NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY - March 10, 2008 United States Attorney Karen P. Hewitt announced the unsealing of an indictment and arrest of Kent Douglas Trego of La Jolla for threatening a volunteer of the Animal Protection and Rescue League (“APRL”). The sealed indictment was returned by a federal grand jury sitting in San Diego on March 4, 2008, and unsealed upon Mr. Trego’s arraignment today before United States Magistrate Judge Louisa S. Porter. Mr. Trego was arrested on March 7, 2008, pursuant to a bench warrant issued in connection with the indictment. Mr. Trego was charged with one count of threatening to retaliate against a federal witness and two counts of transmitting threats in interstate commerce. According to Assistant U. S. Attorney Mitch Dembin, who is prosecuting the case, the threat that forms the basis for Counts 1 and 2 of the indictment stems from an incident that occurred at the La Jolla Children’s Pool on September 22, 2007. On that date, an APRL volunteer videotaped two scuba divers walk between two groups of resting harbor seals to enter the water. ... OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA San Diego, California United States Attorney Karen P. Hewitt For Further Information, Contact: Assistant U. S. Attorney Mitch Dembin, 619-557-5558 For Immediate Release NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY - March 10, 2008 ... May 26, 2011 Judge Themis N. Karnezis and Clerks Illinois Appellate Court First District, 2nd Division 160 North LaSalle St. Chicago, IL 60601 Re: McDermott - Latham’s Failure to Disclose Misconduct (Hardwicke) Baker v. Jewel et al, 355 Ill.App.3d 62, 823 N.E.2d 93 (1st Dist. 2005). Judge Karnezis and Clerks, This short, verified disclosure about Wall Street firm misconduct adds to my 05-20-11 briefing. Again, this semi-formal briefing is based on the reality that disinformation injected into our judicial system by Wall Street and their firms like Latham & Watkins results in transparently incorrect and, in some instances, regrettable opinions. Foremost, this court’s ongoing power in this matter, to uphold its own integrity, is identified in ABA’s model rules and Illinois’s code, verbatim: A judge having knowledge of a violation of these cannons on the part of a judge or a violation of Rule 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct on the part of a lawyer shall take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures. With regard to the previously presented and attached facts and law omitted here, this misconduct reminder is instructive: “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; and (d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, e.g.” Next, I apologize for Latham et al.’s concealment of the supremely binding “agreement” principles articulated in U.S. v. Container, 393 U.S. 333 (1969) and deceitful use of the word competition through the course of the above litigation. See attached P1 (P=C). Sadly, it did so knowing the definition of competition means exactly zero left over for Wall Street (TR=TC): In a competitive situation … prices … stabilize at a competitive level -- i.e., price will equal cost …. U.S. v. Container, 393 U.S. 333 (1969). I apologize for Latham and McDermott’s concealment of the attached information. P3- Thank you for your attention to this economic problem created by big firms. Kind regards, chicagolawbulletin/Elements/pages/print.aspx?printpath=/Archives/2014/01/22/In-Chambers-Bernstein-1-22&classname=tera.gn3article
Posted on: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 19:03:13 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015