The VonFrederick 

Tempus             

August 2006 Volume 3 Issue 8

  Feature Article:

Corporate Accountability: White Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement

By Dr. Melissa Kuthbert Luke,  The Von Frederick Group

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires new disclosures for officers and directors of publicly traded companies. Controls regarding securities fraud, criminal and civil penalties for violating the securities laws, blackouts for insider trades of pension fund shares, and the protections for corporate whistleblowers have become forefront in the Acts’ creation of safeguarding the general public’s rights. Title IX of the Sarbanes Oxley Act enhances the white collar crime laws and regulations to deter corporate criminal activity for shareholder protection and economic vitality. The enhancements to the penalties are important to understand for several reasons, but the most important is, what could occur to your own company’s officials if they decide to meander to the “dark side”. 

Section 902: States any person who attempts or conspires to commit an offence dealing with fraudulent acts of various types will face the same penalties as those who have provided for the offence, and was the object of the attempt and/or the conspiracy.

Section 903: Increases the prison term upon conviction for mail or wire fraud from five years to twenty years.

Section 904: Raises the maximum criminal penalties for anyone willingly violating Title 1, subtitle B, part 1 of ERISA. Offenders face a maximum fine of $5,000 and a maximum term of imprisonment of 1 year, or both. Under the new language of this provision, organizational defendants will be subject to an increased fine level raised from $100,000 to $500,000. The increased maximum imprisonment term changes the offence from a misdemeanor to a felony. 

Section 905: Allows the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review and amend (within 180 days) of the offence any portion of the sentencing guidelines ensuring it reflects the seriousness of any crime under the Act. In other words, the penalties will be harsher than stated if need be in the future.

Section 906: States anyone who willingly certifies compliance issues knowing that the periodic report accompanying the statement does not reflect the data, will face a fine of up to $5 million and up to 20 years imprisonment or both. 

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been described as one of the harshest securities legislation to be passed since the Securities Act of 1933 and the Exchange Act of 1934, which were passed in the aftermath of the stock market crash of 1929. The barriers to corporate fraud may have been increased slightly, yet the economic impact is difficult to decipher due to the newness of the Act. Will the increased imprisonment terms and fines deter corporate malfeasance, or will the chieftains of publicly traded companies view the increased penalties as “minor” details to the billions of potential dollars that may be gained? This commentator’s personal opinion is that the fines/penalties are minimal when weighing the costs of inflation in the past 70+ years with the scrutiny of the financial industry since 1933/1994. Do we have any economist amidst our readers to run the mathematics? I am certain that moving a penalty from $100,000 to $500,000 in 7 decades, calculating inflation, is a penny in the bucket.

Back to Top

Liberal Daftness and Narcissism Harms America

By George A. Torres, MBA, Law Enforcement Specialist

Some have criticized me for being too harsh on liberals and not receptive to their points of view. It’s amazing how challenging a flawed perspective or refusal to accept liberal ideology is viewed as a moral offense to liberalism. Yet, history has proved liberal ideology, with its hypocrisy, fraud and indecency is a foundation for failure.

Liberals life blood is hypocrisy. The Israeli-Hezbollah conflict is a perfect example. Liberals demand of Israel what they do not demand of terrorists. Liberals demand that Israel execute a “proportionate” war with Hezbollah, but ignore the fact the U.S. did not fight a “proportionate” war with Germany and Japan in WWII. Wars are won by the disproportionate use of force. Liberal hypocrisy is exhibited in their dismissal of terrorist bombing of Israeli civilian targets and ignoring the fact that Israel attacks military targets and warns civilians by dropping leaflets, which gives Hezbollah time to escape, regroup or ambush. More Israeli soldiers die so that Lebanese civilians will not and liberals condemn Israel, not the terrorists. 

Liberals exhibit intolerance and indecency. For example their treatment of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki was unconscionable. After Maliki spoke before Congress and thanked the U.S. for its sacrifices and committed Iraq to stand with the U.S. in its fight against terrorists, liberals disrespectfully criticized him. Liberals that treated the terrorist Yasser Arafat like royalty treated this dignitary like a leper. Howard Dean called Maliki anti-Semitic for not condemning Hezbollah. Yet, Dean did not call liberal Democrats Abercrombie, Conyers, Dingell, Kirkpatrick, McDermott, Rahall or Stark anti-Semitic for refusing to support HR 921 that condemned Hezbollah for attacking Israel. Democrats like Jack Reed criticized Maliki saying “we didn't hear a plan for how he's going to beat these terrorists.” Yet in August 2004, liberals failed to criticize John Kerry’s ridiculous “secret” plan for defeating terrorists, which only consisted of adopting the discredited 9-11 Commission Report. 

Liberals only demonstrate strength in their rhetoric and are incapable of sustaining a fight until victory is achieved. John Kerry recently pronounced if he was president Israel would not be at war. He’s probably right as liberal precedent establishes he would have forced Israel to surrender. Take the April 18, 1996, Israeli military response to Hezbollah attacks. While Clinton “said” he embraced the need for Israeli security, he bowed to world opinion and pressured Israel into a cease-fire before it could achieve victory over Hezbollah. This failed policy achieved weakness and guaranteed more attacks.

Liberals misconstrue the nature of the enemy by thinking Islamic terrorists wish to live in peace. In June 1998, Suleiman Abu Ghaith of Al-Qaida said, “There can be no truce until they have killed four million Americans, whereupon the rest can convert to Islam. We do not differentiate between those dressed in military uniforms and civilians; they are all targets." In April 2005, Mahmoud al-Zahar of Hamas said of Israel’s agreement to leave the Gaza Strip, “... it was because of the armed struggle, because of the big sacrifices of Hamas for this goal. It was not because of negotiations, or the goodwill of Israel, or the Americans or Europeans.” On July 16, 2006 Iranian President Ahmadinejad said, "The Zionists think that they are victims of Hitler, but they act like Hitler and behave worse than Genghis Khan.” How can liberals seriously advocate negotiation with an enemy whose goal is our annihilation? 

Liberals ignore history and facts that refute their ability to negotiate peace with evil. Prior to WWII, President Roosevelt denied allegations of being an isolationist, saying he was actually a non-interventionist who wanted negotiated settlements of disputes rather than American involvement in foreign wars. FDR’s opponent Wendell Willkie said "No man has the right to use the great powers of the Presidency to lead the people, indirectly, into war". Don’t forget Neville Chamberlain’s pre-war non-aggression pact with Hitler.

Negotiations with evil failed, but at least when it came to war the Republicans cared more about our country’s survival than they did about their own political power, unlike today’s liberal Democrats. In that by-gone era Republicans and Democrats united against a common enemy that wanted to subjugate the American people. This unity was demonstrated by Wendell Willkie shortly before he died when he said, “If I could write my own epitaph and had to choose between ‘here lies a president’ or ‘here lies one who contributed to saving freedom,’ I would prefer the latter”. This is contrary to the liberal philosophy illustrated by Clinton’s Chief of Staff, John Podesta when he said, “you know, seriously, unity isn't everything”. It seems with liberals the concept of a strong and united America no longer exists.

Back to Top

Fed up with the drive-by US liberal or Arab anti-Jew bloggers that keep on claiming the modern land of Palestine for its alleged original owner, the Palestinian people, I decided to take a ride in my time-traveling Yugo and figure out by myself if an injustice had been committed against the “Palestinian” people, thus explaining the anti-Semitic feelings Arab nations and their terrorist off-springs have for Israel.

I could have taken the easy way and moved back to what most of the people consider as the beginning of it all: November 29, 1947, when the UN voted on resolution 181, which approved the partition of the western part of Palestine into a predominately Jewish state and a predominately Arab state. Remember that only 13 countries formulated a “No” vote (Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen) and that the next day, most of them started the bloodshed by proxy or directly.

But I decided to move a little earlier, to the aftermath of the war that ended all the wars. 
From my personal library, I dug out a 1922 Atlas of the post WW1 world describing among other things “the new old land of promise in Palestine” under British Mandate. After WW1, interestingly, the British government was mandated by the League of Nations to facilitate “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people”. Eventually, the Jews worldwide saw it as “an opportunity to the return of national power and unity in a free nation controlled by its ancient inhabitants” and the New York Times of the day summarized the Jewish aspirations by saying: “The effect of the mandate is to create a national home, a refuge for Jews who, because of oppression or persecution in any other land, may desire to seek shelter there” (The literary Digest Atlas, p38, 1922). 

By 1921, the 515,000 Muslims in Palestine were already at odds with the 63,000 Jews and the 62,000 Christians that also considered that piece of land sacred and prompted the British Secretary of States of the time, Winston Churchill, to declare: “Palestine belongs to the whole world, and this city of Jerusalem is almost equally sacred to Moslems, Christians and Jews, and not only to the DWELLERS in Palestine, but everywhere. Instead of sharing miseries through quarrelling, the Palestinians should share blessing through cooperation.” 

Furthermore, at the same time, G. A. Smith, in his “Historical Geography of the Holy Land” (London), also wrote that “By a strange turn of events, the Philistines, those ancient enemies of the Children of Israel, have succeeded in giving their name to the whole country, for “Palestine” is directly derived of Philistine”. 

Interesting, isn’t it how history keeps on repeating itself, all over again, and again!

This took me further down in time and an Internet search of the Philistines brought up troves of information. 

The Philistines, literally the “people of the sea”, were the people archeologically linked to Western Anatolia or Mycenaean Greece (Cyprus, Crete) that INVADED the Egyptian Southern coast of Canaan circa 1160 BC, just before the Israelites arrived and created their 6 million people “Kingdom of David and Solomon” that covered the land from the Sinai to the Mediterranean, from the Jordan river to most of Syria included Damascus and the Beirut of today! Maybe Palestine should be returned to Egypt or Greece, and Syria and Lebanon to Israel!
Isn’t it ironic that the Philistines weren’t Arab, that they invaded an Egyptian coastal land that is almost the Gaza strip of today, occupied the cities of Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashod and Ekron, and spent the time they were not fighting the Egyptians, fighting their Hebrew neighbors of the highlands. 

Isn’t it ironic that the Philistines were characterized as cunning pagan warmongers by the Jews and as pirates and marauders by the Egyptians?
Isn’t it ironic that the modern Jews of the “highland” have finally returned the land of the Philistines – the Gaza strip- to the modern Arab people that claim it today, but that it eventually led to a new open war? Isn’t it ironic that the Arab world thinks that Gaza is not enough and also want to give the original Jewish land to the new Philistines?
Isn’t it ironic that the name Philistine could come from the Semitic word Plishah that means invasion, and that only in the XIX century did writers start officially referring to the Philistines as being the Arab people native of Palestine?
Finally, isn’t it ironic that one of the common meanings of the word Philistine describes a close minded person?
Now –and again- does it really matter if the chicken or the egg was there first? And if it matters, can we at least be honest about it?

Hatred between the two people was there then, and is still kept alive today by foreign Arab powers interested in the destabilization of the region and using the resentment for a proxy war that serves their interests and preserves a “justification” for their Islamic terrorist off-springs across the world. You are right! They are right! Let us redraw the borders, do right for the people who were wronged! 

But where to start? How far back? Iran and Iraq were Persia. The rest was Egypt, Arabia and the Ottoman Empire. Just take a look at Europe today, pre-1989 (Berlin, the Wall), pre and post WW2, pre and post WW1, pre and post 1870, pre and post any major conflict or invasion that has shaken its borders every 50 years of its existence….Where do you want to start righting the wrongs? How far back? And is it really going to solve anything? Does it really matter anyway?

Maybe, just maybe, Iran and Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas should have given a chance to the planned Palestinian referendum on the existence of an independent Palestine and on the recognition of Israel. But the outcome of such a vote could have deprived them from their anti-Jewish rhetoric. The Palestinian people, like their Lebanese neighbors, are just held hostages by powers that use them as proxy for their crazy causes. That Israel gave Gaza back and bulldozed its own colons out of the strip of land was not enough of a step in the right direction for them. Total annihilation has been sought since 1947 at the price of many wars and bloodshed that have permanently weakened Egypt and Syria, almost destroyed Jordan, and annihilated the fabrics of Palestine and Lebanon.

Knowledge is power!

Literary Digest atlas of the New Europe and the Far East, Funk & Wagnalls Company, New York and London, 1922

http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv8-&p=philistines

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=philistine

.

Back to Top

A colleague of mine asked why an article on incest. Three reasons: growth of the problem, widespread misconception about it, and increasing failure of families to assure the sexual welfare of both parent and child. To underscore these points, I invite you to consider the following five statements and try to answer each, either “true” or “false”:

1. Relatively few people have thoughts about sex with their parents, brothers, sisters, children, or other close relatives.
2. The act of incest is so “unnatural” that only the sick and depraved practice it.
3. If the subject is just ignored, sexual activity between father and daughter or mother and son is not likely to occur.
4. Incest usually involves force, such as father forcing a daughter into sex.
5. There is nothing different about today’s society or stress on parents that causes more sex in the family to occur.
Each of these statements is false. One other widespread myth that belongs on the same list is this: The majority of sexual assaults on children are committed by strangers. That is incorrect. Most sexual abuse of children is done by parents, stepparents, uncles, boyfriends of mothers, and relatives who live in the household or come to visit. Children are at higher risk in their own homes than on the streets.

People are ignorant of the facts on incest largely because the subject continues to be treated as so abominable that it must not be thought about or discussed. It is a taboo, forbidden and prohibited by every culture. But keeping incest as a forbidden subject has not prevented family sex; it simply has prevented recognition of the problem. Statistics from Parents United (2006) show that one in four girls and one in five boys will become victims of incest by their 18th birthday. The Los Angeles Times (2005) found that 22 percent of Americans had been sexually abused as children. This means that approximately 40 million Americans were sexually abused. The same statistics show that one-third of the victims never told anyone about the abuse.

To say that people do not think about having sex with their parents, siblings, or children is to deny centuries of evidence. Incest has been an ancient preoccupation of humans. Anthropologists have indicated that the two most common themes reflected in artifacts across cultures are immortality and incest, the desire for perpetual youth and the desire to commit intercourse with forbidden members of the clan, tribe, or family. Through the ages, cultures have projected thoughts of incest onto their Gods, into their myths, music, paintings, and in more contemporary times, their novels, films, and movies. 
Historically, incestuous laws were first concerned with marriage, not sex. The laws prohibited certain persons, related to each other by blood or marriage, from marrying each other. But some laws provided penalties for incest regardless of whether intercourse occurred. This emphasis dates back to early times of incest. The reason incest has almost universally been prohibited since the time of early man is the belief that inbreeding makes survival of a population less likely; it was believed that defective offsprings result when intercourse is permitted between blood relatives.

So what is incest? If a father has a habit of taking baths with his 12-year old daughter and caressing her breast, what is this kind of intimate physical contact called? If a mother fondles her eight-year old son as she sleeps with her body pressed against his every night, what is the name for this type of behavior? Under the prevailing definition of incest used by psychiatrist, psychologists and social workers, both of these activities are incestuous. Incest is any sexual activity – intimate physical contact that is sexually arousing – between non-married members of a family. That activity may be oral-genital relations, mutual masturbation, fondling or caressing erogenous areas of the body, or actual intercourse. More recent laws are consistent with this definition of incest.

Today’s sexual climate is more open and more permissive than in times past. Much attention has been given to group sex, swinging sex, kinky sex, mate swapping, transsexual surgery, and to the recognition of homosexuality, bisexuality, sadomasochism, and transvestitism as sexual styles and preferences, rather than sexual problems. As a result, some ask: Why not sex in the family?

Kids learn that being sexy means being wanted. Little girls learn that if they are cute and sexy, they get the favors, treats, and compliments. Parents are concerned not only about their own sexuality, but also about their children not having sexual hang-ups. The “anything goes” or “do your own thing” philosophy is seen as meaning that what a person does sexually in his or her own home is nobody else’s business. Now the issue is not what consenting adults do within the confines of their house, related or not, but what adults do sexually with children.

Many parents, following the good models of their own childhood, “automatically” provide the kind of parenting necessary for the healthy growth of their children. But even these parents sometimes lose their way and become confused. For parents who have no good models to follow or become confused over the issue of sensuality, I am suggesting some guidelines that may be useful in circumventing problems before they occur:

1. Do not sleep with the child. I am referring to a regular routine of a parent being in the same bed with a developing child night after night and the child developing a sensual dependency; a dependency to touch and feel the parent’s body.
2. Do not over-stimulate the child by walking around the house nude, by continuing to take showers or baths with the child, by performing sex in front of the child, or by French kissing the child.
3. Be aware of the sexual aspects of body-contact games played by parent and child. These games can heighten sexual arousal when they go on too long and lead to over-stimulation.
4. Do not go to the child with complaints and criticism about one’s spouse. The son is not the “little man of the house” and the daughter is not “dad’s woman of the house” or dad’s “little confidante girlfriend.”
5. If parents have drifted apart from each other sexually, do not take on the child as a sexual partner to satisfy urges and feelings.
6. Teach the child the difference between sexual stimulation and acting on that feeling.
7. Do not betray the child’s trust by being sexually inappropriate. If he or she sits on your lap to watch T.V., the child is not “coming on to you” or asking to be fondled.
8. Give the child plenty of physical affection but be aware of the line between “loving sensuality” and “abusive sexuality.”
9. If you are sexually attracted to your child, or sexually stimulated by your child,  you are in need of HELP!
10. Email us. We have a Forensic Psychiatrist and Psychiatric Diplomate on staff who can render the help that you would need; do not cross that line…

Finally, some fathers have no intention of getting sexual with their daughters but are turned on by her acting “flirty” and seductive, just as her body is beginning to take the shape of a woman. Instead of recognizing the flirtatiousness as the daughter’s way to test her emerging identity on the closest and safest male around, he flirts back and responds to it as an invitation for sex. It is not!!! In a healthy relationship, the father does not flirt back and does not use the child to meet his own needs. Keep your eyes on your little ones…

Back to Top

Proponents both for and against plea bargaining firmly believe that their way of thinking is correct. Those against plea bargaining claim it is unconstitutional. In an extreme way of thinking they may be correct, however; the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of plea bargaining and has never ruled against it.

In essence, plea bargaining is a contract. This is a contract between the state and the defendant. The accused is given a choice to plead guilty to the lesser of two evils or having all the charges added on and risking a much stiffer sentence at the trial. Plea bargaining has the ability to lesson the backlog of cases and to lessen the financial factors involved in taking a case to trial.

I believe that plea bargaining is a necessary part of our legal system. However; I also believe that the players involved can abuse the process. In 2002, “in United States v. Ruiz,the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Constitution does not require prosecutors to inform defendants during plea bargaining negotiations of evidence that would lead to the impeachment of the prosecution’s witnesses. . . this rule would allow the prosecution to not disclose during plea negotiations that its only witness was too drunk at the time of the crime to provide any reliable evidence” (Sandefur, 2003, p.1). This case is just one example of many where the courts uphold this type of unfair tactics by the prosecutor when they are negotiating a plea bargain. If the plea bargain is a contract, as many legal professionals claim it to be, then this contract needs to be “subject to the same rules that apply to other contracts, including the requirement that parties disclose relevant information” (Sandefur, 2003, p.1). When you make a major purchase, such as a house, boat, or car, it is required that all defects be made known to you. The prosecutor needs to make known the defects in their side of the case to enable the defense to better council their client on what the best course of action might be.

Timothy Lynch, an advocate against plea bargaining claims that the court professionals will use their knowledge and power to deliberately pressure the accused to plead guilty. “We know this to be true because prosecutors freely admit that this is what they do” (Lynch, 2003, p.1).

Yet even with its flaws, plea bargaining is here to stay. When a case goes to trial, both the prosecutor and the defense lose a lot of control over the case. With plea bargaining, not only does the defendant have a choice that can save them money, stress, and time in jail or prison, it allows the prosecutor and defense council to retain more control over the outcome of the case.
If a prosecutor utilizes less than desirable negotiating tactics to get the plea they want, this is a criticism of the prosecutor and their negotiating methods, not an infringement on the defendant’s right to make a choice and enter into the contract. This makes the procedure of the plea bargaining flawed but not unconstitutional.

Supporters of the due process model worry that plea bargaining undermines the rights of individuals as well as negating the basic protection of the adversary system. (Neubauer, 2002, p. 342) Criminal justice is a blend of both the due process and crime control models. We really can not have only one or the other. Both these models have their place in the legal system. Just look at the icon of the courts, the lady with a blind fold on holding a scale. Is this symbolic for blind justice or a balance of both the due process and crime control models? A blend of crime control and due process can bring about justice with mercy. Plea bargaining best benefits the person who is not a career criminal as it mixes justice with mercy to give them a second chance while still holding them accountable.

Back to Top

Did You Know? By Michelle Glisan Blevins         

• That service in the Israeli Defense Forces is mandatory for those 17 years of age who are Jewish or are Druze, but voluntary for Christians, Muslims, or Circassian

• That in 1969 Golda Meir became the world’s second female Prime Minister

• That Israel declared their independence on May 14th, 1948. The following day the armies of Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Iraq, invaded the newly formed country 

• That Israel has no formal constitution

• That former Israeli Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1978- the1978 prize was split between Begin and President Anwar Sadat of Egypt

Israel’s flag is white with two equal bands close to the top and bottom with a blue six-pointed star, or hexagram, known as the Star of David or the Shield of David centered between them.

GENGHIS KHAN

Temüjin Borjigin

Apx. 1162 – August 18, 1227

While little is known about Genghis Khan’s early life, legend says he was born holding a blood clot in his hand- a sign he would do great things. Born into a nomadic tribe, Temüjin married his first of several wives- but his only empress- Börte, when he was 16. A great military strategist, Khan, highly valued honesty and loyalty, was known to share his fortune with his people, and warned against future generations living a sedentary life. The Mongol Empire ended up ruling (though some only briefly) great parts of modern China, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Russia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Korea, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Georgia, Iran, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Iraq, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait, Moldova, Hungary, Poland and Turkmenistan. Genghis Khan died of unknown causes during a campaign against the Tangut Empire. His burial place is unmarked per his requests and its location is not known.

Back to Top

 How To Make Fire Without Matches

What you will need:

• Knife.

• Kindling. Several pieces, varying in size from small to large.

• Wood to keep the fire going. Select deadwood from the tree, not off the ground. Good wood should indent with pressure from a fingernail, but not break easily.

• Bow. A curved stick about two feet long.

•  String. A shoelace, parachute cord, or leather thong. Primitive cordage can be made from yucca, milkweed, or another tough, stringy plant.

• Socket. A horn, bone, piece of hard woo, rock, or seashell that fits in the palm of the hand and will be placed over a stick.

• Lube. You can use earwax, skin oil, a ball of green grass, lip balm, or anything else oily.

• Spindle. A dry, straight ¾- to 1-inch-diameter stick approximately 12 to 18 inches long. Round one end and carve the other end to a point.

•  Fire board. Select and shape a second piece of wood into a board approximately ¾ to 1 inch thick, 2 to 3 inches wide, and 10 to 12 inches long. Carve a shallow dish in the center of the flat side approximately ½ inch from the edge. Into the edge of this dish, cut a V-shaped notch.

•  Tray. A piece of bark or leaf inserted under the V-shaped notch to catch the ember. The tray should not be made of deadwood.

•  Nest. Dry bark, grass, leaves, cattail fuzz, or some other combustible material, formed into a bird nest shape.

HOW TO START THE FIRE

1. Tie the string tightly to the bow, one end to each end of the stick.

2. Kneel on your right knee, with the ball of your left foot on the fire board, holding firmly to the ground.

3. Take the bow in your hands

4. Loop the string in the center of the bow.

5. Insert the spindle in the loop of the bowstring so that the spindle is on the outside of the bow, pointed end up.
   The bowstring should now be tight¬- if not, loop the string around the spindle a few more times.

Be Aware

• You should not be dependent on any primitive fire method to maintain life in a wilderness survival emergency. Making fire in this manner can be quite difficult under actual harsh conditions (rain, snow, cold).
  You should practice this method at home before you attempt it in the wilderness to familiarize yourself with the quirks of the process.
  
  (Piven and Borgenicht)

Back to Top

Back to Top

The VonFrederick Group

Phone: (877) 207-1300
Fax:     (916) 488-7531
Email:

Dr. Lionel C.M. VonFrederick Rawlins
Lionel@VonFrederick.com

Dr. Melissa Kuthbert Luke
Melissa@VonFrederick.com

George A. Torres, MBA
George@VonFrederick.com

Eric Chevreuil
Eric@VonFrederick.com

Pat McLane
Pat@VonFrederick.com

Albert Globus, MD
Al@VonFrederick.com

General Clifford L. Stanely, Ph.D.
Cliff@VonFrederick.com

Check out our Information
Page for Recommended 
reading at VonFrederick.com

TEMPUS FUGITS

Back to Top