Phidd Blogs written by Attorney Alicia M. Phidd and blogs about current affairs.  You can communicate in real time on the blog every Saturday at 11:00 a.m. on any of her internet sites. 

Ms. Phidd's background in broadcasting includes being a guest on radio and t.v.  as well as hosting her own radio talk show.  She currently hosts an internet television show which allows the listeners around the world to call in. 

She had her own news talk show in 2009.  Her show was on a station with syndicated talk show hosts such as Dennis Miller, Michael Smerconish and Michael Savage.  The show discussed current affairs of legal and political issues locally and nationwide and took calls from listeners.  The show included a segment on causes and featuring something community driven in what she champions constantly as WHAT’S YOUR CAUSE?™  The show also took questions from social networking sites such as at www.twitter.com/phidd  and www.facebook.com/phidd.  In addition, the audience can become a fan  of the show on facebook as well.

SPEAKING TO CHILDREN IS NOT A NOVEL IDEA FOR POLITICIANS
 September 5, 2009 This morning on the Alicia Marie Phidd Report we discussed many things including President Obama’s Speech scheduled for Tuesday, September 8, 2009. The speech is set to engage students and speak on personal responsibility among other things. The Department of Education suggested classroom activity for before, during and after speech to all grade levels.
 
This speech has been politicized by Republicans as a speech of indoctrination due to some of the suggested activity including the students write to the President suggesting how they can help. Some schools are electing not to broadcast the speech for technical difficulties and other miscellaneous reasons. In addition, parents are threatening to remove their children from school on Tuesday.
 
I feel the need to blog on this matter because it is politicized to the effect that it is being called an indoctrination of young minds. This is just appalling. Parents have the option to not send their children to school that day. The schools have the option to not use the suggested classroom activities. What exactly is the problem here?

I submit to you my public that you go to the www.ed.gov website and familiarize yourself with the suggested activity relative to the grade of your child and then make your determination. In the recent past, former Presidents Reagan and Bush addressed students and it was televised nationwide. The speech of President Reagan is archived on my website for your viewing. After you review it, let me know if you have a problem with that speech and then review President Obama’s speech to be released on Monday and let me know your thoughts on the comparison.

If we believe that the message of personal responsibility is good and that young people, i.e. kids can give meaningful insights, then why shouldn’t their questions and thoughts be solicited? For the record, the former Presidents who were Republicans were opposed by the democrats on their intended speech as well.

My directive to you is to stop politicizing matters and issues that can make the country as a whole better. If you disagree, do it on good solid factual reasons and not propaganda. Parents, please “parent” and always try to educate yourself on matters so you can make informed decisions.

Alicia M. Phidd, M.P.S., J.D. received her B.Sc. in Chemistry and Masters in Environmental Studies from S.U.N.Y. at Stony Brook in New York and Juris Doctor from St. Thomas University School of Law in Florida. She currently practices Business Law and Immigration Law in Tampa, Florida. In addition, she has taught law at Barry University, graduate school; University of Phoenix, undergraduate business school and Broward Community College. She can be reached through website www.aliciaphidd.com Follow her at www.twitter.com/phidd View http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jJVsm57Awk All copyrights reserved. © 2009

JUDICIAL JUSTICE & SOCIETY RHETORIC

This week in review has everyone heads spinning. First let’s lead off with a theory. Let me ask you this…if you committed an act that society deems a crime. You were arrested and you plead guilty and saved tax payers some money from a trial cost. You served some time in jail for this crime. You are now back into society, would you want your friends and family to shun you, not want to house you or feed you? If you wanted a job, would you not expect to be hired? Let’s substitute friends and family with society. Would you expect society to have a conversation about you and the crime you committed and whether they should forgive you?

Remember the answer and now let’s get into the story. The Michael Vick Story. Mr. Vick a horrific person when he participated and funded dog fights. In addition, perhaps contributed to the death of several dogs during the course of his dog fighting career. He served 18 months in prison and during that time lost his home and millions of dollars. He was released a few weeks ago and since then landed a job with the Eagles football franchise. He has teamed up with the Humane Society and offered a public apology for his heinous criminal acts. Shouldn’t that be the end of it? Should we not at this point forgive him and let him live his life?

Well, the answer is no for hundreds of people that are actually picketing the decision of the football franchise to hire Mr. Vick. I was listening to talk radio this past week and heard a caller said that she believed in the judicial system what kind of message is that since he will be making his millions of dollars. Another said, he does not want to watch football and cheer for a team that such a reprehensible person is on.

Okay, here is my take on it. Legally, our judicial system worked where a crime against animal has a jail sentence and the perpetrator Mr. Vick served his time. He had a career before he went to jail and he resumed that career upon returning from work. His old employer did not want to hire a felon but another company was okay with his felony and hired him. Here is my question you on your moral high horse. If his career was that of a cashier that makes $10/hr and he served his jail time for the same crime and upon his return to society went back to that career would you feel the same way? If the answer is yes, then when was the last time you requested Walmart or any establish that you frequent on a weekly basis to let you know their employees committed a crime and what crime was it so you determine if you want to boycott that establishment?

I’m not done! If the answer to the scenario regarding the cashier is No! then, you are not having a problem with the franchise hiring him on moral grounds you are having a problem with his current and future earnings. I then find you morally reprehensible and despicable. The situation is simple, a man commits a crime, he serves his time, he returns to society and becomes a viable person in society by working. He is not a societal burden because he went into the penal system. Those of you that are against his return to work because that is what it is, work, those of you that are against it should truly weigh your outrage. Do you want a society that does not believe in rehabilitation or a society that hates the rich?

Think about it seriously, unless you are self employed it is a rich person that is hiring you, so you can pay your bills. This man served 18 months in jail for killing dogs and the Lockerbie Bomber served 21 years in jail for killing 270 or so people. Turn your outrage to the Lockerbie Bomber situation because that requires disgust at the politicians that released a terrorist on compassion. Mr. Vick should live his life in peace because if you don’t like him then don’t watch the franchise he plays for and use that time spent watching football to go PLAY with your children and have quality family time with them so they too may not be a statistic one day.

Alicia M. Phidd, M.P.S.,J.D. received her B.Sc. in Chemistry and Masters in Environmental Studies from S.U.N.Y. at Stony Brook in New York and Juris Doctor from St. Thomas University School of Law in Florida. She currently practices Business Law and Immigration Law in Tampa, Florida. In addition, she has taught law at Barry University, graduate school; University of Phoenix, undergraduate business school and Broward Community College. She can be reached through website http://www.aliciaphidd.com/ Follow her at www.twitter.com/phidd View http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jJVsm57Awk All copyrights reserved. © 2009

Morality and the Work Place Saturday, August 15, 2009 This week I couldn’t help but discuss this trend I’m observing all over our nation regarding employment, perception and morality. In late July of 2009 pursuant to newspaper reports and an on air interview of the husband by NBC, a town manger was fired because of his wife’s occupation.

The town manager of Fort Myers Beach, Mr. Scott Janke was hired in March, 2008. He got married to Anabella Moto in October, 2008. In late July, 2009 the Mayor, Larry Kiker learnt of Mr. Janke’s wife’s position and held an emergency meeting to discuss Mr. Janke’s employment or termination. The contract allows them to fire Mr. Janke by majority vote of the city council for any reason. The reason for the termination was reported that Mr. Janke, (keep in mind he is the employee), that Mr. Janke’s wife’s occupation was an inaccurate image for Fort Myers Beach.

What is the wife’s occupation, you ask? Oh, she is a porn star.

Let me tell you of another situation before entering the discussion. In Ohio, Gahanna, Ohio to be exact, Officer Fithen filed an harassment suit against his own police department. He alleges among other things that since his wife posed for playboy, it has been unbearable at work and there are constant requests for autographed copies of that particular edition of Playboy. There are some issues with the department on whether they denied paying him when he is on duty with the national guard.

However, for our purposes, even the chief of police Mr. Ken Bell requested an autographed copy of the magazine contributing allegedly to the harassment.

So this is my question to you. Do you believe the morality of your spouse should be imputed to you with respect to your employment? Should the legitimate employment of your spouse be tied to you?

Okay, so I have never done a show or blog without offering some substantial information and then expect your discussion. Here it is. Let’s start with Officer Fithen case. Ohio has its own laws separate from Florida. I’m a business law, i.e. contracts attorney as well as immigration attorney for Florida. Therefore I will speak with generalities.

Harassment cases typically arise when the environment is unbearable at work. There is sexual harassment and hostile environment. I’m not sure which type Officer Fithen filed under but my guess is that of hostile environment. Although there may be some legitimacy to his claims under the current employment law, I’m concerned about attaching a spouse’s job and or behavior to an employee.

Think about it! Is the reverse true, where Mrs. Janke should be looked upon has a high moral pornstar because her husband is a town manager? If the reverse is not true then how can that be fair?
 
I understand the whole idea of your conduct and your friends should be of optimum character especially when you are a public figure or of a position that requires a high moral standard.

Even so, it seems gut feeling wrong that an employee should be punished at his job for the legal occupation of his/her spouse. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this topic.


Sources for this blog: NY Daily News: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/07/23/2009-07-23_florida_town_manager_fired_over_porn_star_wife_.html


NBC4I: http://www2.nbc4i.com/cmh/news/local/article/Gahanna_Police_Officer_Sues_Department_Over_Harassment_From_Wifes_Naked_Pho/20794/ Sponsored by: www.aliciaphidd.com

	THIS PAGE SPONSOED BY:
	FOR ALL YOUR IMMIGRATION LAW, CONTRACTS & BUSINESS LAW NEEDS! (727) 785-9400 or info@xaymaicalaw.com

SPONSOR THIS PAGE! ASK ME HOW?

THIS PAGE SPONSORED BY: 
Alicia M. Phidd, Esq.