Booze News: Distilled in Room 215

A blog about the Baltimore City Liquor Board

What happened at the Liquor Board on January 9, 2014.

Written by Becky Witt

Chairman Fogleman and Commissioners Smith and Jones in attendance.

1:00pm cases

Applicant Linh Ha
Business Name Not provided in docket
Trading As Trade name pending
Address 700 South Potomac Street
Type of License Class “BD7” Beer, Wine & Liquor License
Reason for Hearing Application to transfer ownership
Hearing notes

Mr. Kodenski represented the applicant, Linh Ha. Mr. Maslan was also present at the hearing, representing the secured creditor from whom Ms. Ha is purchasing the license. Ms. Ha has an agreement to purchase the building and the liquor license for $470,000. $45,000 of that price is the cost of the license and the rest is the cost of the real estate. Ms. Ha paid $250,000 down and will finance the rest of the purchase price.

Mr. Kodenski informed the Board that the two current licensees had abandoned their interest in the license (which is why the license is being purchased from the secured creditor, not the licensees). Chairman Fogleman responded that he had received a phone call several months ago on his cell phone from one of the licensees, who lives in California, stating that she was worried about losing her interest in the license. He asked Mr. Kodenski if the licensees knew that the transfer hearing for the license was happening that day, and Mr. Kodenski didn’t know the answer. He responded that the hearing was a matter of public record.

Mr. Kodenski continued in his description of the project, that it will be a “restaurant tavern type operation” and that “obviously, the licensee has spent some time in Vietnam.” He submitted petitions from the neighborhood in favor of the application. The establishment will serve 16 people at outside tables, 33 on the first floor and 45 on the second floor. The establishment will serve Asian fusion food.

Ms. Ha testified that she has had experience in the restaurant business in Germany and Vietnam. She has a master’s degree in management. She has agreed to the Canton Community Association’s standard guidelines for outdoor table service, and she accepts these guidelines as voluntary license restrictions.

Chairman Fogleman asked Mr. Kodenski, “and she doesn’t have a valid LLC why?” Mr. Kodenski responded that Ms. Ha is currently operating as a sole proprietorship. Ms. Ha noted that she intends to form an LLC, and Mr. Kodenski informed her that she would have to submit a new application and go through the process again if she does so.

Zoning R-8
Neighborhood Canton
Area Demographics 86% White, 4% Black, 3% Asian; 5% Hispanic ethnicity; 9% households have children under age 18; median household income: $82,130
Does corp entity exist, in good standing? No corporate entity exists
Location of entity’s principal office No corporate entity exists
Attorney for licensee Mr. Melvin Kodenski
# in support 1
Attorney for community None
# of protestants 0
# of inspectors 0
Result of hearing Approved
Vote tally Unanimous
Portions of state law cited in decision Article 2B section 10-202(a)
Other reasons given for decision Ms. Ha’s family has restaurant experience, and Ms. Ha herself has other business experience (she owns a nail salon in Baltimore City).
Issues raised in audit present in this case or other issues observed None
Applicant Jane Kennedy, Richard Mackey & Robert Coyle, Jr.
Business Name R&R II Holdings, LLC
Trading As Fleet Street Tavern
Address 2318 Fleet Street
Type of License Class “BD7” Beer, Wine & Liquor License
Reason for Hearing Application to transfer ownership
Hearing notes

Mr. Brooks submitted many documents to the Board, including articles of organization and a certificate of good standing for the LLC on the application, curriculum vitae for the applicants, an MOU with the Fells Prospect Community Association, a business plan, and an operating agreement.

The hours of the restaurant will be 4PM-2AM on weekdays and 11AM-2AM on weekends.

Mr. Coyle has 25 years’ experience in hotels and restaurants, and he will be present every day at the establishment. Mr. Mackey will be a secondary managing partner. Ms. Kennedy is the “Baltimore City resident” as required by Article 2B and will not be involved in the business.

Zoning R-8
Neighborhood Canton
Area Demographics 86% White, 4% Black, 3% Asian; 5% Hispanic ethnicity; 9% households have children under age 18; median household income: $82,130
Does corp entity exist, in good standing? Yes; Yes
Location of entity’s principal office 2318 Fleet Street
Attorney for licensee Mr. Charles Brooks
# in support 3 (all licensees)
Attorney for community None
# of protestants 0
# of inspectors Inspector Karen Brooks was present at the hearing, but she was not asked to testify.
Result of hearing Approved.
Vote tally Unanimous
Portions of state law cited in decision Article 2B section 10-202(a)
Other reasons given for decision None
Issues raised in audit present in this case or other issues observed Article 2B section 9-101(c)(1) states that, for an application for a license by an LLC, “the license shall be applied for by and be issued to 3 of the authorized persons of that limited liability company, as individuals … at least 1 of whom shall be a registered voter and taxpayer of the county or city … and shall also have resided there at least 2 years before the application.” To comply with this statutory requirement, out-of-City applicants for a Baltimore City liquor license often designate one person who does not have anything to do with running the liquor licensed establishment but is merely on the license to satisfy the statutory prerequisite. The Board and the applicants often refer to this person as “the Baltimore City Resident.” However, BLLC Rule 3.01 states: “Each licensee shall be the actual owner and operator of the business conducted on the licensed premises,” which contradicts this practice.
Applicant Shannon Glanville & Lores Glanville
Business Name Glanville, Inc.
Trading As Glanville’s
Address 4017-19 Eastern Avenue
Type of License Class “BD7” Beer, Wine & Liquor License
Reason for Hearing Application to transfer ownership; request for live entertainment
Hearing notes

Chairman Fogleman asked Mr. Kodenski, “Do you know anything about the corporate entity [(Glanville, Inc.)]?” Mr. Kodenski replied that he did not. Chairman Fogleman noted that there was a notation in the file from Liquor Board staff that the state’s website did not show a record for Glanville, Inc. (Glanville, Inc. was later incorporated with the state, after the hearing, on January 14, 2014.)

Mr. Kodenski informed the Board that he had given his client, Ms. Glanville, a list of ten community associations to contact about the application, and none of them had responded to her. Upon further questioning, Ms. Glanville told the Board that she had sent out letters to the ten community associations on Friday, January 3, less than a week before the Thursday, January 9 hearing. There was a letter from Kevin Bernhard of the Highlandtown Community Association in the file, dated January 6, 2014, informing the Board that the HCA opposes the live entertainment and dancing portion of the application. You can view the letter here.

Former Baltimore City Liquor Board Inspector Donald Fitzgerald, now a security consultant, presented a security plan for the proposed establishment. You can read Mr. Fitzgerald’s security plan at this link. According to Mr. Fitzgerald, there will be three full-time security guards at the location at all times: two inside and one outside.

The Board expressed confusion at why the Glanvilles would need three full-time security guards at a family Caribbean restaurant. Mr. Fitzgerald explained that the plan was about being proactive rather than reactive and pointed out that Baltimore is a dangerous city. Commissioner Smith followed up with Mr. Fitzgerald, asking again why the Glanvilles would need so many full-time security guards in this particular neighborhood. She also asked whether Mr. Fitzgerald was aware of the sociological research that suggests that the presence of an armed guard might perpetuate crime, not deter it. Mr. Fitzgerald was not aware of this research. At the end of the explanation, Chairman Fogleman still expressed confusion about the necessity of three armed guards “in order for people to eat fish” and informed the applicants that this plan sounded more appropriate for a nightclub than for a family restaurant.

The applicant’s husband, Baltimore City Police Sergeant James Glanville testified that he has worked in the Western District for many years. As to the live entertainment plans, he testified that they might have spoken word presentations or something else that is different but in the best interest of the community. From the documents in the file, including the letter that Mr. Glanville sent to neighboring businesses, it looks as though the owners of the business are Mr. James Glanville and Mr. Michael Wood. Ms. Shannon Glanville informed the Board that Mr. James Glanville was not an applicant because he is an active-duty Baltimore police officer, and police officers are not allowed to hold liquor licenses. This requirement is not in Article 2B, according to a recent search, but it may be an internal Baltimore police policy.

Zoning B-2-3
Neighborhood Brewers Hill
Area Demographics 66% White, 9% Black, 3% Asian; 20% Hispanic ethnicity; 17% households have children under age 18; median household income: $60,484; 15% households live below the poverty line
Does corp entity exist, in good standing? Glanville, Inc. did not exist as of the date of the hearing before the Board. The entity was incorporated on January 14, 2014, five days after the January 9 hearing. The Board’s recently updated policy has been to refrain from scheduling hearings for applications whose corporate entity is not in good standing.
Location of entity’s principal office The newly incorporated Glanville, Inc. is located in Baltimore City.
Attorney for licensee Mr. Melvin Kodenski
# in support 3
Attorney for community None
# of protestants 0
# of inspectors 1 – Inspector Ed Owens
Result of hearing Ownership transfer approved. Issue of live entertainment continued for another hearing.
Vote tally Unanimous
Portions of state law cited in decision Article 2B section 10-202(a)
Other reasons given for decision Chairman Fogleman noted, “You need to meet with the community. There’s no way that I’m going to vote for live entertainment without discussions with the community association.” He said that if the applicants come to a written agreement on live entertainment with the community, a letter from the community could suffice. Otherwise, the issue of live entertainment will have to be continued for another public hearing. He also told the applicants that the Board must have proof of the good standing of the business entity by the close of business on the next day, Friday, January 10.
Issues raised in audit present in this case or other issues observed

The Board’s new policy is to only hold a hearing when the business entity involved is in good standing with the state; that policy was not followed in this hearing.

Article 2B section 9-101(b) states that when a corporation applies for a license, the license shall be issued to three of the officers of that corporation, as individuals. In this case, the corporation did not exist at the time of the hearing, and there were only two applicants on the application, not three.

Applicant Tecle Zemikiel & Michael Equbay
Business Name M&T Liquor Food Mart, LLC
Trading As M&T Liquor and Food Mart
Address 2001-04 East Oliver Street
Type of License Class “A” Beer, Wine & Liquor License
Reason for Hearing Request to reopen after being closed for more than 90 days under the provisions of Article 2B Section 10-504(d).
Hearing notes

The hearing for M&T Liquor was postponed, upon request of Mr. Melvin Kodenski, attorney for the licensees, in order to give the applicants time to meet with business owners and community leaders. Councilman Carl Stokes was present at the hearing to oppose the request to reopen, and he agreed to the postponement.

Applicant Corey LaPrade
Business Name LaPrade Lounge at 148, LLC
Trading As Trade name pending
Address 148 South East Avenue
Type of License Class “BD7” Beer, Wine & Liquor License
Reason for Hearing Application to transfer ownership
Hearing notes

Mr. LaPrade has purchased the building and the business together. He’s met with both the Highlandtown Community Association and the Patterson Park Neighborhood Association and has come to an 11-point agreement with the community. The hours of operation will be Mon-Wed 2PM-10PM, Thurs-Sat 10AM-1AM, and Sun 2PM-11PM. Mr. LaPrade lives a couple of doors down from this establishment and wants to do some minor renovations to the property in order to market to the young professionals (like himself) who are moving into the neighborhood. The staff of the bar will stay in place.

Chairman Fogleman noted, “Well, at least we’ve got a man who knows how to keep his LLC active and in good standing.”

Zoning R-8
Neighborhood Patterson Park
Area Demographics BNIA did not have demographics available for Patterson Park.
Does corp entity exist, in good standing? Yes; Yes
Location of entity’s principal office 148 South East Street, Baltimore, MD
Attorney for licensee Mr. Melvin Kodenski
# in support 1
Attorney for community None
# of protestants 0
# of inspectors 0
Result of hearing Approved
Vote tally Unanimous
Portions of state law cited in decision Article 2B section 10-202(a)
Other reasons given for decision None
Issues raised in audit present in this case or other issues observed None
Applicant Not provided in the docket, but the applicants are Rodney Lee and Victoria Rothgeb
Business Name Fazoli’s Restaurants, LLC
Trading As Venti-Tre Modern Italian
Address 3731 Boston Street, Baltimore, MD
Type of License Class “B” Beer, Wine & Liquor License
Reason for Hearing Application for a new Class “B” Beer, Wine & Liquor License under provisions of Article 2B 6-201(d)(vii), requiring $700,000 in capital investment in restaurant fixtures and facilities and a seating capacity exceeding 150 people; request for outdoor table service.
Hearing notes

Ms. Hecker explained to the Board that Venti-Tre Modern Italian will be a new fast-casual Italian restaurant in the Canton Crossing shopping center, opening in mid-March of 2014. The concept is similar to an Italian version of Chipotle’s set-up, where diners build their own meals down an assembly line. She submitted an $839,000 capital investment breakdown, which satisfies the requirements of Article 2B section 6-201(d)(vii). Fazoli’s has many locations throughout the country, but this would be only the second location to serve alcohol. Their policy will be to ask for identification from anyone who appears to be under 40 years of age. Canton Community Association submitted a letter of support, and Ms. Hecker also submitted a petition in support of the project, signed by more than 30 people.

Watch the hearing on YouTube:

Zoning B-2-2
Neighborhood Canton Industrial Area
Area Demographics 86% White, 4% Black, 3% Asian; 5% Hispanic ethnicity; 9% households have children under age 18; median household income: $82,130
Does corp entity exist, in good standing? Yes; Yes
Location of entity’s principal office 2470 Palumbo Drive, Lexington, KY 40509
Attorney for licensee Ms. Caroline Hecker and Mr. Eric Kunimoto of Rosenberg Martin Greenberg, LLP
# in support 2
Attorney for community None
# of protestants 0
# of inspectors 1 – Inspector Ed Owens
Result of hearing New license & outdoor tables approved.
Vote tally Unanimous
Portions of state law cited in decision Article 2B section 10-202(a)
Other reasons given for decision The establishment is allowed outdoor table service as a matter of right under the planned unit development agreement for the Canton Crossing project.
Issues raised in audit present in this case or other issues observed Article 2B section 9-101(c)(1) states that, for an application for a license by an LLC, “the license shall be applied for by and be issued to 3 of the authorized persons of that limited liability company, as individuals … at least 1 of whom shall be a registered voter and taxpayer of the county or city … and shall also have resided there at least 2 years before the application.” To comply with this statutory requirement, out-of-City applicants for a Baltimore City liquor license often designate one person who does not have anything to do with running the liquor licensed establishment but is merely on the license to satisfy the statutory prerequisite. The Board and the applicants often refer to this person as “the Baltimore City Resident.” However, BLLC Rule 3.01 states: “Each licensee shall be the actual owner and operator of the business conducted on the licensed premises,” which contradicts this practice. In this case, Ms. Rothgeb is the “Baltimore City resident” and will have nothing to do with the daily operations of the business. Ms. Rothgeb is also the “Baltimore City resident” on several other liquor licenses, including the license for Canton Waterfront Restaurant, LLC, and Townhouse Baltimore. She has no financial interest in Fazoli’s Restaurants, LLC, and is listed as “Assistant Secretary” for that entity. Also, there were only two applicants listed for this application, rather than the three authorized persons required by Article 2B.

2:00pm cases

Applicant Adam Rather & David Rather
Business Name Mother’s Federal Hill Grill, Inc.
Trading As Mother’s Federal Hill Grill
Address 1113 South Charles Street
Type of License Class “B” Beer, Wine & Liquor License
Reason for Hearing Request to add live entertainment.
Hearing notes

Mother’s Federal Hill Grill has been around for years, according to Mr. Kodenski, and they are asking to add live entertainment. The applicants submitted a petition from neighbors and local businesses in support of the application. They also submitted an MOU with the South Baltimore Improvement Committee, dba South Baltimore Neighborhood Association, containing voluntary license restrictions. Chairman Fogleman noted that the Board’s policy does not require additional character witnesses in an application for live entertainment; however, there is nothing in the language of Article 2B that exempts applications for live entertainment from the character witness requirement.

Watch the hearing on YouTube:

Zoning B-2-3
Neighborhood Federal Hill
Area Demographics 80% White, 12% Black, 4% Asian; 3% Hispanic ethnicity; 11% households have children under age 18; median household income: $78,578.
Does corp entity exist, in good standing? Yes; Yes
Location of entity’s principal office 1113 South Charles Street, Baltimore, MD
Attorney for licensee Mr. Melvin Kodenski
# in support 1
Attorney for community None
# of protestants 0
# of inspectors 1 – Inspector Joann Martin
Result of hearing Live entertainment request approved
Vote tally Unanimous
Portions of state law cited in decision Article 2B section 10-202(a)
Other reasons given for decision The MOU signed with the South Baltimore Neighborhood Association.
Issues raised in audit present in this case or other issues observed None
Applicant Muriuki Mituruciu & Josphat Kobia
Business Name Chase Venture, LLC
Trading As Chase Wine & Spirits
Address 249 West Chase Street, Baltimore, MD
Type of License Class “A” Beer, Wine & Liquor License
Reason for Hearing Application to transfer ownership and locationof a Class “A” Beer, Wine & Liquor License from present location at 216 West Read Street to 249 West Chase Street.
Hearing notes

Mr. Maslan informed the Board that his client is tranferring his license one block from his current location. Mr. Mituruciu has been a Baltimore City liquor licensee for eight years and has never had a violation. He wants to create a more upscale wine and spirits shop at a new location with better visibility.

The licensee has entered voluntarily into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Mount Vernon-Belvedere Community Association. Read the MOU here. The MOU has only three restrictions: (1) no sales of miniature liquors or half-pints of alcohol (2) no sales of single cans of beer and (3) no sales of fortified wines.

Zoning B-5-1
Neighborhood Mid-Town Belvedere
Area Demographics 53% White, 32% Black, 8% Asian, 3% 2 or more races; 4% Hispanic ethnicity; 6% households have children under age 18; Median Household Income: $38,331; 5.5% households live below poverty line
Does corp entity exist, in good standing? Yes; Yes
Location of entity’s principal office 249 West Chase Street, Baltimore, MD
Attorney for licensee Mr. Gary Maslan
# in support 2
Attorney for community None
# of protestants 0
# of inspectors 1 – Inspector Jeffrey Ray
Result of hearing Approved, subject to restrictions in MOU
Vote tally Unanimous
Portions of state law cited in decision Article 2B section 10-202(a)
Other reasons given for decision None
Issues raised in audit present in this case or other issues observed None
Applicant Kenneth Kirby
Business Name Pho Main, Inc.
Trading As Mat Jip Restaurant
Address 2101-03 Maryland Avenue
Type of License Class “B” Beer, Wine & Liquor License
Reason for Hearing Request to add live entertainment.
Hearing notes

The applicants have been illegally hosting live entertainment at this address for months under two different names: Club K and Beatnik (both at the same address). Club K was shut down in October for operating without a live entertainment license, according to the City Paper. Beatnik, however, according to its Facebook page, continued hosting live entertainment regularly, even after Club K was shut down. Chairman Fogleman asked why the docket says that the establishment is trading as Mat Jip Restaurant, and the applicants replied that the place used to be a Korean restaurant, and that “Mat Jip” means “tastes good.”

The applicants have signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Charles Village Civic Association, the Old Goucher Community Association, and the Charles North Community Association; the MOU was approved at the zoning board on November 12, 2013 and will also serve as voluntary license restrictions on the applicants’ liquor license. Sharon Guida, Chair of the Land Use Committee of the Charles Village Civic Association, went through the important provisions of the MOU on the record, including that the licensees will keep windows closed, will not rent out the space to others, will have a security plan, and will not provide live entertainment between the hours of 2AM and 5PM. Councilman Stokes submitted a letter in support of the application.

Zoning B-2-3
Neighborhood Charles North
Area Demographics 53% White, 32% Black, 8% Asian, 3% 2 or more races; 4% Hispanic ethnicity; 6% households have children under age 18; median household income: $38,331; 5.5% households live below poverty line
Does corp entity exist, in good standing? Yes; Yes
Location of entity’s principal office 2101-03 Maryland Ave, Baltimore, MD
Attorney for licensee None, though Mr. Sam Daniels, former Executive Secretary of the Liquor Board, represented the licensees as a “consultant.”
# in support 3
Attorney for community None
# of protestants 0
# of inspectors 1 – Agent John Howard
Result of hearing Approved, subject to the MOU.
Vote tally Unanimous
Portions of state law cited in decision Article 2B section 10-202(a)
Other reasons given for decision None.
Issues raised in audit present in this case or other issues observed It was unclear why the docket stated that the business was trading as Mat Jip, since according to testimony, the licensee is clearly trading as two completely different names, neither of which is Mat Jip. Also, under Article 2B section 9-101(b), the corporate entity is required to list three officers to be licensees on the application; the applicants only provided one person.
Applicant Ahmed Musa
Business Name Starlight Liquors, Inc.
Trading As Starlight Liquor
Address 2201 Wilkens Avenue
Type of License Class “A” Beer, Wine & Liquor License
Reason for Hearing Request to reopen after being closed for more than 90 days under the provisions of Article 2B Section 10-504(d)
Hearing notes No one from Starlight Liquor/2201 Wilkens Avenue showed up to the hearing.
Applicant Homa Ravanbakhjh
Business Name Secured Creditor
Trading As Not provided on docket
Address 1000-04 Eastern Avenue
Type of License Not provided on docket
Reason for Hearing Request for hardship extension under the provisions of Article 2B Section 10-504(d)
Hearing notes

Mr. Kodenski explained to the Board that Ms. Ravanbakhjh, the secured creditor in this case, is very ill; her husband appeared in her stead to represent her interests in the license.

Ms. Ravanbakhjh has a prospective new licensee for this license; the Board should receive the transfer application in February or March of this year. The last hardship extension was granted on April 4, 2013, which is more than 180 days before December 3, 2013, when Mr. Kodenski submitted a hardship extension request. See the hardship extension request here. Mr. Kodenski told the Board that his clients had thought that a phone call to the Liquor Board to request a hardship extension would be sufficient, so they had called the Liquor Board within 180 days after April 4, 2013.

Zoning M-2-2
Neighborhood Little Italy
Area Demographics 58% Black, 29% White, 5% Asian; 7% Hispanic ethnicity; 29% of households have children under age 18
Does corp entity exist, in good standing? No entity provided in docket
Location of entity’s principal office No entity provided in docket
Attorney for licensee Mr. Melvin Kodenski
# in support 1
Attorney for community None
# of protestants 0
# of inspectors 0
Result of hearing Hardship extension approved.
Vote tally Unanimous
Portions of state law cited in decision None
Other reasons given for decision None
Issues raised in audit present in this case or other issues observed

Article 2B section 10-504(d)(3) states: “The licensee or other appropriate interested parties may make a written request to the Board for an extension of the life of the license due to undue hardship, for a time period of no more than a cumulative period of 360 days after the date of closing.”

First of all, the secured creditor made no allegations of fact that would show that she has experienced undue hardship. Second, the licensee had received her allotted hardship extension on April 4, 2013, at which Chairman Fogleman granted one extension of 180 days. You can read the transcript of the decision from that hearing here. 180 days from April 4, 2013 was Tuesday, October 1, 2013. The license expired as a matter of law on October 1, 2013. Article 2B does not allow for more than one hardship extension, but even if it did, Mr. Kodenski’s request for a hardship extension was untimely.

Applicant William Malkin
Business Name Sushi Place III, LLC
Trading As The Sushi Place
Address 7 East Lexington Street
Type of License Class “B” Beer, Wine & Liquor License
Reason for Hearing Application to transfer ownership
Hearing notes

The Sushi Place is opening its third restaurant in Baltimore City and is seeking a Class B restaurant liquor license for that establishment. The Downtown Partnership submitted a letter of support of the project. The capacity of the new restaurant will be around 90-100 people. The applicant, Mr. Malkin, is on one other B license and one D license in Baltimore City.

Zoning B-4-2
Neighborhood Downtown
Area Demographics 39% White, 37% Black, 16% Asian, 3% 2 or more races; 5% Hispanic ethnicity; 9% of households have children under age 18; Median Household Income: $38,146; 18% households live below poverty line
Does corp entity exist, in good standing? Yes; Yes
Location of entity’s principal office 7 West Lexington Street, Baltimore, MD
Attorney for licensee Mr. Melvin Kodenski
# in support 2
Attorney for community None
# of protestants 0
# of inspectors 1 – Inspector Jeffrey Ray
Result of hearing Approved
Vote tally Unanimous
Portions of state law cited in decision Article 2B section 10-202(a)
Other reasons given for decision Chairman Fogleman instructed the applicant to tattoo the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Board on the last available spot on his arm.
Issues raised in audit present in this case or other issues observed Article 2B section 9-101(c)(1) states that, for an application for a license by an LLC, “the license shall be applied for by and be issued to 3 of the authorized persons of that limited liability company, as individuals. Only one person was listed as an applicant on behalf of the LLC in question.

Comments are closed.

Disclaimer: While the author makes every effort to provide the most accurate and up-to-date information on this blog, the accuracy of some information is subject to change and cannot be guaranteed. Neither the author nor the publisher is responsible for any errors or omissions. All information in this blog is provided “as-is,” with no guarantee of completeness, accuracy, timeliness, or of the results obtained from the use of this information, and without warranty of any kind, express or implied. This blog is not intended to do harm to, defame, libel, or malign any religious or ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual, or government entity. In no event will the author, her employer, or the publisher be liable to you or anyone else for any action taken in reliance on the information in this blog or for any consequential, special or similar damages incurred, even if advised of the possibility of such damages.

The materials contained on this website have been prepared by Community Law Center, Inc. for informational purposes only and are not intended to be legal advice. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Internet subscribers and online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

Copyright: Text, photos and other materials found on this website are the property of CLC, except where otherwise noted. Such materials may not be reproduced without CLC’s written prior consent.