The Anatomy of Public Corruption

Connecting Success Factors to Bennett

The Dubious Phone Call and Time Wasting Project
The folks at TPG will have to answer to my Whistleblower Complaints on the truly odd collection of RFPs emanating from companies connected to Richard Blum, William McGlashan, CBRE, Regency Centers, Trammel Crow, Lennar, Catellus, Prologis, The State Bar of California, Securities and Exchange Commission. 


Bennett v. Southern Pacific

My story is about witness murders, private equity, mergers and acquisitions linked back to the Matter of Bennett v. Southern Pacific lost in 1989.  It was a winnable case as long the witnesses testified.  
xxxx2
xxxx9
March 24, 2019 12:23 AM ET

Communication Services

Company Overview of STX Productions, LLC

Key Executives For STX Productions, LLC

NameBoard RelationshipsTitleAge
Robert Bruce Simonds Jr.No RelationshipsCo-Founder, Chairman & CEO54
William E. McGlashan Jr.No RelationshipsCo-Founder and Director54
Andrew C. WarrenNo RelationshipsChief Financial Officer52
Thomas B. McGrathNo RelationshipsChief Operating Officer--
Oren AvivNo RelationshipsPresident of Motion Picture Group and Chief Content Officer for Motion Picture Group--
View More Key Executives

STX Productions, LLC Board Members*

NameBoard RelationshipsPrimary CompanyAge
There is no Board Members data available.

STX Productions, LLC Executive Committees*

Committee NameChairpersonBoard RelationshipsMembers
There is no committee data available.
Share:

Silver Lake Partners buys out Blackhawk Networks while ComputerLand Employee lose their retirement?

Connecting Silver Lake Partners, William Tauscher to 500 La Gonda Way, Developer Sid Corrie, Attorney Daniel Horowitz defending Attorney William McCann then several years later the murder of Pamela Vitale wife of

Horowitz to ComputerLand corporate.   

Pete Bennett former ComputerLand programmer uncovered a spate of dubious RMAs.    

When $250,000 or more of Apple IIe came back in November 1995 by then my reports were proving something was wrong.  That was arround they disassembled the server room put it on my cubicle line where electicsal sparks began  

Bennett developed the Reports friends of former Safeway CEO Steve Burd flipped Bennett's trailer after they blew up his truck and to think I actually know CEO Steve Burd.
Oh Yeah, I forget Mainframe Designs Cabinets & Fixtures built hundreds of their End Caps, Displays, Racks and Stands plus hundreds of Coffee Displays. 




The folks at TPG will have to answer to my Whistleblower Complaints on the truly odd collection of RFPs emanating from companies connected to Richard Blum, William McGlashan, CBRE, Regency Centers, Trammel Crow, Lennar, Catellus.

My story is about witness murders, private equity, mergers and acquisitions linked back to the Matter of Bennett v. Southern Pacific lost in 1989.  It was a winnable wherese as long the witnesses testified.  
xxxx2


Share:

The Movie Pitch - Did TPG Kill my relatives, friends or witnesses?

Connecting Sony to Bennett

The Dubious Phone Call and Time Wasting Project
The folks at TPG will have to answer to my Whistleblower Complaints on the truly odd collection of RFPs emanating from companies connected to Richard Blum, William McGlashan, CBRE, Regency Centers, Trammel Crow, Lennar, Catellus.

My story is about witness murders, private equity, mergers and acquisitions linked back to the Matter of Bennett v. Southern Pacific lost in 1989.  It was a winnable case as long the witnesses testified.  
xxxx2
Sony Pictures Entertainment Corporate Communications
10202 West Washington Blvd.
Culver City, California 90232
xxxx12
Share:

You'll need "Food from the Bar" after your witnesses have been killed.



The Koko Challenge

Food From The Bar? The folks at TPG will have to answer to my Whistleblower Complaints on the truly odd collection of RFPs emanating from companies connected to Richard Blum, William McGlashan, CBRE, Regency Centers, Trammell Crow, Lennar, Catellus




Law Firms Launch Class Action against Bay Area Poverty


Posted on September 26, 2011, by United Way in Pathways Out of Poverty

How many lawyers in gorilla suits does it take to tackle poverty? It might sound like joke, but to the 31 Bay Area law firms competing in United Way's Koko Challenge this year, fighting poverty is something they all take very seriously.


Every year, the legal community comes together to raise money to fight poverty. Competition is fierce, and top winners receive stuffed gorillas as a prize. Law firms have been known to station their gorillas proudly in their lobbies,
symbolizing their dedication to the community.


On September 22, we kicked-off the 24th annual Koko Challenge, Last year, 21 participating firms raised $1.5 million. With 10 new firms joining the Challenge this year, we're excited to see the legal community once again raise the bar for philanthropy
in the Bay Area.

The theme of this year's challenge is "Class action against poverty," to align with United Way's community effort to cut in half the number of local families who live in poverty by the year 2020.

Gap, Inc. General Counsel Michelle Banks, chair of this year's Koko Cabinet, announced this year's goal to raise $1.8 million, with $700,000 directed to United Way.

The Fremont Group General Counsel Rick Kopf chimed in, urging everyone to increase their gifts by 20% and direct it to United Way programs: SparkPoint, Community Schools, MatchBridge, 211 and Earn It! Keep It! Save It! This collective
increase would raise an additional $300,000 for United Way, and enable us to continue to operate and expand our poverty fighting programs.

The spirit and enthusiasm of Shook, Hardy and Bacon LLP Partner Kevin Haroff was hard to match as he had already purchased his own gorilla suit. To help raise spirits - as well as funds - during this year's Challenge, he offered to wear the gorilla suit to any event hosted by the 10 new participating firms.

Many thanks to Shook, Hardy and Bacon LLP, winner of last year's Baby Koko award and host of our kick-off event. And, thank you to the Koko Koko Cabinet, a volunteer committee that oversees the Challenge (listed below). The Challenge would not be possible
without your support and enthusiasm.


For more information about how you can join the 2010-2011 Koko Challenge please contact Danielle Cohen (415) 808-4322 or dcohen@uwba.org.



ddd
ddd

Bennett v. Southern Pacific

Pete Bennett awaiting CT Scan for one of many attacks

Valley View Veterinary

Customer of Mainframe Designs Cabinets and Fixtures.   Harve and Kieko Ringheim brutally murdered in their Dublin home in 1986

The Challenge to the Koko

Go ProBono for Pete Bennett ~ but just remember his witnesses, family and clients have been murdered.
The folks at TPG will have to answer to my Whistleblower Complaints on the truly odd collection of RFPs emanating from companies connected to Richard Blum, William McGlashan, CBRE, Regency Centers, Trammell Crow, Lennar, Catellus, Southern Pacific and others.  



Highlighted Events












2011 - 2012 Koko Cabinet

sss
  • Michelle Banks, EVP, General Counsel, Gap, Inc. - Chair
  • Charles S. Custer, Partner, Gordon & Rees LLP
  • Nancy Greenan Hamill, Campus Counsel, UC Santa Barbara
  • Kevin Haroff, Partner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP
  • David A. Hearth, Partner, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker
  • Michael W. Kelly, Partner, Squire, Sanders & Dempsey LLP
  • Rick Kopf, Managing Director, Operations & General Counsel, The Fremont Group
  • R. Hewitt Pate, VP, General Counsel, Chevron Corporation
  • James Potter, SVP, General Counsel, Del Monte Foods
  • Jay J. Price, Assistant General Counsel, Bank of America See Pete Bennett
  • Bill Sawyers, EVP, CAO & General Counsel, Ernst Gallo Clinic and Research Center
  • Jim Strother, EVP, General Counsel, Wells Fargo & Co.
  • Vanessa Washington, Senior EVP, General Counsel & Secretary, Bank of the West Delta  no
Richard Rainey and the Mormons

In the matter of Bennett vs. Southern Pacific a witness murder went down in 1989. The witness was slated to testify on behalf of Pete Bennett. The case fell apart on the courthouse steps. Judge Peter Spinetta should be a hostile witness now living in Darby Montana.

Southern Pacific Attorney Richard Stanford Kopf worked at SP from before the 1973 Roseville Rail Yard exploded until the end of days for Southern Pacific. Richard Stanford Kopf The PG&E Drama During early 2011 a PG&E vendor hailing from Roswell Georgia contracted Pete Bennett with a software project related to the San Bruno Explosion. During 2011, Pete Bennett was hired during a very desperate time. Recently chased from Walnut Creek from offices in Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, San Francisco, and just about everywhere suddenly connects with PG&E. Pete is a local Bay Area Developer but then was homeless and desperate for work and money. What Bennett uncovered was the project was fake project or fake news. By summer his sons were kidnapped by a Walnut Creek Police officer who was once Sgt Keeler connected to the 1988 Murder of Safeway Manager Cynthia Kempf. It took several years to find the connections between Southern Pacific, PG&E, Kinder Morgan< Oracle, The World Trade Center Bombings and officers arrested in narcotics taskforce scandal.
Share:

Honest Services Fraud: You May Already Be Guilty!

Honest Services Fraud: You May Already Be Guilty!

The Dubious Phone Call and Time Wasting Project
The folks at TPG will have to answer to my Whistleblower Complaints on the truly odd collection of RFPs emanating from companies connected to Richard Blum, William McGlashan, CBRE, Regency Centers, Trammel Crow, Lennar, Catellus , Southern Pacific, Union Pacific, BNSF,

My story is about witness murders, private equity, mergers and acquisitions linked back to the Matter of Bennett v. Southern Pacific lost in 1989.  It was a winnable case as long the witnesses testified.  
xxxx2
xxxx9

Wow! The TPG Saga leads to Walnut Creek, Danville, Southern Pacific and Billionaire Philip Anschutz

All criminal acts contain a component of dishonesty. But do all dishonest acts contain a component of criminality? A brief digression if you please.

A university student schemed with his professor to turn in plagiarized work. He should have been kicked out of school, but instead found himself with a criminal conviction.

A New York lawyer traded side payments to insurance adjusters in exchange for the accelerated processing of his clients' awaiting claims. He made a visit to the state penitentiary when he should have been disbarred.

A prominent Mississippi trial lawyer legally donated money to the state's Democratic Party and then appeared as a lawyer before the judicial candidates who received his donations. All he got for his hard-earned money was a damp prison cell.

You must be wondering: What law did these random private individuals violate? Drum roll please: they were all convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1346—commonly referred to as "honest services fraud." The honest services provision is 28 open-ended words that have created a buzz in the legal community:
For the purposes of this chapter, the term "scheme or artifice to defraud" includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.
The situations discussed above are just some recent examples of the harmless acts of dishonesty that have branded a growing number of unfortunate people forevermore as criminals. It might seem hard to imagine, but similar dishonest conduct could land you in handcuffs.

Sound a little crazy? Well, it certainly is! Prosecutors across America are using honest services fraud to combat a wide array of dishonest acts. But is it really their job to get in the sandbox and play mom? Should ordinary people be held criminally responsible for everyday acts of dishonesty—especially when they are not violating any other law?

Scalia's Scrutiny
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia does not seem to think so. In his recent scathing dissent from the majority opinion in Sorich v. United States, 129 U.S. 1308 (2009), he called for a review of honest services fraud. He cited various examples to show the unfairness and utter preposterousness of the honest services provision and stated that "[i]t is simply not fair to prosecute someone for a crime that has not been defined until the judicial decision that sends him to jail."

Justice Scalia listed numerous examples to illustrate why the provision is just too broad. He argued that a state senator who voted for a bill only to appease a small minority essential to her reelection, a mayor who used the prestige of his office to obtain a table at a restaurant, a public employee who recommended an incompetent friend for a public contract, and a self-dealing corporate officer would all be in violation of this criminal law. What Justice Scalia is attempting to demonstrate is how easily an individual can unknowingly fall within the scope of the honest services provision.

Running a quick Google search reveals why the blogosphere has been buzzing for months. Every commentator and his dog have weighed in on the issue and breadth of honest services fraud. Some applaud the law's ability to criminalize a wide range of unethical behavior, while others share Justice Scalia's perspective and view the law as overreaching. However, most are deeply troubled by the politically motivated uses of the honest services provision. The controversy surrounds the use of the law to punish a wide range of seemingly immoral and unethical behavior.

The problem with the honest services provision is that the outer boundary of the law is unclear. It is impossible for individuals, like the increasing number of private citizens convicted under the statute, to know when dishonest acts become criminal. The fine line between criminality and dishonesty is ultimately determined not by the wording of the law, but by the discretion of individual prosecutors.

Justice Scalia recognized this dilemma in Sorich and called for an immediate review of the law. Although his colleagues disagreed with him at that time, the Supreme Court has the opportunity once more to review honest services fraud in the appeal, which was recently granted certiorari from the Seventh Circuit, of Canadian media tycoon Conrad Black.

The Supreme Court should take this opportunity to restrict the use of honest services fraud to its original purpose: prohibiting dishonest acts by public officials. Given the range of civil remedies available in the United States, there is no need to use honest services fraud to prosecute private actors.

History of Honest Services Fraud
The provisions for both wire and telephone fraud require a "scheme or artifice to defraud." Up until 1987, courts were expanding the fraud provisions to prohibit any conduct by a public official that deprived citizens of their intangible rights to honest services and impartial government. The Supreme Court rejected this interpretation of the provisions in McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987). The court held that this form of official corruption and misconduct did not constitute fraud under the wording of the provisions. McNally overturned a line of appellate court decisions, as the Supreme Court clearly said: "If Congress desires to go further, it must speak more clearly."

One year later, in an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court's decision, Congress enacted the honest services provision. Congress failed in its attempt to restore the law to its pre-McNallystate, and these 28 words have wreaked havoc ever since. For two decades, courts struggled to define the intangible right of honest services and to determine to whom the right is owed. Prosecutors artfully seized the opportunity created by this uncertainty and have used the provision to police an assortment of private conduct.
The "terse amendment," as Justice Scalia states, created broader prosecutorial freedom than under the pre-McNally law. Although the amendment's original use was to prosecute people in the public realm, the stories above demonstrate how its use has expanded over the past 21 years. Prosecutors now use it as a powerful tool when policing the private realm. What was intended to be a criminal offense applicable only to public officials has evolved into a device to criminalize otherwise legal activities.

In the private sector, the appellate courts are split on the requirements for honest services fraud. Some courts recognized the need to restrain the law's scope, while others have allowed prosecutors to run wild. As Justice Scalia stated in Sorich, "without some coherent limiting principle to define what 'the intangible right of honest services' is, when it derives, and how it is violated, this expansive phrase invites abuse by headline-grabbing prosecutors in pursuit of local officials, state legislators, and corporate CEOs who engage in any manner of unappealing or ethically questionable conduct."

Some courts have narrowed the law's scope by requiring a breach of a fiduciary duty or the violation of a state law. Other limitations, like intent requirements or proof of actual economic harm, have been used to narrow the scope of the honest services provision. Although these additional requirements are not apparent on the face of the provision, they are effective at reducing the provision's utility as a prosecutorial tool.

It is other courts, which have adopted fewer requirements, that have produced the examples discussed above. These courts need only a dishonest act, whether lawful or unlawful, to obtain a conviction. These courts are concerned only with dishonest conduct, and have convicted without the presence of economic harm or on the basis of a reasonable foreseeability of the economic harm.

These divergences in the law can be handled with ease. Conrad Black's appeal provides the Supreme Court with the ideal opportunity to restore honest services fraud to its original purpose: punishing public officials for acts of dishonesty. Given the range of civil remedies available to the remainder of the populace, honest services fraud is not needed in the private realm.

A Canadian Clarifying American Law?
Even if you have not heard of honest services fraud, you are certainly familiar with it. It was used in several high-profile cases including the prosecution of Enron's Jeffrey Skilling, former Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and impeached Illinois Governor Rob Blagojevich. The law is so far-reaching that even Conrad Black, one of Canada's most well-known corporate criminals, could not escape its grasp.

Ironically, 20 years of uncertainty in American law will be clarified by the appeal of a former Canadian who was never criminally charged in Canada. Conrad Black was a household name north of the border long before the controversy surrounding his company (Hollinger International, Inc.) came south into the U.S. courts. He was an aristocrat who, after a public argument with then Prime Minister Jean Chretien, denounced his Canadian citizenship to become a member of the British House of Lords.

Lord Black, as he is now known, built Hollinger into a world-class organization with market capitalization in excess of $1 billion. It owned and operated several large newspapers, including the Jerusalem Post, the Chicago Sun Times, the London Daily Telegraph, and the National Postin Canada.

Lord Black's run-in with the law stemmed from Hollinger's divestment of several smaller newspapers. As part of the sale, Lord Black received noncompetition payments directly from the acquiring parties. The prosecutors proved these payments to be bogus and showed the money rightfully belonged to Hollinger. The court convicted Lord Black under honest services fraud because he denied Hollinger of its right to honest services by accepting the noncompetition payments.

The Supreme Court decided to hear Lord Black's appeal on the basis that his conviction may have been unwarranted. Many hope that the Court will finally clarify the vague and ambiguous language of the 1988 honest services amendment.

Public Law: The Uninvited Guest
The use of honest services fraud to prosecute elected public officials is less offensive than the application of the law in the private sphere. For many, the idea of public office is a noble one, with historic roots and a deep-seeded obligation to fulfill the ultimate unselfish act: public service. This underlying rationale does not support the use of honest services fraud to prosecute private behavior.

The private sector relationship between shareholders and officers of a corporation is generally financial in nature. When conflicts arise, the harms complained of are often financial, and it follows that the remedy sought should be defined in monetary terms and not in years of a prison sentence. Importing the noble idea underlying public service into an economic relationship is inappropriate, as private disputes are properly resolved in civil courts. Numerous remedies are available in tort, contract, and corporate law to individuals wronged in the private realm.

Let's not kid ourselves; the role of corporate officer does not carry the weight, historic significance, or integrity that flows from public service. At its core, the disputes between these private parties are not about the deprivation of honest services. They are about money. The courts that require proof of economic harm to make out a charge of honest services fraud seem to agree.

While easier to justify, it should be noted that public sector honest services fraud is not without its complications. For instance, whatever happened to the idea that politicians should be held accountable by political means? In the absence of honest services fraud, unscrupulous politicians would be held accountable by the same means by which they were empowered: the people.

Journalists would play the role of prosecutors by uncovering the less-than-honest behavior and exposing it to the public. A trial would take place, not in a courtroom, but in the media circus. Each voter would get to participate in the jury, a verdict would be delivered, and the ultimate punishment would be doled out to the tune of public disgrace and no reelection. Given recent incidents involving public officials, the political remedies lack the teeth necessary to protect the integrity of public office. Nevertheless, the current uses of honest services fraud must be reigned in and returned to its original public purpose.

Overzealous criminalization of borderline political dishonesty, while well intended, has been hijacked into kitchen-sink, grab-bag-style prosecutions against nonpolitical officials. The indeterminacy of the statute combined with prosecutorial discretion results in an environment of uncertainty with the potential to criminalize business-as-usual. Recent corporate scandals, coupled with an economic environment that cannot sustain them, scream for increased accountability of corporate officials. But there remains significant debate regarding the best means to achieve this end.

Chaos Finally Controlled?
The honest services provision is a legitimate provision designed to combat legitimate corruption. In the absence of clearly defined limits, the broad wording of the statute invites abuse by prosecutors. The examples above illustrate the danger inherent in a broadly worded criminal statute. Critics and supporters of honest services fraud agree that when liberty is at stake, the outer limits of criminalized behavior must be more clearly defined. Over the past 20 years, defining this outer limit has been a challenge for the courts. This challenge will be resolved if the Supreme Court restricts honest services fraud to its original use of policing public officials.

The remedies for behavior currently captured by private sector honest services fraud can and should remain a matter for the civil courts. It is appropriate to seek a financial remedy for a financial harm that results from a purely financial relationship. Prior to honest services fraud, this type of corporate behavior was held accountable in the civil courts. The corporate behavior captured by private sector honest services fraud is adequately addressed by the existing corporate law concept of breach of fiduciary duty and the judicial award of civil remedies.

Corporate corruption is a problem we all agree merits judicial intervention. The question regarding private sector honest services fraud remains: Is the remedy worse than the disease? The stigma of a criminal record most certainly outweighs the harm that individuals cause others by depriving them of their right to honest services. The law has simply gone too far. The vague requirements of honest services fraud are too broad to allow those who aspire to be law-abiding citizens to actually follow the law.

The proper role of honest services fraud as it relates to adjudicating private sector disputes remains to be defined. Commentators north and south of the border will certainly be following Lord Black's appeal with interest and trepidation. Hopefully the Supreme Court will do its part and finally take up Justice Scalia on his offer to define the law. After all, his dissent in Sorichperfectly hones in on the issue: "Indeed, it seems . . . quite irresponsible to let the current chaos prevail."
Additional Resources

Other examples of the uses of the honest services provision

In Los Angeles, federal prosecutors are investigating whether the largest Roman Catholic archdiocese in the United States violated the law when its top officials allegedly covered up sexual abuse of minors by the church's priests.

At Baylor University in Texas, three basketball coaches violated the law when the prosecutor successfully argued that the coaches deprived the school of its right to honest service by violating NCAA recruitment rules.
Additional Resources
For more reading on a similar topic, you can retrieve the following article on the Business Law Today website at www.abanet.org/buslaw/blt. All issues since 1998 may be accessed under the "Past Issues" heading at the bottom of the web page.
Prosecution of Private Corporate Conduct
The Uncertainty Surrounding Honest Services Fraud
By Frank C. Razzano and Kristin H. Jones
Business Law Today
January/February 2009
Volume 18, Number 3
Share:

Anthony "Tony" Vinciquerra

Sony Pictures and the Failed Sony Project in 2004  

The Dubious Phone Call and Time Wasting Project
The folks at TPG will have to answer to my Whistleblower Complaints on the truly odd collection of RFPs emanating from companies connected to Richard Blum, William McGlashan, CBRE, Regency Centers, Trammel Crow, Lennar, Catellus

My story is about witness murders, aequity, mergers and acquisitions linked back to the Matter of Bennett v. Southern Pacific lost in 1989.  It was a winnable case as long the witnesses testified.  
Movie Rights 
The Strack Family Murders
The Driscoll Murders
I am PG&E Witness 

Tony Vinciquerra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Tony Vinciquerra
Born30 August 1954 (age 64)
Albany, New York, United States[1]
Alma materSUNY Albany
OccupationChairman and CEO, Sony Pictures
Spouse(s)Toni Knight
Anthony "Tony" Vinciquerra (born August 30, 1954) is a film executive who is the current Chairman and CEO of Sony Pictures.[2]In May, 2017, it was announced that Vinciquerra would be filling the role left vacant by Michael Lynton, after he announced his departure for Snap, Inc. Vinciquerra climbed through the ranks of television broadcasting ad sales, and led Fox Networks Group from 2001 to 2011. After spending time as an entertainment consultant and advisor at TPG Capital, L.P., Vinciquerra was hired by Sony Corporation CEO Kazuo Hirai. He is credited with reversing a downward trend of film box office performances, as well as strengthening the television division.[3]

Early life and education[edit]

Vinciquerra was born in Albany, New York, and grew up with three sisters in a two-bedroom apartment. He performed various odd jobs in his youth, and began working in radio ad sales in college. After graduating from State University of New York, Albany in 1977, he moved into television ad sales and eventually was named COO of Hearst-Argyle Television in New York in 1999.

Personal life[edit]

In 2001, Vinciquerra moved to Los Angeles and met his future wife, Toni Knight, an advertising executive who now owns her own firm.[4]
Share:

TONY VINCIQUERRA , Chairman and CEO, Sony Pictures Entertainment

Connecting Success Factors to Bennett

The Dubious Phone Call and Time Wasting Project
The folks at TPG will have to answer to my Whistleblower Complaints on the truly odd collection of RFPs emanating from companies connected to Richard Blum, William McGlashan, CBRE, Regency Centers, Trammel Crow, Lennar, Catellus.

My story is about witness murders, private equity, mergers and acquisitions linked back to the Matter of Bennett v. Southern Pacific lost in 1989.  It was a winnable case as long the witnesses testified.  
xxxx2
xxxx9

TONY VINCIQUERRA

Chairman and CEO, Sony Pictures Entertainment
Tony Vinciquerra is Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Sony Pictures Entertainment (SPE), where he oversees the studio's global operations, which include motion picture, television and digital content production and distribution, worldwide media networks, home entertainment acquisition and distribution, operation of studio facilities, and the development of new entertainment products, services and technologies.
Vinciquerra joined SPE in June 2017 with deep experience in the media, entertainment and tech spaces. From 2011 – 2017, he served as Senior Advisor to Texas Pacific Group (TPG) in the Technology, Media and Telecom sectors, where he focused on the company’s Capital, Growth and Opportunity investing arenas, as well as digital and emerging technologies and their impact on the distribution and consumption of film and TV content.
Before TPG, Vinciquerra spent almost 10 years at Fox (2001-2011) where he served as Chairman and CEO of Fox Networks Group, the largest operating unit of News Corporation that includes the Fox Television Network, Fox Cable Networks, Fox Sports, Fox International Channels, the related on-line businesses of those units and Fox Networks Engineering & Operations. He managed all operations, both tactically and strategically, of those units. He also had oversight of the News Corporation ownership interests in professional baseball, basketball, hockey teams, large scale arenas and concert venues.
Vinciquerra started at Fox in December 2001 as President of Fox Television Network. He was named President and Chief Executive Officer of Fox Networks Group in June 2002 and Chairman in September 2008. He was elected to the Broadcasting and Cable Hall of Fame 2009.
Prior to his time at Fox, Vinciquerra was Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Hearst-Argyle Television (1997-2001); Executive Vice President of CBS’s television group (1995-1997); President and General Manager of KYW-TV in Philadelphia (1993-1995); and General Sales Manager and Vice President and Station Manager of WBZ-TV in Boston (1986-1993).
SPE’s Motion Picture Group is comprised of Columbia Pictures, Screen Gems, Tristar Pictures, Sony Pictures Classics, Stage 6 Films, AFFIRM Films and Sony Pictures Animation. Over the years, the film studio has generated hits such as Best Picture Oscar® nominees American Hustle, Captain Phillips, and The Social Network, as well as blockbuster franchises like Spider-Man, Hotel Transylvania, Jump Street, Jumanji and Venom.
Sony Pictures Television (SPT) is one of the television industry's leading content providers. It produces and distributes programming in every genre, around the world and for a multitude of platforms. In addition to one of the industry's largest libraries of award-winning feature films, television shows and formats, SPT boasts a current program slate that includes top-rated daytime dramas and game shows, landmark off-network series, original animated series and critically acclaimed primetime dramas, comedies and telefilms. In addition to its U.S. production business, SPT has 18 wholly-owned or joint venture production companies in 12 countries. In addition, SPT operates branded entertainment channels around the world. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment distributes Sony Pictures produced and third-party acquired theatrical and non-theatrical product globally. Among the more than 3,500 titles in SPHE's catalog are the Spider-Man and Men In Black franchises, the Seinfeld TV series, and film classics such as Lawrence of Arabia, Taxi Driver and Close Encounters of the Third Kind.
Sony Pictures is also home to Imageworks, the only major studio Academy Award®-winning in-house visual effects unit.
Prior to joining SPE, Vinciquerra held a number of board positions including Board Director, Univision Communications, Inc.; Founding Board Director, STX Entertainment; Board Member, Pandora Media; Board Advisor, TRUECar.com; Board Advisor, Tastemade.com; and Board Advisor, IFLix. He has also held board positions at DirecTV and at Motorola. He currently sits on the Qualcomm Board of Directors and the AFI Board of Trustees.
Share:

Connecting Bennett v. Southern Pacific

Connecting Success Factors to Bennett

The Dubious Phone Call and Time Wasting Project
The folks at TPG will have to answer to my Whistleblower Complaints on the truly odd collection of RFPs emanating from companies connected to Richard Blum, William McGlashan, CBRE, Regency Centers, Trammel Crow, Lennar, Catellus.

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


Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney’s Office
District of Massachusetts

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, March 12, 2019

Arrests Made in Nationwide College Admissions Scam: Alleged Exam Cheating & Athletic Recruitment Scheme

Defendants include CEOs, actresses, university athletic coaches, and college exam administrators

BOSTON – Dozens of individuals involved in a nationwide conspiracy that facilitated cheating on college entrance exams and the admission of students to elite universities as purported athletic recruits were arrested by federal agents in multiple states this morning and charged in federal court in Boston. Athletic coaches from Yale, Stanford, USC, Wake Forest and Georgetown, among others, are implicated, as well as parents and exam administrators. 
William “Rick” Singer, 58, of Newport Beach, Calif., was charged with racketeering conspiracy, money laundering conspiracy and obstruction of justice. Singer owned and operated the Edge College & Career Network LLC (“The Key”) – a for-profit college counseling and preparation business – and served as the CEO of the Key Worldwide Foundation (KWF) – a non-profit corporation that he established as a purported charity.
Between approximately 2011 and February 2019, Singer allegedly conspired with dozens of parents, athletic coaches, a university athletics administrator, and others, to use bribery and other forms of fraud to secure the admission of students to colleges and universities including Yale University, Georgetown University, Stanford University, the University of Southern California, and Wake Forest University, among others. Also charged for their involvement in the scheme are 33 parents and 13 coaches and associates of Singer’s businesses, including two SAT and ACT test administrators.  
Also charged is John Vandemoer, the head sailing coach at Stanford University, Rudolph “Rudy” Meredith, the former head soccer coach at Yale University, and Mark Riddell, a counselor at a private school in Bradenton, Fla. 
The conspiracy involved 1) bribing SAT and ACT exam administrators to allow a test taker, typically Riddell, to secretly take college entrance exams in place of students or to correct the students’ answers after they had taken the exam; 2) bribing university athletic coaches and administrators—including coaches at Yale, Stanford, Georgetown, the University of Southern California, and the University of Texas—to facilitate the admission of students to elite universities under the guise of being recruited as athletes; and (3) using the façade of Singer’s charitable organization to conceal the nature and source of the bribes.   
  1. College Entrance Exam Cheating Scheme
According to the charging documents, Singer facilitated cheating on the SAT and ACT exams for his clients by instructing them to seek extended time for their children on college entrance exams, which included having the children purport to have learning disabilities in order to obtain the required medical documentation. Once the extended time was granted, Singer allegedly instructed the clients to change the location of the exams to one of two test centers: a public high school in Houston, Texas, or a private college preparatory school in West Hollywood, Calif. At those test centers, Singer had established relationships with test administrators Niki Williams and Igor Dvorskiy, respectively, who accepted bribes of as much as $10,000 per test in order to facilitate the cheating scheme. Specifically, Williams and Dvorskiy allowed a third individual, typically Riddell, to take the exams in place of the students, to give the students the correct answers during the exams, or to correct the students’ answers after they completed the exams. Singer typically paid Ridell $10,000 for each student’s test. Singer’s clients paid him between $15,000 and $75,000 per test, with the payments structured as purported donations to the KWF charity. In many instances, the students taking the exams were unaware that their parents had arranged for the cheating.
  1. College Recruitment Scheme
It is further alleged that throughout the conspiracy, parents paid Singer approximately $25 million to bribe coaches and university administrators to designate their children as purported athletic recruits, thereby facilitating the children’s’ admission to those universities. Singer allegedly described the scheme to his customers as a “side door,” in which the parents paid Singer under the guise of charitable donations to KWF. In turn, Singer funneled those payments to programs controlled by the athletic coaches, who then designated the children as recruited athletes – regardless of their athletic experience and abilities. Singer also made bribe payments to most of the coaches personally.
For example, during a call with one parent, Singer stated: “Okay, so, who we are…what we do is we help the wealthiest families in the U.S. get their kids into school…My families want a guarantee. So, if you said to me ‘here’s our grades, here’s our scores, here’s our ability, and we want to go to X school’ and you give me one or two schools, and then I’ll go after those schools and try to get a guarantee done.” 
As part of the scheme, Singer directed employees of The Key and the KWF to create falsified athletic “profiles” for students, which were then submitted to the universities in support of the students’ applications. The profiles included fake honors that the students purportedly received and elite teams that they purportedly played on.  In some instances, parents supplied Singer with staged photos of their children engaged in athletic activity – such as using a rowing machine or purportedly playing water polo.
  1. Tax Fraud Conspiracy
Beginning around 2013, Singer allegedly agreed with certain clients to disguise bribe payments as charitable contributions to the KWF, thereby enabling clients to deduct the bribes from their federal income taxes. Specifically, Singer allegedly instructed clients to make payments to the KWF in return for facilitating their children’s admission to a chosen university. Singer used a portion of that money to bribe university athletic coaches to designate the children as student athletes. Thereafter, Masera or another KWF employee mailed letters from the KWF to the clients expressing thanks for their purported charitable contributions. The letter stated: “Your generosity will allow us to move forward with our plans to provide educational and self-enrichment programs to disadvantaged youth,” and falsely indicated that “no good or services were exchanged” for the donations. Many clients then filed personal tax returns that falsely reported the payment to the KWF as charitable donations.
The charge of racketeering conspiracy provides for a sentence of no greater than 20 years in prison, three years of supervised release, a fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss, whichever is greater and restitution. The charge of conspiracy to commit money laundering provides for a sentence of up to 20 years in prison, up to three years of supervised release, and a fine of not more than $500,000 or twice the value of the property involved in the money laundering. The charge of conspiracy to defraud the United States provides for a sentence of no greater than five years in prison, up to three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000. The charge of obstruction of justice provides for a sentence of no greater than 10 years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000. The charges of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud, and of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and honest services wire fraud, provide for a sentence of no greater than 20 years in prison, three years of supervised release, and a fine of 250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss, whichever is greater. Sentences are imposed by a federal district court judge based upon the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
United States Attorney Andrew E. Lelling; Joseph R. Bonavolonta, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Boston Field Division; and Kristina O’Connell, Special Agent in Charge of the Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigations in Boston, made the announcement today. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Eric S. Rosen, Justin D. O’Connell, Leslie Wright, and Kristen A. Kearney of Lelling’s Securities and Financial Fraud Unit are prosecuting the case.
The details contained in the charging documents are allegations. The defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
Appendix
  1. William Rick Singer, 58, of Newport Beach, Calif., owner of the Edge College & Career Network and CEO of the Key Worldwide Foundation, was charged in an Information with racketeering conspiracy, money laundering conspiracy, conspiracy to defraud the United States, and obstruction of justice.  He is scheduled to plead guilty in Boston before U.S. District Court Judge Rya W. Zobel on March 12, 2019, at 2:30 p.m.;
  2. Mark Riddell, 36, of Palmetto, Fla., was charged in an Information with conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud as well as conspiracy to commit money laundering;
  3. Rudolph “Rudy” Meredith, 51, of Madison, Conn., the former head women’s soccer coach at Yale University, was charged in an Information with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and honest services wire fraud as well as honest services wire fraud;  
  4. John Vandemoer, 41, of Stanford, Calif., the former sailing coach at Stanford University, was charged in an Information with racketeering conspiracy and is expected to plead guilty in Boston before U.S. District Court Judge Rya W. Zobel on March 12, 2019, at 3:00 p.m.;
  5. David Sidoo, 59, of Vancouver, Canada, was charged in an indictment with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud. Sidoo was arrested on Friday, March 8th in San Jose, Calif., and appeared in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California yesterday. A date for his initial appearance in federal court in Boston has not yet been scheduled.  
The following defendants were charged in an indictment with racketeering conspiracy:
  1. Igor Dvorskiy, 52, of Sherman Oaks, Calif., director of a private elementary and high school in Los Angeles and a test administrator for the College Board and ACT;
  2. Gordon Ernst, 52, of Chevy Chase, Md., former head coach of men and women’s tennis at Georgetown University;
  3. William Ferguson, 48, of Winston-Salem, N.C., former women’s volleyball coach at Wake Forest University;
  4. Martin Fox, 62, of Houston, Texas, president of a private tennis academy in Houston;
  5. Donna Heinel, 57, of Long Beach, Calif., the senior associate athletic director at the University of Southern California;
  6. Laura Janke, 36, of North Hollywood, Calif., former assistant coach of women’s soccer at the University of Southern California;
  7. Ali Khoroshahin, 49, of Fountain Valley, Calif., former head coach of women’s soccer at the University of Southern California;
  8. Steven Masera, 69, of Folsom, Calif., accountant and financial officer for the Edge College & Career Network and the Key Worldwide Foundation;
  9. Jorge Salcedo, 46, of Los Angeles, Calif., former head coach of men’s soccer at the University of California at Los Angeles;
  10. Mikaela Sanford, 32, of Folsom, Calif., employee of the Edge College & Career Network and the Key Worldwide Foundation;
  11. Jovan Vavic, 57, of Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif., former water polo coach at the University of Southern California; and
  12. Niki Williams, 44, of Houston, Texas, assistant teacher at a Houston high school and test administrator for the College Board and ACT.
The following defendant was charged in a criminal complaint with conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud:
  1. Michael Center, 54, of Austin Texas, head coach of men’s tennis at the University of Texas at Austin
The following defendants were charged in a criminal complaint with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud:
  1. Gregory Abbott, 68, of New York, N.Y., the founder and chairman of a food and beverage packaging company;
  2. Marcia Abbott, 59, of New York, N.Y.;
  3. Gamal Abdelaziz, 62, of Las Vegas, Nev., the former senior executive of a resort and casino operator in Macau, China;
  4. Diane Blake, 55, of San Francisco, Calif., an executive at a retail merchandising firm;
  5. Todd Blake, 53, of San Francisco, Calif., an entrepreneur and investor;
  6. Jane Buckingham, 50, of Beverly Hills, Calif., the CEO of a boutique marketing company;
  7. Gordon Caplan, 52, of Greenwich, Conn., co-chairman of an international law firm based in New York City;
  8. I-Hin “Joey” Chen, 64, of Newport Beach, Calif., operates a provider of warehousing and related services for the shipping industry;
  9. Amy Colburn, 59, of Palo Alto, Calif.;
  10. Gregory Colburn, 61, of Palo Alto, Calif.;
  11. Robert Flaxman, 62, of Laguna Beach, Calif., founder and CEO of real estate development firm;
  12. Mossimo Giannulli, 55, of Los Angeles, Calif., fashion designer;
  13. Elizabeth Henriquez, 56, of Atherton, Calif.;
  14. Manuel Henriquez, 55, of Atherton, Calif., founder, chairman and CEO of a publicly traded specialty finance company;
  15. Douglas Hodge, 61, of Laguna Beach, Calif., former CEO of investment management company;
  16. Felicity Huffman, 56, of Los Angeles, Calif., an actress;
  17. Agustin Huneeus Jr., 53, of San Francisco, Calif., owner of wine vineyards;
  18. Bruce Isackson, 61, of Hillsborough, Calif., president of a real estate development firm;
  19. Davina Isackson, 55, of Hillsborough, Calif.;
  20. Michelle Janavs, 48, of Newport Coast, Calif., former executive of a large food manufacturer; 
  21. Elisabeth Kimmel, 54, of Las Vegas, Nev., owner and president of a media company;
  22. Marjorie Klapper, 50, of Menlo Park, Calif., co-owner of jewelry business;
  23. Lori Loughlin, 54, of Los Angeles, Calif., an actress;
  24. Toby MacFarlane, 56, of Del Mar, Calif., former senior executive at a title insurance company;
  25. William McGlashan Jr., 55, of Mill Valley, Calif., senior executive at a global equity firm;
  26. Marci Palatella, 63, of Healdsburg, Calif., CEO of a liquor distribution company;
  27. Peter Jan Sartorio, 53, of Menlo Park, Calif., packaged food entrepreneur;
  28. Stephen Semprevivo, 53, of Los Angeles, Calif., executive at privately held provider of outsourced sales teams;
  29. Devin Sloane, 53, of Los Angeles, Calif., founder and CEO of provider of drinking and wastewater systems;
  30. John Wilson, 59, of Hyannis Port, Mass., founder and CEO of private equity and real estate development firm;
  31. Homayoun Zadeh, 57, of Calabasas, Calif., an associate professor of dentistry; and
  32. Robert Zangrillo, 52, of Miami, Fla., founder and CEO of private investment firm.

Share:

Anchor links for post titles

Popular Posts

Blog Archive

Labels

Recent Posts

Popular Posts

Labels

Recent Posts

Pages

Labels

Blog Archive

Recent Posts