Posted by Sheyenne Hurt-Lewis.

Customer reviews are extremely important to the reputation of a business. In today’s technological era, it is becoming imperative for businesses to manage their online reputation though social media and other outlets. Reviewing sites such as Yelp, Twitter, and Facebook can be used as means of reforming and promoting businesses. Dan Simons, a restauranteur in the Washington area expressed the importance of customer feedback by saying, “You could open a business and do everything right, but if you’re unaware of these social media you well perish. Social media can take a business and put a bullet in it.” Positive reviews generate business but the impact of negative reviews has a greater impact on businesses than one may think. The best way to keep a healthy reputation for your business is to continue providing satisfactory goods and services to consumers, and ensure that negative experiences are at a minimum, and addressed promptly if they must occur.

Monitoring what is being said about your business is the first step in ensuring that your businesses name rings satisfaction. One may do this by simply using one of the many available online resources to search yourself and tune into the varying customer opinions. Technology even goes as far as alerting a business person when the name of their business is mentioned on a social media network. Managing reviews is the next step in guaranteeing a good name for your business. Thanking customers who left good feedback and inviting them to come again is a good way to keep the customers satisfied and returning. Addressing negative reviews in a professional manner with intentions to “win back the customer” is another way to improve the business environment. It is more than likely that new customers will look at these pages before deciding whether to visit or purchase a product. Businesspeople should “try to put yourself in the customer’s place” and make certain that they are doing their very best to make sure every customer leaves pleased and willing to return.

Sheyenne is a management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.

Posted by Charles Bond.

My article is about the people who feed millions of Americans, farmers. Specifically, a ruling the USDA first tried to implement, but then decided to rescind. This ruling would have offered more protection for farmers who raise cows, pigs, and chickens for the largest meat producers in the United States. The USDA’s plan would have made it easier for farmers to sue those meat producers they are in contract with for unfair, discriminatory, or deceptive practices. This was a policy that was set to be enacted at the end of the Obama Administration but was put on hold until the Trump Administration took over; the USDA under the new administration decided to drop it. “Currently, several court rulings have interpreted federal law as saying a farmer must prove a company’s action harm competition in the entire industry before a lawsuit can move forward.” The farmer’s cannot just say they believe a company is aiming to cause harm; they must prove the company said this was their intent.  Passing the new rule would ease the burden of finding proof.

This new rule would have been extremely beneficial for chicken and pork farmers. “Chicken and pork producers must enter long-term contracts with companies like Tyson Foods and Pilgrim’s Pride that farmers allege lock them into deals that fix their compensation at unprofitably low levels and forces them deeply into debt.” Farmers are unaware of the repercussions of these deals until it is too late to do anything about them. The National Chicken Council President was strongly against this rule and thought the rule would have “opened the floodgates to frivolous and costly litigation.” Politicians are split on the ruling. Senator Pat Roberts was pleased with the rule being dropped stating, “It demonstrates the Trump administration’s commitment to promoting economic prosperity and reducing regulatory burdens in rural America.” Meanwhile Senator Charles Grassley criticized the rule being shot down saying ,“The USDA is the U.S. Department of Agriculture, not the U.S. Department of Big Agribusiness.”

This is a complicated issue, with reasonable arguments on both sides. However, it seems unreasonable not to have this rule. It is proven that meat producers exploit farmers across the board just so they can maximize profit and keep the farmers reliant on them for business. An argument made against the rule was that it opens the floodgate for farmers to bring cases against the companies, whether they have sufficient evidence or not. If the companies really were doing no wrong than they would not care because the cases would always go there way and secondly the ruling is only being implemented because so many farmers are claiming the companies are doing wrong and they have means to bring them to court. It really is a dicey issue, but ultimately the farmers should be allowed to take the companies court and have the law settle the disagreement.

Charles is a sports management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.

Source:

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/10/18/us/ap-us-farm-rules.html

Posted by Michael de Andrade.

Volkswagen, one of the European auto giants, admitted to “installing defeat device software in 11 million cars.” These “defeat device software” lets carmakers to change performance settings of the engines before a pollution test. These software would not only switch the performance settings of an engine but also detect when “they were being tested for nitrogen oxide emissions.” The installation of such defeat device rose a huge debate as to whether or not Volkswagen’s “emissions-test trickery” is a violation of European testing rules. The question at hand as described by Paul Willis, top Volkswagen official in Europe, was “whether the software officially constituted a defeat device” under European Union regulations.

The Volkswagen scandal, not only questioned whether Volkswagen is cheating or not, but questioned strongly Europe’s permissive testing practices and the compatibility of American and European auto regulations. This scandal led to Trans-Atlantic trade talks to rapidly increase so the United States and European nations can agree to a mutual auto regulation rules. In Europe “the setting of the engine and of the vehicle’s controls shall be those prescribed by the manufacturer;” making Volkswagen alteration of engine settings not a clear cut violation of European rules. But what makes the debate become such a big issue is that roughly 11 million Volkswagen vehicles carry the software, which about 500,000 are in the United States alone. This can cause Volkswagen to lose billions of dollars despite the penalty enforcements by auto regulators in Europe are very passive and rare.

Volkswagen came out by stating they are “committed [themselves] to fixing the vehicles.” Volkswagen is being comprehensible and trying to fix the issue that they commenced. As stated by Ms. Caudet, “European legislation implies that a vehicle must use the same engine setting during the regulatory emission test and in real driving,” which would make Volkswagen’s actions a violation against European auto regulations. The situations at hand continued to cause tension when the Environmental Protection Agency discovered that Volkswagen used another defeat device in some larger cars and sport utility vehicles that had not previously been implicated” making the cost to fix the issue grow substantially. In the end, the European system is known for its loopholes, for “allowing automakers to test preproduction vehicles that will never be sold” but actions need to be done so auto regulation rules in Europe and the United States, through the Trans-Atlantic agreement, can become more enforced. The “phony system of testing” as described by Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, a Dutch member of the European Parliament, must be improved and by “simply making the road emission tests easier to pass,” is simply not the right step by the European government.

Michael is a sports management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.

Posted by Nicholas Rizzi.

Product liability cases are far from straight forward; recently the Sinclair v. Merck & Co., Inc., 195 N.J. 51 (2008) celebrated its ten year anniversary.  Within this complex case, the court misinterpreted the product liability statute, in which it “decided that economic losses were barred by the act and, furthermore, ipse dixit that Consumer Fraud Act claims were likewise barred (Law Journal Editorial Board).

The court decided that the definition of “harm” was to be interpreted as physical injury or damaged property as opposed to being harmed economically.  The main reason this is brought up again, is because the case was being celebrated, when in fact it should be considered for reevaluation.

“The UCC’s warranty claims in non-“harm” cases still stand . . . numerous courts still apply the CFA, notwithstanding Sinclair” (Law Journal Editorial Board).  The courts left no explanation for their decision to define harm as they did, and for this reason, it should be reconsidered.

Overall, I believe that just like in this situation, product liability cases are not clear cut, but especially in this situation, courts should reevaluate cases as times change.  It’s unfortunate for those who may have been excluded from a fair ruling in the past, but it is better to reevaluate and get it correct, than to continue issuing unfair rulings.  People have the right to be protected from product liability, and in order for that to occur, the court should have to elaborate on what caused them to interpret the word “harm” in the way they chose to do.

Nicholas is an undecided major in the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.    

Posted by Thomas DeFrancesco.

South Dakota has a state tax for sales of goods and services that are made by retailers of the state. Out-of-state retailers were making sales to customers in the state of South Dakota and not collecting and remitting sales tax in South Dakota. However, these retailers are allowed to do that based on the ruling made in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 and National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Ill., 386 U.S. 753. The state was worried they were losing funding due to out-of-state retailers not collecting and remitting the South Dakota’s sales tax. To solve this concern, South Dakota created a law that commanded out-of-state retailers who make more than 200 sales transactions and at least $100,000 in revenue from those sales to collect and remit sales tax as if they were located in South Dakota. Companies who met those requirements failed to follow the newly made law so the South Dakota legislature brought the issue to court.

Should the respondents have to register for licenses to collect and remit the sales tax regardless if they are physically present in the state or not?

South Dakota law is permitted to tax sales from sellers who are outside of that particular state as long as the seller collects at least $100,000 in sales revenue or more than 200 sales transactions.

The court derived its reasoning from other cases including Quill v. North Dakota and National Bella Hess v. Department of Revenue of Ill. The court explained how the physical presence rule in Quill v. North Dakota is “unsound and incorrect.” Since the internet has such a great impact on business, retailers who do business through the internet must pay taxes in that particular state of the sale. Therefore, the Quill v. North Dakota reasoning is no longer relevant.

Thomas is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2021.

Source:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-494_j4el.pdf

Posted by Gen Nagai

A law passed on 2015 that eggs sold in California have to come from hen that have enough room for them to stretch in their cages. This may also be known as “free-ranged eggs”. The purpose of this is to not only let the hen live a better life but studies have found that not giving them the ideal way of living increases the chances of getting salmonella from the eggs that they produce.

This may sound good, however, bad news come with it. Firstly, consumers will have to expect prices of the eggs to rise. Secondly, there may be a shortage of eggs may occur as 90% of eggs come from places where it is not acceptable to sell according to the California Law.

Today, over a dozen states have filled a law suit directly to the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday (Dec.04, 2017) to block this law as it violates the U.S. Constitution’s interstate commerce clause and are pre-empted by federal law. Although, a similar case has been rejected 6 different times by 6 different states, Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley is confident in the new lawsuit as he has economic studies to back his case up.  He has mentioned that California’s egg law has cost consumers nationwide up to $350 million annually as a result of higher egg prices.

States that are backing up this case include Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin.

Gen is a business information technology management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/04/the-associated-press-the-latest-13-states-challenge-to-california-egg-law.html

Several states have statutes that make it a crime to refuse to take a breathalyzer if suspected of driving under the influence. Some states, like New Jersey, make refusal a civil offense. The High Court is reviewing statutes in North Dakota and Minnesota that make it a crime for people suspected of drunken driving to refuse to take alcohol tests. Drivers prosecuted under those laws claim they violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.

The justices questioned lawyers representing the states as to why police cannot be required to get a telephonic warrant every time they want a driver to take an alcohol test. “Justice Stephen Breyer pointed to statistics showing that it takes an average of only five minutes to get a warrant over the phone in Wyoming and 15 minutes to get one in Montana.”  However, this may not be correct.

“Kathryn Keena, a county prosecutor representing Minnesota, suggested some rural areas may have only one judge on call, making it too burdensome to seek a warrant every time. She said even if a warrant were procured, a driver could still refuse to take the test and face lesser charges for obstruction of a warrant than for violating drunken driving test laws.”

Telephonic warrants have also been the rule in New Jersey since 2009. Recently, the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed itself, reverting back to the federal standard requiring police to obtain a warrant after establishing they have probable cause. Under the more stringent standard of using telephonic warrants, police were complaining it took to long to reach a judge. Police also used consent forms they carried, causing an outcry from the defense bar that such a practice may lead to further abuses. Justice Anthony Kennedy said the states are asking for “an extraordinary exception” to the warrant rule by making it a crime for drivers to assert their constitutional rights.

The problem for the states is that without the threat of a refusal penalty, the only proof available at trial as to whether someone was intoxicated while driving is the observations made by police. Observations, however, cannot prove blood alcohol level.

Research project posted by Rafael Gabrieli.

Eminent Domain

Part I:

Eminent domain is the power to take private property for public use by a state or national government. There would be just compensation for the private property seized, however, many problems arise from this act. The way that eminent domain works is that it is backed by the Fifth Amendment to the US.  Constitution, which is that your state government has power over all property in the State, even private land. The land can be taken without the consent of the owner, as long as he or she is justly compensated. The purposes for which eminent domain vary, however, it has to be used for a public good somehow. This means that roads, courthouses, schools, or any other infrastructure that can benefit the public will come into place of the land that the government took using eminent domain. The state government or national government is able to use eminent domain for large-scale public works operations or even growing freeway systems.

Part II:

Pros:

In Houston, Texas, land was obtained by the use of eminent domain in order to create the Minute Maid Park baseball stadium, which has benefitted the surrounding community immensely. The baseball stadium brings millions of people each year to downtown Houston. What is amazing to see is to compare it with the Houston community before the stadium was built, which was very barren and unsocial.

The I-85 widening project in Concord, North Carolina will reshape the way inhabitants travel around Concord. The inhabitants are being justly compensated, and some are even getting 5%-10% more than the initial appraisal value. This new freeway widening will allow traffic to be lessened during rush hours, which posed a big problem for the city during the past couple of years. It is a necessary and responsible use of eminent domain.

Cons:

Private property could have sentimental value, like a house that has been in the family for generations. This is the case with the Keeler family from Claverack, New York, who lived in their house for four generations and were being forced out due to the state’s plan to expand power lines. Another problem with eminent domain is that the price that the owner feels he deserves is more than what is being offered to him. This happened to Rich Quam, owner of a house in Fargo, North Dakota since 1997. The town stated that his backyard could become structurally unstable, so the city offered him an amount to buy the property from him. Rich Quam declared it an insult however, because the amount did not reflect the years of hard work he put into renovating the house, adding a second level and a garage. A third problem is the simple desire to not want to abandon a profitable business, which almost occurred a couple years back to Perry Beaton, property co-owner of a Burger King that the city of North Kansas City was attempting to seize from him.

Part III:

In Economic Justice for All, it is stated that the common good may sometimes demand that the right to own be limited by public involvement in the planning or ownership of certain sectors of the economy, which is essentially the basis for eminent domain. Catholic support of private ownership does not mean that anyone has the right to unlimited accumulation of wealth, rather, it states that “no one is justified in keeping for his exclusive use what he does not need, when others lack necessities.” Thus being the Catholic Social Teaching stance on Eminent Domain: if it is for the public good, an individual should be more than willing to give up his property that is not essential to his well-being in order to further the development of society and his surroundings.

Works Cited

Clayton, Adam. “Family Rallies to save Farmland from Eminent Domain.” Columbia-Greene Media. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

“Economic Justice for All.” Wall Common Good Selected Texts. N.p., n.d. Book. 10 Mar. 2016.

Lewis, David. “Eminent Domain: Still A Useful Tool Despite Its Recent Thrashing.” Planetizen. Planetizen, 5 Sept. 2006. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

Messina, Ignazio. “City Threatens Eminent Domain.” Toledo Blade. N.p., 26 Jan. 2014. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

Reaves, Tim. “Making Way for the Freeway: Eminent Domain Claims Homes.” Independent Tribune. Independent Tribune, 7 June 2015. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

Ross, John. “Hands Off! North Kansas City Loses Eminent Domain Case « Watchdog.org.” Watchdogorg RSS. N.p., 23 Jan. 2014. Web. 26 Jan. 2014.

Posted by Nicholas Rizzi.

Product liability cases are far from straight forward; recently the Sinclair v. Merck & Co., Inc., 195 N.J. 51 (2008) celebrated its ten year anniversary.  Within this complex case, the court misinterpreted the product liability statute, in which it “decided that economic losses were barred by the act and, furthermore, ipse dixit that Consumer Fraud Act claims were likewise barred (Law Journal Editorial Board).

The court decided that the definition of “harm” was to be interpreted as physical injury or damaged property as opposed to being harmed economically.  The main reason this is brought up again, is because the case was being celebrated, when in fact it should be considered for reevaluation.

“The UCC’s warranty claims in non-“harm” cases still stand . . . numerous courts still apply the CFA, notwithstanding Sinclair” (Law Journal Editorial Board).  The courts left no explanation for their decision to define harm as they did, and for this reason, it should be reconsidered.

Overall, I believe that just like in this situation, product liability cases are not clear cut, but especially in this situation, courts should reevaluate cases as times change.  It’s unfortunate for those who may have been excluded from a fair ruling in the past, but it is better to reevaluate and get it correct, than to continue issuing unfair rulings.  People have the right to be protected from product liability, and in order for that to occur, the court should have to elaborate on what caused them to interpret the word “harm” in the way they chose to do.

Nicholas is an undecided major in the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.    

Posted by Emanuel Sanfilippo.

On Monday the 28^th, Diane Backis, a corporate accountant in New York, admitted to stealing at least $3.1 million from Cargill Inc., an agricultural business giant. In doing so, Backis caused $25 million in losses to Cargill’s grain shipping operations at the Port of Albany according to the Associated Press. Diane Backis pleaded guilty in federal court in Albany to mail fraud and a false income tax return. According to U.S. Attorney Richard Hartunian, Backis diverted customer payments to her own accounts over a 10 year period and caused $25 million in losses to Cargill Inc.

“Backis, 50, was an accounting department manager at Cargill’s Albany grain elevators at the port whose duties included creating customer contracts, generating invoices and processing payments.” Backis admitted in court that she sent customers invoices for animal feed prices much lower than what her employer paid, in doing so, she caused the company millions of dollars in losses in inventory. She tricked consumers into sending the payments directly to her bypassing Cargill’s corporate controls. In an essence, Diane Backis basically used her ability to access inventory and money from Cargill to sell their inventory privately for personal profit.

The Associate Press states how the tax fraud charge refers to Backis’s 2015 individual income tax return on which declared $61,208 in income and omitted more than $450,000 she received that year from stealing Cargill customer payments. In accordance with Backis’s guilty plea, she has to pay $3.5 million in restitution to Cargill and she has to forfeit her house, an investment brokerage account and her pension benefits from Cargill. According to Pete Stoddart, a Cargill spokesperson, Cargill has audited its controls and trading systems and confirmed that it was an isolated incident only affecting that one location and Cargill customers were not adversely affected. Diane Backis faces up to 20 years in prison when she’s sentenced on March 28^th.

Emanuel is a sports marketing and management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Noah Stanton.

On the 16th of October, the Supreme Court has made the decision to proceed on the dispute between government authorities and technology companies like Microsoft, who are being forced to give emails and other digital information “sought in criminal probes but stored outside the U.S.” According to the article, justices intervened in a case of federal drug trafficking investigation where they needed emails that Microsoft had on its servers but were beyond the search warrant being that the servers are in Ireland. The Supreme Court decision is impeding investigations, according to the Trump Administration and 33 states. Cases regarding terrorism, drug trafficking, fraud and child pornography are all being delayed because courts are waiting on the ruling regarding obtaining information that is kept abroad.

This case is among many that tech companies like Microsoft about digital privacy that might relate to crime and extremism. This Supreme Court case is an example of finding the balance between older laws and recent technological developments. Microsoft is saying, “Congress needs to bring the law into the age of cloud computing” where most information is not held in the jurisdiction of current law. Back in 2013, a warrant issued to obtain emails pertaining information about illegal drug transactions. Microsoft cooperated but went to court at the time because the emails held at servers overseas were not handed over.

A Justice Department lawyer stated Microsoft can retrieve emails stored domestically or not with a single click of a button. The simplicity of the action does not change the boundaries the warrant has though. All of these troubles relate back to the 1986 Stored Communications Act, which has minimal use when information is held overseas. The article states, “The current laws were written for the era of the floppy disk, not the world of the cloud.”

The president of Microsoft said Congress needs to act by passing new legislation. This would help put an end to the numerous legal actions that take place about officials trying to obtain private information from U.S. based tech companies because they keep servers around the world. The court is expected to confront the issue of emails from an American citizen or foreigner and where they reside. The Supreme Court Case will take place early next year.

Noah is a business administration major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.

The Supreme Court issued an order denying an application to vacate the Fifth Circuit’s stay of a district court’s final judgment enjoining the enforcement of a Texas voting statute. The statute requires voters to produce identification before they vote. Business law students learn about injunctions (in this case, the court’s power to stop a party from acting) as a equitable remedy.

Congressman Marc Veasey, D-Fort Worth, sued Governor Perry and Texas Secretary of State John Steen in federal court, challenging the enforcement of the voter ID law, named SB 14. Veasey claimed that the law had the potential of preventing hundreds of thousands of people from voting. The strict Texas statute “requires the state’s estimated 13.6 million registered voters to show one of seven kinds of photo identification” before casting their ballot. Defendants responded SB 14 was designed to prevent voter fraud and argued voter ID laws were already approved by the Supreme Court in an Indiana case.

After a hearing, the district court agreed with Veasey that enforcement of the law “may prevent more than 600,000 registered Texas voters (about 4.5% of all registered voters) from voting in person for lack of compliant identification.” The district court determined the strict Texas statute was unconstitutional and enjoined defendants from forcing voters to produce ID. The Fifth Circuit issued a stay of the order, meaning defendants were temporarily permitted to enforce the law. The Supreme Court denied Veasey’s application to vacate the stay pending appeal. Led by Justice Ginsberg, three Justices wrote a scathing dissent (and in a rare circumstance, later corrected) expressing disagreement with the court’s decision not to vacate the stay.

Voting rights are analyzed under strict scrutiny. As of now, voters in Texas must show proper ID before they are allowed to vote in the midterm elections on November 4th.

Posted by Johnny A. Guerrero.

This article was published by the New York Times on 26 November 2017 and was written by Stacy Cowley.  The article illuminates the tension between a high-ranking government civil service official, Ms. Leandra English, and the President of the United States, Mr. Donald Trump.  To further understand this dilemma, one has to first comprehend what is “the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau” and what do they do.  For starters, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “was created six years ago to oversee a wide variety of financial products, including mortgages, credit cards, bank accounts and student loans” (Cowley).  With this in mind, one can say that the bureau was a regulator created in the aftermath of the global financial crisis that hit the New York Stock Market Exchange harshly.  The “Regulatory Agency,” also referred to as (CFPB) was created by the Obama Administration to protect consumers from the tyrants of Wall Street.  Thus, the agency is charged with overseeing financial products and services, as noted.

The tension raised because Ms. English, the deputy director of the bureau, was not willing to step down from her post because she believed that the President could not fire or replace her.  So, she “filed a lawsuit late Sunday night on 26 November 2017 to block Mr. Trump’s choice of someone else from taking control of the agency on Monday morning, 27 November 2017” (Cowley).  Ms. English was defending her cause because Congress gave the agency infrequent independency and autonomy to protect it from political interference.  Thus, the bureau’s director “is one of the few federal officials the President cannot fire at will” (Cowley).  However, the President nominates the agency’s director, who is subject to the approval and confirmation of the United States Senate.  Ms. English was not nominated by former President Obama; she was appointed director by the agency itself because the director, Mr. Richard Cordray, brusquely stepped down on Friday 24 November 2017.

To add more fire to the already burning wood, Ms. English, a seasoned agency veteran who rose progressively through the agency’s ranks, was being replace by Mick Mulvaney, Mr. Trump’s budget director.  Paradoxically, Trump wanted someone who saw the bureau as “sad, sick, a joke” (Cowley), and who openly supported legislation to eliminate it, as the agency’s new director.  Ethically this is not right.  Why appoint someone who speaks harshly about the agency to be its head?  Mulvaney, a white-collar professional, many believed would undo what the bureau had achieved since its conception, which was to protect consumers from the abusive debt collectors and politics of Wall Street Financiers.  This notion becomes eloquent with Senator Dick Durbin’s, a Democrat from Illinois, metaphor: “Wall Street hates it (the Agency) like the devil hates holy water” (Battle for Control of Consumer Agency Heads to Court, New York Times Article).

However, even though one may think that the President’s choice is ludicrous, he as the Head of the United States Government has the authority to appoint whoever he wants as the head of any Federal Government Agency.  Ms. English did not have the grounds to veto the President’s decision; after all the actual director, Mr. Cordray, was the one who resigned.  Therefore, it is the President’s duty to appoint a new head leader for the agency.  The law regarding Presidential Nominees is clear, “not grey.”  One must hope that Mr. Mulvaney does a good job protecting the American People from the Wall Street Tyrants, as he swore to do.

Johnny is in the dual B.A/M.B.A program at the College of Arts and Sciences (political science, minor in history) and the Stillman School of Business (management and finance), Seton Hall University, Classes of 2018 and 2019.

Source: