The Anatomy of Public Corruption

Bono, Silverlake, Wilson Sonsini, Salesforce, PeopleSoft

So I sued Southern Pacific in 87 I lost when someone killed my witness who was a 21 year old man from Walnut Creek.

It seems my histories constantly criss-crosses with litigation near Wilson sonsini, PG&E bill Tauscher of computerland and former Safeway CEO Steve Burd with additional crossovers into Blackhawk Network Silverlake partners elevation partners and also CEO Philip Anschutz, Michael Milken of the junk Bond theme, and his friend Larry Ellison former CIA programmer that probably knows who killed my Witnesses and my friends in 1975.

 in the middle of this is a company called FICO, a virus called nimda that could have very well been created by CIA experts the ones that lost all all they're spooked tools at the CIA who would easily know how to execute a virus to propagate around the the globe that would work especially well if you have an unwitting Insider parked in front of 3,000 servers at SBC with a virus likes to look at servers and explode from there




###

Stanford University Law School - Securities Class Action Clearinghouse

 

BRUCE G. VANYO, State Bar # 060134
LAURIE B. SMILAN, State Bar # 116740
DAVID PRIEBE, State Bar # 148679
MICHELE E. ROSE, State Bar # 154656
SUSAN BOWER, State Bar # 173244
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
Professional Corporation
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304-1050
Telephone: (650) 493-9300

Attorneys for Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID T. O'NEAL TRUST, DATED 4/1/77
and TAMMY NEWMAN, On Behalf of
Themselves and All Other Similarly Situated,

                      Plaintiffs,

           v.

VANSTAR CORPORATION, RICHARD H.
BARD, WILLIAM Y. TAUSCHER, JAY S.
AMATO, ROBERT C. KUNTZENDORF,
JEFFREY S. RUBIN, RICHARD N.
ANDERSON, CHRIS M. LANEY,
MICHAEL J. MOORE, AHMAD
MANSHOURI, COLEMAN D. SISSON,
THANOS M. TRIANT, E.M. WARBURG,
PINCUS & CO., INC., WARBURG PINCUS
& CO., L.P., STEWART K. P. GROSS,
WILLIAM H. JANEWAY and JOHN L.
VOGELSTEIN,

                      Defendants.
______________________________________


)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO.: C-98-0216-MJJ

CLASS ACTION

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
AND AUTHORITIES IN
OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO
STRIKE EXHIBITS
SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT
OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION
TO DISMISS

[filed c. Oct. 23, 1998]

Date: November 3, 1998
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Court: Honorable
      Martin J. Jenkins

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs have moved to strike certain documents submitted with Vanstar's motion to dismiss: Vanstar's 1997 Form 14A ("Form 14A") and a calculation of stock sales by Vanstar's officers and directors ("Appendix"), which is taken directly from publicly filed SEC documents upon which plaintiffs rely. Plaintiffs argue that these documents are "outside" the Complaint, and therefore cannot be considered on a motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs also argue that the documents constitute inadmissible hearsay.

Plaintiffs' arguments are ill-founded. Under the Private Securities Litigation Act of 1995, plaintiffs must plead specific facts giving rise to a strong inference of each defendant's required state of mind (i.e., scienter), or the Complaint must be dismissed. Plaintiffs attempt to plead scienter by arguing that the individual defendants' stock sales were unusual or suspicious. The documents in question simply assist the Court in analyzing the judicially noticeable information provided by plaintiffs. Courts in securities class action cases routinely take judicial notice of SEC filings -- including documents which demonstrate that stock sale allegations are false -- and will dismiss allegations which are inconsistent with the filings. It is contrary to the Reform Act, and palpably unfair, for plaintiffs to claim that the documents must be excluded from the Court's consideration, while at the same time averring that their stock sale allegations taken from the same documents, which may be judicially noticed, give rise to a strong inference of scienter. Thus, the Court should deny plaintiffs' motion; or, if the Court is inclined to strike these documents, it should also strike plaintiffs' stock sale allegations.

Moreover, the documents are not "outside" the Complaint as they deal directly with allegations in the complaint. The law is clear that the mere fact that plaintiffs neglect to attach documents integral to their complaint does not render such documents "outside" a complaint, nor preclude the Court from considering the documents in a motion to dismiss. The Form 14A reveals the stock ownership of Vanstar's most senior management, ownership that is at the heart of plaintiffs' scienter allegations. Likewise, the Appendix was prepared directly from the Forms 3 and 4 filed with the SEC, which plaintiffs clearly used in drafting the Complaint (there is no other ultimate source from which plaintiffs could have obtained otherwise confidential information regarding the individual defendants' stock sales and holdings). Plaintiffs cannot seriously complain about a chart that was prepared to assist the Court in analyzing judicially noticeable information that was first provided by plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs' hearsay objection also is misplaced. Plaintiffs waived any such objection by choosing to include in their Complaint stock sale allegations in the first instance. Moreover, to the extent the Form 14A is referenced for the truth of the matters asserted therein, it is admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Finally, as plaintiffs themselves admit, the documents at issue were not offered solely for their truth value: rather, they are also offered to indicate the individual defendants' state of mind., i.e., were they selling or retaining significant portions of their net worth in the securities of the Company.

ARGUMENT

I. THE COURT MAY TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE DOCUMENTS

    A. Courts Routinely Take Judicial Notice of SEC Filings.

When deciding motions to dismiss, courts routinely take judicial notice of, or otherwise consider, documents other than the complaint.1 Indeed, the great weight of authority holds that SEC filings are properly considered when deciding a motion to dismiss, and that those filings are properly the subject of judicial notice. Seee.g.Wenger v. Lumisys, Inc., 2 F. Supp. 2d 1231, 1240 n.8 (N.D. Cal. 1998) (denying plaintiff's motion to strike documents filed with the SEC, specifically Form 4s showing the actual number of shares sold during the class period); In re Silicon Graphics Securities Lit., 970 F. Supp. 746, 758 (N.D. Cal. 1997) (court may take judicial notice of the contents of relevant public disclosure documents required to be filed with the SEC) (quoting Kramer v. Time Warner, Inc., 937 F.2d 767, 774 (2d Cir. 1991)); In re Gupta Corp. Sec. Litig., 900 F. Supp. 1217, 1228 (N.D. Cal. 1994) ("[T]he court may review 'public disclosure documents required by law to be and which actually have been filed with the SEC.'") (quotation omitted); Shaw v. Digital Equipment Corp., 82 F.3d 1194, 1206 n. 13, 1220 (1st Cir. 1996) ("In deciding a motion to dismiss a securities action, a court may properly consider the relevant entirety of a document integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint, even though not attached to the complaint, without converting the motion into one for summary judgment."); Lovelace v. Software Spectrum Inc., 78 F.3d 1015, 1018 (5th Cir. 1996) ("When deciding a motion to dismiss a claim for securities fraud on the pleadings, a court may consider the contents of relevant public disclosure documents which (1) are required to be filed with the SEC and (2) are actually filed with the SEC.").2

    B. Courts May Take Judicial Notice of Documents "Outside" the Complaint.

Plaintiffs also assert that the subject documents do not fall within the scope of judicial notice because they are "outside" the Complaint. See Plaintiffs' Brief at 3-4. It is well settled, however, that a document need not be attached to a complaint in order for a court to properly consider it when deciding a motion to dismiss. In re Syntex Corp. Sec. Litig., 95 F.3d 922, 926, 929 (9th Cir. 1996) ("When deciding a motion to dismiss, a court may consider the complaint and 'documents whose contents are alleged in a complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but which are not physically attached to the pleading.'") (quoting Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 454 (9th Cir. 1994)).3

Here, the authenticity of the subject documents is not truly disputed, and their contents are integral to the Complaint. The Form 14A reveals the stock ownership of Vanstar's senior most management and plaintiffs have made this ownership a central issue of the Complaint. Likewise, the Appendix was prepared directly from the Forms 3 and 4 which are the exact documents plaintiffs used to draft the Complaint.4 All that Defendants have done here is present the same judicially noticeable, integral information plaintiffs have included in their Complaint in such a way as to assist the Court.5

II. THE SUBJECT DOCUMENTS ARE NOT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY

Plaintiffs contend that even if the exhibits are properly the subject of judicial notice, the Court may not consider them because they may not be submitted to disprove scienter and because they constitute hearsay. See Plaintiffs' Brief at 4-6. Plaintiffs similarly argue that cases which have judicially noticed SEC filings have only taken judicial notice of the fact that the documents were filed or where the misrepresentations were contained in those documents. Id. at 4-5. For three reasons, plaintiffs are wrong.

First, as shown above, plaintiffs themselves have alleged the truth of the matters asserted in the documents. Their Complaint alleges that the individual defendants sold particular amounts of stock, at particular prices, on particular dates. It also alleges that the individual defendants sold particular (albeit inflated) percentages of their stock holdings. Complaint ¶¶ 138-141. Thus, plaintiffs cannot complain if and when Defendants refer to the same SEC filings, or information extracted from the filings for the truth of the matters asserted therein. This is precisely the reason that courts have taken judicial notice of stock sales in securities cases. See Silicon Graphics, 970 F. Supp. at 759 ("Having raised questions about defendants' stock sales, [and] based their allegations on defendants' SEC filings . . . plaintiffs can hardly complain when defendants refer to the same information in their defense."); Wenger at 1240 n.8 (denying plaintiff's motion to strike documents filed with the SEC, specifically Form 4s showing the actual number of shares sold during the class period); see also United States v. Anderson, 532 F.2d 1218, 1229 (9th Cir. 1976) (defendant who introduced hearsay statement waived objection).

Second, the exhibits are offered not only for their truth value, but also to demonstrate the state of mind of the individual defendants. As such, they are excepted from the hearsay rule. Fed. R. Evid. 803(3). Plaintiffs admit that these documents would demonstrate state of mind, if accepted by the Court. Pl. Br. at 6. Plaintiffs attempt to plead the individual defendants' state of mind by asserting that each of them intended to sell unusual amounts of Vanstar stock, rather than retaining his or her shares and stock options. Thus, the documents are relevant to plaintiffs' state of mind theory.

Third, the Form 14A is admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(6). For a memorandum or record to be admissible as a business record, it must be: (1) made by a regularly conducted business activity; (2) kept in the "regular course" of that business; (3) "the regular practice of that business to make the memorandum, and (4) made by a person with knowledge or from information transmitted by a person with knowledge." Clark v. City of Los Angeles, 650 F.2d 1033, 1036-37 (9th Cir. 1981) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 803(6). The Form 14A was prepared by persons with knowledge of the facts contained therein, kept in the ordinary course of Vanstar's business, and required by law to be prepared and submitted to the SEC. Moreover, Vanstar relied on the preparation of those documents in its business; it was required by law to disclose proxy and officer stock sale information. Accordingly, all of the requisites of the business records exception are satisfied. See United States v. Childs, 5 F.3d 1328, 1333 (9th Cir. 1993) (documents properly admitted as business records notwithstanding defendant's objections that the circumstances surrounding preparation of documents indicated a lack of trustworthiness, and that documents were not made in regular course of business); United States v. Bland, 961 F.2d 123, 126-27 (9th Cir. 1992) (firearm registration form required by law properly admitted as business record; "the person completing [the form] had knowledge of the transaction at the time it occurred and [the document] was maintained as a regularly conducted business activity as required by law."); Keogh v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 713 F.2d 496, 499 (9th Cir. 1983) (card dealer's diary containing personal financial records properly admitted as business record; "Witlock's diary, even though personal to him, shows every indication of being kept 'in the [ordinary] course of' his own 'business activity,' 'occupation, and calling.' . . . The reliability usually found in records kept by business concerns may be established in personal business records if they are systematically checked and regularly and continually maintained.").

III. IT WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE REFORM ACT TO STRIKE THE DOCUMENTS

Under the heightened pleading requirements of the Reform Act, plaintiffs must allege facts sufficient to create a strong inference of scienter on the part of each defendant. See Securities Exchange Act of 1934 §§21D(b)(2), (3), 15 U.S.C. §§78 u-4(b)(2), (3). Plaintiffs attempt to meet this burden to plead the individual defendants' state of mind by arguing that those persons engaged in unusual or suspicious trading. Plaintiffs' Mem. of Points & Auth. in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss at 19-21. Nevertheless, plaintiffs contend that the actual stock sale information included in the Defendants' exhibits should not be considered.

Plaintiffs are wrong. As the Reform Act imposes an affirmative duty on plaintiffs to present a complaint that provides a strong inference of scienter, it is only logical that "plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that any such sales are in fact unusual," when they rely on stock sale allegations to plead scienter. In re Health Mgm't Sys., Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 97-CIV-1865(HB), 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8061, at *18 (S.D.N.Y. May 28, 1998). Thus, plaintiffs cannot merely plead their conclusion that the stock sales are "suspicious" or "unusual." Instead, they must plead information indicating (1) the number of shares and options each defendant retained, and (2) each defendants' past pattern of sales, so that the "suspicious" or "unusual" nature of the sales in question can be discerned. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 §§21D(b)(1), (2), 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u-4(b)(1), (2) (Reform Act requires plaintiffs to set forth the factual basis of allegations made on information and belief).

Thus, the Court is entitled to take judicial notice of those documents to determine if, as the Vanstar Defendants allege, they refute plaintiffs' allegations. In re Silicon Graphics, Inc. Sec. Litig., 970 F. Supp. 746, 751 (N.D. Cal. 1997 ("[T]he court need not accept as true allegations that contradict facts that have been judicially noticed."). Conversely, if the exhibits are not considered, neither should plaintiffs' stock sale allegations. Seee.g.Duncan v. Pencer, 1996 WL 19043, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (absent stock sale information, no inference of unusual or suspicious sales may be drawn).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the motion to strike should be denied in its entirety; or, if the Court is inclined to strike the Subject Documents, it should also strike plaintiffs' stock sale allegations.

Dated: October __, 1998

WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI

By:___________________________________
     Susan Bower
Attorneys for Defendants




1 Seee.g.Kottle v. Northwest Kidney Centers, 146 F.3d 1056, 1064 n. 7 (9th Cir. 1998) (declining to treat Rule 12(b)(6) motion as summary judgment motion despite district court's consideration of affidavit whose "sole purpose was to put before the Court certain public records of the Department" for which court could take judicial notice); Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1198 (9th Cir. 1988) (declining to treat Rule 12(b)(6) motion as summary judgment motion despite district court's consideration of declaration requesting judicial notice of certain matters in public record, including other related proceedings).

2 Plaintiffs' citation to In re Sun Microsystems, Inc. Sec. Lit., No. C-89-20351, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18740 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 1990), in support of their argument that the Court may not take judicial notice of the documents in question is more than a little misleading: the Court in that case declined to take judicial notice of certain SEC filings because the relevant SEC filings already were attached to the complaint by plaintiffs, and hence no judicial notice of those documents was necessary. Id. at *6. It is also curious that plaintiffs would cite Haltman v. Aura Systems, Inc., 844 F. Supp. 544, 550 (C.D. Cal. 1993), as the Court in that case merely decided that it could dismiss plaintiffs' claims without the necessity of reviewing the documents submitted for judicial notice.

3 See also In re Stac Elecs. Sec. Litig., 89 F.3d 1399, 1405 n. 4 (9th Cir. 1996) ("[D]ocuments whose contents are alleged in a complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but which are not physically attached to the pleading may be considered in ruling [under] Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss.") (quotation omitted); Fecht v. Price Co., 70 F.3d 1078, 1080 n.1 (9th Cir. 1995); In re Verifone Sec. Litig., 11 F.3d 865, 868 n.2 (9th Cir. 1993); Branch, 14 F.3d at 453 ("The leading commentators state that 'when [the] plaintiff fails to introduce a pertinent document as part of his pleading, [the] defendant may introduce the exhibit as part of his motion attacking the pleading.'") (quoting 5 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil ' 1327, at 762-63 (2d ed.1990)).

4 Plaintiffs admit that they reviewed Vanstar's SEC filings in drafting their Complaint. Complaint ¶ 160. In any event, any contention that the stock trading data alleged in the Complaint was obtained from sources other than Forms 4s is highly implausible (and no such other sources are disclosed). If Vanstar and its officers had not been required to disclose their trades and stock holdings in the SEC filings, the information would be protected from disclosure by the Article I of the California Constitution. Silicon Graphics, 970 F. Supp. at 758 (the trading "allegations can be derived only from the[] publicly-filed documents," any credible financial publications themselves must derive information concerning the personal financial affairs of executives from the SEC filings).

5 Nor may plaintiffs contend that they genuinely dispute the accuracy of the exhibits at issue. The purpose of judicial notice is to avoid unnecessary costs associated with establishing a fact that "is not really disputable." 1 Weinstein's Evidence ¶ 201[03] at 201-24 (1996). Courts have rejected such attempts to circumvent the principles of judicial notice. See Silicon Graphics, 970 F. Supp. at 758 (rejecting theory where plaintiffs' challenge to accuracy of SEC forms submitted by the defendant was "weak," and there was no evidence presented which would cast doubt on those filings). Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has held that judicial notice may be taken of matters less trustworthy than SEC filings, where the matter is "capable of sufficiently accurate and ready determination." In Ritter v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 58 F.3d 454 (9th Cir. 1995), the Court held that the district court properly took judicial notice of widespread layoffs at Hughes Aircraft based on a newspaper article: "judicial notice of layoffs at Hughes was not an abuse of discretion [because] [t]his is a fact which would be generally known in Southern California and which would be capable of sufficiently accurate and ready determination." Id. at 458-59.




Source: File to epost from Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
Share:

The Rape of the Redwoods riding the Southern Pacific Depot Murders

The Rape of the Redwoods 

follow the money into  the Redwoods from the corporate Raiders over at computerland who sold their properties and then later the employees lost their retirement when the public company found out they had been taken advantage of.

 when selling a private company controlling the databases and the records of shipments returns to and fro then later the public company discovers they're missing 25 million that went back to Apple.

We saved Apple at the expense of the piers at computer land that lost their retirements when the fraud was discovered by Yours Truly Pete Bennett.

Milken money and Ellison swim in the same pond his Empire partly stored in Walnut Creek California do the same people that baptize my ex-wife are the same people that blew my truck up in 2004 holyshit do you think they tried to kill me after I may have figured out they murdered my grandfather and the grandfather of my sons on the mother side.

It should be no surprise that I was involved in the matter of Keithley versus Homestore.

 it should be no surprise that I was also involved in the Oracle vs PeopleSoft contracted to Vector capital in San Francisco

Share:

The murderous Mormons that likely killed Kobe


Pete Bennett met Kobe, Pete Bennett sued Philip Anschutz 1/3 owner of the Lakers, Pete's relatives murdered, his portion of multimillion trust forged, his truck explodes and his role in 9/11 unknown outside law enforcement substantial credible and damaging to many in power

The Mormon Monster of Alamo 1st Ward, killer of witnesses, senior cult leader tricking Bill Gates, Philip Anschutz,  Calera Capital and kidnapping conspirators 


###


Mitt Romney’s business career seems to dovetail neatly with his Mormon faith

  • PUBLISHED:  | UPDATED: 
  • Categories:News
The Mormon church’s personal economic precepts sound like a mantra for fiscal conservatives: Pay an honest tithing, live on less than you earn, distinguish between needs and wants, develop and live within a budget, and be honest in all financial affairs.
But as debate rages about the ethics of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s leadership of Bain Capital — a private equity and venture capital firm that sometimes made riches by shutting down companies and laying off workers — it seems his business career might have dovetailed neatly with his Mormon faith.
“There’s nothing in Mitt Romney’s record that suggests that his financial or business decision-making have been motivated by anything other than bottom-line considerations. To be fair: As a capital manager, that’s his job,” said Joanna Brooks, a San Diego State literature professor who publishes the “Ask Mormon Girl” blog.
Modern Mormon communities “have come to view financial success as an inherent good without necessarily having the same conversations about how money is made, as may take place in other faith traditions,” Brooks said.
It’s a more profit-oriented, value-neutral approach to financial decisions, she said: Money is consecrated in the act of tithing and other donations to the church, and “how that money is made is less of a religious preoccupation,” she said. That’s been particularly true as the Mormon church grew dramatically in the past 50 years, which required considerable money.
Romney’s 2011 tax returns showed he and his wife, Ann, gave the church $2.6 million — more than 12 percent of the $21 million they earned — while also giving $1.4 million in cash and stock to their family foundation, which heavily supports the church. In 2010, they gave $1.5 million to the church — about 7 percent of their earnings — plus $900,000 to their family foundation.
Patrick Mason, chairman of Mormon studies at Claremont Graduate University in Southern California, agreed that “Romney is almost prototypical of the majority of modern American Mormons.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — which in its early years embraced communal economics and criticized cutthroat business practices — “embraced pro-market American capitalism” in the late 19th century as part of its attempt to assimilate into society, he said.
The Mormon ethics of self-reliance, accountability and hard work lent themselves well to that economic ethos, he said. “It’s a mistake to say wealth equals God’s favor, but it’s not a surprise when God does bless you with wealth when you’re living right.”
Yet while there’s a clear expectation that faithful Mormons must contribute some of their assets to building God’s kingdom through their church, “Mormonism has never developed a real social ethic as opposed to Catholic social teaching or the social gospel that’s in Protestantism,” Mason said. Mormons aren’t unconcerned with social welfare, and acts of individual charity are important, he said, but “it largely is secondary; it doesn’t define what the gospel is or how people go about their lives.
“I do think there’s a strong element of libertarianism … within Mormon thought along these lines. It’s very much a laissez-faire approach,” he said. “It gives Mormons and potentially Romney an added layer of confidence, of assurance that this is not just good economics but it’s good religion, too.”
Rick Kopf of Alamo, who directs the Latter-day Saints’ Bay Area Public Affairs Council, said charity for the less fortunate in the community and humanitarian projects abroad are a huge part of Mormon practice.
Mormonism teaches that “materialism can be a huge burden to a person. … It’s how they use it that’s very important,” he said. “We encourage hard work, we encourage people to be successful but to do it for the right means. We’re not out there trying to be rich for the sake of being rich.”
Personally, Kopf said, “I would hope that any political candidate who’s a member of the church would live by the values of the church would be true and honest and virtuous and family-oriented.”
Evan Chase, a staffer at the California Election Forum website, which offers election recommendations for Christian voters, said he would like to hear Romney say more about how his Mormon faith informs his fiscal and economic policies.
“I haven’t heard him communicate that very much,” he said. “That affirms my interest in voting for Mitt Romney. In the evangelical community, those are strengths; those are American strengths.”
Josh Richman covers politics. Follow him at Twitter.com/josh_richman. Read the Political Blotter at IBABuzz.com/politics.
Share:

connecting the mail and family to the Kennedy family


I have researched my family history from conversations, documents that we no longer have and based on what my mom said mostly about the Kennedys.

My grandfather represented powerful people in New York City the conversations from Mom were the Kennedys, the Rockefellers, and she met my dad because Marvin Pierce father of Barbara Bush gave her a job in the Empire State Building


 beyond that the physical documents are long gone but the digital ones are there.

I changed how my grandfather died in 62 from natural causes to unspecified or at the hands of another as his client was assassinated the next year.

Anybody from the Kennedy family is welcome to call me and clarify what the connection is between Patterson teal and Dennis and the Kennedy family.


Share:

Flowers at Civic Park


My Stress Reduction Friends 
Share:

Another Safeway-Starbucks Murder Gunned down on her way home



Too many deaths near Alamo 1st. Former Safeway CEO Steve Burd, General Petraous, and Pete Bennett 

The 1988 murder of 
Safeway Manager 


STARBUCKS Employee
ANTHONY BANTA JR.



Cynthia Kempf




Share:

Get Em! Devin for crimes connected to 9/11



This former US Attorney graduated with persons connected to Southern Pacific in the 70s connected the Roseville Train Yard Explosion where 100 rails cars filled BOMBS AND ORDNANCE destined for VIETNAM VIA Concord Naval Weapons Station.

 the way the allies stopped the Nazis was to cut the caterpillar into separating the bullets from the shooters and the bombs from the bombers.

That is 101 military logistics cut the caterpillar strangle them, cut the food supply starve them cut the fuel make them Park their tanks.

 that is the Battle of the Bulge
Devin Nunes flashes 'as many as 10' criminal referrals to Justice Department
June 6, 2020 - 2:16 PM
After shipping eight referrals to Attorney General William Barr last spring, Rep. Devin Nunes, the ranking member of the panel, told Fox Business on Thursday that they have gathered enough evidence for "at least another five, possibly as many as 10" recommendations for prosecution as three U.S. attorneys conduct reviews of various aspects of the Russia investigation.
The California Republican said he and his GOP colleagues want to "get it right," but they plan to send the referrals within the next "week to 10 days or so." What exactly will appear in those referrals remains unclear, but Nunes explained what his investigators are examining.
"We now are looking at the overall Gen. Flynn investigation and how that was conducted and the rest of the Mueller team," he said. "And then, of course, as new information has come to light from the information that was declassified by acting Director of National Intelligence Ric Grenell, that information has also shown that there are other people who have lied or misled Congress or have, I think in some cases maybe, lied by omission, documents that were kept from Congress."
Story continues below
Grenell was replaced by former Rep. John Ratcliffe late last month after the Texas Republican was confirmed by the Senate. During his three-month tenure as head of the U.S. Intelligence Community, Grenell declassified long-sought-after documents related to the case against former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn and forced the hand of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff to release dozens of witness transcripts from the panel's own investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Schiff accused Grenell of "selective declassification for political purposes."
The Republican inquiry in the House is a more understated effort than the one that is playing out in the Senate, which is in GOP control. There, two committees are leading the charge in conducting oversight of the Russia investigation.With no support from Democrats, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee voted to give Chairman Ron Johnson the authority to subpoena Obama officials in its review of the Russia inquiry. Sen. Lindsey Graham, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is also seeking subpoena power in his Crossfire Hurricane investigation, while Democrats on the panel say they want to hear more testimony from former special counsel Robert Mueller.
Nunes, who believes the government's intelligence powers were abused in an attempted "coup" against President Trump, stressed the need for "pure transparency." He teased what Republicans would do to escalate their investigation if they win back control of the House this year.
"We've got about 40 people that are on that list," he said, without naming anyone. "So, hopefully, if Republicans are put back in charge, we will be able to subpoena those people, but right now, we can’t."
Loading video
Share:

Pete Bennett, Michael Milken, Larry Ellison and Philip Anschutz

This was borrowed from Milken Institute where they're talking older homeless.

My blog about homeless stalled during Covid was created as clearing house for homeless solutions and services.  A striking connection to why i am homeless is police corruption and attacks on my legal cases leads to destitution and despair despair.

Try bayareahomeless.com

 my name is Pete Bennett I was once involved in litigation involving partners of Milken attorneys near manatt Phelps and Wilson sonsini somehow I ended up homeless thankfully Bono didn't pay his bills either


Cities Must do More to Protect Older Homeless Americans From COVID-19

Paul Irving
Paul Irving
Chairman, Milken Institute Center for the Future of Aging
Lauren Dunning
Lauren Dunning
Director, Center for the Future of Aging

The moral test of any society is how it treats its most vulnerable members, including those who are old and living in the shadows.

NOT SINCE THE 1918 Spanish flu have we faced such drastic nationwide measures to prevent the spread of a deadly disease pandemic. Communities across America are shut down and individuals are instructed to stay at home and distance from those outside their households. For older adults, who are at greater risk, particularly those with chronic conditions, physical isolation means protection. It can be a matter of life and death.
But what happens when that protection is out of reach?
This is the reality for older Americans who are homeless. Without privacy, access to soap, hand sanitizer, and other tools for hygiene, and the ability to safely store food and other necessities, the dangers of daily survival are daunting. Many public restrooms are now closed. Food banks and other charitable services are strained. Testing and care may be inaccessible and the prospect of rapid disease spread is high.
More people than ever are homeless in their "golden years." More than 10,000 Americans turn 65 each day, and an increasing number of them are aging on the streets. People age 50 and over now comprise approximately one-third of homeless Americans. With higher rates of age-related disease and an increased mortality rate, this group already lacks access to quality care and suffers from disparities and negative biases in the medical ecosystem. In Los Angeles, where the number of homeless older adults aged 62 and over grew by more than 20% in 2018, the homeless die 22 years earlier than the general population.
To be sure, efforts to scale up the response are progressing. Shelters will be supported by the federal stimulus package with up to $4 billion in new resources that can be used to modify operations to prevent the spread of the virus in close quarters. Community spaces are being repurposed. Los Angeles is adding 6,000 shelter beds at city-owned recreation centers. Seattle, an early hot spot for the virus, has deployed an event space and a number of community centers to ease crowded conditions. Several communities are working with the hospitality sector to secure housing. In San Francisco, more than 8,000 rooms have been offered by hotels and motels in response to a call to help homeless residents, health care workers and first responders in need of safe places.
Cities are allocating additional resources and revising policies to prevent the spread of the virus. San Jose, California, is providing hand sanitizer and masks at homeless encampments, while Los Angeles has temporarily halted encampment cleanups to avoid disruption of tents and belongings. Austin has installed portable bathrooms and hand-washing facilities in at least 20 locations citywide.
All of these strategies and more are needed to stem the devastating risks of the virus for homeless older adults. A new academic study predicts more than 21,000 hospitalizations and 3,400 deaths of homeless adults if swift action is not taken.
It is not just the current population of homeless older adults who are at risk. Many older Americans are on the edge, rent-burdened and on the precipice of homelessness. The Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies found that in 2019 in California, 35% of renters ages 65 to 79, and 42% of renters 80 or older, were rent-burdened, meaning that more than half of their incomes went to housing. The job losses and economic strains resulting from the coronavirus crisis are placing many more at risk of losing their homes.
Cities are responding by imposing moratoriums on evictions, including Los Angeles and Miami. Others are providing rental assistance, such as Chicago, which launched the COVID-19 Housing Assistance Grant program to provide 2,000 grants to assist residents impacted by the pandemic. Advocates are calling for further measures, including forgiveness of missed rent payments to prevent loss of housing once the immediate threat has subsided and policies are rolled back.
Taken together, these interventions add up. But much more must be done.
The moral test of any society is how it treats its most vulnerable members, including those who are old and living in the shadows. The coronavirus crisis is a moment of emergency that will measure our own morality. As neighbors and citizens, we must voice our support for homeless older adults and for those at risk of becoming homeless. Lives are at stake, and our leaders, communities, philanthropic organizations and all levels of government must work together now to provide resources and solutions to meet the immediate need.
This article was originally published in U.S. News on April 9, 2020 
Published April 21, 2020

Share:

ContrA Costa Superior Court Pro Tem Judges - Let the litigants know

The Pro Tem Judge or Hearing Officials 

What you don't know will hurt you and everyone






Temporary Judge Program

A "court-appointed temporary judge" is an attorney who has satisfied the requirements for appointment listed in California Rules of Court 2.812, and has been appointed by the court to serve as a temporary judge in a courtroom.


Parties might encounter a temporary judge if:

  • The court has appointed a temporary judge to hear their case on the date they have their court appearance.
  • Parties have decided they want to have a temporary judge hear just their case (NOTE: This is a local court program, and it is only available in limited and unlimited jurisdiction civil cases.)


Joining Contra Costa's Temporary Judge Panel

Effective January 1, 2007, California Rules of Court, Rule 2.810 established new and more rigorous training and qualification requirements for attorneys wishing to serve as temporary judges.

To qualify, attorneys must have been active members of the California State Bar, in good standing, for at least 10 years before appointment. There cannot be any pending disciplinary actions, and the individual must not have pled guilty or no contest to a felony, or have a felony conviction that has not been reversed. He or she must satisfy all education and training requirements established by the state, as well as any other conditions that the individual court may require. Mandated training elements include a 3-hour in-person course on judicial demeanor (provided by a court) together with an online training course in related judicial demeanor and ethical issues.

Attorneys must also take one or more online training courses provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts, depending on the substantive areas of law they wish to hear.

Depending on case type, there may also be additional training, education, or experience requirements to serve in Contra Costa County.


Minimum Requirements

The presiding judge may not appoint an attorney to serve as a temporary judge unless the attorney has been admitted to practice as a member of the State Bar of California for at least 10 years before the appointment and meets the following conditions:

  • Is an active member in good standing of the State Bar and has no disciplinary action pending;
  • Has not pled guilty or no contest to a felony, or has not been convicted of a felony that has not been reversed;
  • Has satisfied the education and training requirements;
  • Has satisfied all other general conditions that the court may establish for appointment of an attorney as a temporary judge in that court; and
  • Has satisfied any additional conditions that the court may require for an attorney to be appointed as a temporary judge for a particular assignment or type of case in that court.
NOTE: Consistent with CRC Rule 2.818, temporary judges have an ongoing duty to report any disciplinary action pending or taken against them by the State Bar of California at least 2 court days before arriving to serve as a temporary judge.


Temporary Judges will need to take ALL required trainings and attend a court session on each case type(s) per the location in which they wish to sit.

Martinez
(morning)
Martinez
(afternoon)
Pittsburg
(morning)
Richmond
(afternoon)
Walnut Creek
(morning)
Judicial Demeanor
Ethics
Probate
Judicial Demeanor
Ethics
Civil Harassment
Small Claims
Unlawful Detainer
Online Classes
Judicial Demeanor
Ethics
Small Claims
Traffic
Unlawful Detainer
Online Classes
Judicial Demeanor
Ethics
Small Claims
Traffic
Unlawful Detainer
Online Classes
Judicial Demeanor
Ethics
Traffic Only
Online Classes

Training Requirements

These are requirements that everyone must meet every two years:

  • Review the online Fairness, Demeanor, and Self-Represented litigants materials
  • Attend a 3-hour in-person training session on judicial demeanor
  • Take the online course on judicial ethics
  • Take local and online classes as required for the case type(s)
  • Attend a court session on each case type for the location above
Training Schedule
ClassDateTime
Judicial Demeanor*Thursday, January 9th, 20205:30 - 8:45 PM
Unlawful Detainer*Thursday, January 16th, 20205:30 - 8:45 PM
Small Claims*Wednesday, January 22nd, 20205:30 - 8:45 PM
Civil Harassment*Thursday, January 30th, 20205:30 - 8:45 PM
Traffic*Thursday, February 6th, 20205:30 - 8:45 PM
* 3 MCLE Credits
To sign-up for any of the local training classes, please email the Temporary Judge Program at: tempjudge@contracosta.courts.ca.gov

Application

Please complete the application for the Temporary Judge Program.


Extra Requirements by Calendar Type

Small Claims Calendars

  • Take all relevant online training courses and review online benchguides
  • Attend the local in-person class on hearing small claims calendars

Traffic Calendars
  • Take online training course and review online benchguides
  • Attend the local in-person class on hearing traffic calendars

Unlawful Detainer Calendars
  • Take online training course and review online benchguides
  • Attend the local in-person class on hearing unlawful detainer calendars

Probate Calendars
  • Attend the local in-person class on hearing probate calendars

Civil Harassment Calendars
  • Attend the local in-person class on hearing civil harassment calendars

On-Line Training Can Be Found Here



Share:

Statute of Limitations Must Govern State Bar Actions or should they protect the gilded veil of secrecy?

Statute of Limitations Must Govern State Bar Actions

By Michele Hanisee
Last week’s decision by the California State Bar to file disciplinary charges against former Los Angeles City Attorney Carmen Trutanich based on conduct that occurred 31 years ago, should cause unease to every attorney in the state. This action of the State Bar, which acts as the administrative arm of the California Supreme Court, cannot be squared with that court’s long-held beliefs on timely filing of actions in both criminal and civil cases.
An integral part of the law is the concept of a statute of limitations. In Wood v. Elling Corp (1977) the California Supreme Court reiterated the broad policy behind statutes of limitations: “Statutes of limitation … are designed to promote justice by preventing surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared. The theory is that even if one has a just claim it is unjust not to put the adversary on notice to defend within the period of limitation and the right to be free of stale claims in time comes to prevail over the right to prosecute them.” In a subsequent opinion, Addison v. State of California (1978) the court reiterated the policy reasons for statutes of limitation, writing that they “serve a distinct public purpose, preventing the assertion of demands which, through the unexcused lapse of time, have been rendered difficult or impossible to defend.”


California State Bar Rule 5.21 (A) states that a disciplinary proceeding based solely upon a complainant’s allegation of misconduct must begin within five years of the alleged violation. However, Rule 5.21(G) states the five-year rule does not apply if the source was “independent” and not based on a complaint. In other words, if a damaged party complains, there is a statute of limitations. If the State Bar chooses to act on its own, in the absence of a complaint from an aggrieved party, they can go as far back in time as they please.
In the Trutanich case, the “independent source” is a Federal District Court habeas ruling issued in 2016, thirty years after the trial in which the alleged misconduct occurred. The bar alleges that Mr. Trutanich knew or was “grossly negligent in not knowing” that two witnesses had testified falsely, and that Mr. Trutanich withheld Brady material from the defense. That ruling occurred 16 years after the California Supreme Court denied Barry Williams’ habeas petition which contained similar allegations of prosecutorial misconduct.
The bar complaint vividly illustrates the ills the California Supreme Court warned of in its decisions on statutes of limitation. In the Trutanich case, the two witnesses the court ruled had testified falsely were deceased by the time of the habeas hearing. The handful of witnesses still alive, including Mr. Trutanich, all testified they had little memory of the events in the case which happened long ago. With minimal testimony provided by actual witnesses to the events at issue, the federal court’s decision was based on inferences from fragments of documentary evidence and testimony on patterns and practices of police agencies.
Similarly concerning is the State Bar’s assertion that discipline should be imposed for an alleged violation of Brady v. Maryland, which is a policy designed to protect the due process rights of persons facing a loss of liberty at the hands of the state. For that reason, the Brady decision and its progeny have held that even an inadvertent or unknowing failure by a prosecutor to turn over material evidence violates due process. However, in this instance, the State Bar is not seeking to protect the due process rights of an accused who is being threatened with imprisonment by the state but regulating the conduct of attorneys. This action of the State Bar is essentially asserting the State Bar can seek to revoke a prosecutor’s bar license for failure to turn over evidence that was completely unknown to that prosecutor.
Without delving too far into the merits of the factual allegations, the evidence recited by the District Court is that, “evidence obtained from the prosecution’s file indicated that the prosecution might have been aware of [the witness’s] identity, address and her telephone number.” [Emphasis added.] An attorney from the ACLU told the court in a memo that they did not received a copy of the page with the witness’s address because it was written on the back of one of the pages of the reports (the inference being the back of the pages were not copied). Mr. Trutanich testified at the hearing before the District Court that he was unable to locate the witness to serve her with a subpoena but that a copy of the subpoena listing the witness’ last known address was given to the defense.
It should be troubling to everyone, whether a supporter or Mr. Trutanich or not, that The State Bar of California has elected to bring charges 31 years after the fact, without any claim in the charges of actual knowledge by the attorney of the misdeeds that underlie the alleged misconduct. Even proposed Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8(d), which would govern prosecutorial discovery and Brady requirements, requires some scienter for there to be misconduct.
However, even if true, should a Brady violation be considered an offense exempt from any statute of limitations? The state legislature certainly does not think so; in 2015 the legislature enacted amendments to Penal Code section 141 which make it a felony crime for a prosecutor to intentionally withhold Brady evidence. Yet, the legislature did not deem it necessary to exempt that crime from the usual statute of limitations.
Finally, while the state bar might claim that it instituted proceedings only after the federal court ruling, that excuse is insufficient given that the allegations of the misconduct had been publicly raised decades before. For example, in 2000, the same claims regarding the detective and informant were raised in state habeas proceeding. After extensive discussion, those claims were rejected by the California Supreme Court in a published decision. Even if one disagrees with the Supreme Court’s conclusion and finds the federal court conclusion about the same conduct more credible, the important point is that the allegations of misconduct were in the public arena and available for the state bar to pursue at a time when witnesses were alive and memories fresher. Instead, the state bar chose to sit on its “independent source powers,” only deciding to pursue the claims when a different conclusion on the allegations of misconduct was rendered decades later.
Courts and legislatures have long held that there are very few instances where a statute of limitations should not apply to conduct, be that conduct negligent or willful. The State Bar’s assertion of a lifetime exemption from the statute of limitations for attorney misconduct, simply because the bar initiated the proceedings, is an abuse of its powers. In accordance with its stated policy reasons for statutes of limitation for crimes, the Supreme Court should place limitations on the time frame in which its administrative disciplinary arm can bring charges of attorney misconduct.
Michele Hanisee is President of the Association of Los Angeles Deputy District Attorneys, the collective bargaining agent representing nearly 1,000 Deputy District Attorneys who work for the County of Los Angeles.

Share:

Dead CEO's near Oracle connected to CIA, CIA Director Porter


The reason I follow dead CEOs started with Dale Ratliff of Mountain Lakes NJ, former CEO of Playtex then located in Bergen NJ. 

The Bennett's an Ratliff's shared backyards, Matt and Mitch Ratliff, Pete Bennett, Randy Grieg, Seth, and Rob S. were good friends, Pete had a big basement, we all used to play all night Monopoly, War or build the HO train layout in the attic.  

 Matt reach out to me

I was at the Contra Costa County software incubator the same day that a longtime acquaintance Tom Gonzales senior was in his office we all shared the same floor actually is IPO went off and I remember Tom saying to me AP I'm worth seventy-five million I walked by about 20 minutes later and he was worth 85 million or something like that.

Years later I saw Tom senior and Tom Jr in a bank in Lafayette and little did I know Tom Jr was dying of cancer.

They founded Distra Corp, which became commerce one which after going public  became the darling of darling of Walk Street.

Years later Tom where his foundation ended up in a court room with the same wonderful attorneys connected to the Contra Costa bar Association.

The son of the former president of the bar is dead oh, so is the daughter of the former district attorney.

This is where theranos and Commerce  One thread together via Balwani now being prosecuted by the SEC in connection to the failure of Theranos.

Some of the key investors came from Southern Pacific are linked to
Share:

Anchor links for post titles

Popular Posts

Blog Archive

Labels

Recent Posts

Popular Posts

Labels

Recent Posts

Pages

Labels

Blog Archive

Recent Posts