December 02, 2008 Senator Barbara Boxer Judge Joanne Remke 312 N. Spring Street Suite 1748 Los Angeles, Calif. 90012 Re: Milberg Like Bar Members’ Deviant Concealment Ms. Boxer, This is an 18 USC §§2382 – 2387 report providing a certified overview about top class action firm partners and senators chronic violations of textbook law of price in high stake price litigation. I. Partner Crafted Class Contracts To introduce the topic of fatally illegal class action client contracts, class partners do not disclose and agree upon, based on owed disclosures and attendant agreement, their regular retail hourly price lists with any client. These numbers are never agreed to. Partner bar esquires often file under seal or in secret their own firm prices or price lists, thus rendering compliance or assumptions with the rule in this context simply impossible. The about negotiating prices right out of the box is: “A lead plaintiffs fiduciary obligations begin with its selection of counsel and negotiation of retain price arrangements. As this Court stated, the lead plaintiffs obligation is to obtain the most qualified representation at the lowest cost. a. Counsels’ Percentage Rig – A Fixed, Standard Figure Criminally, class partners seduce their own clients into signing an ambiguous “percentage pay day” contract term in lieu of tendering basic contract price law information and agreeing on “reasonable markups” for legal services rendered. Hourly price tags, top to bottom: A) Are not even discussed, never mind negotiated with a client; B) Are not even contained in any retainer contract to even agree on; and C) Are not set in accordance with real simple law of hourly price tags, e.g. To illustrate, in late 2008 one price right master (Francis Scarpulla) talked about and “agreed” not to perform a cost equals price study, but rather to bump up and match with Guido Saveri’s $900 sticker price tag. Many adjectives are used to “screen” the reality of “getting and using rivals’ prices to match around (at, over or under) those prices. This act is employed in lieu of complying with textbook law of price. Made up synonyms for these “forbidden” acts include: A) Oligopolistic pricing (aka - match up ambit pricing); B) Parallel pricing (aka, price up together with rivals); and/or C) “Conscious” parallel pricing (aka, skip correct pricing and line up higher). II. Class Partners’ Match Pricing Treason Matched or parallel pricing veils and the small bodies of case law on this subject are circular masks that all skip textbook law of price compliance. The “smartest guys in the room” designed this un-slick trick, making excuses for supremely forbidden pricing: A) “Match another’s price” up (forbidden); and B) “Narrow ambit off another’s” price up (forbidden). The above identification words were carefully chosen and discussed by our supreme court. These exact words were supremely supplemented by these identifying facts, directly nailing the guts of a direct breach of textbook law of price: The record shows that they … sought and obtained … competitors prices …. Knowledge of a competitors price … meant matching that price. The getting and using, called exchange, of price information seemed to have the effect of keeping prices within a fairly narrow ambit. The result … was to stabilize prices up more every year - and never down …. The inferences are irresistible that the exchange of price information has had an anticompetitive effect in the entire class market maker industry, chilling the vigor of price competition. On this record, taking into account the especially sensitive function of the price term in the class market maker’s antitrust equation, I cannot see that we would be justified in reaching any conclusion other than that … tacit agreement …. Under the price laws, numerous practices have been held illegal per se without regard to their precise purpose or harm. There are certain practices ,which because of their pernicious effect on reasonable markup business, lack of any redeeming virtue and are conclusively presumed to be unreasonable and therefore illegal without elaborate inquiry as to the precise harm … caused …. Held: 1. The reciprocal calling or otherwise obtaining and using (exchange) rival price information is concerted action sufficient to establish the conspiracy ingredient of § 1 …. 2. The hourly price stabilization which resulted from the sought, obtained and used exchange of price data had an anticompetitive effect in the … local industry, chilling the vigor of price competition. III. Excuses About corrupt excuses for pricing wrong, there are waves of supreme cases about “justifications or excuses” – none are allowed. Container explains: Ruinous competition, financial disaster, evils of price cutting and the like appear throughout our history as ostensible justifications for price-fixing. About excuses, view Francis Scarpulla. He recently bumped himself to Guido and other’s lead price at $900 per hour. This man worked four days a week, regularly unavailable for business on Fridays when I began working with him in 1994. He drives the finest cars, wears the finest suits, has a fat bank account, owns lots of land, stuff, restaurants and so forth. In spite of this, he publicly fibs about his pricing, verbatim: Mr. Scarpulla defended the marked-up charges for paralegal work as “common practice” and said all law firms make similar adjustments. “Otherwise I … would go broke,” he said. Both directly and by omission, class firms on both sides of the fence all stick to the same outrageous fib. Post Kirby’s Mr. Noonan’s recorded words confirm: There is no basis … to suggest… some obligation … to have cost … pricing …. IV. Closing Concealment of the above information is a direct class client conflict – of central materiality. It thus renders all class attorneys’ fees forfeited - without exception. I’m available to consult on this “not complex” subject of class esquire crimes. Thank you for addressing this social deviance and mail fraud problem: Attempt, Esq. Deposit 20 Years $1,000,000 = per count! Kind regards, https://youtube/watch?v=4AKbUm8GrbM
Posted on: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 02:06:00 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015