Sonoma County D.A. Report on Andy Lopez Shooting


 

By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Here are some choice quotes from my commentary on the Sonoma County District Attorney report on the shooting of Andy Lopez:

By reason of the Government Code Section 3307, Peace Officers cannot be required to take polygraph examinations, a privilege that does not exist for the FBI, CIA, or any other State of Federal employee. Their “Methodology” begins as inherently flawed as arbitrarily limited by the Government Code for strictly political reasons. That the report fails to note such limitation represents a gross disregard of epistemology.

********

As a member of the MAGNET team did he ever testify as a gang expert in court to get a “gang enhancement” charge or conviction? If so, did they review his testimony? So-called law enforcement “gang experts” are frequently liars and/or idiots who might technically meet “Frye” standards but could not possibly meet the more stringent “Daubert” standards in a federal court proceeding.

*******

Remember, supposedly this is happening with a 10.5 pound weapon. There is an obvious difference between a kid with a replica and a kid with a 10.5 pound real weapon in how they will handle it.

*******

For them to editorialize like this they should have been tested to detect deception in investigative interviews and found competent. Were they tested? What were the results?

*******

A test needs to be performed re-enacting the difference with several males of similar stature and size to Andy Lopez of doing this with the replica weapon and with a real AK 47. This is obvious and nobody should have drawn this conclusion without doing such a test.

So click below for the keyword searchable report in three parts, with my side note PDF commentary:

http://janbtucker.com/jb_tucker_in_action

Posted in Anecdotes & Adventures, Ideas & Opinions, Private Investigation Industry | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

What Would Emma Lazarus Say About Emigrantes?


 

By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Emma Lazarus Meme_001 Emma Lazarus Meme_002 Emma Lazarus Meme_003

Posted in Ideas & Opinions | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

US Justice Dept Touts US Record on Criminal Defense for the Poor


 

By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

No comment….yet….see my subsequent blogs on the issue and the platitudes this statement touts…..

Associate Attorney General West Delivers Remarks at the International Conference on Access to Legal Aid in Criminal Justice Systems
~ Wednesday, June 25, 2014
Assistant Attorney General Tony West speaking at the Legal Services Corporation Black History Month event

Assistant Attorney General Tony West speaking at the Legal Services Corporation Black History Month event

Thank you, Jennifer [Smith of the International Legal Foundation] for your kind words.  On behalf of the United States, it is a privilege to be here with all of you today at this historic international convening on criminal legal aid.  I want to thank Minister [of Justice and Correctional Services Michael] Masutha, Judge President Mlambo, the Government of the Republic of South Africa, Legal Aid South Africa, the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, the United Nations Development Programme, and the International Legal Foundation, for coordinating this important gathering so that we may, together, explore how to strengthen and improve access to criminal legal aid around the world.

 

And equally important, I want to thank all of you — the gathered Ministers, Deputy Ministers, Attorneys General, Supreme Court Justices, and criminal legal aid providers and experts — for participating in this conference.  Your presence here epitomizes the dual truths that all free people, wherever they may live, lay valid claim to equality in the eyes of the law, and that the majesty of the law finds its best and highest use in the service of justice.

 

Two years ago, I had the privilege of being in New York, during the opening of the 67th Session of the United Nations General Assembly, to participate in a side-event to the High-Level Meeting on the Rule of Law hosted by the Permanent Mission to the U.N. of the Republic of South Africa.  And during that event, I was honored to express the United States’ strong support for the U.N. Principles and Guidelines on Access to Legal Aid in Criminal Justice Systems.  The principles articulated in that document affirm that criminal legal aid “is an essential element of a fair, humane and efficient criminal justice system that is based on the rule of law.”

 

And now we have come here, to the land of Madiba and in the spirit of Ubuntu, to rededicate ourselves to the urgent task of making real the principle at the core of the U.N. Principles, articulated in the Lilongwe Declaration a decade ago, and reiterated in so many of your national constitutions, as well as mine: a criminal justice system is not just if it fails to guarantee a right to competent counsel through legal aid.

 

For the United States, that constitutional right to counsel is a cornerstone of the U.S. criminal justice system.  And my country’s best articulation of this fundamental principle originated not with an august conference of learned judges and justice ministers, or by a declaration of universal rights and aspirations; its origins were much more humble than that.  It started with the arrest of a man once described as a drifter and petty thief.

 

Clarence Earl Gideon and his handwritten petition to the U.S. Supreme Court

Clarence Earl Gideon and his handwritten petition to the U.S. Supreme Court

His name was Clarence Gideon.  And in 1961, he was arrested for breaking into a pool hall and stealing about five U.S. dollars in change from a cigarette vending machine.  At his trial, Gideon asked the judge for a lawyer, saying he was too poor to hire one himself.  The presiding judge denied Gideon’s request, and, after representing himself at trial, Gideon lost and was convicted and sentenced to five years.

 

From the confines of his jail cell, Gideon wrote a simple, five-page plea asking the United States Supreme Court to grant him a new trial with appointed counsel.  “It makes no difference how old I am or what color I am or what church I belong to if any,” Gideon wrote.  “The question,” he said, “is very simple.  I did not get a fair trial.”

 

The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately heard Gideon’s plea and, in a milestone judicial opinion that bears his name, the justices established the principle that our Constitution guarantees defendants in criminal cases the right to a lawyer whether that person can afford one or not.  Gideon received a new trial – this time with the assistance of a court-appointed lawyer – and this time, he was acquitted.

 

I think it speaks volumes that if you visit Washington D.C. today — and I know that many of your countries will be represented in Washington soon for the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit that President Obama is hosting in August — you will find Gideon’s humble, handwritten five-page petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, penciled on prison stationary, sitting in our National Archives, alongside our Nation’s most treasured documents: the Declaration of Independence that created our country; the Bill of Rights which protected our liberty; and the Emancipation Proclamation that eradicated the scourge of slavery from our land.

 

And in the five decades since the Gideon case was decided, the U.S. Supreme Court has continued to refine this important and basic right — expanding the right to counsel to juveniles and in certain misdemeanor cases.

 

So for the United States, the right to counsel is a principle that represents the most basic notions of fundamental fairness.  But it also reflects the aspirations of a Nation that is still very much a work in progress.

 

Because the challenge of effective criminal legal aid and fairness in the criminal justice system are issues that the United States has been grappling with since its founding.  At times, we have made great strides, committing resources, energy and ideas to the task.  At times, we have fallen short of our own ideals.  And with each triumph and setback, we are reminded that justice is as much a journey as it is a destination — as much a process as it is an outcome — and that the fairest criminal justice system gives equal attention to both.

 

Addressing this challenge is something that our nation’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, has made a priority of his tenure in office.  In his first year, he launched the Access to Justice Initiative — an effort that I oversee at the U.S. Department of Justice and which seeks to ensure basic legal services are available, affordable and accessible to everyone in the United States regardless of wealth or status.   Much of the work of this initiative is directed at strengthening criminal defense for the poor by focusing on many of the same values outlined in the U.N. Principles and Guidelines.

 

Our work through the Access to Justice Initiative has helped to raise awareness about the urgent need that exists in indigent criminal defense in the United States.  The lawyers who provide legal aid to criminal defendants — we call them public defenders — too often they are overworked, underpaid, and overwhelmed by the need for criminal defense services among the poor.

 

In response, the Access to Justice Initiative — which is fortunate to have the leadership of Maha Jweied, the Acting Deputy Counselor of Access to Justice and a participant in this week’s conference — has supported piloting programs that test innovative indigent criminal defender services throughout our country and identified best practices that can improve the way we serve indigent clients who need legal representation.

 

There are other steps we’ve taken to make real our commitment to legal aid in the criminal justice system.  One of the most comprehensive is an effort launched by our Attorney General aimed at reforming and improving our criminal justice system in ways that not only improve access to justice and public safety, but also saves money and more effectively deploys our limited criminal justice resources.

 

We call it the “Smart on Crime” initiative.  It’s a reform effort based on the premise that while aggressive enforcement of our criminal statutes remains our Justice Department’s central law enforcement mission, experience teaches us that we cannot arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate our way to becoming a safer nation.  Over the last three decades, the United States has enjoyed great success — for a variety of reasons — in bringing down violent crime rates.  Yet over that same time period, our prison populations have exploded by more than 800 percent, requiring the commitment of greater and greater resources.

 

And for those offenders who are non-violent and low-level, it’s not clear that spending increasing amounts of our nation’s treasure to incarcerate them is a sound investment in public safety; indeed, there may be better, less expensive ways of keeping our communities safe while at the same time holding offenders like these accountable and reducing the likelihood they will return to prison after they’ve been released.

 

So to truly be effective, our Smart on Crime initiative encourages our law enforcement officials at both the federal and state levels to focus on other aspects of criminal justice, like crime prevention, reducing over-incarceration and facilitating the successful reentry of individuals back into their communities after release.

 

Because if our experience in the United States teaches us anything, it is that building a better criminal justice system is always unfinished business.  Like our nation itself, our criminal justice system is in a state of constant self-evaluation, constant self-improvement, constant reform.  And our participation in this important conference is but one part of that infinite process.

 

So let me close where I began: by thanking all of you for your participation in this conference.  Because at the end of the day, after all of the keynote speeches are forgotten and resolutions adopted; after the outcome document is written and this conference center is empty, what will be left is the hard work of engaging in what I call “doing justice”:  building criminal and civil legal systems that deliver the promise of dignity and equality before the law for every individual, regardless of who they are, their color or class, the god they worship or the person they love.

 

“Doing justice” means embracing the aspirations expressed in the U.N. Principles and Guidelines while at the same time being honest with ourselves about addressing those areas where we fall short, where we can learn from one another, and where we can do better.  It’s about becoming, to paraphrase an American statesman,  a society whose greatness is measured not by how it treats those at the top, but how it treats those who dance in the dawn of life, those who rest in the sunset of life, and those who struggle in the shadows of life; those who often work the hardest but have the least; those who know not the mainstream but life’s margins.

 

And honorable guests, our hands — yours and mine — we must do that work.  We come here from the perches of privilege — the privilege of being servants of the people we represent, and whose dreams and aspirations we strive to realize.  We must make the persuasive arguments in the halls of power for those who find no voice there.  We must take the bold steps, make the hard choices and, yes, even at times accept the political risks, because that is what building the future of fair and effective justice systems requires.

 

And I am thankful to you because I know you are up to the task, or you would not be here today.  And I am grateful for the opportunity to be your partner in this endeavor, for there is much we can learn from you, much we can share with you, and so much we can achieve working with you; as we, in the writer’s words, float “as riders on the earth together, brothers on that bright loveliness in the eternal cold — brothers who know now that they are truly brothers,”  bound together by a shared commitment to the majesty that is the law and the justice that it must always serve.

 

Posted in Ideas & Opinions, Private Investigation Industry | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

UNIONIZE HOBBY LOBBY


 

By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

The rights of workers under the National Labor Relations Act (“Wagner Act”):

Sec. 7. [§ 157.] Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 8(a)(3) [section 158(a)(3) of this title].

For more info on unionization rights:

http://www.nlrb.gov/resources/national-labor-relations-act

https://www.google.com/search?q=Section+7+National+Labor+Relations+Act&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox&channel=sb

Hobby LobbyCalls are out to boycott Hobby Lobby and other businesses that just won the right to refuse to pay for their employees’ contraceptive coverage in mandated health insurance plans.  That’s a nice idea, but the best way of protecting workers’ and women’s rights in the workplace is to help them to unionize so that they can protect their own rights.

Here’s my game plan for how to unionize Hobby Lobby:

  • Hobby Lobby EthicalEvery feminist organization in America like NOW, NARAL, or whoever needs to find out if there are Hobby Lobby stores in their area
  • Recruit politicized feminist/pro-labor students from Women Studies, Black Studies, Chicano Studies and Labor Studies programs at local colleges and universities to try to get summer and/or holiday vacation jobs at Hobby Lobby
  • Train them in how to organize and organize them to organize; some who get jobs lay low and wait until they’re off probation
  • Some who don’t really need jobs walk in and write on their employment applications that they’re trying to get jobs in order to unionize to demand contraceptive coverage in union negotiations; none of these employees will get hired so they immediately file charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the EEOC and local civil rights agencies like the California Dept of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) alleging they weren’t hired because of discrimination
  • After probation, some of the organizers who were hired come out of the closet as organizers; those who get fired or harassed immediately file charges with the NLRB, EEOC, etc.

These kind of tactics have been successful in other industries, such as the Building and Construction Trades.  Here’re Hobby Lobby locations to unionize in California:

Hobby Lobby - Store Locations - Text_001If you want more information on how to get involved in unionizing Hobby Lobby, use the form below to email me.  To comment on this blog, use the subscription form link at the top.

 

Posted in Ideas & Opinions | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Sexual Harassment: What I said years ago is still timely


 

By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Following is an old article I did for Claims People, a magazine for insurance defense investigators, lawyers, and claims adjustors:

Scan_20140627_175110 Scan_20140627_175110_001 Scan_20140627_175110_002

Posted in Anecdotes & Adventures, Ideas & Opinions, Private Investigation Industry | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Donald Sterling has a friend in the Black Community


 

By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Earl "Skip" Cooper II extolling the virtues of Donald Sterling at the BBA 2014 Awards Banquet

Earl “Skip” Cooper II extolling the virtues of Donald Sterling at the BBA 2014 Awards Banquet

The Los Angeles City Council voted to declare February 28, 2013 as “Skip Cooper Day” in the city honoring the work of Earl “Skip” Cooper II, President of the Black Business Association.  For more on how that happened:  http://www.lasentinel.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10630:skip-cooper-day-in-los-angeles&catid=80&Itemid=170

I was privileged to attend the BBA 2014 40th Annual Awards Dinner last night:

Scan_20140626_101204Overall the event was positive.  One speaker in particular spoke eloquently about the history of civil rights activism and civil rights laws and executive orders that assisted African American business and the critical effect on African American employment.  But the event had a low mark where it started at the bottom when people realized that there was a full page ad in the program from Donald Sterling; starting at the bottom it managed to work its way down when BBA President Earl “Skip” Cooper II said that Sterling is his “friend” and claimed that Sterling “isn’t a racist.”

NEGRO PLEEEAAASSSE!

Seriously.  I’m not making this up:

Donald Sterling Scan_20140626_100655If you’re not familiar with my past writings about Donald Sterling, check these blog entries out:

http://janbtucker.com/blog/2014/04/27/happy-birthday-donald-tokowitz-sterling-you-jewish-oreo/

http://janbtucker.com/blog/2014/04/30/rico-not-profit-for-donald-sterling/

http://janbtucker.com/blog/2014/05/14/donald-sterling-keep-quite-until-yom-kippur/

To me, Donald Sterling is about as welcome as Adolf Hitler at a Bar Mitzvah.  Frankly, that’s the way most of the people in the audience took Skip’s remarks about Sterling:  jaw dropping; “no you didn’t just go there?” “WTF!” etc and so on….and then there was my reaction…..  “What kind of Negro said that?”

You be the judge of whether Skip’s statements about Sterling and his denial of Sterling’s being a racist is consistent or inconsistent with BBA’s claimed Mission (see below).  If it’s inconsistent, maybe BBA should change it’s name to Negro Business Association.  Of course to me, denying that Sterling is a racist is like a Jew joining the Neo-Nazi so-called Historical Revisionists in claiming that the Holocaust is a myth and nothing but Jewish propaganda….

Mission Scan_20140626_105311Scan_20140626_101204_001

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Anecdotes & Adventures, Ideas & Opinions | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Take Cover: Hired Mudslinger Rides Into the 2014 Election


 

By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

OPPOSITION RESEARCH: “Take Cover, Hired Mudslinger Rides Into Town”

The self appointed Commisar/Fuehrer of the California Peace & Freedom Party, Kevin Douglas Akin, fancies himself to be a brilliant researcher and freelance writer. Now and then, he makes me the target of his outstanding skills and comes up with stuff that my other enemies have never accused me of before; e.g., that supposedly I’m not Jewish, was not brought up as a Jew, and my family had no known connection to Judaism. See for my refutation of that bizarre canard amongst other things:  http://janbtucker.com/blog/2012/10/30/konversations-with-kevin-7/

Kevin’s latest attack on me isn’t really worthy of analysis. It’s just too weird:

On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 9:18 AM, Kevin Akin <kevinakin1950@hotmail.com> wrote:

I am very sorry to bother the majority of you, whom I believe had no desire to receive the original e-mail from Jan Tucker that was sent to this list, but I think it necessary to inform you that his charges are entirely baseless.

I have not in fact telephoned anyone at all on the list of those people Jan claims as his endorsers. I did send an e-mail (a polite and friendly one, that led to some hours of friendly discussion by e-mail during the day) to one of the people he listed, whom I know. And another Peace and Freedom Party official sent an e-mail to another of his supposed “endorsers” who was an old friend.

I certainly have not threatened anyone with anything.

Jan, I have learned, totally misrepresented the situation to those from whom he sought endorsements. He claimed that he was the only Peace and Freedom Party registrant running for Board of Equalization in the Third District. And he presented an endorsement of his campaign as a way to show solidarity with the Peace and Freedom Party.

In fact, Jan Tucker is not supported or endorsed by the Peace and Freedom Party at any level. The Los Angeles County Central Committee and the State Officers (acting by prior authorization of the State Central Committee) have endorsed Eric Moren of Ventura as our candidate for Board of Equalization, and are pushing hard for write-in votes for Eric. He is the only candidate with a chance of displacing a particularly nasty race-baiting Republican, G. Rich Marshall, as the second vote-getter in the “top two” primary today.

Since 1998, two years after private detective Jan Tucker got just one vote at the California State Convention for the Peace and Freedom Party nomination for president, he has conducted a fairly incompetent but still vigorous effort to damage or destroy the PFP. I will not bore you with a long list of his outrageous trickery and lies, but I will just mention that after I was elected State Chair for this two-year term in August of 2012, Tucker sent red-baiting letters to the employers of two of my adult children, urging them to fire my children because their father is a notorious socialist activist. (Shocking, I know, but I have retained copies of these communications in case anyone doubts me.) (Jan’s red-baiting did not work, and my kids kept their jobs.)

As you should all recognize, Jan Tucker would not have a chance at a Peace and Freedom Party endorsement for any office at all, even should hell freeze over and pigs fly. His campaign is just another effort at disruption and confusion.

If any of you live in the Third District (Ventura and most of the population of Los Angeles Counties), and have not voted yet, I urge you (and the Peace and Freedom Party urges you) to write in Eric Moren for that office.

Again, I apologize for bothering you once more. The election is today, and I don’t think anyone will find this interesting after the election. With my apologies, Kevin Akin

Here are a couple of the responses of the people who received Akin’s tirade:

Jan… I just noticed this weird response in my inbox. I thought maybe you would want to have a copy of this if this person didn’t send you a copy. He doesn’t say very nice things about you, I thought perhaps you would like to respond to him personally.
~Tina

——————————
Greetings all on this list:

I find it most disturbing how a person like Kevin Akin, the Party sitting State Chair can make demands of other party members to vote his way! Voting is very private matter, and while we can try to influence another person’s voting preference persuasively, we must not cross the line of intimidation.

This seems to be just what the P&FP State Chair Keven Akin has recently done with the former party Presidential Candidate Roseanne Barr! Demanding she withdraws her support for her selected pick for 3rd District Board of Equalization, which happens to be Jan Tucker. Well, I also support Jan Tucker’s Candidacy!

So does Mr. Akin feel he can force others to vote his way? This is just unconscionable for sure and does not serve the party well. No one has the right to force anyone to vote or not to vote!

This is just reminiscent of slavery times, when slaves had no rights, but once able to vote have faced tremendous intimidation to date through all kinds of machinations!

A couple of months ago, I prepared a document, which I have sent out via email and distribute at events, etc. This is how I try to influence others without demands.
Bella

There are clear choices on June 3rd 2014 CA Primaries for your consideration

 

It is critical to vote outside of the 2 electoral political party Dictatorship (Dems/Reps) Black box, instead choose Socialist Candidates at every cost. Because you may or not know that since 2010, two earlier propositions were pushed/passed by Democrats and Republicans to undermine/eliminate all Third (2nd) registered Candidates in California!

 

Socialist Candidates can be registered with Electoral Partys like the Peace and Freedom, be Independent, or Decline to State. Their challenge is greater to raise necessary funds to compete with the Top 2!!

**Read more here: “In statewide debut, top-two primary blocks third parties from June ballot” and Small Parties Sue to Block Prop. 14 And at: http://peaceandfreedom.org/home/articles/general/966-small-parties-sue-to-block-prop-14

This means that if Socialist Candidates are not elected in this June 3rd Primary cycle with enough vote support, they are then eliminated from the November wide Elections!!! They can only participate in the Primaries!!!

 

***Here are some Socialist candidates for your strong support, you will see on your Ballot, depending on your CA region:

 

Ø Cindy Sheehan for CA Governor, http://www.cindy2014.org/

Ø Howard Johnson for U.S. Representative 34th District,

mailto:Cstgeondragon2@msn.com,

Ø Mohammad Arif for 16th State Senate district, http://www.senate16mohammadarif.com/

Ø Marianne Williamson for CA 33rd Congressional District.

http://www.marianneforcongress.com/

Ø Amos Johnson for CA Lieutenant Governor, mailto:firebourn@msn.com

Ø Emido”Mimi” Soltisik for 62nd Assembly District, http://mimiforstateassembly.wordpress.com/

Ø Nathalie Hrizi for State Insurance Commissioner, http://www.ourcampaigns.com/CandidateDetail.html?CandidateID=189595

Ø Write In – Alanso Warren for 59th Assembly District,

Ø Write In – Jan B. Tucker for 3rd District Board of Equalization.

Ø Notice: Only one candidate qualified for the ballot for the June 3 primary election for 3rd District B. of E. http://janbtucker.com/blog/2014/05/06/how-to-write-in-jan-b-tucker-for-board-of-equalization/

——————–
I’m just curious as to why he said “Hopefully your district”? By being a write in candidate for Dist 3, the same as Jan’s makes this even more weirder. The current democratic incumbent is who Eric takes issue with? When he’s also running against Jan? But what hey, what do I know?
Dina

Dina was referring to Eric Moren’s response to my request that he put a stop to Kevin Akin’s campaign tactics on his behalf. This is that exchange:
On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Jan Tucker <pfp@janbtucker.com> wrote:

Attn: Eric Moren

It was brought to my attention that Kevin Akin, purporting to act on behalf of your campaign, has been telephoning people who have endorsed me and has used threats of political retaliation in demanding that the revoke their endorsements.

If you have been aware that he intended to do this, then so be it. If not and if you disapprove of such degenerate and despicable behavior, then I demand that you put a stop to these tactics and run your campaign in a clean and transparent manner.

ERIC MOREN’S RESPONSE:

To all you friends of Jan Tucker-

I have nothing against Jan, I’ve never met him or her, and frankly, very suprised to see this email.

I am a Write-In Candidate for THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION- District 3, (Hopefully your District!)

I have a B.A. in Economics, years of experience in Business, Marketing, Sales, Communications and am now pursuing a career as a Business Consultant here in my new town of Ventura, CA.

I am sincerely running in opposition to the On–going Incumbent Mr. Jerome Horton, who, as a Democrat and ‘life-long politician’, has helped to Unravel and Unwind the Good Work being done by ALL Californian Businesses and Workers….that is- taking us Californians to the #5th World Economy, to about the 25th in LESS THAN 10 YEARS!!

Mr. Horton, started his long-running career with the “BOE” at age 18! And has since served several ‘2 terms’ along the many years he has been with this ‘Branch of Government’. We are BLESSED to have our country’s ONLY Board of Equalization- Tax Fees and Licenses, (think Sales License, Gas ‘spills’ Licenses, ‘Waste’ Licenses’), and Mr. Horton DIRECTLY has been Instrumental in making California WORSE w. His policies and ‘oversight’.

He is whom I challenge. HE is the one I take issue with…
Let’s Get him OUT OF THERE!!!

Sincerely,
Eric Moren
Peace and Freedom & “Power to the People!”

Okay, that’s the background; now here’s the back story.

Moren writes in pertinent part:

“I have a B.A. in Economics, years of experience in Business, Marketing, Sales, Communications and am now pursuing a career as a Business Consultant here in my new town of Ventura, CA.”

It’s intuitively obvious that anybody with “years of experience” as he claims would have some presence on the internet but the fact is, prior to the Peace & Freedom Party’s putting out biographical information about Moren in this campaign, using Google, Yahoo, or Bing to find anything about him on the web would have proven fruitless. I tried. I failed to find anything about him using the usual methods that ordinary voters would use to find out about somebody they’re considering voting for….or against.

So, being a Private Investigator and having been dubbed by the Los Angeles Times in a 1984 column headlined “Take Cover: Hired Mudslinger Rides Into Town,” about my expertise in “Opposition Research,” I have a few tricks of the trade up my sleeve. I was also particularly intrigued by the fact that when Akin, Marsha Feinland, Cindy Henderson-Gordon and Gary Gordon first started touting Moren’s candidacy that his name was being circulated amongst PFP circles as “Ephren” or “Efren” Moren, not Eric Moren. Only after he was “endorsed” by the State PFP leadership cabal—and I have been led to understand that even at that point they verbally called him “Ephren” or “Efren” rather than his real name—did they finally start calling him Eric.

That raised big a RED FLAG in my suspicious mind. I started a more extensive “Opposition Research” project designed as we say in the industry, to look up Eric’s A-hole with a microscope.

So, I find that in Eric Moren’s background there’s a huge gap in his residential history in a data base normally used by private investigators to track this sort of thing. He’s living in San Francisco in 1994-1995. Then, he disappears off the grid until 2006 when he resurfaces in Woodland Hills in the San Fernando Valley!

Welly, welly, welly my dear droogies! Are there any other Eric Morens out there? Lo and behold, there’s another Eric Moren, aka “Eric Michael,” who also has lived in San Francisco. As an aside, the use of two usual first names, in this case “Eric” and “Michael,” always raises red flags with experienced background investigators.  Yeah, some people do happen to have surnames that are also given names, but frequently when people adopt aliases for some reason they tend to use two first names.  This Eric Moren:

A Twinkyclean.com advertising photo

A Twinkyclean.com advertising photo

1. Has used a social security number that apparently really belongs to a woman by the name of Danelle who lives in Ohio. The social security number was issued between 1992-1994, coincidentally, just before Eric Moren dropped off the map and has only been used twice on credit header records….literally just two times, once by Danelle and once by somebody using the name Eric Moren in San Francisco.
2. Is the registered owner of the internet domain, http://www.twinkyclean.com, which any reasonable person would read and suspect was a website front for underage male prostitution and human trafficking involving New York and San Francisco.

Twinky Clean’s website is associated with http://www.maleverse.com which in turn is registered through Whoisguard, Inc., a highly secretive Panamanian registered service operating out of a Panama City post office box.

Maleverse, Inc. is a suspended California Corporation which traces back to the Eric Moren associated with Twinky Clean at the San Francisco address at which he made his one and only use of the Ohio issued Social Security number also used only once by Danelle.

California Secretary of State Business Search Information

California Secretary of State Business Search Information

Inquiring minds might think that there’s something fishy with all this. For starters, in spite of Kevin Akin’s having in the past called me an incompetent and a “private defective,” were Kevin et al concerned that I might actually be able to dig all this stuff up and put together the connections? Is that the reason that the PFP leaders bandied about his purported first name as “Ephren” rather than as Eric?

Maybe it’s all very simple. Maybe, just maybe, there are two Eric Morens who just have both happened to live in San Francisco (it’s a very, very, rare name to begin with). Maybe Kevin and his cohorts were afraid that his Eric Moren would get confused with the other Eric Moren who appears on the surface to be running an underage male prostitution ring on an interstate basis, potentially in violation of the Federal Mann Act. Maybe that’s why they used an alias to get him endorsed by the PFP executive leadership.

On the other hand, maybe not.

At least two of the current PFP leaders had the sense to distance themselves from this debacle.  Cindy Sheehan listed other PFP write-in candidates but conspicuously NOT Eric Moren on her slate card circulated on the internet.   Perhaps Cindy was pissed at all the obsessive energy being spent by Feinland and Akin to defeat my candidacy which at the very least complicated the campaign for Sheehan and other serious candidates like Amos Johnson and Nathalie Hrizi.   I also hear that C.T. Weber was wise enough to abstain on the endorsement vote for Moren….maybe he suspected something was up since the information his supporters presented was so sketchy.

Following are two photos, juxtaposed of both of the Eric Morens. Are they two different people or are they the same person, one at a younger age and the other at his current age? You be the judge, because I don’t happen to have access to one of those sophisticated facial recognition programs that predicts what somebody looked like at different stages of their life; the kind of software used to catch Nazi war criminals as an example.

Eric Moren and Eric Moren:  Are they two different Eric Morens or the same guy at two different ages?  The photo of the older Eric Moren was taken on May 23, 2014 with an Apple I-phone Sc at approximately 3:51 p.m. PST.  Some people have suggested that the chins of both persons are similar.

Eric Moren and Eric Moren: Are they two different Eric Morens or the same guy at two different ages? The photo of the older Eric Moren was taken on May 23, 2014 with an Apple I-phone Sc at approximately 3:51 p.m. PST. Some people have suggested that the chins of both persons are similar.

 

Posted in Ideas & Opinions, Private Investigation Industry, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Iraq’s Future is Yugoslavia


 

By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Whether as a unified multi-ethnic/multi-religious republic or as a failed former federal multi-national state, Iraq has two potential futures and they are both Yugoslavia.  The sooner that American and European politicians admit this reality, the sooner that sectarian warfare can be solved.

Before anything else (unless you have at least a B.A. in political science with a concentration on International Relations and/or Foreign Policy) read my blog on the Ukraine and the blog links within that posting to get some basic background on the academic knowledge you need to digest the issues:  http://janbtucker.com/blog/2014/03/19/constitutional-history-of-secession-of-the-former-ussr/

Pay special attention in my blog on the history of secession in the U.S. [http://janbtucker.com/blog/2012/11/16/mythology-of-secession/] to the concept of “Romantic Nationalism.”  Consider how that notion continues to plague objective efforts to analyze the collective motives of whole groups of people to achieve their aspirations and desires for self-rule.  On the left side of the political spectrum one must consider how the flip-side, Romantic Internationalism, clouds the ability to engage in Political Realism.  Orthodox Marxists for instance espouse essentially romantic notions about internationalism simply because Karl Marx espoused internationalism as an ideal superior to nationalism, the latter being an instrument of the capitalist class to oppress, repress, and generally f–k-over the masses.  The left, which inherently believes that human nature is positive  hopes that subjective differences between ethnic, national, and religious groups are just superficial and that they can live together in a multi-national state(s) harmoniously.

Now consider [http://anthroanna.com/2012/10/27/political-anthropological-approach-to-nationalism-and-national-identity/]:

YugoslaviaThere are various definitions of the relationship between the nation and nationalism. I would combine Smith (1996) who argues that “The idea of the nation…is fundamentally cultural and social” (1996:325) with Gellner (1997) who states that nationalism is a political ideology of shared cultural traits. In terms of national identity, Calhoun (1997) argues that nations “are constructed as ‘super-individuals’” (1997:125) thus “national identity assumes a special priority over other collective identities in the construction of personal identity” (ibid.). Similarly, Smith (1991) argues that national identity is the most inclusive collective identity that intersects other categories of class, gender, race, religion etc. (1991:143). However, Bringa (1995) may challenge Smith (1991) in her ethnography of Bosnia- Hercegovina where the category of Muslim became a signifier of identity when differentiating from Croat or Serb, hence the use of ethno-religious category highlights that religion does matter when the dominant hegemonic values attempt to assimilate the minority. Meadwell (1993) may argue that ethnonationalism is a form of internal colonialism, an unequal power relation between ethnic groups in one nation. This is akin to a Marxian view on nationalism, which “assumed that nationalism was the ideology used by capitalists” to maintain control (Llobera 1994:96), Marx associated nationalism with the bourgeoisie; hence he held that the common qualities of the working man were universal and should unite against capitalist nationalism (Guibernau 1997:75). However it is generally agreed that nationalism is not an elite phenomenon but based on mass participation through the internalisation of a given identity (Connor 1990). Hence, after the fall of communism, the nation of Yugoslavia could not be maintained as the regional and ethnic differences that led to nationalist splinter groups vying for independence (Hayden 1996).  This highlights the significance of national identity in the construction of the nation, but it also reminds us that the dominant groups attempt to place their ideologies above those of minorities, thus inducing the idea of internal colonialism.

As an undergraduate and graduate in International Relations at CSUN in the 70s, I wrote extensively on the subject of “internal colonialism,” heavily motivated by the learning from my dual major in Chicano Studies.  I compared in my term papers the relationships and comparisons between Northern Ireland, Pakistan and Bangladesh (the former “East Pakistan”), and Portugal in relation to its so-called “Overseas Provinces” (like Angola and Mozambique) on the one hand and the Barrio and Ghetto within the United States of America.  Bottom line is that whenever a majority group dominates politically, the minority groups get screwed economically, culturally, and in many other spheres of human inter-relationships.

Kosovo_Serbia-mapAfter Yugoslavia split up based upon its pre-existing system of federal “republics,” the equivalent of USA “states” vis a vis the federal government, Serbia itself wound up with its ethnic/linguistic Albanian Kosovo province splitting off in yet another bitter civil war.

Yugoslavia, an invention of the European powers which was dictated by the Treaty of Versailles at the end of World War I, was very similar to Iraq, a Treaty of Sèvres creation:  multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic, and multi-religious/sectarian.  Iraq made no sense whatsoever to Middle Eastern peoples, only to the imperialist and neo-colonialist standards of European powers.  In the modern world Iraq and many other former colonial countries makes sense only if you assume the Western political science concept of the “nation state” as a value above all other values.

IRAQ_ethnic_mapForced together by European occupation forces following World War I, the ethnic, linguistic and national groups have never had any credible reason to believe that anything other than an authoritarian regime could or should bring them together and make them stay together.  Nobody ever in power in the artificially created Iraq ever created living conditions for the various peoples of Iraq that made them believe that one group coming to power wouldn’t mean that all other minorities would suffer under their rule.

iraq_languages_mapThe religious differences in Iraq are illustrated above but omit the Yazidi, the indigenous Kurdish religion prior to their conquest by Muslim Arabs.  If you think the hatred between Sunni and Shiite Muslims is bad, the Yazidi are hated by everybody and accused of Devil worship by their detractors.  Now consider the linguistic differences:  Iraq is a real hodgepodge with Arabic, Kurdish (related to Farsi/Iranian), Assyrian, Turkomani (a Turkic tongue), and Mandian/Aramaic.

People need to start thinking about the basic question, is Iraq possible and has it ever been possible?  Rand Paul recently opined that which history and sociology may have dictated to be intuitively obvious, that it may be IMPOSSIBLE to do anything about the situation and Iraq.  Here’s what Rand Paul had to say about the situation:

“And what’s going on now, I don’t blame on President Obama,” Paul said. “Has he really got the solution? Maybe there is no solution. But I do blame the Iraq war on the chaos that is in the Middle East. I also blame those who are for the Iraq war for emboldening Iran. These are the same people now who are petrified of what Iran may become, and I understand some of their worry.”

So, the future of Iraq?  Either another Saddam Hussein or Tito comes to power and reinstates a totally authoritarian regime (somehow) or else the country comes apart, probably as three separate entities each dominated by the major group, the Northern Kurds, the middle Sunni Arabs, and the Southern Arab Shiites.  Either way it’s back to the future, to Tito’s Yugoslavia or the Post-Tito Yugoslavia.

Posted in Ideas & Opinions, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Welcome, Welcome Emigrante


 

By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

I am absolutely sick at heart, a mi corazon, with the reports of the mass migration of children from Central America….and how the United States of America is dealing with it.

Smedley ButlerThe United States (EEUU) is reaping what we sowed through years of repression and intervention against movements of the people of Central and South America and the Carribean for liberty and social justice which have continued all the way through tacit American support for the overthrow of President Zelaya in Honduras; our deportation of our gang problem (MS-13 and 18th Street) to El Salvador which did nothing but exacerbate the problem to what we now legally define as “Transnational” criminal organization proportions; and so many other ripoffs in the name of American neo-colonialist/imperialism.

Smedley Butler, “The Fighting Quaker,” commanding general of the Marine Corps, on Interventionism

– Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.

 

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we’ll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn’t go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn’t a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its “finger men” to point out enemies, its “muscle men” to destroy enemies, its “brain men” to plan war preparations, and a “Big Boss” Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business,  for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents. [Emphasis added]

FlotsamThe most brilliant book ever written about the universality of the trials and tribulations of undocumented immigrants was “Flotsam” by Eric Maria Remarque.  This is precisely how emigrantes are treated, as flotsam.

 

 

Buffie Sainte Marie

Buffie Sainte Marie

Perhaps the most intelligent thing ever said about the subject though was actually sung, by Buffie Sainte Marie:

So welcome, welcome, emigrante
To my country, welcome home
So welcome, welcome, emigrante
To the country that I love

I am proud, I am proud, I am proud of my forefathers
And I say they built this country
And they came from far away to a land they didn’t know
The same way you do my friend

I am proud, I am proud, I am proud of my forefathers
And I sing about their courage
For they spoke a foreign language and they laboured with their hands
And the work they did was lowly and they dirtied up their clothes
And they came from far away to a land they didn’t know
The same way you do my friend

So welcome, welcome, emigrante
To my country, welcome home
So welcome, welcome, emigrante
To the country that love

To hear it:

http://music.whosdatedwho.com/tpx_20901688/welcome-welcome-emigrante/

Posted in Ideas & Opinions, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Boxing: A Conspiracy in Restraint of Trade?


 

By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

BOXING IN AMERICA: CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE

A series of seeming unconnected and run of the mill occurrences in the boxing industry might very well be related in a complex web of intrigue….if what my sources say are accurate. If you know something about the boxing industry and have an inquiring mind, consider whether any of the following events, in the context of history, have anything to do with each other and draw your own conclusions:

  • January 26, 1998, Shmuel Flatto-Sharon, arrested in Israel on suspicion of insurance fraud
  • 2000—Richard Schaefer abruptly leaves banking, where he’d been Western U.S. Regional manager for Swiss UBS (he’s a Swiss national) and gets into the boxing business
  • 2000—Al Haymon transitions into the boxing industry from the entertainment industry
Shmuel Flatto Sharon

Shmuel Flatto Sharon

Shmuel Flatto-Sharon is a Polish born ex-Communist resistance fighter who wound up making a fortune in France. He eventually had to flee to Israel ahead of French indictment alleging that he’d embezzled $60,000,000 in 1975. To get out of extradition, he spent a lot of money getting himself elected to parliament in Israel. While successful, he also wound up serving three months of probation for illegal campaign activities….buying votes.

Sharon has a brother in Las Vegas….who shall remain nameless except that my sources tell me that under the alias of “Rabinowitz” he was convicted of some kind of fraud in France and somehow still managed to get into the United States. He is VERY PROMINENT in the Las Vegas night club industry.

At this point let me digress and suggest that my readers consider this prior posting:

http://janbtucker.com/blog/2013/04/28/small-freaky-world-of-white-collar-crime/

One of the people mentioned in that blog is in fact aka Rabinowitz. “Mr. L” is also involved and two others mentioned there are peripherally involved in the events I am describing, according to my sources…which of course are always subject to question.

Richard Schaefer

Richard Schaefer

So, according to my sources, when Sharon was arrested in 1998 he was in a panic to get money into the United States where it would be safely looked after by his brother, “Rabinowitz.” At this time of course, Richard Schaefer was still working for UBS (United Bank of Switzerland, where his father used to be Chairman of the Board). It’s not like Swiss bankers aren’t skilled at helping people launder money. In 1994 the Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/ubs-in-drug-money-laundering-case-employee-suspended–police-arrest-colombian-woman–dollars-150m-account-frozen-1369982.html) reported that in light of the arrest of a UBS Bank Vice President for laundering Colombian drug money:

The Swiss Banking Commission, which supervises the country’s banks, is expected to launch its own investigation into UBS’s handling of the account and may look at its internal procedures for detecting money laundering – against the background of an international drive by central banks to raise the standards of vigilance among financial institutions.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBS_tax_evasion_controversy

So tying this together, one of my sources claims that a certain somebody at UBS who retired from UBS abruptly in 2000 – facts that coincide with Schaefer’s inexplicable departure – was the person that facilitated laundering money for Flatto-Sharon to his brother, “Rabinowitz,” in Las Vegas and that around the same time, Rabinowitz put together Al Haymon and Richard Schaefer….let’s call it, “networking.” Maybe my source is 100% correct, maybe only 50% correct or maybe it’s all a great fantasy in which at least it would make a great movie, kind of like the Swiss Banker money laundering scenes in Wolf of Wall Street.

Clayton/Sherman acts—monopolization of market share

If you have access to the kind of money that Flatto – Sharon has, if the French indictments are based on a solid case, and if that money is made available by his brother for reinvestment by Al Haymon and Richard Schaefer, it would sure enable you to eventually grab an enormous amount of the market share of a lot of different industries that they chose to put it into. So regardless of where they got their working capital from, lets take a look at the effect that the Haymon-Schaefer alliance has had on boxing since they came into it in 2000.

Although they represent technically separate business entities, Al Haymon and Richard Schaefer have effectively monopolized a market share forcing competitors horizontally and vertical level market participants into a take it or leave it business environment where the deal offered is a deal that market participants cannot refuse, in the sense that an LCN Mafia godfather might offer it.

The monopolization of this industry by Haymon et al is open and notorious, as are its effects. Examples of the open traffic in boxing media:

• November 3, 2012: Here’s a memo for Hip Hop dude turned prize fight promoter 50 Cent – Don’t piss off Al Haymon. I wonder if 50 realizes that having a good stable of fighter’s doesn’t mean squat if you can’t secure any TV dates for them. [http://www.examiner.com/article/50-cent-vs-al-haymon-equals-no-tv-dates-for-50]

• [http://www.thesweetscience.com/news/articles-frontpage/17953- fans-choice-for-floyds-next-khan-or-maidana]
The Shadow says:
[QUOTE=Carmine Cas;43539]The UFC/WWE model is what I was alluding towards, the one big promoter in the sport that every fighter seeks to be a part of. I know the promoters’ number one goal is to make money, but their goals are more instant gratification. If they were to unite and form a “league” they command a much larger part of the market share, and in the long run make more money. The brand would be better known to casual fans around the world. With Arum getting old it could happen, and hopefully it will.
The Oscar-Pac split is pretty funny[/QUOTE]
Did some research. The other two were 50-50 until Margarito started acting like a spoiled b*tch so HBO had to give him a little extra money on the side because he felt he was the bigger draw and the champion.
Which I guess in some way was fair enough but he allegedly started with the crap after everyone thought they had a deal. Good for him he got spanked.
As for market share, they already dominate it. GBP and TR already sit atop roughly 80% of the market, overall, if not more. There are no outside threats.
In 2013, GBP/SHO had a 80-85% market share of the domestic PPV boxing industry, which is damn near monopolistic. Google, by comparison, has 90% of the search engine market. [EMPHASIS ADDED]

 

• Al Haymon Boxing adviser and promoter This shadowy ring adviser doesn’t speak to reporters; instead he’s wielded his enormous influence at HBO and Showtime by dangling the idea that his top fighter, Floyd Mayweather Jr., would sign with or leave them. The result: Haymon’s stable has collected millions fighting inferior opposition. The 57-year-old’s latest client, rising star Adrien Broner, ensures Haymon’s influence will continue. [http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/main/photos/1303/50-most-powerful-people-in-sports/42/]

Al Haymon• Haymon came to boxing in 2000 and worked initially with Vernon Forrest. He is licensed in Nevada as a manager, yet he also performs many of the same functions as a promoter. He received the Al Buck Award as manager of the year from the Boxing Writers Association of America in 2005, 2012 and 2013. Haymon’s biggest client is Floyd Mayweather Jr., whom he manages and helped maneuver out of his contract with Top Rank Boxing for $750,000. [Emphasis added, See [http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Al_Haymon], which also provides a partial list of boxers affiliated with Haymon, demonstrating his monopolistic market share]

• Haymon’s small inner circle entered the boxing world with him. Sylvia Browne, his assistant, handled much of the day-to-day affairs. Sam Watson and his two sons represented the public face of Haymon’s boxing enterprise, accompanying Haymon fighters into the ring.
Early on, Haymon tenaciously sought connections with the networks. He called Xavier James, the vice president for sports programming at HBO until 2004, at all hours daily, on three separate lines, and yet Haymon remained a mystery to James. Haymon penetrated boxing, James said, “with a great deal of guile and almost no personal interaction.”

 

If I wanted to,” James said Haymon often told him, “I could run boxing.” [Emphasis added, Al Haymon Quietly Shakes Up Boxing – NYTimes.com 12/18/11]

The California Court of Appeals issued a very recent decision reiterating the laws against monopolies in California, i.e. the Cartwright Act, California Crane School, Inc. v. National Comm. for Certification of Crane Operators (2014), Cal.App.4th [No. F063727. Fifth Dist. May 8, 2014.]. This court wrote that:

Section 16720 of the Cartwright Act defines an unlawful trust as “a combination of capital, skill or acts by two or more persons” for enumerated purposes that restrains trade. Section 16726 provides that “every trust is unlawful, against public policy and void.” Section 16750, subdivision (a), confers a private right of action on “[a]ny person who is injured in his … business or property by reason of anything forbidden or declared unlawful by this chapter ….” The Cartwright Act is patterned after the federal Sherman Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.), so decisions under the Sherman Act are applicable under the Cartwright Act. ( Kolling v. Dow Jones & Co. (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 709 , 717 ( Kolling ).)
To state a cause of action under the Cartwright Act, appellants must allege (1) the formation and operation of a conspiracy, (2) illegal acts done pursuant thereto, and (3) damage proximately caused by the acts. (Kolling, supra, 137 Cal. App.3d at p. 717.) California requires a high degree of particularity in the pleading of Cartwright Act violations. To be sufficient, the complaint must allege specific conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy to reduce competition. (Marsh v. Anesthesia Services Medical Group, Inc (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 480, 493 (Marsh).)
The Cartwright Act prohibits combinations in unreasonable restraint of trade. Certain restraints, including some group boycotts, are conclusively presumed to be {Slip Opn. Page 53} unreasonable and illegal. (Marsh, supra , 200 Cal.App.4th at p. 493.) A vertical boycott consists of collaboration among business entities occupying different levels of distribution to deny a competitor at one level the benefits enjoyed by the members of the vertical combination. ( Id. at p. 494.)
Appellants assert they have alleged a third- party vertical boycott. That is, NCCCO, IAI and the unnamed co-conspirator crane schools conspired to boycott appellants from access to the essential testing services that are provided to other competing schools in the state. Appellants submit their allegations mirror those found to be sufficient in case law and the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrers.
The antitrust plaintiff must delineate a relevant market and show that the defendant plays enough of a role in that market to impair competition significantly. (Exxon Corp., supra, 51 Cal.App.4th at p. 1682.) Market power is generally equated with market share. It is usually inferred from possession of a substantial percentage of the sales in a market that is carefully defined in terms of product and geography. (Redwood Theatres, Inc. v. Festival Enterprises, Inc . (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 687, 704.) The “relevant market” is composed of products that have reasonable interchangeability for the purpose for which they are produced. ( Exxon Corp., supra, 51 Cal.App.4th at p. 1682.) The relevant market may present a question of fact. (Ibid.) {Slip Opn. Page 68}

In another recent case Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc. (2010) 49 Cal.4th 758 the California Supreme Court made the point that the effect on market share or of market share causes injury.

Out in the Open

A lawsuit filed in April in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, NEW JERSEY SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC., d/b/a Main Events, v. GROUPE YVON MICHEL, INC., YVON MICHEL, AL HAYMON, GOLDEN BOY PRODUCTIONS, INC., SHOWTIME NETWORK, INC., ADONIS STEVENSON, contains some intriguing allegations:

13) Defendant Al Haymon holds himself out to be a manager or advisor to professional boxers. In point of fact, as we will explain later in this complaint, he actually operates in the role of promoter. He is the owner of an entity named “Al Haymon Development, Inc.”
14) Golden Boy Promotions, Inc. is a major promoter of professional boxing. Its president is Oscar De La Hoya and its CEO is Richard Schaefer. It is common knowledge in the industry that Schaefer is attempting to wrest control of Golden Boy from De La Hoya who is, on information and belief, the majority shareholder.
15) Showtime is a pay television network whose Executive Vice President for Sports is Stephen Espinoza. It is the chief competitor to HBO, which is generally considered to be the leading pay network in the United States. Each of Showtime and HBO prominently features boxing on their respective networks.

Stephen Espinoza is an attorney who has put his California Bar Status as “inactive” since he moved to New York to run Showtime Sports. He used to be an attorney with Ziffren Brittenham LLP in Century City. While with Ziffren, Espinoza used to represent Oscar De La Hoya’s Golden Boy, which in essence means that he was then-representing De La Hoya’s interests as the majority stockholder.

On March 24, 2014, David Kassel wrote [http://fighthype.com/news/article16473.html]

Is Al Haymon planning something huge? Anyone who is anyone in the boxing and music industries are very familiar with Haymon. Like it or not, he is the most influential man in boxing. Yes, I believe Haymon is more influential than Floyd Mayweather, Manny Pacquiao, Richard Schaefer, Bob Arum, Ken Hershman, Stephen Espinoza, or anyone else affiliated with The Sweet Science. Haymon is the man whom Mayweather (boxing’s most prized possession) seeks advice from, and whatever Haymon suggests, Mayweather usually listens. Over the last few years, Haymon has slowly and steadily built his stable of fighters. However, within the last year, the list of fighters to join Al Haymon has been unbelievable. These past few weeks have been no exception as Haymon has signed the likes of: Adonis Stevenson, Amir Khan, Lamont and Anthony Peterson, Deontay Wilder, and Robert Guerrero. Add that to names like Mayweather, Danny Garcia, Leo Santa Cruz, Chris Arreola, Devon Alexander, Peter Quillin, Keith Thurman, Erislandy Lara, Austin Trout, Adrien Broner, Lucas Matthysse, Paulie Malignaggi, Omar Figueroa, and plenty of other world champions, and you have one hell of an army. Don’t just think Haymon signs world titlists either. Haymon also has a growing list of up-andS-coming prospects who are the future stars of boxing.

I have a feeling Al Haymon is planning something big, and I have a feeling both Golden Boy Promotions and Top Rank are going to feel the effects. Could Richard Schaefer be a part of the big Al Haymon picture? A couple weeks ago, rumors surfaced that Haymon could be working on forming a promotional entity with Schaefer, currently the Golden Boy Promotions CEO, becoming the face of the company. We all know that Sam Watson and his sons, Marcus and Brandon, are the current faces of Haymon fighters while Schaefer stands behind his Golden Boy fighters, but it’s no secret that Schaefer doesn’t always see eye-to-eye with Golden Boy Promotions founder Oscar De La Hoya. Couple that with De La Hoya’s personal problems and Schaefer may see this as an opportunity to move into the future with a man who has had a track record of nothing but success. Someone once asked me why Haymon doesn’t have his own promotional company already, and I answered by saying that it didn’t make sense at the time because Haymon didn’t have enough fighters to put together a full show, on a consistent basis, making it worth his while and paying the promotional fees associated with putting on a show. Now, he has everything he needs because of his big name fighters and his young crop of talent. I’m not buying into the rumors of a Haymon/Schaefer collaboration yet, but the more fighters who sign with Haymon, the more I believe a big announcement could be coming sooner rather than later. [Emphasis added]

So surprise, surprise, on June 3, 2014, ESPN announces [http://espn.go.com/boxing/story/_/id/11024103/floyd-mayweather-vows-stop-working-golden-boy-promotions-ceo-richard-schaefer-resigns] that:

Hours after Richard Schaefer’s Monday resignation as chief executive of Golden Boy Promotions following months of infighting with company co-founder/majority shareholder/president Oscar De La Hoya, pound-for-pound king Floyd Mayweather Jr. dumped the company.

Mayweather, whose fights generate the biggest pay-per-view numbers in the sport, has worked with Golden Boy on a fight-by-fight basis for all of his nine bouts since his 2007 blockbuster against De La Hoya, which set the all-time pay-per-view buy record at nearly 2.5 million subscriptions.

Interestingly enough, Schaefer never got Mayweather to commit to anything but one at a time deals with Golden Boy, so now Oscar De La Hoya is screwed as majority stockholder. This raises a series of questions since Schaefer as corporate CEO of Golden Boy has had an ongoing fiduciary duty to Golden Boy’s shareholders, especially its majority shareholder, De La Hoya. Was it impossible all these years that Schaefer was at the helm for him to convince Mayweather not to commit to a long term contract, or was Schaefer jockeying for the ideal situation for himself to bail out of Golden Boy if he lost his battle for control with De La Hoya and thereby align himself with the triumvirate of Haymon, Stephen Espinoza at Showtime, and himself?

That brings up a similar question. Showtime’s official online biography of Stephen Espinoza says that:

Prior to joining SHOWTIME, Espinoza was a partner in the firm of Ziffren Brittenham LLP. At the firm, he specialized in representing athletes and sports personalities, including professional boxers Oscar De La Hoya and Mike Tyson, who generated a total of over $500 million in pay-per-view revenues under his representation. Espinoza has served as lead counsel for De La Hoya’s Golden Boy Promotions since the formation of the company. Through his representation of Tyson, De La Hoya and Golden Boy Promotions, Espinoza has been directly involved in several of the highest-grossing pay-per-view boxing events in the history of the sport. Other notable former sports clients include former NFL star and current broadcaster Michael Strahan and mixed martial arts fighter Gina Carano.

So, what are Espinoza’s fiduciary duties to Oscar De La Hoya?

The California Bar Association has a couple of rules that Stephen Espinoza should be thinking about in the event that he has dealings with Schaefer and Haymon that are now against the interests of his former client, Oscar De La Hoya. First, Rule 3-300:

Rule 3-300 Avoiding Interests Adverse to a Client

A member shall not enter into a business transaction with a client; or knowingly acquire an ownership, possessory, security, or other pecuniary interest adverse to a client, unless each of the following requirements has been satisfied:

(A) The transaction or acquisition and its terms are fair and reasonable to the client and are fully disclosed and transmitted in writing to the client in a manner which should reasonably have been understood by the client; and

(B) The client is advised in writing that the client may seek the advice of an independent lawyer of the client’s choice and is given a reasonable opportunity to seek that advice; and

(C) The client thereafter consents in writing to the terms of the transaction or the terms of the acquisition.

Also, look at Rule 3-310:

Rule 3-310 Avoiding the Representation of Adverse Interests

(A) For purposes of this rule:

(1) “Disclosure” means informing the client or former client of the relevant circumstances and of the actual and reasonably foreseeable adverse consequences to the client or former client;

(2) “Informed written consent” means the client’s or former client’s written agreement to the representation following written disclosure;

(3) “Written” means any writing as defined in Evidence Code section 250.

(B) A member shall not accept or continue representation of a client without providing written disclosure to the client where:

(1) The member has a legal, business, financial, professional, or personal relationship with a party or witness in the same matter; or

(2) The member knows or reasonably should know that:

(a) the member previously had a legal, business, financial, professional, or personal relationship with a party or witness in the same matter; and

(b) the previous relationship would substantially affect the member’s representation; or

(3) The member has or had a legal, business, financial, professional, or personal relationship with another person or entity the member knows or reasonably should know would be affected substantially by resolution of the matter; or

(4) The member has or had a legal, business, financial, or professional interest in the subject matter of the representation.

(C) A member shall not, without the informed written consent of each client:

(1) Accept representation of more than one client in a matter in which the interests of the clients potentially conflict; or

(2) Accept or continue representation of more than one client in a matter in which the interests of the clients actually conflict; or

(3) Represent a client in a matter and at the same time in a separate matter accept as a client a person or entity whose interest in the first matter is adverse to the client in the first matter.

(D) A member who represents two or more clients shall not enter into an aggregate settlement of the claims of or against the clients without the informed written consent of each client.

(E) A member shall not, without the informed written consent of the client or former client, accept employment adverse to the client or former client where, by reason of the representation of the client or former client, the member has obtained confidential information material to the employment.

(F) A member shall not accept compensation for representing a client from one other than the client unless:

(1) There is no interference with the member’s independence of professional judgment or with the client-lawyer relationship; and

(2) Information relating to representation of the client is protected as required by Business and Professions Code section 6068, subdivision (e); and

(3) The member obtains the client’s informed written consent, provided that no disclosure or consent is required if:

(a) such nondisclosure is otherwise authorized by law; or

(b) the member is rendering legal services on behalf of any public agency which provides legal services to other public agencies or the public. [Emphasis added]

The bar probably meant when it wrote those rules that they applied specifically to “employment” as an attorney, but outside of the lawyer-client context the language I’ve given emphasis to above certainly gives guidance as to Espinoza’s independent common law fiduciary duty to Oscar De La Hoya. Will Stephen do something now as an employee of Showtime that is adverse to the interests of his former legal clients? Whether or not it’s legal, it’s certainly an ethical issue.

The latest intrigue

Frank Espinoza

Frank Espinoza

Boxing scene reported [http://www.boxingscene.com/mares-managerial-status-likely-land-arbitration–78752] this morning that there may be a move afoot for Abner Mares to switch over to the Al Haymon empire and this raises the spectre, like the scenario noted above in which Al Haymon purportedly orchestrated Floyd Mayweather away from Bob Arum’s Top Rank, in which Haymon steals Mares out from under Golden Boy and Frank Espinoza’s (no relation to Stephen Espinoza) Espinoza Boxing Club. As boxing scene wrote:

By Rick Reeno

Sources with knowledge of the details have advised BoxingScene.com that an arbitration proceeding, in Los Angeles, is a likely scenario to sort out the managerial contract of former three division world champion Abner Mares.

The Mexican Olympian recently stated that his contract with longtime manager Frank Espinoza had expired and he planned to explore his managerial options. Since the start of the year, there have been heavy rumblings that Mares was making a move to adviser/manager Al Haymon.

Since last August’s TKO defeat to Jhonny Gonzalez, Mares has turned down several fight offers and claimed injury to withdraw from a planned February rematch with Gonzalez. Those close to Espinoza believe that Mares was intentionally staying on the shelf in order to run out the clock on his managerial contract.

Because Mares claimed injury and rejected numerous fight offers, there is a heavy belief that Espinoza’s managerial contract would in turn be extended (at least for several months) to make up the time for Mares’ inactivity.

Mares is scheduled to face Jonathan Oquendo on the Canelo-Lara Showtime Pay-Per-View on July 12th in Las Vegas.

Espinoza gave a “no comment” when BoxingScene approached him with the information that his company, Espinoza Boxing Club, was already making moves to arbitrate the contract dispute with Mares.

Abner Mares

Abner Mares

Now as I understand the back-story about Mares’ alleged injuries, they supposedly occurred in Mexico while Richard Schaefer was of course, still CEO of Golden Boy and that his corporate “due diligence” and exercise of his corporate duties of “reasonable inquiry” and “loyalty” consisted of his sending Mares’ to see an American doctor after he quite belatedly returned from Mexico. The question in my mind is, did Schaefer bother to obtain the X-Rays, MRI, and/or CT Scans from the Mexican physician(s) that Mares initially saw immediately after the purported injury? If he did, did he share or withhold those records from the physician he sent Mares to in the United States, let alone did he let Frank Espinoza, Mares’ own manager, see those records. You know, inquiring minds just like to know these little details.

If Schaefer didn’t do those things, which logic dictates any ethical and conscientious corporate CEO would have done in these circumstances, it sure makes me think about the coincidence of Schaefer’s potentially helping run out the clock on Mares’ ties to Frank Espinoza and Golden Boy until right around the time that he himself was going to bail out, amongst all the talk of whether he was going more overtly into a triumvirate with Haymon and Stephen Espinoza.

Yeah, a coincidence!

 

 

Posted in Ideas & Opinions, Private Investigation Industry | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment