Tag: NJ Attorney General

Posted on

N.J. Pregnancy Centers Sue State of New Jersey Seeking Documentation for Unfair Statements Made in Recent Consumer Alert

Blog Images 1 939653784

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Trenton NJ, A consortium of charitable pregnancy centers in New Jersey have filed suit against the State of New Jersey regarding the Attorney General’s issuance of a “Consumer Alert” on December 7, 2022, that unfairly tarnishes their reputation and disregards the valuable services the centers offer at no charge to thousands of women and their families each year. The lawsuit demands copies of the documentation that the Attorney General and Consumer Affairs Director possessed when making certain statements in the Alert that the Consortium asserts are misleading and misrepresent how pregnancy centers in New Jersey operate.

Continue reading N.J. Pregnancy Centers Sue State of New Jersey Seeking Documentation for Unfair Statements Made in Recent Consumer Alert

Posted on

NJ Attorney General Launches the 2022 “Click It or Ticket” Seat Belt Enforcement Campaign in New Jersey

external content.duckduckgo 9

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ,  as fatal crashes continue to climb in New Jersey, Acting Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin and the Division of Highway Traffic Safety (HTS) today announced the start of New Jersey’s annual “Click it or Ticket” enforcement mobilization targeting drivers and passengers who don’t buckle up. This year, a record 145 law enforcement agencies have received HTS grants totaling more than $890,000 to help pay for enforcement initiatives during the two-week campaign.

Continue reading NJ Attorney General Launches the 2022 “Click It or Ticket” Seat Belt Enforcement Campaign in New Jersey

Posted on

Staff Member of NJ Attorney General Tests Positive for COVID19

42158392 1938825909754393 1069302855040499712 o1

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Trenton NJ, “Today, Attorney General Gurbir S. Grewal learned that a staff member he had contact with at the workplace on Monday tested positive for COVID-19. Upon learning this information, the Attorney General took a rapid COVID-19 test which came back positive; a follow-up PCR test, however, returned a negative result.

Continue reading Staff Member of NJ Attorney General Tests Positive for COVID19

Posted on

NJ Judge Halts Phil Muphy’s Doctor Assisted Suicide Law

1780f3d046bba162

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Trenton NJ,  A New Jersey judge has put a hold on the state law allowing doctors to prescribe life-ending medications, which went into effect Aug. 1.

The temporary restraining order issued Wednesday prevents doctors from writing fatal prescriptions until at least Oct. 23, said Richard W. Grohmann, a lawyer at Smith & Associates in Bloomfield. The firm filed a lawsuit challenging the law last week.

Continue reading NJ Judge Halts Phil Muphy’s Doctor Assisted Suicide Law
Posted on

NJ Attorney General Forces Company to Pay Ex-Worker with Sleep Apnea for Failing to Reinstate Him Despite Medical Clearance

3835396464 1bfd32c3b2 z1

August 9,2018

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Trenton NJ,  Attorney General Gurbir S. Grewal and the Division on Civil Rights announced today that a New Jersey trucking company must pay an ex-employee with sleep apnea $30,000 to resolve allegations it fired the man despite repeated medical examinations certifying him as fit for duty.

P. Judge & Sons, Inc., a trucking company located in Essex County, must pay former employee R.B. $15,000 to cover lost wages and another $15,000 for alleged pain and suffering. R.B. – the ex-employee’s name is being withheld to protect his medical privacy – worked as a yard switcher at the P. Judge & Sons facility in Port Newark. Among other duties, he conducted vehicle inspections, maintained the yard and emptied containers and trailers from the yard to the loading docks.

“This case should serve as a reminder to employers across New Jersey that our Law Against Discrimination prevents disability discrimination, and we are committed to ensuring those rights are protected,” said Attorney General Grewal. “In the face of repeated certifications of fitness for duty by licensed medical professionals, employers simply do not have authority to impose their own, uninformed biases and terminate a person with a disability.”
In March 2015, R.B. underwent a physical exam required periodically for workers in his job by the U.S. Department of Transportation. The exam resulted in a diagnosis of sleep apnea, and R.B. was placed on medical leave. R.B. then began treatment for his apnea and later underwent a physical examination at Concentra Medical Center – the company’s medical provider – in Newark. As a result of the physical, R.B. was issued a Medical Examiner’s Certificate (MEC) clearing him to return to his job. The MEC was valid for one month, and R.B. was instructed to continue treatment for his apnea after resuming work.

Despite the MEC clearing him to return, R.B. was denied reinstatement. Allegedly, his supervisor told R.B. that he needed an MEC valid for at least three months. However, after R.B. underwent a subsequent physical examination and obtained an MEC valid for three months, he was again denied reinstatement.

After seven months of being out of work – and repeated denials of reinstatement despite two MECs declaring him fit – R.B. filed a formal Complaint with the Division on Civil Rights.
During an investigation by the Division, one company official at P. Judge & Sons told investigators that R.B. was not permitted to resume work because he was continuing to receive treatment for his sleep apnea, and the company is “under no obligation to employ individuals whose health is non-compliant.”

Another company official argued that R.B. technically was not terminated. Rather, the official said, R.B. never contacted the company again after being denied reinstatement the last time. The same official contended that reinstating R.B. was a potential liability, because an employee afflicted with sleep apnea “can go to work… three months goes by, then he’s off, has to go to the doctor, and we’re getting charged by Concentra for the medical treatment.”
Division Director Sashihara noted that a Division investigation found nothing in DOT regulations, or in P. Judge & Sons’ own internal policies, to support the suggestion that the company was barred from reinstating R.B. once he presented either the one-month or three-month MEC.

“We know from our investigation that the company has, in the past, returned employees to work on the basis of a one-month MEC. We know that because company officials who we interviewed told us so,” said Director Sashihara. “Again, the law is the law, and ignorance of it – or disagreement with it – is no excuse. No matter the opinions or intentions behind it, employers and managers with no medical training cannot simply decide to terminate a worker based solely on assumptions, internet articles and the anecdotal experiences related by people they know, which is what we allege took place here.”

In addition to paying R.B. $30,000, P. Judge & Sons is required under the settlement announced today to adopt a variety of workplace policy and training reforms. The company also must submit to State monitoring of its treatment of employees and job applicants with disabilities for the next two years.

Posted on

NJ Attorney General Moves to Block 3D Printed Guns

10245414 479699698828104 7623079383912516082 n

July 31,2018

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ,  Attorney General Gurbir S. Grewal filed a lawsuit today seeking to prevent a firearms developer from publicly releasing computer files that would enable individuals to create untraceable firearms using a 3-D printer. The firearm developer, a Texas-based company called “Defense Distributed,” has threatened to release the files to the public on Wednesday, August 1, 2018.

Ridgewood Public Library has a MakerBot 3D printer which prints digital designs as 3D objects in a non-toxic biodegradable plastic called PLA (available in a variety of colors).  Please read the 3D Printing Policy for complete details.

Attorney General Grewal filed the lawsuit in Superior Court in Essex County, seeking a temporary restraining order against Defense Distributed and its founder, Cody Wilson. The lawsuit follows a cease-and-desist letter that Attorney General Grewal sent the company on Thursday, July 26, 2018.

In a separate letter, Attorney General Grewal informed DreamHost, the web-hosting provider, that Defense Distributed’s website will be violating the provider’s Acceptable Use Policy. As the letter explains, Defense Distributed impermissibly plans to use the website to facilitate imminent violations of New Jersey state law.

“These dangerous files would allow anyone – including terrorists, domestic abusers, felons, fugitives, and juveniles – to print untraceable assault weapons using a 3D printer from the comfort of their own homes,” said Attorney General Grewal. “And because the guns would be printed without serial numbers, they would be untraceable by law enforcement, making it all the more difficult to solve crimes committed with these weapons. Once Defendants open that Pandora’s box, it can never be closed.”

Defense Distributed made national headlines by developing gun computer files that enable consumers to create fully operational firearms with a 3-D printer. The company’s founder, Cody Wilson, developed a printable plastic pistol known as the “Liberator .380” in 2012 and put the plans online, but was blocked by the federal government. Wilson sued, and under a settlement he reached with the U.S. State Department, his company can begin releasing computer files for printable guns beginning on August 1.

But as explained in today’s court filings, publication of those computer files would still violate New Jersey law.

New Jersey’s public nuisance law provides a cause of action to hold firearm manufacturers accountable – and to enjoin imminent violations of the law – when their plans would facilitate the illegal sale of weapons to criminals and other prohibited users, and when the manufacturer has done too little to prevent that illegal market from developing.

On Sunday, July 29, 2018, Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation, a gun rights organization, sued Attorney General Grewal in federal district court in Austin, Texas, seeking to prevent Attorney General Grewal from preventing the publication of the company’s computer files on its website, known as “DEFCAD.” The same day, Wilson claimed that he had taken steps to prevent the distribution of those files in New Jersey, posting on his personal Twitter account, “Yes, DEFCAD has been blocked in New Jersey.” However, as noted in New Jersey’s court filings today, the Defense Distributed website remains accessible in New Jersey.

Also today, Attorney General Grewal joined 20 other state attorneys general in a letter criticizing Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Attorney General Jeff Sessions for settling the federal lawsuit against Defense Distributed and urging them to withdraw from the settlement before the company publishes the computer files later this week.

“For years, and as recently as April 2018, the federal government recognized that these printable-gun computer files would be a threat to United States national security and foreign policy interests,” said Attorney General Grewal. “Although the Secretary of State and Attorney General abruptly switched positions – with no good reason – the threat remains. I’m proud to lead the fight in New Jersey to stop Wilson and Defense Distributed from publishing printable-gun computer files, and I call on the federal government to join us in protecting the safety of our residents and our law enforcement officers.”

Posted on

NJ Attorney General and the New Jersey Bureau of Securities, Division of Consumer Affairs, Issue Caution on Cryptocurrency

Bitcoin

January 10,2018
the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, With cryptocurrencies continuing to attract headlines, Attorney General Christopher S. Porrino and the Bureau of Securities, which is within the Division of Consumer Affairs, today reminded New Jersey investors to be cautious about investments involving cryptocurrencies.

“Cryptocurrencies may be the new rage when it comes to investments, but there are significant risks associated with transactions involving these predominantly unregulated currencies,” said Attorney General Porrino. “Investors should fully understand the types of currency and transactions being pitched to them before agreeing to invest.”

Cryptocurrencies are a medium of exchange that are created and stored electronically in the blockchain, a distributed public database that keeps a permanent record of digital transactions. Current common cryptocurrencies include Bitcoin, Ethereum and Litecoin. Unlike traditional currency, these alternatives have no physical form and typically are not backed by tangible assets. They are not insured or controlled by a central bank or other governmental authority, cannot always be exchanged for other commodities, and are subject to little or no regulation.

A survey of state and provincial securities regulators by the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA), of which the Bureau of Securities is a member, shows 94 percent believe there is a “high risk of fraud” involving cryptocurrencies. Regulators also were unanimous in their view that more regulation is needed for cryptocurrency to provide greater investor protection.

“Because of the high risk of fraud and some projections of huge returns, investors must be on alert and not be tempted to invest in cryptocurrency-related investments without first vigorously vetting any transaction,” said Sharon M. Joyce, Acting Director of the Division of Consumer Affairs. “Understanding what is being sold is the best armor an investor has against fraud.”

Last month, NASAA identified Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) and cryptocurrency-related investment products as emerging investor threats for 2018. Unlike an Initial Public Offering (IPO) when a company sells stocks in order to raise capital, an ICO sells “tokens” in order to fund a project, usually related to the blockchain. The token likely has no value at the time of purchase. Some tokens constitute, or may be exchangeable for, a new cryptocurrency to be launched by the project, while others entitle investors to a discount, or early rights to a product or service proposed to be offered by the project.

“Transactions involving cryptocurrency are often complicated and confusing with an unproven track record. They are not designed for investors with a low tolerance for risk or volatility,” said Christopher W. Gerold, Chief of the Bureau of Securities. “The best advice we can give is for investors to be completely aware of the risks before investing and act accordingly.”

NASAA offers a short animated video to help investors understand the risks associated with ICOs and cryptocurrencies. NASAA and its members first alerted investors of the risks associated with cryptocurrencies in 2014.
Common Cryptocurrency Concerns

The following are some common concerns investors should consider before investing in any offering containing cryptocurrency:

Cryptocurrency is subject to minimal regulatory oversight, susceptible to cybersecurity breaches or hacks, and there may be no recourse should the cryptocurrency disappear.
Cryptocurrency accounts are not insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which insures bank deposits up to $250,000.
The high volatility of cryptocurrency investments makes them unsuitable for most investors, especially those investing for long-term goals or retirement.
Investors in cryptocurrency are highly reliant upon unregulated companies, including some that may lack appropriate internal controls and may be more susceptible to fraud and theft than regulated financial institutions.
Investors will have to rely upon the strength of their own computer security systems, as well as security systems provided by third parties, to protect purchased cryptocurrencies from theft.

Common Red Flags of Fraud

The Bureau of Securities also reminds investors to keep watch for these common red flags of investment fraud:

“Guaranteed” high investment returns. There is no such thing as guaranteed investment returns, and there is no guarantee that the cryptocurrency will increase in value. Be wary of anyone who promises a high rate of return with little or no risk.
Unsolicited offers. An unsolicited sales pitch may be part of a fraudulent investment scheme. Cryptocurrency investment opportunities are promoted aggressively through social media. Be very wary of an unsolicited communication—meaning you didn’t ask for it and don’t know the sender—about an investment opportunity.
Sounds too good to be true. If the project sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Watch out for exaggerated claims about the project’s future success.
Pressure to buy immediately. Take time to research an investment opportunity before handing over your money. Watch out for pressure to act fast or “get in on the ground floor” of a new tech trend.
Unlicensed sellers. Many fraudulent investment schemes involve unlicensed individuals or unregistered firms. The Bureau of Securities can help investors research the background of those selling or advising the purchase of an investment.