith any comments offered by the United States. SEI’s policies and procedures shall include the following:
      1. The policy set forth in Paragraph 8.  
      2. Subject to Paragraph 8, when a child’s disability limits his or her ability to be toilet trained within a certain time frame, SEI will not disenroll that child on that basis, nor will SEI require that the child become toilet trained according to a timeline that is inconsistent with the child’s developmental ability or needs.
      3. Upon receiving a request for a modification relating to toileting, SEI will initiate a discussion with the parent(s) or guardian(s) to determine whether the child has a disability for which he or she needs modification(s) and to explore what modification(s) may be appropriate pursuant to the ADA. SEI will make individualized determinations based on the facts of each request.
      4. SEI may only deny a request for a toileting reasonable modification if it can demonstrate that making the requested modification would fundamentally alter the nature of SEI’s services, as explained in Paragraph 8. SEI will not apply a general prohibition against providing particular types of reasonable modifications relating to toileting.
      5. An explanation of how parent(s) or guardian(s) are to request reasonable modifications relating to toileting for children with disabilities at its facilities.  
      6. A response to a request for a reasonable modification relating to toileting will be provided by SEI in writing.  In the ordinary course, SEI will endeavor to decide the reasonable modification request within ten (10) days from the date that it receives the necessary information sufficient to evaluate the request.  If a request for a toileting reasonable modification is denied, SEI shall notify the child's parent(s) or guardian(s), in writing, of the reason(s) for the denial.
      7. The contact information for SEI’s ADA Compliance Officer.
    4. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of any comments from the United States regarding the policy set forth in Paragraph 10, SEI shall publicize such policy as an attachment to SEI’s Non-Discrimination Policy, which SEI will continue to publish on the websites for each of its individual schools,3 and shall disseminate such policy to parents and guardians of currently enrolled children at SEI facilities where diaper changing or toileting assistance is provided.  Beginning on that same date, SEI shall (i) disseminate such policy to parents and guardians who indicate that they would like a reasonable modification for their child relating to toileting in connection with their completion of the Pre-Enrollment Modification Inquiry Form included in their application packet; and (ii) provide such policy upon request by a parent or guardian
    5. At its October 2019 annual live training session for Regional Directors, Principals, and Assistant Principals, SEI’s General Counsel will provide training on the policy changes described in Paragraph 8.  SEI shall create training materials regarding such policy changes and provide those materials to the United States before they are provided at the annual training session.  The United States shall have a reasonable opportunity to review the training materials prior to the training being provided, and SEI shall consider in good faith comments provided by the United States.  In addition:
      1. New Regional Directors, Principals, and Assistant Principals hired during the term of this Agreement shall be provided comparable training at the next occurring quarterly training.
      2. For the duration of this Agreement, SEI will provide annual refresher training on the toileting policy to all Regional Directors, Principals, and Assistant Principals. 
      3. SEI will create and maintain an attendance log that documents the name of each individual who attends the trainings required in this Paragraph, his or her title, and the date he or she attended the training.  
    6. SEI will report to the United States, within ten (10) business days, any decision to disenroll a student based, in whole or in part, on toileting delays if that student has a disability and the toileting delay is related to the disability.  This reporting requirement shall include students who are withdrawn by a parent or guardian after being told of a potential deadline or given a deadline to be toilet-trained, provided that the withdrawal occurs before the deadline. This information should be sent by e-mail to the address specified in Paragraph 15.
    7. In addition to the reporting obligation set forth in the preceding Paragraph, SEI will provide the United States, on an annual basis,4 written reports on the following issues:
      1. Relevant information concerning the decision to place a child between the ages of 0 and 6 years old on a toileting timeline, provided that the child has a disability.  “Relevant information,” as used in this provision, shall mean:  the child’s initials; the child’s date of birth; the SEI school where the child is or was enrolled; the length of the timeline applied to that child; and the result of the application of the timeline (e.g., the child met the original timeline; the timeline was extended; the child failed to meet the timeline). 
      2. Relevant information (as defined above) concerning all requests for modification that relate in any way to toileting issues, provided that the child at issue has a disability.  Specifically, SEI will report on whether it:  (i) granted the request; (ii) requested medical documentation relating to the child’s disability and any necessary modifications; or (iii) denied the request, in which case SEI will document each and every reason for the denial and shall submit documentation about the decisions denying such requests to the United States consistent with its annual reporting requirements.
      3. The United States may request additional information related to the foregoing disclosures.  SEI agrees to cooperate in good faith with reasonable requests from the United States for additional relevant information about the child and the modification and/or toileting issue, which includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the child’s parent or guardian’s name(s) and contact information.
    8. SEI shall send the written reports set forth in Paragraphs 13 and 14 via electronic mail to the United States (to the attention of and or other person who may be specified by the United States).
    9. SEI will promptly notify the United States (by contacting the individuals designated in Paragraph 15) if any individual files a lawsuit or complaint in court or with an administrative agency alleging that SEI discriminated against a child between the ages of 0 and 6 years old on the basis of disability based in whole or in part on the child’s toileting status.
    10. For children identified to the United States in connection with Paragraphs 13-14, SEI will retain its records relating to such children in the same manner as it maintains records for any other of its current or former children. At a minimum, however, SEI will retain its records concerning these topics for not less than the term of the Agreement.
    1. Within the later of fifteen (15) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement or fifteen (15) days of the date SEI receives a release signed by M.M.’s parents on behalf of themselves and M.M., the form of which is attached as Appendix A, SEI will pay $18,000 to M.M. SEI shall provide written notification to counsel for the United States, including a copy of the check, when it has completed the actions described in this Paragraph.
    2. Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date, SEI shall make payment in the amount of $30,000 to the United States, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188(b)(2)(C).  SEI shall deliver the check or money order, via overnight mail, to counsel for the United States at 970 Broad Street, 8th Fl., Attn: David Simunovich, Newark, New Jersey, 07102.
    1. The Effective Date of this Agreement is the date of the last signature below.  However, with respect to the training obligations imposed by paragraph 12 of this Agreement, the effective date shall be October 21, 2019.
    2. The duration of this Agreement will be two (2) years from the Effective Date.
    3. In consideration of this Agreement, the United States agrees to close its investigation and compliance review (DJ No. 202-48-288) without further enforcement action, except as set forth in this Agreement.  The Parties agree and acknowledge that this consideration is adequate and sufficient.
    4. The United States may review compliance with this Agreement at any time.  SEI will cooperate fully with the United States’ reasonable efforts to monitor compliance with this Agreement, including with respect to providing the United States with documents required to be prepared or maintained as a result of or pursuant to this Agreement.  If the United States believes that SEI has failed to comply with any requirement of this Agreement, the United States will notify SEI in writing and the Parties will attempt to resolve the issue in good faith.  The United States shall not initiate a civil action to enforce this Agreement unless and until the Parties are unable to reach a satisfactory conclusion within thirty (30) calendar days of the date the United States notifies SEI. 
    5. Any time limits for performance imposed by this Agreement may be extended by the mutual written consent of the Parties.  With regard to any of the deadlines specified in this Agreement, SEI shall notify the United States at least ten (10) business days before any deadline of an anticipated inability to meet the deadline and the reason(s) why, and shall request an extension of time to a specific date.5  The United States shall not unreasonably withhold consent to a request for an extension of time made in good faith. 
    6. Except with respect to the obligations and rights created by the Agreement, the United States does hereby absolutely, fully, and forever release and discharge SEI and its respective shareholders, members, managers, legal successors and assigns, heirs, administrators, subsidiaries, affiliates, attorneys, agents, servants, employees, officers, directors, and partners, of and from any and all claims, demands, damages, debts, liabilities, accounts, obligations, costs, expenses, actions, and causes of action asserted in the Complaint filed in this action.
    7. Within ten (10) days of execution of this Agreement, the United States will file a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice of D.N.J. Civil Action No. 17-366 (NLH/JS), signed by all parties, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), with each party bearing its own costs.
    8. Failure by the United States to enforce any provision of this Agreement will not be construed as a waiver of its right to enforce any provisions of the Agreement.
    9. If any term of this Agreement is determined by any court to be unenforceable, the other terms of this Agreement shall nonetheless remain in full force and effect.
    10. The individuals signing this Agreement represent that they are authorized to do so on behalf of the respective entity for which they have signed.
    11. This Agreement will have no impact upon the rights or claims of any individual not identified in this Agreement who has made, or may make, claims against SEI for issues discussed herein.  This Agreement is not intended to remedy any potential violations of the ADA or any other law, other than those specifically addressed by this Agreement.  Nothing in this Agreement will preclude the United States from filing a separate action under the ADA or any other law for any alleged violation not covered by this Agreement.
    12. This Agreement, including Appendix A, constitutes the entire agreement between the United States and SEI on the matters raised herein and no other statement or promise written or oral, made by any party or agents of any party, that is not contained in this written Agreement, including its Appendix, shall be enforceable.
    13. This Agreement and any amendment hereto shall be public documents.  
    14. This Agreement shall be binding upon the United States and on SEI, its agents, employees, successors, and assigns. 
    15. If SEI acquires a new facility during the term of this Agreement, SEI shall implement the requirements of this Agreement with respect to that facility within a reasonable period of time (not to exceed 3 months). 
    16. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to relieve SEI of its compliance obligations with respect to any provision of Title III of the ADA or its implementing regulation.
1 Nobel Learning Communities, Inc. is now known as Spring Education, Inc., which, for purposes of this Agreement, is the successor to Nobel Learning Communities, Inc.
2 For the purposes of this Agreement, “disability” means an individual with a disability as defined by the ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1).
3 By way of example, the individual school website for Chesterbrook Moorestown is:  The Non-Discrimination Policy is currently located in the “About Us” section of that webpage. SEI will include a link to that policy in the “About Us” section for each of the SEI schools subject to this policy.
4 The first such report, covering the period from the Effective Date of this Agreement through April 30, 2020, shall be made no later than June 1, 2020. The second such report, covering the period from May 1, 2020 through April 30, 2021, shall be made no later than May 31, 2021.
5 In the event that circumstances prevent SEI from providing 10-day notice pursuant to this Paragraph, SEI shall provide as much notice as is reasonably possible and shall explain to the United States the basis for not providing 10 days’ notice.
United States Attorney
Assistant United States Attorneys
970 Broad Street, Suite 700
Newark, NJ 07102
Tel. (973) 645-2736
/s/ Charlotte Lanvers
Charlotte Lanvers
Trial Attorney
Disability Rights Section
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. – 4CON
Washington, DC 20530
Tel. (202) 305-0706


/s/ Margaret Hagar
General Counsel
Nobel Learning Communities, Inc.
n/k/a Spring Education, Inc.
1615 West Chester Pike,
West Chester, PA 19382
/s/ Bonnie M. Hoffman
Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller
One Logan Square, 27th Floor,
Philadelphia, PA 19103

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

IMPEACHMENT: Testimony Of Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch - Day 2 - Including What Was Not Covered In The Hearing

Image may contain: 1 person, text


Ousted ambassador felt ‘big threat;’ Trump assails her anew

 Marie Yovanovitch
WASHINGTON (AP) — Former U.S. Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch opened the second day of Trump impeachment hearings Friday providing chilling detail how she felt a “big threat” after being suddenly ousted from her post and learning that President Donald Trump personally called her
“bad news” on his July phone call with the Ukrainian president.

Yovanovitch told the House Intelligence Committee of a concerted “smear” campaign against her by Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and others, including the president’s son, Donald Trump Jr.
As Yovanovitch testified at the Capitol, the president assailed her anew from the White House.

Moments after Trump’s press secretary said he would not be watching the hearing, he went after Yovanovitch as she spoke, declaring that everywhere she served “turned bad.” He said that as president he had the “absolute right” to appoint his own ambassadors.

At the hearing, the career ambassador told the lawmakers her sudden removal by Trump played into the hands of “shady interests the world over” with dangerous intentions toward the United States.
She said she was “shocked and devastated” upon learning Trump said “she was going to go through some things” on his call with Ukraine.

She recalled that as she read the White House’s rough transcript of Trump’s conversation another person said, “The color drained from my face.”

She said quietly, “Even now words fail me.”

Her removal is one of several events at the center of the impeachment effort.

“These events should concern everyone in this room,” the diplomat testified in opening remarks. “Shady interests the world over have learned how little it takes to remove an American ambassador who does not give them what they want.”

The daughter of immigrants who fled the former Soviet Union and Nazi German, she described a 33-year career, including three tours as an ambassador to some of the world’s tougher postings, before arriving in Ukraine in 2016. She was forced out in May 2019.

She denied the accusations against her, including that she favored Democrat Hillary Clinton over Trump in the 2016 election and that she circulated a “Do Not Prosecute” list to former top prosecutor in Ukraine, Sergiy Lutsenko, which she called a “fabrication.”

Rep. Adam Schiff, the Democratic chairman of the panel, opened the day’s hearing saying she was “too tough on corruption for some, and her principled stance made her enemies.”
It became clear, he said, “President Trump wanted her gone.”

The top Republican on the panel, Rep. Devin Nunes of California, bemoaned the hearings as a “daylong TV spectacle.”

Nunes complained that Democrats are relying on hearsay testimony from witnesses who only know of Trump’s actions second-hand. He also pressed to hear from the still anonymous government whistleblower who first alerted officials about President Donald Trump’s phone call with Ukraine that is in question. “These hearings should not be occurring at all,” he said.

Just as the hearing was opening, the White House released its rough transcript of an earlier call Trump had with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that was largely congratulatory.

Nunes read that transcript aloud. In it, Trump mentioned his experience with the Miss Universe pageant in Ukraine and invited Zelenskiy to the White House. He closed with, “See you very soon.”

Yovanovitch, a career diplomat, who has served both Republican and Democratic presidents, relayed her striking story of being told to “watch my back” and then being suddenly recalled by Trump in a swiftly developing series of events that sounded alarms about a White House shadow foreign policy.

In particular, Yovanovitch and others have described Giuliani, Trump’s lawyer, as leading an “irregular channel” outside the diplomatic mainstream of U.S.-Ukraine relations. Asked during an earlier, closed-door deposition if anyone at the State Department who was alerted to Giuliani’s role tried to stop him, she testified, “I don’t think they felt they could.”

The White House has instructed officials not to comply with the probe, and most have been issued subpoenas to appear.

She and other officials now testifying publicly are providing accounts that Democrats are relying on to make the case that the president’s behavior was impeachable.
With the start of a second day of hearings to consider removal of America’s 45th president, Democrats and Republicans were both hardening their messages to voters.

Americans are deeply entrenched in two camps over impeachment, resulting in a mounting political battle that will further test the nation in one of the most polarizing eras of modern times.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says Trump’s actions toward Ukraine amount to “bribery.”

Trump repeatedly assails the proceedings as a “hoax” and a “sham” and says he did nothing wrong.

The impeachment inquiry focuses on Trump’s July phone call with Zelenskiy that first came to attention when an anonymous government whistleblower filed a complaint.

In the phone conversation, Trump asked for a “favor,” according to an account provided by the White House. He wanted an investigation of Democrats and 2020 rival Joe Biden. Later it was revealed that the administration was withholding military aid from Ukraine at the time.

SEC Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-15974


Natural Blue Resources, Inc.
Cohen, James E.
Corazzi, Joseph A


Release DateRelease NumberOther Release NumbersName of Document
Jul. 16, 201433-961434-72617Order Instituting Administrative and Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 8a of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 15(b) and 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Notice of Hearing
Jul. 21, 2014AP-1632Order Scheduling Hearing and Designating Presiding Judge
Aug. 8, 2014AP-1686Postponement Order
Aug. 8, 2014AP-1687Protective Order
Aug. 19, 2014Respondent Cohen's Answer
Aug. 19, 2014Respondent Corrazzi's Answer
Sep. 9, 2014AP-1783Prehearing Order
Nov. 5, 2014AP-1984Order to Show Cause
Nov. 6, 2014Respondent Corrazi's Motion for More Definite Statement and/or Motion for Summary Dismissal of Charges Against Respondent Corrazi
Nov. 6, 2014Respondent Corrazi's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of His Motion for More Definite Statement and/or Motion for Summary Dismissal of Charges Against Respondent Corrazi
Nov. 20, 2014Division's Response to Respondent Corazzi's Motion for More Definite Statement and/or Motion for Summary Dismissal of Charges Against Respondent Corazzi
Nov. 26, 2014ID-710Initial Decision Making Findings and Imposing Sanctions by Default as to Natural Blue Resources, Inc.
Nov. 26, 2014Motion to Withdraw as Counsel
Nov. 26, 2014Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Withdraw as Counsel
Dec. 1, 2014AP-2067Order
Dec. 3, 2014AP-2082Order
Dec. 5, 2014AP-2105Order
Jan. 7, 201533-969634-74009Notice That Initial Decision Has Become Final
Jan. 7, 2015Respondent Corazzi's .. Verified Motion to Continue Hearing ...
Jan. 7, 2015Division's Proposed Exhibit List
Jan. 7, 2015Division's Proposed Witness List
Jan. 7, 2015Division's Designation of Robert M. Daines as Expert Witness and Rule 222(b) Statement
Jan. 13, 2015AP-2214Order
Jan. 13, 2015Division's Response to Respondent Corazzi's Motion to Continue 2/9/15 Hearing
Jan. 13, 2015Respondent Cohen's Witness List
Jan. 15, 2015Respondent Cohen's Request for Issuance of Subpoenas
Jan. 16, 2015AP-2229Order Denying Certification for Interlocutory Review
Jan. 16, 2015Verified Request for Certification for Interlocutory Review by the Commission
Jan. 26, 2015AP-2257Order
Jan. 26, 2015Division's Proposed Amended Exhibit List
Jan. 26, 2015Division's Proposed Prehearing Brief
Jan. 26, 2015Revised Expert Report of Robert M. Daines
Jan. 29, 2015Respondent Cohen's Proposed Exhibit List
Jan. 29, 2015Respondent Cohen's Prehearing Brief
Jan. 30, 2015Respondent Cohen's Supplemental Proposed Exhibit List
Feb. 4, 2015AP-2284Prehearing Order
Feb. 5, 201533-972234-74215Order Denying Petition for Interlocutory Review
Feb. 5, 2015Respondent Cohen's Memorandum of Law in Support of His Motion in Limine to Exclude Certain of the Direct Testimony of Robert M. Daines
Feb. 5, 2015Respondent Cohen's Memorandum of Law in Support of His Motion in Limine to Limit Testimony to Period Through Alleged False Filings
Feb. 19, 2015Letter of 2/19/15 to Os from Division Sending the Division's Original Exhibits
Mar. 6, 2015Email to Alj's Office from Division Counsel Stating the Parties Have Reached an Impasse as to Admissibility of a Limited Number of Exhibits in the Proceedings and Requesting a Telephonic Hearing to Resolve Dispute On 3/9 or 3/6 If Not Available
Mar. 17, 2015Division's Post Hearing Brief
Mar. 17, 2015Division's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Mar. 17, 2015Respondent Cohen's Post Hearing Brief
Mar. 27, 2015Division's Post Hearing Reply Brief
Mar. 30, 2015Respondent Cohen's Response to Division's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Mar. 30, 2015Respondent Cohen's Response to Division's Post Hearing Brief
Apr. 9, 2015AP-2523Motion to the Commission for Extension
Apr. 15, 2015AP-2544Order Admitting Exhibits
May 6, 201533-976634-74891Order Granting Extension
Aug. 14, 2015AP-3037Order
Aug. 14, 2015AP-3042Order
Aug. 14, 2015Respondent Cohen's Motion for Stay
Aug. 18, 2015ID-863Initial Decision as to James E. Cohen and Joseph A. Corazzi
Aug. 31, 2015Respondent James Cohen's Motion to Correct Manifest Errors of Fact
Sep. 8, 2015Division's Opposition to Respondent James Cohen's Motion to Correct Manifest Errors of Fact
Sep. 11, 2015AP-3115Order
Oct. 2, 2015Respondent Corazzi's Joinder in Respondent Cohen's Motion for Oral Argument
Oct. 13, 2015Division's Cross Petition for Review of the Initial Decision
Oct. 26, 201533-996634-76271Order Granting Petition for Review and Scheduling Briefs
Nov. 18, 201533-997834-76473
Order Extending Briefing Schedule
Jan. 11, 2016Division's Brief on Review of the Initial Decision
Jan. 26, 2016Respondents' Reply Brief on Review of Initial Decision and Request for Oral Argument
Jun. 20, 201733-1037234-80987Stay Notice
Dec. 18, 2017AP-5396Order
Jan. 26, 2018AP-5534Order
Apr. 10, 201833-1047934-83029Supplemental Briefing Order
Jun. 20, 201833-1050934-83481Order Scheduling Oral Argument
Jun. 26, 201833-1051234-83523Order Cancelling Oral Argument
Aug. 23, 2018AP-5954Notice from the Chief Administrative Law Judge
Sep. 12, 2018AP-5955Chief Administrative Law Judge’s Order Assigning Proceedings Post Lucia v. SEC
Sep. 17, 2018AP-5980Order Regarding Three Proceedings Post Lucia V. Sec, 138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018)
Oct. 2, 2018AP-6130Order Assigning Administrative Law Judge
Oct. 12, 2018AP-6175Order Following Reassignment
Nov. 2, 2018AP-6287Stay Order
Nov. 20, 2018AP-6351Order Setting Deadline to Submit Proposals
Dec. 21, 201833-1059834-84916Corrected Order Making Findings and Imposing Remedial Sanctions and a Cease-and-Desist Order Pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 15(b) and 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©