The Anatomy of Public Corruption

Showing posts with label Silicon Valley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Silicon Valley. Show all posts

Grounds for Revocation of Naturalization

Grounds for Revocation of Naturalization

The Dubious Phone Call and Time Wasting Project
Pete Bennett founder of was once an active grass roots activist took on the Silicon Valley Visa Machine and lost, his family murdered in 2014, his truck exploded in 2004, he suffered kidney failure during a grueling 18 hour hospitalization. 

Some of his greatest set of adversaries was Sun Microsystem, Microsoft, CISCO, HP, Apple Computer, Oracle, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America. 

In 2003 Bank of America Programmer Kevin Flanagan committed suicide on the last day of his employment.  No one knows for sure as he found alone in Concord Campus Garage. 

Bennett by then was appearing on CNN, ABC and other media discussing jobs, H-1b and once held a protest on the Sun Mircrosystems campus.  It was there with a host of protestors covering the event came together.   

I am positive that Vinod Khosla, Larry Ellison, and the CEO of many companies were copiously although they say our hearts go out for Mr. Flanagan's family. 

Just in case you're not familiar with them we've posted or plastered their faces so when you see them on the Golf Course or Flying in their private jets you can understand how truly caring they are.  

The silent murder investigation, the witness murder in the matter of Bennett v. Southern Pacific plus the suicide of the Concord City Attorney Mark Coon have raised many questions.  
The Tragedies 

Chapter 2 - Grounds for Revocation of Naturalization

In general, a person is subject to revocation of naturalization on the following grounds:

A. Person Procures Naturalization Illegally

A person is subject to revocation of naturalization if he or she procured naturalization illegally. Procuring naturalization illegally simply means that the person was not eligible for naturalization in the first place. Accordingly, any eligibility requirement for naturalization that was not met can form the basis for an action to revoke the naturalization of a person. This includes the requirements of residence, physical presence, lawful admission for permanent residence, good moral character, and attachment to the U.S. Constitution. [1] 
Discovery that a person failed to comply with any of the requirements for naturalization at the time the person became a U.S. citizen renders his or her naturalization illegally procured. This applies even if the person is innocent of any willful deception or misrepresentation. [2] 

B. Concealment of Material Fact or Willful Misrepresentation [3]

1. Concealment of Material Fact or Willful Misrepresentation

A person is subject to revocation of naturalization if there is deliberate deceit on the part of the person in misrepresenting or failing to disclose a material fact or facts on his or her naturalization application and subsequent examination.
In general, a person is subject to revocation of naturalization on this basis if:
  • The naturalized U.S. citizen misrepresented or concealed some fact;
  • The misrepresentation or concealment was willful;
  • The misrepresented or concealed fact or facts were material; and
  • The naturalized U.S. citizen procured citizenship as a result of the misrepresentation or concealment. [4] 
This ground of revocation includes omissions as well as affirmative misrepresentations. The misrepresentations can be oral testimony provided during the naturalization interview or can include information contained on the application submitted by the applicant. The courts determine whether the misrepresented or concealed fact or facts were material. The test for materiality is whether the misrepresentations or concealment had a tendency to affect the decision. It is not necessary that the information, if disclosed, would have precluded naturalization. [5] 

2. Membership or Affiliation with Certain Organizations

A person is subject to revocation of naturalization if the person becomes a member of, or affiliated with, the Communist party, other totalitarian party, or terrorist organization within five years of his or her naturalization. [6] In general, a person who is involved with such organizations cannot establish the naturalization requirements of having an attachment to the Constitution and of being well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States. [7] 
The fact that a person becomes involved with such an organization within five years after the date of naturalization is prima facie evidence that he or she concealed or willfully misrepresented material evidence that would have prevented the person’s naturalization.

C. Other than Honorable Discharge before Five Years of Honorable Service after Naturalization

A person is subject to revocation of naturalization if:
  • The person became a U.S. citizen through naturalization on the basis of honorable service in the U.S. armed forces; [8] 
  • The person subsequently separates from the U.S. armed forces under other than honorable conditions; and
  • The other than honorable discharge occurs before the person has served honorably for a period or periods aggregating at least five years. [9] 



The Brandon Marshall Incident - The Class Action Anti-Trust Case Killers

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 like Anthony Banta Jr his fate was sealed when he lost it?  Your next clue is the suicide of Ian Murdock.

Was it Unfornuate Drugging or Perhaps Tainted Medicine

Since you're medical records have been outsourced or your pharmacists records vanished?
You may recall the sad story of Brandon Marshall, which I wrote about last September: The 43-year-old quality assurance engineer, who had a history of mental illness, was fatally shot in December 2013 by a sheriff’s deputy outside his workplace at Roku,the
set-top device maker.

In the litigation that followed, the chronology did not look good for Santa Clara County. Marshall, who had furiously ingested pills that morning and was described as acting “manic,” was negotiating with a paramedic to get help when deputies arrived at
the Saratoga site.

The deputies say he swung a key fob, or “kubaton,” at them before Deputy Aldo Groba fired a shot at the engineer’s stomach. His family’s attorneys contend that the deputies had no reason to confront Marshall, who posed no significant threat: He was simply
waving his keys in his agitation.
Among the heartbreaking details was that Marshall’s father, Steven Marshall, was on the telephone with the paramedic when he heard his son cry out from the shot. Brandon Marshall died several hours later at Valley Medical Center despite desperate attempts
to save him.
Now, from filings by the family’s attorney, James McManis, several more details have emerged about the case. And little of it strengthens the county’s position. Here are a few key points:
A) None of the four deputies who responded to the scene had CIT (crisis intervention training), which teaches authorities how to deal with the mentally ill. Like many departments, the sheriff’s office offers such training but does not make it mandatory.
B) Brandon Marshall showed signs of delusion that morning. He insisted that unknown gunmen were training guns on him from above. He referred repeatedly to the Secret Service and told bystanders that he needed help.
C) When the first deputy on the scene, Kristen Anderson, approached Marshall, he became more agitated. His family’s attorneys say he was fidgeting with his keys, which were attached to a thin, rounded aluminum rod. When Anderson asked if it was a weapon,
Marshall said it was and put it away at her request.
D) Groba initially had been standing some distance away when Anderson — according to the family’s filing — looked over at him. Groba then approached with a gun drawn, prompting Marshall to back up and say, “No, no, no” or “whoa, whoa, whoa,” witnesses
said. As Marshall swung his key chain at deputies, Groba fired a single shot.
E) After he fell from the gunshot, the deputies put the injured Marshall’s hands behind him and knelt on his back, causing more pain to the engineer. The deputies refused a request from the paramedic to treat Marshall until they had restrained him.
It’s important to understand that the bulk of this, although based on police reports and interviews, represents one side of the case. The county says it does not expect to file its detailed response until August. County Counsel Orry Korb told me by email
that the county does not comment on pending litigation.
But it is clear that the defense wants to portray the key fob as a weapon. “It is undisputed that Marshall attacked Groba” with a kubaton, said one filing by the county. “Groba fired a single shot from his service weapon in response to the attack.”
Just exactly how Brandon held that key fob — and how it was shaped — are crucial elements in this case. So, too, is the testimony of the paramedic who was negotiating with Marshall’s father to get the troubled engineer a ride to the hospital.
“This guy had a key chain,” said family attorney McManis. “They’re trying to turn it into a weapon. But the fact of the matter is that the only thing he did was hold on to the business end of the fob and wave his keys around. And they gun him down. To
me, it’s appalling.”
Contact Scott Herhold at 408-275-0917 or .

The Actors, Victims and Agencies

Understanding the moving parts, every incident filled with moving parts that often do not match.

The Weapon

Possessed by: The Victim
Kubotan (sometimes erroneously spelled as kubaton or kobutan) is a genericized trademark for a self-defense keychain weapon developed by Sōke Takayuki Kubota in the late 1960s. It is typically no more than 5.5 inches (14 centimetres) long and about half
an inch (1.25 centimetres) in diameter, slightly thicker or the same size as a marker pen.


Anchor links for post titles

Popular Posts

Blog Archive


Recent Posts

Popular Posts


Recent Posts



Blog Archive

Recent Posts