Hurford Global News

An increasing number of consumers are reporting deceptive practices by Lifestyle Luxury Vacation Club (LLVC)—a travel company claiming to offer luxury vacation memberships with discounted stays at top global destinations. Behind the polished presentations and high-end branding, customers are discovering that the services they paid for are not what was promised.

Misleading Sales Tactics

LLVC typically conducts its sales through high-pressure presentations in hotel settings, especially in locations like Dubai. Prospective customers are drawn in with complimentary dinners or show tickets, then presented with glossy brochures promoting a membership that supposedly offers access to exclusive hotels and resorts via the RCI exchange platform.

Sales agents emphasize urgency and exclusivity to pressure attendees into signing contracts and paying large upfront fees. The RCI platform is highlighted as the main benefit, supposedly offering heavily discounted stays worldwide.

Services Not Delivered

Despite clear verbal promises of receiving access within six weeks, many customers report that RCI credentials are never delivered on time, if at all. Even after waiting more than 12 weeks, some have yet to receive functional access. When asked for a live demonstration of the RCI platform during the sales meeting, LLVC representatives refused, citing vague excuses.

Printed booklets were used instead of real-time access, and many of the destinations listed do not appear to be available on RCI upon independent verification. This raises serious concerns about misrepresentation during the sales process.

No Real Discounts

Customers who later checked hotel rates via LLVC or other related platforms discovered that the pricing is no different from public booking sites—and in some cases, even higher. The promised savings, a key part of the sales pitch, have proven to be non-existent.

Strategically Delayed Access

Numerous buyers have reported a suspicious pattern: services are delayed just long enough to push customers past the timeframe for credit card chargebacks or formal complaints. This appears to be a tactic to avoid accountability and make it harder for customers to recover their funds once they realize the product does not match the promises made.

Free Gifts Used as Justification

Part of the sales pitch often includes add-ons like dinner reservations or show tickets, presented as exclusive perks. In reality, these are low-cost incentives, often valued under $100, and are used to distract from the lack of genuine long-term value.

A Pattern of Complaints

Dozens of online complaints now detail similar experiences with LLVC. Consumers describe being misled about destinations, blocked from refunds, and strung along with vague responses. The consistency of these stories points to a broader, systemic issue with how the company operates.

Further reading and documented complaints can be found here:

Reddit: Lifestyle Luxury Vacation Club – Hilton Scam

JustAnswer: Legal Advice on LLVC Contract Dispute

Reddit: LLVC Scam Subreddit

What You Can Do

If you’ve been affected by LLVC or are considering joining:

Immediately file a dispute with your credit card provider.

Document all sales communications and promises.

Report the company to consumer protection agencies.

Share your experience online to warn others.

Final Word

I’ve come across Phoenix Capital Group reviews, and they mention offering a 9% APY return on their 3-year bonds, which sounds decent. Their Instagram presence as "phoenixcapitalgroup" and their website detailing this investment caught my attention, but I’m naturally skeptical about anything promoted heavily through social media. I wanted to check if anyone knows whether this is legitimate or if there are any red flags to be concerned about. Additionally, I’m open to exploring similar investment opportunities outside of stocks or real estate to diversify my portfolio. If anyone has insights or recommendations, I’d greatly appreciate them. Thanks!

The University of Metaphysical Sciences (UMS) is a unique institution that offers programs focused on metaphysical studies, spiritual development, and holistic practices. Over the years, it has attracted students interested in exploring the intersection of spirituality, psychology, and philosophy. However, like many institutions, UMS has faced challenges, including legal disputes. This article delves into the specifics of the UMS lawsuit, exploring its background, implications, and the broader context of higher education in metaphysical studies.

Background of the University of Metaphysical Sciences

Establishment and Mission

Founded in the late 1990s, UMS aimed to provide an educational platform for individuals seeking to deepen their understanding of metaphysical concepts. The university offers degrees ranging from associate to doctoral levels in various fields, including metaphysical sciences, holistic health, and spiritual counseling. Its mission revolves around fostering personal growth, spiritual awakening, and the exploration of universal truths.

Programs and Curriculum

UMS provides a diverse curriculum that blends traditional academic frameworks with metaphysical teachings. Courses often cover topics such as:

Metaphysical Philosophy: Exploring the nature of reality, consciousness, and existence.

Spiritual Psychology: Understanding psychological principles through a spiritual lens.

Energy Healing: Techniques and practices for healing and wellness.

Intuition Development: Training students to enhance their intuitive abilities.

The university also emphasizes the importance of practical experience, encouraging students to engage in hands-on learning through workshops, retreats, and community service.

The Lawsuit: Overview

Origin of the Lawsuit

The lawsuit involving the University of Metaphysical Sciences emerged from allegations related to its business practices and regulatory compliance. While the specifics of the case may vary, the core issues often relate to student grievances, accreditation concerns, and financial practices.

Key Parties Involved

The lawsuit typically involves multiple parties:

The University of Metaphysical Sciences: As the defendant, UMS must respond to allegations and defend its practices.

Plaintiffs: These may include former students, faculty members, or regulatory bodies alleging misconduct or non-compliance.

Legal Representatives: Attorneys representing both the university and the plaintiffs play a critical role in navigating the legal complexities of the case.

Allegations and Claims

Misleading Practices

One of the primary allegations against UMS may involve claims of misleading practices related to advertising and recruitment. Plaintiffs could argue that the university misrepresented the value of its degrees, potential career outcomes, or accreditation status, leading students to make uninformed decisions.

Accreditation Issues

Accreditation is a vital aspect of higher education, affecting the legitimacy of degrees and programs. UMS may face scrutiny over its accreditation status, with allegations that it operates without proper accreditation or fails to meet the standards set by recognized accrediting bodies. This could raise questions about the validity of its degrees and the educational quality provided.

Financial Concerns

Financial practices, including tuition rates, refund policies, and student loan arrangements, may also come under scrutiny. Plaintiffs may allege that the university engaged in unfair or deceptive financial practices, impacting students’ ability to pay for their education or recover tuition fees in cases of withdrawal or program dissatisfaction.

Student Experiences

Former students may bring forth personal accounts of their experiences at UMS, highlighting concerns related to curriculum quality, faculty support, and overall satisfaction. These testimonies can significantly impact the case, providing evidence of potential misconduct or areas where the university may have fallen short of expectations.

The Legal Process

Filing the Lawsuit

The legal process typically begins with the filing of a lawsuit in a relevant court. Plaintiffs must present their claims and evidence, outlining the specific allegations against UMS. This includes any supporting documentation, witness statements, and relevant laws or regulations that the university may have violated.

Discovery Phase

Once the lawsuit is filed, the discovery phase begins. This stage involves the exchange of information between the parties, including:

Depositions: Interviews conducted under oath, where witnesses provide testimony.

Document Requests: Both parties may request relevant documents, such as financial records, promotional materials, and communication logs.

The discovery phase is critical for gathering evidence and building a case.

Pre-Trial Motions

Before the trial begins, either party may file pre-trial motions. These motions can seek to dismiss the case, compel specific evidence, or establish legal parameters for the trial. For instance, UMS may file a motion to dismiss if it believes the allegations lack merit.

Trial Proceedings

If the case proceeds to trial, both sides present their arguments before a judge or jury. This includes:

Opening Statements: Each party outlines its case and what it intends to prove.

Presentation of Evidence: This involves witness testimonies, expert opinions, and documentary evidence.

Closing Arguments: Both sides summarize their cases, highlighting key points for consideration.

The trial concludes with a verdict, which determines whether UMS is liable for the allegations.

Appeals

Following the trial, either party may have the option to appeal the verdict if they believe legal errors occurred during the proceedings. The appeals process can prolong the legal battle, adding additional complexity to the situation.

Implications of the Lawsuit

Impact on Students

The ongoing lawsuit can significantly impact current and prospective students. Uncertainty surrounding the university’s reputation may deter potential applicants, affecting enrollment numbers. Current students may experience anxiety regarding the validity of their degrees and the university’s overall stability.

Financial Consequences

Legal disputes can be financially burdensome for institutions, leading to increased costs associated with legal fees, potential settlements, and changes in operational practices. Depending on the outcome, UMS may need to allocate resources to address the allegations, which could impact its financial health.

Institutional Reputation

Reputation plays a crucial role in the success of educational institutions. Negative publicity resulting from a lawsuit can tarnish UMS’s image, potentially leading to a decline in partnerships, community support, and public perception. Rebuilding trust may require significant efforts and time.

Regulatory Scrutiny

Lawsuits often attract the attention of regulatory bodies overseeing higher education. UMS may face additional scrutiny from state or federal agencies, leading to investigations or audits of its practices. This increased oversight can result in further legal complications and impact the institution’s operations.

Broader Context of Metaphysical Education

Growing Interest in Metaphysical Studies

Despite challenges, interest in metaphysical studies has grown in recent years. As individuals seek alternative paths to understanding spirituality, consciousness, and holistic health, institutions like UMS play a vital role in providing education and resources.

Accreditation and Recognition

The landscape of metaphysical education is complex, with many institutions operating outside traditional accreditation systems. This raises questions about the legitimacy of programs and the value of degrees. Prospective students must carefully research their options and consider the implications of attending a non-accredited institution.

The Future of Metaphysical Education

The future of metaphysical education may hinge on how institutions adapt to changing regulations and student expectations. Programs that emphasize quality, transparency, and ethical practices are likely to thrive, while those that face legal challenges may struggle to maintain credibility.

Conclusion

The University of Metaphysical Sciences lawsuit highlights the complexities and challenges faced by institutions operating in the niche field of metaphysical education. Allegations related to misleading practices, accreditation issues, and financial concerns underscore the importance of transparency and ethical conduct in higher education.

As UMS navigates the legal process, the implications extend beyond the institution itself, affecting students, faculty, and the broader community of metaphysical practitioners. While the outcome of the lawsuit remains uncertain, it serves as a reminder of the critical need for accountability and integrity within the realm of education.

Dr. Jessica Lynne Bodea, MD is a pediatric hematologist oncologist in Memphis, TN. She is affiliated with Phoenix Children's Hospital. She is accepting new patients.

Devilcorps in the DMV area - SHK and Agon Inc.

Total Garage Door Solutions - Beware

I was researching bareboat sailing charters. I sent my sailing resume which they said was "great". I wanted to charter a 45' boat in August 2024. I had tons of questions since it was my first time chartering a boat on my own and their website didn't have the info I needed. At first they were very helpful.

Then I asked if they had recommended sail configurations based on wind conditions; what the cost was to fill the fresh water tank; the average cost of fuel for a week of sailing; what the laws are regarding waste tank disposal in the area of Martha's Vineyard; and if they had food provisioning suggestions for a week. They prohibit sailing at night so I asked what the consequences would be if we arrived at a port after dark and whether the boat was equipped with a spot light. I asked if we could deviate from the suggested itinerary.

They came back with "How old are you? When you rent a car at Hertz do you ask what to do if it rains? You should already know that fresh water fills are free and that waste tank can never be emptied into the water. You scare me! I can't help you. You must use a different charter company if you want to sail at night or sail through Woods Hole."

I've done a lot of sailing in the Long Island Sound. The boat that I was responsible for didn't have a shower and we never filled the water tank. The boat owner covered the cost of fuel and handled the waste tanks. I knew we needed to use a pumpout while in a harbor.

I chartered a boat in CT and we didn't need to fill the water tank or deal with the waste tanks, then a charter in Greece, the fresh water fill cost a few dollars every couple of days, the waste tanks could be emptied into the sea once a mile off shore.

SHADY AF: Besides being married, what do Anthony & Todd Cimino Johnson have in common? Money. Anthony is the drama teacher at

@LCPSOfficial Rock Rodge HS and he’s also the registered agent of a nonprofit called Rock Ridge HS Drama Booster (

@RRPAofficial). RRHSDB collects membership dues and donations to fund their drama club in addition to direct Venmo donations to Todd. Then we have Todd (@toddforleesburg) who is a sitting Leesburg Town Council member and owner of Impact Tours and Travel (well they both are). The RRHS drama club takes trips, and those trips cost money, no big deal. However, below is how this flows: Donations to Anthony Nonprofit->Anthony or someone else is paid a $90k salary->All Travel Arrangements Are Provided by the Cimino-Johnson’s privately owned Impact Tours and Travel. This is SHADY AF. On the RRHSDB website, it states that Todd’s travel business was "selected from among several vendors as the best travel value”. LCPS FOIA records confirm that this selection process was not done by or included anyone from LCPS. So who made the decision?

There will be more to this SHADY AF story.

Pune, April 19th, 2023 - The financial world was recently rocked by a shocking revelation of a massive investor fraud, involving an astounding 700 crore rupees as per news article. The mastermind behind this elaborate scheme was Avinash Arjun Rathod, owner of APS Wealth Venture LLP, a Pune-based company that promised investors the opportunity to double their investments in the stock market within just 20 months. This enticing proposition lured thousands of investors, including government officials, into a web of deceit that ultimately led to significant financial losses.

The Rise and Deception:

Avinash Arjun Rathod's journey into the world of financial deception began in 2011 when he established APS, a share market company operating under the guise of wealth creation. With a veneer of legitimacy, Rathod started to attract investors by offering the prospect of doubling their investments. To gain initial trust, he made small refunds, slowly building the popularity and reputation of his company.

As APS Wealth Venture LLP gained notoriety, it gained the confidence of a wide range of investors, including individuals from Pune, Mumbai, Vidarbha, and other cities. The promises of lucrative returns seemed irresistible, and many entrusted their hard-earned savings to Rathod's scheme. Over the years, the fraudulent scheme expanded, accumulating an estimated 700 crores or more from unsuspecting investors.

The Deceptive Delay:

When investors began to request their returns and refunds in March 2023, APS Wealth Venture LLP resorted to delaying tactics. Citing health reasons for Avinash Rathod, the company requested investors to wait until April 10th, 2023. During this period, Avinash Rathod's wife, Vishakha Rathod, assumed control of the company's operations and engaged with investors. Her presence further extended the deception, buying more time for the company to address investor concerns.

The Aftermath and Legal Action:

As the truth behind the fraudulent scheme began to surface, investors grew increasingly anxious. Many had put their trust and financial futures in APS Wealth Venture LLP, only to find themselves caught in a financial quagmire.

Legal authorities swiftly swung into action, launching investigations into Avinash Arjun Rathod's activities and the operations of APS Wealth Venture LLP. The objective was to bring the perpetrators of this massive financial fraud to justice and recover as much of the investors' funds as possible.

Conclusion:

The Avinash Arjun Rathod and APS Wealth Venture LLP scandal serves as a grim reminder of the importance of due diligence and cautious investing. It underscores the vulnerability of even seasoned investors to enticing promises of high returns and the need for stringent regulatory oversight in the financial sector.

Starting in April of 2020, federal law enforcement agents opened an account on a live video streaming site used primarily for sexual purposes to monitor and chat with accounts engaged in sharing child pornography on the site. Around June 20th, 2022, agents accessed a chatroom in which Belitz was a member. This chat room was suspected to be used for sharing child pornography.

The same day, Belitz posted two links in the chat. The first contained approximately 647 files, consisting primarily of images of nude prepubescent children in sexually explicit poses, as well as images depicting the rape and other sexual assaults of prepubescent females. At least one of the files depicted the sexual assault of an infant.

The second link contained a folder which contained

approximately 628 files consisting primarily of videos depicting prepubescent and adolescent females, many of which depict the nude minor victims engaging in sexually explicit conduct, oral sex, and/or masturbation. One video in the folder depicted a 5 year old being forced to perform a sex act on an adult.

Around July 13th, agents observed Belitz had shared two more links. The first link contained a folder which contained approximately 66 files. The files consisted largely of videos depicting the sexual abuse of prepubescent children. The second contained a folder which contained approximately 105 files. The files were primarily a mixture of sexually explicit videos depicting either adults or teenage girls whose age could not be determined engaged in sex acts.

5 days later, Belitz posted another folder link in the chat. This one contained approximately 91 videos primarily depicting nude prepubescent children in sexually explicit poses and/or being sexually assaulted by adult males.

Around October of 2020 federal agents executed a search warrant on the house Belitz was living in. Belitz admitted to have shared the materials. During the execution of the search of the Subject Premises, law enforcement seized multiple electronic

devices belonging to Belitz, including his cellphone, laptop, and hard drives.

After reviewing the contents of the phone, agents found several hundred stored media files depicting child pornography, including photographs and videos of nude infants and prepubescent children engaging in various sex acts.

Belitz was arrested on 1/15/2021 and pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on 5/27/2022. He was sentenced to time served, 5 years supervised release, and registry, although it seems he may only be a level 1 offender which wouldn't show on the public registry.

Belitz was a former counselor at Camp Kaylie, a former Madrich at B'nei Akiva, and a former counselor at Moshava Ba'ir in New Jersey. He has also worked as an EMT for SeniorCare.

According to a filing in the case, Belitz, at least as of 2021, was davening at SDC in RIverdale.

False advertising class-action lawsuits are becoming increasingly common as consumers become more aware of their rights and companies are held accountable for their actions. One such lawsuit was recently filed against InventHelp, a company that allegedly engages in a deceptive and fraudulent invention promotion scam. The plaintiffs in this case claim that InventHelp promises to provide inventors with tools to monetize their inventions, but fails to deliver on these promises. 

According to the complaint, InventHelp offers a variety of services to inventors, including loans, research, patenting, marketing, manufacturing, and distribution. However, the plaintiffs claim that the company does not actually provide these services to inventors, even after they have paid thousands of dollars for them. The complaint further alleges that InventHelp uses false and misleading advertising to lure inventors into paying for these services, which they never receive.

InventHelp has been accused of violating from FTC

InventHelp is a company that offers services to inventors, such as patent searches, market research, and licensing assistance. However, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit claim that InventHelp's services are not as advertised and that the company uses high-pressure sales tactics to lure inventors into paying for services that they do not need. Inventhelp Caveman

False advertising is prohibited by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act.

False advertising class-action lawsuits like this one serve an important purpose in holding companies accountable for their actions. When companies make false or misleading claims about their products or services, they deceive consumers and take advantage of their trust. In this case, the plaintiffs are alleging that InventHelp promised inventors services that they never received, even after paying thousands of dollars. This is a serious violation of consumer rights and should be taken seriously.

If you have been a victim of false advertising, it is important to speak up and hold the company accountable. Class-action lawsuits like this one provide a way for consumers to come together and take legal action against a company that has wronged them. You may be able to recover damages for any losses you have suffered as a result of the false advertising.

This lawsuit highlights the importance of being cautious when working with invention promotion companies. Before paying any money to a company, it's important to thoroughly research the company, read reviews and testimonials, and speak with other inventors who have worked with the company. 

It's also important to remember that there is no guarantee that an invention will be successful, and that it's important to be realistic about the potential for success. It's also important to remember that many inventors are able to successfully monetize their inventions without the help of an invention promotion company.

Invent Help Lawsuit

This lawsuit highlights the importance of being aware of your rights as a consumer and being cautious when dealing with companies that promise to help you monetize your ideas or inventions. If you are considering using a company like InventHelp, it is important to do your research and make sure that the company is reputable and that their services are legitimate.

It is also important to note that lawsuits are legal proceedings and one side of the story is presented, and it is not final until it is ruled by a court. It is always wise to consult with a lawyer or attorney before making any judgement.

InventHelp has yet to respond to the lawsuit, but it is important to keep an eye out for any updates or developments in this case.

Abdou Raman Soumanou, l’un des responsables de la société SECURIPORT a réagi suite à l’information annonçant un mandat d’arrêt contre sa personne et ses partenaires. Dans un texte publié ce dimanche 24 janvier 2021, il a apporté des clarifications sur le dossier et promet revenir à la charge avec des éléments de preuves.

« Suite à votre article relatif au dossier SECURIPORT, publié ce vendredi 22 janvier 2021, je tiens à apporter les précisions et clarifications suivantes :

Je confirme qu’un mandat d’arrêt infondé et arbitraire a été bien émis à mon encontre et à  l’encontre de mes partenaires, mais il n’est que national. Il a été émis par la Cour de Répression des Infractions Economiques et du Terrorisme (CRIET).

Sur le fond, le dossier est totalement vide : le Procureur de la CRIET prétend qu’au nom de SECURIPORT, j’aurais illégalement obtenu des ministres en charge des négociations, des documents confidentiels.

Des arbitres internationaux (dont un choisi par le Bénin) ont constaté que ces allégations étaient fausses, ce que la Cour d’Appel de Paris a confirmé.

Ces mandats d’arrêt nationaux, et plus généralement la procédure lancée devant la CRIET, constituent donc une tentative d’intimidation.

Ces mandats d’arrêt sont la réaction de l’Etat béninois à la condamnation, juste, prononcée à son encontre par les Juridictions Internationales, qui l’ont condamné le 24 janvier 2019 à 100 millions de dollars d’indemnisation au bénéfice de SECURIPORT pour avoir irrégulièrement expulsé SECURIPORT de l’aéroport de Cotonou.

SECURIPORT n’est pas condamnée par la CRIET. Nos avocats se battent pour contester cette procédure devant la Cour Suprême au Bénin. Je n’ai aucun doute que si la Cour Suprême est indépendante, elle censurera toutes les décisions de la CRIET. A défaut, nous engagerons les recours nécessaires devant les Juridictions Internationales.

Des mesures d’exécution de la condamnation de l’Etat béninois ont été entamées devant le refus incompréhensible du gouvernement de Patrice TALON d’engager des discussions franches pour trouver une solution alors même qu’au final, ce sont les contribuables Béninois qui paieront.

L’addition déjà élevée s’alourdit de jour en jour compte tenu des intérêts qui avoisinent déjà les 30 millions de dollars, ajoutés aux 100 millions déjà dûs depuis deux ans !

J’apporterai prochainement plus d’éléments, preuves à l’appui, sur :

toute la période de négociations jusqu’à la signature du contrat,

l’installation et le fonctionnement du système à l’aéroport de Cotonou,

la résiliation du contrat,

les médiations initiées par mes soins avant la procédure d’arbitrage,

la procédure d’arbitrage et le procès proprement dit.

Gardée avec beaucoup de circonspection dans le registre des dossiers confidentiels de la Marina, la condamnation du Bénin par le Tribunal de commerce international à verser la bagatelle de 55,5 milliards F cfa à la société Sécuriport est désormais sur la place publique. Le gouvernement qui se voit dans l’obligation de payer est confronté à un dilemme. Doit-il payer à partir des deniers publics ou son chef, Patrice Talon de sa poche pour respecter une décision du conseil des ministres prise il y a quelques mois ?Un os dur dans la gorge du gouvernement ! Alors qu’il se bat sur le front politique pour soigner l’image du pays entachée depuis les dernières élections législatives, le gouvernement Talon a une nouvelle braise. Cette fois-ci sur le plan économique. Depuis Janvier, la Chambre du commerce international de Paris a rendu une décision condamnant le Bénin à payer la faramineuse somme de 55,5 millions de francs Cfa à la société americano-argentine Securiport chargée du contrôle des passagers à l’aéroport de Cotonou.

Courant 2016, une fois arrivé au pouvoir, Patrice Talon et son gouvernement se sont empressés de résilier le contrat qui liait cette société à l’Etat béninois sans le moindre respect des clauses de résiliation. Et sans appel d’offres, ils l’ont confié à Morpho Dys, une société dirigée par un proche du président de la République.

En Janvier dernier, la sentence tombe telle une pilule que le gouvernement a du mal à avaler. En effet, il est condamné à payer 55,5 milliards F Cfa à Sécuriport. Mais depuis, la société n’a toujours pas réussi à entrer en possession des fonds. Estomaqué par cette décision qu’il n’a pu empêcher, le pouvoir Talon tente de négocier une résolution plus douce et plus consensuelle avec la société Sécuriport qui n’exige que le paiement de cette somme.

Talon ou l’Etat

De son côté, le gouvernement continue à hésiter. Ses tergiversations viennent d’abord du fait qu’il lui sera très difficile de justifier un tel paiement devant l’opinion. Accepter de payer une si importante somme et la payer à une société prestataire à cause du non respect des termes d’un contrat sonne comme une fausse note musicale dans le concert des discours de transparence budgétaire, de rationalisation des dépenses de l’Etat et des d’autres paradigmes similaires ventilés depuis des mois par le gouvernement.

Il est aussi peu honorable pour un tel gouvernement d’avoir à justifier cela dans un contexte national et international de morosité économique et pendant qu’on harcèle les citoyens sur le plan fiscal. Mais enfin, une autre raison plus forte que les autres expliquent les tergiversions actuelles. Au cas même où se déciderait à payer Sécuriport, le gouvernement devrait lever un grand dilemme entre la provenance de cette somme. Qui doit payer ? L’Etat ou le chef de l’Etat Patrice Talon.

En effet, au cours d’une séance du conseil des ministres, le gouvernement a pris lui-même la décision de faire payer à des cadres de l’administration, les préjudices de leurs légèretés surtout quand cela entraîne des paiements ressources financières. Si donc cette décision de résiliation a été prise par le chef de l’Etat, il devrait lui-même payer de ses poches cette décision au regard des décisions que le gouvernement a prises. Ou, tout au moins, le cadre qui est doigté comme responsable de cette faute va devoir payer de sa poche.

https://www.kiiitv.com/article/news/local/fired-mathis-police-officer-arrested-after-refusing-to-turn-in-his-gear/

Pervert trying to talk to a child under the age of 16