September 26, 2012 Brendan William Brandt Varner & Brandt LLP 3750 University Ave #610 Riverside, CA 92501-3323 dsniderlaw@gmail brendan.brandt@varnerbrandt Re: Cadre of Bar Firms, Chain Player’s Deceit Brand Name Bar Members, This business letter is to thank you for being market makers in the class arena. It also services as a class educational guide and invitation to a prepared “cadre of brand name firm and state bar” case series. I. The Brand Name Firm Cadre As the higher Ninth Circuit power court correctly observed in 2003, the Bonas matters were offensively brought by “a cadre of brand name firm” accusers. All of them specialize in contract price economic class it in both state and federal courts. After the root case was dismissed, it became a bench sponsored case, on behalf of Milk I players. Milberg was not a Milk I players. Running parallel in time to Eggs, the Milk I players all knew, but conceal from clients and courts, the following textbook laws of retail contract price economics: a. The “charge obligation of contracts” (Article 1:9): Price = Costs Good Faith Papers The Units The Money Work Price = Living Cost Papers b. The Break, gathering and using others’ numbers: Price = Costs Exchange Papers The Units The Money Exchange Papers Exchange Papers Labor Price = Exchange Papers c. Fudging cost numbers is price fixing: Cost Receipts Kickbacks Concessions Laundering - Bribes d. Firms’ Organized Initial Public Offering Crimes Milk I players, led by Scarpulla and Guido Saveri, overlapped with my WIC Chain eggs case: the same chain supermarkets, the same chain defense counsel, some of the same plaintiff’s counsel: James Garrett Kendrick and my former boss Dan Mogin. The players, as usual, turned their Milk I case into a trick, as usual. They settled for a payoff of about $4,000,000.00 in attorneys’ fees for themselves, coupons for clients, and a green light to continue hard core price fixing business as usual. The 9th Circuit parroted some of what these price law master firms led it to believe. Core material details, however, were not shared. It correctly referenced Bonas’ San Diego retail chain market “Egg” case, which was filed in 1996. But it omitted this sweeping fact – another cadre of “cadre of overlapping brand name firms” filed a Los Angeles retail chain market “Milk” case in 1993. By 1996, after just a dab of price system fact discovery, they met and agreed to a coupon settlement. They filed and signed many court documents in doing so, making many material representations. They “agreed” not to disclose a single rule of the law, summarized above. They “agreed” not to disclose a single computer price system fact in their papers. II. The Cadre, 1993 LA Chain Milk – Coupons The cadre of 1993 L.A. Milk case firms include the following, among others: Robert N. Wood Lawrence K. Rockwell Donahue, Gallagher, Woods & Wood (For Defendant Albertsons, Inc.) Jan Charles Gray (Kroger) Ralphs Grocery Company, Inc. ... Elizabeth Cabraiser Guido Saveri William Bernstein Francis Scarpulla Joseph Saveri Saveri & Saveri Lief Cabraiser Heimann Bernstein Office of Francis Scarpulla ... Each of these firms and their respective corporate clients had a vested interest in insuring that the above law and chain computer software agreement facts were never publicly disclosed in any subsequent case. Such facts, which alone are direct proof of a highly orchestrated, computer operated cartel membership, include the following under oath admissions: Q. We heard some testimony the other day about something called PMS? A. Yes. Q. Can you tell us what that is? A. That was a pretty sophisticated price management system that was run by the computer that had certain parameters in it, could be cents over Luckys, it could be a zone, it could be a cost, a plus there, and I think there was hold retail. Q. And whats hold retail? A. That typically was a buyers decision. He would make that decision whether it was a hold retail or not. And typically he would put hold retail on items that were very customer sensitive and he wanted to be able to look at that report every week and make a decision on what he was going to do on pricing rather than just let the computer come out and generate a new price based on the new costs that might be the wrong thing to do. Q. Did the computer allow you to, say, set our price at Luckys plus a couple of cents or Luckys minus a couple of cents, is that something you could have done? A. Yes. Q. Could you also say, I want to be a certain percentage above or below somebody elses price? A. Yes. Q. And could you also have used the computer to set the price based on the cost of goods? A. Yes. Q. And so if you didnt want to follow those formulas, then you did what you just said was hold retail? A. Thats correct. Q. What period of time was this computer system in effect? A. I would say it was the last three years, maybe a little longer. Q. And do you know during that period of time how WIC [Milk and Eggs] and other staple item prices were handled? A. Hold retail. Q. Why was that, if you know? A. Again, it was a sensitive item and we didnt want the computer to just automatically generate a huge price increase or huge price decrease, retail price decrease, without some looking at that. And our buyers felt that that was an important commodity to look at every week and make a judgment rather than let the machine decide on what your retail was going to be. Q. Do you know what the factors were that went into making that judgment? A. They would obviously look at what impact it would have on the consumer, because everything revolved around the consumer. If we did anything that we thought was going to hurt our sales or lose a customer, we knew it was important. It was quite expensive to regain that customer, so that was very important. It was looking at what the amount was of the increase, what was the gross margin, was it going to be within where his targets were, then they would make that decision. Q. Thank you. Mr. Howarth asked you some questions yesterday, he asked you whether you ever talked to your people about whether they were talking to competitors about … winking and nodding to those guys and putting the thumbs up on prices. Do you recall that? A. Yes. A release of such detail exposed every single one of these firms to open and shut court crimes. This reality is exactly why each of these firms had a vested interest in insuring an Eggs case failure from the day it was filed – September 13, 1996. Due to their vested interest (reputations and legal exposure for intentional crimes for which there is no E and O insurance), each of these firms monitored every step in the Eggs case. They talked on the phone, in person, at restaurants and at multiple meetings in “Los Angeles” and elsewhere. The decided to spend huge resources to structure a defense victory to block future etail chain supermarket litigation. Early on they cut this “through the case” deal with a former Gibson Dunn and Crutcher lawyer-economist, Don Howarth and Suzelle Smith. Direct proof of this back door, major crime deal includes: A) Neither Howarth nor Kendrick nor any other head partner showing up at the first, critical class certification hearing in 1997; B) Howarth being “out of town” for many critical stages of the ’99 trial itself; C) Howarth & Smith’s glaring gutting of direct proof from Q and A during the trial; D) Howarth and Smith’s completely cutting the Model Container case jury instruction from the first January, 1999 jury instruction submission; E) Howarth and Smith completely dancing around system agreements and details in their post trial briefings requesting a new trial; F) Howarth and Smith again completely gutting the same system facts from their opening appellate brief; and G) Munger Tolls own 01-16-01 signed paper about his assurance that Howarth would not “argue price checking system agreement facts.” The potency of the covert “price exchange/checking” concealment agreement Howarth made with chains’ counsel proved to eclipse his duties to his Southern California client’s of the Republic; many of these clients included needy Women, Infants and Children purchases through federally subsided food aid who trusted him. Indeed, leaks of this transparent criminal ring Howarth entered across February and March of 2001 tested the stability of his cartel agreement with Stone, which triggered another wave of even deeper criminal cartel acts. The direct proof of the Howarth and Stone and clans criminal court show triggered a campaign to deceitfully characterize the information as “nonsense, spam, harassing, threatening” and so forth. And it triggered them to wager an unprecedented character assassination campaign against Bonas. Both in and out of court, they slandered him with the following collection of untruths to ream his character: A) He’s a drug addict; B) He’s a drug dealer; C) He’s a terrorist; D) He’s a stalker; E) He’s had a nervous breakdown after losing a big trial fair and square; F) He’s a crazy spammer; G) He’s a physical danger to children; H) He’s delusional about law and facts; I) He’s mentally ill, he needs psychiatric help; J) His writings are gibberish, unintelligible and make no sense, so there really is no reason to expend resources to independently verify the simple truth of his word and writings; K) He’s mentally unstable; and L) Other defamatory untruths designed to convince others not to believe anything he said, says or writes - to insure he never worked in any legal field again. The collection of the referenced firms even secured agreement from their San Diego state trial and appellate courts to drive the case for them, without participation of the District Attorney. The fact confirms that these firms got the court to dangle a carrot to secure an attempted plea conviction. See 12-30-03 hearing transcript. When later challenged, these firms got their appellate court (Alex McDonald et al.) to deny an unchallenged appeal. The appellate court even wrote an unpublished opinion on behalf of the firm accusers. III. Cadre of Firm Libel and Slander To this day the residual of this cadre of firm cartel’s criminal act continues in spite of the unequivocal duty to withdrawal and mitigate damage caused. The specific requirements to recover in one’s defamation/slander for this cadre of firms, federal and state court and state BAR malfeasance consists of four easy elements: 1. First, one must prove another made a false and defamatory statement about one. 2. Second, one must prove the Bar made an unprivileged publication to a third party. 3. Third, one must prove the Bar acted negligently in speaking and writing it. 4. Fourth, in some cases, the plaintiff must prove special emotional damages. Since a given statement … must … be false to give rise to a cause of action, the defendant may assert the statements truth as an absolute defense to a libel claim. Law, however, recognizes a narrow exception to this defense: the truth or falsity of the statement is immaterial, and the libel action may proceed, if the plaintiff can show that the defendant acted with actual malice in publishing the statement. Defamatory Statements The essential element in any defamation action is that the defendant published something defamatory about the plaintiff. The Restatement defines a communication as defamatory if it tends so to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating with him work wise and/or socially. Examples of defamatory statements are virtually limitless and may include: • A communication imputing a serious crime involving moral turpitude or felony. • A communication reflecting negatively on one’s character, morality, or integrity. • A communication that impairs the plaintiffs financial well-being. • A communication suggesting plaintiff suffers from a mental defect that would cause others to refrain from associating with the plaintiff. Defamation per se Some categories of false statements are so innately harmful that they are considered to be defamatory per se. In the common law tradition, damages for such false statements are presumed and do not have to be proven. Statements are defamatory per se where they falsely impute: A) Allegations or imputations injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession; and/or B) Allegations or imputations of criminal activity (crimes of moral turpitude). False Light Generally, a false light claim requires the following: A) The defendant published the information widely (i.e., not to just a single person, as in defamation); B) The publication identifies the plaintiff; C) it places the plaintiff in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person; and D) The defendant was at fault in publishing the information. IV. Bigger Picture, Banks Own The Supermarkets The day these supermarket chains went public they literally became bank owned, through a web of shells and block interests. In “going public” and becoming “bank owned”, what the banks did was install their own price system into the supermarkets. It is a price system that the banks have long employed; it is a cartel system by definition. The Stock Connection Wall Street’s Big Banks As you know, the entire spectrum of selling stock money does not fit on any economic grid. This strain of price economics never existed before the great depression. It was created by the so called “1933 and 1934 Acts” – securities law. These acts are, by definition, monopoly-cartel money laws, spun as “investor protection” regulations. They purport to govern the way in which artificially inflated revenues are “shared with depositors, gamblers or so called investors.” It’s an ultra sophisticated design that simply did not exist before the 1930s. Selling money (counterfeit), through the allure of “getting more for doing nothing”, transformed into a gigantic industry with the efficiencies of industry. ... U.S. v. Bonas, 344 F.3d 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (“We ordered Bonas released” Mrrs. Noonan et al.). Economics in One Lesson, Chapter 8 (Henry Hazlitt , 6th Printing 1948 Harper & Brothers). Das Kapital, Karl Marx, (1st English Ed. 1887); Theory of Business Enterprise, Thorstein Velben (1904). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith (First Published 1776). The Condition of the Working-Class in England in 1844, by Frederick Engels (1845(in German). U.S. v. Container, 393 U.S. 333 (1969); Economics in One Lesson, Chapter 8 (Henry Hazlitt , 6th Printing 1948 Harper & Brothers). United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422 (1978); Theory of Business Enterprise, Thorstein Velben (1904). Sugar Institute, Inc. et al. v. United States, 297 U.S. 553 (1936); ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO. v. USA PETROLEUM CO., 495 U.S. 328 (1990); An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith (First Published 1776). Penne and Penne Realty, Inc., v. The Greater Minneapolis Area Board of Realtors, 604 F.2d 1143 (8th Cir. 1979).. Sugar Institute, Inc. et al. v. United States, 297 U.S. 553 (1936). Nash et al v. United States, 229 U.S. 373 (1913). Diane Barela and Neila Ross, et al. v. Ralphs Grocery Company et al., L.A. Sup. Court Case No. BC070061. Chains’ Gensemer testimony, at page 2657:6-2659:12. The People v. Cash Bonas, (D047928) Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, 2006 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8437 (September 21, 2006, Filed). Mass. Sch. of Law at Andover, 142 F.3d at 42 (citing Bander v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 47 N.E.2d 595, 598 (Mass. 1943)). Noonan v. Staples, Inc., 556 F. 3d 20 (1st Cir. 2009). White, 809 N.E.2d at 1036 n.4 (citing Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 92). See Restatement (2d) of Torts, §§ 570-574. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E. https://google/search?newwindow=1&espv=210&es_sm=122&biw=1536&bih=864&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=cia&oq=cia&gs_l=img.3..0l10.10729231.10729841.0.10730060.3.3.0.0.0.0.108.218.2j1.3.0....0...1c.1.32.img..2.1.49.szLcyt_mcxI
Posted on: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 02:10:08 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015