|
LOBBYING REPORT |
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Section 5) - All Filers Are Required to Complete This Page
2. Address
| Address1 | 615 Maywood Drive |
Address2 | |
| City | Claremore |
State | OK |
Zip Code | 74017 |
Country | USA |
3. Principal place of business (if different than line 2)
| City | |
State | |
Zip Code | |
Country | |
|
5. Senate ID# 400720166-12
|
||||||||
|
6. House ID# 415940000
|
||||||||
| TYPE OF REPORT | 8. Year | 2011 |
Q1 (1/1 - 3/31) | Q2 (4/1 - 6/30) | Q3 (7/1 - 9/30) | Q4 (10/1 - 12/31) |
9. Check if this filing amends a previously filed version of this report
| 10. Check if this is a Termination Report | Termination Date | |
11. No Lobbying Issue Activity |
| INCOME OR EXPENSES - YOU MUST complete either Line 12 or Line 13 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12. Lobbying | 13. Organizations | ||||||||
| INCOME relating to lobbying activities for this reporting period was: | EXPENSE relating to lobbying activities for this reporting period were: | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| Provide a good faith estimate, rounded to the nearest $10,000, of all lobbying related income for the client (including all payments to the registrant by any other entity for lobbying activities on behalf of the client). | 14. REPORTING Check box to indicate expense accounting method. See instructions for description of options. | ||||||||
|
Method A.
Reporting amounts using LDA definitions only
Method B. Reporting amounts under section 6033(b)(8) of the Internal Revenue Code Method C. Reporting amounts under section 162(e) of the Internal Revenue Code |
|||||||||
| Signature | Digitally Signed By: Scott Fry CEO |
Date | 07/12/2011 |
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate page for each code, provide information as requested. Add additional page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code SMB
16. Specific lobbying issues
Issues Pertaining to the payment methods currently being utilized by federal agencies other than the DOD. The net 30 payment structure, allows the federal government 30 days or more on invoice billing. Small businesses are not financial insitutions. This current method, retards growth in a very fast paced market. The business cannot accel with numerous accounts receivable outstanding. One solution would be to treat the federal PO as a monetary instrument.
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies Check if None
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue area
| First Name | Last Name | Suffix | Covered Official Position (if applicable) | New |
Scott |
Fry |
|
CEO Cherokee Goverment Applications LLC |
19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on line 16 above Check if None
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate page for each code, provide information as requested. Add additional page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code LBR
16. Specific lobbying issues
The issue of a worker forcibly signing a non-compete agreement without the choice of legal counsel or a wait period to evaluate the agreement. Currently, in most states that are "at will", an employee can be terminated at anytime for no reason including not signing a non-compete agreement. In some far reaching instances, new employees are being forced to sign the agreement before they are allowed to leave the building and are threatened with termination if there is noncompliance. See next page.
Currently, the EEOC has no rulings on this type of premeditated retaliation. Retaliation is only considered when one has been terminated as a result of being involved with any EEOC claim. It is rather alarming to think, that this type of action is legal in any "at will" state
When an individual buys a home, a car or even gets married, there are preemptive contractual remedies that protect these major life decisions. It is diabolical for a litigious nation such as ours, to allow this lack of remedy for an employee that wishes to exercise some level of due diligence before signing any type of employment contract.
Here is a case where abc company not only utilizes the above tactics but also stacks the deck in its favor by enforcing the above agenda on to its new hires and also protects itself by enforcing a Interpretation and construction clause within the main employee contract which relates to injunctive relief and damages.
(This case is currently being litigated so I will keep the parties anonymous.)
XYZbigco takes an aggressive stance on where ex-employees do follow on work. Over 15 lawsuits have been litigated by XYZbigco, in recent years, as it relates to their employee contracts. Their strategy is to coerce the employee to sign a non-compete clause which could be litigated in Bigco County courts as well as a agreement to arbitrate any other disagreements that may arise in the employees career, "excluding" claims by XYZbigco as it relates to Injunctive relief and or damages including, unfair competition, trade secrets or confidential information claims. XYZbigco integrated a ADR (Alternate Dispute Resolution Program) in addition to the Interpretation and construction clause included within the employee contract. XYZbigco has flagrantly stacked the deck in its favor contractually by compelling the employee to arbitrate all claims other than claims litigiously of higher value which would fall under the Bigco County courts. When an employee is hired they are not allowed to leave the premises until the agreements are signed. There is to be no legal representation in a advisement capacity before signing. If they do not abide, they are terminated. Upon termination, they cannot go to work for any firm that may be competitive in nature to XYZbigco. If they do, they are litigated in Bigco county. If the employee counter sues, all claims must me disputed in arbitration as per the signed contracts.
It is felt that federal legislation should be imposed to stop this type of legal card stacking as it relates to for all Americans.
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies Check if None
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue area
| First Name | Last Name | Suffix | Covered Official Position (if applicable) | New |
Scott |
Fry |
|
CEO Cherokee Government Applications |
19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on line 16 above Check if None
Information Update Page - Complete ONLY where registration information has changed.
20. Client new address
| Address | |
||||||
| City | |
State | |
Zip Code | |
Country | |
21. Client new principal place of business (if different than line 20)
| City | |
State | |
Zip Code | |
Country | |
22. New General description of client’s business or activities
LOBBYIST UPDATE
23. Name of each previously reported individual who is no longer expected to act as a lobbyist for the client
|
|
||||||||
| 1 |
|
3 |
|
||||||
| 2 |
|
4 |
|
ISSUE UPDATE
24. General lobbying issue that no longer pertains
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS
25. Add the following affiliated organization(s)
Internet Address:
| Name | Address |
Principal Place of Business (city and state or country) |
||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
26. Name of each previously reported organization that is no longer affiliated with the registrant or client
| 1 | 2 | 3 |
FOREIGN ENTITIES
27. Add the following foreign entities:
| Name | Address |
Principal place of business (city and state or country) |
Amount of contribution for lobbying activities | Ownership percentage in client | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
% | |||||||||||||
28. Name of each previously reported foreign entity that no longer owns, or controls, or is affiliated with the registrant, client or affiliated organization
| 1 | 3 | 5 |
| 2 | 4 | 6 |