organization:court of appeal

Uber Drivers in four UK cities to protest ahead of company’s IPO · IWGB
▻https://iwgb.org.uk/post/5cd28b1260b6f/uber-drivers-in-four-uk

https://cdn.iwgb.org.uk/post/5ccbee3362cd9.jpg

8 May 2019 - Uber drivers in London, Birmingham, Nottingham and Glasgow to log off app and protest outside Uber offices in each city
Drivers condemn Uber for large payouts to founder, venture capitalists and executives despite failure to resolve pay issues

Drivers call on public to not cross “digital picket line” on 8 May
8 May: Hundreds of Uber drivers will log off the app and stage protests in London, Birmingham, Nottingham and Glasgow today, as part of an international day of action taking place in dozens of cities around the world ahead of the company’s IPO.

UK drivers are expected to log off the app between 7am and 4pm and the United Private Hire Drivers (UPHD) branch of the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain (IWGB), is calling for drivers to protest outside of Uber’s offices in London, Birmingham, Nottingham and Glasgow.

The IWGB’s UPHD branch is asking the public to not cross the digital picket line by using the app to book Uber services during these times. Thousands of other drivers are expected to take action around the world, from the United States to Brazil, as part of an international day of action.

Drivers are protesting against the IPO, which will value the company at tens of billions of dollars and lead to massive payouts for investors, while driver pay continues to be cut.

Despite the expected massive payout for a few at the top, Uber’s business model is unsustainable in its dependence upon large scale worker exploitation. Since 2016, successive judgements from the UK’s Employment Tribunal, Employment Appeal Tribunal and Court of Appeal have all said Uber drivers are being unlawfully denied basic worker rights, such as the minimum wage and holiday pay. The IWGB is expected to face Uber at the Supreme Court later this year.

Uber’s own prospectus recently filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission admits that being forced to respect worker rights and pay VAT as a result of the IWGB’s legal challenge would be a material risk to its business model. It also says that driver pay and job satisfaction will fall as Uber seeks to cut costs to become profitable.

Analysis by UPHD shows that Uber drivers currently earn on average £5 per hour and work as much as 30 hours per week before breaking even.

The drivers are demanding:

Fares be increased to £2 per mile

Commissions paid by drivers to Uber be reduced from 25% to 15%

An end to unfair dismissals*

Uber to respect the rulings of the Employment Tribunal, The Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal confirming ’worker’ status for drivers

IWGB UPHD branch secretary Yaseen Aslam said: “Since Uber arrived to the UK in 2012, it has progressively driven down pay and conditions in the minicab sector to the point where many drivers are now being pushed to work over 60 hours a week just to get by. Now, a handful of investors are expected to get filthy rich off the back of the exploitation of these drivers on poverty wages. We are protesting today demanding that the company pay drivers a decent wage and that government authorities tackle Uber’s chronic unlawful behaviour.”

IWGB UPHD branch chair James Farrar said: “Uber’s flotation is shaping up to be an unprecedented international orgy of greed as investors cash in on one of the most abusive business models ever to emerge from Silicon Valley. It is the drivers who have created this extraordinary wealth but they continue to be denied even the most basic workplace rights. We call on the public not to cross the digital picket line on 8 May but to stand in solidarity with impoverished drivers across the world who have made Uber so successful.”

The protests are expected to take place at:

London 1pm - Uber UK Head Office,1 Aldgate Tower, 2 Leman St, London E1 8FA

Birmingham 1pm -100 Broad St, Birmingham B15 1AE

Nottingham 1pm - King Edward Court Unit C, Nottingham NG1 1EL

Glasgow 2pm - 69 Buchanan St, Glasgow G1 3HL

#Uber #Streik #London #Birmingham #Nottingham #Glasgow

How the Lebanese Became White? | Moise A. Khayrallah Center for Lebanese Diaspora Studies | NC State University
▻https://lebanesestudies.news.chass.ncsu.edu/2014/11/20/how-the-lebanese-became-white

2014, via @humanprovince sur twitter,

In the charged environment of racial politics of the South, Alabama’s congressman John L. Burnett argued in 1907 that the Lebanese “belong to a distinct race other than the White race.” In 1914 North Carolina Senator, F. M. Simmons went further proclaiming: “These [Lebanese] immigrants are nothing more than the degenerate progeny…the spawn of the Phoenician curse.”

[...]

... the larger Lebanese-American community in the United States did not formulate a coherent and coordinated response until the naturalization case of George Dow, a “Syrian” immigrant living in South Carolina. George Dow, who was born in Batroun (north Lebanon) in 1862, immigrated to the United States in 1889 through Philadelphia and eventually settled in Summerton, South Carolina where he ran a dry-goods store. In 1913 he filed for citizenship which was denied by the court because he was not a “free white person” as stipulated in the 1790 US naturalization law.

For the “Syrian” community this case was crucial because it could mean the end of their ability to become US citizens, and thus maintain their residence and livelihoods in “Amirka.” Moreover, it was a matter of equality in rights. The community’s struggle with the fluid concept of “free white person” began before George Dow, with Costa Najjour who was denied naturalization in 1909 by an Atlanta lower court because he was too “dark.” In 1913 Faris Shahid’s application was also denied by a South Carolina court, because “he was somewhat darker than is the usual mulatto of one-half mixed blood between and the white and the negro races.” In rendering his decision in the Dow case, Judge Henry Smith argued that although Dow may be a “free white person,” the legislators from 1790 meant white Europeans when they wrote “free white person.”

The “Syrian” community decided to challenge this exclusionary interpretation. Setting aside their differences, all Arab- American newspapers dedicated at least one whole page to the coverage of this case and its successful appeal to the Fourth Circuit court. Al-Huda led the charge with one headline “To Battle, O Syrians.” Proclaiming that Judge Smith’s decision was a “humiliation” of “Syrians,” the community poured money into the legal defense of George Dow. Najib al-Sarghani, who helped establish the Syrian Society for National Defense in 1914 in Charleston, South Carolina, wrote in al-Huda, “we have found ourselves at the center of an attack on the Syrian honor,” and such ruling would render the Syrian “no better than blacks and Mongolians . Rather blacks will have rights that the Syrian does not have.” The community premised its right to naturalization on a series of arguments that would “prove” that “free white person” meant all Caucasians, thus establishing precedent in the American legal system and shaping the meaning of “whiteness” in America. Joseph Ferris summarized these arguments a decade later in The Syrian World magazine as follows: the term “white” referred to all Caucasians; George Dow was Semite and therefore Caucasian; since European Jews (who were Semites) were deemed worthy of naturalization, therefore “Syrians” should be given that right as well; and finally, as Christians, “Syrians” must have been included in the statute of 1790. The success of these arguments at the Court of Appeals level secured the legal demarcation of “Syrians” as “white.”

What makes this particular story more remarkable is that similar ones were unfolding around the same time in South Africa and Australia, both of which had racially-based definitions of citizenship and concomitant rights. For example, in 1913 Moses Gandur challenged the classification of “Syrians” as “Colored Asiatics” before the Supreme Court of South Africa and won by arguing that although “Syrians” resided in Asia they still were white or Caucasian, and thus not subject to the exclusionary clauses of the 1885 Law. In all of these cases, the arguments were also quite similar to the one summarized by Joseph Ferris above.

These decisions meant that the “Syrians” (and by extension today all Arabs) are considered white in the US. This entry into mainstream society–where whiteness bestowed political and economic power–meant different things for different members of the Lebanese community. Some were satisfied to leave the racial system of the South unchallenged as long as they were considered white.

For others, the experience of fighting racial discrimination convinced them that the system is inherently unjust and must be changed. Thus, many NC Lebanese (like Ralph Johns who encouraged his black clients at his clothier store on East Merchant Street to start the sit-ins in Greensboro) participated in the Civil Rights struggle of the 1960s to end the era of the #Jim_Crow South.

“#blanchité” #Libanais #Arabes #Etats-Unis #racisme

Solidarité avec les universitaires turcs dont les procès s’ouvrent mardi 5 décembre

Parmi les soutiens possibles (document intitulé What do do) :
1. Partager l’appel à solidarité ; montrer votre solidarité en suivant les procès et en les commentant sur vos réseaux sociaux, ou en écrivant des articles de blogs ou de journaux sur le sujet. Des informations sont disponibles ici : ▻https://barisicinakademisyenler.net or ▻http://mesana.org/pdf/Turkey20171017.pdf
2. Contacter bakuluslararasi@gmail.com si vous souhaitez assister aux procès en tant qu’observateur, ou écrivez à une association des droits de l’homme pour qu’elle envoie un délégué.
3. Signer la pétition ▻https://academicboycottofturkey.wordpress.com/petition pour soutenir le boycott des universités complices en Turquie ;
4. Informer vos organisations professionnelles ou le sénat de votre université pour qu’elles prennent acte contre les institutions complices telle le Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK ; www.tubitak.gov.tr/en) ;
5. Soutenir financièrement les enseignants-chercheurs démis de leurs fonctions en faisant un don au syndicat qui les soutient, ici ▻https://www.youcaring.com/academicsforpeaceinturkey-763983

N’hésitez pas à faire circuler dans vos réseaux universitaires, syndicaux, et militants.

#solidarité #résistance #Turquie #université #purge #coup #universitaires_pour_la_paix #procès

@isskein : je vais essayer de mettre sur ce fil ce que je trouve sur cet horrible procès

Les #réfugiés_érythréens ne sont pas les bienvenus en Suisse, mais l’or d’Erythrée, lui...

Schweizer Geschäfte mit einem geächteten Regime

Die Schweiz hat von 2011 bis 2013 für rund 400 Millionen Franken Rohgold aus Eritrea importiert. Schweizer Firmen haben es raffiniert und daraus Goldbarren gegossen.
Die #Bisha-Goldmine gehört zu 40 Prozent dem repressiven eritreischen Regime.
Ein ehemaliger Arbeiter der Mine lebt heute als Flüchtling in der Schweiz. Er erzählt von Zwangsarbeit beim Bau der Mine.
Aus keinem anderen Land kommen so viele Asylsuchende in die Schweiz wie aus Eritrea. Die Mine ist eine der wichtigsten Einnahmequellen des Regimes.
Asylpolitiker von links bis rechts kritisieren die Millionengeschäfte scharf.

http://i.imgur.com/WHLZgzw.png

▻https://www.srf.ch/news/schweiz/schweizer-geschaefte-mit-einem-geaechteten-regime?ns_source=srf_app?ns_source=sr
#or #matières_premières #Erythrée #Suisse #mines #travail_forcé #film #vidéo #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Lufthansa #Frankfurt #Nevsun

Accusation (provenant de la société civile canadienne selon SFR) de travail forcé dans la mine :

http://i.imgur.com/odrLTQB.png

L’exploitant de la mine, Nevsun :
▻http://www.nevsun.com
Ici la description de la mine sur le site de l’entreprise :
Bisha Mine Location

http://www.nevsun.com/projects/bisha-main/location-map.jpg

On dit bien que :

The State of Eritrea has a 40% interest in the Bisha Mine through the #Eritrean_National_Mining_Company (#ENAMCO), 30% of which it bought from Nevsun prior to initial construction. As a result, ENAMCO contributed 33% of the initial build capital and, as a partner with Nevsun, has been integral to the success of the Bisha Mine. For more see About Eritrea.

Et toujours sur le site un chapitre consacré à « about Eritrea », où on parle notamment de l’infrastructure (définie comme « excellente ») qui permet de sortir les matières premières des mines :

http://i.imgur.com/Zexf4dU.png

L’histoire de l’Erythrée, pour Nevsun, s’arrête en 1993 :

Eritrea gained independence in 1993, after fighting for its freedom for over 30 years.

Et bien évidemment, on parle d’économie (un des pays les plus pauvres du monde), mais pas de politique...

Eritrea is largely an agriculture based economy and one of the poorest nations in the world. The country’s economy predominantly consists of:

cc @reka

#Cambodia: Appeal Court should overturn unfair conviction of land rights defender #TepVanny, say international CSOs

We, the undersigned, call on the Court of Appeal to overturn the unjust conviction of Ms. #Tep_Vanny on charges of intentional violence with aggravating circumstances based on her peaceful activism at a 2013 protest, for which she received a draconian sentence of two years and six months’ imprisonment on 23 February 2017. The Court of Appeal will hear Ms. Tep Vanny’s appeal against conviction tomorrow, 27 July 2017. On 15 August 2017, Ms. Tep Vanny will have spent one year in detention; her imprisonment is a clear attempt to silence one of Cambodia’s most fearless and outspoken defenders of human rights ahead of the national elections in July 2018.
Tomorrow’s appeal is one of three previously dormant years-old cases punitively reactivated against Ms. Tep Vanny. In August 2016 the prosecutor of the Phnom Penh Municipal Court reactivated the long-
dormant charges of intentional violence with aggravating circumstances against Ms. Tep Vanny while she was in pre-trial detention prior to her spurious conviction on other charges for taking part in a “#Black_Monday” protest to call for the release of the “#Freethe5KH” detainees,1 who were being held in arbitrary
pre-trial detention at the time.2 The case under appeal dates back to Ms. Tep Vanny’s participation in a 2013 peaceful protest in front of Prime Minister Hun Sen’s house, during which a group of #Boeung_Kak_Lake activists called for the release of a detained fellow community member. This protest had ended in violence against protesters at the hands of Daun Penh security guards, in which Ms. Tep Vanny herself was injured.
On 23 February 2017, Ms. Tep Vanny was convicted on these charges and sentenced to 30 months in prison and a fine of five million riel (about US$1,250), as well as being ordered to pay compensation totaling nine million riel (about US$2,250) to the plaintiffs, two Daun Penh security guards.
Ms. Tep Vanny’s trial did not comply with international standards for fair trial rights: no credible evidence was presented to justify the charges against her and neither the plaintiffs nor any prosecution witnesses gave live testimony at either of the two hearings; instead only written statements were provided, preventing cross-examination. Community members outside the court faced unprovoked violence from para-police and, following delivery of the verdict, riot police entered the court room and physically restrained a number of defense witnesses.3
The re-opening of these charges appears to be a politically motivated attempt to restrict and punish Ms. Tep Vanny’s work as a land activist and human rights defender, as part of the Cambodian authorities’
ongoing crackdown on dissenting voices. Peaceful assembly and free expression are not crimes, and human rights defenders should not be penalized for peacefully exercising their fundamental freedoms. We call on the Court of Appeal to exercise its independence and rectify the injustice of Ms. Tep Vanny’s flawed trial by overturning her conviction and sentence. We call on the Cambodian authorities to cease their judicial harassment of Ms. Tep Vanny, as well as other Boeung Kak Lake activists, and to release her from prison.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGFmBtxVYAIw8i6.jpg

AIDA 2016 Update : United Kingdom

The updated Country Report on the United Kingdom tracks recent developments in practice and case law governing asylum procedures, reception conditions, detention of asylum seekers and integration of beneficiaries of protection.

In the aftermath of a report by the Office of the Children’s Commissioner for England and a judgment of the Court of Appeal, the authorities issued a new policy guidance in July 2016 on the treatment of unaccompanied children. At the screening stage, where a person appears to an immigration officer or the Home Office caseworker to be under 18, policy guidance is that they are to be treated as a child. In case of doubt, the person should be treated as if are under 18 until there is sufficient evidence to the contrary. Where their appearance strongly suggests to the officer that they are significantly over 18, a second opinion must be sought from a senior officer. If they agree that the person is over 18, the asylum seeker is treated as an adult. In this case, an age assessment can be triggered by the young person or any third party referring to the local authority. However, the result of immediate treatment as an adult while this process is ongoing means that people who are in fact under 18 may be detained. New guidelines were also issued on family tracing. In addition to this, a new transfer scheme was introduced to share responsibility for the care of unaccompanied children across a greater number of local authorities. Although the Immigration Act 2016 allows for the scheme to be mandatory, it remains a voluntary process at the time of writing.

The Immigration Act 2016 has introduced an obligation on the Home Office to issue guidance on the detention of vulnerable groups. Following a January 2016 report on the review of detention policy with regard to vulnerable groups (“#Shaw_review”) and calls to end the detention of pregnant women, the Immigration Act 2016 introduced a time limit for the detention of pregnant women and children. The Home Office published specific guidance concerning the detention of pregnant women in July 2016.

A report issued by the Refugee Council named ‘England’s forgotten refugees’ has highlighted the fact that after the right to reception ends, many recognised beneficiaries of international protection end up in precarious situations marked by homelessness and destitution. It is acknowledged in the report that many refugees may not be aware that claims for welfare benefits usually take weeks to process and may not apply as soon as they are eligible, but recent reports show that in many cases the people advising them, employed by the department that processes claims, to advise that refugees are not able to make welfare benefits applications whilst still receiving asylum support. Additional barriers exist for refugees who have not opened a bank account; unable to do this without a regular income, they then face additional delays in welfare benefits payments which are usually made directly into a claimant’s bank account. Unless eligible for public housing, refugees’ access to the private rental sector is impeded in practice because of the lack of funds. Without specific schemes such as one operated by the Refugee Council in London, refugees are reliant on family, friends, refugee hosting schemes or members of their community to avoid street homelessness.

The report also contains information on the new Immigration Act 2016, the interim instruction replacing the suspended Detained Fast Track procedure, the extended contracts for providers of reception, the Asylum Accommodation report of January 2017 and several other legal and policy developments.

▻http://www.asylumineurope.org/news/02-03-2017/aida-2016-update-united-kingdom
#UK #Angleterre #asile #migrations #réfugiés #détention_administrative #rétention #enfants #enfance #MNA #mineurs_non_accompagnés #vulnérabilité

Italy curtails appeal rights and expands rebranded detention centres

On 10 February, the Italian Council of Ministers adopted a law that foresees the acceleration of asylum procedures and returns, following heavily criticised plans set out in the second half of 2016. The Decree Law is only provisionally binding until it is voted on in the Parliament.

The new law creates specialised immigration chambers to hear asylum appeals. These chambers are established in 14 courts (Bari, Bologna, Brescia, Cagliari, Catania, Catanzaro, Florence, Lecce, Milan, Palermo, Rome, Naples, Torino and Venice), and are competent to decide on asylum appeal cases under a single judge. The reform also limits the possibility to be heard in such appeals: asylum appeal procedures are to be accelerated, as a decision by the specialised chamber must be taken within four months instead of six, and the decision can no longer be appealed to the Court of Appeal.

▻http://www.ecre.org/italy-curtails-appeal-rights-and-expands-rebranded-detention-centres
#asile #migrations #réfugiés #Italie #renvois #expulsions #procédures_accélérées #procédure_d'asile #loi #législation #réforme #recours

Apple v. Samsung Case is Reopened, Returning to Court of Appeals | Androidheadlines.com
▻http://www.androidheadlines.com/2017/01/apple-v-samsung-case-reopened-returning-court-appeals.html

With the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Samsung, this means that the case is sent back to the Court of Appeals, and it also means that the case is now re-opened. Additionally, the Court of Appeals are unable to hit Samsung with a fine that covers the sales of all devices sold with infringing patents, thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision. Now since Samsung has already paid Apple the $399 million, it likely means that once the court comes to a new judgement, Samsung will be getting a partial refund from Apple. Since Samsung cannot be liable to pay back all the profits from products that infringed, the amount should be lower, in fact it should be considerably lower, than what they have already paid.

The case between Apple and Samsung was one of the biggest cases in recent history, and it’s still not over. Apple was actually originally awarded just over a billion, but Samsung continued to appeal the decision and got it all the way down to $399 million. That is when the Supreme Court got involved and agreed to hear the case. Where they ultimately ruled in favor of Samsung, which sent the case back over to the Court of Appeals. So the Apple v. Samsung case is far from being over. But this case is setting precedent for future patent cases, which there are sure to be plenty in the near future.

Refugee crisis : Afghanistan ruled safe enough to deport asylum-seekers from UK

Hundreds of failed asylum-seekers, including former child migrants, are to be sent back to Afghanistan after the Court of Appeal ruled that deportations can be resumed.

http://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/article_large/public/thumbnails/image/2016/03/03/22/Afghanistan-Getty.jpg

Al Wefaq leader’s trial put off to October 14 | GulfNews.com
▻http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/bahrain/al-wefaq-leader-s-trial-put-off-to-october-14-1.1584576

Bahrain’s Court of Appeals yesterday postponed the trial of Ali Salman, the secretary general of Al Wefaq society, to October 14.

The appeal was against the four-year jail sentence pronounced by the Higher Criminal Court in June.

Advocate General Haroon Al Zayani said the appeal hearing began yesterday following “a conviction of inciting non-compliance with the law, publicly inciting hatred — an act which had disturbed public peace — and insulting a statutory body.”

Al Wefaq leader’s trial put off to October 14
Public Prosecution wants reversal of lower court’s acquittal verdict
Published: 18:15 September 15, 2015 Gulf News
By Habib Toumi,Bureau Chief
SHARERssShare on facebookShare on twitterAdd on google plusSend Email to FriendAddthis
1
Manama: Bahrain’s Court of Appeals yesterday postponed the trial of Ali Salman, the secretary general of Al Wefaq society, to October 14.

The appeal was against the four-year jail sentence pronounced by the Higher Criminal Court in June.

Advocate General Haroon Al Zayani said the appeal hearing began yesterday following “a conviction of inciting non-compliance with the law, publicly inciting hatred — an act which had disturbed public peace — and insulting a statutory body.”

Ali Salman, 49, was convicted of the charges following investigations into recordings of public speeches and sermons that promoted extremist views, incited violence and encouraged the use of force against the kingdom’s authorities, referring to such acts as a religious duty, he added.

“In line with Bahrain’s Penal Code, these acts constitute a clear contravention of the law,” he said. “In accordance with the law, the defendant was subsequently questioned on the content of these recordings in the presence of four lawyers. Evidence submitted to the courts included examples of repeatedly making public threats about the possibility of carrying out military-style ...[operations] in the kingdom, in a similar manner to other factions and groups in the region, and the possibility of resorting to this option at any time. Additional evidence included instances wherein the defendant called upon global powers to intervene in the kingdom’s internal affairs and support the overthrow of the government, on the grounds that it would serve their interests. Other evidence included statements made by the defendant that called for the reinstatement of the disbanded Islamic Council of Scholars, as well as incitement against naturalised Bahraini citizens, accusing them of disloyalty and terrorist acts.”

Money, other evidence of crime found in search of chambers of head of Kyiv Court of Appeals ; judge denies wrongdoing
▻http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/money-other-evidence-of-crime-found-in-search-of-chambers-of-head-of-kyiv-

The official video of a law enforcement search of the chambers of Anton Chernushenko, the head of the Court of Appeals of Kyiv, released by the General Prosecutor Office’s on June 23, is cited as a perfect illustration of how corruption works in Ukraine.

During the search, prosecutors confiscated from the judge $6,500, Hr 30,000, the keys to five cars (including a Mercedes, Jeep and Range Rover) registered to his relatives and cards for 14 tons worth of gasoline.

According to Ukrinform news agency, Chernushenko appeared on June 22 at a press conference and defended himself, saying the accusations against him are fabricated. “I brought Hr 25,000 because I was going to buy food supplies home after work. That day I only had one court session at 9:30 a.m, And $6,500 I picked up because I had planned visit to the dentist and didn’t know the cost of five tooth implants,” the judge said. Gift cards of 14.5 tons of gasoline, according to Chernushenko, were presents from a friend, who is now abroad. “I used some cards and the rest of it I just didn’t want to throw out because of a beautiful picture on them," he said.

(en Ukraine, le litre d’essence vaut environ 1 €, on a donc dans les 14000 € en bons d’essence, soit dix fois plus que les 30000 hryvnia en liquide)

Depuis, on le l’appelle plus que Roudoudou les #belles_images

http://pmcdn.priceminister.com/photo/866543175.jpg

Ukrzaliznytsia to contest court ruling revoking dismissal of Pivdenno-Zakhidna Railways heads
▻http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/ukrzaliznytsia-to-contest-court-ruling-revoking-dismissal-of-pivdenno-zakh

The State Railways Administration of Ukraine Ukrzaliznytsia intends to appeal to the Court of Appeals to contest the ruling of the Kyiv Shevchenkivsky District Court revoking the orders of the CEO of Ukrzaliznytsia dismissing the management of Pivdenno-Zakhidna Railways, reads a press release issued by Ukrzaliznytsia.

Parmi les diverses chicayas,…

Le 19 mars, l’Administration des chemins de fer (au nom/acronyme à la douce consonance soviétique) a viré la direction de cette filiale.
▻http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/economic/256087.html

La direction, soutenue par ses employés, refuse de céder la place…
▻http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/pivdenno-zakhidna-railways-wont-fulfill-ukrzaliznytsias-orders-384006.html

… conteste en justice et obtient satisfaction. Et donc, les Chemins de fer ukrainiens vont faire appel…

REDACTED COPY OF SUIT FILED IN YOLO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

Plaintiff,

v.

Lea Rosenberg, Yolo Lodge 169 Independent Order of Odd Fellows and Davis Rebekah Lodge; Grand Lodge of California; Independent Order of Odd Fellows; Davis Odd Fellows; Soroptimist International of Davis; Soroptimist International; Soroptimist International of the Americas; David Rosenberg; David Reed; Sheryl Cambron; Barbara Geisler; Virgil Smith; Robert Bockwinkel; Jonathan Raven; Allison Zuvela; Michael Cabral; Tracie Olson; Kathleen White; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR:


1. Plaintiff – an individual residing in Yolo County, an investigative reporter and a Rabbi — has been subject to a campaign of systemic harassment ever since he uncovered corruption in various matters dealing with Boyd Gaming Director, owner of various casinos, and class-action attorney Thomas Girardi (“Girardi”) of Girardi & Keese in connection with financial corruption involving California Democratic Party operatives.

2. For example, Plaintiff unearthed the fact that subsequent to being disciplined by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stemming from an attempt to defraud the court by resorting to the “use of known falsehoods”, the State Bar of California appointed as “special prosecutor” to Girardi’s own private malpractice lawyer (Jerome Falk of Howard Rice) to prosecute Girardi on the State Bar’s behalf. (When later questioned about this matter, Falk, seeking to mislead Plaintiff, told Plaintiff that his firm had represented the law firm of Girardi & Keese, but not Girardi himself.)
3. Plaintiff also discovered corruption in a national class-action case (Fogel v. Farmers) whereas Girardi – who represented the class of plaintiffs – never disclosed that the attorney who represented defendant Farmers was concurrently representing Girardi in a separate legal matter. Very shortly after Plaintiff exposed the corruption, attorneys for Farmers approached, sought and obtained from the court a supplemental notice to the class of plaintiffs (consisting of 14 million Americans) indicating that if they cashed their settlement checks, they agreed to not sue Farmers or Girardi because of the undisclosed relationship.
4. Plaintiff also unearthed corruption involving Girardi (who has a reputation of “bankrolling” the California Democratic party) and individuals associated with the California Democratic Party with connections to the California Public Utilities Commission/Energy Commission (Michael Peevey, Tim Simon, Geoffrey Brown, Peter Arth, Joe Dunn, Martha Escutia, Darrell Steinberg) and utility lawyers involved in the “California Energy Crisis” (Ron Olson and Jeff Bleich of Munger Tolles; James Brosnahan of Morrison & Foerster; John Keker of Keker & Van Nest; Jerry Falk and Douglas Winthrop of Howard Rice; Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese; Joe Cotchett of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy; Mark Robinson of Robinson Calcagnie Robinson, and the law-offices of DLA Piper) to launder money from utility companies (SCE, PG&E, Verizon, AT&T) to various members of California Democratic Party (Joe Dunn, Martha Escutia, Kamala Harris, Jerry Brown, Kevin Johnson, Darrell Steinberg) and OBAMA FOR AMERICA via various non-profits (CaliforniaALL, Level Playing Field Institute, California Consumer Protection Foundation).
5. Also involved in the various financial schemes were Cache Creek Casino, Sacramento-based developer Mark Friedman of Fulcrum Property, his business partner (gambling attorney Howard Dickstein), and Dickstein’s wife, Jeannine English, who was also acting on behalf of AARP to position Barack Obama in the White House and on behalf of Mark Friedman to position Kevin Johnson as the mayor of Sacramento. Additionally involved were Obama for America tech-guru Mitch Kapor and his wife, Freada Kapor Klein.
6. In connection with the above discoveries, Plaintiff informed various law-enforcement agencies of these facts, as well as filed ethics complaints against some of the above named attorneys with the State Bar of California.
7. Plaintiff has been repeatedly warned that Girardi is “well-connected” and will seek to silence Plaintiff as a result of Plaintiff’s discoveries and allegations.
8. Indeed, very shortly after Plaintiff unearthed these events, a posse of eight armed investigators from the Yolo County District Attorney’s office executed an invalid search warrant at Plaintiff’s place of residence in Yolo County and confiscated all documents and computers in his home relating to, inter alia, various ethics complaints filed by Plaintiff on the ground that the ethics complaints were baseless.
9. Plaintiff has been informed by credible sources, and thereon alleges, that David Rosenberg was one of those responsible for pressing criminal charges against him, that he “cleared the way” for the search warrant, and that he is otherwise friendly with Howard Dicsktein, Mark Friedman, Jerry Brown, Mark Robinson, and Chief Marshall McKay of Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation (all actors in CaliforniaALL — a sham non-profit launched for the purpose of laundering funds to finance the campaigns of various politicians, including President Obama, Kamala Harris, Kevin Johnson of Sacramento, and Governor Jerry Brown.
PART II: BACKGROUND OF FACTS UNDERLYING CLAIMS AGAINST LEA ROSENBERG AND RELATED INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES FOR VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200 — PREDICATED ON 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d)

10. Following the execution of the invalid search warrant on Plaintiff’s home, described above, Plaintiff began conducting research into David Rosenberg’s background and learned that he is a judge with the Yolo County Superior Court with a reputation of being a “political animal”.
11. Plaintiff further learned, and thereupon alleges, that David Rosenberg and his wife (Lea Rosenberg) are deeply involved — as either officers or directors — with a web of non-profit entities worth millions of dollars known as Saratoga Retirement Community, Meadows of Napa Valley, Davis Odd Fellows, Odd Fellows Homes of California, Davis Rebekah Lodge, Soroptimist International of Davis, and others.
12. Plaintiff also discovered that Lea Rosenberg — as the wife of a judge – was energetically raising funds from various businesses. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Lea Rosenberg is an individual residing in Yolo County.
13. Judge Rosenberg’s judicial campaign treasurer, Victor Bucher, is a nationally renowned expert in the area of accounting and tax fraud, and also serves as the “treasurer” of a separate non-profit entity launched by David Odd Fellows — Davis Odd Fellows Charities, Inc. — where David Rosenberg serve as president and Bucher as Treasurer.
14. On April 4, 2013 — consistent with the statutory framework put into place by 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d) — Plaintiff served a request for Davis Odd Fellows and Davis Rebekah Lodge to make available for inspection their IRS 990 forms, which Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges are tax-exempt organizations.
15. A tax-exempt organization must make available for public inspection its application for tax exemption, three most recent 990 annual information returns, and schedules and attachments available, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d), which reads, in relevant part:
“Public inspection of certain annual returns, reports, applications for exemption, and notices of status
(1) In general
In the case of an organization described in subsection (c) or (d) of section 501 and exempt from taxation under section 501 (a) or an organization exempt from taxation under section 527 (a)—
(A) a copy of—
(i) the annual return filed under section 6033 (relating to returns by exempt organizations) by such organization,
(ii) any annual return which is filed under section 6011 by an organization described in section 501 (c)(3) and which relates to any tax imposed by section 511 (relating to imposition of tax on unrelated business income of charitable, etc., organizations),
(iii) if the organization filed an application for recognition of exemption under section 501 or notice of status under section 527 (i), the exempt status application materials or any notice materials of such organization, and
(iv) the reports filed under section 527 (j) (relating to required disclosure of expenditures and contributions) by such organization, shall be made available by such organization for inspection during regular business hours by any individual at the principal office of such organization and, if such organization regularly maintains 1 or more regional or district offices having 3 or more employees, at each such regional or district office, and
(B) upon request of an individual made at such principal office or such a regional or district office, a copy of such annual return, reports, and exempt status application materials or such notice materials shall be provided to such individual without charge other than a reasonable fee for any reproduction and mailing costs.
The request described in subparagraph (B) must be made in person or in writing. If such request is made in person, such copy shall be provided immediately and, if made in writing, shall be provided within 30 days.
(2) 3-year limitation on inspection of returns
Paragraph (1) shall apply to an annual return filed under section 6011 or 6033 only during the 3-year period beginning on the last day prescribed for filing such return (determined with regard to any extension of time for filing).”
16. Plaintiff delivered the request through Lea Rosenberg because she was the common denominator between the various “Odd Fellows” entities and Soroptimist, in that she served as an officer and/or director of the various “Odd Fellows” entities, and as president of Davis Rebekah Lodge.
17. Specifically, on April 4, 2013 Plaintiff delivered to Lea Rosenberg at learose@jps.net the following email request:
“Re: Request for Production of IRS Form 990, Form 990 Schedule A, Form 1023 to entities associated with Lea Rosenberg, to wit: Soroptimist International of Davis, Davis Rebekah Lodge, Davis Odd Fellows

Dear Mrs. Rosenberg:

Consistent with U.S. Internal Revenue Service Regulations, please consider this communication a formal request to produce their IRS Form 990, Form 990 Schedule A, as well Form 1023. This request is for all documents submitted to the IRS within the past three years, which generally means the three most recent returns.

Said regulations require that these documents be produced within 30 days. Soroptimist International of Davis , Davis Rebekah Lodge, Davis Odd Fellows are entitled to charge reasonable costs for any copying and mailing costs incurred in relation to this request. Alternatively, you can email the documents to me as PDF attachments. I prefer the latter method. However, if for some reason, you prefer to copy and mail the documents, please send them to the following address:

[—address intentionally omitted—]

I ask that you draw no conclusion or develop any concern from the mere fact that this request is being made about you, Soroptimist International of Davis , Davis Rebekah Lodge, Davis Odd Fellows or any other individual or entity.

In addition, I ask that you please produce the following:
1. A detailed and complete list of all other non-profit entities you were involved beginning in 2008 to the present.
2. A detailed and complete list of all sums which were transferred amongst any and all organizations you were involved, beginning in 2008 to the present. For example, if in 2009 Soroptimist International of Davis transferred money to Davis Odd Fellows either as donation or rent, I ask that such transaction be disclosed.
3. A detailed and complete list of all direct or indirect transfers of funds from Soroptimist International of Davis, Davis Rebekah Lodge, Davis Odd Fellows to Progress Ranch and/or any other entity associated with Barbara Sommer from 2007 to the present.

Thank you for your time and anticipated cooperation. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.”

18. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Lea Rosenberg received Plaintiff’s email dated April 3, 2013.
19. On April 24, 2013, Plaintiff delivered to Lea Rosenberg a notice of change of address.
20. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Lea Rosenberg received Plaintiff’s requests for the organizations’ IRS 990 forms, and while conspiring with other Defendants, chose to breach the duty to comply with 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d).
21. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that Defendants have directly performed, or aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured, encouraged, promoted, instigated, advised, willfully caused, participated in, enabled, contributed to, facilitated, directed, controlled, assisted in, or conspired in the commission of the above-described acts.
22. Due to this failure to comply with Plaintiff’s request, Plaintiff spent considerable time and resources trying to obtain those documents elsewhere, to no avail. Plaintiff asked his paid research-clerk to conduct further research on the Internet in hope of locating a complete set of the desired documents, also to no avail.
23. Still seeking a complete set of the requested documents, on September 24, 2013 Plaintiff sent Lea Rosenberg the following email:

"RE: Davis Odd Fellow Hall; Davis Odd Fellow - Second Request for Production of IRS Documents

Dear Ms. Rosenberg:

The purpose of this communication is to address the following matters:

1. Since you appear to have been involved with Davis Rebekah Lodge, Davis Odd Fellow, and Sophomoric, I had previously asked you to produce the IRS tax-returns for those entities.

For reasons which I do not understand, rather than complying with this simple request (as you are required to do by law given the fact that those entities are allowed to operate on a “tax-exempt” status), you have failed to respond. I am therefore reiterating my request that you comply with the request for these tax returns and produce them to me within the next 5 days.

As you know, I am troubled by events surrounding the almost exclusive fundraising to “emancipated foster youth”, Barbara Sommer, Davis Odd Fellow members Jonathan Raven and Michael Cabral, Cache Creek Casino, Vic Bucher, and Progress Ranch.

I am also troubled by the fact that Judge Rosenberg (and his Judicial Campaign CPA Vic Bucher) lends money to the judicial campaign of other judges (i.e. Tim Fall and Dan Maguire). Hence, I would like to get to the bottom of things, and need the requested tax forms to do so.

2. In the previously submitted request, there was no mention of “Davis Odd Fellow Hall.” My position and understanding is that Davis Odd Fellow Hall is part of Davis Odd Fellow.
Nevertheless, please consider this communication a formal request to also provide copies of the last three tax return forms that “Davis Odd Fellow Hall” had submitted to the IRS.

3. Given that Davis Odd Fellow, David Odd Fellow Hall, and Davis Rebekah Lodge are under the exclusive control of you, your husband David Rosenberg, as well as David Reed and his wife Cheryl Cambron, and given that both David Rosenberg and David Reed are judges of the Yolo County Superior Court, I submit that these entities have a duty to operate at an even higher level of transparency than mandated by the IRS, and must comply with the common law duty of disclosure.

Thus, in addition to inspecting and copying the documents authorized by the IRS, I request copies of detailed financial statements (i.e. income, expenditures, names of donors, names of businesses and amount of rent Davis Odd Fellow Hall charges its various tenants, identity of subcontractors, identity of those who have rented the Hall etc.) For example, my understanding is that David Greenwald (publisher of The People’s Vanguard of Davis and Vanguard Court Watch) entered into a contract with Davis Odd Fellow Hall. Given that Mr. Greenwald’s publications purport to report on misconduct and malfeasance in the local area, including the courts, it appears to me that there is a direct conflict between this stated mission and his decision to rent space from an entity whose Board is comprised of you, and two Yolo County Superior Court judges.

I am looking forward to hearing from you and receiving the requested documents."

24. Later that day, Plaintiff received an email response from Lea Rosenberg stating only the following: “so he is at it again.”
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200 Predicated on
26 U.S.C. § 6104(d)
(Against Defendants Lea Rosenberg, Yolo Lodge 169 Independent Order of Odd Fellows and Davis Rebekah Lodge; Grand Lodge of California; Independent Order of Odd Fellows; Davis Odd Fellows; Soroptimist International of Davis; Soroptimist International; Soroptimist International of the Americas; and Does 1 - 100)

25. Plaintiff incorporates paragraph by reference paragraphs 1 – 24 as though fully set forth herein.
26. Despite Plaintiff’s repeated requests, Defendants failed to comply with 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d). This failure constitutes unfair and unlawful acts pursuant to California’s Business & Professions Code § 17200.
27. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants have directly performed, or aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured, encouraged, promoted, instigated, advised, willfully caused, participated in, enabled, contributed to, facilitated, directed, controlled, assisted in, or conspired in the commission of the above-described acts.
28. As a proximate result of the unfair and unlawful acts of Defendants, as alleged above, Plaintiff suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property in an amount to be proven at trial.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligence per se
(Against Defendants Lea Rosenberg, Yolo Lodge 169 Independent Order of Odd Fellows and Davis Rebekah Lodge; Grand Lodge of California; Independent Order of Odd Fellows; Davis Odd Fellows; Soroptimist International of Davis; Soroptimist International; Soroptimist International of the Americas; Lea Rosenberg; and Does 1 - 100)

29. Plaintiff incorporates paragraph by reference paragraphs 1 - 28 as though fully set forth herein.
30. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Defendants named above were all aware of Plaintiff’s repeated requests for the information described in this Complaint — the entities’ IRS Form 990 forms.
31. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants were under a duty to ensure compliance, yet chose to breach a duty prescribed in 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d). This failure to comply with the statutory requirements constitutes negligence per se.
32. As a proximate result of Defendants’ breach of duty, as alleged above, Plaintiff spent considerable time and resources trying to obtain those documents elsewhere, to no avail. Plaintiff asked his paid research-clerk to conduct further research on the Internet in hope of locating a complete set of the desired documents, also to no avail. Plaintiff suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property in an amount to be proven at trial.
33. Plaintiff further alleges that Davis Odd Fellows owns a Hall ("Davis Lodge Hall"), on a property adjacent to the two Lodges, and is the owner (and landlord) of rental property currently occupied by Hunan Chinese Restaurant and Coldwell-Banker Doug Arnold Real Estate.
34. The “Hall Board Association” is a California corporation, and is the actual owner of the Davis Lodge Hall, the adjacent property of the two Lodges, and the rental property currently occupied by Hunan Chinese Restaurant and Coldwell-Banker Doug Arnold Real Estate.
35. The “Hall Board Association” is composed of President David Rosenberg, Vice President David Reed, Secretary Lea Rosenberg, Treasurer Sheryl Cambron, and Barbara Geisler.
36. The Davis Lodge Hall is available to rent by the general public for receptions, fund-raisers, dinners, conferences, trade shows, meetings, and other events.
37. The Davis Lodge Hall is also used by Davis Odd Fellows for its own functions, such as Davis Odd Fellows Bingo and Master Balls.
38. In approximately September 2013, and after the expenditure of considerable time, resources, and efforts, Plaintiff managed to ascertain that the actual legal name of Davis Odd Fellows and David Rebekah Lodge is “Yolo Lodge 169 Independent Order of Odd Fellows and Davis Rebekah Lodge.” Plaintiff then managed to obtain partial copies of tax returns that “Yolo Lodge 169 Independent Order of Odd Fellows and Davis Rebekah Lodge” had submitted to the IRS.
39. Upon reviewing partial copies of the above-described IRS 990 forms from 2010 and 2011, Plaintiff noted that false information had been submitted to the IRS on two occasions that he was able to identify from the incomplete forms. Specifically, according to those 990 forms, in 2010 David Reed served as the president of Yolo Lodge 169; serving as the Treasurer of Yolo Lodge was Sheryl Cambron. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Reed and Cambron are married to each other.
40. However, this was not the information provided to the IRS. The 2010 IRS Form 990 submitted by Yolo Lodge asked, ‘Did any officer, director, trustee, or key employee have a family relationship or a business relationship with any other officer, director, trustee, or key employee?’ The form submitted by Yolo Lodge states, “NO.” Since two of the officers (Reed and Cambron) were actually married to each other, this is a misrepresentation.
41. In 2011, Yolo Lodge officers submitted false information to the IRS again, this time involving a different set of actors — Lea and David Rosenberg, who are married to each other. Specifically, in 2011 David Rosenberg served as President of Yolo Lodge; his wife, Lea Rosenberg, served as “Secretary” of Yolo Lodge, and David Reed served as a board member.
42. The 2011 IRS Form 990 submitted by Yolo Lodge asked, ‘Did any officer, director, trustee, or key employee have a family relationship or a business relationship with any other officer, director, trustee, or key employee?’ The form submitted by Yolo Lodge states, “NO.” Since two of the officers (David Rosenberg and Lea Rosenberg) were actually married to each other, this is a misrepresentation.
43. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Virgil Smith is a CPA a member of Davis Odd Fellows, and a co-conspirator in the submission of these fraudulent tax-returns. Also responsible for submitting these fraudulent tax-returns were David Rosenberg, Lea Rosenberg, David Reed, Sheryl Cambron, Barbara Geisler, and Robert Bockwinkel.
44. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the fraudulent tax-returns were submitted because David Rosenberg, Lea Rosenberg, David Reed, Sheryl Cambron, Barbara Geisler, Virgil Smith and Robert Bockwinkel did not want the IRS and the public to become aware that Sheryl Cambron is married to David Reed, and because they were concerned that if such relationships (i.e. Lea Rosenberg is married to David Rosenberg) would be disclosed, it may trigger an IRS audit.
45. As a proximate result of the unfair and unlawful acts of Defendants, as alleged above, Plaintiff suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property in an amount to be proven at trial.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Civil Conspiracy to Violate 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d)
(Against Defendants Lea Rosenberg, David Rosenberg, David Reed, Sheryl Cambron, Barbara Geisler, Virgil Smith; Robert Bockwinkel; and Does 1 - 100)

46. Plaintiff incorporates paragraph by reference paragraphs 1 - 45 as though fully set forth herein.
47. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants Lea Rosenberg, David Rosenberg, Sheryl Cambron, Robert Bockwinkel, David Reed, Barbara Geisler, and Virgil Smith willfully and knowingly conspired and agreed among themselves to a scheme by which they agreed to violate Plaintiff’s legal rights by not complying with 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d) because they were concerned he would discover the tax-fraud perpetrated on the IRS, as described above.
48. Some of the overt acts (both lawful and unlawful) that gave rise to this conspiracy, committed by one or more of the conspirators pursuant to their common design, were: (a) an agreement to intentionally violate 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d); (b) an agreement to ignore Plaintiff’s repeated requests for information sought pursuant to this statute; and (c) a lawful overt act to belittle Plaintiff by sending him an email which reads, “so he is at it again.”
49. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants have directly performed, or aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured, encouraged, promoted, instigated, advised, willfully caused, participated in, enabled, contributed to, facilitated, directed, controlled, assisted in, or conspired in the commission of the above-described acts.
50. Plaintiff is also informed and believes and thereon alleges that David Odd Fellows / Yolo Lodge 169 / Odd Fellows Hall and related entities are and were almost exclusively overseen for years by judges and selected attorneys appearing before the Yolo County Superior Court who misuse Yolo 169 and Odd Fellows Hall as a convenient forum to meet, collude, and engage in ex parte communications in a secluded and non-public setting, as well as to raise funds by lending the prestige of their offices.
51. Said individuals include primarily Judge David Rosenberg, Judge Kathleen White, Judge David Reed, Yolo County Counsel Sheryl Cambron, District Attorney Jeff Reisig, Yolo County Chief Deputy District Attorney Jonathan Raven, Chief Deputy District Attorney Michael Cabral, Yolo County Public Defender Tracey Olson, attorneys Allison Zuvela, Rodney Beede and wife Christina Zambrano Beede, and Fran McGuire (wife of judge Dan McGuire). A typical event, for example, was described on May 23, 2013 in the Davis Enterprise:

“This year, the Davis Odd Fellows Lodge took over running the popular ’A Taste of Davis’ and we are delighted to report that the event on April 18 was a great success for all concerned.

We wish to thank the fine restaurants, wineries and breweries that treated our 250 guests to delightful food and drink: Applebee’s, Berryessa Gap Winery, Caffé Italia’s Brick Wall Pizza, California Vintage Specialties, Davis Food Co-op, Davis Farmers Market, Ding How, Dos Coyotes, Maria’s Cantina, Nugget Markets, Osteria Fasulo, Our House, Paesanos, Putah Creek Winery, Renaissance Wines, Route 3 Wines, Seasons, Senders Wines, Seka Hills Wines, Sudwerk, Sundstrom Hill Winery, Woodstock Pizza, Z Specialty Foods and Zindagi Indian Bistro.

We thank our sponsors who helped make this event so successful. First and foremost, we offer a big “thank you” to our major sponsor, Hanlees Toyota-Chevrolet-Nissan of Davis. And we also appreciate our other sponsors: The Davis Enterprise, California Vintage Specialties, Comstock Mortgage, Davis Downtown, Cunningham Engineering, Our House Restaurant and Lounge, the Davis Chamber of Commerce, Abaton Consulting, Law Offices of Poulos and Fullerton, Attorney Raquel Silva, the Law Offices of J.B. Dath, and Cache Creek Resort Casino.

Thank you to many individual sponsors: County Supervisors Jim Provenza and Don Saylor, Mayor Joe Krovoza, and Davis City Council members Dan Wolk, Rochelle Swanson, Brett Lee and Lucas Frerichs, as well as Tracie Olson, Dr. Arun Sen and Bob Schelen.

Special thanks to Stewart Savage of Abaton Consulting, who put together a terrific slide show that was shown on a continuous loop at the event.

Finally, we offer a big thank you to the committee that worked with us to plan and execute this successful event: Margie Cabral, Sheryl Cambron, Robin Dewey, Bill Grabert, Nancy Sue Hafer, Lewis Kimble, Steve Lopez, Fran Maguire, Amanda Maples, Joyce Puntillo, Dave Rosenberg, Raquel Silva, Robin Souza and Christopher Young. What a great, hard-working group.”

52. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that Davis Odd Fellows’ officers, directors, and members who are otherwise private actors — David Rosenberg, Lea Rosenberg, Kathleen White, David Reed, Sheryl Cambron, Jonathan Raven, Tracie Olson, Allison Zuvela, Michael Cabral, Rodney Beede and Christina Zambrano Beede — conspired amongst themselves to fraudulently conceal the fact that Sheryl Cambron is married to Judge David Reed and is otherwise an attorney employed by Yolo County Counsel and is in a confidential attorney-client fiduciary relationship with Odd Fellows’ members Jeff Reisig, Michael Cabral, and Jonathan Raven on the account of representing them and/or their office in matters such as Gore v. Reisig, In Re Garcia, and Yilma v. Agonofer.
53. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that as part of a common scheme and conspiracy to defraud in order to advance said conspiracy, in the hundreds of articles written and published by Davis Odd Fellows/Davis Rebekah Lodge (or about the activities of Davis Odd Fellows by outside publications such as the Davis Enterprise or Daily Democrat), the fact that Reed and Cambron are actually married to each other, that Reed is a judge, and Cambron is an attorney with Yolo County Counsel is never mentioned, in order to mislead and defraud the public and litigants by means of a plan they conceived and executed.
54. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that as a further overt act by which to advance the objective of said conspiracy, Sheryl Cambron conceals from the public her association with Yolo County Counsel by causing numerous legal web-sites to misrepresent her employment status. Most, if not all, of those web-sites state that Sheryl Cambron is in fact in private practice representing litigants in matters dealing with bankruptcies, family law, and criminal law.
55. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that private actors Yolo Lodge 169, David Rosenberg, Lea Rosenberg, David Reed, Sheryl Cambron, Jonathan Raven, Allison Zuvela, Tracey Olson, Michael Cabral, and Kathleen White and Does 1 - 100 willfully and knowingly conspired and agreed among themselves to a scheme by which they agreed to conceal from the public and Plaintiff Cambron’s employment as an attorney with Yolo County Counsel, that she is the spouse of David Reed, as well as the confidential fiduciary relationship between Cambron on one hand and Reisig, Cabral and Raven on the other hand.
56. Plaintiff further alleges that private actors Rosenberg, Reed, Raven, and Zuvela conspired to fraudulently conceal the fact that Zuvela is an Odd Fellow by intentionally removing her name from the web-site davislodge.org — which yields a zero return when a search is performed for her name . Additionally, Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that David Rosenberg, David Reed, and Allison Zuvela conspired to further delete from the web-site davislodge.org all articles which mentions Zuvela’s name.
57. These conspiratorial acts were substantial factors in causing Plaintiff monetary losses and damages in an amount to be established at trial.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Fraudulent Concealment
(Against Private Actors Defendants Yolo Lodge 169; David Rosenberg; Lea Rosenberg; David Reed; Sheryl Cambron; Jonathan Raven; Allison Zuvela; Michael Cabral; Tracie Olson; Kathleen White; and Does 1 - 100 )

58. Plaintiff incorporates paragraph by reference paragraphs 1 - 57 as though fully set forth herein.
59. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants committed the above described acts and omissions with intent to defraud the public and Plaintiff and deprive him of other interests he was entitled to. In particular, Defendants affirmatively concealed the existence of a marital relationship between Reed and Cambron, the fact that Cambron is an employee of Yolo County Counsel, and the fact that Allison Zuvela is an Odd Fellow member by affirmatively deleting her name from Odd Fellow web-site.
60. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants have directly performed, or aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured, encouraged, promoted, instigated, advised, willfully caused, participated in, enabled, contributed to, facilitated, directed, controlled, assisted in, or conspired in the commission of the above-described acts.
61. Plaintiff reasonably relied upon the statements, acts, and omissions of Defendants to his detriment.
62. As a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, as alleged above, Plaintiff suffered injury in fact in an amount to be proven at trial.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Against State Actors Defendants David Rosenberg, Sheryl Cambron, Jonathan Raven, Allison Zuvela, Tracie Olson, Michael Cabral and Does 1 - 100)

63. Plaintiff incorporates paragraph by reference paragraphs 1 - 62 as though fully set forth herein.
64. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that state actors David Rosenberg, Sheryl Cambron, Jonathan Raven, Tracie Olson, Allison Zuvela and Michael Cabral and Does 1 - 100 willfully and knowingly conspired and agreed among themselves to a scheme by which they agreed to conceal from Plaintiff Cambron’s employment as an attorney with Yolo County Counsel, that she is the spouse of David Reed, the confidential fiduciary relationship between Cambron on one hand and Cabral and Raven on the other hand, and that Allison Zuvela is an Odd Fellow member, by among other things, deleting her name from the Odd Fellow web-site.
65. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants have directly performed, or aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured, encouraged, promoted, instigated, advised, willfully caused, participated in, enabled, contributed to, facilitated, directed, controlled, assisted in, or conspired in the commission of the above-described acts.
66. Plaintiff reasonably relied upon the statements, acts, and omissions of Defendants to his detriment.
67. As a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, as alleged above, Plaintiff’s state and federal civil rights were violated and resulted in legal damages in an amount to be established at trial.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests judgment against Defendants as follows:
1. For general and special damages under all causes of action where available by law;
2. For costs of suit;
3. For prejudgment interest;
4. For an injunction directing Defendants to comply with 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d); and
5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Plaintiff also demands a jury trial in this matter.
DATED: February 4, 2014

How Lavabit Melted Down : The New Yorker
▻http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/10/how-lavabit-edward-snowden-email-service-melted-down.html

On August 8th, Lavabit, newly famous for being the secure e-mail service used by the National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden, went dark. Its owner and operator, Ladar Levison, replaced its home page with a message: “I cannot share my experiences over the last six weeks, even though I have twice made the appropriate requests.” Levison could write only that he chose to shut down the company rather than “become complicit in crimes against the American people,” and he promised to “fight for the Constitution in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.”

#lavabit #nsa #snowden #PRISM

Court: Facebook ‘Like’ Is Protected By the First Amendment - Law Blog - WSJ
▻http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/09/18/court-facebook-like-is-protected-by-the-first-amendment

“Liking” something on Facebook is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday, reviving a closely watched case over the extent to which the Constitution shields what we do online.

In doing so, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with a former deputy sheriff in Hampton, Va., who said he was sacked for “liking” the Facebook page of a man running against his boss for city sheriff.

“Liking” the campaign page, the court said, was the “Internet equivalent of displaying a political sign in one’s front yard, which the Supreme Court has held is substantive speech.”

#like #FB

Cops don’t need a warrant to see your e-mail—but they might soon | Ars Technica
►http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/cops-dont-need-a-warrant-to-see-your-e-mail-but-they-might-soon

A new bill introduced today in the US House of Representatives seeks to require warrants before police can trawl through your e-mail or track your cell phone, reports CNET. The legislation is backed by several technology companies, including Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Twitter. But given the government’s history with privacy bills, it faces a high chance of getting blocked by the Department of Justice.

The bill was introduced by Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and would require officers to get a warrant before accessing e-mail or location information. Access to these data types is a notorious gray area in US courts.

In August, the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that law enforcement officials were within their right to access the location data from a man’s cellphone without a warrant. The basis for this ruling was the Stored Communications Act, which states authorities may not access the content of communications, but are allowed to see where and to whom they went. Prosecutors have been using this law to justify access to location data for some time, but the interpretation has been increasingly called into question by civil liberties groups.

Peter Sunde, The Pirate Bay Spokesperson, Details Why His Conviction Was A Farce | Techdirt
►http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120709/03210219621/peter-sunde-pirate-bay-spokesperson-details-why-his-conviction-was-farce.s

Peter notes that the prosecution has effectively admitted that he didn’t actually do the stuff he was convicted of, but claims that doesn’t change his responsibility. Seriously. Here’s the rough automated translation:
That the work of the Court of Appeal found Peter Sunde Kolmisoppi begun in late 2005 may not have resulted in actual service until the time of the raid against TPB, does not affect the responsibility of the act for which Peter Sunde Kolmisoppi convicted.
In other words, he didn’t provide the actual services he was convicted of, but that doesn’t make him any less responsible for the things he didn’t actually do. Swedish justice in action.

#pirate #suède #justice #hadopi

Embattled scientists publish study linking (surprise) diesel exhaust and #cancer - Nature News Blog
►http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/03/embattled-scientists-publish-miner-cancer-study.html

the study is more comprehensive and apparently robust than those that have come before, and it comes as at least one major scientific organization prepares to reassess the link between diesel exhaust and cancer. Perhaps it was the fear of this exact scenario that led a coalition of industrial interests to wage a seventeen-year legal and political battle against government scientists conducting the study – a battle that now appears to have outlived its purpose thanks to a 29 February ruling from the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

#recherche #censure #industrie

Iraqi civilians win inquiry appeal - Home News - UK - The Independent
►http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/iraqi-civilians-win-inquiry-appeal-6266023.html

More than 100 Iraqi civilians have won a landmark Court of Appeal battle in their bid for a fresh public inquiry into allegations of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment made against British soldiers and interrogators in Iraq.

Some 128 Iraqis complain that ill treatment occurred between March 2003 and December 2008 in British-controlled detention facilities in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq.

►http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/11/08/fogel-vs-farmers-group-settlement-in-letter-to-judge-william-hi

Fogel vs. Farmers Group Settlement — In Letter to Judge William Highberger Objector Assails Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack’s Walter Lack Re Alleged Collision Between Skadden Arps and Girardi & Keese; Howard Rice’s Jerry Falk

Amid allegations of breached ethics rules and conflicts of interest, Los Angeles Superior Court Hon William Highberger was recently asked to consider additional matters relating to the approval of the settlement.

As a service to the community, we shall publish the communication, below:

Dear Honorable Judge Highberger:

This will serve to further address the grave and dire circumstances surrounding the proposed settlement in Fogel v. Farmers Group, Inc. It will also serve to address matters contained in a troubling order entered by this Court on an ex parte basis on April 28, 2011, and to lodge with the Court concerns regarding the credibility of Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack in hopes that this Court will reject the settlement or, in the alternative, that the Court will award no attorneys’ fees and will shift the proposed $90 million attorneys’ fee award to the pool available to the class.

As the Court is aware, the undersigned have previously lodged an equitable objection ("objection") informing the Court of ethical violations and fraud perpetuated on this Court stemming from collusion between the law offices of Girardi & Keese and Skadden Arps based on the fact that while the Fogel matter was pending before this Court, Skadden Arps and Girardi & Keese entered into a wholly separate agreement by which Skadden Arps agreed to represent Girardi & Keese in the matter of In Re Girardi (9th Circuit Court of Appeals Case No.08-80090).

Neither the Ninth Circuit nor this Court (or for that matter, the class of plaintiffs which Girardi allegedly represents) were timely informed of the concurrent representation. In fact, Skadden Arps (on behalf of itself, its client Farmers, and its client Girardi & Keese and Thomas Girardi) actively and by omission took action to conceal the matter, by among other things, seeking an order from the Ninth Circuit seeking to remove its name from the Ninth Circuit’s published decision of In Re Girardi. The Ninth Circuit denied this request.

A review of class counsel’s omnibus brief and accompanying documents and exhibits filed in the instant matter necessitates this communication in order to ask the Court to further address the following issues:

As this Court is surely aware, the current matter before this court (styled as Fogel v. Farmers Group Inc.) is primarily based on the case originally advanced by the State of Texas and Governor Rick Perry, along with the Texas Department of Insurance, against Farmers Group, Inc. in approximately 2002.

Within days after the State of Texas filed the case, settlement negotiations commenced, and very shortly thereafter a settlement was announced in the amount of approximately $100 million. Joe K. Longley, an attorney from Austin, Texas (alongside Philip K. Maxwell and Steve McCleery), representing policyholder Jan Lubin, stated that Texas is settling on the “cheap,” and immediately commenced legal proceedings to derail the settlement.

Farmers’ policyholders Gilberto Villanueva and Michael Paladino both had previous class actions pending in the State of Texas prior to the State action being brought. These Intervenors were represented by State Bar of Texas members Alice Oliver-Parrott, David Burrow, David Jones, and R. Martin Weber.

At that time, Mr. Longley publicly stated that Farmers was unfairly enriched in an amount 10 times greater than the settlement amount, and presumably Mr. Longley wanted the State of Texas to settle for an amount close to $1 billion. Longley. along with several other lawyers (Phil Maxwell, Mike Gallagher, and Stephen McCleery), who were later joined by David Burrow, Alice Oliver-Parrot, Mike Gallagher and Dan Downey (collectively “Texas Class Counsel” ), immediately commenced legal proceedings to halt the settlement.

Beginning in December 2002 and continuing thereafter for five months in 2003, the parties engaged in intensive discovery; motion practice; document review; hearing preparation; hearings; and depositions, and extensive lawyer time and effort took place to prepare for, and participate in, the preliminary approval hearing the Texas District Court had set to be heard commencing in May 2003.

In February 2003, it became apparent to the Lubin’s co-counsel that additional legal assistance was needed. Mike Gallagher and Dan Downey were added at that time to act as co-counsel, with Longley & Maxwell, LLP, in representing Jan Lubin.

During those proceedings, particularly during the initial phase, Texas Class Counsel obtained and reviewed thousands of documents, and through masterful lawyering, and while opposed by the endless resources of the Attorney General of the State of Texas managed to derail the settlement. This matter became known as the “Lubin Proceedings,” and is still pending in the Texas courts, 261 Judicial District Court of Travis County.

Recognizing that much of the legal work was already completed by the State of Texas and the Texas Department of Insurance — which gave rise to a presumption of validity and credibility to the allegations against Farmers — Mr. Longley and some of the Texas Class Counsel saw the enourmous opportunity that had been presented to them and sought to file a nationwide class action against Farmers.

As such, in 2003, Longley and a few of the Texas Class Counsel flew to Los Angeles to meet with Messrs. Thomas Girardi (of Girardi & Keese) and Walter Lack (of Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack); one month later, after the appropriate plaintiff had been selected, the current case was filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court styled Benjamin Fogel v Farmers Group Inc. (Incidentally, the allegations set forth in Joe Longley’s declaration that they flew to Los Angeles to meet with Girardi and Lack only after reviewing “choice of law” and “venue” provisions because Farmers is headquartered in Los Angeles should be viewed by this Court with extreme skepticism as this suit could have been filed in Eureka, California, Nashville, Tennessee or any other court in the country.)

In approximately 2010, a settlement was reached in this pending matter allocating $455 million to be shared by the class, and $90 million in attorneys’ fees. Class counsel (both from Texas and California) advanced a motion for attorneys’ fees supported by declarations and exhibits. The declarations from Texas Class Counsel submitted to this Court are based on work performed in BOTH the Lubin and Fogel matters.

First, the undersigned respectfully asks this Court to consider whether it is fair to ask the Fogel class to finance the Lubin proceedings. Also, the fact that the Lubin matter is still pending and is specifically exempted from the current settlement will allow Texas Class Counsel to again collect fees if there is a future resolution of the litigation in Texas. As such, it is up to this Court to ensure that there will be no double recovery for the Texas Class counsel, and that the Fogel Class does not pay the attorneys’ fees for the Lubin proceedings.

Second, this Court is under a duty to independently examine the fairness of the settlement, including issues of collusion between class counsel and defendants (and their counsel) to ensure that collusion has not taken place by which defendants offer to settle for a lesser amount while offering incentive to class counsel vis-a-vis a large and disproportionate attorneys’ fee award. Hence, this Court is respectfully asked to inquire of Mr. Longley during the fairness hearing how he can support a settlement worth only $455 million for a NATIONWIDE class composed of 12.5 million Americans, when he has previously stated in his opposition to the Texas settlement that the settlement for ONLY the State of Texas should be closer to the $1 billion, the sum he contended was allegedly unfairly and unlawfully collected by Farmers.

A third issue relates to the declarations submitted in support of the request for attorney’s fees. In comparing declarations submitted by Texas Class Counsel (who, as stated above, did most of the fundamental work in the initial phase of Lubin and Villanueva), the declaration submitted by Thomas Girardi on behalf of Girardi & Keese — in which he states that his firm spent 6662 hours on the case — appears to be highly excessive, highly implausible, and highly suspicious. This is further magnified when considering that Walter Lack and his law firm submitted a declaration stating that close to 4000 hours were devoted to the case by Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack.

Usually, the relationship between Girardi & Keese and Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack is based on a business model whereby Girardi & Keese and Thomas Girardi are responsible for financing the litigation, as well as providing much needed “clout,” very often withing the judicial system of Los Angeles County and the State Bar of California (to wit Thomas Girardi’s friendship with former California Supreme Court Chief Justice George; his friendship with former California State Bar Chief Trial Counsel and former crack addict Mike Nisperos, to whom Girardi serve as a “mentor”; his financing of the political career of the present Executive Director of the State Bar of California, Hon. Senator Joe Dunn; and other questionable “friendships” and relationships, the basis of which are usually political contributions and gifts).

Walter Lack and his firm, who are more methodical, are responsible for the day-to-day management of the litigation through motion practice, discovery, hearings etc. Once serious settlement negotiations commence, Mr. Girardi himself takes over the discussions, and has the final say on whether and under what terms the case should settle.

Hence, if Walter Lack and his firm already worked close to 4000 hours on this case, it is difficult to imagine why Girardi & Keese would also need to have spent 6662 hours on the matter.

In comparison, Joe Longley stated that he worked on BOTH cases only 2740 hours; Philip Maxwell stated that he devoted 2677 hours to both cases. (While this Court treats Longley and Maxwell as two separate law firms, for the majority of the time both presented themselves as one law firm, that of Longley & Maxwell.)

As such, the undersigned respectfully requests that this Court scrutinize the declaration submitted by Thomas Girardi by seeking a complete and detailed breakdown of all hours spent.

Additionally, conspicuously lacking is any declaration from Graham LippSmith of Girardi & Keese, even though he allegedly performed most of the work on behalf of Girardi & Keese. This Court should order Graham LippSmith to also submit a sworn affidavit, along with his timesheets, in support of the purported 6662 hours billed by Girardi & Keese.

Fourth, subsequent to submitting the Objection, and only after reading the omnibus brief submitted by class counsel, the undersigned learned that Zurich Financial Services and Farmers Group, Inc. (represented by Dewey & Lebuef and Skadden Arps) had approached the Court on an ex parte basis in approximately April 2011 in connection with the unsettling attorney-client relationship between Skadden Arps and Girardi & Keese.

It is quite a strange legal phenomenon when defendants move ex parte for an order pertaining to the future relationship between plaintiffs’ counsel and his clients. Indeed, it is almost as though Skadden Arps is still serving as defense counsel for Girardi & Keese, notwithstanding its own concerns that defendants and counsel may be held liable for interfering with the plaintiff class’s contractual relationship with Girardi & Keese or other related collusion.

It is alleged in the omnibus brief that defendants approached the Court ex parte asking it to analyze a “blog entry” alluding to an ethics complaint filed against Girardi & Keese and Skadden Arps with the State Bar of California. Setting aside the absurdity of Zurich Financial Group, Farmers Group, Inc., Dewey & Lebuef, and Skadden Arps (the largest law firm in the world) approaching the Court ex parte asking it to analyze a “blog entry,” as opposed to their own declarations and admissions, the undersigned will concede that, indeed, an ethics complaint was advanced by the undersigned based on the facts subsequently described in the objection filed in this matter.

This Court should be aware that requests by the undersigned to Skadden Arps, Dewey & Lebeuf, Girardi & Keese, ELL, and Texas Class Counsel for a copy of the ex parte papers went unanswered. In addition, the undersigned asked the same parties to post a copy of the complete sets of the ex parte papers on the official settlement website, a request which was also ignored.

Additionally, the undersigned communicated with other credible objectors who were also unaware (at least as of August 16 and 17, 2011) of the fact that defendants had moved ex parte to supplement the notice and restrict any future action on the part of the class, and were otherwise clueless about Paragraph 17 or the fact that Girardi & Keese was a client of Skadden Arps.

As such, this Court must order the parties to post said ex parte application and related papers on the official settlement website so as to provide the class and objectors an opportunity to form objection in an educated fashion by, among other things, requesting a postponement of the upcoming fairness hearing.

Shockingly, and based on the ex parte papers submitted by Zurich and Farmers which were, presumably (and predictably), unopposed by class counsel (because any opposition would expose their own misconduct), the Court issued an order allowing the modification of a notice to the class by which the members would be informed of the attorney-client relationship between Skadden Arps and Girardi & Keese. The order also, shockingly, stated that members of the class would be prohibited in the future from asserting that they were not adequately represented by class counsel due to the Skadden-Girardi relationship.

Upon reviewing this Court order, it is requested that the Court address inaccuracies in both the order and the notice, along with other issues, to wit;

A. This Court order and the Notice in Paragraph 17 state that the class was represented by “5 other law firms, which have not had any connections to the Farmers Group’s attorneys.” This statement is in contradiction to verbiage, also in Paragraph 17, which states, “The Court has appointed the following lawyers to represent the class as ’class counsel’: Thomas Girardi and Graham LippSmith of Girardi & Keese, Walter Lack of ELL, Phillip Maxwell of the Law Offices of Phillip Maxwell and Joe K. Longley of Law offices of Joe K. Longley.”

As this Court only appointed ELL, Longley and Maxwell, the order and the notice are not accurate when it states that 5 other law firms represented the class as, in actuality, only 3 other law firms reviewed the settlement.

B. This Court must take into account that the support of Walter Lack and ELL for the settlement (as part of the “5 other law firms”), and their indifference to the attorney-client relationship between Girardi & Keese and Skadden Arps, is suspect as Walter Lack and his firm were part and parcel of the matter of In Re Girardi.

Walter Lack knew all along about the concurrent representation between Skadden Arps and Girardi & Keese, and was part of the scheme to mislead this Court and the Fogel class by not disclosing the relationship.

In fact, it was Walter Lack himself, despite repeated warnings even from within his own firm and from a federal district court judge, who executed the plan to defraud the federal judiciary with a fraudulent translation of a foreign judgment which resulted in the proceedings of In re Girardi. While the resultant proceedings were titled “In Re Girardi,” respondents in those proceedings were Girardi & Keese, Thomas Girardi, Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack, Paul Triana, Sean Topp, and Walter Lack.

As such, it is highly disingenuous of this Court to authorize a notice to 12.5 million Americans which contains assertions that 5 (or more accuretly, 3) other law firms support the settlement given that one of those law firms (ELL) was part and parcel of the Ninth Circuit proceedings of In Re Girardi.

The Court should keep in mind that Walter Lack for many years chose to hide the collusion between Girardi & Keese and Skadden Arps not only from the class, but also from this Court, and that he is the same person who was found by the Ninth Circuit to have resorted to employing “the persistent use of known falsehoods” and that “false representations” were made “knowingly, intentionally, and recklessly” during years of litigation. Similarly, Walter Lack remained quiet when the State Bar of California appointed Jerome Falk of Howard Rice to serve as special persecutor to examine his misconduct before the Ninth Circuit. Despite the fact that Thomas Girardi stipulated to the prosecutor that he was “reckless,” and Walter Lack stipulated that his misconduct was “intentional,” Jerome Falk (on behalf of the People of the State of California) “exonerated” both of these attorneys, stating that he did not believe the misconduct was “intentional.”

Despite Walter Lack’s (and Thomas Girardi’s) habit of remaining quiet, it was the undersigned who only very recently discovered that, indeed, Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi were actually clients of Jerome Falk and Howard Rice. (See generally Ninth Circuit matter of Copple vs. Astrella ) With this background, Mr. Falk’s refusal to prosecute Lack and Girardi suddenly makes sense.

Fifth, the omnibus brief is highly offensive, incomplete, misleading, legally unsound, and clearly designed to speed up the collection of $90 million in attorneys’ fees. It is shocking that Girardi & Keese, on behalf of the class, is advancing legal arguments supporting the contention that there were no ethical violations on the part of Skadden Arps and Farmers. This is viewed as an additional fact in support of the collusion between Girardi & Keese and Skadden Arps; it also calls into question the ability of Girardi & Keese and Benjamin Fogel to adequately represent the class.

In addition, the undersigned take umbrage over the attitude displayed in the omnibus brief concerning the “conflict of interest.” The Court should note that both the undersigned and, presumably, others utilize the term “conflict of interest” in a generalized fashion (and not just as a term of art involving a legal “conflict of interest” with a client), to otherwise denote violations and breaches of ethics rules.

For example, in this case, a true conflict of interest on the part of Girardi & Keese would have arisen had Girardi & Keese, while representing Mr. Fogel and the class, filed a separate action against Mr. Fogel concerning a different matter on behalf of another client. Even if no “true” conflict exists, this does not negate the fact that Girardi & Keese and Skadden Arps violated other rules of ethics. And, even if no rules of ethics were violated, that does negate the argument that the Court, while independently fulfilling its duty to examine collusion, must take into account the attorney-client relationship between Girardi & Keese and Skadden Arps in the matter of In Re Girardi to support a finding of collusion which was detrimental to the Fogel class and, as such, reject the settlement.

Thank you for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact me if the Court needs any further information or clarification of the above-described facts.

Jail Sentence for Pirate Bay Co-Founder Made Final | TorrentFreak
►http://torrentfreak.com/jail-sentence-for-pirate-bay-co-founder-made-final-111014

The Stockholm District Court sentence against Pirate Bay founder Gottfrid Svartholm was finalized today after he failed to appear at the Court of Appeal. Svartholm, also known as Anakata online, did not appear at the appeal trial last year because he was hospitalized in Cambodia and later went missing. The Court of Appeal has now decided to finalize the initial verdict of one year jail time and a fine of $1.1 million.

’40 percent of male foreign tourists on sex tours’ - The Philippine Star » News » Headlines
►http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=729980&publicationSubCategoryId=63

MANILA, #Philippines - At least 40 percent of male foreign tourists in the country, including Americans, come for sexual tourism, US Ambassador Harry Thomas Jr. said yesterday.

“I estimate that maybe up to 40 percent of foreign men who come here come for sexual tourism and that is unacceptable.

And any of them engaged in things that violate the law whether they are American or other foreigner should be prosecuted. That is against human values,” Thomas said during a roundtable discussion on human trafficking organized by the Supreme Court, Philippine Judicial Academy in partnership with the Court of Appeals and US Department of Justice Criminal Division.

Thomas said the US wants the Philippines to refine and strengthen its anti-trafficking law to ensure the conviction of foreigners involved in the crime.

He said he also told President Aquino and Justice Secretary Leila de Lima that the US government is resolved to prosecute any American involved in cybersex and human trafficking.

Thomas said the US provided over $6.6 million to the Philippines for its anti-trafficking program and training.

“I think that the conviction rate improved in the last year and there were record number of 25 convictions… But this is a large country of many provinces and some provinces, some towns no prosecutions, no arrests,” Thomas said.

“And that is unacceptable especially when you have places where you have shelters for victims so you know there is a lot of trafficking going on. It is not up to us to dictate, we just ask that the courts and the legislature work together to strengthen gaps in it so that people and those who commit this crime are successfully prosecuted,” he added.

#tourisme_sexuel

Pamela Phillips, Sean SeLegue, Douglas Winthrop and Jerome Falk of Howard Rice Candy Falk & Rabkin Under Extreme Scrutiny as New Evidence of Alleged Conflict of Interest Discovered

Contending that Howard Rice’s Jerome Falk, acting as Special Prosecutor on behalf of the State Bar of California, repeatedly sought to subvert justice in examining attorney misconduct in the litigation against Dole Food Company, sources close to the complainant claim a new and recent discovery shows “Smoking Gun” evidence of ethical misconduct.

Jerome Falk, Douglas Winthrop, Sean SeLegue, and Pamela Phillips of Howard Rice Canady Falk & Rabkin. In 2008, during an interview with a legal publication, Mr. Falk stated while describing some opposing counsel, “I would do anything to squash them. So those cases don’t settle. You just want to rip their throats out.” He recently dominated the news in his representation of Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss in their quest to rescind a prior settlement with Facebook.

Earlier this year Jerome falk was accused of grave misconduct as a result of his decision to exonerate Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese and Walter Lack of Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack for misconduct the two committed while litigating a case against Dole Food Company before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

During the Ninth Circuit proceedings, and after the case against Dole was dismissed, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski issued an order to show cause why attorneys Walter Lack, Paul Triana, and Sean Topp of Engstrom, along with Howard Miller and Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese, should not be disbarred or suspended from practicing before the Ninth Circuit. In addition, Judge Kozinski ordered the appointments of Senior Ninth Circuit Judge Wallace Tashima as special master and Rory Little as prosecutor in those special disciplinary proceedings known as the matter of In Re Girardi.

Subsequently, in late 2010, a Ninth Circuit panel comprised of Judges William Fletcher , Marsha Berzon, and Randy Smith found that Lack and Girardi had committed grave misconduct, and ordered them to report their misconduct to the State Bar of California. The State Bar of California declared a conflict in the matter because Howard Miller, a partner of Girardi & Keese, served as President of the State Bar; accordingly, the Bar appointed an outside attorney, Jerome Falk of Howard Rice Candy Falk & Rabkin, to look into the matter.

Judge William Fletcher, a member of the Ninth Circuit panel that adjudicated the matter of In re Girardi, 08-80090, rejected the lenient recommendations of Rory Little. He stated: “with any competent lawyer if you’re omitting part of a document, that is not accidental. That is intentional.” The court adjudicated that the grave misconduct by Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi included “the persistent use of known falsehoods,” and that the “false representations” were made “knowingly, intentionally, and recklessly” during years of litigation.

In his capacity as special prosecutor, and after reviewing the Ninth Circuit file, Falk chose to not file any disciplinary accusations against Walter Lack, stating that he believed Lack’s misconduct was not intentional. See copy of letter from Jerome Falk to Walter Lack ►http://tinyurl.com/3s2tjxz.

Once Falk’s decision was made public, a finger was pointed at him, and he was accused of having been influenced by pecuniary considerations due to the fact that Howard Rice and Skadden Arps (specifically, Falk and partner Douglas Winthrop) often litigate cases together as a team, such as in the cases of MGA vs. Mattel, Genentech and others. In addition, allegations were made that it was improper to select the firm of Howard Rice for this appointment because Douglas Winthrop, the firm’s managing partner, served as an officer of the State Bar of California. Specifically, Winthrop serves as President of a foundation maintained by the State Bar of California. See ►http://tinyurl.com/42t7zkj.

Additionally, and as part of the inquiry, Sean SeLegue and Pamela Phillips were asked to identify “[a]ny and all other factors or facts that would cause a reasonable person to entertain doubts as to the impartiality of Howard Rice and its members in the proceedings at issue, including the disclosure of relationships between members of the firm and others.” See ►http://tinyurl.com/3eotzfs.

The State Bar of California Board of Governors’ RAD Committee conducted its own investigation and retained special counsel to investigate this matter. The special master recommended that the matter be closed because there was no showing that Falk and Winthrop engaged in any misconduct; the RAD Committee adopted this recommendation. See ►http://tinyurl.com/3s82ac4 and ►http://tinyurl.com/3rjqm3v.

According to the sources, the newly discovered "Smoking Gun” evidence relates to the fact that starting in 2005, the law firm of Howard Rice Candy Falk & Rabkin represented both Girardi & Keese and Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack in a class action advanced by plaintiff Robert Copple.

As such, the sources maintain, Jerome Falk and Howard Rice were under a duty to reject the appointment, and to otherwise disclose the fact that Walter Lack, Thomas Girardi, Girardi & Keese, and Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack were clients of the firm.

To view the case of Copple vs. Astrella, please visit : ►http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=20061271442FSupp2d829_11197.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2.

Mumia’s Death Sentence Ruled Unconstitutional by Federal Court
►http://www.freemumia.com/?p=496

This decision marks an important step forward in the struggle to correct the mistakes of an unfortunate chapter in Pennsylvania history,” said John Payton, Director-Counsel of LDF. “Again acknowledging the existence of clear constitutional error in Mr. Abu-Jamal’s trial, the Court of Appeals’ decision enhances confidence in the criminal justice system and helps to relegate the kind of unfairness on which this death sentence rested to the distant past.”

US judges rule for teacher who called creationism ’superstitious nonsense’ - CSMonitor.com
►http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/0819/US-judges-rule-for-teacher-who-called-creationism-superstitious-nonsense

A public high school teacher in California may not be sued for making hostile remarks about religion in his classroom, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday.

The decision stems from a lawsuit filed by a student charging that the teacher’s hostile remarks about creationism and religious faith violated a First Amendment mandate that the government remain neutral in matters of religion.

A three-judge panel of the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that the lawsuit against an advanced placement history teacher at Capistrano Valley High School in Mission Viejo must be thrown out of court because the teacher was entitled to immunity.

#USA #religion #créationnisme