Sidley Austin Partner's Suicide: 'Too Many Lawyers Mask Their Struggles'

Sidley Austin Partner's Suicide: 'Too Many Lawyers Mask Their Struggles'

Hopefully the U.S. Department of Justice will protect me
Learn more

Coincidence or Nefarious Solutions

City Attorney Mark Coon, Kilpatrick Attorney James Gilliland, Son of Contra Costa Bar President James Greenan, Former House Ethics Lawyer Miguel Tourno, Son of Intellectual Patent Attorney Art Beheil,

Forty Years of Murders and Witness Intimidation

Sidley Austin’s Peter Keisler Takes on More Formal Role for AT&T in Antitrust Appellate Battle

As the AT&T’s defense against a Justice Department antitrust challenge advances into a Washington appeals court, Keisler is set to assume a more formal role.

By C. Ryan Barber | July 17, 2018 at 12:32 PM

Peter Keisler. Photo by Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM

During the six-week trial over AT&T’s planned acquisition of Time Warner, Sidley Austinpartner Peter
Keisler was a constant presence in court, looking on as O’Melveny & Myers’ Daniel Petrocelli mounted a successful defense of the $85 billion deal.

Now, as the AT&T’s defense against a Justice Department antitrust challenge advances into a Washington appeals court,
Keisler is set to assume a more formal role.

Keisler, a prominent appellate lawyer who briefly served as interim attorney general late in the George W. Bush administration, entered his first appearance for AT&T late Monday afternoon in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, identifying
himself as the lead counsel for a Sidley Austin team that includes Jonathan Nuechterlein and C. Frederick Beckner III, co-leaders of the firm’s communications regulatory practice. Also on the Sidley Austin team:
Richard Klingler, a partner at the firm who previously served as general counsel on the National Security Council staff during the Bush administration.

In Keisler, AT&T has a lawyer who was picked under the Bush administration for a seat on the D.C. Circuit, only to see his nomination scuttled by a Senate filibuster.

Although Keisler was listed in the filing as the lead attorney, an AT&T spokesman said the company expects O’Melveny & Myers to remain involved in the D.C. Circuit. The spokesman declined to identify the lawyer who will lead arguments in the D.C.
Circuit, saying it would be premature given that the Justice Department has yet to file its opening brief.

Keisler declined to comment.

The Justice Department in a filing July 12 signaled its plan to take the merger challenge to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. That notice came a month after U.S. District Judge Richard Leon handed down a 172-page opinion rejecting
arguments that AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner would substantially lessen competition and hurt consumers.

Petrocelli, a seasoned trial lawyer who took up AT&T’s case with little to no antitrust experience, has not yet entered an appearance in the D.C. Circuit. Cravath, Swaine & Moore partner Christine Varney, a former head of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division, is representing Time Warner.

Since his return to Sidley Austin in 2008, Keisler has established himself as a go-to lawyer for companies clashing with the government. Indeed, during the Obama administration, he frequently partook in some of the highest profile cases challenging government
regulations.

Keisler previously represented AT&T in the challenge to the Federal Communications Commission’s net neutrality rules, which the D.C. Circuit upheld in 2016. Under a Trump-appointed Republican chairman, the FCC later repealed the rules, which required
internet services providers to treat all content and traffic equally.

In 2016, he argued before the D.C. Circuit for an array of trade associations—including
the American Chemistry Council Inc. and U.S. Chamber of Commerce—in a challenge to the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan. For the past two years, the D.C. Circuit has been granting 60-day abeyances in the
case as the Trump administration’s U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has worked to revise the plan. In its most recent order, the D.C. Circuit revealed that
some judges’ patience with EPA’s regulatory inaction is wearing thin.

Earlier in 2016, Keisler represented TransCanada in a lawsuit challenging the Obama administration over its decision to prevent the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. Keisler dropped the case a year later after the Trump administration greenlighted
the pipeline.

With Keisler on its side, AT&T appears confident in its chances of sealing the Time Warner deal in the D.C. Circuit. On July 13, AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson said on CNBC that the company believes “the likelihood of this thing being reversed and
overturned is really remote.”

“It’s a very narrow path that would have to be traveled to get this thing reversed in any way,” Stephenson said. “The merger is closed. We own Time Warner.”

Read More

18 U.S. Code § 1513 - Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant

(a)

(1)Whoever kills or attempts to kill another person with intent to retaliate against any personfor—

(A)

the attendance of a witness or party at an official proceeding, or any testimony given or any record, document, or other object produced by a witness in an official proceeding; or

(B)

providing to a law enforcement officer any information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, supervised release, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings,

shall be punished as provided in paragraph (2).

(2)The punishment for an offense under this subsection is—

(A)

in the case of a killing, the punishment provided in sections 1111 and 1112; and

(B)

in the case of an attempt, imprisonment for not more than 30 years.

(b)Whoever knowingly engages in any conduct and thereby causes bodily injury to another personor damages the tangible property of another person, or threatens to do so, with intent to retaliate against any person for—

(1)

the attendance of a witness or party at an official proceeding, or any testimony given or any record, document, or other object produced by a witness in an official proceeding; or

(2)

any information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, supervised release, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings given by a person to a law enforcement officer;

or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

(c)

If the retaliation occurred because of attendance at or testimony in a criminal case, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense under this section shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.

(d)

There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section.

(e)

Whoever knowingly, with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful to any person, including interference with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person, for providing to a law enforcement officer any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any Federal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

(f)

Whoever conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

(g)

A prosecution under this section may be brought in the district in which the official proceeding (whether pending, about to be instituted, or completed) was intended to be affected, or in which the conduct constituting the alleged offense occurred.

Read More

Finding and Evaluating Antitrust Complaints

Standards for Approving a Preliminary Investigation

In a matter where the suspected conduct appears to meet the Division’s standard for proceeding criminally, the decision whether to open an investigation will depend on two questions. The first is whether the allegations or suspicions of a criminal violation are sufficiently credible or plausible to call for a criminal investigation.

Meet my clients

Read More

Felony Attacks Upon the Witness

Read More

Felony Assault Pete Bennett v. Cypress Security / Contra Costa Public Library

Examples of felony assault or battery include:

• striking or threatening to strike a person with a weapon or dangerous object. 
• shooting a person with a gun or threatening to kill someone while pointing a gun at the victim. 
• assault or battery with the intent to commit another felony crime such as robbery or rape. 
• assault or battery resulting in serious... 

Felony Assault & Battery Laws and Penalties | Criminal Law

Read More

Mainframe Designs Cabinets and Fixtures and his former client PG&E (1981 to 1987)

Mainframe Designs Cabinets and Fixtures

Pete Bennett founded his cabinet business around 1979 in his small garage in Pleasant Hill CA. The shop survived with plenty of bumps and setbacks until 1989. The shop folded when FBI Agent Frank Doyle Jr. arrived explaining he was unable to protect me.


Of course I believed him as my left hand had just been shattered.

---

Mainframe Designs Cabinets and Fixtures

former site of cabinet shop owned by Pete Bennett plaintiff in the Matter of Bennett verus Southern Pacific, Contra Costa County (1987)

---

1989 ~ The Hand Injury

former site of cabinet shop owned by Pete Bennett plaintiff in the Matter of Bennett versus Southern Pacific, Contra Costa County (1987)

---

1987 ~ The Head Trauma and related injuries

One beautiful morning on or about August 27, 1987, Pete Bennett needed to send fax. One of his restaurant designer customers was just around the the corner allowed free use of their fax as in 1987,  fax machines were expensive. 

Just a few hundred feet on a my touring bike became a life changing event.

Read More

Culture to Culture and Walter Ng and The Billion Dollar Fraud Case

The BAR-K Investor Scandal

Many Contra Costa residents lost millions

In 2004 Mayor Candace Andersen and her husband Attorney Phillip Andersen employed by State Farm were well informed about the Building Inspector attack and the truck arson.  

I know today I am lucky to have survived the many attempts on my life but today my losses are in the millions  

Read More

Supervisor Candace Andersen & Oath of Office

Refuses Constituent Services

Ernie Scherer III Murder Investigation

When Ernie Scherer Jr. and wife Charlene were murdered in March 2008.   Upon learning about the brutal, I called and spoke with the Alameda County Sheriff Investigator in charge.   My comments linked up events in Danville linking San Ramon Ward under the Danville Stake (See Stakes, Wards and Temples) to my truck explosion and attempted murder.

Read More

July 11, 2014

Walter Liew Sentenced to 15 Years in Prison for Economic Espionage

SAN FRANCISCO—Yesterday, Walter Lian-Heen Liew (aka Liu Yuanxuan) was sentenced to serve 15 years in prison, forfeit $27.8 million in illegal profits, and pay $511,667.82 in restitution for what the sentencing judge described as a “white collar crime spree” that included violations of the Economic Espionage Act, tax evasion, bankruptcy fraud, and obstruction of justice, announced U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag; John P. Carlin, Assistant Attorney General for National Security at the Department of Justice; David Johnson, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), San Francisco Division; and Jose Martinez, Special Agent in Charge of the Oakland Field Office, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Criminal Investigation.

Liew was convicted on March 6, 2014, after a two month jury trial before the Honorable Jeffery S. White, U.S. District Court Judge, on each of the twenty counts with which he was charged. The jury found that Liew, his company, USA Performance Technology, Inc. (USAPTI), and Robert Maegerle conspired to steal trade secrets from E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company regarding their chloride-route titanium dioxide production technology and sold those secrets for large sums of money to state-owned companies of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The purpose of their conspiracy was to help those companies develop large-scale chloride-route titanium dioxide production capabilities in the PRC, including a planned 100,000-ton titanium dioxide factory in Chongqing. This case marks the first federal jury conviction on charges brought under the Economic Espionage Act of 1996.

The jury also found that Liew, USAPTI, and Maegerle obstructed justice during the course of their conspiracy. The jury found that Liew filed false tax returns for USAPTI and Performance Group, a predecessor company to USAPTI, and made false statements and oaths in bankruptcy proceedings for Performance Group.

Liew, 56, of Walnut Creek, Calif., originally was indicted in August 2011 and the grand jury subsequently returned two superseding indictments. Liew was convicted of conspiracy to commit economic espionage, conspiracy to commit theft of trade secrets, attempted economic espionage, attempted theft of trade secrets, possession of trade secrets, conveying trade secrets, conspiracy to obstruct justice, witness tampering, conspiracy to tamper with evidence, false statements, filing false tax returns, false statements in bankruptcy proceedings, and false oath in bankruptcy proceedings. Liew was an owner and president of USAPTI, a company headquartered in Oakland, Calif., that offered consulting services. USAPTI was found guilty of conspiracy to commit economic espionage, conspiracy to commit theft of trade secrets, attempted economic espionage, attempted theft of trade secrets, possession of trade secrets, conveying trade secrets, and conspiracy to obstruct justice.

Evidence at trial showed that in the early 1990s, Liew met with the government of the PRC and was informed that the PRC had prioritized the development of chloride-route titanium dioxide (TiO2) technology. TiO2 is a commercially valuable white pigment with numerous uses, including coloring paint, plastics, and paper. DuPont’s TiO2 chloride-route process also produces titanium tetrachloride, a material with military and aerospace uses. Liew was aware that DuPont had developed industry leading TiO2 technology over many years of research and development and assembled a team of former DuPont employees, including Robert Maegerle, to assist him in his efforts to convey DuPont’s TiO2 technology to entities in the PRC. Liew executed contracts with state-owned entities of the PRC for chloride-route TiO2 projects that relied on the transfer of illegally obtained DuPont technology. Liew, Maegerle, and USAPTI obtained and sold DuPont’s TiO2 trade secrets to the Pangang Group companies for more than $20 million.

The jury found Liew, Maegerle, and USAPTI guilty of obstructing justice by causing an answer to be filed in a federal civil lawsuit in which they falsely claimed that no information from DuPont’s Kuan Yin plant was used in the USAPTI designs for the development of TiO2 manufacturing facilities. Liew was also found guilty of witness tampering for his efforts to influence a co-defendant’s testimony in the civil lawsuit. The jury also convicted Liew of conspiring with his wife, Christina Liew, to mislead the FBI by corruptly concealing records, documents, and other objects during the FBI’s investigation into their criminal activity.

Liew was also convicted of filing a false income tax return for his company, Performance Group, for calendar years 2006, 2007, and 2008 and for USAPTI in 2009 and 2010. The jury also found Liew guilty of making false statements and a false oath in connection with filing for bankruptcy for Performance Group in 2009.

Liew, as co-owner of USAPTI, entered into contracts worth nearly $28 million to convey TiO2 trade secret technology to Pangang Group companies. The Liews received millions of dollars of proceeds from these contracts. The proceeds were wired through the United States, Singapore, and ultimately back into several bank accounts in the PRC in the names of relatives of Christina Liew.

The sentence was handed down by the Honorable Jeffrey S. White, U.S. District Court Judge. The Court stated during the sentencing hearing that the 15 year sentence was intended, in part, to send a message that the theft and sale of trade secrets for the benefit of a foreign government is a serious crime that threatens our national economic security. In addition to the prison term, the Court ordered Liew to forfeit $27.8 million, and to pay $511,667.82 in restitution to DuPont and victims of his bankruptcy fraud and a $2,000 special assessment ($100 for each of the twenty counts of conviction).

The case was prosecuted by attorneys from the Special Prosecution Unit of the U.S. Attorney’s and the U.S. Department of Justice National Security Division. The FBI and the IRS Criminal Investigation Division were responsible for the investigation.

Further Information:

Case #: CR-11-0573  JSW

A copy of this press release may be found on the website of the U.S. Attorney’s Office at http://www.justice.gov/usao/can/index.html.

This content has been reproduced from its original source.

Read More

U.S. v. LIEW: Opening Statements and FBI Testimony Kick Off Seven-Week Industrial Espionage Tria

U.S. v. LIEW: Opening Statements and FBI Testimony Kick Off Seven-Week Industrial Espionage Trial

Editorial BoardPosted on January 8, 2014

A prosecutor opened the economic espionage trial of Walter Liew on Wednesday by waving at jurors a key that he alleged opened Liew’s safe deposit box containing industrial secrets stolen from DuPont.

Assistant U.S. Attorney John Hemann led jurors through an almost cinematic scene that culminated with FBI agents confronting Liew and his wife, Christina, with the key found during a search of their Orinda, California home. Liew sat at the defense table during opening statements in San Francisco, as did co-defendant Robert Maegerle, a former DuPont employee.

According to Hemann, when agents asked about the key, Liew instructed his wife in Mandarin as to how to respond. Eric Bozman, an FBI special agent who participated in the search of the Liews’ home, testified that the couple exchanged “a very dwelling look” when agents asked about the key. Walter Liew then spoke to his wife in Mandarian, directing her to answer, “You don’t know, don’t know,” Bozman testified. Christina Liew then told the agents: “I don’t remember” what the key opened. What the Liews apparently didn’t know is that Bozman also understands Mandarin (he identified himself as Caucasian) and understood what Liew allegedly told his wife to say.

Then, Hemann told jurors, Christina Liew drove from the home to a bank—trailed, without her knowledge, by FBI agents—where she asked bank personnel to open the safe deposit box. The bank did not immediately accommodate her, so she drove to a hotel where she met with a group of Chinese businessmen from the Pangang Group allegedly involved in the plot to steal DuPont’s secrets for building a titanium dioxide plant in China, Hemann said.

While searching the Liews’ home, FBI agents simultaneously raided the Delaware home of Maegerle. There they found confidential DuPont blueprints, Hemann said.

“The searches will prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that Walter Liew and Robert Maegerle used confidential information to give themselves advantage and to give the Pangang Group an advantage” in making titanium dioxide, Hemann said in his opening statement. Among the documents recovered from Liew, he said, were DuPont documents explaining how to build a titanium dioxide factory and internal DuPont documents on the process of making the white powder used to color everything from toothpaste to paper. That process, Hemann said, “is dirty and dangerous and difficult and DuPont figured out how to do it in a way that was commercially viable”—methods protected by trade secrets, he said.

But in his opening remarks, Liew’s defense counsel Stuart Gasner disputed that the process of making titanium dioxide with choride even qualified as a trade secret. There are thousands of patents covering the technology, many of them expired, he said. Gasner showed jurors what he said was a 1949 textbook containing a chapter on the process. “This is an area of technology that a lot of people know a lot about,” he said.

“Sure, they [DuPont] deserve a lot of credit for inventing particular aspects” of manufacturing titanium dioxide with chloride, he said.  But “time ran out on them” as their patents expired, and “they tried to go into overtime using trade secret law in a way it wasn’t intended to be used.”

Moreover, he said, Liew carefully researched both the technology and the law governing whether it was protected by trade secrets.  Liew did not believe he was using anyone’s secrets, Gasner said.  Maegerle had left DuPont 14 years before he started working with Liew on titanium dioxide and believed he was well beyond the period covered by any confidentiality agreements, he said.

As for the many documents found in Liew’s possession, Gasner said they represented a tiny fraction of the data on the computers and servers searched by government agents. Gasner showed the jury a slide depicting the five terabytes of data on those devices—information that, if printed on standard paper, would form a stack so high it would nearly reach a satellite. Prosecutors, he said, were focusing on a “tiny, tiny fraction of the work” they found on the devices, he said.

In his opening, Maegerle’s lawyer Jerome Froelic also attacked the government’s contention that DuPont’s recipes for making titanium dioxide with chloride were protectable trade secrets. Froelic acknowledged his client used information gleaned while he was employed by Dupont. “But it was information Robert Maegerle believed was not trade secret, had been revealed by DuPont and that he believed was no longer covered by his confidentiality agreement,” the lawyer said.

Emphasizing the significance of the safe deposit box key to the prosecution, the government returned to that issue by calling Bozman as its first witness.  Bozman testified he was assigned to watch the Liews while agents searched their home. While watching them, another agent asked the couple about the key.

Gasner suggested that the FBI was trying to deceive the Liews into saying something incriminating by assigning them a Caucasian minder, whom the couple would not suspect spoke Mandarin. “You don’t look Chinese. Wasn’t that part of the plan?”  Gasner asked. Bozman denied there was any such plan.

Maegerle’s attorney also tried to attack Bozman’s credibility with a series of questions about his hearing. Bozman testified he was born with a collapsed ear canal and had a hearing impediment until surgery at age 5. But under questioning from Assistant U.S. Attorney Peter Axelrod, Bozman said he had passed four FBI hearing tests.

Bozman was confident and congenial on the stand, and appeared to keep the jury’s attention.

Prosecutors called two other FBI agents who were involved in trailing Christina Liew during the search of her home: Special Agent Kieu Lefevre, who testified that she staked out the home in the hour before the raid and afterward; and Special Agent Kenneth Karch, who said he too trailed her after she left the home, and for several weeks afterward.

The government plans to call two other agents involved in the search on Thursday. The trial is expected to last for seven weeks.

4

Read More

The Secret 9-11 Link to AT&T, Pete Bennett and Special Agent Kenneth Karch

cc

Read More

Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Sentenced to 97 Months in Prison Fined $9 Million for Role in Laundering $30 Million of Extortion Proceeds

U.S. Attorney’s OfficeNovember 19, 2009

Northern District of California(415) 436-7200

SAN FRANCISCO—Pavel Ivanovich Lazarenko was sentenced yesterday to 97 months in prison, ordered to pay a $9 million fine and forfeit $22,851,000 and various specified assets resulting from his money laundering convictions, First Assistant United States Attorney David Anderson announced. The court deferred decision on restitution.

“The U.S. Attorney’s Office has maintained throughout this case that Pavel Lazarenko misused his office to extort tens of millions of dollars from a Ukrainian citizen, lied to the people of Ukraine about his assets, and abused our banking system in an attempt to establish a safe haven in the United States,” First Assistant U.S. Attorney Anderson said. “Yesterday’s sentence should send a strong message to corrupt foreign public officials—they will be held accountable if they misuse their office and try to make safe harbor in the United States.”

After a 10-and one-half week trial, Lazarenko was convicted by a jury on June 3, 2004, on 29 counts of money laundering, wire fraud, and interstate transportation of stolen property. During the trial, evidence showed that starting in the early 1990s, when he was the governor of an industrialized region in Ukraine, Lazarenko abused his official authority to extort Ukrainian businessman Peter Kiritchenko of 50 percent of his profits. Over time, and as Lazarenko rose in office to become the Prime Minister, Kiritchenko paid Lazarenko $30 million, which was half of Kiritchenko’s $60 million in profits. At Lazarenko’s direction, Kiritchenko assisted him in laundering the proceeds of that extortion through accounts in Poland, Switzerland, Antigua, and, ultimately, the United States, where Lazarenko used a shell company to conceal his purchase of a multi-million dollar residence in Marin, Calif. Kiritchenko pleaded guilty to one count of receipt of stolen property and testified against Lazarenko.

After trial, the court dismissed 15 counts and sentenced Lazarenko on 14 counts. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals later affirmed all of Lazarenko’s money laundering convictions (eight counts) dismissed the other charges and vacated the original sentence. Yesterday’s sentencing was on the eight counts of money laundering. Because the judge who presided over the trial and initial sentencing, the Honorable Martin J. Jenkins, left the federal bench, the case was reassigned to the Honorable Charles R. Breyer, who handled the resentencing.

“We are pleased Mr. Lazarenko has been held accountable for his crimes,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge Stephanie Douglas. “The wanton abuse of official power undermines people’s faith in their elected leaders and the effectiveness of any government. In this age of internationalization, we must diligently pursue corruption wherever it takes hold to help ensure public officials act for the benefit of their constituency, not for their own personal gain.”

“Uncovering the trail of money was key in identifying the corrupt actions of Mr. Lazarenko,” said Scott O’Briant, Special Agent in Charge, IRS Criminal Investigation. “If you put illegal money gain ahead of obeying the law, you can expect to be investigated, prosecuted and sent to prison."

This case is the first prosecution of a foreign leader for laundering the proceeds of extortion through financial institutions in the United States.

Peter B. Axelrod, Stephanie Hinds, Patricia Kenney and Hartley West are the Assistant U.S. Attorneys who are prosecuting the case with the assistance of Wilson Wong, Alicia Chin, and Carolyn Jusay. The Department of Justice Organized Crime and Racketeering Section supported this prosecution. The prosecution is the result of a six-year investigation by the FBI and IRS.

Further Information:

Case #: 00-284 CRB

This content has been reproduced from its original source.

Read More

FBI Director Mueller, Ukraine and FBI Agent Frank Doyle Jr.

Editor Notes:

Relevance #1: Frank Doyle Jr. first contact 1989, Pittsburg CA
Relevance #2: In the Matter of Bennett v. Southern Pacific, witness Floyd Brown Jr. murdered
Relevance #3: Doyle operated the West Coast Bomb School
Relevance #4: Pete Bennett former resident of Danville CA is arson/bombing victim
Relevance #5: Pavel Lazarenko and Ukrainian businessman Peter KiritchenkoKey People

Connecting Actors in 1993 World Trade Center Bombings

The Investigators
U.S. Attorney for the Southern District
Learn more

9/11 Bennett, Doyle, Burd, Kopf, AT&T, Safeway

1989 FBI Agent Frank Doyle Jr.

During Bennett v. Southern Pacific Contra Costa Superior Court (1987) the above FBI agent arrived at Mainframe Designs Cabinets and Fixtures.

Action Action

1990 The Judi Bari Bombing

Cras justo odio, dapibus ac facilisis in, egestas eget quam. Donec id elit non mi porta gravida at eget metus. Nullam id dolor id nibh ultricies vehicula ut id elit.

Action Action

The 1993 World Trade Center Bombing

Cras justo odio, dapibus ac facilisis in, egestas eget quam. Donec id elit non mi porta gravida at eget metus. Nullam id dolor id nibh ultricies vehicula ut id elit.

Action Action

1989
FBI Agent Frank Doyle Jr.

During Bennett v. Southern Pacific Contra Costa Superior Court (1987) the above FBI agent arrived at Mainframe Designs Cabinets and Fixtures.

View details »

1990 The Judi Bari Bombing

Donec id elit non mi porta gravida at eget metus. Fusce dapibus, tellus ac cursus commodo, tortor mauris condimentum nibh, ut fermentum massa justo sit amet risus. Etiam porta sem malesuada magna mollis euismod. Donec sed odio dui.
View details »

The 1993 World Trade Center Bombing

Donec id elit non mi porta gravida at eget metus. Fusce dapibus, tellus ac cursus commodo, tortor mauris condimentum nibh, ut fermentum massa justo sit amet risus. Etiam porta sem malesuada magna mollis euismod. Donec sed odio dui.
View details »

Read More

National Security ~ Focus on Energy

• Communications • Nuclear • Hydro • Solar • Wind • Water

Read More

The Flag and the Father - One of many reasons you woke up free today

The Flag and the Father

There is a story near me of the son and step-son of the mother once a friend, who married, divorced and then step-mom became my Tailor.

Read More

The Lies of PG&E, Defense Team

Read More

Energy Defense ~ Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure cloud program (JEDI)

Read More

Team Telecom Reviews Need More Structure

Team Telecom Reviews Need More Structure: The Commission has clarified our past broadcast foreign ownership restrictions and now needs to c

Read More

San Jose police shoot person at Metcalf Energy Center

Read More

FBI Director Robert Mueller

 source: Biography.com

Read More

ff

How to File an ADA Complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice

You can file an Americans with Disabilities Act complaint alleging disability discrimination against a State or local government or a public accommodation (private business including, for example, a restaurant, doctor's office, retail store, hotel, etc.). A complaint can be filed online using the link below, or by mail, or by fax.

To file an ADA complaint online:

Online Complaint Form | (en Español)
Instructions for submitting attachments are on the form.

To file an ADA complaint by mail:

US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Civil Rights Division
Disability Rights Section – 1425 NYAV
Washington, D.C. 20530

To file an ADA complaint by fax: (202) 307-1197

Please keep a copy of your complaint and the original documents for your own records.

Common Questions About Filing a Complaint

1. How can I file an ADA complaint with the Department of Justice?
2. What information should my ADA complaint include?
3. What accommodations may I request if I cannot prepare my own ADA complaint because of my disability?
4. What happens after my complaint is received?
5. How can I find out the status of my complaint?
6. What happens if my complaint is referred for possible mediation?
7. What happens if my complaint is opened for investigation?
8. How will the information in my complaint be used?

1. How can I file an ADA complaint with the Department of Justice?

If you believe that you or another person has been discriminated against by an entity covered by the ADA, you may file a complaint with the Disability Rights Section (DRS) in the Department of Justice. You may submit your complaint online or by mail or fax. (Letters and packages sent to the DRS by U.S. Mail are delayed for security screening.) All new complaints are subject to processing and review.

2. What information should my ADA complaint include?

Provide the following information:

1. Your full name, address, the telephone numbers where we can reach you during the day and evening, and the name of the party discriminated against (if known);
2. The name and address of the business, organization, institution, or person that you believe has committed the discrimination;
3. A brief description of the acts of discrimination, the dates they occurred, and the names of individuals involved;
4. Other information you believe necessary to support your complaint, including copies (not originals) of relevant documents; and
5. Information about how to communicate with you effectively. Please let us know if you want written communications in a specific format (e.g., large print, Braille, electronic documents) or require communications by video phone or TTY.

You may use the ADA online complaint form for any ADA complaint, but you are not required to do so.

3. What accommodations may I request if I cannot prepare my own ADA complaint because of my disability?

If you are unable to write because of your disability and are unable to submit a complaint online, by mail, or fax, the Department can assist you by scribing your complaint by phone or, for individuals who communicate by American Sign Language, by videophone.

Contact the ADA Information Line at 1-800-514-0301 (voice) or 1-800-514-0383 (TTY) to schedule an appointment.  Please be advised that it may take two weeks or more for Department staff to contact you. 

4. What happens after my complaint is received?

After the complaint is received and reviewed, we will inform you of our action, which may include:

1. Contacting you for additional information or copies of relevant documents;
2. Referring your complaint for possible resolution through the ADA Mediation Program;
3. Referring your complaint to the United States Attorney's Office in your area for investigation;
4. Referring your complaint to another federal agency with responsibility for the types of issues you have raised.
5. Investigating your complaint; or
6. Considering your complaint for possible litigation by the Department of Justice.

We cannot investigate or litigate every complaint. If we are unable to take any action on your complaint, we will send you a letter telling you this.

5. How can I find out the status of my complaint?

We review each complaint carefully. Because we receive a large volume of ADA complaints from people throughout the United States, our review can take up to three months. If you have not heard from us by the end of this three-month period, you can find out the status of your complaint by calling the ADA Information Line at 1-800-514-0301 (voice) or 1-800-514-0383 (TTY). A member of our staff will contact you to tell you if your complaint has been received and if it is still under consideration for possible action.

6. What happens if my complaint is referred for possible mediation?

The ADA Mediation Program is an important part of ADA compliance.  Using professional ADA-trained mediators throughout the United States, mediation is a confidential, voluntary way to resolve ADA complaints fairly and quickly.  Types of complaints most appropriate for this program include barrier removal, program accessibility, effective communication, and modification of policies, practices, and procedures.  If we determine that your complaint is appropriate for mediation, we will contact you and the entity you complained about to find out if you are both willing to participate in mediation. 

7. What happens if my complaint is opened for investigation?

If your complaint is opened for investigation, an investigator or attorney will be assigned and will contact you to obtain additional information.

During the investigation, the attorney or investigator will not necessarily make a determination about whether or not an ADA violation has occurred. If he or she believes there is a pattern or practice of discrimination or the complaint raises an issue of general public importance, DRS may attempt to negotiate a formal settlement of the matter, or may file a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of the Unites States. We do not act as an attorney for, or representative of, the complainant.

8. How will the information in my complaint be used?

The personal information will be used primarily for the Department of Justice’s authorized civil rights compliance and enforcement activities. DRS will not disclose your name or other identifying information about you unless it is necessary for enforcement activities against an entity alleged to have violated federal law, or unless such information is required to be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, or disclosure is allowed through the publication of a routine use in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a. To further the Department’s enforcement activities, information DRS has about you may be given to: appropriate Federal, State, or local agencies; Members of Congress or staff; volunteer student workers within the Department of Justice so that they may perform their duties; the news media when release is made consistent with the Freedom of Information Act and 28 C.F.R. § 40.2; and the National Archives and Records Administration and General Services Administration to perform records management inspection functions in accordance with their legal responsibilities.

Providing DRS with the requested information is voluntary except that failure to provide such information may result in DRS being unable to process your complaint.

For other questions, call the ADA Information Line at 1-800-514-0301 (voice) or 1-800-514-0383. ADA Specialists are available to answer questions on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday from 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. (Eastern Time). On Thursday, the Information Line is staffed from 12:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. (Eastern Time).

Read More

Special Counsel Robert Mueller

This is a teaser page for what I know about mr. Mueller and his relevance to a 1989 murder involving Southern Pacific, Philip Anschutz, later involving Richard Morgan, Kinder Morgan lines and Governor Newsom who signed a reward for $250,000 that almost got me killed.

That also brings in Oklahoma City bombing, events in Denver such Jobenet Ramsey the 1993 world trade Center bombing and events around 9:11 we're one of his agents was killed is the world trade Center.

Frank Doyle Jr.
The best part his his FBI agent Frank Doyle Jr was once in my cabinet shop in 1989 pitching is snake oil as investigation.


I have no ill-will towards mr. Mueller I'm really troubled that I am somehow very close to more than one plumbing and bomb squads plus I'm a little perturbed that my f250 blew up with me inside at 90 miles an hour.
And no one has the police report?

Read More

The Untold 2011 PG&E Data Breach

The Walnut Creek Centric Explosions, Fires and Pipe Bombs

Pete Bennett is no stranger to arson or explosions as his truck burst into a ball of fire in 2004

>

Get Shorty and his laptop

Bennett with son heads to Hillside Covenant Church for the visit with god

This PG&E Data Breach has the potential to destroy large segments of one of the most important Public Utility infrastructures in the country. >>

Former PG&E Programmer

Pete Bennett, adult male who 61 years of age, banned from local homeless shelter, who addressed the CPUC over the murders of relatives and his personal PG&E Experiences said it was "Insider Terrorism"

PG&E Investigator reviewing the LinkedIN Profile of Pete Bennett?

No Problem but why don't you return my phone calls?  Better yet can you pay me?

The Walnut Creek Centric Explosions, Fires and Pipe Bombs

Pete Bennett is no stranger to arson or explosions as his truck burst into a ball of fire in 2004

Read More