Law Firms: Bingham McCutchen

Bingham McCutchen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  (Redirected from Bingham McCutchen LLP)

Bingham McCutchen LLP

Headquarters	One Federal Street Boston, Massachusetts
No. of offices	14
No. of attorneys	approximately 700
No. of employees	approximately 1,600
Major practice areas	Financial restructuring, securities, litigation, antitrust, private equity, corporate finance, government affairs
Key people	Jay S. Zimmerman (Chairman)[1]
Date founded	1891[2]
Company type	Limited Liability Partnership
Slogan	Legal insight. Business instinct.
Dissolved	2014
Website	Bingham.com

Bingham McCutchen LLP was a global law firm with approximately 850 attorneys in nine US offices and five international offices.^[3] It ceased operations in late 2014, when several hundred of its partners and associate lawyers left the firm to join Philadelphia based Morgan Lewis.^[4]

Contents

  [hide] 

• 1History
  • 1.1Collapse
• 2Offices
• 3Notable people
• 4References
• 5External links

History[edit]

Bingham, Dana & Gould was founded in Boston in 1891.^[5]

From 1997, the company experienced sharp growth in the number of attorneys, offices, and revenues by absorbing other law firms.^[2][6] In 1997, Bingham Dana acquired the 30-lawyer Japanese practice group of Marks & Murase, giving the firm offices in New York and Los Angeles and a strong base of Japanese institutional clients.^[7] The next outpost was established in Hartford through a merger with 55-lawyer Hebb & Gitlin, a firm that concentrated on international bankruptcy work. In 2001, Bingham Dana bulked up in New York City through a merger with Richards & O'Neill, a boutique law firm of 55 attorneys known for its litigation and corporate groups. The next year, in 2002, Bingham Dana merged with San Francisco-based law firm McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen to form 800-lawyer strong Bingham McCutchen. McCutchen Doyle brought five offices and a strong litigation and intellectual property focus. In 2003, the firm expanded in Southern California by merging with corporate boutique Riordan & McKinzie. More recently, 2006 saw a merger between Bingham McCutchen and Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman, a Washington, D.C.-based firm which brought greater capabilities in the nation's capital as well as a strong regulatory group. Bingham also launched in Hong Kong that same year. In 2007, the firm acquired Los Angeles litigation shop Alschuler Grossman. In July 2009, Bingham McCutchen acquired McKee Nelson, a midsize law firm specializing in tax law and structured finance.^[8]

A team of Bingham attorneys and staff, led by Susan Baker Manning and Sabin Willett, represented pro bono a dozen Uighur men held in extrajudicial detention in the United States Guantanamo Bay detention camps, in Cuba.^{[9][10][11][12][13]} Bingham filed and extensively litigated numerous habeas corpus cases on behalf of their Uighur clients, as well as cases under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 that brought to light serious evidentiary and procedural flaws in the 2004-05 Combatant Status Review Tribunals that were used to justify the Uighurs' ongoing imprisonment. All Bingham clients were subsequently released.

The Tokyo office of Bingham McCutchen became one of the largest law firms in Japan by its 2007 merger with a domestic law firm headed by Hideyuki Sakai, a top insolvency specialist. Unlike most foreign firms in Japan which have minimal domestic practices, Bingham's Tokyo office was predominantly staffed by Japanese attorneys and handled domestic matters such as the restructuring of Olympus Corporation, although it hired a number of foreign attorneys since 2012 in an attempt to strengthen its outbound and cross-border practice and to expand in other legal fields such as intellectual property and investment funds.^[14]

Despite a deep recession which hurt law firms nationwide, the Boston Globe reported that Bingham performed very well financially.^[15] In 2009, Bingham's gross revenues increased 12% and profits per partner increased 2%. Chairman Jay Zimmerman was quoted as saying "We’ve had our best year ever." However, despite an increase in revenues, Bingham froze salaries, and in March 2009 laid off 16 attorneys and 29 support staff.^[16]

Collapse[edit]

Bingham experienced internal tensions following the 2002 McCutchen merger, and again following the 2009 McKee merger. Both transactions were viewed as "mergers of equals" among some insiders, and as unequal acquisitions among others. The McKee transaction involved large compensation guarantees to several key McKee partners which were not immediately disclosed to other Bingham partners. The legacy McKee partners continued to earn relatively high compensation following the acquisition due to the fact that they charged higher hourly rates than the legacy Bingham partners; the legacy Bingham partners nonetheless demanded salary matching, which strained the profits of the firm.^[17]

Bingham experienced a massive downsizing from 2012 to 2014, during which time it cut 225 lawyers and saw more than fifty partners leave the firm. Two major cases—the Deepwater Horizon litigation and an IP dispute involving Oracle Corporation—ended abruptly, reducing the firm's revenue.^[5] Bingham attempted to cut costs by moving back office functions to a new center in Kentucky, but the initial cost of the move ($100,000 per equity partner) hurt the firm's 2014 financial results even further.^[18] After Bingham's collapse, it was revealed that Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance stopped working with Bingham due to the low level of racial diversity among its partners in Boston and Hartford.^[19]

In November 2014, 227 of around 300 partners and a similar number of associates joined the Philadelphia-based firm of Morgan Lewis & Bockius.^[20] Morgan Lewis paid off Bingham's debt as part of the deal,^[21] and shut down Bingham's Kentucky operations center, relocating some employees to Philadelphia.^[18]

Bingham's London and Frankfurt offices joined Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld.^[22] 50 of Bingham's 60 lawyers in Tokyo moved to the Japanese law firm of Anderson Mori & Tomotsune, with the remainder joining Morgan Lewis.^[23]

Offices[edit]

As of 2014, Bingham McCutchen had offices in Beijing, Boston, Hartford, Hong Kong, Lexington, London, Los Angeles, New York, Orange County, San Francisco, Santa Monica, California, Silicon Valley, Tokyo, and Washington, D.C.^[3] It also offered consulting services through subsidiaries Bingham Consulting and Bingham Strategic Advisors.^[2]

Notable people[edit]

• Denise Jefferson Casper (judge, United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts)
• Christopher Cox (former Chairman, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and former U.S. Representative)
• Barry Goode (retired from the firm in 2001 to join state government, and now is a Contra Costa County judge)
• Thurgood Marshall, Jr. (former Clinton White House Cabinet Secretary)
• Steve Merrill (former Governor of New Hampshire)
• Richard Riordan (former Mayor of Los Angeles)
• Josiah Spaulding
• Sabin Willett
• Pete Wilson (former Governor of California and former U.S. Senator)

Read More

PG&E High Performance Engineer Hugh Smith and the phoney World Class Ethics Program

Read More

Kinder Morgan’s SFPP system consists

Products Pipelines - SFPP

Kinder Morgan’s SFPP system consists of the North Line, which consists of approximately 864 miles of trunk pipeline in five segments that transport products from Richmond and Concord, Calif., to Brisbane, Sacramento, Chico, Fresno, Stockton and San Jose, Calif., and Reno, Nevada. The products delivered through the North Line come from refineries in the San Francisco Bay Area and from various pipeline and marine terminals. SFPP also includes the San Diego Line, a 135-mile pipeline serving major population areas in Orange County and San Diego, the Oregon Line, which is a 114-mile pipeline transporting products to Eugene, Oregon for shippers from marine terminals in Portland, Oregon, the West Line which is approximately 515 miles of primary pipeline and currently transports products from the Los Angeles Basin to Phoenix, Arizona, and the East Line which is approximately 400 miles of pipeline originating in El Paso, Texas transporting products to Tucson and Phoenix, Arizona.

In addition, Kinder Morgan’s SFPP operations include 13 truck-loading terminals which provide services including short-term product storage, truck loading, vapor handling, additive injection, dye injection and oxygenate blending.

Read More

Chief of Police Chris Wenzel and District Attorney Mark Peterson (Felon)

Read More

The Dead or Imprisoned Students of Acalanes Unified School District - Anja S.

Read More

09/11/2012~ The Mini 9/11 Tribute at 680 and El Curtola Walnut Creek CA

Read More

McAfee Virus Protection at SBC

Authors Note: 

Another virus to hit the Internet in 2001 was the Nimda (which is admin spelled backwards) worm. Nimda spread through the Internet rapidly, becoming the fastest propagating computer virus at that time. In fact, according to TruSecure CTO Peter Tippett, it only took 22 minutes from the moment Nimda hit the Internet to reach the top of the list of reported attacks [source: Anthes].

The Nimda worm's primary targets were Internet servers. While it could infect a home PC, its real purpose was to bring Internet traffic to a crawl. It could travel through the Internet using multiple methods, including e-mail. This helped spread the virus across multiple servers in record time.

The Nimda worm created a backdoor into the victim's operating system. It allowed the person behind the attack to access the same level of functions as whatever account was logged into the machine currently. In other words, if a user with limited privileges activated the worm on a computer, the attacker would also have limited access to the computer's functions. On the other hand, if the victim was the administrator for the machine, the attacker would have full control.

The spread of the Nimda virus caused some network systems to crash as more of the system's resources became fodder for the worm. In effect, the Nimda worm became a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack.

Read More

SEC v. Blast Energy Services, Inc and NIMDA a/k/a The 9/11 Virus and McAfee AntiVirus

Read More

U.S. Department of Labor | ALJ CASE NO. 02-LCA-24 WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION v. NOVINVEST, LLC

Walnut Creek Ford
An Honest Friendly Dealer 

U.S. Department of Labor

Administrative Review Board 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20210

ARB CASE NO. 03-060 

ALJ CASE NO. 02-LCA-24 

DATE: July 30, 2004

In the Matter of:

ADMINISTRATOR, WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

    PLAINTIFF,

    v.

NOVINVEST, LLC, 

BEFORE: THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD

Appearances:

For Prosecuting Party Administrator, Wage and Hour Division: 

   Lois R. Zuckerman, Esq., Paul L. Frieden, Esq., Steven J. Mandel, Esq., U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C.

For Respondent, Novinvest, LLC: 

    Ed Hyken, Atlanta, Georgia

FINAL DECISION AND ORDER

    This case arises under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (INA), 8 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101-1537 (West 1999 & Supp. 2004), and regulations at 20 C.F.R. Part 655 (2003). Novinvest LLC (Novinvest) petitions for review of a Decision and Order (D. & O.) issued by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on January 21, 2003. Novinvest is a corporation that engages in computer consulting and employs nonimmigrant alien computer programmer analysts. The ALJ found that Novinvest was liable for back wages to nonimmigrant workers, including an "investment fee" imposed against three of these workers. We modify the decision of the ALJ as explained below.

Jurisdiction and Standard of Review

    The Administrative Review Board (ARB) has jurisdiction to review the ALJ's decision under 8 U.S.C.A. § 1182(n)(2), and 20 C.F.R. § 655.845. See Secretary's Order No. 1-2002, 67 Fed. Reg. 64,272 (Oct. 17, 2002) (delegating to the ARB the Secretary's authority to review cases arising under, inter alia, the INA).

[Page 2]

    Under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Board, as the designee of the Secretary of Labor, acts with "all the powers [the Secretary] would have in making the initial decision . . . ." 5 U.S.C.A. § 557(b) (West 1996), quoted in Goldstein v. Ebasco Constructors, Inc., 1986-ERA-36, slip op. at 19 (Sec'y Apr. 7, 1992). The Board engages in de novo review of the ALJ's decision. Yano Enterprises, Inc. v. Administrator, ARB No. 01-050, ALJ No. 2001-LCA-0001, slip op. at 3 (ARB Sept. 26, 2001); Administrator v. Jackson,ARB No. 00-068, ALJ No. 1999-LCA-0004, slip op. at 3 (ARB Apr. 30, 2001). See generally Mattes v. U.S. Dep't of Agriculture, 721 F.2d 1125, 1128-1130 (7th Cir. 1983) (rejecting argument that higher level administrative official was bound by ALJ's decision); McCann v. Califano, 621 F.2d 829, 831 (6th Cir. 1980), and cases cited therein (sustaining rejection of ALJ's decision by higher level administrative review body).

Regulatory Framework

    The INA permits employers to employ nonimmigrant alien workers in specialty occupations in the United States. 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) (H-1B nonimmigrants). Specialty occupations are occupations that require "theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and . . . attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States." 8 U.S.C.A. § 1184(i)(1). In order to be eligible for employment in the United States, these workers must receive H-1B visas from the State Department upon approval by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b). The employer concomitantly must obtain certification from the United States Department of Labor after filing a Labor Condition Application (LCA). 8 U.S.C.A. § 1182(n). The LCA must stipulate the wage levels and working conditions for the H-1B employees. 8 U.S.C.A. § 1182(n)(1); 20 C.F.R. §§ 655.731, 655.732. Deductions from wages expressly not authorized under the regulations include "a penalty paid by the H-1B nonimmigrant for ceasing employment with the employer prior to a date agreed to by the nonimmigrant and the employer." 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(c)(10)(i). See generally D. & O. at 12-15, 20-21.

Issue

    Did the ALJ correctly determine that Novinvest is liable for the $5,000 deduction from the salaries of its H-1B nonimmigrant employees and must compensate each worker for judgment amounts assessed?

Background

   The ALJ has set forth the facts of the case in detail (D. & O. at 2-12), and we will not revisit them in their entirety. We limit our focus to the issue upon which Novinvest petitions for review. See Novinvest LLC Petition to Review the Decision and Order dated February 18, 2003; 20 C.F.R. § 655.845(b)(3) and (4) (petition for ARB review must specify issues giving rise to petition and state specific reasons why petitioning party believes ALJ decision is in error).

[Page 3]

   Novinvest provides computer specialists "on a project basis to client companies." Prosecuting Party's Exhibit (PX) 5 at 1. Novinvest employed H-1B nonimmigrant "specialists" after it filed an LCA with the Department of Labor and after the Department of State, upon approval of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, issued the employees H-1B visas. The employees at issue for our purposes are Philip Peshin, Alex Koloskov, and Igor Viazovoi.1

   Pursuant to an employment agreement, Novinvest required each of its employees to assume liability for a $5,000 investment fee. Captioned "Relocation Assistance," this provision of the agreement stated:

The Company invests considerable time, effort and financial resources in organizing, assisting and transitioning the Employee to life in the US. The value of the Company's up-front investment (in order to hire, process and train Employee) is estimated as USD 5,000 (five thousand) per Employee. This investment is considered an interest-free loan from the Company to the Employee starting on the day employee arrives in the US. Every month, 1/12 (one twelfth) of the amount is forgiven by the Company, so that at the end of the Employee's first year with the Company the entire amount is forgiven. If the Employee leaves the Company's employment, for any reason, before the end of one year, or is terminated, the remaining balance becomes due, and the Employee must reimburse the Company.

PX 5 at 5. The employees never actually received $5,000, and Novinvest was unable to document expenditures of $5,000 for each employee. D. & O. at 5-6 (Stipulation No. 20, Finding of Fact No. 4). All three employees resigned from Novinvest prior to their one-year anniversary date.

   After a hearing, the ALJ found that the $5,000 investment fee constituted an impermissible early termination penalty and that Novinvest violated its wage obligations under the INA and implementing regulations by charging the H-1B workers the $5,000 penalty.2 D. & O. at 19-22; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(c)(10)(i); 20 C.F.R. §655.731(c)(11). The ALJ found Novinvest liable for the following amounts in compensation for the penalty: Peshin was due $5,000, Koloskov was due $2,347.52, and Viazovoi was due $1666.67. D. & O. at 22.

   Novinvest had secured state court judgments against the respective employees, which included the $5,000 investment fee. D. & O. at 7-9 (Findings of Fact Nos. 7, 16, 21). The judgments against Peshin, Koloskov, and Viazovoi totaled $8,789.45, $2,347.52, and $1,666.66, respectively. Peshin paid none of his judgment, Koloskov paid $1,200 of his judgment, and Viazovoi paid $55 of his judgment. Id.

Discussion

    In its petition for review, Novinvest argues that the ALJ erred in calculating the amounts owed to the three employees. First, according to Novinvest, the ALJ arbitrarily attributed the amounts awarded in the judgments against Koloskov and Viazovoi exclusively to the impermissible penalty when Novinvest presumably had asserted other claims. As evidence, Novinvest cites the $8,683.38 claim against Koloskov for which it received an award of only $2,347.52 and the $8,487.00 claim against Viazovoi for which it received an award of only $1,666.66. Second, according to Novinvest, "the amounts assessed to Novinvest should not exceed the amounts actually paid by the three individuals toward the satisfaction of Novinvest's judgments." Petition at 1. In other words, Peshin should receive nothing, Koloskov should receive $1,200, and Viazovoi should receive $55.

[Page 4]

   The INA and its implementing regulations expressly prohibit early termination penalties. Specifically, it is a violation of the INA

for an employer who has filed an application under this subsection to require an H-1B nonimmigrant to pay a penalty for ceasing employment with the employer prior to a date agreed to by the nonimmigrant and the employer. The Secretary shall determine whether a required payment is a penalty (and not liquidated damages) pursuant to relevant State law.

8 U.S.C.A. § 1182(n)(2)(C)(vi)(I). See 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(c)(10)(i) ("[a] deduction from or reduction in the payment of the required wage is not authorized (and therefore is prohibited)" for purposes of "[a] penalty paid by the H-1B nonimmigrant for ceasing employment with the employer prior to a date agreed to by the nonimmigrant and the employer"). The ALJ found that Novinvest violated the INA when it assessed the "investment fee" penalties (D. & O. at 19-22), and Novinvest has not appealed this aspect of the ALJ's decision. We find, therefore, that Novinvest is not entitled to recover from the nonimmigrants any of the $5,000 investment fees. We disagree with the ALJ, however, with respect to the back wage calculations. The ALJ determined that Novinvest owed each of the workers the full amount of the judgments assessed. We find instead that Novinvest is required to refund to Peshin, Koloskov, and Viazovoi monies actually paid by them as compensation for the investment fee penalty. Any fees or costs associated with collection of monies pursuant to that provision also must be refunded. We note that the Secretary is authorized to impose administrative remedies, including civil money penalties, for willful failure to meet a condition of an attestation or a willful misrepresentation of material fact in an attestation. See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1182(n)(2)(C); 20 C.F.R. § 655.810. Therefore, Noinvest may be subject to additional action by the Secretary if it engages in further efforts to obtain penalty provision funds.

Conclusion

    Noinvest is not entitled to recover any amounts under the "Relocation Assistance" provision of its contracts with the H-1B nonimmigrant employees. The decision of the ALJ hereby is MODIFIED to order repayment of amounts paid by the nonimmigrants to Novinvest pursuant to the "Relocation Assistance" provision of the employment agreement, including any fees or costs in connection therewith.

   SO ORDERED.

      JUDITH S. BOGGS

      Administrative Appeals Judge

      OLIVER M. TRANSUE

      Administrative Appeals Judge

[ENDNOTES]

1 These H-1B nonimmigrants, in addition to another nonimmigrant, Igor Politykin, arrived in the United States between March 2000 and April 2001. They arrived prepared to work, but Novinvest "benched" them and refused to pay them in violation of the INA. See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1182(n)(1)(A); 8 U.S.C.A. § 1182(n)(2)(C)(vii); 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(c)(7)(i) (if the H-1B nonimmigrant is not performing work and is nonproductive due to a decision by the employer (e.g., due to lack of work) the employer is required to pay him at the wage listed in the LCA). After an investigation, the Administrator determined that Novinvest owed these employees back wages for benching periods during the course of employment. The ALJ upheld the Administrator's determination as well as the back wage calculations. D. & O. at 15-17. Novinvest did not appeal these findings.

2 The Administrator's determination letter did not allege specifically that the "investment fee" requirement violated the INA, stating merely that Novinvest had "failed to pay wages as required." PX 29 at 1. The Administrator subsequently moved to conform the determination letter to the evidence to include allegations pertaining to the investment fee. Hearing Transcript at 129-131. The ALJ granted the motion, finding the early termination penalty issue properly before him. D. & O. at 18-19. Novinvest did not appeal this finding.

From <https://www.oalj.dol.gov/PUBLIC/INA/DECISIONS/ARB_DECISIONS/LCA/02LCA24B.HTM>

Read More

How to Calculate the Required Capacity kVA Rating or Amperage Capacity for Single and Three Phase Transformers

When taking bullets I bleed for my country 

How to Calculate the Required Capacity kVA Rating or Amperage Capacity for Single and Three Phase Transformers

Read More

Kinder Morgan - Achievements

Kinder Morgan - Achievements

Read More

A Conversation with the Widow of a Domestic Terrorism Victim

The Tiki Tom's Conundrum
The Body Count 

Read More

2015 ford truck

site:letgo.com 2015 ford truck

Read More

Don't lose your data

Read More

2007: Fifth suit filed in deadly Immokalee arson fire

Fifth suit filed in deadly Immokalee arson fire

by Ryan Mills of the Naples Daily News

A fifth lawsuit has been filed against the owner of an Immokalee trailer park where a fire broke out earlier this month killing five people and seriously injuring five others.


The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Juana Vasquez, the sister of Victoriano Vasquez Lopez of Guatemala, whose wife, Pascuala Mendez, 34, and daughter, Luciana Vasquez, 13, were killed in the blaze. Lopez's 16-year-old son, Wilder Vasquez, was seriously burned in the fire and remains hospitalized in the burn unit of Tampa General Hospital, said Steve Meyers, an Orlando attorney who is representing the family.

Juana Vasquez, who lives in Immokalee, has been deemed the family's personal representative, Meyers said.

The lawsuit, filed Thursday in Collier County Circuit Court, claims the wrongful death of Mendez and Luciana and personal injury of Wilder. The defendant in the lawsuit is Cleveland A. Blocker, who owns Cleve's Trailer Park, 713 Second Ave.


The lawsuit claims that Blocker failed to provide adequate security at the trailer park, negligently operated and maintained the premises, overcrowded lessees into the trailer, and failed to provide smoke detectors, fire alarms and fire extinguishers.


"So far all the indications are there were no smoke alarms in that trailer, which is a violation of landlord-tenant statute," Meyers said. "The second area in which we feel Mr. Blocker was negligent was there was chicken wire over at least one window. ... We think at least one child was trying to get out of that window."


Meyers said his investigation into the fire showed that the people living in the trailer were paying more than $1,200 a month in rent.


"I think the public's impression of these trailer parks is it's an old, decrepit trailer ... and the people are paying very little money," Meyers said. "These people are paying about $1,200 a month. ... They are paying rent that would get you a nice apartment in Naples."


Meyers would not specify what the family is seeking in damages, but said it would be "well in excess of a million dollars."


Bruce Aebel, a Tampa attorney who is representing Blocker, said he hasn't seen the lawsuit and wouldn't comment on it.


The trailer fire broke out about 2:30 a.m. on March 4. It has been classified as arson. Authorities said the trailer had been the target of arson at least once before.


Four other lawsuits were filed against Blocker in mid-March by three people who were injured in the fire and the sister of a man who was killed in the blaze.


Under state rules the trailers must be inspected every six weeks. The trailer that burned was last inspected on Dec. 26, 2006, and on Feb. 16, 2007. No major problems were found during those inspections, and Collier County Code Enforcement had no complaints about the trailer.

Read More

Who is behind the web site www.pgewitness.com

Images: #PGEWITNESS

For a list of my customers and clients click here.  The list references decades of how my customers have been murdered.

1. I am a former PG&E Contract Programmer.  
2. I remain unpaid, 
3. I’ve been beaten regularly for ten years or longer 
4. My software clients and customers over 35 years are:
   
   
1. PG&E, Bank of America 
2. Wells Fargo Bank 
3. AT&T formerly SBC Services (AT&T Reverse merger)
4. Wendy's 
5. Tony Romas 
6. AT&T
7. PacBell 
8. Contra Costa County 
9. Contra Costa College District 
10. GE Nuclear 
11. City of Walnut Creek. 

Read More

PG&E Self-Reports Additional Emails to CPUC

PG&E Self-Reports Additional Emails to CPUC

SAN FRANCISCO — PG&E today (Oct. 6) reported additional communications that it believes violated California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) rules governing ex parte communications with the state regulator. Ex parte communications are those that take place with decision-makers without the knowledge of all parties to a proceeding.

The communications were identified in conjunction with PG&E’s voluntary internal review of more than 65,000 emails exchanged with the CPUC over a nearly five-year period, which has been concluded. In addition, PG&E has been notified by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in San Francisco that it has begun an investigation in connection with these ex parte communications, with which the company will cooperate.

“We’ve made it clear that we are committed to complying with both the letter and the spirit of the law and PG&E’s own Code of Conduct at all times. No excuses. Our customers and the communities we serve expect no less. We took immediate and definitive action, self-reported these violations, held individuals accountable and are making significant changes designed to prevent this from happening again,” said PG&E Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Tony Earley.

The communications being reported today are in addition to email communications that the company self-reported on September 15 involving the pending Gas Transmission & Storage rate case. Of the ex parte communications being reported today, one involved a series of emails between a PG&E officer and a CPUC commissioner. The other communication involved an email from a PG&E officer to his supervisor summarizing an oral communication with a CPUC commissioner. The two PG&E personnel involved in these communications are no longer working at the company as a result of the emails that were self-reported earlier.

In conjunction with self-reporting the first set of emails, PG&E announced:

• That three officers will no longer be employed by the company.
• The appointment of a new senior vice president of regulatory affairs.
• The creation of the new role of chief regulatory compliance officer, whose mandate is to help oversee compliance with all requirements governing PG&E’s interactions with the CPUC. The position reports to the CEO and to the Audit Committee of the PG&E Board of Directors.
• The engagement of former Secretary of the U.S. Department of Interior Ken Salazar, a partner in the WilmerHale law firm, as special counsel on regulatory compliance matters to assist in developing a best-in-class regulatory compliance model. Salazar has deep experience in regulatory and energy matters.
• A commitment to creating updated and enhanced training for all employees who routinely interact with PG&E’s regulators.

In a filing with the Commission last week, PG&E admitted the violations in the pending Order to Show Cause and said it expects a penalty. PG&E is scheduled to appear before the Commission regarding the penalty tomorrow.

Today’s PG&E notifications to the CPUC can be read here.

Read More

The Perjurer and the Trilogies of Tragedies

The Torres Family Tragedies or Murders

A long time ago my Spanish then was Taco, Burrito and Salsa.  He said call me "Stasche" as in mustache!  Read how Stasche is connected to the deadly San Bruno Explosion

Learn more

Perfectly Framed

The large Torres family is suffering the loss of a family matriarch, as relatives pray that three other family members will recover rapidly from burns resulting from the blast. Elizabeth Torres, 81, who lived with her daughter Cindy and son-in-law Allen Braun in a Claremont Drive home in San Bruno, died despite Braun's attempt to rescue her by carrying her to the front porch, said one of Torres' nine children, David Wharton, 57, of Fair Oaks. "He saved my mom," Wharton said. "But a second blast" killed her. Braun is now in the hospital with 40 percent of his body burned, Wharton said. Braun's wife, Cindy, 45, and her sister Sandy Arnold, 58, are both in induced comas at St. Francis hospital. Arnold, who lives in Petaluma and works as an office clerk, has burns on 70 percent of her body. Cindy Braun, who used to be an office manager for Forbes magazine, has burns covering half her body, Wharton said. "This is monumental for us," he said. "The only reason I can talk is because I haven't accepted it yet." He said his mother worked as a nurse's aide for UC San Francisco for 27 years. In her later years, she got around in a wheelchair, even when she visited casinos, a favorite pastime. Torres was married twice and had nine children: Everett, Virginia, Sandy, David, Linda, Michael, Sharon, Gregory and Cindy.

View details »

The Contra Costa Narcotics Enforcement Taskforce 

This news of the scandal broke in February 2011 when Commander Norman Wielsch and Chris Butler faces were plastered all over local media. Then a few months later Deputy Stepen Tanabe and Officer Louis Lombardi.  I recognized every face immediately but by summer I was in jail, my car was totaled and to this day remain unpaid by a PG&E Vendor who brought me into their explosion cover-up.

Every conspiracy has one or more co-conspirators but this story is a conspiracy blessed with cover from the top cop down.

Learn

The PG&E Gas Can Man

This image broadcast around the world is part of why my www.pgewitness.com was launched that is spawned from my role in the San Bruno Explosion.  The role that was hidden from Investigators from the NTSB, The San Mateo County District Attorney and most important the Federal case where Judge Henderson ordered PG&E to perform community service. 

The worst part is my family with their lives so PG&E could hire the best lawyers.

Action Action

The KinderMorgan Explosion and the Dead Witnesses

There is a most forgotten explosion story where on November 9th, 2004 five welders from Matamoras Welding were killed.  This explosion occurre in the middle a project to known as the East Bay Pipeline Extension.  on that day I was at the Walnut Creek Superior Court making an appearance in front Superior Court Judge Joel Golub.  That was day I lost my license, the beginning of the loss of my sons, the connections to The Driscoll Family Murders where Alicia Driscoll and her daughter Gineva Driscoll found dead. 

There are several stories begging to be told via the criminal case I call The Kinder Morgan Pipeline Murders of Walnut Creek CA.

Lear

 

 

Action Action

Services

• PG&E
• PG&E Ethics Program
• PG&E Executives
• PG&E Legal Counsel
• PG&E Letters
• PG&E Media
• PG&E Press Release
• PG&E Sniper
• pgewitness.com
• pipelineexplosions.com
• Plaintiffs Winners Circle

Public Entities

 

• CA Public Utilities Commmission

• ATF

• CA Public Utilities Commmission

 

Public Entities

 

• CA Public Utilities Commmission
• ATF
• CA Public Utilities Commmission
• Cal Energy Commmission
• CA Public Utilities Commmission

Agencies

• Judge
•  Golub
• PG&E Snipers       
• Bechtel Corp
• Dead Attorneys
• Dead Witnessess

Law Firms/ General Counsel

• WilmerHale
• Nixon Peaboady
• WilmerHale
• CA Public Utilities Commmission
• PG&E Snipers
• ATF
• Bechtel Corp

Attorneys

• Judge Golub
• PG&E Snipers
• ATF
• All Attorneys
• Elected Officials
• Elected Officials

Courts and Orders

• PaulWiess
• WilmerHale
• Legal Cases
• Legal Cases

Companion Sites

• • pgewitness.com
  • pipelineexplosions.com
  • Plaintiffs Winners Circle
  • The Serial Arsonist

Contact us

Printer customer Support

USA (TOLL FREE) 9125772929

Read More

Blessed by Walnut Creek and Trinity Center - my taxes paid for my losses

Read More

Top senator expands probe into Obama-era Uranium One deal, says he was misled

A top Republican senator has expanded his investigation into an Obama-era deal that gave Russia partial control of the U.S. uranium supply, claiming he was repeatedly misled by the Obama administration about a Russian company’s ability to export that material.

Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, fired off a letter Monday to the heads of the U.S. Energy Department and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission seeking an extensive list of documents.

He wants to know more about the controversial sale of Canadian mining company Uranium One to a subsidiary of Russia’s Rosatom nuclear company – and specifically, how uranium under its control made its way out of the U.S.

“Beginning in 2012, Uranium One exported U.S. uranium by ‘piggy-backing’ as a supplier on an export license” held by a shipping company, Barrasso wrote.

That’s apparently not how the process was explained to him when he first raised concerns.

Back in 2011, then-NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko assured the senator that the companies did not hold a specific “NRC export license” and would not be able to export uranium from the U.S. without one.

Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., wants answers on the Uranium One deal.  (Reuters)

Yet The Hill reported last month that while the NRC never issued the license, memos show it did approve “the shipment of yellowcake uranium” from the U.S. mines to Canada in 2012 through a “third party.” The same report said the Obama administration later approved some of that material to go to Europe, “and the approval involved a process with multiple agencies.” 

HOUSE PROBES URANIUM ONE DEAL

Barrasso, in his letter, said the response he got from Jaczko was “misleading.”

Further, he said the Department of Energy “chose to hide its role in approving exports,” by claiming at the time the issue did not fall within its “purview.”

“By stating DOE had no role in the matter, the DOE concealed the possibility of subsequent exports and their responsibility in reviewing them,” Barrasso wrote. “The DOE’s concealment, together with Chairman Jaczko’s deception, created a false narrative that there was only one agency and one process by which Uranium One could export uranium.”

The Hill report described an alternative way of approving those exports. It said that the NRC, rather than grant a direct export to Rosatom, in 2012 “authorized an amendment to an existing export license” for a trucking firm “to simply add Uranium One to the list of clients whose uranium it could move to Canada.”

Barrasso’s letter included dozens of requests for information to both agencies, covering documents related to each uranium transfer. He set a Jan. 31 deadline. 

Video

Clinton slams calls for special counsel for uranium deal

Asked for comment, an NRC spokesperson told Fox News: "The NRC will respond directly to Senator Barrasso through our normal correspondence." The spokesperson noted current Chairwoman Kristine Svinicki will be testifying Wednesday before Barrasso's committee, "so the subject may come up then."

The Uranium One deal, which was covered extensively in 2015, burst back into the headlines in October, after The Hill reported the FBI had evidence as early as 2009 that Russian operatives used bribes, kickbacks and other dirty tactics to expand Moscow’s atomic energy footprint in the U.S., related to a Rosatom subsidiary. Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill quickly started asking questions about how the deal was approved the following year by an inter-agency committee.

While scrutinizing the 2010 approval, Republican lawmakers have also revived questions that first surfaced in 2015 about payments to both Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation from “interested parties.”

Addressing the matter on C-SPAN in October, Hillary Clinton said “it’s the same baloney they’ve been peddling for years, and there’s been no credible evidence by anyone. In fact, it’s been debunked repeatedly and will continue to be debunked.”

The 2016 Democratic presidential nominee said these issues are just part of the “distraction and diversion” from the investigation into Russian meddling and possible coordination with Trump associates in last year’s election

Read More

Bennett & Johnson and the Witness Murder

Read More