Katherine Feinstein, who as presiding judge steered San Francisco Superior Court through a series of debilitating state budget cuts, is retiring after more than 12 years on the bench and is open to running for public office, she told The Chronicle. The 55-year-old daughter of U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein downplayed, however, the possibility of vying for her mothers seat if the states senior senator does not run in 2018, saying her mother shows no signs of slowing down. The judge also indicated the Senate would be a big step for a neophyte to elected office, even one steeped in politics since childhood. That would be a big leap, Katherine Feinstein said. I think I have to sort of see how events unfold in the future. December 01, 2009 Dianne Feinstein United States Senator One Post St., Ste. 2450 San Francisco, Calif. 94104 Re: “Margin” Formula Is Not GAAP Compliant Willfully Deprived – 18 U.S.C. 241 – 242 by Feinstein USA Senate: This adds to prior qui tam showings by keying in on the “Margin Perk” of “going public”. Dr. Gene Arlin German testified to about the margin math as follows: Q. We’ve heard “gross margin” used by various witnesses in this trial. I want to make sure that the jury understands what you mean when you use the “gross margin” and what the various witnesses mean. So if you would explain your definition of that phrase? A. All right. Well, I think there are two parts to this definition or two parts of the explanation. One part is Gross Margin is by definition the difference between the selling price and the wholesale cost. A. So that’s quite easy. A. So I could use examples, but let’s keep it that simple. That amount of money, that difference between the cost and the selling price the … company uses to pay all of their expenses, and hopefully something is left over for profit. So it’s not profit in the sense that they go to the bank with gross margin. They use gross margin to pay overhead expenses. Q. I probably didn’t ask a very good question. Let me try to put it a little differently. We have sometimes heard Gross Margin expressed in percentage terms. Will you be expressing it in terms of percentage terms? A. Yes. Q. How do you calculate that gross margin percentage, what is the formula? A As part two of my explanation, the difference, when we subtract – when we subtract the invoice cost from the retail price, then to develop a percentage we divide that by the retail price. That’s the standard for the industry. All chain retailers do this; … all wholesalers do it; all food manufacturers use this con…. Q. So you use the retail, minus the wholesale, divided by retail? A. That’s correct. This testimony supplements the good doctors above words, verbatim: Q. Percentage gross profit. Is “gross profit” different than “margin,” as you understand those terms? A. Well, it depends on how you define margin. Q. How? A. Different companies use “margin” referring to different things. … Q. Okay. If the cost was 77 cents, & the retail price was $2.09, isn’t that more than a 40% gross profit? A. Yes it is. Q. Wouldn’t that be more than 100%? A. No. Not gross profit. Q. I need a calculator for this. A. Yes, I’d need a calculator. Q. So if I divided 77 cents by $2.09 – A. Right, you come up with “a” number, & then invert it to come up with your percentage. Q. Can I get a calculator just so we can all be on the same page? A. Sure. Q. Now, when we were off the record I handed you a calculator & you calculated the gross profit, as you defined that term, given a .77 cost & a $2.09 retail price, & you came up with 63.1579%. A. Percent. Confusion over this word margin resides the percentage reduction of the “markup” over costs. The margin formula shrinks the number such that it can never exceed 100 from a percentage view. The markup formula, on the other hand, discloses the reality of an over 100 percent markup on a percentage basis. For example, if the retail is 2.10 and the invoice price or cost is .70 that equals exactly a 200 percent “markup.” By comparison, it equals only a 66.6 percent “margin.” To illustrate the polar extreme of this “margin” formula, use a ten cent (.10) invoice cost and a $100 retail. $100 - .10 = $99.90. 99.90 divided by 100 = a .999 “margin” over cost. The formula never exceeds 100, that is how it was designed. Now, when framed by way of a gross markup over cost, it looks like this: .10 + .10 = .20 retail (a 100% markup) .10 + 99.9 = 100 .10 x 100 = 1000 100 % .10 = 1000 The formula freezes at 99 – for a reason that is less than altruistic. Third, to drive home the slick distinction between a “markup” over, e.g., an invoice cost and the “margin” over an invoice cost, the following sworn numbers are telling: Alb’s Murry Cookies – Choc Chip 20oz Bag 98.13 Alb’s Astro Pop (1oz) 95.16 V’s Mountain Spring Water 24.5 Liter 86.26 V’s Garlic Salt 18z RPK 83.56 See Exhibits P1 and 2, respectively. The formula is not GAAP compliant, which every publicly traded company materially misrepresents it to be. Proof of that was sealed by CPA John Arnold in San Diego, who may be contacted for independent confirmation. This margin shrink formula and its various manipulations triggers both IRS and S.E.C. “misreporting of material misinformation” issues. Naturally, as a publicly traded players like Mr. John Kerry and former Exxon CEO Lee Raymond, among others (like Martha Stewart) might not want this non-compliant margin reality “looked into,” investigated or prosecuted. But it has been. And two clinching ways to present this Wall Street’s Seats problem are: A) “Margin shrink” and laundering is not acute business acumen - Sherman Act Section 2, single Exchange Firm Acts); and B) Doing it all in concert, by admission under oath witnessed by two or more people, constitutes a “trust” “combination of acts, which is a Grasso – Nat Rothschild problem too. Sherman Act Section 1 (Concerted Firm Act). As explained by the U.S. Supreme Court in Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan: The purpose of the Act is not to protect businesses from the working of the market; it is to protect the public from the failure of the market. The law directs itself not against conduct which is competitive, even severely so, but against conduct which unfairly tends to destroy competition itself.” To aid those who might be terrorized, scared to death or otherwise genuinely fear “Trust” rules and the airing of facts that fit major wall street crime elements, I remind that any attempt to cross civil rights exposes one to the underlying criminal offense penalties and punishments: 18 U.S.C. 241: If two or more persons conspire to oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory … or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any Article III “Standing” right or supremacy clause privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United – They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap [by waging false power accusations], or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. One right secured by the Constitution is the right to defend oneself against false complaints or charges brought against one – civil or criminal. I have now observed, personally, through public documents and by first-hand witness briefings, that multiple 1983 and other class guardian positions, in concert, aimed to, did and do deprive many in defending the taking of their money, time property. An un-executed two page declaration of yesterday’s “over the line” event is attached for your information. Sadly, it is that when some guardians are faced with reminders of their own political misdeeds, they view supreme law as “harassing” and “threatening,” legally! We trust the information on the enclosed CD will assist the honorable senate in evaluating and determining which course to take about the masterfully, artfully, proficiently documented and presented situations. Kind regards, Gary Joseph Bonas II P.S. Yale’s Skull & Bones boy Steven Susman asked to be removed from my service list, which I trust you aid with accommodating as he is a player – a both sides of the fence player with “infamous” court candor problems. Chains’ Gene German under oath at trial pages 3795:11-3796:13. Chains’ Ken Hanshaw deposition page 288, played at trial. Chains’ Ken Hanshaw deposition page 288, played at trial. Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, 506 U.S. 447, 458 (1993). sfgate/politics/article/Katherine-Feinstein-retiring-as-judge-4133538.php
Posted on: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 03:52:13 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015