The Anatomy of Public Corruption

Showing posts with label Federal Indictments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Federal Indictments. Show all posts

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CHRISTOPHER BUTLER, Defendant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CHRISTOPHER BUTLER, Defendant.

PPP

 
  From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research
United States v. Butler
Opinion
No.:CR11 0529 SBA

09-14-2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CHRISTOPHER BUTLER, Defendant.

WILLIAM E. GAGEN, JR. CSB #043832 AMANDA I. BEVINS, CSB#167938 Gagen, McCoy, McMahon, Koss, Markowitz & Raines Attorneys for Defendant CHRISTOPHER BUTLER

SANDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

WILLIAM E. GAGEN, JR. CSB #043832
AMANDA I. BEVINS, CSB#167938
Gagen, McCoy, McMahon, Koss, Markowitz & Raines
Attorneys for Defendant
CHRISTOPHER BUTLER
APPLICATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Sentencing Date: September 21, 2012

UNDER SEAL
Christopher Butler, by and through his counsel William E. Gagen, Jr., hereby moves this Court for an order sealing the application for sealing order, the sealing order, Defendant's Sentencing Memorandum, and all documents related to the Sentencing Memorandum in the above-referenced action. The Sentencing Memorandum relates to an ongoing investigation and the named defendant is in the Dublin Federal Detention Facility. Accordingly, disclosure of these documents may jeopardize Defendant's safety

This application is made on grounds that sentencing documents contain constitutionally-protected information. The individual's right to privacy in such information overrides the public's qualified right of access.

Assistant United States Attorney Hartley West has been contacted and she too has petitioned the Court for an Order to file under seal the Government's Sentencing  Memorandum.

GAGEN, MCCOY, MCMAHON, KOSS,
MARKOWITZ & RAINES
A Professional Corporation
By: _______________
WILLIAM E. GAGEN, JR.
Attorneys for Defendant
CHRISTOPHER BUTLER
ORDER
Upon motion of the Defendant and good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED that the application for a sealing order, the sealing order, Defendant's Sentencing Memorandum, and all documents related to the Sentencing Memorandum in the above-referenced action, shall be filed under seal by the Clerk until further order of the Court.

_______________
SANDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
Judge, United States District Court

card_header

card_title

Card image

The Point of Sale System

Share:

Autonomic Software - Fraud Indictment

Move the Truth

The current CEO and Chairman plus their billionaire owners should be charged with racketeering, obstruction of Justice
Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney’s Office
Middle District of Tennessee

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, September 13, 2021

California Software Company Executives Charged In Conspiracy To Defraud The Tennessee Valley Authority

Company Allegedly Sought More Than $300,000 in Fraudulent Incentive Payments from TVA Through Software Installation in Rutherford County Schools

NASHVILLE – A seven-count indictment unsealed Friday charged two Danville, California men with conspiracy to defraud the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) of more than $300,000, announced Acting U.S. Attorney Mary Jane Stewart for the Middle District of Tennessee. 

Anthony Gigliotti, 74, the CEO of Autonomic Software, Inc., (Autonomic) was charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, three counts of mail fraud, and three counts of wire fraud.  Alexander Gigliotti, 36, the Vice President of Autonomic, was charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud.  Both were arrested by U.S. Marshals in Danville, California on Friday and will appear in the Middle District of Tennessee at a later date for further proceedings. 

According to the indictment, Autonomic was a software company located in Danville, California, which provided a variety of software to private and public sector organizations.  In 2016, Autonomic installed power management software in Rutherford County school systems, in connection with TVA’s EnergyRight program, an incentive-based program designed to save energy and reduce costs through the installation of energy-saving software.  To be eligible for the energy conservation funds, customers were required to pay a portion of the software materials costs.

Instead of following the program requirements, Autonomic represented to the Rutherford County School District that schools would not incur any costs associated with the software installation.  Following the installation of the software, Autonomic submitted 47 invoices, totaling $588,240 to Lockheed Martin, the contract administrator of the EnergyRight program.  The invoices were made out to Rutherford County Schools and represented that each school incurred costs associated with Autonomic’s software installation.

Alexander Gigliotti also sent an email to a Lockheed Martin representative in support of seeking the incentive payments from TVA, with a breakdown of an invoice regarding purported costs incurred by Rutherford County Schools, claiming that the school paid $22 per computer related to software and $8 per computer related to support.  In fact, Rutherford County Schools did not incur any costs associated with any invoice from Autonomic.  Lockheed Martin then mailed incentive payments to Autonomic that corresponded to each invoice.

The Autonomic software failed to function as initially represented and approximately one year after the installation, Rutherford County Schools purchased energy saving software that could effectively quantify energy savings and which cost substantially less than Autonomic’s total purported materials costs.

The indictment also alleges that Anthony Gigliotti lied to TVA agents by falsely stating that Alexander Gigliotti was not involved in any of the previous TVA or school system work. 

If convicted, the defendants face up to 20 years in prison.

This case was investigated by the TVA Office of Inspector General and is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Sara Beth Myers.

An indictment is merely an accusation.  The defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. 

# # # # #

 

Topic(s): 
Financial Fraud
Contact: 
David Boling Public Affairs Officer 615-736-5956 david.boling2@usdoj.gov
Share:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. STEPHEN TANABE, Defendant.

United States v. Tanabe

Download
PDF
Check 
Treatment

Opinion

Case No: CR 11-0941 SBA

11-19-2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. STEPHEN TANABE, Defendant.


 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

ORDER DENYING

MOTION TO DISMISS

Docket 39

The parties are presently before the Court on Defendant Stephen Tanabe's ("Defendant") motion to dismiss the superseding indictment under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Dkt. 39. The United States ("government") opposes the motion. Dkt. 40. Having read and considered the papers filed in connection with this matter and being fully informed, the Court hereby DENIES the motion to dismiss, for the reasons stated below.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

At all times relevant to the superseding indictment, Defendant was a Deputy Sheriff with the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Office, assigned to work patrol in Danville, California. Superseding Indictment ¶ 1. Beginning on a date unknown, but no later than November 2, 2010, and continuing through at least on or about January 14, 2011, Defendant and others engaged in an illegal scheme and conspiracy to defraud others by depriving them of their rights to Defendant's honest services as a Deputy Sheriff. Id. ¶ 2.

Beginning on a date no later than November 2, 2010, a private investigator, C.B., agreed to conduct "stings" of husbands and ex-husbands (hereafter "targets") for female  clients involved in divorce, child custody, and other family law disputes. Superseding Indictment ¶ 3. In cases in which the clients advised C.B. that the targets had a tendency to drink and drive, C.B. would arrange for an undercover employee to meet the target at a bar, direct the employee to entice the target to drink alcohol until he was intoxicated, and have a police officer waiting outside the bar to stop and arrest the target for driving under the influence of alcohol ("DUI"). Id.

As part of this scheme, Defendant agreed to and did participate in three DUI stings. Superseding Indictment ¶ 4. In two stings, Defendant waited outside the bar for the targets, H.A. and M.K., to exit and then stopped the targets shortly after they drove off. Id. In the third sting, Defendant arranged for another Deputy Sheriff to wait outside the bar, while he remained inside the bar with C.B., monitoring the alcohol intake of the target, D.B. Id. In all cases, the targets were stopped and arrested for DUI. Id. In his incident reports for the arrests he made, Defendant falsely stated that he was on "routine patrol" at the time of the targets' arrests. Id.

In exchange for Defendant making DUI arrests and arranging for another officer to make an arrest, C.B. compensated Defendant with cocaine and a firearm. Superseding Indictment ¶ 5. As part of the scheme, Defendant and C.B. exchanged text messages regarding coordination of the arrests and Defendant's compensation for his role in the arrests. Id. ¶ 6. The texts to and from C.B. passed through the servers of C.B.'s cell service provider, Sprint, located in Kansas City, Missouri. Id.

B. Procedural History

On December 15, 2011, a grand jury returned a four-count indictment charging Defendant with one count of conspiracy to extort under color of official right in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951; one count of extortion under color of official right, aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 and 2; and two counts of extortion under color of official right in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951. Indictment, Dkt. 1. On April 25, 2012, a grand jury returned an eight-count superseding indictment charging Defendant with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and deprivation of honest services in  violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349; three counts of wire fraud and deprivation of honest services in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1346; one count of conspiracy to extort under color of official right in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951; one count of extortion under color of official right, aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 and 2; and two counts of extortion under color of official right in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951. Superseding Indictment, Dkt. 24.

On July 16, 2012, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the superseding indictment. Dkt. 39. The government filed an opposition on July 31, 2012. Dkt. 40. Defendant did not file a reply brief.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

An indictment "must be a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. . . ." Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(c)(1). A defendant may move to dismiss the indictment for failure to state an offense under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b). "In ruling on a pre-trial motion to dismiss an indictment for failure to state an offense, the district court is bound by the four corners of the indictment." United States v. Boren278 F.3d 911, 914 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). "On [such] a motion . . . , the court must accept the truth of the allegations in the indictment in analyzing whether a cognizable offense has been charged." Id. (citation omitted).

"An indictment must provide the essential facts necessary to apprise a defendant of the crime charged; it need not specify the theories or evidence upon which the government will rely to prove those facts." United States v. Cochrane985 F.2d 1027, 1031 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing United States v. Jenkins884 F.2d 433, 438-439 (9th Cir. 1989)). An indictment is sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss if it (1) "contains the elements of the offense charged and fairly informs a defendant of the charge against which he must defend" and (2) "enables him to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense." United States v. Lazarenko564 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks omitted). An indictment should be read in its entirety,  construed according to common sense, and interpreted to include facts which are necessarily implied. Id. "In cases where the indictment 'tracks the words of the statute charging the offense,' the indictment will be held sufficient 'so long as the words unambiguously set forth all elements necessary to constitute the offense.' " United States v. Davis336 F.3d 920, 922 (9th Cir. 2003).

B. Motion to Dismiss

Defendant moves to dismiss Counts 1-8 of the superseding indictment on the ground that the government has failed to allege essential elements of the charges alleged. Def.'s Mtn. at 3. Defendant's arguments are discussed in turn below.

In its opposition papers, the government represents that it "intends to amend the indictment to omit Count Five, conspiracy to extort under color of official right, for the reasons stated by this Court during the plea colloquy for co-conspirator Christopher Butler. The government will do so after the Court rules on this motion." Pl.'s Opp. at 10.

1. Honest Services Wire Fraud

Counts 1-4 of the superseding indictment charge Defendant with one count of conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud and three counts of honest services wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1359, 1343 and 1346. See Superseding Indictment ¶¶ 7-10. The wire fraud statute provides:

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. . . .
18 U.S.C. § 1343. "To convict a person of wire fraud, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused (1) participated in a scheme to defraud; and (2) used the wires to further the scheme." United States v. Ciccone219 F.3d 1078, 1083 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).

As explained by the Ninth Circuit, federal prosecutors have used § 1343, as well as the substantially similar mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, to develop a theory of "honest services fraud," which occurs when an employee deprives his employer of its right to have  its affairs conducted "free from deceit, fraud, dishonesty, conflict of interest, and self-enrichment," and consistent with the employee's fiduciary duties to the employer. United States v. Kincaid-Chauncey556 F.3d 923, 939 (9th Cir. 2009). When a public official is involved, the theory relies on the idea that a public official acts as trustee for the citizens and the State and thus owes the normal fiduciary duties of a trustee, e.g., honesty and loyalty to them. Id.see United States v. Woodard459 F.3d 1078, 1082, 1086 (11th Cir. 2006) (a police officer is a public official that owes a "fiduciary duty to the public to make governmental decisions in the public's best interest"; noting that a police officer's misuse of his office for private gain constitutes fraud).

18 U.S.C. § 1346 provides that the behavior punishable under the wire fraud statute includes a scheme or artifice "to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services." The Supreme Court has recently held that § 1346, which codifies the offense of honest-services fraud, only criminalizes bribe-and-kickback schemes. See United States v. Pelisamen641 F.3d 399, 402, 404-405 (9th Cir. 2011) ("a defendant may not be convicted of honest-services fraud, except in cases involving bribes or kickbacks"; noting that the "Supreme Court has recently held that the offense of honest-services fraud . . . is unconstitutionally vague when applied to conduct other than bribery and kickbacks") (citing Skilling v. United States130 S.Ct. 2896, 2931 (2010)).

In Skilling, the Supreme Court did not define bribery or kickbacks. However, the Supreme Court cited a statutory definition of kickbacks. Skilling130 S. Ct. at 2933-2934 (" 'The term 'kickback' means any money, fee, commission, credit, gift, gratuity, thing of value, or compensation of any kind which is provided, directly or indirectly, to [enumerated persons] for the purpose of improperly obtaining or rewarding favorable treatment in connection with [enumerated circumstances].' ") (quoting 41 U.S.C. 52(2)).

While the term "honest services" is not defined in the statute, "the paradigm case of honest services fraud is the bribery of a public official." See United States v. Langford647 F.3d 1309, 1321 (11th Cir. 2011); see also United States v. Bohonus628 F.2d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 1980) (schemes which deprive others of intangible rights most often involve bribery of public officials). In cases involving bribery of public officials, "[t]he requisite 'scheme or artifice to defraud' is found in the deprivation of the public's right to honest and  faithful government. When a public official is bribed, he is paid for making a decision while purporting to be exercising his independent discretion. The fraud element is therefore satisfied." Bohonus628 F.2d at 1171.

In the Ninth Circuit, bribery requires at least an implicit quid pro quo. Kincaid-Chauncey556 F.3d at 941. "Only individuals who can be shown to have had the specific intent to trade official actions for items of value are subject to criminal punishment on this theory of honest services fraud." Id. at 943, n. 15. The quid pro quo necessary for a bribery honest services conviction need not be explicit, and an implicit quid pro quo need not concern a specific official act. Id. at 943 (citing United States v. Kemp500 F.3d 257, 282 (3d Cir. 2007) ("[T]he government need not prove that each gift was provided with the intent to prompt a specific official act.")). A quid pro quo requirement is satisfied if the evidence shows a course of conduct of favors and gifts flowing to a public official in exchange for a pattern of official acts favorable to the donor. Id. at 943.

Relying on Skilling, the Ninth Circuit has recently held that the breach of a fiduciary duty is a required element of honest services fraud. United States v. Milovanovic678 F.3d 713, 721-722, 728-729 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that in Skilling the Supreme Court stated that "[t]he 'vast majority' of the honest-services cases involved offenders who, in violation of a fiduciary duty, participated in bribery or kickback schemes."). The fiduciary duty required is not limited to the classic definition of the term but also extends to defendants who assume a comparable duty of loyalty, trust, or confidence with the victim. Id. at 723-724. "The existence of a fiduciary duty in a criminal prosecution is a fact-based  determination that must ultimately be determined by a jury properly instructed on this issue." Id. at 723.

In Milovanovic, the Defendant was not charged with honest services wire fraud in violation of § 1343; rather, he was charged with the substantially similar mail fraud statute, § 1341. See Milovanovic678 F.3d at 719, n. 4.

"A fiduciary is generally defined as '[a] person who is required to act for the benefit of another person on all matters within the scope of their relationship; one who owes to another the duties of good faith, trust, confidence, and candor. . . .' " Milovanovic678 F.3d at 722 (quoting Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed.)). And courts have held that "fiduciary" encompasses informal fiduciaries. See id.

A specific intent to defraud is also a required element of honest services fraud. Kincaid-Chauncey556 F.3d at 941. As with mail fraud, "materiality" is also an essential element of the crime of wire fraud. Neder v. United States527 U.S. 1, 20-25 (1999); Milovanovic678 F.3d at 726-727 (adopting the "materiality test" to bring § 1346 in line with the mail, wire, and bank fraud statutes). In the case of mail or wire fraud, the government need not prove a specific false statement was made. See United States v. Woods335 F.3d 993, 999 (9th Cir. 2003) (if a scheme is devised with the intent to defraud, the fact that there is no misrepresentation of a single existing fact is immaterial; it is only necessary to prove that it is a scheme reasonably calculated to deceive); United States v. Omer395 F.3d 1087, 1089 (9th Cir. 2005) (it is the materiality of the scheme or artifice that must be alleged; the materiality of a specific statement need not be pleaded). "[T]he fraudulent nature of the 'scheme or artifice to defraud' is measured by a non-technical standard." Woods, 335 F.3d at 998. "Thus, schemes are condemned which are contrary to public policy or which fail to measure up to the reflection of moral uprightness, of fundamental honesty, fair play and right dealing in the general and business life of members of society." Id.see also Omer395 F.3d at 1089 (noting that "Neder did not undermine this non-technical standard for measuring fraud, which does not require proof of a specific false statement.").

Here, the superseding indictment charges Defendant with a bribery-based scheme to defraud. Defendant contends that dismissal of the honest services fraud counts (i.e., Counts 1-4) is appropriate because "the government has failed to allege any facts pertaining to the breach of a fiduciary duty, the material misrepresentation or material fact concealed by [Defendant], and the quid pro quo agreement by [Defendant] that caused the deprivation o[f] an intangible right of a particular service." Def.'s Mtn. at 4 (italics and alterations added). The Court disagrees. 

The Court finds that the superseding indictment sufficiently alleges these elements of an honest services fraud offense. Reading the superseding indictment in its entirety, construing it according to common sense, and interpreting it to include facts which are necessarily implied, the government has alleged that: (1) Defendant knowingly and intentionally devised and participated in a scheme and artifice to defraud, specifically to deprive the public to whom he owed a fiduciary duty of his honest services as a Deputy Sheriff; (2) the fraudulent scheme involves bribes (i.e., cocaine and a firearm) in exchange for Defendant's services (i.e., making arrests and arranging for another officer to make an arrest); (3) the public was deprived of the intangible benefit of Defendant's honest services through the bribery-based scheme as Defendant misused his position for private gain; and (4) Defendant used the wires (via text messages) to execute the fraudulent scheme.

Defendant argues that Counts 1-4 of the superseding indictment should be dismissed because the superseding indictment does not allege a fiduciary duty or a breach of a fiduciary duty. Def.'s Mtn. at 5. While the superseding indictment does not contain the phrase "fiduciary duty," the superseding indictment fairly read alleges that Defendant, a public official, owed a fiduciary duty to the public to provide honest services, and that he breached his duties of honesty and loyalty to the public through his participation in the bribery-based fraudulent scheme. To the extent Defendant argues that the superseding indictment does not allege a breach of fiduciary duty because Defendant's duties under the law required him to prevent crime and assist in its detection, id., this argument lacks merit. Honest services fraud criminalizes bribery schemes where, as here, a public official receives compensation of any kind in exchange for the performance of official duties favorable to the person providing the compensation. See e.g.Langford647 F.3d at 1321-1322

Defendant does not dispute that he was a public official at the time of the events giving rise to this action. See Woodard459 F.3d at 1096, n. 7 (police officer is a public official that owes the public a fiduciary duty to act in the public's best interest).
--------

Defendant also argues that Counts 1-4 of the superseding indictment should be dismissed because the superseding indictment does not allege a material misrepresentation or the omission of a material fact as required under §§ 1343 and 1346. Def.'s Mtn. at 6. Defendant contends that "[s]ince making an investigatory stop of an intoxicated driver based upon a citizen's tip is not a material misrepresentation, the Court should dismiss the Honest Services counts. . . ." Id. at 6 (alteration added). The Court rejects this argument.

Contrary to Defendant's contention, the government is not required to allege a material misrepresentation or the omission of a material fact to state an actionable charge for honest services wire fraud. See Woods, 335 F.3d at 998-999. The materiality element of a wire fraud offense does not require the government to prove a specific false statement or specific omission. See id. If a scheme is devised with the intent to defraud, . . . the fact that there is no misrepresentation of a single existing fact is immaterial. It is only necessary to prove that it is a scheme reasonably calculated to deceive . . . ." Id. at 998 (emphasis in original). A review of the superseding indictment reveals that the government has sufficiently alleged the materiality element of an honest services wire fraud offense. The superseding indictment fairly read alleges that Defendant participated in a "scheme reasonably calculated to deceive," which deprived the public of its right to Defendant's honest services. Moreover, even assuming for the sake of argument that the government is required to allege a material misrepresentation or the omission of a material fact, the superseding indictment alleges that the Defendant made specific false statements in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme. Specifically, it alleges that Defendant falsely stated in his incident reports for the DUI arrests that he was on "routine patrol." These statements are material misrepresentations because Defendant falsely represented to his employer that he was engaged in official acts on behalf of the public when in fact he was misusing his position for private gain.

Finally, Defendant argues that Counts 1-4 of the superseding indictment should be dismissed because the superseding indictment does not allege an explicit agreement that Defendant received benefits in exchange for a promise of official action. Def.'s Mtn. at 8.  Defendant contends that "[s]ince the superceding [sic] indictment lacks . . . an explicit, certain quid pro quo agreement, the Honest Services Fraud counts are insufficient to state a claim upon which [Defendant] can be charged." Id. at 8 (italics and alterations added). This argument lacks merit. The quid pro quo necessary for a bribery honest services conviction need not be explicit. Kincaid-Chauncey556 F.3d at 943. A quid pro quo requirement is satisfied if the evidence shows a course of conduct of favors and gifts flowing to a public official in exchange for a pattern of official acts favorable to the donor. Id. Here, the allegations in the superseding indictment are sufficient to withstand Defendant's motion to dismiss. The superseding indictment alleges that "[i]n exchange for [Defendant] making DUI arrests and arranging for another officer to make an arrest, C.B. compensated [Defendant] with cocaine and a firearm." Superseding Indictment ¶ 5.

2. Hobbs Act

Counts 5-8 of the superseding indictment charge Defendant with violations of the Hobbs Act. Specifically, the superseding indictment charges Defendant with one count of conspiracy to extort under color of official right in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951; one count of extortion under color of official right, aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 and 2; and two counts of extortion under color of official right in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951See Superseding Indictment ¶¶ 11-18.

18 U.S.C. § 1951 provides:

Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
"The term 'extortion' means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right." 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(2).

To convict Defendant of Hobbs Act extortion under a color of official right theory, the government must prove that he: (1) was a government official; (2) who accepted  property to which he was not entitled; (3) knowing that he was not entitled to the property; (4) knowing that the payment was given in return for official acts; and (5) which had at least a de minimis effect on commerce. Kincaid-Chauncey556 F.3d at 936. A conviction for extortion under color of official right requires that the government prove a quid pro quo. Id. at 937. The official and the payor need not state the quid pro quo in express terms, for otherwise the law's effect could be frustrated by knowing winks and nods. Id. (quotation marks omitted). An explicit quid pro quo is not required; an agreement implied from the official's words and actions is sufficient to satisfy this element. Id. (citing Evans v. United States504 U.S. 255, 268 (1992) ("[The] Government need only show that a public official has obtained a payment to which he was not entitled, knowing that the payment was made in return for official acts.")).

Here, Defendant is charged under the "official right" theory of extortion. Defendant contends that dismissal of the Hobbs Act charges is appropriate because "the government failed to allege an obtaining of property of another, the effect [sic] on interstate commerce, or a quid pro quo[,] which are each essential elements of a Hobbs Act violation. Def.'s Mtn. at 8 (italics and alteration added). The Court disagrees.

The Court finds that the superseding indictment sufficiently alleges these elements of a Hobbs Act extortion offense. Reading the superseding indictment in its entirety, construing it according to common sense, and interpreting it to include facts which are necessarily implied, the superseding indictment alleges that Defendant, a Deputy Sheriff, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay, and affect commerce by extortion (or aided and abetted or conspired to do the same) by obtaining property not due to him from C.B. (i.e., cocaine and a firearm), with C.B.'s consent, in exchange for making and arranging traffic stops and arrests for DUI under color of official right.

Defendant argues that Counts 5-8 of the superseding indictment should be dismissed because the allegation that he obtained cocaine and a firearm from C.B. after the DUI arrests, standing alone, cannot establish a Hobbs Act extortion violation. Def.'s Mtn. at 9-10. Defendant, however, did not cite any authority demonstrating that dismissal is  appropriate on this ground. Indeed, with respect to obtaining property, to survive a motion to dismiss the government must allege that Defendant accepted property to which he was not entitled, and that he knew he was not entitled to receive the property. See Kincaid-Chauncey556 F.3d at 936. The superseding indictment fairly read alleges sufficient facts to satisfy this element of a Hobbs Act extortion offense. The superseding indictment alleges that Defendant knowingly and intentionally obtained property not due to him from C.B. (i.e., cocaine and a firearm), with C.B.'s consent, in exchange for making and arranging traffic stops and arrests for DUI under color of official right.

Defendant also argues that Counts 5-8 of the superseding indictment should be dismissed because "[w]hile the government only needs to prove 'a de minimis effect on interstate commerce,' " there are no allegations in the superseding indictment establishing that Defendant obstructed, delayed, or affected interstate commerce. Def.'s Mtn. at 10 (alteration and italics added). Defendant, however, does not point to any controlling authority establishing that the allegations in the superseding indictment are insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss on this ground. Moreover, because the superseding indictment tracks the statutory language by alleging that Defendant's extortion affected interstate commerce, the government has adequately pled this element of a Hobbs Act extortion offense. Davis336 F.3d at 922.

Finally, Defendant argues that Counts 5-8 of the superseding indictment should be dismissed because the government failed to allege an explicit quid pro quo agreement between Defendant and C.B. Def.'s Mtn. at 11. Contrary to Defendant's contention, an explicit quid pro quo is not required; an agreement implied from the official's words and actions is sufficient to satisfy this element. See Kincaid-Chauncey556 F.3d at 937 (citing Evans504 U.S. at 268 ("[The] Government need only show that a public official has obtained a payment to which he was not entitled, knowing that the payment was made in return for official acts.")). Here, the allegations in the superseding indictment fairly read sufficiently allege this element of a Hobbs Act extortion offense. The superseding indictment alleges that Defendant received compensation (i.e., cocaine and a firearm) not  due to him from C.B. in exchange for making DUI arrests and arranging for another officer to make an arrest.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Defendant's motion to dismiss is DENIED.

2. The motion hearing scheduled for November 20, 2012 is VACATED. The parties shall contact the Duty Magistrate Judge of the Oakland Division of this Court forthwith to schedule the matter for a status conference.

3. This Order terminates Docket 39.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_____________

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Share:

OBIT: Thomas A. Heffron - Litigant connected to CNET Attorney Mary Nolan


Thomas A. Heffron Mar. 27, 1958~Dec. 23, 2013 Resident of Walnut Creek Tom passed away unexpectedly. He is survived by his 91 year old mother, Frances M. Heffron and his 9 year old daughter, Renee F. Heffron, Martin J. Heffron, his father preceeded him in death in 2009. There will be a Catholic service on January 25, 2014 at St. Francis Assisi Church located at 860 Oak Grove Rd., Concord, CA at 12 Noon. All donations should be made to the Heffron Family Trust at Morgan Stanley, 1333 N. California Blvd. Suite 133, walnut Creek, CA 94596-4552.

Dean Witter Reynolds Trust Forgery


To Plant Memorial Trees in memory, please visit our Sympathy Store.


Case CIVMSC97-03243 - THOMAS A. HEFFRON VS DAN HELIX


Case CIVMSC97-03243 - Complaints/Parties

Complaint Number: 1
Complaint Type: COMPLAINT
Filing Date: 08/15/1997
Complaint Status: ACTIVE
Party Number Party Type Party Name Attorney Party Status
PLAINTIFF  THOMAS A. HEFFRON   PRO PER   
DEFENDANT  DAN HELIX   Unrepresented  Serve Required (WaitS) 



Case CIVMSC97-03243 - Actions/Minutes

Viewed
Date
Action Text
Disposition
Image
  01/14/1998 8:00 AM DEPT. 02  FIRST STATUS CONFERENCE   COMPLETED    
    Minutes
    You are Not Authorized to View Minutes prior to 12/31/2099 
  01/13/1998  FULL REQ FOR DISMISSAL W/O PREJUDICE AS TO ENTIR E ACTION       
  01/09/1998 8:00 AM DEPT. 02  FIRST STATUS CONFERENCE   COMPLETED    
    Minutes
    You are Not Authorized to View Minutes prior to 12/31/2099 
  01/03/1998 8:00 AM DEPT. 02  FIRST STATUS CONFERENCE   COMPLETED    
    Minutes
    You are Not Authorized to View Minutes prior to 12/31/2099 
  01/02/1998 8:00 AM DEPT. 13  FIRST STATUS CONFERENCE   COMPLETED    
    Minutes
    You are Not Authorized to View Minutes prior to 12/31/2099 
  01/02/1998 8:00 AM DEPT. 02  FIRST STATUS CONFERENCE   COMPLETED    
    Minutes
    You are Not Authorized to View Minutes prior to 12/31/2099 
  12/10/1997  NOTICE OF CONTINUED STATUS CONFERENCE (AMENDED D ATE) 01/14/98 830AM D2       
  12/09/1997 8:00 AM DEPT. 02  FIRST STATUS CONFERENCE       
  12/08/1997 8:00 AM DEPT. 02  FIRST STATUS CONFERENCE       
  12/08/1997  NOTICE OF CONTINUED STATUS CONFERENCE (AMENDED D ATE) 01/09/98 830AM D2       
  11/26/1997 8:00 AM DEPT. 02  OSC RE: PROOF OF SERVICE   COMPLETED    
    Minutes
    You are Not Authorized to View Minutes prior to 12/31/2099 
  11/25/1997 8:00 AM DEPT. 02  FIRST STATUS CONFERENCE       
  11/19/1997 8:00 AM DEPT. DM4  OSC RE: PROOF OF SERVICE   COMPLETED    
    Minutes
    You are Not Authorized to View Minutes prior to 12/31/2099 
  11/19/1997 8:00 AM DEPT. 02  OSC RE: PROOF OF SERVICE       
  11/19/1997 8:00 AM DEPT. 02  FIRST STATUS CONFERENCE       
  11/18/1997  ORDER OF RECUSAL AND REASSIGNING CASE AND CERTIF ICATE OF MAILING BY CLERK       
  10/28/1997 8:00 AM DEPT. DM4  OSC RE: PROOF OF SERVICE       
  10/28/1997  NOTICE OF OSC RE: PROOF OF SERVICE       
  10/20/1997 8:00 AM DEPT. TM4  CHECK FOR PROOF OF SERVICE   COMPLETED    
    Minutes
    You are Not Authorized to View Minutes prior to 12/31/2099 
  08/19/1997 8:00 AM DEPT. TM4  CHECK FOR PROOF OF SERVICE       
  08/15/1997 8:00 AM DEPT. 13  FIRST STATUS CONFERENCE       
  08/15/1997  > COMPLAINT FILED - SUMMONS ISSUED       
  08/15/1997  NOTICE OF FIRST STATUS CONFERENCE 1-2-98 8:30AM D-M4       
  08/15/1997  FEE COLLECTED FOR EX PARTE OSC/TRO PRELIM INJ       
  08/15/1997  FEE COLLECTED FOR PS OSC/TRO RE PRELIM INJ **** ** NOT YET FILED ******       





Case CIVMSC97-03243 - Pending Hearings

Date
Action Text
Disposition
Image
This Case Does Not Have Any Pending Hearings
Share:

Seeno FBI Probe came about because you fuck people over one person had bigger balls than you expected

Mr. Shahid, Consider yourself lucky, yor're still alive.

near Pete Bennett former database developer for Albert D. Seeno has endured a long run of murdered witnesses.
Yes he fucked you like he fucks everyone but I fucked him better than anyone - he didn't pay so I gave all his legal records to the FBI. Fuck you all and fuck all your, plebes, partners and thugs.
I did something for everybody - when Seeno didn't pay I gave the FBI everything needed to raid their offices. 
List Dead Seeno Witnesses 
Last spring, months after Ayman Shahid agreed to assist the FBI in its probe of the Seeno family and a mortgage fraud scam, Shahid’s former best friend Albert Seeno III delivered a “chilling death threat,” according to newly filed court records providing the first glimpse as to why the prominent East Bay homebuilder was arrested.
“Hey (expletive). You’re going down! I’m going to kill you! (expletive) you!” Seeno III said, hanging up, but not before Shahid’s new boss heard the exchange, according to a sentencing memorandum filed last week. Shahid, his wife and others say they have been intimidated and threatened by Seeno family members after the former Discovery Sales vice president decided to testify against the company.
Shahid’s Thursday sentencing is the final loose end resulting from a 2010 federal investigation that has led to nine other people already pleading guilty and being sentenced in cases involving Discovery Sales mortgage fraud. In addition, Discovery Sales has pleaded guilty to bank fraud and was fined $8 million and ordered to pay $3 million in restitution.
While no individual Seeno family members have been charged in the mortgage fraud scam, Seeno III was charged over the summer for the June 8, 2016 phone threat. The witness intimidation charge was eventually dropped.
“All charges against Albert Seeno were dismissed, entirely dismissed on the government’s own motion,” Seeno III’s attorney Cris Arguedas said. “After the government investigated the allegation, the government dismissed the case.”
In the charging documents, which have been sealed but are included in part in Shahid’s court documents, a case agent explained probable cause.
“Some of the most significant evidence against (Discovery Sales) … was provided to the government by Shahid,” according to an excerpt included in Shahid’s sentencing memorandum written by federal prosecutor John Hemann. The document described how in the phone call Shahid and his new boss were on speaker phone when Seeno III “ranted that he was going to ‘kill’ Shahid and that Shahid was ‘going down.’ ”
There also was a letter sent to the new boss about Shahid, but the FBI was not able to determine who sent the letter, Hemann wrote.
“There is no evidence that Shahid was ever in any actual danger and, though totally and completely inappropriate and potentially retaliatory in nature, it appears that his former boss was venting anger rather than actually threatening death or harm to Shahid,” Hemann wrote. “The government was not able to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt whether Shahid’s former employer was motivated by retaliation for Shahid’s cooperation or anger as to the damage Shahid’s criminal conduct did to the Discovery Sales business.”
Shahid’s attorney Steven Madison alleged in court documents that his family has lived in fear since a series of threats.
“Seeno III is a powerful, wealthy man with a history of threatening conduct, and an experienced sharpshooter who also somehow still holds a permit to carry a concealed handgun apparently,” Madison wrote. “Mr. Seeno apparently does not dispute that he said he would kill Mr. Shahid, he simply claims he was angry and did not really mean it.”
Shahid and his wife, in letters to the federal judge hearing his case, described how Shahid and Seeno III met at De La Salle High School in Concord and became friends. Initially there was support from the Seeno family after Shahid’s indictment, they wrote.
“The day of Ayman’s indictment, Albert Seeno III called me from Africa, and said, ‘As God is my witness, my father and I will stand by Ayman, and I will always defend my incentives!’ ” wrote Fatima Shahid. But a month before Shahid’s indictment, the elder Seeno Jr. told Shahid he would kill anyone who tried to bring down his family, which led to the Shahids moving to Southern California.
“Shortly after Ayman’s agreement to cooperate with the government, we received a threatening letter to our home saying awful things about Ayman, me and even (our daughter),” Fatima wrote. She alleged an incident inside a Nordstrom store where a Seeno family member “stalked” her and “chased” her out of the store.
Shahid wrote that he lived in fear.
Albert Seeno III — a violent, dangerous man … threatened to kill me last June, even though I had relocated myself and my family to Southern California to escape the threats and intimidation by the Seenos that was already occurring as a result of my cooperation with the government,” he wrote the judge.
It was not the first threat allegation against Seeno III.
In 2011, former Nevada lobbyist Harvey Whittemore claimed in a civil suit that Seeno III threatened to break his legs if he didn’t make a payment in a development deal, and that Seeno associates forcibly took jewelry, expensive clothing and other personal assets as payment from his house. A Nevada employee sued the Seenos claiming “corporate bullying,” and said Seeno III threatened him with dealing with people in the “Seeno Way.”
Share:

Connecting TPG Growth, Bono, McGlashan, Alston-Bird, Safeway, AB Acquisition, Cerberus Capital and KKR.

Connecting the Overlapping Histories 


The murder suicide of Walter Little former Safeway and Southern Pacific murder suicide who was have alleged to have killed his girlfriend during a dispute. Safeway was one of many customers of Mainframe Designs and Fixtures, a large 10 plus man operation and the witness murder in Bennett v. Southern Pacific simply deifies explanation.

The folks at TPG will have to answer to my Whistleblower Complaints on the truly odd collection of RFPs emanating from companies connected to Richard Blum, William McGlashan, CBRE, Regency Centers, Trammell Crow, Lennar, Catellus, Bank of America, PG&E and many more.


Pictured below is William McGlashan now the former Texas Pacific Group (TPG) fired from TPG Growth after his indictment and arrest.


My story is about witness murders, private equity, mergers and acquisitions linked back to the Matter of Bennett v. Southern Pacific lost in 1989.  It was a winnable case as long the witnesses testified.  

It's the Attorneys and Venture Capitalists

The Brandon Marshall Incident whose life ended with a confrontation with Santa Clara deputies who faced few options.



sss


Popular Posts For January 2016
Popular Posts Dead Public Officials HashTag Corner ...


Sheriff details investigation of Marshall murder-suicide
Sheriff details investigation of Marshall murder-suicide ...


Catellus: Mission Bay to Murder Bay
HashTag Corner Main S1 S2 S3 ...


The H-1b Visa - Job Stealer - People Killer
HashTag Corner Main S1 S2 S3 ...


The Oval Office - Ashley Turton Lobbyist No More Rhetoric / Back
THE President First
Ashley Turton From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Ashley Tur...


BART: Robert Semour South Carolina
HashTag Corner Main S1 S2 S3 ...


FEINSTEIN, DIANNE has run in 1 race for public office, winning 1 of
them. The candidate has raised a total of $7,915,610.
HashTag Corner Mark Coon Catellus ...


ACCENTURE has given $1,823,166 to 374 different filers over 9
years.
4,000,000 for dinner, Murder Bennett's family? Top Vendors/Recipients Vendor/RecipientTota...


Safeway Managemet and safewaymurders.com
Safeway Safeway Murders The story I'll be telling about Safeway involves, a murders, suicid...


Catellus Development, a Murder Nexus Not an Octopus
Catellus Development, the Next Octopus? by Richard Trainor | Email Thirty-seven years b...


Lobbying Dollars: The Murder of Federal Lobbyist of Ashley Turton
Washington DC Just off the capital mall a later model BMW SUV exploded killing the occupant just t...


Microsoft Lobbying and the Dead Police Officer
The Murders of Police Officers For Visas Matt Gelman and Fred Humphries, Microsoft. These two plu...


Mormon Murders - The Murder of an Accenture Employee (Mormon
Bishop)
Mortem Sibi Conscivit - Sucides Sepember 23rd, 2014 Pete B...


RussDarby.com - The Strack Murders and Missing Trust Documents
Corner Mark Coon Catellus ...


The Santa Fe Murder Railways - Key System
Key System From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia For other uses, see Key system (disambigua...


Obit: Fang v. Bennett (2000)
How killer cased victim's home Jim Herron Zamora, OF THE EXAMINER STAFF Published 4:00 am, Sat...



Blood Money - Bennett v. Southern Pacific Mission Bay Rising /
Catellus' chief keeps the faith in the building biotech park
HashTag Corner Mark Coon Catellus ...



Murder Victims: Case CIVMSC04-01281 - Michelle CELEBRINI VS SUTTER
Brentwood killings tied to Yosemite fire / Police believe man shot his family, set blaze, ki...



Ryan Fuchs Boy, 15, arrested in slaying of Danville teen
Alamo CA, when my sons were young we'd walk over at Oak Hill park where we'd constantly bump into ...



The Unknown Connection To Jaycee Dugard at the Chevron Gas Station
Way back in the 80's I operated a cabinet and millshop in Pittsburg CA on Bliss Ave. I was also a...


Murder Case : Case FLMSD11-03768 - KAITLYN BRITTANY STRAND vs
ALEXANDER KYLE WILSON
KAITLYN BRITTANY STRAND vs ALEXANDER KYLE WILSON Husband not a suspect - they are part of a patter...


BART OFFICER - CRAIG H WILSON Murder or Accident
Case PROMSP08-01024 - ESTATE OF CRAIG H WILSON Viewed ...



BART Officer: Murder or Suicide Case FLMSD06-00439 - J KELLY vs. C
KELLY
Case FLMSD06-00439 - J KELLY vs. C KELLY Viewed Date Action Tex...


Docs Pharmacy Murder Case CIVMSC02-01385 - ABRUZZINI VS. DOC'S
PHARMACY
Docs Pharmacy Murder Case CIVMSC02-01385 - ABRUZZINI VS. DOC'S PHARMACY ewed Date Ac...


Vitale Murder - Case CIVMSN05-0778 - DANIEL HOROWITZ VS. JOSEPH
LYNCH
Case CIVMSN05-0778 - DANIEL HOROWITZ VS. JOSEPH LYNCH Viewed Date Ac...


Bhatia Murder Case Case FLMSD04-04047 - SANDEEP BHATIA VS ROMA
BHATIA
Case FLMSD04-04047 - SANDEEP BHATIA VS ROMA BHATIA Vie...


Polk Murder Case FLMSD01-01732 - SUSAN POLK VS FRANK FELIX POLK
Viewed Date Action Text Disposition Image ...


Erik Nunn Murder Case PROMSP08-01402 - ESTATE OF ERIK W NUNN
Case PROMSP08-01402 - ESTATE OF ERIK W NUNN Viewed Date Action Text Di...


Mantas Murder: Case FLMSD05-01900 - DIMITRA MANTAS VS PETER MANTAS
MANTAS, DIMITRA DECEDENT - DEFENDANT EST OF MANTAS LETTER - NO WILL PROMSP06-01...


Danville Stake #mormonmurders
Key Murders Scott Peterson Driscoll Scherer ...


BUCHANAN CONSTRUCTION & SONS, INC
In 2004, Mormon's from Danville rigged my F-250 to burst into flames - the attempted Murder that sh...



Benicia family missing following El Dorado County fire
...


Clayton CA 1968: Five Dead By Fire Five siblings murdered in
Clayton, killer still on the loose after 42-years —claycord
CLAYCORD.com
Five siblings murdered in Clayton, killer still on the loose after 42-years You can contact Sgt...



Pete Speaks Publicly - People Die September 23rd 2014
Martinez CA ss ...



Killer REITS–dying for Developers
Walnut Creek CA Walnut Creek CA This page is placeholder for a person not seen since Dec...



#H1bVisaMurders - AllNurses.com - The National Murder Suicide
Network
The #Visamurders occuring in fivesPolice officers checking the welfare of residents at a home i...


Calera Capital - SterlingBackcheck painting the link to Explosions,
Murder and Coverups




Voodo Investigators- The Murder of San Franciso Police Officer
Lester Garnier




OBIT: Patricia Perry just another Murder Suicide?
Collapsible Group Item #1 Anim pariatur cliche...



CBS 48 Hours: The Country Club Murders
Ernie and Ardoth Scherer Quick Facts View More: 48 Hours News|Live News|Mo...



ARSONISTS AND FIRESETTERS
ARSONISTS AND FIRESETTERS "Fire makes for a good servant, but a bad master" (Roger L'Estrange) ...



San Bruno Explosion, Bechtel, Dick Cheney and Jonbonet'
The PG&E Gas Can Man Quick Facts Hard Facts ...



18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an
informant
Witness Tampering Quick Facts The Legal Index Intro Background Options Exampl...



#blameBush
As the Presidential Election leads us forward the secrets behind the #Deadbankers story nags at mi...



DANIEL HOROWITZ VS. JOSEPH LYNCH
Lynch Sued Contra Costa County after he was Beaten by Deputies Settled for $500.000 Sells Land to ...



The Endless Stream of Victims
Bullet or Puncture Quick Facts ...



Joel Golub For Judge – Smart Voter Endorsements
From Smart Voter - EndorsementRelationshipFamilyLaw Alex Hahn, Busines...



#DeadBankers
In 1997 a newborn suddenly dies In 2014 the #deadbankers emerges I look backwards and .....



Stop Killing Homeless for Real Estate Investments Trust (REIT)
Fremont Group - #BRACMurders & #KillerREITS Knows My Arson Suspe...



PG&E Programmer, PGE Engineer and Lt. David Oberhoffer
Did This Child Pay The Highest Price For Energy? ...



The Homeless Candidate and the Senseless Strack Murders in
Springville UT
The Homeless Candidate and Murder Suicides - If I'd finished the nomination process - I would h...



Seven Victims
Two Murder Suicides Two cases one is family and the other a friend. ...



Bladenboro Lynching
El Blanco Investigations Section One Section Two Section Three Section Four Section Five ...



Bay Area homicide cold cases grow chillier as clues disappear,
police resources dwindle
Bay Area homicide cold cases grow chillier as clues disappear, police resources dwindle ...



Murder Suicides - The Pieces of a Larger Nationwide Puzzle
Three Closely Connected Murder Suicides Intro Background Options Examples ...



Mundi Murder Suicide - Published Sept 23rd, 2011 Diablo Mag /
Martha Ross
Maegen Mundi and Galadriel Quick Facts Jurisdiction: Contra Costa Sheriff Fire: S...



Running For Walnut Creek City Council Puts Your Life at Risk
Walnut Creek Candidate for Office Quick Facts Walnut Creek City Council Race Homeles...



CALIFORNIA SENATE LEADERSHIP
Endless Attacks Expect to be called This story is Hydra - it never stop...



VICTIMS' SERVICES UNIT A conversation with a stateless agency
Example page header Subtext for header Heading View details » ...



The Strack Story
The Strack Story Quick Facts Murder Suicide Family of Five 2 Adults 3 Children Sta...



OBIT: SFPD Lester Garnier Murder June 1988
SFPD Lester Garnier Heading Ever since coming forward my life has been a nightma...



OBIT: Cynthia Kempf 1988 Ex-Cop Testifies He Watched Colleague
Shoot Kidnap Victim
Coming Soon Ex-Cop Testifies He W...



OBIT: Eustacio Torres - Murder Suicide (Near CNET)
Eustacio Torres Heading View details » Heading Donec id elit non...



OBIT: The Pamela Vitale Murder Case 2005
Coming Soon



The Strack Story Murder Suicide Or Murder By Murder/Suicide
The Suspicious Strack Murder Suicide Quick Facts Other Murder Suicides The Stra...



OBIT: Timothy James Hogan October 7, 1969 to April 11th, 2010
Another Friend Gone My Karaoke Friend Quick Facts Karaoke Singer Wore fu...



Obit: Johntue Caldwell on July 15th 2011 - dead witnesses litigate
no more - Case Closed while saving over 2.5 Million
Johntue Caldwell Quick Facts Silenced Witnesses? Why was Johntue Caldwell, Osc...



OBIT: Charles Stephen Silverman Jan 5,1983 - Oct 7,2012
Charles Stephen Silverman Bartender Quick Facts CVHS Graduate Resident Pleasant Hill Ha...



OBIT: Nathaniel James Greenan
Nate Greenan Drummer Quick Facts Alamo 1st Mormon Resident Pleasant Brother in-law my a...



Bennett Arson and the Mormon Connection
Bennett Arson and the Mormon Connectio...



CA: Commission on Judicial Performance
The Judicial Process Council on Judicial Performance This state agency is res...



Bennett v. Town of Danville and Gary Vinson Collins
Bennett v. Collins Bennett and CNET Was Collins Death a Murder The ar...



Kaiser Care Over CCRMC - The poison case they should have
investigated
The Corruption System Obama no Drama Care Contra Costa County In November 2005 I was lyi...



The Walnut Creek Public Library Police Unnecessary Police Incidents
over a USB Keyboard
CALL THE POLICE ON Me But not for me? The Library Computers There are abundant librar...



ANKA Services - Not Every Homeless Person is on Drugs
ANKA Drug Rehab I just need my license Drug Counseling When the first of many tic...



Ticketing The Homeless Ensures Homelessness
The Fines Are Effective Subtext for header How Much Is Enough? The fines can l...



Top CNET Issues
body { font-family: "Trebuchet MS", "Helvetica", "Arial", "Verdana", "sans-serif"; font-size:...



The Torres Clan: Ashley Brennan, Catalina, Eustacio and Grandmother
CNET Officers/Butler/Tanabe/Wielsch weave into SWAT/Walnut Creek Bomb Squad [CONNE...



MERRITT L. WIESINGER Family Law Attorney
Wiesinger and Bennett History Around 2008 I was about to retain Wiesinger to take over my ...



The Obituaries - Too Many Suicides, Murder/Suicides, Accidents and
Murders
Hello From Down Under! One day way back in 1979 there were two murders next to my hou...



Richmond police arrest Walnut Creek cop suspected of beating woman
with bat
What Breed Of Bat? Richmond police arrest Walnut Creek cop suspected of beating woman ...



Contra Costa Hate Crimes Network
Really? After being beaten down many times in the legal system a pattern emerged. My fi...



The CNET Players, Coconspirators and Indictments
Chris Butler Wielsch Greg Thompson a/k/a Greg Fish Louis Lombardi D...



City of Walnut Creek does it again - Threaten Candidate - Eject and
Thwart
This potential litigant would have sued the City of Walnut Creek along with the driver in what ...


SOS div.scroll { background-color: #C0C2C2; width: 300px; height: 300px; overflow: scro...



Contra Costa Female Shooters ~ The Murder Suicide Coverups mom's
don't use guns
Jineva Driscoll Cras justo odio, dapibus ac facilisis in, egesta...



Witness Intimidation and Witness Termination - Winning the Easy Way
Witness Intimidation and Witness TerminationBy Pete Bennett Walnut Creek CA -- A clear reality of m...



The Danville Building Inspector Incident - Winning Public Entity
Cases With Brute Force and Attempted Murder
The Danville Building Inspector Incident By Pete Bennett Walnut Creek -- One day I got...



From Programmer to Deadbeat Dad ► Your Tax Dollars At Work
From Programmer to Dead Beat Dad By Pete Bennett How They Destroyed and Nearly Killed One F...



Ex Military and Depleted Uranium Rounds - The Domestic Terrorists
of the East Bay
Ex Military and Depleted Uranium Rounds By Pete Bennett The Scandal Editor Walnut Creek CA --...



Pressing EBMUD for answers
Pressing EBMUD for answers My position in regards to my 2004 Truck Arson Fire is as f...



Attempted Murder: Case # 14-19908 - Walnut Creek Police Officers
Attempted Murder - Bennett targeted again, JPA Bad Faith, Unfair Business Practices WTF? By Pete ...



Claims Against City of Walnut Creek
Claims Against City of Walnut Creek By Pete Bennett WALNUT CREEK CA -- For nearly ten years no...



Press Release: Gas Pipeline Explosions Witnesses Being Killed
Kinder Morgan Fire DEAD Witnesses By Pete Bennett Walnut Creek CA: On about July 20th, 2011,...



The Outside Nordstrom's Attempted Murder
Once again the car was positioned By Pete Bennett Walnut Creek -- On Tuesday June 9th 2014 at...



Las Lomas Triangle– The Vortex Under Mt. Diablo
Walnut Creek CA: The City of Walnut Creek portrays itself as a Destination City but all the good wo...



OBIT: The Judith and Adam Williams Murders or Murder Suicide
Reposted for all to ponder From San Francisco Chronicle ►Two Murder Suicides ►Two Moms Using...



CNET Officers, The Dead CNET Witnesses, Attorneys and Students
Author: Pete Bennett | Phone 510-460-5641 Walnut Creek CA : This story like started decades ago wi...



Walnut Creek Vortex The Bodies are piling up
Map Portraying Numerous Suspect Incidents By Pete Bennett CNET Scandal Date: March 23rd, 20...



Walnut Creek Fires and Incident Map
Fires, Incidents, Pipeline Explosions, Pipe Bombs, Schools, Students, Parents, Drownings and murd...



Body Found 500' From Los Lomas High School
Another death near Los Lomas High School By Pete Bennett CNET Scandal Date: May 21st, 2014 ...



Tombstones ► The Dead Litigants
The Dead Litigants By Pete Bennett CNET Scandal Date: May 12th , 2014 Walnut Creek CA-- Se...



2013-04-16 The Metcalf Sub-Station Sniper Attack
SAN JOSE, Calif.— On April 13, 2012 the silence of the night was shattered with the thunder of AK...



Letter to State Attorney General Offices
Sent to the SAG https://oag.ca.gov/victimservices/contact Comments: I live in Contra Costa Cou...



The 2004 Walnut Creek Pipeline Explosion >> Bay Area
investigator wins eight-year battle to expand Amber Alerts
Husband Joe Driscoll worked for Mountain Cascade site of deadly Nov 9th 2004 Bay Area investigat...



Broadway Pointe / Diablo Pointe or Murder Pointe?
Broadway Pointe / Diablo Pointe Starbucks Walnut Creek Fatal Police Shooting Former Star...



Broadway Pointe Shopping Center - Downtown Employees Targeted
Walnut Creek CA: What could possibly have happened to allow a homeless American Programmer seeking...



Dear Senator Feinstein : I Am Forced to Beg for Help and Witness
Protection From US Government
The Honorable Senator Diane Feinsten, United State Senate One Post Street, Suite 2450San Francisc...
ss


Lafayette Police - Chief Eric Christiansen
Lafayette CA: On these pages I'll be detailing how Chief Christiansen derailed my hit and run inve...



Powerful East Bay family sued, accused in killing plot
Walnut Creek CA: The Mamer Lawsuit is the best examples of SeenoVille's business tactics. In my st...



Danville Mormon Stake - A Tall Tale about Two Mormon Sons - One
Murdered - One is a Murderer?
A Tall Tale Two Mormon Sons One in Heeevan , One Living in Hell, One has the Missing Sword I Kno...
Share:

Anchor links for post titles

Popular Posts

Blog Archive

Labels

Recent Posts

Popular Posts

Labels

Recent Posts

Pages

Labels

Blog Archive

Recent Posts