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.

Stolen Valor & Richard Blumenthal

Normally I would not write this post, but I am doing it in memory of a good friend of mine, Ed Schwebel, 63, an actual Vietnam veteran who died on May 11, 2010, after falling from a ladder while working on his home. Ed and I were F-4 Phantom instructors in the 35th Tactical Training Squadron at George Air Force Base, California, from 1973 – 1976. Before becoming an F-4 instructor, Ed flew F-4s in combat over North Vietnam, South Vietnam and Laos in 1972. Part of that time Ed was an Owl forward air controller. The Owl’s were fast FACs that hung it all out directing other fighters to drop bombs on the bad guys. Ed was a true patriot and hero and I will miss him.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is a Democrat running for the U.S. Senate seat now held by Chris Dodd. In March of 2008, Mr. Blumenthal said in a speech in Norwalk, Connecticut, “We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam.” Richard Blumenthal is a despicable liar who should not hold any public office. He did not serve in Vietnam. He did serve six years in the Marine Reserve, but never left the safety of the United States.

At an emergency press conference he called on May 18, 2010, at a Veterans of Foreign Wars post in West Hartford to try to put out the growing fire that threatens to kill his chances for being elected, Richard Blumenthal said:

“”On a few occasions, I have misspoken about my service and I regret that. And I take full responsibility, but I will not allow anyone to take a few misplaced words and impugn my record of service to our country.”

Earth to Blumenthal: You are the person who impugned your record of service by lying about it. You did not serve in Vietnam. You said you served in Vietnam on many occasions to the numerous groups to whom you boasted spoke.

Why did Mr. Blumenthal hold his “I’m being persecuted” press conference at the Veterans of Foreign Wars post? Didn’t he realize that he is not a veteran of a foreign war? Perhaps he wanted to send a subtle message that he may not have served in Vietnam, but he was a veteran of a foreign war.

Blumenthal got five deferments to avoid the draft and Vietnam before he joined the Marine Reserves. I turned 18 in 1966 and spent the next four years in college. I remember those years and the efforts taken by many of my friends to avoid being drafted. I had a student deferment during my undergraduate college days. Student deferments were very common and easy to get. As long as you were enrolled in college and attending class full time and pursuing a degree, you got an automatic deferment.

When the U.S. adopted the draft lottery system on December 1, 1969, the rules changed substantially. Those with high draft numbers knew they would never be called and no longer needed a deferment. Those of us with lower numbers (mine was 186) continued to be eligible to be drafted. The highest number drafted of those in the 1969 lottery (850,000 men) was 195. See lottery facts. I knew I would be drafted after graduating from Penn State in May of 1970 so I joined the USAF to avoid being drafted into the Army. Around graduation time I did get a draft notice to appear for a physical, but that caused me to complete my joining of the USAF.

Richard Blumenthal joined the Marine Reserves to avoid going to Vietnam. That’s what thousands of other draft eligible men did. I don’t have a problem with anybody who joined the military reserves or the National Guard during the Vietnam years, including people who joined specifically to avoid being sent to Vietnam. Military service is military service period. Although everybody knew that chances of a reserve or guard unit being sent to Vietnam was slim, it was also possible that the President could change his mind or that events in the war might require that reserve or guard units be sent to fight. Service in Vietnam was still a risk for everybody in the guard or reserves during 1964 – 1972. One of my fraternity brothers flew the EC-121 radar surveillance airplane out of a Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Air National Guard Unit. He and his crew were sent to fly missions in Vietnam.

Richard Blumenthal says he did not get into the Marine Reserves because of somebody pulling strings. I doubt it. My recollection is that it was virtually impossible to get into the guard or the reserves during the Vietnam war years because every unit had a waiting list a mile long of people who wanted to avoid being sent to Vietnam. Lots of my college fraternity brothers tried to get into the guard or reserves to avoid going to the war. Only one got in, my friend that flew the EC-121. I don’t know for a fact, but I suspect his family pulled some strings to get him into the Air National Guard.

I had several Penn State football players in my fraternity who went on to play pro football. I remember them telling me that it was routine in the late 1960s for professional football teams to get their new players into a guard or reserve unit in the team’s city. After all, the pro teams did not want to lose their substantial monetary investment in young talent who might suddenly be drafted and unavailable for two years.

For the record, I got a student deferment that allowed me to avoid being drafted while I attended Penn State. I joined the USAF because I did not want to be drafted into the Army and sent to Vietnam. In the spring of 1971 I picked the F-4 Phantom supersonic fighter bomber as the airplane I would fly because I had a long love affair with the airplane, the Vietnam air war was winding down because few U.S. ground troops remained in South Vietnam and I thought it was unlikely that I would be sent to the war.

In April of 1972, the North Vietnam regular army invaded South Vietnam. This massive invasion was repelled by the U.S. sending all available F-4 units to Vietnam to provide air support. All but three people in my F-4 training class at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, were sent to F-4 units in South Vietnam or Thailand in May of 1972. Me and another guy were ordered to the 35th Tactical Fighter Squadron at Kunsan Air Base, Korea. The third guy was sent to Clark Air Base in the Philippines, but his unit was actually on temporary duty in Thailand. My squadron was also TDY to the southeast Asia war games, first at Danang Air Base, South Vietnam, then at Korat Air Base, Thailand so all of my attempts to avoid being sent to the Vietnam war only delayed the inevitable.

Below are more stories about Richard Blumenthal’s lie that he was a Marine who served in Vietnam:

1. New York Times: “Candidate’s Words on Vietnam Service Differ From History”

“what is striking about Mr. Blumenthal’s record is the contrast between the many steps he took that allowed him to avoid Vietnam, and the misleading way he often speaks about that period of his life now, especially when he is speaking at veterans’ ceremonies or other patriotic events.”

2. New York Times: “Ex-Congressman Saw Blumenthal’s Claims Evolve”

“Former Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut, a Republican who says he is a good friend of Richard Blumenthal’s, said in an interview Tuesday that he had watched with worry as Mr. Blumenthal gradually embellished his military record over the years.”

3. New York Times: “Mr. Blumenthal’s Misdirection”

“There are few sins less forgivable in American politics than claiming unearned military valor. Richard Blumenthal, the attorney general of Connecticut, may consider his false claim to have served in Vietnam to be “a few misplaced words,” as he put it on Tuesday, but, in fact, this deception seems to have been part of a larger pattern of misleading voters.”

4. New York Times: “Campaign in Damage Control Over ‘a Few Misplaced Words’” This story quotes Blumenthal saying in a recent debate with Republican Merrick Alpert:

““Although I did not serve in Vietnam, I have seen firsthand the effects of military action.”

This statement contains another Blumenthal lie about his service. He did not see the effects of military action. He did not serve in a war zone or see the consequences or affects of military action. How is it possible for Richard Blumenthal to see “firsthand the effects of military action” from thousands of miles away from the action?

5. New York Post: “Time for war-story windbag to surrender”

“‘Since the days that I served in Vietnam,’ and, ‘When we returned,’ are not ‘misplaced words.’ They are more accurately known as ‘lies’.”

6. New York Times: “The Technicality Generation”

“The concept of using legal technicalities to evade responsibility has been carried over to playing with derivatives, or to short-changing shareholders. Once my generation got in the habit of saying one thing and believing another, it couldn’t stop.”

7. Washington Post: “Vietnam allegations threaten frontrunning Blumenthal in CT-Senate”

8. Associated Press: “Blumenthal denies trying to mislead on Vietnam”

“Blumenthal intimated more than once that he was a victim of the abuse heaped on Vietnam veterans upon their return home.”

9. Real Clear Politics: video of Blumenthal’s I misspoke news conference

10. Capitol Watch: Merrick Alpert, Blumenthal’s opponent for the Democratic Senate nomination said:

“As a citizen and as candidate, it’s shocking . . . to see him lie about serving in Vietnam. He was a coward to go and get five deferments and he’s clearly a liar for standing up for his own political benefit years later. . . It’s disgraceful behavior from someone who is clearly not qualified to serve in the U.S. Senate.”

11. Politico: “Dems still back Richard Blumenthal“

12. Rasmuessen Reports: “Connecticut Senate: Blumenthal Loses Ground, Leads McMahon By Just Three Points“

13. Hot Air: “Blumenthal lead drops to … three“

14. Washington Post: “Richard Blumenthal can’t have it both ways on Vietnam“

“He should have dispensed with the mistakes-were-made tap dance and offered a full-fledged apology.”

15. Hot Air: “Blumenthal: Um, when I said I served “in” Vietnam, I meant to say “during”; Update: The lies got worse over time, says Shays“

“‘I will take full responsibility,’ says a guy who’s (a) surrounded himself with vets to provide moral cover, (b) in the midst of lying his ass off about how he supposedly mixed up the concepts of serving ‘in’ a war rather than ‘during’ it, and (c) shamelessly insisting that people are impugning his service when no one’s doing any such thing.”

16. Slate: “The Blumenthal Rules Why should anyone give Richard Blumenthal a break?“

17. Slate: “Blumenthal’s Draft-Ducking Dance” “He wasn’t the only one to cheat the draft. But he might have been among the best.”

Prepare Your Own 501(c)(3) Tax Exempt Organization Application

I form a lot of Arizona nonprofit corporations. Some are tax exempt charities and some are not. A nonprofit corporation formed under Arizona law does not automatically qualify as a charity that is exempt from federal income tax. Nonprofit corporations that want to be tax exempt organizations must file an IRS form 1023 and receive approval from the IRS.

IRS form 1023 is not for the faint of heart. For those who want to prepare the form 1023 themselves rather than hire a professional, I recommend an excellent how-to book called “Prepare Your Own 501(c)(3) Application” by former IRS agent Sandy Deja. Sandy’s resume is impressive:

She has worked with form 1023 almost daily since 1974
She reviewed about three thousand exemption applications during her 12 years as an IRS Exempt Organizations Specialist
She has prepared over one thousand forms 1023, and reviewed almost that many prepared by others since leaving the IRS

If you want a professional to assist in preparing IRS form 1023, call me, Arizona nonprofit and charitable organization attorney Richard Keyt at 602-906-4953, ext. 1 or call Richard C. Keyt, CPA, at 602-906-4963, ext. 3. We do not charge to answer questions about forming nonprofit corporations or applying for tax exempt status with the IRS. See my article called “Hire Us to Get an IRS Tax Exemption for a Charitable Organization.” We can prepare and file an IRS Form 1023 for a charity formed in any of the fifty states.

For more about nonprofits and charities go to my website called Nonprofit Corporations.

CPSIA – Numbers Don’t Lie – Much Ado About Nothing

The Consumer Product Safety Information Act (CPSIA) is a terrible law that is costing American businesses billions of dollars and eliminating thousands of jobs – all in the name of protecting children from lead poisoning. The law illustrates perfectly the problem with giving government too much power over our lives. CPSIA over-regulates something that in reality is not a problem. CPSIA’s purpose is to protect children from lead poisoning.

A recent study of 899 Consumer Product Safety Commission product recalls over an 11 year period found that only one child in that period died from lead poisoning attributable to the recalled products. Why is the government regulating something that is statistically insignificant? The answer is because that is what government does. Government decides what is important and needs regulation and the facts be damned. Government knows best and government will fix it for us.

Here are some of the findings of the study of CPSC recalls over 11 years:

Recalls: 899
Products Recalled: 3,128
Units Recalled: 308,697,297
Injuries to Kids from Recalled Products: 2,381
Deaths from Recalled Products: 35

The study also determined the cause of injuries and deaths:

Brake Failure 0, 0
Burns 74, 0
Cadmium 0, 0
Choking 150, 3
Collision 2, 0
Falling/entrapment 1803, 17
Fire hazard 4, 0
Illness 0, 0
Impalement 0, 0
Laceration 284, 0
Lead 3, 1
[The only death from lead in 11 years]
Lead-in-paint 1, 0 [That’s right, ONE INJURY in 11 years, no deaths.]
Magnets 3, 0
Strangulation 26, 7
Suffocation 29, 7

It is a fact of life that children will be injured and killed in accidents while growing up. It is not possible to protect all children from injuries and death. What is the point in spending billings of dollars to “protect” so few children from injury and death? Why doesn’t the government allocate our precious financial resources based in importance, i.e., preventing the most common causes of injuries and deaths rather than to obscure and numerically small causes?

The authors of SuperFreakonomics explain how media and people get caught up with terror as an isolated event without recognizing how rare the event actually is. The book tells about a 2001 Time magazine cover story on shark attacks, a story the media loves to tell over and over. Four people on the planet earth with 6 billion people died from shark attacks in 2001. Over the ten year period 1995 to 2005, an average of 6 people a year died from shark attacks worldwide. Every year over 200 people are killed by elephants, but the media doesn’t write scare stories about elephant attacks. Why sharks, but not elephants?

The media writes about shark attacks because it has shark attacks on the brain and statistical facts about the number of deaths only gets in the way of the story. It’s the same with government. It’s obsessed with lead poisoning and the facts be damned. The CPSIA is the law that requires that all children’s products contain lower levels of lead than found in many common every day products. The Consumer Product Safety Commission’s job is to enforce the law regardless of cost to the country or the consequences of a bad law.

According to the Center for Disease Control, in 2006, lead poisoning was not one of the ten leading causes of death in children under 10. The leading causes of deaths of children under 10 were traffic accidents, suffocation, drowning and fire/burns. Why is the government wasting money and effort on lead in children’s toys instead of trying to reduce the leading causes of children’s deaths and injuries?

See “CPSIA – Publishers HOWL Over Inadequate Waxman Amendment.” which discusses the stupidy of the CPSIA’s ban on lead in children’s books that has lead to the destruction of hundreds of thousands of harmless books because people cannot afford to pay the cost of testing the books for lead content.

Just How Crappy Is Legal Education Today?

Interesting feedback from Elie Mystal who attended a conference of 75 law school deans on what’s wrong with law school. Harvard Law School and New York Law School sponsored the Future of Education conference last week. The author of “Just How Crappy Is Legal Education Today?” said:

” There were five panelists and a moderator (on my legal pad I made the notation ‘five person panels are dumb’). And between all five of them, I guess you could say that ‘everything’ is wrong with American legal education. But each of them in turn highlighted different aspects of the process that needed fixing…”

See Elie Mystal’s post called “Corporate General Counsel Puts Fear of God into Legal Educators (And You Should Be Worried Too)” about an earlier session in the same conference. Here’s my favorite quote from the high profile panelist speaking to the law school deans:

“We don’t allow first or second year associates to work on any of our matters without special permission, because they’re worthless.”

I hope the deans were paying attention, but I doubt it. The deans tend to live in their ivory towers unaware and unconcerned about the real world in which their law school graduates must enter.

9th Circuit Court Finds Software Coder was an Employee & Employer Owns Copyright on Code

JustMed, Inc. v. Byce is a copyright case decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It involved the question of who owned the copyright to software code created by Michael Byce – Micheal or JustMed, Inc.? The general rule of copyright law is that the creator of a work owns the copyrights to the work. Michael was the creator of the software code in dispute so he claimed he owned the copyrights to the code, which he took with him when he parted ways with JustMed.

There are two exceptions to the general rule of copyright ownership:

The work is created by an employee who created the work within the scope of the employee’s employment. When this occurs, the employer is the owner of the copyrights for the work. For example if Disney hires Bart Simpson to draw images for a new cartoon movie, Disney owns the copyrights to the works that Bart creates for his job.
The work is created under a contract called a “work for hire” agreement in which the creator of the work agrees in the document signed by the creator that the other party to the agreement owns all copyrights to the works created pursuant to the work for hire agreement. This is a contract that everybody should use when hiring somebody to take pictures, write copy, design websites, create images or write software.

In JustMed, Michael claimed he was an independent contractor and therefor the owner of the copyrights to the softwared. JustMed argued that Michael created the code as an employee of JustMed within the scope of his employment and therefor it was the owner of the copyrights. The Court found that JustMed was the owner of the copyright even though it did not dot the “i”s and cross the “t”s with respect to properly documenting the employer / employee relationship. The Court said:

“As a small start-up company, JustMed conducted its business more informally than an established enterprise might. This fact can make it more difficult to decide whether a hired party is an employee or an independent contractor, but it should not make the company more susceptible to losing control over software integral to its product.”

Reading between the lines it appears to me that the employer won because when it looked at the big picture it found that the employer was a software development company, Michael’s sole task was writing software code for the company and the employer paid him for the services. The Court found that Michael created code within the scope of his employment and therefor JustMed owned the copyrights to the code Michael created.

The employer could have avoided the lawsuit and the problems with the coder if it had required the coder to sign a work for hire agreement. If you are hiring somebody to create copyrightable work and need a work for hire agreement or an employment agreement that contains copyright language the protects your ownership of the copyrights, call me at 602-906-4953, ext. 1. I prepare these types of agreements.

See the Court’s opinion.