Pages

Thursday, June 9, 2016

Big Al it’s time to pay your programmer Pete Bennet


Posted on 6/19/2017 


From the news . . . 

Former President of Bay Area Home Builder Pleads Guilty to Mortgage Fraud Conspiracy . ... including DiscoveryHome Builders and Albert D. Seeno ...
    The use of undisclosed incentives paid to home buyers at the Discovery Builders development at Leona Quarry in Oakland was reported to the FBI in ...
      Former President of Bay-Area Home Builder Pleads Guilty to Mortgage Fraud Conspiracy ... DSI was created to sell new homes built by Discovery Builders ...
        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT BY COURT ORDEF for the ... 5. Prior to 2007, Discovery Builders and Seeno Construction established bank lines of credit

            Federal Grand Jury Indicts President Of Discovery Sales, Inc. OAKLAND ... including Discovery Home Builders and Albert D. Seeno Construction Co.

                    SAN FRANCISCO – Ayman Shahid, the former president of Discovery Sales, Inc. (DSI), ... including Discovery Home Builders and Albert D. Seeno ...
                            2010 Mortgage Fraud Report Year in Review August 2011 May 2009 ... builders, bank account ... a The discoveryof mortgage fraud via the mortgage ...

                            Wednesday, June 8, 2016

                            Seeno company locked in $159 million fight with IRS

                            Seeno company locked in $159 million fight with IRS 

                            As the FBI probe nears an end following bank fraud charges against the Seeno family's Discovery Sales company, the homebuilding family continues to fight the feds on another avenue -- taxes. The family has sued the IRS seeking a refund of $159 million in federal income taxes after the government claimed family members used an illegal tax shelter scheme.

                            June 6th, 2016 this family was finally indicted but my history goes back to the 1980’s as does Supervisor Federal Glover whose cousin was once my employee.  He was murdered in 1982 running from point. 

                             Seeno company charged with bank fraud

                            BYNUM v. CITY OF PITTSBURGNO. C-83-5664-MHP

                            By PETE BENNETT - Contra Costa Watch EMAIL

                            Phone: 510-460-5641

                            Posted: 10/21/2013

                            Reposted to Protect My Sons

                            BYNUM v. CITY OF PITTSBURGNO. C-83-5664-MHP.
                            622 F.Supp. 196 (1985)
                            Dorothy BYNUM, Sylvester Bynum and Dorothy Bynum as Administrator of the Estate of Bernard Bynum, decedent, Plaintiffs,
                            v.
                            CITY OF PITTSBURG, Leonard Castiglione, individually and in his capacity as Chief of Police for the City of Pittsburg, Ray Giacomelli and William O'Malley, individually and in his capacity as District Attorney for the County of Contra Costa, Defendants.
                            United States District Court, N.D. California.
                            November 12, 1985.
                            Amended November 27, 1985.
                            Tito Torres, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs.
                            James L. Hazard, Sellar, Engleking, Hazard & Snyder, Walnut Creek, Cal., ElizabethB. Hearey, Deputy County Counsel, Martinez, Cal., Jerrold M. Ladar, Stephen W. Sommerhalter, San Francisco, Cal., for defendants.
                            AMENDED OPINION

                            PATEL, District Judge.

                            This case arises out of the shooting death of Bernard Bynum by Ray Giacomelli, a police officer for the City of Pittsburg. The shooting occurred on January 27, 1982. Decedent's surviving heirs, Dorothy and Sylvester Bynum, filed this action on November 22, 1983 alleging that defendants City of Pittsburg ("Pittsburg"), police officer Ray Giacomelli ("Giacomelli"), police chief Leonard Castiglione ("Castiglione"), and district attorney William O'Malley ("O'Malley") had violated their civil rights by performing acts which caused their son to be shot to death by officer Giacomelli. Dorothy Bynum also sues in her capacity as administrator of the decedent's estate.1

                            Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint filed on August 6, 1985 contains five causes of action, all based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983. First, plaintiffs allege that defendant Giacomelli acting under color of state law deprived their son of several constitutionally protected rights, including the right not to be deprived of life without due process of law, the right to be free from excessive force, and the right to be free from battery motivated by racial prejudice. Second, they contend that defendant Castiglione instituted a policy of inadequate police training which caused the death of their son. Third, they claim that defendant Pittsburg encouraged its police department to abuse minorities causing the death of their son. Fourth, they allege that defendants Pittsburg, Castiglione, and O'Malley had a policy of exonerating officers who brutalized or killed minorities and that this policy was a proximate cause of their son's death. Finally, they allege that defendants Pittsburg and O'Malley caused their son's death by failing to prosecute law enforcement officers who brutalized or killed minorities.

                            Defendants Pittsburg, Giacomelli, and Castiglione filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on August 22, 1985 on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims are barred by a one year statute of limitations and that no constitutional violation is shown in the pleadings. Castiglione also moves to dismiss the second cause of action against him claiming that respondeat superior is an insufficient basis for imposing liability on him. Finally, Pittsburg asks the court to dismiss it from the fifth cause of action since it contains no allegations of wrongdoing on the part of the City. Defendant O'Malley joined in the motion to dismiss on August 23, 1985. In addition to the grounds asserted by the other defendants, O'Malley claims that the plaintiffs have no standing to bring this action, that he is absolutely immune from prosecution, and that plaintiffs are not entitled to the equitable relief that they seek.

                            The court has considered all of the papers in support of and in opposition to these motions. For the reasons discussed below, the fifth cause of action is dismissed as to defendant City of Pittsburg and the remainder of defendants' motions to dismiss are denied.

                            I. O'MALLEY'S MOTION TO DISMISS

                            Defendant O'Malley's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint is based on several arguments which the court heard and rejected on July 23, 1984. On that date, the court denied O'Malley's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint based upon prosecutorial immunity, lack of survival and standing, and failure to state a claim cognizable under § 1983. It also refused to strike plaintiffs' prayer for equitable relief.2 O'Malley's arguments here amount to nothing more than a motion for reconsideration. Since he advances no new arguments, the motion is denied.

                            The only issue raised by O'Malley that the court must consider here is the claim that plaintiffs' action is barred by a one year statute of limitations. This is discussed below since defendants Pittsburg, Giacomelli, Castiglione also raise this claim.

                            II. PITTSBURG, GIACOMELLI, AND CASTIGLIONE'S MOTION TO DISMISS
                            A. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

                            Defendants Pittsburg, Giacomelli, and Castiglione ask the court to dismiss this action on statute of limitations grounds in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wilson v. Garcia, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985). Defendant O'Malley joins in this motion.

                            In Wilson, the Supreme Court held that state statutes of limitations for personal injury should be applied in § 1983 actions. Id. at 1949. The shooting of plaintiffs' son occurred on January 27, 1982; they filed suit on November 22, 1983. Defendants argue that Wilson should be applied retroactively to bar plaintiffs' causes of action under the one year California statute of limitations for personal injury.3 See Cal. Civ.Proc.Code § 340.

                            Defendants cite several cases from other circuits for the proposition that Wilson should be applied retroactively. All of the decisions rely upon the test announced in Chevron Oil v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 92 S.Ct. 349, 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971), to analyze the retroactivity question. In Huson, the Supreme Court held that a decision could be applied nonretroactively if three criteria were met:

                            First, the decision to be applied nonretroactively must establish a new principle of law, ... by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied ... Second, it has been stressed that "we must ... weigh the merits and demerits in each case by looking at the prior history of the rule in question, its purpose and effect, and whether retrospective operation will further or retard its operation." ... Finally, we have weighed the inequity imposed by retroactive application....

                            Id. at 106-07, 92 S.Ct. at 355-56 (citations omitted).

                            In Smith v. City of Pittsburgh, 764 F.2d 188 (3rd Cir.1985), the court used the Huson test in making its determination to apply Wilson retroactively to the case before it. The court relied heavily on the fact that the Third Circuit did not have a well-established statute of limitations in § 1983 actions prior to Wilson. The first and third prongs of the Huson test were not met since the "application of the [statute of limitations] law had been erratic and inconsistent, without clear precedent on which plaintiff could reasonably rely in waiting to file suit." Id. at 194-95. With respect to the second prong of the Huson test, the court held that "[a]lthough we cannot say that the policies referred to in Wilson v. Garcia militate clearly in favor of retroactive application, neither do they militate against such application." Id. at 196.

                            In this circuit, by contrast, the Huson test suggests that Wilson should not be applied retroactively.

                            1. WILSON ANNOUNCED NEW LAW IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT.

                            Prior to Wilson, "the three-year limitations period in section 338(1) [had] long governed suits against state officialsbrought pursuant to section 1983." Marshall v. Kleppe, 637 F.2d 1217, 1223 (9th Cir.1980). The state of the law regarding the statute of limitations was well-settled in the Ninth Circuit. See Wilson, 105 S.Ct. at 1947 n. 35 (Supreme Court noted that the Ninth Circuit had created uniformity by adopting a uniform characterization of § 1983 actions as claims arising on a statute). Since Wilson announced a new principle of law in the Ninth Circuit, the first prong of the Huson test is met.

                            2. RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF WILSON WOULD NOT FURTHER ITS PURPOSES

                            The Court in Wilson was attempting to promote "federal interests in uniformity, certainty, and the minimization of unnecessary litigation." 105 S.Ct. at 1947. Retroactive application would neither retard nor promote these goals. Therefore, the second prong of the Huson test is inconclusive. Jackson v. City of Bloomfield, 731 F.2d 652, 655 (10th Cir.1984) (en banc) (refusing to apply new statute of limitations retroactively); see also Smith, 764 F.2d at 196.

                            3. RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF WILSON WOULD BE INEQUITABLE

                            As the court noted in Smith, "[w]here a plaintiff could have reasonably waited to file suit under the established prior rule, it would be inequitable to say he had slept on his rights because of a later and unforeseeable Supreme Court decision." 764 F.2d at 196. Prior to Wilson the statute of limitations in actions under § 1983 was three years. Since this case has been pending for almost two years based upon plaintiffs' reasonable reliance on a three year statute of limitations, it would be inequitable to apply Wilsonretroactively.4 Thus, the third prong of the Huson test is met.

                            Because the Huson test is met, Wilson should not be applied retroactively in this case.5 Accordingly, defendants' motions to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds are denied.

                            B. FAILURE TO ALLEGE A CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION

                            Defendants Pittsburg, Giacomelli, and Castiglione have also moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on the grounds that it fails to allege a constitutional violation. They argue that the availability of adequate state postdeprivation remedies bars this court's consideration of plaintiffs' § 1983 claims under the rationale of Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981).

                            Defendants' argument fails in several respects. First, in Hudson v. Palmer, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 3203, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984), the Supreme Court elaborated on its holding in Parratt stating that "postdeprivation remedies do not satisfy due process where a deprivation of property is caused by conduct pursuant to established state procedure, rather than random and unauthorized action." In this case plaintiffs have alleged that defendants acted pursuant to a policy of exoneration; plaintiffs do not allege merely commission of a random and unauthorized act which defendants could not have predicted. Therefore, the rationale of Parratt is inapplicable.

                            Moreover, even if the shooting death of plaintiffs' son were a random and unauthorized act, plaintiffs might still have an action under § 1983 despite the availability of a state remedy. In Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350, 1356-57 (9th Cir.1985) (en banc) (citation omitted), the Ninth Circuit noted that

                            Parratt and Hudson did not decide, and we do not reach the question, whetherthe availability of some remedial relief in state court might be imposed as a bar to federal relief under § 1983 in the myriad fact situations that might present themselves in other cases against state and local government officials. Parratt and Hudson dealt with relatively minor infractions of prisoners' interests in their personal property, and did not deal with official assaults, batteries or other invasions of personal liberty.

                            Finally, to the extent that plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint alleges violations of their substantive due process rights the procedural rationale of Parratt is inapplicable. In Parratt the Supreme Court recognized the distinction between procedural and substantive claims when it noted that the case involved only violation of "the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment simpliciter," in contrast to previous § 1983 cases before the Court involving fourth amendment and eighth amendment claims. 451 U.S. at 536, 101 S.Ct. at 1913. Courts in this circuit have also noted this distinction between substantive and procedural due process. See Haygood, at 1354-57 (court applies different analyses to Haygood's eighth amendment and due process claims); Garcia v. County of Los Angeles, 588 F.Supp. 700 (C.D.Cal.1984) (Parrattanalysis does not apply to substantive due process claims). If plaintiffs succeed in proving the allegations contained in their Second Amended Complaint, "defendants' conduct may have been sufficiently outrageous to constitute a violation of substantive due process." Garcia, 588 F.Supp. at 707.

                            The law of this circuit remains unsettled. In Wakinekona v. Olim, 664 F.2d 708 (9th Cir.1981), rev'd on other grounds, 461 U.S. 238, 103 S.Ct. 1741, 75 L.Ed.2d 813 (1983), the court found a prisoner could assert a protectible liberty interest in certain prison transfer regulations. The prisoner was allowed to assert these under § 1983. However, in another case decided the same year the court applied Parratt and held that a prisoner was not deprived of due process where he not only could pursue state tort claims for injuries suffered at the hands of a guard, but had pursued those remedies. Rutledge v. Arizona Board of Regents,660 F.2d 1345 (9th Cir.1981), aff'd on other grounds sub nom Kush v. Rutledge, 460 U.S. 719, 103 S.Ct. 1483, 75 L.Ed.2d 413 (1983).

                            Nevertheless, this circuit has recently made it clear that claims of excessive force may still be brought under § 1983 where they are based on Fourth Amendment grounds. Robins v. Harum, 773 F.2d 1004 (9th Cir.1985). Plaintiffs' allegations are grounded on the Fourth as well as the Fourteenth Amendment. The availability of state postdeprivation remedies does not bar Fourth Amendment claims. Id. at 1008-09.

                            For all of the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a constitutional violation is denied.

                            C. RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR

                            Defendant Castiglione argues that this court should dismiss plaintiffs' second cause of action against him because respondeat superior is not a basis for imposing § 1983 liability. He cites the Supreme Court's decision in Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), for this proposition. In Monell the Court held that local government entities may be sued under § 1983 only where the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights resulted from the execution or implementation of an official government policy.

                            The Supreme Court recently elaborated on its decision in Monell in City of Oklahoma v. Tuttle, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 2427, 85 L.Ed.2d 791 (1985). In Tuttle, the widow of a man shot by a police officer brought a § 1983 action alleging that a policy of inadequate training brought about her husband's death. The trial court allowed the jury in the case to infer a policy of inadequate training from the mere fact that the victim was shot to death. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that "where the policy relied upon is not itself unconstitutional, considerably more proof than the single incident will be necessary in every case to establish both the requisite fault on the part of the municipality, andthe causal connection between the `policy' and the constitutional deprivation." 105 S.Ct. at 2436 (footnotes omitted).

                            In their complaint, plaintiffs allege more than a single incident; they allege an ongoing policy of inadequate training which caused their son's death and involved the injuries and deaths of other minorities. At this stage of the proceedings the allegations are sufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss. Therefore, Castiglione's motion to dismiss the second cause of action is denied.

                            D. NO WRONGDOING BY CITY OF PITTSBURG

                            Defendant City of Pittsburg contends that this court should dismiss the fifth cause of action since it contains no allegation of wrongdoing by the City. Plaintiffs conceded this at oral argument. Therefore, the claim is dismissed as to the City of Pittsburg.

                            III. CONCLUSION

                            This court dismisses the fifth cause of action of plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint as to defendant City of Pittsburg. The motions to dismiss are otherwise denied for the reasons stated herein.

                            IT IS SO ORDERED.

                            FOOTNOTES

                            1. For the purposes of this order the court refers to plaintiffs jointly, although certain claims are held only by the administrator.

                            2. Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint does not differ substantively from their First Amended Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint simply adds Dorothy Bynum in her capacity as administrator.

                            3. Defendants contend that the Supreme Court itself mandated that Wilson be applied retroactively. The Court remanded Springfield Township School District v. Knoll, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 2065, 85 L.Ed.2d 275 (1985), for reconsideration in light of Wilson. It did not, as defendants suggest, tell the court of appeals to apply Wilson retroactively. Moreover, in Wilson, the Court seemed to recognize that there might indeed be cases in which the decision should not be applied retroactively. ___ U.S. at ___, 105 S.Ct. at 1941-42 n. 10 (the Court cites Jackson v. City of Bloomfield, 731 F.2d 652, 655 (10th Cir. 1984) (en banc), a case decided the same day as the circuit opinion in Wilson which refuses to apply the new personal injury statute of limitations retroactively).

                            4. The court is aware that plaintiffs' former counsel was less than diligent in pursuing this case. However, it was reluctant to penalize plaintiffs for this absent some acquiesence on their part. Plaintiffs obtained new counsel who has been diligent. The equities still balance in plaintiffs' favor.

                            5. Another district court judge in this Circuit has also suggested that retroactive application of Wilson is inappropriate in the Ninth Circuit. See Estate of Cartwright v. City of Concord, 618 F.Supp. 722(N.D.Cal.1985).

                            Hillary Clinton and the 'FBI Primary'

                            The Contra Costa Times has endlessly stalled or obstructed by posts. Thankfully the murders have stopped and the FBI refused to help with witness protection and weeks later my relatives were murdered.

                            Hundreds of Blocked Posts

                            Cal Thomas

                            By Cal Thomas

                            Published June 07, 2016

                            FoxNews.com

                            Facebook932 Twitter509 livefyre1138 Email Print

                            hillary clinton phone

                            Some believe that soon after Tuesday’s final presidential primaries the FBI will interview Hillary Clinton about her handling of emails while she was secretary of state. What comes next is the subject of much speculation.

                            One of the better speculators is Bradley Blakeman, who served as a member of President George W. Bush’s White House staff.

                            We spoke in the “green room” at Fox News before our separate interviews. The following is culled from our conversation.

                            Blakeman says the FBI has deliberately waited to interview Hillary Clinton until after the primaries because the bureau did not want to interfere with the nominating process. He thinks the FBI is “likely” to recommend to the Department of Justice whether or not she should be indicted for violating what she says are agency rules and what others call the law between now and the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, which begins July 25.

                            If she is indicted before the convention, Blakeman says, it will give the party an opportunity to make changes in the rules that could result in an alternate nominee.

                            Here is the intriguing part about Blakeman’s scenario: “If a grand jury is empaneled, or if she were to be indicted before the convention, the Democrats would have to let her go.” If an indictment were to come after the convention, he says, it presents a different problem because each state needs to certify their ballots before November. If an indictment occurs after the states have certified their ballots, it would be nearly impossible to replace Hillary Clinton with another candidate.

                            2016 Election Headquarters

                            The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics.See Latest Coverage →

                            Here’s where things might get even more interesting. In states where ballots have been certified, the party would have to go to court to ask that Clinton’s name be replaced. “They also have another problem,” says Blakeman. “Once the convention ends, how do they reconvene to substitute Hillary? They have no rules for that.”

                            What if a court denies a ballot change? Blakeman says the Supreme Court would almost certainly have to decide. That might look to many like a replay of the 2000 election in which the court certified Florida’s vote count, awarding the state’s electoral votes — and the election — to George W. Bush.

                            But what if the court — with its one vacancy — divides 4-4? In that case, the lower court ruling would prevail and if that court decided to strike Hillary Clinton’s name from the ballot, a write-in would be the only option.

                            “Timing is not on Hillary’s side,” says Blakeman, who thinks “the silver lining for Hillary is that, if she were indicted, there is no doubt Obama would pardon her on January 19 as he walks out the door. She will never have to answer for her crimes.”

                            What about any others who might be indicted, such as top aides Huma Abedinand Cheryl Mills? If they are indicted, but not pardoned by the president, will they go public? It’s the stuff of big book contracts.

                            Should any of these scenarios prove true, as Blakeman thinks they might, President Obama, unlike President Ford and his pardon of Richard Nixon, will never have to face the voters and be held accountable for his action.

                            In this unpredictable election season, any one — or all — of these scenarios are possibilities, including the ultimate scenario: the delegates turning to Vice President Joe Biden to save them from Hillary and defeat in November.

                            Cal Thomas is America's most widely syndicated op-ed columnist. He joined Fox News Channel in 1997 as a political contributor. His latest book is "What Works: Common Sense Solutions for a Stronger America" is available in bookstores now. Readers may email Cal Thomas at tcaeditors@tribune.com.

                            Tuesday, June 7, 2016

                            Fact Check: Was Hillary Clinton fired from Watergate investigation?

                            Note: June 2016:
                            For over 30 years I’d been tracking strange deaths near me, my employee, customers and friends.  My complaints well known with many public officials in the Bay Area.  Another
                            real tragedy struck with the Strack Murders in Springville UT but this time is was my relatives but the murders and murder suicides kept roiling on. 

                            .

                            By Carole Fader Sat, Mar 8, 2014 @ 9:48 pm | updated Sat, Mar 8, 2014 @ 10:01 pm

                            Clinton-Nixon

                            Pat Carter/Associated Press

                            Hillary Rodham Clinton was criticized for her conduct during the Watergate investigation.

                            Times-Union readers want to know:

                            An email says that Hillary Clinton — then Hillary Rodham — was fired for lying and being unethical when she was a 27-year-old working on the Watergate investigation. Is this true?

                            The viral email is mainly derived from a column published on March 31, 2008, by Dan Calabrese, founder of North Star Writers Group, according to fact-finder TruthOrFiction.com. North Star was a newspaper syndicate that provided services until early 2012.

                            Calabrese’s information came from Democrat Jerry Zeifman, a counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Clinton on the Watergate investigation. Zeifman’s 2006 book, “Hillary’s Pursuit of Power,” states that she “… engaged in a variety of self-serving unethical practices in violation of House rules.”

                            On his now-shuttered website, Zeifman said, “Hillary Clinton is ethically unfit to be either a senator or president — and if she were to become president, the last vestiges of the traditional moral authority of the party of Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson will be destroyed.”

                            Specifically, Zeifman contends that Rodham and others wanted Richard Nixon to remain in office to bolster the chances of Sen. Ted Kennedy or another Democrat being elected president.

                            Zeifman said that in 1974 a young lawyer who shared an office with Clinton came to him to apologize that he and Clinton had lied to him. The lawyer, John Labovitz, is quoted as saying that he was dismayed with “… her erroneous legal opinions and efforts to deny Nixon representation by counsel — as well as an unwillingness to investigate Nixon.”

                            Zeifman charges that Rodham regularly consulted with Ted Kennedy’s chief political strategist, a violation of House rules.

                            Hillary Rodham’s conduct, according to Zeifman, also was the result of not wanting Nixon to face an impeachment trial because Democrats worried that Nixon might bring up abuses of office by President John Kennedy.

                            Zeifman — ironically, a consultant to a member of the Judiciary Committee that impeached President Bill Clinton — said Democrats feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand. Hunt, Zeifman said, might report on his knowledge of nefarious activities in the Kennedy administration “including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.”

                            Zeifman also asserts that Rodham joined Burke Marshall, Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair and Rodham’s former law professor; special counsel John Doar; and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House counsel) Bernard Nussbaum in trying to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon.

                            In order to pull this off, Zeifman said that Rodham wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents.

                            After the Nixon impeachment investigation was finished, Zeifman fired Rodham and said he refused to give her a letter of recommendation.

                            According to the Calabrese column as reported by TruthOrFiction.com, Zeifman said he regrets not reporting Rodham to the appropriate bar association.

                            So what are we to make of all this? Calabrese’s interview with Zeifman has been published around the Internet and repeated by pundits such as Rush Limbaugh and Neil Boortz. But there is nothing to out-and-out confirm Zeifman’s rendition. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t be true, but it makes it difficult to arrive at the truth.

                            In addition, neither www.TruthOrFiction.com nor we could find any response from Hillary Clinton to Zeifman’s book or to his accusations.

                            Carole Fader: (904) 359-4635

                            580K Missing 1987 - Seeno Bank Failure or Fraud

                            I was standing in this bank the last day it was owned by Seeno.   Monday morning the FBI was crawling all over the bank.

                            Over the weekend of the sale someone waltzed in took $580,000 from the vault, the alarm was off, doors unlocked and vault left unlocked.

                             
                            Delta Pacific Bank - Inactive (FDIC # 22316) Inactive as of October 30, 1987
                            Delta Pacific Bank was acquired with government assistance
                            Data as of: May 30, 2016

                            Delta Pacific Bank is no longer doing business under that name because it has been acquired with government assistance. See the successor institution, Bank of the West (FDIC #: 3514)

                            FDIC Certificate#:

                            22316

                            Headquarters:

                            2900 Railroad Avenue
                            Pittsburg, CA 94565
                            Contra Costa County

                            Established:

                            August 16, 1976

                            Insured:

                            August 16, 1976

                            Bank Charter Class:

                            Non-member of the Federal Reserve System

                            Contact the FDIC about:

                            Delta Pacific Bank or Bank of the West

                            Show Acquisitions

                            Showing 1 to 4 of 4 entries (filtered from 13 total entries)

                            Show 102550100 entries

                            <<1 of 1>>

                            Date
                            Event

                            8/16/1976
                            Institution established: Original name:Delta Pacific Bank (22316)

                            10/30/1987
                            Failed. Acquired with government financial assistance and subsequently operated as part of Central Bank (17489)

                            5/21/1990
                            Merged into and subsequently operated as part of Bank of the West (3514) in SAN FRANCISCO, CA

                            1/1/2004
                            Reorganized.

                            A laptop, the Seenos and missing documents

                             

                            By Matthias Gafni

                            Contra Costa Times

                            POSTED:   07/13/2012 05:35:31 PM PDT | UPDATED:   4 YEARS AGO

                            The laptop of former Seeno company President Bradley Mamer is at the center of a Nevada lawsuit in which the Concord family is accused of systematically deleting important documents that could implicate them in federal criminal investigations, as well as civil cases.

                            In the strange tale, Mamer, in his final days as an employee of the Seenos' Wingfield Nevada Group, copied about 50 pickup trucks worth of documents, by one attorney's estimate, off his work laptop computer before turning it into the Seeno company, fearing they would be deleted by the Seenos.

                            Mamer handed those documents, including 19,000 e-mails, over to FBI agents and to a Pardee Homes attorney who had subpoenaed him. Pardee, who had partnered with WNG to build thousands of homes in giant Nevada golf course subdivisions in Coyote Springs, has been fighting the Seeno company in a Clark County courtroom in Las Vegas.

                            Mamer's fears appeared to be realized when the Seeno company's attorney announced in court that the laptop was returned empty. In an unusual move, the Pardee attorney now is asking a judge to allow a forensic computer expert to determine who deleted those documents and when. Those documents have since been recovered by the Seenos.

                            Advertisement

                            It's the latest legal twist involving the Seenos, who operate an array of homebuilding companies out of Concord. Mamer's name has appeared prominently in three lawsuits circulating around the doomed Wingfield venture, in which Albert Seeno Jr. and his sons Albert Seeno III and Thomas Seeno joined former Nevada lobbyist Harvey Whittemore in a multimillion dollar business venture. It got nasty when the housing market tanked, and led to the Seenos suing Whittemore alleging the friend of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid embezzled and misappropriated tens of millions of dollars from their joint company. Days later, on Feb. 1, Whittemore sued Wingfield, accusing the father-and-son Seenos of racketeering, extortion, grand larceny and making threats.

                            Meanwhile, an FBI investigation led to the indictment of a Seeno sales executive and prosecutors said they expect more arrests in the fall.

                            The laptop caper began in the summer of 2010 after the Seenos had taken over control of Wingfield.

                            In August 2010, Seeno III drove Wingfield's information technology director to Mamer's and Whittemore's homes to remove their work computer servers. Mamer said the IT director was told he would be fired if he did not break into Whittemore's home and remove the server. He removed it, but was soon fired anyway, Mamer said.

                            In Feb. 1, 2011, the Seenos changed a long-term pre-existing company record retention program, Mamer said in a sworn statement. The new policy was for employees to delete e-mails 90 days old and older; the old policy had been "to retain all documents, electronically whenever possible."

                            In March 2011, Whittemore was forced to resign. In a sworn statement, Whittemore said he discussed with Mamer the need to copy company documents, given the investigations into the Seenos' business practices and the "potential legal obligation" to ensure relevant e-mails were not destroyed.

                            Mamer said he met with an FBI special agent on Oct. 11, 2011. "At this meeting I described a number of allegations that I felt included possible illegal activity perpetrated by the Seenos," he said in a sworn statement. " I came to believe all electronic material on my business laptop would likely be destroyed once the Seenos regained its control."

                            In late October, Mamer -- by then on medical leave -- downloaded more than 56 GBs of electronic data off his work laptop, which was connected to the company server. He said he did so because, among other reasons, "government investigations that were underway or pending" and feared the Seenos might destroy e-mail evidence.

                            Mamer returned the laptop "intact" to company officials, he said, on Dec. 9, 2011, and resigned the day after Christmas.

                            The laptop was long forgotten until Pardee attorneys subpoenaed Mamer earlier this year.

                            In 2004, Pardee Homes bought land from Wingfield for $125 million to build homes at Coyote Springs, with an option to buy the rest of the 30,000 developable acres for about $1.2 billion. When the development went belly up, the two sides went to court.

                            Prior to Mamer's laptop discovery, Wingfield had turned over only about 1,600 e-mails to Pardee, but Mamer's documents unveiled about 19,000 more e-mails.

                            The Seenos' attorney initially said Mamer deleted those files from his work laptop, stating in court, "And they tell you that we're the ones hiding information. I don't know how we could have hid information that we didn't have in the first place. (Mamer) returned nothing."

                            The documents on the work server, however, are automatically saved, even if deleted from the laptop. And the Seeno attorney now acknowledges the laptop was not empty; the documents were also found on three different servers.

                            Pardee attorney Pat Lundvall asks in a July 9 motion, "If no destruction has occurred, then (the Seeno company) should answer two questions as to (1) why has (it) not disclosed this information to Pardee before now, which is to Pardee's extreme prejudice; and (2) why did (the Seeno company) represent to the court at the June 11 hearing that the laptop was empty when Mr. Mamer returned it to (them)?"

                            Attorneys on both sides of the case did not return calls and e-mails seeking comment.

                            A judge will rule Monday on whether to allow a forensic computer expert to find out who exactly deleted the documents and when.

                            Contact Matthias Gafni at 925-952-5026. Follow him at Twitter.com/mgafni.

                             
                            Copyright 2009 Seenoville. Powered by Blogger Blogger Templates designed by Deluxe Templates