SEC Greenlights Equity Crowdfunding, So Anyone Can Invest In Startups

Featured Image -- 440


Improvement comes from investment. Unhappy, dissatisfied with the current available goods and services? Want affordable options and new ideas? It starts NOW!

Originally posted on TechCrunch:

Editor’s Note: Chris Tyrrell is the chief executive of OfferBoard Group, and Chair of the industry trade association CFIRA.  

Earlier this week, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced a new set of rules implementing Title IV of the JOBS Act.

These changes affect Regulation A small public offerings, and are colloquially referred to as “Reg A+”.

The release of these final rules further advances one of the core principles and goals of the 2012 law: to create an environment where emerging enterprises can raise public capital efficiently.

The rules approved by SEC commissioners on Wednesday lift the ceiling on the amount of capital a business can raise in a Regulation A offering from $5 million to $50 million, split into two “Tiers” — up to $20 million in 12 months (Tier 1) and up to $50 million in 12 months (Tier 2).  Companies raising less than…

View original 613 more words

Powerful films from 5 young people: What health inequality looks like in the US

Featured Image -- 438



Originally posted on TED Blog:

By Michael Painter. 

For some of us, it’s easy to choose to be healthy. We can’t control whether disease or accidents strike, but we can decide where we live and what we eat, as well as if, when and how much we’ll exercise. Some of us live in a culture of health — a time and place where, for the most part, we have the real hope and opportunity to live a healthy life.

But for many more of us, it isn’t — we don’t have that choice. We live in unsafe neighborhoods. We don’t have strong families to help us through life’s challenges. We can’t readily get nutritious food. We don’t have easy ways to exercise. It’s difficult — or even impossible — to keep our children safe.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation was at TED2015 in Vancouver last week, where the theme was Truth & Dare. And we took…

View original 356 more words

“Walking across America”

While I was driving, I saw a man near the intersection where I was stopped at the light. I noticed he had a vest, tan pants and was walking at a rather fast pace. As he turned the corner, I could see he had a sign on his back, which read: “Walking across America.” “Hmmm,” I thought.

I continued to observe and noticed he seemed to stop about every ten feet to take a picture of the standard road signs, such as speed limit or neighborhood watch placed along the road in the direction he was going. I started to laugh out loud (LOL), since if his pattern was to continue and his natural inclination was to stop to take pictures that frequently, I wondered how on earth that man thought he was going to walk across the street let alone America! Sight of this man serves as a reminder to us all that pacing ourselves is a requirement if we expect to get anywhere. The world is in constant commotion and often in a non-lineal direction. “Hurry up and wait,” is often the phrase we hear. To where, you say and smartly ask. While it may not be our place to know the destination, we can be more in control of the journey.

Estate Planning education is one way to obtain greater control of your road ahead!

Terri Schiavo and the right to death with dignity movement

Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube was pulled on March 18, 2005, more than 15 years after her husband found her unresponsive and without a pulse in their St. Petersburg home. The public debacle and series of legal actions between husband and Terri’s family gave many people reason to talk about having the “right to death” with dignity as an option.

Ten years after Terri’s death, three states, Oregon, Washington and Vermont have passed Right to Death with dignity for terminally ill patients. Oregon and Washington States acquired their “dignity laws” through voter initiatives and Vermont passed its right to die by legislative action in 2013. While it is still up to patients and qualified physicians, the issue of dying is as troubling as it is human. We can plan and protect our children and families.

Start now by considering purchasing your access to affordable Estate Planning related education at Educational Family Estate Apps! Coming to the internet in your home – soon!

Dereliction of Duty at Eastern District Regional and Chickasaw Agency offices of the Bureau of Indian Affairs

My last post went into detail as to the reasons why I am entitled to a meeting with the Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs to discuss a CDIB issue, not a “tribal enrollment dispute,” The Department of Interior would do well in noting 25 C.F.R. Sections 16.2, 16.3 and 16.4.

I was informed by the Tulsa Field Solicitor’s Office that it had been trying to get a certified copy of our Determination of Heirship for over a year. That office obtained a certified copy in 2014 (issued in 2011). We were informed by the Tulsa Solicitor’s office that it had sent a certified copy of the Heirship Determination to the Bureau offices in Muskogee and Ada because it felt the BIA had not addressed the issue when it opted to ignore the Determination of Heirship on our Grandmother’s estate and extensive public documentation. My Grandmother died with 40 acres of her original homestead allotment and it was still restricted property. It appears to have remained tax exempt from tax records I obtained as late as 1940 even though the land was sold in 1930.

“[f]or whom legal assistance should be rendered pursuant to the regulations…”
I demand legal assistance to resolve my issue! The Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs has an obligation to hear my complaint and to get the Bureau offices responsible for IGNORING THE LAW AND DERELICTION OF DUTY to do their jobs! However, this isn’t the first time the Bureau of Indian Affairs has had a glaring problem with abuse of discretion, among other things.
Helen Nowlin, Attorney

Text of relevant sections of 25 C.F.R. provided:
§ 16.2 Scope of regulations.The regulations in this part set forth procedures for discharging the responsibilities of the Secretary in connection with the performance by State courts, as authorized by Federal statutes, of certain functions which affect properties in which a restricted interest is owned by an Indian of the Five Civilized Tribes. These State court functions pertain to such proceedings as guardianship, heirship determination, will probate, estate administration, conveyance approval, partition of real property, confirmation of title to real property, and appeal from action removing or failing to remove restrictions against alienation. In addition, the regulations in this part set forth procedures for discharging certain other responsibilities of the Secretary not necessarily involving State court functions, such as escheat of estates of deceased Indians of the Five Civilized Tribes.
§ 16.3 Legal representation in State courts.The statutory duties of the Secretary to furnish legal advice to any Indian of the Five Civilized Tribes, and to represent such Indian in State courts, in matters affecting a restricted interest owned by such Indian, shall be performed by attorneys on the staff of the Solicitor, under the supervision of the Field Solicitor. Such advice and representation shall be undertaken to the extent that the Field Solicitor in his discretion shall consider necessary to discharge said duties, with due regard to the complexity of the legal action contemplated, the availability of staff attorneys for such purposes, the value and extent of the restricted interests involved, possible conflicts between Indians claiming to be owners of such interests, the preference of such owners concerning legal representation, the financial resources available to such owners, the extent to which such owners require similar legal services in connection with their unrestricted properties, and any other factor appropriate for consideration.
§ 16.4 Exchange of information within the Department.To the extent that information may be useful in discharging the duties covered by the regulations in this part, the Bureau shall furnish to the Field Solicitor, either on a current basis or at periodic intervals, processes and notices received concerning court cases and information, as current and complete as may reasonably be obtainable, concerning the estate and status of an Indian of the Five Civilized Tribes for whom legal assistance should be rendered pursuant to the regulations in this part. Similarly, to the extent that such information may be useful for Bureau action or records, the Field Solicitor shall advise the Bureau of court proceedings, information received, and action taken in furnishing legal services pursuant to the regulations in this part.

Government to Government documentation regarding Certificates of Degree of Indian Blood

With a Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood (CDIB) initially issued in 1992 and Chickasaw tribal membership in hand, I applied on behalf of my daughter for her CDIB. I have had an appeal on the denial of my application necessitated by agency action (or should I say, inaction) at the Eastern District of Oklahoma and the Chickasaw Agency, Bureau of Indian Affairs offices.

To date, the Bureau has not given valid, legal reasons for denying my application or the application of my sister who doesn’t yet have a CDIB, despite the evidence and substantial public documentation provided, including a State of Oklahoma Determination of Heirship (just an example of government to government) in support of our claim. See ( and 25 C.F.R. Section 16.7 conferring jurisdiction lies in the District Courts of Oklahoma over Five Civilized Tribe Probate & Heirship, and also affirmed in the 2004 American Indian Probate Reform Act.

Out of eight siblings, including myself six have been issued CDIBs. The Bureau of Indian Affairs should consider the following points:

1. The Bureau has not done its job in accepting public documentation (issued by federal, state and county sources) and has blatantly refused to recognize a Determination of Heirship done on my Grandmother’s estate affirming my father as Grandmother Susie’s son and us as her heirs,

2. It is not within the Bureau’s “discretionary authority” to ignore the law (BIA issues a CDIB and 25 C.F.R. stating special rules apply to Five Civilized Tribes, specifically State of Oklahoma laws and judicial authority). Public documentation is the evidence required to show “generation to generation…”

3. Issuance of a CDIB based on public records is NOT defined as a tribal enrollment dispute, since a CDIB must be issued first and citizenship decisions of the tribe is a separate process, as recognized by the Chickasaw Tribe itself and as a card carrying American Indian,

4. The Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs under his authority has an obligation to protect my Indian Civil Rights, since both federal and state authority are being circumvented and statutes of law have been violated.

The issuing agency of the CDIB is the Chickasaw Agency, a BIA agency (as documented on CDIB cards and is the issuing agency of blood quantum amounts). More recent, the Chickasaw Agency is housed in the same building now as the Chickasaw tribe’s Citizenship Department (but separate offices). The Bureau and tribe are not nor should they be “one and the same!” Both the Chickasaw Agency and the Eastern District of Oklahoma Bureau offices are derelict in their duties (

From a letter dated in 2003 from the Bureau sent to me, it is clear the broken link is undue influence between the Agency and certain private but hardly dis-interested individual (s). All federal agencies must comply with disclosure and transparency requirements. THE BUREAU IS RELYING ON PERSONAL INFORMATION, UNSUBSTANTIATED BY PUBLIC DOCUMENTATION. 

The Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs (“AS-IA”) has the authority to issue guidance and direction to professional staff to improve internal procedures in a way that addresses the transparency, timeliness, lack of adequate funding, and burden on the petitioner problems that are systemic…. Such guidance and direction allows the AS-IA to improve the process by utilizing the existing statutory and regulatory framework.

To reiterate, the State of Oklahoma was given the jurisdiction over Indian Heirship and Probate. CDIB is particularly carved out in Oklahoma and the basis of issuing a CDIB is still a BIA, not tribal issue.

Five Civilized Tribes of Indians who may die or may have heretofore died, leaving restricted heirs, by the probate court of the State of Oklahoma having jurisdiction to settle the estate of said deceased, conducted in the manner provided by the laws of said State for the determination of heirship in closing the estates of deceased persons.”

Moreover, “A decree of distribution and determination of heirship made in the manner provided by sections 1359-1362, C.O.S. 1921, by the county court in probate having jurisdiction of the settlement of an estate is conclusive as to the rights of the parties.” see

My father was born in 1914 or was defined as an “after born child” or birth after March 06, 1906 the date in which the Dawes Roll was closed. Grandmother Susie (Chickasaw 2828) died in 1927 and is listed on the Dawes Roll.

Public documentation is the basis of proof. I provided that, including a Determination of Heirship issued by the State of Oklahoma. BIA has no jurisdiction over such matters in the State of Oklahoma. I demand that the Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs or his next highest individual directly beneath him institute a FULL investigation of the Eastern District of Oklahoma and Chickasaw Agency offices for willful violation of current law and regulations. In so doing, the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs will act to protect my various civil rights and those of my other family members.

Finally, consider the 1947 Act that reaffirms the role of the Oklahoma District Courts in Indian probate and heirship. Read this informative law journal article at

Heirship should be done in the manner provided by the state, as described in 25 C.F.R. Section 375 ( Note in the above quote, as it reads, “[c]ounty court in probate having jurisdiction of the settlement of an estate is conclusive as to the rights of the parties.”

Helen Nowlin, Attorney