Pete Bennett met Kobe, Pete Bennett sued Philip Anschutz 1/3 owner of the
Lakers, Pete's relatives murdered, his portion of multimillion trust forged,
his truck explodes and his role in 9/11 unknown outside law enforcement
substantial credible and damaging to many in power
The Mormon Monster of Alamo 1st Ward, killer of witnesses, senior cult leader
tricking Bill Gates, Philip Anschutz, Calera Capital and kidnapping
conspirators
###
Mitt Romney’s business career seems to dovetail neatly with his Mormon
faith
The Mormon church’s personal economic precepts sound like a mantra for
fiscal conservatives: Pay an honest tithing, live on less than you earn,
distinguish between needs and wants, develop and live within a budget, and
be honest in all financial affairs.
But as debate rages about the ethics of Republican presidential candidate
Mitt Romney’s leadership of Bain Capital — a private equity and venture
capital firm that sometimes made riches by shutting down companies and
laying off workers — it seems his business career might have dovetailed
neatly with his Mormon faith.
“There’s nothing in Mitt Romney’s record that suggests that his financial or
business decision-making have been motivated by anything other than
bottom-line considerations. To be fair: As a capital manager, that’s his
job,” said Joanna Brooks, a San Diego State literature professor who
publishes the “Ask Mormon Girl” blog.
Modern Mormon communities “have come to view financial success as an
inherent good without necessarily having the same conversations about how
money is made, as may take place in other faith traditions,” Brooks said.
It’s a more profit-oriented, value-neutral approach to financial decisions,
she said: Money is consecrated in the act of tithing and other donations to
the church, and “how that money is made is less of a religious
preoccupation,” she said. That’s been particularly true as the Mormon church
grew dramatically in the past 50 years, which required considerable
money.
Romney’s 2011 tax returns showed he and his wife, Ann, gave the church $2.6
million — more than 12 percent of the $21 million they earned — while also
giving $1.4 million in cash and stock to their family foundation, which
heavily supports the church. In 2010, they gave $1.5 million to the church —
about 7 percent of their earnings — plus $900,000 to their family
foundation.
Patrick Mason, chairman of Mormon studies at Claremont Graduate University
in Southern California, agreed that “Romney is almost prototypical of the
majority of modern American Mormons.” The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints — which in its early years embraced communal economics and
criticized cutthroat business practices — “embraced pro-market American
capitalism” in the late 19th century as part of its attempt to assimilate
into society, he said.
The Mormon ethics of self-reliance, accountability and hard work lent
themselves well to that economic ethos, he said. “It’s a mistake to say
wealth equals God’s favor, but it’s not a surprise when God does bless you
with wealth when you’re living right.”
Yet while there’s a clear expectation that faithful Mormons must contribute
some of their assets to building God’s kingdom through their church,
“Mormonism has never developed a real social ethic as opposed to Catholic
social teaching or the social gospel that’s in Protestantism,” Mason said.
Mormons aren’t unconcerned with social welfare, and acts of individual
charity are important, he said, but “it largely is secondary; it doesn’t
define what the gospel is or how people go about their lives.
“I do think there’s a strong element of libertarianism … within Mormon
thought along these lines. It’s very much a laissez-faire approach,” he
said. “It gives Mormons and potentially Romney an added layer of confidence,
of assurance that this is not just good economics but it’s good religion,
too.”
Rick Kopf of Alamo, who directs the Latter-day Saints’ Bay Area Public
Affairs Council, said charity for the less fortunate in the community and
humanitarian projects abroad are a huge part of Mormon practice.
Mormonism teaches that “materialism can be a huge burden to a person. … It’s
how they use it that’s very important,” he said. “We encourage hard work, we
encourage people to be successful but to do it for the right means. We’re
not out there trying to be rich for the sake of being rich.”
Personally, Kopf said, “I would hope that any political candidate who’s a
member of the church would live by the values of the church would be true
and honest and virtuous and family-oriented.”
Evan Chase, a staffer at the California Election Forum website, which offers
election recommendations for Christian voters, said he would like to hear
Romney say more about how his Mormon faith informs his fiscal and economic
policies.
“I haven’t heard him communicate that very much,” he said. “That affirms my
interest in voting for Mitt Romney. In the evangelical community, those are
strengths; those are American strengths.”
Long Overdue changes too late for family the Strack relatives of Pete Bennett murdered with connections to outsourcing, Alamo 1st Ward, plus the theft of a trust, property with surreal links to the 1990 Judi Bari Bombing, the offices containing the SEC investigation of Enron lost in the demolotion of Building 7, and the 1989 witness in Bennett v. Southern Pacific.
A curious connection is SP Chairman Philip Anschutz knows SP Attorney Rick Kopf, who knows all the Bechtel CEOs via his second career as General Counsel of Fremont Group.
I write about globalization, business, technology and immigration.
Showing no sense of irony, the Trump administration is celebrating the expected launch of a SpaceX rocketship at the same time Trump officials plan to restrict H-1B visas, the same type of visa the founder of SpaceX, Elon Musk, used to begin working in the United States. The new regulatory actions against employers will come days after the White House issued an executive order on “regulatory relief” for businesses.
An H-1B visa is typically the only practical way for a foreign national to work long-term in the United States. However, several sources have confirmed the Trump administration will soon implement new restrictions on H-1B visa holders and international students, intracompany transferees and likely even the spouses of high-skilled professionals.
An analysis of immigration law and regulations, as well as recent administration actions, leads to the conclusion a combination of methods will be used to implement the restrictions. Blocking New H-1B and L-1 Visa Holders: The April 22, 2020, presidential proclamation suspended the “entry” of most immigrants. (H-1B visa holders are not immigrants; they have temporary status.) The word “entry” appears more than a dozen times in the proclamation. That is because attorneys note a president’s authority under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act can be used against the “entry” of people, as opposed to actions inside the country. “A proclamation issued under 212(f) may only restrict the entry of foreign nationals,” according to the law firm Berry Appleman & Leiden. “It may not be used to deny a petition to change or extend status, or to deny an application to adjust status.”
Given that limitation, a new presidential proclamation may suspend the entry of H-1B and L-1 visa holders, or achieve a similar result by imposing new conditions on their entry. Administration officials have discussed preventing the entry of H-1B visa holders who are not paid at the highest wage level – Level 4 – under the U.S. government’s prevailing wage criteria, even if the individual is applying for their first job. A National Foundation for American Policy analysis concluded such a requirement would become burdensome by creating exceptionally high minimum wages for H-1B visa holders: more than $254,000 a year for a financial manager in New York City, $144,165 annually for a biochemist in Chicago, including post-docs, and $172,640 for a software developer in Silicon Valley.
L-1 visa holders are multinational executives or managers, or employees with “specialized knowledge” transferred into the United States. The job protection arguments around L-1 visa holders are puzzling, since such individuals already work for the company. Preventing their entry will discourage businesses, particularly multinational companies, from investing more in the United States. Why invest in America if the U.S. government will not let you transfer your employees into the United States?
“Preventing businesses from transferring their highly talented workers into the U.S., even temporarily, will limit their ability to do critical scientific research, build new product lines, generate economic growth and create new jobs,” said Jon Baselice, executive director for immigration policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in an interview. Using Regulatory Authority for H-1B, OPT, L-1 and H-4 Spouses: To impose new restrictions affecting international students, L-1 intracompany transferees and H-1B visa holders and their spouses the administration would need to use regulatory authority, which may include issuing regulations that have been on the agenda for months or years.
A rule on H-1B visas already on the Trump administration’s regulatory agenda would “revise the definition of specialty occupation . . . and revise the definition of employment and employer-employee relationship.” That regulation may now be issued. The topics in the potential regulation overlap with a recent settlement between U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the business group ITServe Alliance that overturned 10 years of policies restricting employers and H-1B visa holders. (See here.)
The administration continues to target Optional Practical Training (OPT), which allows international students to work for 12 months, usually after graduation, and 24 additional months in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields. A summary of a rule proposal on the agenda states: “ICE [Immigration and Custom Enforcement] will amend existing regulations and revise the practical training options available to nonimmigrant students on F and M visas.”
Any action against Optional Practical Training could be labeled “temporary” or a “suspension,” yet even that would make it more difficult for U.S. universities to convince international students they should study in America, particularly when countries such as Canada continue to be so welcoming. On May 14, 2020, the Canadian government announced significant flexibility for international students, including preserving the ability to work after graduation. (See here.)
An item on the regulatory agenda for L-1 visas would “propose to revise the definition of specialized knowledge, to clarify the definition of employment and employer-employee relationship and ensure employers pay appropriate wages to L-1 visa holders.” There is nothing in the immigration statute about a wage requirement for L-1 visa holders.
For years, the Trump administration has placed a proposed rule on the regulatory agenda to rescind an existing regulation that allows many spouses of H-1B visa holders to work – called H-4 EAD (employment authorization document). The administration could issue the rule.
In a recent government filing to oppose a group’s lawsuit against the current H-4 EAD regulation, the Trump administration made what appears to be a damaging admission: “Save Jobs’s claim of irreparable harm relies on the H-4 Rule eliminating or significantly reducing employment opportunities, meaning that the number of available information-technology jobs would significantly decline due to the H-4 Rule. But this relationship has not been shown to be ‘certain’ and ‘actual,’ rather than merely ‘theoretical.’” In other words, there is little evidence the spouses of H-1B visa holders harm U.S. tech professionals.
What type of regulations would the administration issue? William Stock of Klasko Immigration Law Partners thinks issuing a 212(f) proclamation that prevents the reentry of international students on Optional Practical Training who leave the U.S. would have an immediate but limited effect.
In an interview, Stock said it is more likely the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would issue an interim final rule eliminating or significantly restricting OPT or STEM OPT. “An interim final rule can have an immediate effect, but can only be issued in limited circumstances and it’s not clear that a court would hold they exist here,” he said. “If that happens, schools and interest groups will go to court right away and say the rule change cannot be done as an interim final rule, and have a stronger case than if the agency had done notice-and-comment rulemaking.” He notes a court struck down an interim final rule from the Bush administration on STEM OPT, though it was given time to go through the notice-and-comment process and issue a new rule.
An interim final rule allows a rule to take effect almost immediately and would change only if an agency believes public comments justified it.
Another option, raised by Berry Appleman & Leiden (BAL), is the administration would issue “temporary final rules” in potentially multiple areas, including OPT, H-1B, L-1 and H-4 EAD. “[A]gencies are required under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to provide the public with adequate notice of a proposed rule followed by a meaningful opportunity to comment on the rule’s content,” according to a BAL policy update. “That process normally takes 12-18 months. However, an agency may issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for ‘good cause’ finds that those procedures are ‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.’ Put simply: the government may, under certain situations, issue a regulation that is effective immediately. In the past month, DHS has relied on that exception to the APA multiple times to issue Temporary Final Rules.”
“A Temporary Final Rule must of course be temporary, and statutes outside of immigration law limit temporary final regulations to three years,” according to BAL. “The recent H-2B and H-2A Temporary Final Rules are valid for three years and 120 days, respectively.”
William Stock provides a guidepost: “One way to tell whether the immigration hardliners win their battle with the pro-business advocates in the administration will be to see whether any changes to summer student employment, the F-1 OPT program and other temporary work visas are ‘temporary final rules’ or ‘interim final rules.’ Both types of rule changes skip the formalities and public involvement required for new regulations, but as the name implies, ‘temporary’ final rules have an expiration date while ‘interim’ final rules just change the rules without public comment. If DHS enacts substantial limitations to temporary work visa rules by ‘interim final rule,’ it will be a sign that the hardliners have won in getting the president to authorize long-term changes without public comment, using the pandemic as their excuse and opportunity.”
Analysts believe the administration may use justifications for new immigration restrictions that are contrived. Recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate the unemployment rate in computer occupations declined between January and April 2020 – and it makes little sense to institute permanent (or semi-permanent) immigration changes in response to temporary economic problems caused by a health crisis. Analysts see little justification for the types of immigration changes being discussed, particularly since the president and top economic advisers have promised the economy will improve significantly by the fall or summer.
On May 27, 2020, a group of Republican senators, led by Senators Lindsey Graham and John Cornyn, wrote a letter recommending the president take a reasonable approach on temporary visas by putting aside the easy populist messages some have urged and focusing instead on the need for foreign-born workers who can aid the recovery, help businesses and complement U.S. workers. The senators correctly noted not all sectors of the economy have been equally affected by the fallout from pandemic lockdowns and social distancing.
Many in the business community fear that those in the administration who are “pro-growth” and supportive of immigration have numerous issues to worry about, while those most opposed to immigration, such as White House adviser Stephen Miller, spend nearly every waking hour focused on denying opportunity to as many foreign-born people as possible. They fear in a fight between the zealous and the moderate, the zealous will win, harming America and its future for years to come.
Get the best of Forbes to your inbox with the latest insights from experts across the globe.
I am the executive director of the National Foundation for American Policy, a non-partisan public policy research organization focusing on trade, immigration and related
…
Bennett lost millions when represented by Bennett and Johnson folded his case after years of litigation, Bennett enduring revenue reasonable losses upwards of 300 Million with the loss of Mainframe Designs Cabinets and Fixtures. Founded in 1980 in a small 1000 sf shop grew to 10,000 sf, with monthly revenues approaching $100,000.
One day Bennett learned one of key witnesses was murdered sometime between 1989 and 1990 at the tail end of the litigation. At the time Southern Pacific was floating a six to seven figure settlement. Bennett met the track investigator who said they were ready with a $750,000 investment.
Bennett married in 1996, learned of the witness murder in 2000 or later, his truck exploded when his life insurance, assets and inheritance were easily over 1.2 Million at death. What Bennett didn't was his Mormon wife was raised by the defense attorney connected to the witness murder. Visit Disbarred Attorneys to learn more about how the Nate Greenan, son of Attorney James Greenan former President of Contra Costa Bar Association lost his life on WB Highway 24 in Orinda. Nate played at VinniesBar.com with Bennett during March 2012,
Bennett was arrested that same week where he Contra Costa Sheriff Deputy Carlos Francies who realized Bennett cellmate was a dangerous felon. That inmate was placed in Bennett's cell by Deputy Vince Jimenez formerly a deputy in Danville with Deputy Tanabe later arrested in the case locally known as CNET Scandal
Nate was driving on hwy 24 where suddenly switched lanes, went over the rail at Camino Pablo subsequently was killed. Bennett was driven to court by his former Counsel Dax Craven who never shared he was the son-in-law of James Greenan then President of the Bar controlling attorney referrals.
A 30 year set of lies
The big Kahuna uncovered years later between Greenan, the Southern Pacific Attorney Rick Kopf, Safeway CEO Steve Burd, District Mark Peterson and his brother Michael Peterson ties back to the Alamo 1st Ward located on Stone Valley Road.
There is another divorcee who suddenly started attending Alamo 1st in 2004 with her near identical family law battle to get her son back from Idaho. She vanished but when asking members that new there was a sense of stonewalling.
When my realtor friend Brian Schwalen died just hours after services was the last time I attended Alamo 1st Ward.
October 24, 2007
COURT SAYS LAWYER HARASSED JUDGE FOR YEARS
See the bottom of this item for an update, now that we've heard back from lawyer James Disney.
Thirteen years after presiding over a Concord attorney’s divorce proceedings, now-retired Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge Peter Spinetta still feels a need to watch his back.
Late Tuesday, San Francisco’s First District Court of Appeal upheld a three-year restraining order that prevents lawyer James Disney — whose 1994 divorce was handled by Spinetta — from further bothering the judge or his wife.
Writing for the court (.pdf), Justice Henry Needham Jr. held there was “substantial evidence” Disney had “seriously alarmed, annoyed or harassed the judge” for “no legitimate purpose.”
Justices Barbara Jones and Linda Gemello concurred.
According to the ruling, Disney has harassed Spinetta and his wife for several years, confronting them in 2004 at a Home Depot in Concord, where he allegedly yelled at the couple and called Spinetta “stupid.” The ruling also noted that Disney mailed several insulting letters to the judge in 2006, showed up at two social events in the Spinettas’ residential community in Rossmoor and appeared in the judge’s courtroom “once or twice a quarter for six years” to glare when he had no official business to be there.
“A reasonable trier of fact,” Needham wrote in Tuesday’s unpublished ruling, “could conclude, upon clear and convincing evidence, that Disney’s course of conduct was harassing, willful, knowing and without legitimate purpose, and was the type that would cause, and in fact did cause, substantial emotional distress.”
Disney, who got his State Bar license in 1964 after graduating from the University of San Francisco School of Law, couldn’t be reached for comment on Wednesday.
In Tuesday’s ruling (Spinetta v. Disney, A116153), the appeal court noted that Disney argued that the restraining order, issued in October 2006, would violate his free speech rights and his right to practice law in the public courts, among other things.
The appellate court rejected Disney’s arguments, noting, for one, that the restraining order wasn’t directed only at his “written ridicule” of Spinetta, but also the fact he had publicly confronted the judge outside the courtroom. The court also held that the order didn’t prevent Disney from practicing law, but merely requires him to go through the Martinez courthouse’s regular security screening and to advise security personnel when he had business in Spinetta’s courtroom (However, Spinetta retired from the Contra Costa court earlier this year.)
The appeal court also upheld $1,200 in attorney fees against Disney.
Update: In a phone call on Thursday, Disney expressed astonishment at the appellate court’s ruling, saying “oh my god” several times during the conversation.
“I think they are protecting a judge,” he said of the ruling. “I think they are personally biased and … god, this is strange.”
Disney admitted he had sent rude letters to Spinetta, but said he never intended to cause any physical harm.
“I have been angry about him, so I wrote some letters to him and I called him a jerk,” he said. “I said that some judges had their head up their ass, thinking they are on a pedestal. My experience with him was past, so I was just being critical of him as a person.”
Disney said he was especially upset that the appeal court upheld a restraining order that was based on written declarations and not other testimony. He complained that he hadn’t been given a chance to cross-examine the security officers who made the declarations about his supposed behavior.
“This is a teaching lesson,” Disney said. “It teaches an attorney — in this case, me — about a client who has told the truth and the courts won’t believe it.”
He said he was certain that any lawyer who read the transcript of the court proceeding in which the restraining order was issued would be “quite surprised.”
Disney vowed to petition the California Supreme Court for review and to seek certioriari in the United States Supreme Court if necessary.
“In my opinion,” he said, “this court is not following the law.”
— Mike McKee
Comments
I don't want to be off topic, but I noticed this blog on the Recorder web page right underneath a story about me. I have not read the story about me yet, but if anyone is interested in it, please email me at boatbrain @ aol.com aith any questions.
my comments are located at www.myspace.com/calbarblog. read on stay straight and GOP
I wrote a letter to the editor of the Recorder to tell them I was kind of disappointed that they did not give any of the reasons for my complaints against Orloff in the article.
Very briefly, I was a whistleblower when Orloff and Judge Barbara Miller tried to cover up the crimes of Martin Nakahara, who is the older brother of Judge Vernon Nakahara.
Martin Nakahara was a prominent East Bay lawyer who embezzled from an estate. I will not give all the details here, but the point is, I discovered the crimes, reported them to both Judge Miller, and the DA's office, and found out they were not going to take any action, so I put out some leaflets near the courthouse to tell the public, and got attacked for that.
Sorry if this was off topic but the article about me was right over top of the link to this one and there seems to be a mutual theme of people with gripes.
FYI also - Judge Miller was my divorce judge, but unlike the attorney in this article she did nothing I had any gripe with in the divorce, until helping to cover up for her fellow judge's brother.
One more comment about my own case.
The charge against me was dismissed after I made a motion for disqualfication of the DA's office, and then subpoenaed Tom Orloff and Nancy O'Malley, numbers 1 and 2 in that office, to the hearing.
Bottom line, they preferred to let the case go rather than testify, which I think says a lot.