CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Pete Bennett was arrested for trespassing at Plaza Escuela owned by Regency Centers but managed by CBRE.  The same company managing SalesForce Tower, Selling 417 Park Ave, 12c, New York, and defendants in ESG Companies v. AEG Anschutz Entertainment Group, CBRE which is basically the witnesses in the Virginia Beach shootings. 

CONVENTION AGAINST TORTUREand Other Cruel, Inhuman or DegradingTreatment or PunishmentThe States Parties to this Convention,

Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Recognizing that those rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,

Considering the obligation of States under the Charter, in particular Article 55, to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Having regard to article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which provide that no one may be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,

Having regard also to the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the General Assembly on 9 December 1975 (resolution 3452 (XXX)),

Desiring to make more effective the struggle against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment throughout the world,
Have agreed as follows:

Part I

Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Article 3

1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

Article 4

1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.
2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.

Article 5

1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases:
   1. When the offences are committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State;
   2. When the alleged offender is a national of that State;
   3. When the victim was a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate.
2. Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over such offences in cases where the alleged offender is present in any territory under its jurisdiction and it does not extradite him pursuant to article 8 to any of the States mentioned in Paragraph 1 of this article.
3. This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law.

Article 6

1. Upon being satisfied, after an examination of information available to it, that the circumstances so warrant, any State Party in whose territory a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is present, shall take him into custody or take other legal measures to ensure his presence. The custody and other legal measures shall be as provided in the law of that State but may be continued only for such time as is necessary to enable any criminal or extradition proceedings to be instituted.
2. Such State shall immediately make a preliminary inquiry into the facts.
3. Any person in custody pursuant to paragraph 1 of this article shall be assisted in communicating immediately with the nearest appropriate representative of the State of which he is a national, or, if he is a stateless person, to the representative of the State where he usually resides.
4. When a State, pursuant to this article, has taken a person into custody, it shall immediately notify the States referred to in article 5, paragraph 1, of the fact that such person is in custody and of the circumstances which warrant his detention. The State which makes the preliminary inquiry contemplated in paragraph 2 of this article shall promptly report its findings to the said State and shall indicate whether it intends to exercise jurisdiction.

Article 7

1. The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.
2. These authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State. In the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 2, the standards of evidence required for prosecution and conviction shall in no way be less stringent than those which apply in the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 1.
3. Any person regarding whom proceedings are brought in connection with any of the offences referred to in article 4 shall be guaranteed fair treatment at all stages of the proceedings.

Article 8

1. The offences referred to in article 4 shall be deemed to be included as extraditable offences in any extradition treaty existing between States Parties. States Parties undertake to include such offences as extraditable offences in every extradition treaty to be concluded between them.
2. If a State Party which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another State Party with which it has no extradition treaty, it may consider this Convention as the legal basis for extradition in respect of such offenses. Extradition shall be subject to the other conditions provided by the law of the requested State.
3. States Parties which do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognize such offences as extraditable offences between themselves subject to the conditions provided by the law of the requested state.
4. Such offences shall be treated, for the purpose of extradition between States Parties, as if they had been committed not only in the place in which they occurred but also in the territories of the States required to establish their jurisdiction in accordance with article 5, paragraph 1.

Article 9

1. States Parties shall afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with civil proceedings brought in respect of any of the offences referred to in article 4, including the supply of all evidence at their disposal necessary for the proceedings.
2. States Parties shall carry out their obligations under paragraph 1 of this article in conformity with any treaties on mutual judicial assistance that may exist between them.

Article 10

1. Each State Party shall ensure that education and information regarding the prohibition against torture are fully included in the training of law enforcement personnel, civil or military, medical personnel, public officials and other persons who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment.
2. Each State Party shall include this prohibition in the rules or instructions issued in regard to the duties and functions of any such persons.

Article 11

Each State Party shall keep under systematic review interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices as well as arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment in any territory under its jurisdiction, with a view to preventing any cases of torture.

Article 12

Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committee in any territory under its jurisdiction.

Article 13

Each State Party shall ensure that any individual who alleges he has been subjected to torture in any territory under its jurisdiction has the right to complain to and to have his case promptly and impartially examined its competent authorities. Steps shall be taken to ensure that the complainant and witnesses are protected against all ill-treatment or intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given.

Article 14

1. Each State Party shall ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. In the event of the death of the victim as a result of an act of torture, his dependents shall be entitled to compensation.
2. Nothing in this article shall affect any right of the victim or other person to compensation which may exist under national law.

Article 15

Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.

Article 16

1. Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article 1, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture or references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
2. The provisions of this Convention are without prejudice to the provisions of any other international instrument or national law which prohibit cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or which relate to extradition or expulsion.

Article 17

1. There shall be established a Committee against Torture (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) which shall carry out the functions hereinafter provided. The Committee shall consist of 10 experts of high moral standing and recognized competence in the field of human rights, who shall serve in their personal capacity. The experts shall be elected by the States Parties, consideration being given to equitable geographical distribution and to the usefulness of the participation of some persons having legal experience.
2. The members of the Committee shall be elected by secret ballot from a list of persons nominated by States Parties. Each State Party may nominate one person from among its own nationals. States Parties shall bear in mind the usefulness of nominating persons who are also members of the Human Rights Committee established under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and are willing to serve on the Committee against Torture.
3. Elections of the members of the Committee shall be held at biennial meetings of States Parties convened by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. At those meetings, for which two thirds of the States Parties shall constitute a quorum, the persons elected to the Committee shall be those who obtain the largest number of votes and an absolute majority of the votes of the representatives of States Parties present and voting.
4. The initial election shall be held no later than six months after the date of the entry into force of this Convention. At least four months before the date of each election, the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall address a letter to the States Parties inviting them to submit their nominations within three months. The Secretary-General shall prepare a list in alphabetical order of all persons thus nominated, indicating the States Parties which have nominated them, and shall submit it to the States Parties.
5. The members of the Committee shall be elected for a term of four years. They shall be eligible for re-election if renominated. However, the term of five of the members elected at the first election shall expire at the end of two years; immediately after the first election the names of these five members shall be chosen by lot by the chairman of the meeting referred to in paragraph 3.
6. If a member of the Committee dies or resigns or for any other cause can no longer perform his Committee duties, the State Party which nominated him shall appoint another expert from among its nationals to serve for the remainder of his term, subject to the approval of the majority of the States Parties. The approval shall be considered given unless half or more of the States Parties respond negatively within six weeks after having been informed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the proposed appointment.
7. States Parties shall be responsible for the expenses of the members of the Committee while they are in performance of Committee duties.

Article 18

1. The Committee shall elect its officers for a term of two years. They may be re-elected.
2. The Committee shall establish its own rules of procedure, but these rules shall provide, inter alia, that
   1. Six members shall constitute a quorum;
   2. Decisions of the Committee shall be made by a majority vote of the members present.
3. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall provide the necessary staff and facilities for the effective performance of the functions of the Committee under this Convention.
4. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall convene the initial meeting of the Committee. After its initial meeting, the Committee shall meet at such times as shall be provided in its rules of procedure.
5. The State Parties shall be responsible for expenses incurred in connection with the holding of meetings of the States Parties and of the Committee, including reimbursement of the United Nations for any expenses, such as the cost of staff and facilities, incurred by the United Nations pursuant to paragraph 3 above.

Article 19

1. The States Parties shall submit to the Committee, through the Secretary-General of the United Nations, reports on the measures they have taken to give effect to their undertakings under this Convention, within one year after the entry into force of this Convention for the State Party concerned. Thereafter the States Parties shall submit supplementary reports every four years on any new measures taken, and such other reports as the Committee may request.
2. The Secretary-General shall transmit the reports to all States Parties.
3. [Each report shall be considered by the Committee which may make such comments or suggestions on the report as it considers appropriate, and shall forward these to the State Party concerned. That State Party may respond with any observations it chooses to the Committee.
4. The Committee may, at its discretion, decide to include any comments or suggestions made by it in accordance with paragraph 3, together with the observations thereon received from the State Party concerned, in its annual report made in accordance with article 24. If so requested by the State Party concerned, the Committee may also include a copy of the report submitted under paragraph 1.]

Article 20

1. If the Committee receives reliable information which appears to it to contain well-founded indications that torture is being systematically practised in the territory of a State Party, the Committee shall invite that State Party to co-operate in the examination of the information and to this end to submit observations with regard to the information concerned.
2. Taking into account any observations which may have been submitted by the State Party concerned as well as any other relevant information available to it, the Committee may, if it decides that this is warranted, designate one or more of its members to make a confidential inquiry and to report to the Committee urgently.
3. If an inquiry is made in accordance with paragraph 2, the Committee shall seek the co-operation of the State Party concerned. In agreement with that State Party, such an inquiry may include a visit to its territory.
4. After examining the findings of its member or members submitted in accordance with paragraph 2, the Committee shall transmit these findings to the State Party concerned together with any comments or suggestions which seem appropriate in view of the situation.
5. All the proceedings of the Committee referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 of this article shall be confidential, and at all stages of the proceedings the co-operation of the State Party shall be sought. After such proceedings have been completed with regard to an inquiry made in accordance with paragraph 2, the Committee may, after consultations with the State Party concerned, decide to include a summary account of the results of the proceedings in its annual report made in accordance with article 24.

Article 21

1. A State Party to this Convention may at any time declare under this article 3 that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention. Such communications may be received and considered according to the procedures laid down in this article only if submitted by a State Party which has made a declaration recognizing in regard to itself the competence of the Committee. No communication shall be dealt with by the Committee under this article if it concerns a State Party which has not made such a declaration. Communications received under this article shall be dealt with in accordance with the following procedure:
   1. If a State Party considers that another State Party is not giving effect to the provisions of this Convention, it may, by written communication, bring the matter to the attention of that State Party. Within three months after the receipt of the communication the receiving State shall afford the State which sent the communication an explanation or any other statement in writing clarifying the matter which should include, to the extent possible and pertinent, references to domestic procedures and remedies taken, pending, or available in the matter.
   2. If the matter is not adjusted to the satisfaction of both States Parties concerned within six months after the receipt by the receiving State of the initial communication, either State shall have the right to refer the matter to the Committee by notice given to the Committee and to the other State.
   3. The Committee shall deal with a matter referred to it under this article only after it has ascertained that all domestic remedies have been invoked and exhausted in the matter, in conformity with the generally recognized principles of international law. This shall not be the rule where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged or is unlikely to bring effective relief to the person who is the victim of the violation of this Convention.
   4. The Committee shall hold closed meetings when examining communications under this article.
   5. Subject to the provisions of subparagraph (c), the Committee shall make available its good offices to the States Parties concerned with a view to a friendly solution of the matter on the basis of respect for the obligations provided for in the present Convention. For this purpose, the Committee may, when appropriate, set up an ad hoc conciliation commission.
   6. In any matter referred to it under this article, the Committee may call upon the States Parties concerned, referred to in subparagraph (b), to supply any relevant information.
   7. The States Parties concerned, referred to in subparagraph (b), shall have the right to be represented when the matter is being considered by the Committee and to make submissions orally and/or in writing.
   8. The Committee shall, within 12 months after the date of receipt of notice under subparagraph (b), submit a report.
      1. If a solution within the terms of subparagraph (e) is reached, the Committee shall confine its report to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached.
      2. If a solution within the terms of subparagraph (e) is not reached, the Committee shall confine its report to a brief statement of the facts; the written submissions and record of the oral submissions made by the States Parties concerned shall be attached to the report.
   In every matter, the report shall be communicated to the States Parties concerned.
2. The provisions of this article shall come into force when five States Parties to this Convention have made declarations under paragraph 1 of this article. Such declarations shall be deposited by the States Parties with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the other States Parties. A declaration may be withdrawn at any time by notification to the Secretary-General. Such a withdrawal shall not prejudice the consideration of any matter which is the subject of a communication already transmitted under this article; no further communication by any State Party shall be received under this article after the notification of withdrawal of the declaration has been received by the Secretary-General, unless the State Party concerned has made a new declaration.

Article 22

1. A State Party to this Convention may at any time declare under this article that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention. No communication shall be received by the Committee if it concerns a State Party to the Convention which has not made such a declaration.
2. The Committee shall consider inadmissible any communication under this article which is anonymous, or which it considers to be an abuse of the right of submission of such communications or to be incompatible with the provisions of this Convention.
3. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2, the Committee shall bring any communication submitted to it under this article to the attention of the State Party to this Convention which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 and is alleged to be violating any provisions of the Convention. Within six months, the receiving State shall submit to the Committee written explanations or statements clarifying the matter and the remedy, if any, that may have been taken by that State.
4. The Committee shall consider communications received under this article in the light of all information made available to it by or on behalf of the individual and by the State Party concerned.
5. The Committee shall not consider any communication from an individual under this article unless it has ascertained that:
   1. The same matter has not been, and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement;
   2. The individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies; this shall not be the rule where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged or is unlikely to bring effective relief to the person who is the victim of the violation of this Convention.
6. The Committee shall hold closed meetings when examining communications under this article.
7. The Committee shall forward its views to the State Party concerned and to the individual.
8. The provisions of this article shall come into force when five States Parties to this Convention have made declarations under paragraph 1 of this article. Such declarations shall be deposited by the States Parties with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit parties thereof to the other States Parties. A declaration may be withdrawn at any time by notification to the Secretary-General. Such a withdrawal shall not prejudice the consideration of any matter which is the subject of a communication already transmitted under this article; no further communication by or on behalf of an individual shall be received under this article after the notification of withdrawal of the declaration has been received by the Secretary-General, unless the State Party concerned has made a new declaration.

Article 23

The members of the Committee, and of the ad hoc conciliation commissions which may be appointed under article 21, paragraph 1 (e), shall be entitled to the facilities, privileges and immunities of experts on missions for the United Nations as laid down in the relevant sections of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.

Article 24

The Committee shall submit an annual report on its activities under this Convention to the States Parties and to the General Assembly of the United Nations.

Part III

Article 25

1. This Convention is open for signature by all States.
2. This Convention is subject to ratification. Instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article 26

This Convention is open to accession by all States. Accession shall be effected by the deposit of an instrument of accession with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article 27

1. This Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date of the deposit with the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the twentieth instrument of ratification or accession.
2. For each State ratifying this Convention or acceding to it after the deposit of the twentieth instrument of ratification or accession, the Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date of the deposit of its own instrument of ratification or accession.

Article 28

1. Each State may, at the time of signature or ratification of this Convention or accession thereto, declare that it does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in article 20.
2. Any State Party having made a reservation in accordance with paragraph 1 of this article may, at any time, withdraw this reservation by notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article 29

1. Any State Party to this Convention may propose an amendment and file it with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The Secretary-General shall thereupon communicate the proposed amendment to the States Parties to this Convention with a request that they notify him whether they favour a conference of States Parties for the purpose of considering and voting upon the proposal. In the event that within four months from the date of such communication at least one third of the State Parties favours such a conference, the Secretary-General shall convene the conference under the auspices of the United Nations. Any amendment adopted by a majority of the States Parties present and voting at the conference shall be submitted by the Secretary-General to all the States Parties for acceptance.
2. An amendment adopted in accordance with paragraph 1 shall enter into force when two thirds of the States Parties to this Convention have notified the Secretary-General of the United Nations that they have accepted it in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.
3. When amendments enter into force, they shall be binding on those States Parties which have accepted them, other States Parties still being bound by the provisions of this Convention and any earlier amendments which they have accepted.

Article 30

1. Any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention which cannot be settled through negotiation, shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration. If within six months from the date of the request for arbitration the Parties are unable to agree on the organization of the arbitration, any one of those Parties may refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice by request in conformity with the Statute of the Court.
2. Each State may at the time of signature or ratification of this Convention or accession thereto, declare that it does not consider itself bound by the preceding paragraph. The other States Parties shall not be bound by the preceding paragraph with respect to any State Party having made such a reservation.
3. Any State Party having made a reservation in accordance with the preceding paragraph may at any time withdraw this reservation by notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article 31

1. A State Party may denounce this Convention by written notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Denunciation becomes effective one year after the date of receipt of the notification by the Secretary-General.
2. Such a denunciation shall not have the effect of releasing the State Party from its obligations under this Convention in regard to any act or omission which occurs prior to the date at which the denunciation becomes effective. Nor shall denunciation prejudice in any way the continued consideration of any matter which is already under consideration by the Committee prior to the date at which the denunciation becomes effective.
3. Following the date at which the denunciation of a State Party becomes effective, the Committee shall not commence consideration of any new matter regarding that State.

Article 32

The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall inform all members of the United Nations and all States which have signed this Convention or acceded to it, or the following particulars:

1. Signatures, ratifications and accessions under articles 25 and 26;
2. The date of entry into force of this Convention under article 27, and the date of the entry into force of any amendments under article 29;
3. Denunciations under article 31.

Article 33

1. This Convention, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the United Nations.
2. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall transmit certified copies of this Convention to all States.

---

On February 4, 1985, the Convention was opened for signature at United Nations Headquarters in New York. At that time, representatives of the following countries signed it: Afghanistan, Argentina, Belgium, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Senegal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Uruguay. Subsequently, signatures were received from Venezuela on February 15, from Luxembourg and Panama on February 22, from Austria on March 14, and from the United Kingdom on March 15, 1985.

Read More

Constituent Services

Read More

PETE BENNETT, NOMOREH1B.COM: FEINSTEIN?

My friends, clients and customers have been slaughtered year after year then someone went after my relatives and killed them while tricking everybody or perhaps not.

Most of you wouldn't last a day in my shoes. 

Read More

Ex-CalPERS official Villalobos commits suicide

 Two former CalPERS officials indicted on fraud charges

Alfred J.R. Villalobos, left, and Federico Buenrostro Jr. (Los Angeles Times / Bloomberg)

Marc Lifsher, Los Angeles Times

SACRAMENTO — Three years after a major influence-peddling scandal rocked California and the nation's largest public pension fund, a federal grand jury indicted two former top officials on fraud, conspiracy and obstruction charges.

The indictment, unsealed Monday in San Francisco, names as defendants Federico Buenrostro Jr. of Sacramento, a former chief executive of the California Public Employees' Retirement System, and Alfred J.R. Villalobos of Reno, Nev., a former CalPERS board member and one-time deputy Los Angeles mayor.

The charges are the culmination of a far-reaching investigation into the way the agency invested its money and how the former insider, Villalobos, collected tens of millions of dollars from Wall Street firms for steering CalPERS business their way.

Neither man could be reached for comment, but they have consistently denied any wrongdoing in connection with their CalPERS work. Villalobos' attorney said his client was innocent and would fight the charges.

The agency invests $255 billion of employee and governmental contributions to provide retirement benefits for more than 1.6 million public employees, retirees and their families.

Once a highly regarded organization with an international reputation for smart, ethical investing, CalPERS now must wrangle with questions about commissions paid to the little-known intermediaries and their relationships with fund officials.

Steep investment losses during the recent recession also tarnished the fund. Since then, the CalPERS board has conducted detailed investigations, ordered major changes in the way it operates and improved its financial performance.

CalPERS President Rob Feckner called the long-expected federal indictments "another step in the road to justice."

Pension fund officials hailed the action as an affirmation that the fund moved forcefully to clean up its relations with intermediaries, such as Villalobos, who collected exorbitant fees from private equity investment funds after they signed lucrative contracts with CalPERS.

The scandal at CalPERS and subsequent investigations and the federal indictment should be a warning to public pension funds across the country that they need to root out any potential or actual corruption, said Edward Siedle, a forensic expert specializing in pension funds.

"What the Department of Justice is doing is sending a shot across the bow," he said, "that these matters are taken seriously and people will prosecute."

Pension fund officials credited their own, in-house 2011 review with providing significant findings that helped prosecutors make progress toward indictments.

At the same time, critics have continued to pummel CalPERS and other large government-worker pension funds for being dangerously underfunded and providing overly generous retirement and health benefits. Those costs unfairly burden taxpayers, most of whom have no access to similar largesse, critics say.

At the center of the investigation was the role of placement agents, the middlemen or intermediaries hired by private equity firms and other financial institutions to win CalPERS business. The investigation came during a rough financial stretch for CalPERS. Its investment portfolio value had plummeted nearly $100 billion, to $169 billion, during the recession.

Since then, the Legislature approved a new law requiring placement agents to be registered as lobbyists, and CalPERS has enacted stringent new policies on ethics, governance, conflicts of interest, and board gifts and travel.

"Given its many reforms, CalPERS is a better, stronger and more transparent pension system than ever," said Philip Khinda, a Washington, D.C., lawyer, who conducted the special review.

The indictment charged Villalobos with conspiracy to defraud the United States, engaging in a false scheme against the United States and conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud. Buenrostro was accused of the same crimes, plus making a false statement to the United States and obstruction of justice.

The maximum penalty for the mail and wire fraud is 20 years in prison and a fine of $250,000 or twice the amount of loss, whichever is greater. The other charges carry five-year maximum prison terms and fines similar to the mail and wire fraud charges.

Villalobos, 69, and Buenrostro, 64, were longtime friends. The indictment set out a series of transactions in 2007 and 2008 between the two men while Buenrostro was still running CalPERS.

At the time, Villalobos was working for the New York-based private equity firm Apollo Global Management as a placement agent to help it get CalPERS business.

According to the indictment, the two men conspired to commit fraud by creating and sending phony documents. These disclosures were needed to comply with a requirement from Apollo for proof that CalPERS officials knew Villalobos was being paid large amounts of money to secure $3 billion in CalPERS business.

Buenrostro then retired from CalPERS and went to work for Villalobos' Nevada firm, ARVCO Capital Research, shortly after Apollo made its last commission payment to Villalobos.

On Monday, both men appeared with their lawyers in federal court in San Francisco, and each was released on $500,000 bail. Later, Buenrostro's lawyer, William Kimball, declined to comment. Villalobos' attorney, Donald Etra, said his client "denies all charges" and will vigorously defend himself.

The two defendants also face civil lawsuits brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the California attorney general's office.

The Justice Department said Monday that the federal indictment capped a 2 1/2 year probe that was assisted by the U.S. Postal Service, FBI, SEC and Secret Service.

In a statement, Apollo said it was troubled by the charges against Villalobos and Buenrostro and "was not aware of any misconduct engaged in by Mr. Villalobos during the time he worked with Apollo." Apollo stressed that it had "cooperated fully with all regulatory agencies investigating this matter and will continue to do so."

Apollo paid Villalobos $14 million for CalPERS deals mentioned in the indictment, court papers said.

In all, Villalobos and his companies got a total of $48 million from Apollo from 2005 to 2009, according to an SEC filing in April of last year. He also received an additional $12 million in placement fees from other investment funds that managed CalPERS money.

marc.lifsher@latimes.com

Times staff writer Andrew Tangel in New York contributed to this story

Read More

Major General Joseph Franklin and Blum Capital

JOSEPH P. FRANKLIN, age 80, has served as a Director of the Company since March 1990. In December 1993, he was elected Chairman of the Board and, from December 1993 through October 1998, served as Chief Executive Officer of the Company. From August 1987 to November 1993, he was the chief executive officer of Franklin S.A., a Spanish business consulting company located in Madrid, Spain, specializing in joint ventures, and was a director of several prominent Spanish companies. General Franklin was a Major General in the United States Army until he retired in July 1987. He was Vice Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the US Military Academy at West Point from 2000 to 2004. General Franklin’s current service as Chairman of the Board of the Company and prior service as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, as well has his prior board and executive management experience, allows him to provide in-depth knowledge of the Company and other valuable insight and knowledge to the Board.

0000938775-97-000005 SC 13D/A 1 19970509 AMEX

FREQUENCY ELECTRONICS INC 0000039020 3825 111986657 DE 0430 SC 13D/A 34 005-33022 97598505 55 CHARLES LINDBERGH BLVD MITCHEL FIELD NY 11553 5167944500 55 CHARLES LINDBERGH BOULEVARD MITCHELL FIELD NY 11553

BLUM RICHARD C & ASSOCIATES L P 0000938775 943205364 DE 1231 SC 13D/A 909 MONTGOMERY STREET # 400 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94133 909 MONTGOMERY STREET SUITE 400 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94133

SC 13D/A 1 Show : 619 lines (widest: 79 characters) - 30K bytes

Read More

The Buchanan Family Murders

Read More

#AccentureMurders are #BracMurders lead to #deadbankers are just @deadconstituents

Friends from the banking world.  

In 1995 I was developing applications for Computerland, then Irwin Home Equity, GE Nuclear and AT&T.  My projects were chosen were generally 3 to 6 months so I could pursue direct clients.

In 2012, I met with Concord City Attorney Mark Coon.  He's dead.

Read More

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation - Fremont Group Blood Money

Dear Mr. Gates,

I applaud your philanthropic efforts in regards to Malaria and water.  We have met several times over several decades.  Mostly at Developers Days or various conference at the Claremont Hotel in Oakland and locations in SF.  Your efforts on touting Microsoft solutions such NT 3.5, early versions of Excel on the Mac, OS 2 Warp and then Windows 3.0 etc. I've been with you since DOS.

This purpose of this letter is multi-faceted, one part is to share what's happened to me, my family, friends, customers and clients since our mutual appearances on PBS, CNN, WSJ and Boston Globe.

Since the 80's I've endured endless setbacks courtroom losses, vanishing witnesses and accidents.  A critical link emerged in 2012 to the core of these losses which straight into the heart of your foundation.

Issue #1 ~ Murders, Arson, Accidents and Suicides

Issue #2 ~ A 2002 investment by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

I'll assume that the Foundation intentions were pure and based on sound advice.  That investment leads to my story, leads to the above appearances, and worst of all leads to 9/11, several of my past 


Issue #3 ~Dangerous Explosions 
I operate several blogs and for six months trying to Azure Platform Services working which is something you need be aware of.  The six months of issues were 100% Azure Centric and pathetic but worse is a possible connection to the Paris Bombings.  We have something deadly in common with your investors and your attorneys that connects to

Issue #4 
Pending


Issue #5 ~ Comparing Our Housing Situation

The man that appeared with you on PBS debating the H-1b visa in June 2007 lives on a sheet of plywood, a tarp, and sleeping whereas you've got this nice house on a lake.  Other differences as I've been beaten, mugged and hospitalized numerous times, several near fatal bacterial events, several heart attack events and medication that induced psychosis 


I've personally endured a long medical battle that dragged on for years, hospitalizations from bacteria, poison and asthma.  One diagnosis was I was suffering from parasites which turned into infections that again landed me in the hospitical

Since you've likely studied epidemiological statistics given your emphasis on water which is really the gift of life and a bigger gift of quality of life. 
.#homelesshomicides

 

Read More

Frequency Electronics Inc. of New York

Read More

Safeway Managemet and safewaymurders.com

Safeway

Safeway Murders
The story I'll be telling about Safeway involves, a murders, suicide that was a murder and murder near an employee who died.

COMPANY
Supermarket chain formed 1926 by the merger of M. B. Skaggs' Skaggs Stores with the Sam Seelig Company. It was acquired by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts in 1986. After extensive restructuring and the sale of half its stores, Safeway was made a public company again in 1990. It presently has 1,775 stores in North America, operating under the Safeway brand and a variety of lesser names including Carrs (Alaska), Casa Ley (Mexico), Dominick's (Illinois), Genuardi's (Pennsylvania), Pak 'n' Save (California), Randall's (Texas), Tom Thumb Food & Pharmacy (Texas), and Vons (California). Acquired by Cerberus Capital Management in 2015.
Official Website:
http://www.safeway.com/
Industry:
Retail
Ticker:
NYSE:SWY
Corporate headquarters:
Pleasanton, CA
Sales:
$38.4B (2005)
Employees:
200,000
EXECUTIVES

Name	Occupation	Birth	Death	Known for
Steve Burd	Business	1949		CEO of Safeway
Brian C. Cornell	Business	c. 1960		CEO of Michaels Stores
Charles K. Crovitz	Business	c. 1953		EVP at Gap, 1998-2003
Julian C. Day	Business	14-May-1952		CEO of Radio Shack
Jim Donald	Business	?		President and CEO of Starbucks
Lawrence V. Jackson	Business	c. 1953		Wal-Mart executive
Peter A. Magowan	Business	5-Apr-1942		President, San Francisco Giants
Charles E. Merrill	Business	19-Oct-1885	6-Oct-1956	Founder of Merrill Lynch
Vasant M. Prabhu	Business	c. 1960		CFO of Starwood Hotels
M. B. Skaggs	Business	5-Apr-1888	8-May-1976	Founder of Safeway

CURRENT BOARD MEMBERS OR DIRECTORS

Name	Occupation	Birth	Death	Known for
Steve Burd	Business	1949		CEO of Safeway
Janet E. Grove	Business	c. 1952		Vice Chairman of Federated Stores
Mohan Gyani	Business	c. 1951		CEO of AT&T Wireless, 2000-03
Paul Hazen	Business	1941		CEO of Wells Fargo Bank, 1995-98
Robert I. MacDonnell	Business	c. 1937		Kohlberg Kravis Roberts
Douglas F. Mackenzie	Business	c. 1959		Partner, Kleiner Perkins
Rebecca A. Stirn	Business	c. 1952		President of Aesthetic Sciences Corporation
William Y. Tauscher	Business	c. 1949		CEO of ComputerLand, 1987-99
Raymond G. Viault	Business	c. 1945		Vice Chairman of General Mills, 1996-2004

PAST BOARD MEMBERS OR DIRECTORS

Name	Occupation	Birth	Death	Known for
Sam Ginn	Business	c. 1938		CEO of Airtouch Communications, 1993-99
Henry Kravis	Business	6-Jan-1944		Kohlberg Kravis Roberts
Peter A. Magowan	Business	5-Apr-1942		President, San Francisco Giants
George R. Roberts	Business	1944		Kohlberg Kravis Roberts
M. B. Skaggs	Business	5-Apr-1888	8-May-1976	Founder of Safeway

EMPLOYMENT

Name	Occupation	Birth	Death	Known for
Joe Albertson	Business	17-Oct-1906	20-Jan-1993	Founder of Albertson's
Kathryn Walt Hall	Diplomat	1947		US Ambassador to Austria, 1997-2001
George W. Off	Business	c. 1947		Checkpoint Systems
Mike Vaska	Activist	1960		Discovery Institute

Read More

Catellus Development, a Murder Nexus Not an Octopus

Catellus Development, the Next Octopus?

by Richard Trainor  | Email

Thirty-seven years before writer Frank Norris created the fictional Octopus in his 1901 novel, the U.S. Congress gave birth to its real-life counterpart by granting the Southern-Pacific Railway company a checkerboard pattern of right-of-way land parcels lining either side of their tracks from Texas to California. Although the railroad would dry up economically in the mid-20th century, and disappear entirely in 1994 when it was swallowed by the Union-Pacific Railroad in a merger, the Octopus that Congress created still lives on in the form of the real estate giant that it grew into from those 1864 checkerboard easements. This company, once known as Southern-Pacific Realty, has tentacles that span the continent. It is now known as Catellus Development, and it is an absolute Colossus.

Catellus is the second largest private landholder in the western United States with 817,000 acres in California alone. It develops commercial real estate, shopping centers, and housing, and acquired a number of properties on some defunct military bases during the Clinton administration’s base closure program. Catellus has also been very active in a number of land swaps, where it exchanged mostly worthless rural properties for prime development land within urban areas, or for land directly adjacent to planned freeways.

Catellus is headed by chairman/ CEO Nelson Rising, a big-time developer formerly with McGuire-Thomas. This is the development company that built Playa Vista in Los Angeles, the mixed-use development out on the Ballona Wetlands. Rising used to be a Hollywood producer whose 1971 film, The Candidate, examined the political corruption of an environmental idealist who sacrifices his principles to become elected as one of California’s U.S. Senators.

Catellus is one of the most politically wired development companies in California with significant ties to Senator Dianne Feinstein, outgoing San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown (who was formerly their attorney), California State Senate President Pro Tem John Burton (another ex-Catellus attorney), and John Foran, the MTC lobbyist who briefly served as Catellus’ lobbyist on a very provocative piece of legislation sponsored by Burton in 1997. Another client with Foran’s lobbying firm Nossaman, Guthner, Knox and Elliott is the LA Metropolitan Transit Authority, whose offices happen to be in another Catellus property, renovated with redevelopment money in downtown Los Angeles at Union Station.
In a 1997 article published in Forbes Magazine, writer Mary Beth Grover put it this way: “With real estate, politics matters a lot, almost as much as location. In California real estate, politics is the most important thing (and) aside from sheer corruption, there are a number of ways to appease these little gods. Catellus knows the game well.”

It certainly hasn’t hurt Catellus’ cause that the corporation and its officers, including ex-producer Rising, have been significant contributors to the political war chests of both Willie Brown and Dianne Feinstein. Besides the $140,000 in legal fees that Willie Brown received from Catellus as one of its attorneys from 1982 until 1994, Brown’s two San Francisco mayoral campaigns also received a lot of cash from Catellus. So did Feinstein’s U.S. Senate campaigns. Over the past ten years, Feinstein’s campaigns have received over $150,000 from Catellus Development. Brown’s two mayoral campaigns landed a total of close to $50,000 from Catellus and individuals associated with the corporation.

Senator Feinstein has proven very successful in promoting a land-swap project that involves Catellus properties in Southern California. The Senator is very proud of this project and lists it as one of her prime accomplishments on her Congresssional website. This is the Desert Wilderness Protection Act of 1994 (the act was funded with additional legislation sponsored by Senator Feinstein in the 1999, 2000 and 2001 sessions of Congress). Now known as The Desert Wildlands Act, this bill involves the transfer of over 400,000 acres of Catellus land in the Mojave Desert to the federal government to create a natural preserve. Of the $56.5 million purchase price for the Catellus desert properties, $30 million of the money is coming from the U.S. government. while the additional $26.5 million is coming from a non-profit environmental group called The Wildlands Conservancy.

In a press release put out by Senator Feinstein’s office, Nelson Rising gave credit to Feinstein: “The successful completion of these transactions would not have been possible without the significant efforts of Senator Dianne Feinstein.” Rising then went on to credit David Myers and the Wildlands Conservancy for “rais(ing) the private funds necessary to complete these sales.”

But a few critics wonder whether this massive land swap was such a great deal for anybody other than Catellus.

In a column titled “A Succession of Land Deals” by Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters published in March of 2001, Walters wrote that the Catellus desert swap amounted to a deal where “Catellus walked away with cash and valuable land and gave up virtually nothing of real value. It was a coup for the company’s top executive, Nelson Rising.” Walters went on to state that the Catellus desert bill bore some similarities to the Headwaters Forest bill in that both were used to appease envirnonmentalists who favored the desert park and wanted to preserve the forest. Senator Feinstein negotiated the half-billion dollar Headwaters deal right before she authored the Desert Wildlands bill.
Jeffrey Baird, a computer programmer who works for the County of San Bernardino, says that the whole thing stinks to high heaven. “I believe that non-profits (e.g. The Wildlands Conservancy) masquerading under the cloak of “environmentalism” are being used as vehicles to initiate a series of land purchases/swaps that will ultimately benefit Catellus Corporation and their friends at the expense of John Q. Public.” Baird says that Catellus is giving up desert lands that are undevelopable in exchange for lands adjacent to freeways that are well traveled and worth considerably more.
Baird pointed out that there seems to be a connection between Catellus Development and The Wildlands Conservancy that constitutes a direct conflict of interest, and says that he fears “that the resulting charitable gift/sales of ‘ostensibly appreciated land’ are inconsistent with the underlying land values of these properties as determined by the county assessor.” Baird says that the assessed values of the land when they are transferred from Catellus ownership to the Wildlands Conservancy increase sharply, as high as 300% in some cases, yielding huge tax benefits to Catellus. Baird has been trying to get a number of investigative agencies to look into the issue without success.
Baird also believes that some of the federal land transfers involve public lands that have been illegally transferred to private ownership by the federal Bureau of Land Management. Baird has shown this reporter a series of land parcels with map overlays that seems to establish his contention that the parcels were in fact public lands as little as ten years ago. “I think the whole thing is a money pump,” said Baird.
In a May 1997 issue of Media ByPass magazine, writer Karen Lee Bixman explored an area of the land swap that made some of Baird’s concerns look pale by comparison. In this story titled “The Great Gold Heist: The Desert Wilderness Protection Act,” Bixman characterized Senator Dianne Feinstein as “The Modern Jesse James.” Exchanging worthless desert land for more viable commercial land alongside interchanges is bad public policy, but swapping worthless land for rich, gold-bearing deposits was also scheduled.
Bixman wrote: “the real motivation for the passage of (the Feinstein) bill lies with the special interest groups that would benefit monetarily.Through a complex series of land exchanges, Catellus will receive land that contains some of the richest gold deposits in the world.”
Part of the Catellus land exchanges in the Mojave included a swap for a decommissioned military base called Chocolate Mountain. Bixman said geologists told her that Chocolate Mountain has deposits worth somewhere between $40-100 billion. Catellus owns the nearby Mesquite mine in the Chocolate Rift zone, which, Bixman wrote, “is one of the ten most profitable mines in the United States and has some of the most profitable gold deposits of any mine in the world.”
Catellus Development is based in San Francisco at 201 Mission Street — just across the street from the Transbay Terminal. Catellus has a number of high profile, multi-billion dollar projects underway in the Bay Area, including the $3 billion Mission Bay project in San Francisco, and the $1.5 billion military base conversion project in Alameda, at the former Fisk Naval Air Center. Both of these projects are mixed-use developments that will include commercial office space, retail space, and housing.
There is a strong possibility that Catellus (CDX on the New York Stock Exchange listings) could be the latest publicly-traded stock which might experience a sudden price rise from a process related to transportation projects. These projects include the planned redevelopment of the Transbay Terminal in San Francisco and the so-called Mid-Bay Crossing bridge being studied by the Metropolitan Transit Authority.
On the first project, a Transbay Terminal bill was passed in the 2000 California legislative session that was carried by Assemblyman Dion Aroner, an East Bay legislator. This bill, AB 1409, proposed a new 900,000 square foot transit building with commercial offices above it that was initially pegged to cost $900 million. Although Aroner was the bill’s nominal author, sources at the State Capitol told this reporter that outgoing San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown had a large hand in drafting the legislation.
The bill was essentially a land swap with the City of San Francisco. With a new tower atop the Transbay Terminal, and adding in the adjacent lands that were then scheduled for the swap, the City of San Francisco would have received approximately $4 billion worth of prime development land for a buck. One of the potential developers surely to be considered for this project is Catellus Development, whose corporate headquarters at 201 Mission Street, is adjacent to the terminal site.
The Aroner bill also carried an exemption in it stating that the State of California would not receive fair market value for the exchange. At the end of that year’s legislative session, then-Governor Gray Davis vetoed the bill but said that he would try to accomplish the same goal by handling the matter “administratively,” which presumably meant that the package could go through without the legislature having to enact a new piece of legislation. Neither Davis nor Governor Arnold Schwarzennegger would comment for this story. At present, the new, so-called “Great Expectations” terminal project is still on hold.
The second potentially profit-producing process involves a possible new bridge across the San Francisco Bay.
Almost directly after San Francisco Chronicle columnist Alan Temko’s article touting the bridge of his good friend, the late T. Y. Lin, appeared on the newspaper’s front page in its March 10, 1997 edition, the MTC’s chief lobbyist, John Foran, was hired as a lobbyist by Catellus Development to work on behalf of SB 1215. This piece of legislation was authored by San Francisco’s State Senator John Burton, the man who describes himself as “Willie Brown’s best friend.” Burton was also once Catellus’ lawyer. The bill was co-sponsored by the two Assembly members from San Francisco, Carole Migden and Kevin Shelley, both of who are part of what former State Senator, now Sam Mateo Superior Court Judge, Quentin Kopp calls “Willie Brown’s cabal.”
The Burton bill resolved a long-standing dispute between the City of San Francisco, the State of California, and the private developers, Catellus, doing business under the name of Western Realty. The bill allowed the development of filled tidelands to take place in Mission Bay and also provided for a new University of California San Francisco campus. SB 1215 was passed as an emergency measure that took effect immediately when it was signed by then-Governor Pete Wilson in August, 1997. The bill didn’t receive one nay vote as it went through the legislature, nor did it generate one single news story despite its huge potential impact on the long-stalled Mission Bay project.
What is most interesting about the hiring of John Foran on the Burton/Catellus bill was the length of his contract with Catellus and how much money he was paid. Foran’s term of employment was 22 days — from March 20 through April 11 of 1997, for which he was paid almost $17,000. That’s an astronomical rate of pay for a contract lobbyist to represent a client on one piece of legislation only. During that same time, Foran’s yearly pay for the MTC was $50,000.
What was a transportation lobbyist, the man who founded the MTC, doing on behalf of a real estate company like Catellus?
When I asked Willie Brown about this bill at a televised press conference in the summer of 1998, he denied that he knew anything about it. This seemed puzzling, as the main lobbyist for Catellus Development, Marsha Smolins, then happened to be the main lobbyist for the City and County of San Francisco. Smolins began her career in politics as an aide to U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein.
Brown’s first response to my question was that he didn’t know what I was talking about. When I pressed him with a follow-up question, he said, “I’ll have my people get back to you about it.” Since this bill provided for a new UCSF campus, and since such a campus would likely demonstrate a significant demand for transit, I asked him whether or not he had given any thought to the possibility of a new Mid-Bay Crossing bridge. “You’d better watch yourself, or you’re going to go off that bridge,” said Mayor Brown.
A year-and-a-half after he had chided me about “going off that bridge,” and almost directly after being reelected Mayor of San Francisco in the fall of 1999, Willie Brown received an appointment to the $100 billion California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) pension fund investment board — the investment fund that once owned 80% of Catellus Development stock and is still its largest institutional shareholder at somewhere close to 40%. Shortly after Mayor Brown was appointed to PERS, Dianne Feinstein wrote a letter to Governor Gray Davis asking for an updated study of the Mid-Bay Crossing bridge. If such a bridge design included a landfall at either of the two Catellus properties — at Mission Bay or the Fisk Naval Air Center base conversion — it would likely have a beneficial effect on Catellus stock prices.
In near record time, MTC approved the Mid-Bay Crossing study, which is currently underway. Then Willie Brown, Dianne Feinstein and the San Francisco bunch took a shot at winning the trifecta: three stocks with three bills.
The first bill was the Catellus-sponsored legislation, SB 1215, from the 1997 session (As a matter of fact, during the passage of SB1215, Catellus stock went from below $10 a share to $18 a share. On November 26 and 28, 1997, after Burton’s SB 1215 had become law, almost 4.25 million shares of Catellus stock were traded at over $18 a share. Insider activity was heavy, with over 3 million shares traded.) Senator John Burton’s additional bill in the 2000 session, SB 1562, called for development of a new rail link between San Francisco Airport and another airport on land owned by a city and county and located in another county. There’s only one likely place that this can be: the former Fisk Naval Air Center in Alameda. By some strange quirk, part of this airbase is within the city and county limits of San Francisco. The Fisk Center is presently being developed as a mixed-use commercial office and retail center with 350 dwelling units. The developer is Catellus.
Directly after Senator Burton’s first bill, SB 1215, was passed in the 1997 session, Burton’s campaign received three contributions totalling $55,000 from the Southern California District Council of Carpenter’s Political Action Fund. Richard Blum, Senator Feinstein’s husband, is this union’s pension fund manager.
Then, on the day that he introduced SB 1562 in the 2000 session, Burton’s campaign received a $4,000 contribution from Nossaman, Guthner, Knox and Elliott, the lobbyist group headed by John Foran who have been active on every speculation-driven stock from the bullet train in 1982 until now.
When the legislature went to conference committee in June, 2000, a new paragraph was amended into the trailer bill that was the financing scheme for the purchase of the Cargill Salt Flats near San Francisco Airport. Cargill Salt is another Nossaman, Guthner client. The trailer bill was Assemblywoman Carole Migden’s AB 398. Migden’s original bill called for $150 million in state funds to help acquire the Cargill salt flats. (When Governor Gray Davis signed the bill into law, the amount of state funds had been reduced to $20 million). Besides acquiring the Salt Flats for environmentalists, the land was also scheduled to be used for the estimated $3 billion expansion of the San Francisco Airport.
During the hearing for AB 398, Migden mentioned the fact that Senator Feinstein was carrying the ball for the acquisition in Congress with a “spot” bill. The same type of legislative vehicle that drove the Bay Bridge and Bullet Train profit-making processes. What she didn’t mention was that URS Greiner, Richard Blum’s company, was chosen as the engineering design firm in charge of the $3 billion SFO expansion, presently on hold.
Like all the other transportation bills dating back to the bullet train in 1982, the Burton-Migden-Feinstein package began as “spot” bills that contain the famous California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemptions and other key elements these legislative wizards have been refining ever since. It also involved an airport runway “competition” for SFO that was very like that for the Bay Bridge competion. This time, the notice for the competition was posted the very day the competition closed. But this time, there were five finalists, not two. It wasn’t much of a surprise to learn that URS, Blum’s firm, won.
All the usual players were present when the deal was going down in conference committee during the 2000 session. Mayor Willie Brown and his people were there. Willie called the airport expansion “a golden opportunity” when he gave testimony on the bill’s behalf. Senator John Burton was up on the dais. The MTC’s Executive Director Steve Heminger was circling around, and so was MTC founder, John Foran. So were other lobbyists from the Nossaman, Guthner group. Notably absent were Richard Blum and his wife, Senator Dianne Feinstein.
In the weeks leading up to the Burton-Migden-Feinstein legislative package, the savvy investors were furiously buying stock. Richard Blum was purchasing URS stock in 100,000 share lots; it had fallen from 28 to 12 in the time that Willie Brown and Dianne Feinstein made every effort to kill the new eastern span of the Bay Bridge that the MTC had chosen in May, 1998. Then URS turned around and began rising again, from $12 to $20 a share in six months. Lockheed-Martin (LMT on the NYSE) would experience a significant jump in 2001-2002 when the new high-speed train legislation went through. The MTC was studying a new southern crossing bridge. Can you imagine the effect on Catellus stock if the bridge runs from one of their properties to a landfall on another property they own? The previous MTC study in 1991 alluded to such a possibility. As a matter of fact, the late T.Y. Lin already had a bridge designed for a Mid-Bay crossing. And who cares if it ever gets built? Just take the speculation-driven profit and move on to the next process.
RICHARD TRAINOR is an investigative reporter living in Eugene,

Read More

ComputerLand - Merisel - Synnex

From late 1995 to March 1996 I was subcontracted to ComputerLand Corporate but in another life my former Cabinet Shop built cabinets and casework for Computerland Stores, Safeway and Contra Costa College District.

There is distinctly unique about Steve Burd's connection to Hillside Covenant Church where their youth director breached my laptop in 2011 and several weeks my car was deliberately totaled in Lafayette CA but Chief Christanson  refused to investigate.  Several months later I handed documents to Chief Bryden about Gary Vinson Collins who is now dead. 

In 1995 I revealed my reports to ComputerLand Management where it was clear as day they we're losing or had lost millions.  The losses were the classic "Rocks in the Box" where returns were arriving after being stalled at VanStar distribution. 

Long after Merisel bought the rights to distribution the losses tallied up to millions.  I remember arguing with one long term employee who later was in tears.  When Merisel's stock tanked she lost everything that she invested in the closed ended investment model. 

More later. 

-----BEGIN PRIVACY-ENHANCED MESSAGE-----
Proc-Type: 2001,MIC-CLEAR
Originator-Name: webmaster@www.sec.gov
Originator-Key-Asymmetric:
 MFgwCgYEVQgBAQICAf8DSgAwRwJAW2sNKK9AVtBzYZmr6aGjlWyK3XmZv3dTINen
 TWSM7vrzLADbmYQaionwg5sDW3P6oaM5D3tdezXMm7z1T+B+twIDAQAB
MIC-Info: RSA-MD5,RSA,
 FGezcPuUxKcjs61Vzk6mSOUl6mA4dPRr9G9yMZocPFCFmUwUSKb6Yb1VT0KQ5g7+
 RUlpIphMM+5WvvbFYyTrZQ==

0000724941-97-000005.txt : 19970416
0000724941-97-000005.hdr.sgml : 19970416
ACCESSION NUMBER:  0000724941-97-000005
CONFORMED SUBMISSION TYPE: 8-K
PUBLIC DOCUMENT COUNT:  2
CONFORMED PERIOD OF REPORT: 19970328
ITEM INFORMATION:  Acquisition or disposition of assets
FILED AS OF DATE:  19970415
SROS:   NASD

FILER:

 COMPANY DATA: 
  COMPANY CONFORMED NAME:   MERISEL INC /DE/
  CENTRAL INDEX KEY:   0000724941
  STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION: WHOLESALE-COMPUTER & PERIPHERAL EQUIPMENT & SOFTWARE [5045]
  IRS NUMBER:    954172359
  STATE OF INCORPORATION:   DE
  FISCAL YEAR END:   1231

 FILING VALUES:
  FORM TYPE:  8-K
  SEC ACT:  1934 Act
  SEC FILE NUMBER: 000-17156
  FILM NUMBER:  97580987

 BUSINESS ADDRESS: 
  STREET 1:  200 CONTINENTAL BLVD
  CITY:   EL SEGUNDO
  STATE:   CA
  ZIP:   90245-0984
  BUSINESS PHONE:  3106153080

 MAIL ADDRESS: 
  STREET 1:  200 CONTINENTAL BLVD
  CITY:   EL SEGUNDO
  STATE:   CA
  ZIP:   90245-0984

 FORMER COMPANY: 
  FORMER CONFORMED NAME: SOFTSEL COMPUTER PRODUCTS INC
  DATE OF NAME CHANGE: 19910509


8-K
1


                                
                                
               SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                     Washington, D.C. 20549
                                
                                
                                
                            FORM 8-K
                                
                         CURRENT REPORT
               Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of
               the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

                                
                 Date of Report: April 14, 1997


                                
                                
                          MERISEL, INC.
     (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
                                
                                
                                
Delaware                           0-17156               95-4172359
(State or other jurisdiction     (Commission File      (I.R.S. Employer
 of incorporation or              Number)               Identification Number)
 organization)                                       




                    200 Continental Boulevard
                   El Segundo, CA  90245-0984
            (Address of principal executive offices)
                           (Zip code)
                                
                                
                                
                         (310)  615-3080
      (Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

                                -1-

                                


Item 2.  Acquisition or Disposition of Assets

On March 31, 1997, Merisel, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
("Company") completed the sale of substantially all of the assets
of its wholly-owned subsidiary Merisel FAB, Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("Merisel FAB"),to ComputerLand Corporation
(ComputerLand), a wholly-owned subsidiary of SYNNEX Information
Technologies, Inc., a California corporation  ("Synnex"). Merisel
FAB operates the Company's Franchise and Aggregation
Business ("FAB").  The sale was effective as of March 28, 1997,
pursuant to a Purchase Agreement (the"Purchase Agreement") dated
January 15, 1997, as amended, among the Company, Merisel FAB, 
Computerland and Synnex.

The sale price, computed based upon the February 21,
1997 balance sheet of Merisel FAB was approximately $31,992,000
consisting of ComputerLand assuming $11,992,000 of trade
payables and accrued liabilities and a $20,000,000 extended
payable due to a third party.  As part the sale, the Company
agreed to extend rebates to Synnex on future purchases at a
defined rate per dollar of purchases, not to exceed $2,000,000.
The purchase price is subject to adjustments based upon Merisel
FAB's March 28, 1997 balance sheet.  In the quarter ended
December 31, 1996, the Company recorded an impairment charge of
$2,033,000 to adjust Merisel FAB's Assets to their fair value.

For additional information see the  March 31, 1997 press release 
of Merisel, Inc.,a copy of which is attached hereto as an exhibit.

Item 7.   Financial Statements and Exhibits

(a)  Financial Statements of Business Acquired.
     Not Applicable
(b)  Pro Forma Financial Information

The Following unaudited pro forma financial statements are filed
with this report:
    Pro Forma Condensed Consolidated Balance 
     Sheet as of December 31, 1996................................. Page 4
    Pro Forma Condensed Consolidated Statements of Earnings:
     Year Ended December 31,1996................................... Page 5
     Year Ended December 31,1995................................... Page 6
    Notes to Unaudited Pro Forma Condensed Consolidated
     Financial Statements....................................... Pages 7-8
               
                                -2-



     The unaudited Pro Forma Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet
of the Company as of December 31, 1996 reflects the financial
position of  the Company after giving effect to the disposition
of substantially all of FAB as discussed in Item 2 and assumes
the disposition took place on December 31, 1996.  The Pro Forma
Condensed Consolidated Statements of operations for the years
ended December 31, 1995 and December 31, 1996 assume that the
disposition occurred on January 1, 1995 and January 1, 1996, respectively
and are based on the operations of the Company for the years
ended December 31, 1995 and December 31, 1996.
     The unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated financial
statements presented herein are shown for illustrative purposes
only and are not necessarily indicative of the future financial
position or future results of operations of the Company, or of
the financial position or results of operations of the Company
that would have actually occurred had the transaction occurred as
of the date or for the periods presented.
     The unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated financial
statements should be read in conjunction with the historical
financial statements and related notes of the Company.

 (c) Exhibits

           2.1 Purchase Agreement dated as of  January 15, 1997
               by and among Merisel, Inc., Merisel FAB., Inc., Syn
               Fab, Inc., and Synnex Information Technologies, Inc.(1)

           2.2 Amendment No. 1 to Asset Purchase Agreement dated
               as of March 6, 1997. (1)

          99.1 Press release of Merisel, Inc. Dated
               March 31, 1997.
- -----------------
     (1)  Incorporated herein by reference to the Annual Report
          on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended
          December 28, 1996.

                                -3-




                     PRO FORMA FINANCIAL INFORMATION
                      MERISEL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
           UNAUDITED PRO FORMA CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET
                            (In thousands)
                                                              

                                      Pro Forma
                                    Adjustments
                            Historical                          
                            12/31/96   FAB      Other      Pro Forma
                                                
Current Assets:                                                   
Cash & Cash Equivalents     $ 44,678                        $44,678
Accounts Receivable (net of 
allowances)                  168,295   $6,850(a)            161,445
Inventories                  392,557                        392,557
Prepaid Expenses              16,925                         16,925
Income Taxes Receivable        2,183                          2,183
Deferred Income Tax Benefit      482                            482
                            --------   -------   --------   -------         
  Total current assets       625,120    6,850               618,270
                                                                  
Property and Equipment,                                        
  Net                         61,430      542(a)             60,888
                                                                  
Cost in Excess of Net                                             
Assets Acquired               41,724   15,374(b)             26,350
                                                      
Other Assets                   2,765                          2,765
                            --------   --------  --------   -------
Total Assets                 731,039   22,766               708,273
                            --------   --------  --------   ------- 
                            --------   --------  --------   -------         
Current Liabilities:                                              
Accounts Payable            $383,548  $25,711(a)           $357,837
Accrued Liabilities           37,543      952(a)  4,085(c)   40,676
Short-Term Debt                                                   
Long-Term Debt-Current         9,084                          9,084
Subordinated Debt-Current      4,400                          4,400
                            --------   --------  --------   ------- 
                             
  Total Current 
  Liabilities                434,575    26,663     4,085     411,997
                                                                  
Long-Term Debt               268,079                         268,079
Subordinated Debt             13,200                          13,200
other Long-term Debt             188     188(a)
                           ---------   --------   --------  --------  
  Total Liabilities          716,042    26,851      4,085    693,276
                           ---------   --------   --------  -------- 
                                                                  
  Total Stockholders'                                      
   Equity                     14,997   (4,085)     (4,085)    14,997
                                                                  
Total Liabilities and             
 Stockholders Equity        $731,039  $22,766               $708,273
                            --------  --------   ---------  --------
                            --------  --------   ---------  --------

See accompanying notes to unaudited pro forma condensed
consolidated financial statements.
                                -4-
                                

                         PRO FORMA FINANCIAL INFORMATION
                          MERISEL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                    UNAUDITED PRO FORMA CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED
                            STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS 
                    FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996
              
                      (In Thousands, Except Per Share Data)

                                                               
                                
                                   Pro Forma                  
                                  Adjustments                 
                         Historical                         
                         12/31/96     FAB (a)     Other      Pro Forma
                                                
                                                  
Net Sales              $5,522,824   $1,021,310              $4,501,514
Cost of Sales           5,233,570      984,515               4,249,055
                       ----------   ----------  ----------  ----------
Gross Profit              289,254       36,795                 252,459
Selling, General &                                        
 Administrative                                          
 Expenses                 295,021       33,689                 261,332
Impairment Loss            42,033       42,033
                       ----------   ----------  ----------  ----------
Operating Loss            (47,800)     (38,927)                 (8,873)
Loss on Sale of                                           
 European, Mexican and                                     
 Latin American                                            
 Operations                33,455                               33,455
Interest Expense           37,431          255                  37,176
Other Expense              20,150           58                  20,092
                       ----------   ----------  ----------  ----------
Loss Before Income 
 Taxes                   (138,836)     (39,240)                (99,596)
Income Tax Provision       (1,539)         (60)                 (1,479)
                       ----------   ----------  ----------  ----------       
                                
Net Loss                $(140,375)    $(39,300)              $(101,075)
                       ----------   ----------  ----------  -----------      
                       ----------   ----------  ----------  -----------      
                               
Net Loss Per Share      $  (4.68)                           $   (3.37)
                       ----------   ----------  ----------  -----------
                       ----------   ----------  ----------  -----------
                                               
Weighted Average 
 Number of Shares 
 Outstanding               30,001                               30,001
                      -----------                           ----------          
                      -----------                           ----------

See accompanying notes to unaudited pro forma condensed
consolidated financial statements.

                                -6-


                                 
                        PRO FORMA FINANCIAL INFORMATION
                                                                  
                         MERISEL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                   UNAUDITED PRO FORMA CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED
                            STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
                       FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995
            
                       (In Thousands, Except Per Share Data)

                                                              
                                   Pro Forma                      
                                   Adjustments
                         Historical                            
                          12/31/96     FAB (a)    Other      ProForma
                                               

Net Sales               $5,956,967  $1,141,094  $          $4,815,873
Cost of Sales            5,633,278   1,097,673              4,535,605
                        ----------  ----------  ---------- ----------        
                                                  
Gross Profit               323,689      43,421                280,268
Selling, General &                                        
 Administrative                                       
 Expenses                  317,195      41,468     2,986(b)   278,713
Impairment Losses           51,383      30,000                 21,383
Restructuring Charge         9,333                              9,333
                        ----------  ----------  ----------- ----------
                                  
Operating Loss             (54,222)    (28,047)    (2,986)    (29,161)
Interest Expense            37,583       4,210                 33,373
Other Expense               13,885         137                 13,748
                        ----------  ----------  ---------- ----------
                                  
Loss Before Income 
 Taxes                    (105,690)    (32,394)    (2,986)    (76,282)
Income Tax Benefit          21,779         903                 20,876
                        ----------  ----------  ---------- -----------
                                  
Net Loss                $  (83,911) $  (31,491)  $ (2,986)  $ (55,406)
                        ----------  ----------  ---------- ----------
                        ----------  ----------  ---------- ----------
                  
Net Loss Per Share      $   (2.82)                         $  (1.86)
                        ----------                         ----------
                        ----------                         ----------
                  
Weighted Average Number                                           
of Shares 
Outstanding                29,806                             29,806
                        -----------                        ----------
                        -----------                        ----------

See accompanying notes to unaudited pro forma condensed
consolidated financial statements.
                                -7-



Notes to the Unaudited Pro Forma Condensed Consolidated Financial
                           Statements

1.  General

The foregoing unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated
financial statements illustrate the effect of the sale by the
Company of substantially all the assets of Merisel FAB, Inc. to
ComputerLand Corporation ("ComputerLand"), a wholly owned
subsidiary of SYNNEX Information Technologies, Inc.  ("Synnex")
pursuant to a Purchase Agreement (the "Purchase Agreement") among
the Company, Merisel FAB, Inc., ComputerLand, and Synnex.
Merisel FAB operates the Company's Franchise and
Aggregation Business ("FAB").  The sales price, if
computed at December, 31 1996, would have been $26,850,000
consisting of $6,850,000 of trade payable and accrued liabilites
and a $20,000,000 extended payable due to Vanstar Corporation.
As part of the sale, the Company agreed to extend rebates to
Synnex on future purchases at a defined rate per dollar of
purchases, not to exceed $2,000,000.  The sales price is subject
to adjustments based upon the March 28, 1997 balance sheet.
Because the Company recorded an impairment charge of $2,033,000 
in the quarter ended December 31, 1996 to adjust Merisel FAB's 
assets to their fair value, the recognition of this sale as of 
December 31, 1996 would not result in a loss as follows:

Purchase price                                  26,850,000

Book value of FAB Assets purchased              (7,392,000)
Value of rebates to be paid to buyer            (2,000,000)
Intangible assets associated with FAB 
 to be written off                             (15,374,000)
Estimated direct and other costs 
 associated with the transaction                (2,084,000)
                                                ------------

Loss on Sale of FAB                                      0
                                                ------------
                                                ------------

2.  Pro Forma Balance Sheet Adjustments

a)FAB - Represents the historical unaudited December 31, 1996
balances for Merisel FAB for those assets transferred to, and liabilities 
assumed by ComputerLand.

b) Cost in excess of net asset acquired - Amounts relate to Merisel 
FAB which will be written off as a result of the sale.

c) Accrued Liabilities - Represents adjustments to accrue
$2,000,000 of rebates extended to Synnex as part of the purchase
agreement, and $2,085,000 of direct costs associated with the sale of FAB.

3.  Pro Forma Income Statement Adjustments for the Year Ended
December 31, 1996

a)FAB - Represents the historical unaudited December 31, 1996
balances for Merisel FAB which are eliminated to reflect the sale
of Merisel FAB.

4.  Pro Forma Income Statement Adjustments for the Year Ended
December 31, 1995

a)FAB - Represents the historical unaudited December 31, 1995
balances for Merisel FAB which are eliminated to reflect the sale
of Merisel FAB.

b)Selling, General and Administrative Expenses. In 1995 certain
corporate costs were allocated by Merisel to Merisel FAB
(corporate overhead, administrative expenses, etc.).  It is
likely that such costs  would not have been eliminated due to the
sale of FAB, and are therefore added back for the purposes of
this pro forma presentation.

                                -7-                                
                                
                           SIGNATURES
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Act
of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed
on its behalf by the undersigned, hereto duly authorized.
                                
                                
                                
                                
                            MERISEL, INC.




Date:  April 14, 1997         /S/ JAMES E. ILLSON
                              ----------------------------
                              James E. Illson, Senior Vice
                              President Finance, and Chief Financial
                              Officer
                              (Duly authorized officer and
                               principal financial officer)





EX-99
2




For Immediate Release
                                                              
                           Financial Media/Investor Relations:
                                                   Rivian Bell
                                                (310) 615-6812
                                                (310) 615-6868
                                (800) 686-1910 (24-hour pager)
                                                              
                                             Richard Bernhardt
                         Sr. Manager, Marketing Communications
                                      ComputerLand Corporation
                                                (510) 467-6097
                                 richard.bernhardt@merisel.com
                                                              

           Merisel Completes Sale of FAB Subsidiary

El Segundo, Calif.  (March 31, 1997) -- Merisel, Inc.
(NASDAQ:MSEL) announced today that, as of March 28, 1997, the
company has completed the sale of substantially all of the
assets of its wholly owned subsidiary, Merisel FAB, Inc., to
ComputerLand Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Synnex
Information Technologies, Inc., a Fremont, Calif.-based
distributor of microcomputers and communication, networking,
peripheral, and storage products. Merisel FAB, Inc. operated
the company's ComputerLand Franchise and Datago businesses.

Terms of the sale called for the buyer to acquire
substantially all of the assets and assume substantially all
of the liabilities of Merisel FAB, Inc.  The liabilities
assumed by the buyer include an extended payable of
$20,000,000 due to Vanstar Corporation. In the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 1996, Merisel, Inc. recorded an impairment charge of
$2,033,000 to adjust Merisel FAB's assets to fair market
value.

Merisel, Inc. (NASDAQ:MSEL) is a leader in the distribution of
computer hardware, software and networking products. Merisel
distributes a full line of 25,000 products to more than 45,000
resellers throughout the U.S. and Canada.
                               
Additional information can be obtained through the company's
World Wide Web site (http://www.merisel.com) or by requesting
information by fax at (310) 615-6811.

                           #  #   #




-----END PRIVACY-ENHANCED MESSAGE-----

Read More

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 the school bus full of students were killed in Orland CA in April 2014.  A little known accident beyond Alamo CA, was that of Mike Sevenau who like all the others burned alive.

In 2010, Eiko Sugihar was burned alive in Lafayette CA.  One thing about Ashley Turton is she was working for Duke

From WashingtonPost.com: Ashley W. Turton, 37, an energy company lobbyist and former chief of staff to Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro (D-Conn.), was found dead shortly before 5 a.m. in the SUV. The front end of the vehicle was charred and facing into the burning garage. The back end, less damaged than the front, was protruding slightly from the garage.

In 2004 not far from where Mike perished my F-250 burst into a ball of fire. There is one key difference between these victims and my story.  Even though I had fire engines and police on scene there is no police report.

On Sept 23rd, 2014 at the Contra Costa Board Of Supervisors the room was filled with all the heads of all the county departments presenting their feel good reports.  You know look at us, we're justifying our budget, and we're here to help the homeless.  On the 29th, my relatives were dead in Springville UT. 

The wort

When I lived in Danville there was a fatal fire on my street but two houses burned to the ground on Plaza Circle, around the corner from where Melody Lister died whose brother in-law knew Garrido.

Down the street my sons used to play with Ryan Fuchs, he's dead but David Bremer was beat to death in the county jail cell but it was baloney that killed him.

I'm posting what I know about David Bremer Murder because the first responder was Deputy Carlos Francia who was not at the Coroners Inquest but I was, it was a charade of perjury under oath. 

Read More