The Anatomy of Public Corruption

Lion Capital Slavery Statement

Will This Man Survive Another Incident or the Winter of 2018?
Banned from TrinityCenterwc.org
beaten, attacked, arrested, torched,
jailed, evicted, defrauded, poisoned.
 bacterial infections, heart attack, asthma attacks
 &
hospitalized plus ticketed to homelessness

Regency Centers Corp NYSE: REG (trespassing - Dec 2017)

SLAVERY AND HUMAN TRAFFICKING STATEMENT

SLAVERY AND HUMAN TRAFFICKING STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 54, PART 6 OF THE MODERN SLAVERY ACT 2015 (THE “ACT”)

This statement relates to the financial year ended 31 December 2016 and sets out the steps that Lion Capital LLP (“Lion Capital”, the “Firm” or “we”) has taken and intends to take to ensure that slavery and human trafficking is not taking place in its business or supply chains.

OUR STRUCTURE, BUSINESS AND SUPPLY CHAINS

The Firm is a global consumer-focused investor, with offices in London and Los Angeles. The Firm provides investment management services to various investment funds established in the United Kingdom (the “Funds”), which focus on making investments in Europe and North America.
As a private equity investor, our immediate supply chain is relatively short, consisting mainly of professional services firms.
The Funds that we manage invest in a number of portfolio companies. Though these portfolio companies do not form part of the Firm’s supply chain, we are committed to taking steps to confirm that each portfolio company’s management team understands any responsibilities it has under the Act and the need for it to put in place its own effective controls and training to protect against modern slavery being present in its own business and supply chains.
To this end, we have written to the management of those portfolio companies that we consider may be subject to the Act, to ensure that they understand their obligations under the Act. In addition, we have representation on each portfolio company board and, although not a standing agenda item, ensuring compliance with the Act and limiting the risk of modern slavery and human trafficking taking place in their business and supply chains remains a key consideration of the companies’ boards.

POLICY STATEMENT

In pursuit of best-in-class approach, Lion Capital is a signatory of the six UN supported Principles for Responsible Investment. The Firm is a responsible investment fund manager that strives to maintain the highest standards of integrity and professionalism in the conduct of its business. Lion Capital expects all of its portfolio companies and employees to comply with ESG-related legislation at a local, national and international level, including but not limited to applicable environmental, health and safety, anti-bribery and corruption and human rights legislation.
Lion Capital portfolio companies are actively involved in a collaboration project (“Not for Sale”) which raises awareness about human trafficking and, as an active board member of “Not for Sale”, in 2016 Lion Capital has promoted the prevention of human trafficking at various investor meetings and conferences.

OUR APPROACH TO DUE DILIGENCE

As part of the Firm’s standard investment due diligence process, Lion employs external advisers to conduct site visits, management interviews and public searches to diagnose any potential environmental/social liabilities, and ensure portfolio company compliance with Lion’s philosophy in these areas. At the point that a Fund acquires a portfolio
company, we ensure that such portfolio company’s management team is aware of their potential obligations under the Act.
We do not consider that the relationships within our immediate supply chain give rise to material risks in this area. However, we will be requiring key suppliers to confirm that their activities accord with the requirements of the Act.
We also have a dedicated Compliance Officer, who oversees the above process.

TRAINING

The Firm has provided details of this policy to all relevant staff. We ensure that all employees, on joining the Firm and periodically thereafter, review and familiarise themselves with the Firm’s policies to ensure that they can identify situations where there is a risk of modern slavery or human trafficking.

FURTHER STEPS

Additional steps that we intend to take in order to ensure that modern slavery and human trafficking is not taking place in our business or supply chains are:
  • to develop and enhance existing policies (if any) or create new policies relating to slavery and human trafficking, in order to provide a framework for identifying and monitoring activities within our business and supply chains that may be in breach of such policies;
  • to review our due diligence processes to ensure that they comply with our policies on slavery and human trafficking; and
  • to review current training provided in respect of our policies and their implementation and ensure the applicable level of training is delivered to employees so that they are more effective in identifying the existence or risk of slavery and human trafficking as part of the investment due diligence process.
This statement is made in accordance with section 54(1) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and constitutes Lion Capital LLP’s slavery and human trafficking statement for the financial year ended 31 December 2016. It has been endorsed by the Operating Committee on behalf of the Firm.
Robert Darwent
Designated Member
30 June 2017
JH Beaten By Police
Kevin Flanagan Outsourcing
Suicide at B of A
Murdered / Stabbed 27 Times
Son Framed
Mormon 
PG&E Ethics Program
PG&E Ethics Attorney
Ken Salazar
BOD for Target






Kenneth L. Salazar
Partner, WilmerHale
Kenneth L. Salazar is a Partner at WilmerHale, a full service business law firm, a position he has held since June 2013. Mr. Salazar served as the U.S. Secretary of the Interior from 2009 to 2013. Mr. Salazar previously served as U.S. Senator from Colorado and as Attorney General of Colorado. Mr. Salazar also serves on the Mayo Clinic Board of Trustees and is a member of its Audit & Compliance Committee and Information Management and Technology Oversight Committee. Mr. Salazar and his family are farmers and ranchers in Colorado.


BOD for Regency Centers 


Ernie Scherer III convicted of murdering parents in 2007.   Played Poker at WPT at same Casinos
Vadim Trincher arrested in Trump Tower 
Froze to Death Banned By
Trinity Center 
Relatives of
Pete Bennett
Walnut Creek
Formerly and Descendants

David Leslie Milne 417 Park Ave New York, NY



INVESTOR CODE OF CONDUCT

Lion Capital LLP (“Lion Capital” or the “Firm”) is a responsible investment fund manager that strives to maintain the highest standards of integrity and professionalism in the conduct of its business. The Firm encourages the furtherance of strong ethical and professional principles across all of its business activities, from its interactions with business owners and executives to its engagement of third-party advisors and its introduction to and ongoing partnership with institutions and individuals that commit capital to Lion Capital Sponsored Funds (“Investors”).
Lion Capital acknowledges its obligations to its Investors and, in addition to applicable laws, rules and regulations that govern investment firms, Lion Capital has implemented this Code of Conduct (“Code of Conduct”) to set forth certain guiding principles governing its interactions with its Investors and other related matters.
This Code of Conduct sets forth the expected standard of ethical and legal behaviour applicable to all Lion Capital Executives, emphasises the necessity of adherence to the highest standards of compliance and regulation and imposes requirements relating to transparency and accountability. All Lion Capital Executives are signatories to this Code of Conduct, which supplements the Firm’s Compliance Manual. Breach of this Code of Conduct is a serious matter for any such person and may lead to disciplinary action and, ultimately, termination of their employment with or membership of the Firm, as applicable.
Given the variety and complexity of the arrangements relating to Lion Capital, its business, investments, Investors and other stakeholders, this Code of Conduct necessarily only serves as a guide to the principles to be applied in any particular scenario. In case of any doubt, personnel should seek advice from the Firm’s Compliance Officer (Richard Lewis) or Lyndon Lea to ensure their actions comply with both the letter and spirit of this Code of Conduct.
Capitalised terms used herein and not otherwise defined, have the meanings given in Section 7.

SECTION 1: CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Lion Capital holds itself to the highest standard of conduct with respect to its interactions with Investors. In furtherance of this goal, Lion Capital prohibits activities which may contribute to or do not adequately address any conflict of interest between itself and its Investors.
Specifically, Lion Capital will not engage in:
- “revolving door” employment practices with respect to former employees of its Investors, to include employing or compensating in any way any executive, employee or fiduciary of an Investor for two years after termination of such person’s relationship with the Investor;
- the pursuit of any direct or indirect financial, commercial or business relationship with any Investor official, executive, employee or fiduciary, an employee or fiduciary of an investment adviser or consultant to an Investor, or any Relatives of such persons;
- the extension of improper gifts to Investor officials, executives, employees or fiduciaries in breach of section 4 of this Code;
- the misuse of confidential information supplied by Investors, but will use every effort to protect all sensitive or confidential Investor information and will use such information only for performing the services for which Lion Capital has been engaged.
Lion Capital is mindful of conflicts that may arise between itself and its Sponsored Funds and complies with both the governing agreements of these Funds in this regard and the regulatory rules and principles applicable to the Firm and its personnel.
All Executives are obliged to disclose to the Compliance Officer any material transaction or relationship that could give rise to a conflict of interest and may not enter into any such transaction unless and until it has been approved by the Firm.
Personal dealing and conflicts of interests are also specifically addressed by the Firm’s Compliance Manual.

SECTION 2: USE OF THIRD PARTIES TO SECURE INVESTOR COMMITMENTS

Lion Capital has used and is likely to continue to retain third parties in an advisory and/or fund-raising capacity to assist it in raising funds (“Placement Agents”). When engaging a Placement Agent, Lion Capital will enter into a written contract that specifies the scope of services to be performed and the fee arrangement. In addition, Lion Capital will only engage Placement Agents who adhere to (i) the Invest Europe 2017 Guidance for Placement Agents, as the same may be amended from time to time and (ii) this Code of Conduct insofar as it pertains to Placement Agents.
A. General Placement Agent Standards
Lion Capital will only retain a Placement Agent that:
- is registered and/or authorised with, and regulated by, as applicable, appropriate regulatory bodies in each jurisdiction in which it undertakes regulated activities;
- possesses the licenses or certifications required by legal, governmental, regulatory or self-regulatory organisations to which the Placement Agent or its representatives are subject;
- is in the habitual, systematised business of soliciting capital commitments from prospective Investors; and
- operates in an environment with established compliance and oversight processes.
Furthermore, Lion Capital will only engage a Placement Agent that:
- maintains high standards of probity, integrity and professionalism in the conduct of its business;
- performs reasonable due diligence in respect of potential Investors commensurate with the scope of its engagement;
- does not make or offer to make any payments or provide other consideration or benefit directly or indirectly with a view to inducing a prospective Investor to enter into contractual negotiations with Sponsored Funds; and
- employs appropriately qualified staff, authorised and supervised commensurate with the capacity in which they are employed and the jurisdictions in which they operate.
B. Restrictions on Placement Agents with Respect to Public Pension Funds
Lion Capital will not directly or indirectly hire, engage, utilise, retain or compensate any person or entity, including but not limited to any Placement Agent, lobbyist, Solicitor, intermediary or consultant, to directly or indirectly communicate for any purpose with any official, executive, employee or fiduciary of a Public Pension Fund in connection with any transaction or investment between Lion Capital and the Public Pension Fund where to do so would violate, or would cause Lion Capital or any of its Executives to violate, any laws, rules, regulations, policy statements or codes of conduct applicable to any such Public Pension Fund. Where appropriate this restriction shall include but shall not be limited to:
- introducing, finding, referring, facilitating, arranging, expediting, fostering or establishing a relationship with, or obtaining access to a Public Pension Fund.
- soliciting an investment from a Public Pension Fund; or
- influencing or attempting to influence the outcome of any investment or other financial decision by a Public Pension Fund.
For further clarity, the foregoing restrictions do not apply to:
- any Executive of Lion Capital who is acting within the scope of his or her normal professional duties on behalf of Lion Capital;
- any person or entity whose sole basis of compensation from Lion Capital is the actual provision of legal, accounting or other professional advice, services or assistance that is unrelated to any solicitation, introduction, finding, or referral of clients to Lion Capital or the brokering, fostering, establishing or maintaining of a relationship between Lion Capital and a Public Pension Fund; or
- lobbying of a government or legislature on issues unrelated to investment or other financial decisions by Public Pension Funds or their Advisors.

SECTION 3: RESTRICTIONS ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND SOLICITATIONS

Lion Capital’s policies on campaign contributions and solicitations are designed to (i) protect the integrity of Lion Capital’s fundraising activities pertaining to its Sponsored Funds by avoiding conflicts or the appearance thereof with politically connected Investors, (ii) prevent any Lion Capital Executive from attributing their personal political activities to Lion Capital and (iii) ensure that Lion Capital complies with applicable restrictions and limits on political contributions and gifts made by employees to any officeholders, candidates for office, and political action committees throughout the world.
In connection with the foregoing principles, Lion Capital does not make (nor encourage any Lion Capital Executive to make) Contributions to Officials and Public Pension Fund Officials. Any Lion Capital Executive wishing to make such a contribution privately must have this pre-cleared with the Compliance Officer.
Lion Capital Executives engaged in personal political activity (e.g., election campaign work, solicitation of contributions), that are not prohibited by this Code of Conduct, must not attribute such activity to Lion Capital. Lion Capital’s name, facilities, property and resources (including e-mails) may not be used in connection with political activities.
Contributions to any political organisation must be disclosed to, and approved by, the Compliance Officer.
New Executives of Lion Capital will be required to disclose to the Compliance Officer all Contributions to any political organisation made by such Executive within two years prior to joining Lion Capital or such longer period of time as may be determined by the Compliance Officer.

SECTION 4: GIFTS AND BUSINESS ENTERTAINMENT

It is the general policy of Lion Capital to not provide any of its Investors or prospective Investors with Gifts. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is understood that Lion Capital may hold periodic meetings of (i) some or all of its Investors or (ii) members of its Funds’ Investor Advisory Boards (or equivalent bodies) and attendees at such meetings may receive meals, accommodation, refreshments, participation in customary business-related activities (e.g., a round of golf) and Portfolio Company or Lion Capital branded items (such items limited to a value of $100 in each case).
In addition to the foregoing, Lion Capital may provide Business Entertainment to certain Investors (such as individual Investors) who are not subject to the same conflicts of interest considerations as other Investors. Any such entertainment above a de minimis value must be approved by the Compliance Officer. While any Business Entertainment provided to such Investors must be in accordance with the spirit of this Code, it is recognised that such Investors are not subject to the same constraints as individuals who themselves are subject to fiduciary obligations. Nonetheless, no Gift which is (or may be construed as) not customary business practice, or the purpose of which is to gain an unfair business advantage, shall be given or received by the Firm or any Executive.

SECTION 5: DISCLOSURES TO INVESTORS OR PROSPECTIVE INVESTORS

Upon request by any Lion Capital Investor, Lion will disclose all relevant information related to its engagement of Placement Agents and the qualifications of its Executives engaged in the solicitation of Investor commitments. Lion Capital will also provide a prospective Investor with the same information during such prospective Investor’s due diligence process, subject to such prospective Investor agreeing to customary confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements.

SECTION 6: EDUCATION AND TRAINING

All Lion Capital Executives must sign this Code of Conduct as an affirmation of their commitment to the standards and principles detailed within. Lion Capital will train all new relevant Executives on the requirements set out in the Code within a reasonable time of their joining of the Firm. On an annual basis, the Compliance Officer shall review the requirements set out within this Code with all of the Firm’s Executives and require a certification from each Executive attesting to their completion of the review.

SECTION 7: SELECTED DEFINITIONS

“Business Entertainment” means meals, sporting, theatre, concert and other events requiring tickets, travel, accommodation, conferences and other forms of ordinary course entertainment.
“Compliance Officer” means the designated Compliance Officer of Lion Capital or any other member who performs the functions of a compliance officer.
“Contribution” means any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made for:
(i) The purpose of influencing any election for office;
(ii) Payment of debt incurred in connection with any such election; or
(iii) Transition or inaugural expenses of the successful candidate for any such election.“Covered Person” means any person or entity that does business with or potentially could conduct business with or on behalf of Lion Capital and includes without limitation Lion Capital’s investors, portfolio companies, vendors, service providers, law firms, investment banks, broker dealers, accounting firms and consultants.
“Executive” means any partner, member, employee or other officer of the Firm.
“Gift” means any object, services, or other item of value (including tickets to an event unless the donor and recipient both attend the event) given or received by an Executive to or from a Covered Person.
“Government Entity” means a country or a state, or political subdivision of such country or state, including:
(i) Any agency, authority, or instrumentality of the country or state or a political subdivision of such;
(ii) Plan or pools of assets controlled by the country or state or a political subdivision of such or any agency, authority or instrumentality thereof; and
(iii) Officers, agents, or employees of the country or state or political subdivision of such or any agency, authority or instrumentality thereof, acting in their official capacity.
“Lobbying” shall mean, for the purposes of this Code of Conduct, any attempt to directly or indirectly influence a determination by a (1) Public Pension Fund Official, (2) Official, (3) any fiduciary of a Public Pension Fund, (4) Public Pension Fund Advisor, or (5) any other person or entity working in cooperation with any of the above, related to a procurement of investment management or advisory services by a Public Pension Fund, including without limitation a determination by a Public Pension Fund to place an investment with the Firm
“Official” means any person (including any election committee for the person) who was, at the time of a Contribution, an incumbent, candidate or successful candidate:
(i) For an elective office of a Government Entity, if the office is directly or indirectly responsible for, or can directly influence the outcome of, the Public Pension Fund’s investment with or engagement of the Firm; or
(ii) For any elective office of a Government Entity, if the office has authority to appoint any person who is directly or indirectly responsible for, or can directly influence the outcome of, the Public Pension Fund’s investment with or engagement of the Firm. Communication with an Official includes communications with the employees and advisors of such Official.
“Placement Agent” means any third party intermediary that is directly or indirectly hired, engaged, utilised, retained or compensated (regardless of whether upon a fixed, contingent or any other basis) or otherwise given any other tangible or intangible item or benefit having monetary value by the Firm for facilitating the placement of an investment in a Sponsored Fund. A Placement Agent does not include a bona fide Executive or any person whose sole basis of compensation from the Firm is the actual provision of legal, accounting or other professional advice, services or assistance unrelated to soliciting, introducing, finding, or referring clients to the Firm or attempting to influence in any way an existing or potential investment in or business relationship with the Firm.
“Public Pension Fund” means any retirement plan established or maintained for its employees (current or former) by the government of any country or political subdivision thereof, or by any agency or instrumentality of any of the foregoing.
“Public Pension Fund Advisor” means any external firm or individual engaged by a Public Pension Fund to assist in the selection of investments or investment management or advisory services for the Public Pension Fund.
“Public Pension Fund Official” means any elected or appointed trustee or other official, staff member or employee whose official duties involve responsibility for a Public Pension Fund.
“Relative” means a person related by blood or affinity (including a domestic partner) who resides in the same household. A person adopted into a family is considered a relative on the same basis as a natural born family member.
“Solicitor” means any person or entity who in any way, directly or indirectly, solicits, finds, introduces or refers any client to the Firm, including without limitation any intermediary, consultant, broker, introducer, referrer, finder, public- or government-relations expert, or marketer. A Solicitor does not include any bona fide Executive or any person whose sole basis of compensation from the Firm is the actual provision of legal, accounting or other professional advice, services or assistance that is unrelated to any solicitation, introduction, finding, or referral of clients to the Firm or the brokering, fostering, establishing or maintaining a relationship between the Firm and a Public Pension Fund.
“Sponsored Fund” means an investment fund sponsored, managed or advised by the Firm or its affiliat
Share:

HAROLD LITWIN v. Blackhawk Network Holdings, Inc. COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS





Pete Bennett former ComputerLand programmer legal documents (originals) were stolen in 2004 members of Alamo 1st Ward (Danville Stake, Oakland Temple). The Strack Family was murdered weeks after Bennett sent letters to the FBI, CPUC, City of Walnut Creek, City of San Bruno and other interested parties.  
Bennett is also a former PG&E Contract Programmer with connections to the energy sector, telecommunications plus retained as an expert witness in the matter of Keithley v. Homestore, Realtor.com, Move.com, National Association of Realtors over a patent case.  Bennett's 2004 proposal was pivotal in winning their case.  Represented by Alston Bird their took their win and forget to pay their witness. 
SilverLake Partners, P2 Capital Partners and executives named in this document are linked via many notable private equity transactions

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Plaintiff brings this action against Blackhawk Network Holdings, Inc. (“Blackhawk” or the “Company”) and its Board of Directors (the “Board” or the “Individual Defendants”) for their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 78n(a), 78t(a), and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. 240.14a-9, and to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Blackhawk will be acquired by Silver Lake Partners (“Silver Lake”) and P2 Capital Partners, LLC (“P2 Capital Partners,” and together with Silver Lake, the “Sponsors”), through BHN Holdings, Inc. (“Parent”) and Parent’s wholly-owned subsidiary, BHN Merger Sub, Inc. (“Merger Sub”) (the “Proposed Transaction”).
ANIL D. AGGARWAL, ARUN SARIN, Blackhawk Network Holdings, Inc., MOHAN GYANI, Paul Hazen, RICHARD H. BARD  STEVEN A. BURD, ROBERT B. HENSKE, ROBERT L. EDWARDS, TALBOTT ROCHE, WILLIAM Y. TAUSCHER,


Through years of research, details hidden in the catacombs of the SEC, banking, cover-ups and plenty that are now cataloged on DeadWitness.com where Mr. Pete Bennett has chased the powerful to kidnappings, mistresses, evangelicals and Mormons can connect cases from Virginia Beach to San Francisco to Barcelona. 


About Silver Lake Partners and TPG 

Sabre Holdings to Be Acquired by TPG and Silver Lake ...

https://www.sabre.com/insights/releases/sabre-holdings-to-be-acquired-by-tpg-and...
(NYSE:TSG), Silver Lake Partners and Texas Pacific Group (TPG) today announced that they have signed a definitive agreement under which Silver Lake Partners and TPG will acquire Sabre Holdings for $32.75 per share in cash. The transaction is valued at approximately $5 billion, including the assumption of approximately $550 million in net debt ...

About the Federal Bribery Case involving TPG Growth and TPG Partners 

William E. McGlashan Jr. (born November 20, 1963) is an American businessman and former international private equity investor. McGlashan founded TPG Growth[1], the growth equity and smaller buyout investment arm of TPG Capital, a global private equity investment firm.[2] He is also a founder and was the initial-CEO of The Rise Fund, a social impact fund he co-founded with Bono and Jeff Skoll.[3]
McGlashan is a co-founder and a former board member of STX Entertainment, an American film and television studio launched in 2014 with Robert Simonds,[4] and a cofounder and director of Evolution Media Capital.[5]
McGlashan was arrested March 12, 2019, after being caught on FBI audio recordings, for participating in a college admissions bribery scandal. He was then fired for cause by TPG.

  • McGlashan was a senior associate with Bain Capital and Information Partners.
  • McGlashan was active on a number of boards, including Fender Musical Instruments Corporation
  • He is also the founder of The Rise Fund, a social impact fund started by TPG Growth in partnership with Elevar Equity.[16] 

Share:

Freed from LinkedIN Prison

Share:

A Spontaneous Conversation with Broadway Pointe and Broadway Plaza

Spontaneous Conversation with Broadway Pointe and Broadway Plaza 

During 1980s, these properties were controlled by separate families, partnerships and ownership.  Today they are the same parties that evicted me from 1360 Peach Street, Towed my Ford Explorer from Broadway Pointe Garage and arrested me for trespassing.

Through I am telling my story through a series of videos while explaining when you go up against the Democratic Party - your family will be killed.  

Perfectly Framed

A student convicted of a brutal murder, Beautiful children killed by the Mom, The Clayton Molotov Cocktails, Munchausen Proxy
View details »

Share:

The Good Side of Tactical Policing by Walnut Creek Police Department







Share:

BlackRock - Overview

Share:

GE, ABN AMRO, AIG, Nationwide, Nordstrom, Bank of America, Barclays, ING, UBS

A good example of how the industry crisscrosses and overlaps to investors, banking, real estate, retail where today it's Enterprize this, that or outsource this and that get a new career jack but give us your sons and daughters for our next adventure.  

On the Web:
http://www.Backbase.com/
Backbase is the maker of Backbase CXP, the award-winning customer experience platform that helps enterprises create omni-channel, customer-centric digital experiences. Backbase CXP deploys a new, omni-channel presentation layer over underlying infrastructure and IT systems, allowing enterprises to deliver personal, relevant experiences to customers on every device, in any context. Backbase CXP gives enterprises the tools and functionality they need to transform their tired online and mobile channels into engaging customer experiences, holistically managed from a single platform.
Industry analysts Gartner, Forrester and Ovum recognize Backbase as a leader in terms of customer experience, mobile and omni-channel focus, innovation and time-to-value. Unlike most traditional IT portal vendors, Backbase has created a modern, business-driven solution that makes CXP management easy for digital professionals. This means lower costs, and more flexibility for optimizing all online channels without the need for IT support. Backbase CXP’s lean, widget-based architecture provides the flexibility and agility enterprises need to create modern experiences that truly empower business owners and customers.
The unique Backbase approach enables enterprises to drive self-service, fuel online revenues and turn their online channel into a full-service customer experience platform. Global organizations such as GE, ABN AMRO, AIG, Nationwide, Nordstrom, KPN, Bank of America, Barclays, ING, UBS and Visa have improved their online customer interactions and maximized online customer experience, retention and conversion, by leveraging Backbase’s technology.
Learn more about this comprehensive solution for relationship banking in Provide Unparallelled Bank Customer Experiences....Everyday
(PDF)
Share:

The 3 Most Evil People Electrocuted in Florida’s “Old Sparky” Killed little of HS friend

The 3 Most Evil People Electrocuted in Florida’s “Old Sparky”


Arthur Frederick Goode III

A serial killer, a black widow, and a pedophile
by Robert A. Waters

Ted Bundy

The definition of serial killer is “Ted Bundy.” He murdered 35 young women, almost all with long black hair parted in the middle. After bludgeoning them to death, he raped their corpses. While being tried for a murder in Colorado, Bundy escaped. He fled to Tallahassee where he lived incognito for several months before breaking into the Chi Omega sorority house and clubbing two women to death. He was finally caught after kidnapping and raping a twelve-year-old girl, then dumping her body in a hog-pen.

Bundy was the most hated man ever on Florida’s Death Row. Floridians even made up a poem about him: “Fry Bundy, Fry! Die Bundy, Die!” Okay, it wasn’t the greatest verse in the world, but it made its point. During his trial, the killer defended himself, adding yet another layer of notoriety to his growing legend as the country’s premier serial murderer.

Bundy was terrified of Old Sparky. He attempted to gain a few more days of life by claiming he could lead authorities to additional unknown murder victims, but the governor turned him down. At 7:00 A.M., as he was being led to the chair, many Florida radio stations interrupted their programming to play the sizzling sound of bacon frying.

Judias Buenoano

It was almost unheard of for a woman to get the chair, so you knowBuenoano was evil. At first, when her husbands started dying, no one thought much about it. After all, they expired in their beds after suffering debilitating illnesses. But when her latest boyfriend’s car exploded with him in it, cops began investigating her background. They exhumed five dead ex-husbands and boyfriends. A boat-load of arsenic was found in the systems of each, as well as in a son who’d drowned. Cops also found bomb-making material in her home.

It was her son’s murder that jumped Buenoano from routine black widow serial killer to hated monster. Michael Goodyear joined the U. S. Air Force when he was 19 and made the fatal mistake of naming his mother as the beneficiary of his $100,000 life insurance policy. When he came home on leave, he contracted a mystery disease that left him paralyzed from the neck down. From then until his death, Goodyear could only walk or lift his arms with the aid of metal braces.

One nice sunny day, Buenoano loaded her son into a rented canoe on the East River in Pensacola. As soon as they rounded a bend where no witnesses could see her, Buenoano dumped her son into the water. The prosecutor stated that “[Michael Goodyear] had 15 pounds of braces on his legs without a life jacket. He was taken up the river in a canoe and basically pitched out.” Buenoano, as was her habit, quickly cashed in his insurance policy.

Before she was executed, Buenoano claimed to have found Jesus. But, unlike Karla Faye Tucker (another female killer who was executed), no one believed her. Only a few hardcore death penalty opponents could muster up the stomach to protest her execution—everybody else in Florida thought Old Sparky gave her exactly what she deserved.

Arthur F. Goode 

An unapologetic pedophile, Arthur Frederick Goode III began molesting young boys before he was a teenager. Freddy, as he was called, was eventually admitted to a mental health facility in his home state of Maryland, but soon walked away. Gravitating south, he kidnapped a nine-year-old boy from his school-bus stop in Lee County, Florida. After savagely raping the child, Freddy strangled him to death.

The killer fled back to Maryland, where he kidnapped two more boys.  He murdered one of the children before being captured--the second boy later testified against Goode at his trial in Florida. Freddy was convicted and sentenced to Death Row.

While there, he wrote graphic letters to the parents of his victims. He granted many interviews in which he defended his actions, claiming his pre-teen victims enjoyed being sodomized. Freddy declared that he committed the murders to protest a culture that would not let him indulge in sex with children. In one interview, he stated: “There's nothing wrong with me. It's the damn people in society who are prejudiced against pedophilia.” While he awaited his date with Old Sparky, Goode attempted to recruit children as pen-pals so he could engage in his twisted fantasies.

It was said that the other prisoners and guards at Raiford hated him even more than they hated Bundy. That speaks volumes about old Freddy. On the day he died, Goode requested one last “session” with a young boy. This was denied, and the most hated man on Florida’s death row left the prison on a one-way trip to Hell.
Share:

Arthur Frederick Goode, Iii - Killer of Jason Verdow


Arthur Frederick Goode, Jr., Individually and As Next Friendacting on Behalf of Arthur Frederick Goode, Iii,petitioner-appellant, v. Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary of Corrections, Dept. Of corrections of the State of Florida, et al.,respondents-appellees, 731 F.2d 1482 (11th Cir. 1984)

 
US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit - 731 F.2d 1482 (11th Cir. 1984)

April 4, 1984


Sanford Bohrer, Charles Senatore, Miami, Fla., for petitioner-appellant.
Charles Corces, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, Fla., for respondents-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, and RONEY and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:
Petitioner Arthur Frederick Goode, III, through his father and next friend, is a Florida prisoner under sentence of death for killing a ten-year-old boy. For the previous history of this case see Goode v. Wainwright, 704 F.2d 593 (11th Cir. 1983); Wainwright v. Goode, --- U.S. ----, 104 S. Ct. 378, 78 L. Ed. 2d 187 (1983); Goode v. Wainwright, 725 F.2d 106 (11th Cir. 1984).
In our 1984 opinion we affirmed the denial of the writ. Then, pursuant to Florida Statute 922.07, the governor of Florida entered an executive order appointing a commission of three psychiatrists to examine Goode. The members of the commission advised the governor that, based upon their examination, Goode (in the language of the statute) understood the nature and the effect of the death penalty and why it was to be imposed upon him. Thereafter, on March 6, the governor signed a warrant directing the execution of Goode; execution is scheduled for April 5, 1984.
On March 30, 1984 Goode filed a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Supreme Court of Florida, and that court entered its opinion and decision April 2. Goode raised two issues for the first time: (1) that he is presently insane and that it violates the Constitution to execute an insane person, and (2) that Florida Statute 922.07 denies him procedural due process. The Florida Supreme Court rejected both issues on the merits.
On April 3 petitioner filed in the United States District Court, M.D. Florida, a petition for the writ of habeas corpus, raising only the two issues that had been raised in the Florida Supreme Court. The district court, without a hearing but with a lengthy opinion, denied the writ April 4, 1984. The court denied a certificate of probable cause and denied a stay of execution.
The matter is now before this court on notice of appeal, application for CPC, and motion for stay of execution and for emergency relief.
The second claim, the attack on the Florida statute, is made on procedural due process grounds. We hold that the statute meets minimum standards required by procedural due process. Solesbee v. Balkcom, 339 U.S. 9, 70 S. Ct. 457, 94 L. Ed. 604 (1950); see also Caritativo v. California, 357 U.S. 549, 78 S. Ct. 1263, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1531 (1958).
The first claim is rooted in substantive due process and the eighth amendment. In its opinion of April 2 the Florida Supreme Court held that in Florida an insane person cannot be executed. There has been no conclusive determination whether there is such a constitutional entitlement under federal law.1  Assuming that there is such a right, we agree with the district court that petitioner is barred from raising it in this case because of abuse of the writ. Woodard v. Hutchins, --- U.S. ----, 104 S. Ct. 752, 78 L. Ed. 2d 541 (1984); Rule 9(b) foll. 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
In his first federal habeas case Goode contended that he was not competent to stand trial or to waive trial counsel. This court rejected both contentions. 704 F.2d at 596-99. Petitioner asserts that his substantive due process/eighth amendment claim is a newly ripened claim that could not be presented until the governor had gone through the Sec. 922.07 procedures. This theory assumes that the issue of insanity vel non barring execution is dependent upon the governor's implementation of the statutory procedures of Sec. 922.07.2  This is not so. If Goode contended, on substantive due process and eighth amendment grounds, that he could not be executed because of post-conviction insanity, he was free to assert this contention in state and federal courts from the time that the state court sentenced him to death; thereby he could secure an orderly determination of his then current mental condition. Certainly he could have raised the issue when the governor signed his first execution warrant in 1982. Goode has made no such contention in his state merits appeal, in his state collateral attack on his conviction, or in his first federal habeas case.
If the substantive due process/eighth amendment issue of alleged insanity barring execution had been timely raised and determined in court, circumstances might thereafter have changed, and an updated determination of competency might thereafter have been made based on a showing of changed conditions. But this does not mean that post-conviction insanity could be held back as an issue until the eve of execution and then raised for the first time.
The motion for certificate of probable cause is DENIED. The motion for stay is DENIED.
 1
Gray v. Lucas, 710 F.2d 1048 (5th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 104 S. Ct. 211, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1453 (1984)
 2
There has been no authoritative determination of the standards for insanity that bar execution. Gray v. Lucas, supra
Share:

Anchor links for post titles

Popular Posts

Blog Archive

Labels

Recent Posts

Popular Posts

Labels

Recent Posts

Pages

Labels

Blog Archive

Recent Posts