August 2020 ~ The #Deadwitness Blog

#deadwitness ~ Oracle, Accenture, SalesForce, Microsoft, Private Equity and Venture Capital. Setups, M&A, Hostile Takeovers

San Bruno Explosion - Blame PG&E into bankruptcy then wolves of Private Equity save the day?

San Bruno Explosion Bechtel Operation

The Real Story on the San Bruno is it's a murder story

Fast Facts

  • Date: Septemeber 9th 2010
  • Incident: San Bruno CA Explosion
  • Category: Domestic Terrorism
Share:

Coming Soon - The Timeline Series

Share:

Witness: Mitt Romney

 Mitt Romney 



Share:

#deadwitness THE MATTER OF THE THOMAS J.GONZALES II TRUST

THE MATTER OF THE THOMAS J.GONZALES II TRUST

Makes billions like many Tech CEOs dies of Cancer

Case PROMSP04-00263 - THE MATTER OF THE THOMAS J.GONZALES II TRUST



Complaint Number: 1
Complaint Type: Probate Trust
Filing Date: 03/18/2004
Complaint Status: ACTIVE
Party Number Party Type Party Name Attorney Party Status
1 PETITIONER TOM GONZALES,TRUSTEE ROCKWELL, LAWRENCE K First Paper Fee Paid
2 TRUST THOMAS J.GONZALES II 2001 TRUST Unrepresented Serve Required (WaitS)
13 PTY RQST'ING SPECIAL NTC ONLY MERRILL LYNCH TRUST COMPANY BAIARDO, ALICIA A N/A
Complaint Number: 2
Complaint Type: Sub. Acct. Trust
Filing Date: 10/09/2007
Complaint Status: ACTIVE
Party Number Party Type Party Name Attorney Party Status
1 PETITIONER TOM GONZALES,TRUSTEE ROCKWELL, LAWRENCE K First Paper Fee Paid
7 INTERESTED PARTY BURNETT BAKER, JR HARRIS, NEIL A
2 DECEDENT - DEFENDANT THOMAS J.GONZALES II 2001 TRUST Unrepresented N/A
3 OBJECTOR EAST BAY COMMUNITYFOUNDATION AND THE , JOSEPH W COTCHETT Serve Required (WaitS)
Complaint Number: 3
Complaint Type: COMPLAINT
Filing Date: 07/11/2007
Complaint Status: DISMISSED 09/27/2011
Party Number Party Type Party Name Attorney Party Status
4 PLAINTIFF EAST BAY COMMUNITYFOUNDATION MCCARTHY, NIALL P DISMISSED 09/27/2011
5 PLAINTIFF GONZALES FOUNDATION MCCARTHY, NIALL P DISMISSED 09/27/2011
6 DEFENDANT TOM GONZALES ROCKWELL, LAWRENCE K PARTY DISMISSED 09/27/2011
Complaint Number: 4
Complaint Type: Sub. Acct. Trust
Filing Date: 05/16/2008
Complaint Status: ACTIVE
Party Number Party Type Party Name Attorney Party Status
1 PETITIONER TOM GONZALES,TRUSTEE ROCKWELL, LAWRENCE K First Paper Fee Paid
2 TRUST THOMAS J.GONZALES II 2001 TRUST Unrepresented Serve Required (WaitS)
Complaint Number: 5
Complaint Type: Other Sub. Trust
Filing Date: 05/29/2008
Complaint Status: ACTIVE
Party Number Party Type Party Name Attorney Party Status
1 PETITIONER TOM GONZALES,TRUSTEE ROCKWELL, LAWRENCE K First Paper Fee Paid
2 TRUST THOMAS J.GONZALES II 2001 TRUST Unrepresented Serve Required (WaitS)
Complaint Number: 6
Complaint Type: Other Sub. Trust
Filing Date: 10/16/2008
Complaint Status: ACTIVE
Party Number Party Type Party Name Attorney Party Status
4 PETITIONER EAST BAY COMMUNITYFOUNDATION MCCARTHY, NIALL P First Paper Fee Paid
5 PETITIONER GONZALES FOUNDATION MCCARTHY, NIALL P First Paper Fee Paid
2 TRUST THOMAS J.GONZALES II 2001 TRUST Unrepresented Serve Required (WaitS)
Complaint Number: 7
Complaint Type: Other Sub. Trust
Filing Date: 04/15/2009
Complaint Status: ACTIVE
Party Number Party Type Party Name Attorney Party Status
4 PETITIONER EAST BAY COMMUNITYFOUNDATION MCCARTHY, NIALL P First Paper Fee Paid
5 PETITIONER GONZALES FOUNDATION MCCARTHY, NIALL P First Paper Fee Paid
2 TRUST THOMAS J.GONZALES II 2001 TRUST Unrepresented Serve Required (WaitS)
Complaint Number: 8
Complaint Type: Other Sub. Trust
Filing Date: 02/08/2010
Complaint Status: ACTIVE
Party Number Party Type Party Name Attorney Party Status
8 PETITIONER BOREL PRIVATE BANK& TRUST COMPANY VAUGHT, JON R First Paper Fee Paid
2 TRUST THOMAS J.GONZALES II 2001 TRUST Unrepresented Serve Required (WaitS)
Complaint Number: 9
Complaint Type: Sub. Acct. Trust
Filing Date: 02/04/2011
Complaint Status: ACTIVE
Party Number Party Type Party Name Attorney Party Status
3 PETITIONER EAST BAY COMMUNITYFOUNDATION AND THE , JOSEPH W COTCHETT First Paper Fee Paid
2 TRUST THOMAS J.GONZALES II 2001 TRUST Unrepresented Serve Required (WaitS)
Complaint Number: 10
Complaint Type: Other Sub. Trust
Filing Date: 04/21/2011
Complaint Status: JUDGMENT 06/02/2011
Party Number Party Type Party Name Attorney Party Status
3 PETITIONER EAST BAY COMMUNITYFOUNDATION AND THE , JOSEPH W COTCHETT First Paper Fee Paid
2 TRUST THOMAS J.GONZALES II 2001 TRUST Unrepresented DISPOSED 06/02/2011
Complaint Number: 11
Complaint Type: Other Sub. Trust
Filing Date: 11/22/2011
Complaint Status: ACTIVE
Party Number Party Type Party Name Attorney Party Status
1 PETITIONER TOM GONZALES,TRUSTEE ROCKWELL, LAWRENCE K First Paper Fee Paid
2 TRUST THOMAS J.GONZALES II 2001 TRUST Unrepresented Serve Required (WaitS)
9 RESPONDENT BOREL PRIVATE BANK& TRUST COMPANY Unrepresented Serve Required (WaitS)
Complaint Number: 12
Complaint Type: Other Sub. Trust
Filing Date: 02/03/2015
Complaint Status: JUDGMENT 05/07/2015
Party Number Party Type Party Name Attorney Party Status
10 PETITIONER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MATCHISON, AMY
11 INTERESTED PARTY MERRILL LYNCH BANK& TRUST COMPANY, FSB BAIARDO, ALICIA A
12 INTERESTED PARTY MERRILL LYNCH TRUST COMPANY, FSB BAIARDO, ALICIA A
2 TRUST THOMAS J.GONZALES II 2001 TRUST Unrepresented DISPOSED 05/07/2015
Share:

18 U.S. Code § 1512.Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

 

729. PROTECTION OF GOVERNMENT PROCESSES -- TAMPERING WITH VICTIMS, WITNESSES, OR INFORMANTS -- 18 U.S.C. 1512

Section 1512 of Title 18 constitutes a broad prohibition against tampering with a witness, victim or informant. It proscribes conduct intended to illegitimately affect the presentation of evidence in Federal proceedings or the communication of information to Federal law enforcement officers. It applies to proceedings before Congress, executive departments, and administrative agencies, and to civil and criminal judicial proceedings, including grand jury proceedings. See 18 U.S.C. § 1515(a)(1). In addition, the section provides extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over the offenses created therein. See 18 U.S.C. § 1512(g); 128 Cong. Rec. H8469 (daily ed. Oct. 1, 1980); H. R. Rep. No. 1369, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 20-22 (1980).

The express prohibitions against tampering with witnesses and parties contained in former 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503 and 1505, are now in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of 18 U.S.C. § 1512. (As discussed in this Manual at 1724 and 1727, the omnibus clauses of these provisions still cover witnesses.) All forms of tampering with informants covered in former 18 U.S.C. § 1510, with the exception of tampering by means of bribery, are now proscribed by 18 U.S.C. §  1512(b)(3). Tampering with informants by means of bribery remains an 18 U.S.C. § 1510 offense.

Section 1512 augments the prohibitions of the former law in several important respects. First, section 1512(b)(3) sweeps more broadly than former 18 U.S.C. § 1510 and expands the class of informants protected by Federal law. For example, it protects individuals having information concerning a violation of a condition of probation, parole, or bail whether or not that violation constitutes a violation of any other Federal criminal statute. Second, it protects individuals seeking to provide information to Federal judges or Federal probation and pretrial services officers.

Section 1512 also includes attempts in its list of prohibited conduct. There is no requirement that the defendants actions have the intended obstructive effect. See, e.g.United States v. Murray, 751 F.2d 1528 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 979 (1985); United States v. Wilson, 796 F.2d 55 (4th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1039 (1987). As amended by the Criminal Law and Procedure Technical Amendments Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-646, it is clear that the killing of a witness or attempts to kill a witness in order to prevent his/her testimony constitutes an act of force intended to "influence the witness' testimony." See 18 U.S.C. §  1512(a). This change was necessitated by one court interpreting former §  1512 as not reaching an act of attempted murder that was intended to prevent a witness from testifying. See United States v. Dawlett, 787 F.2d 771 (1st Cir. 1986).

The section specifically abolishes the pending proceeding requirement of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503 and 1505. The provision also eliminates ambiguity about the class of individuals protected. Although the former law protected witnesses, parties, and informants, it was unclear whether that law reached the intimidation of third parties (for example, the spouse of a witness) for the purpose of intimidating the principal party. Section § 1512 of Title 18 plainly covers such conduct, for it speaks of conduct directed toward "another person." See 128 Cong. Rec. H8203 (daily ed. Sept. 30, 1982).

Section 1512 protects potential as well as actual witnesses. With the addition of the words "any person," it is clear that a witness is "one who knew or was expected to know material facts and was expected to testify to them before pending judicial proceedings." United States v. DiSalvo, 631 F.Supp. 1398 (E.D. Pa. 1986), aff'd, 826 F.2d 1054 (3d Cir. 1987). Under §  1512, an individual retains his/her status as a witness even after testifying. United States v. Wilson, 796 F.2d 55 (4th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1039 (1987) (protection of witness under § 1512 continues throughout the trial); United States v. Patton, 721 F.2d 159 (6th Cir. 1983) (witness retains status while defendant's motion for a new trial is pending); United States v. Chandler, 604 F.2d 972 (5th Cir. 1979) (witness retains status while case is pending on direct appeal). CfUnited States v. Risken, 788 F.2d 1361 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 923 (1986) (party was a witness after asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege and being dismissed from the stand since he could be recalled at any time).

Section 1512 of Title 18 contains two significant additions to the types of tampering barred by Federal law. First, it forbids "misleading conduct," as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1515. Such conduct was not covered in those circuits that had narrowly construed the omnibus clauses of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503 and 1505 under the rule of ejusdem generis. See United States v. Metcalf, 435 F.2d 754 (9th Cir. 1970); United States v. Essex, 407 F.2d 214 (6th Cir. 1969). see generally, 128 Cong. Rec. H8203 (daily ed. Sept. 30, 1982). Second, 18 U.S.C. § 1512 makes intentional harassment a misdemeanor. This offense is intended to reach conduct less egregious than the corrupt, threatening or forceful conduct required for a violation of former 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503 and 1505. Harassing conduct has been defined as that intended to badger, disturb or pester. Wilsonsupra.

Despite its coverage, section 1512 was not intended to reach all forms of witness tampering. Its coverage is limited to tampering accomplished by the specific means enumerated in the provision. United States v. King, 762 F.2d 232 (2d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1018 (1986). The more imaginative types of witness tampering as well as forms of tampering defying enumeration were still prohibited by the omnibus provision of § 1503. United States v. Lester, 749 F.2d 1288 (9th Cir. 1984).

It is unclear whether 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3) was intended to widen the prohibition against obstructing investigations contained in former 18 U.S.C. § 1510 to include investigations that are not per se criminal in nature, such as an FAA investigation of an aircraft accident, or a Senate committee investigation of the trucking industry. A comparison of the difference in phraseology between 18 U.S.C. §§ 1510 and 1512(b)(3), however, indicates that those differences are differences of style, not substance, and that no such expansion was intended. Section 1510 proscribes interference with "the communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States . . ." to a (Federal) criminal investigator; 18 U.S.C. §  1512(b)(3) proscribes interference with "the communication to a (Federal) law enforcement officer . . . of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense." There is nothing to indicate that Congress intended to depart from the generally accepted meaning of "law enforcement" as criminal law enforcement and of "offense" as criminal violation. See 18 U.S.C. § 1515(4); 128 Cong. Rec. H8203 (daily ed. Sept. 30, 1982). Accordingly, prosecutions for interference with legislative or administrative investigations that have not taken on the character of a criminal investigation should be brought under the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1505. See this Manual at 1726.

Share:

Endorsement: Congressman Mark Desaulnier

 

politicians_$
Share:

Endorsement: Gus Kramer

Share:

#deadwitness Kanneth Lay former CEO of Enron Corporation

One Houston Day With Ken Lay

Actually, One Day At Your Library, they beat Pete Bennett, yes that hurt.   Then Bad Cops arrive with guns and a corrupt judge they blown up your truck visible to the Danville Police Department   and then after that   they go to Springville Utah where they kill children.




With Lay out of the way we "Pulled It"



sss

November 2004 ~ The Contra Costa County 9/11 Payoff

Cnetscandal.blogspot.com


The fuel line exploded killing five has all the appearances of staged event. The actors then proceeded to issue a substantial fines in the amount of 15M.

Pete Bennett was planning a picnic with the mom of Jineva Driscoll (pictured) but Alica never called. Pete moved on after making several calls and emails.

Kinder Morgan to pony ponied up to the fined from the pipeline company paying Contra Costa District Attorney and Department of Industrial Relations for their set of fines.
Once Bennett discovered the murders of the Driscoll family in 2014 he realized why Alicia never called. Plain and simple she was dead.
tags:
Share:

#deadwitness : Susan Kennedy daughter of Bill Kennedy former President of Bay Alarm

 

Susan Kennedy

345 Linda Mesa Danville CA 94526

card image collar
Saturday, March 01, 2014 Notes:

ID:PER002-Susan_Kennedy
Share:

#deadwitness ~ The 199 Judi Bari Bombing

May 24, 1990bari
Share:

List Of CIA Directors


List Of CIA Directors

 


source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Central-Intelligence-Agency/List-of-CIA-directors

CIA


directors
namedates of service
Rear Adm. Sidney W. Souers, USNRJan. 23, 1946–June 10, 1946
Lt. Gen. Hoyt S. Vandenberg, USAJune 10, 1946–May 1, 1947
Rear Adm. Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter, USNMay 1, 1947–Oct. 7, 1950
Gen. Walter Bedell Smith, USAOct. 7, 1950–Feb. 9, 1953
Allen W. DullesFeb. 26, 1953–Nov. 29, 1961
John A. McConeNov. 29, 1961–April 28, 1965
Vice Adm. William F. Raborn, Jr., USNApril 28, 1965–June 30, 1966
Richard M. HelmsJune 30, 1966–Feb. 2, 1973
James R. SchlesingerFeb. 2, 1973–July 2, 1973
William E. ColbySept. 4, 1973–Jan. 30, 1976
George H.W. BushJan. 30, 1976–Jan. 20, 1977
Adm. Stansfield Turner, USNMarch 9, 1977–Jan. 20, 1981
William J. CaseyJan. 28, 1981–Jan. 29, 1987
William H. WebsterMay 26, 1987–Aug. 31, 1991
Robert M. GatesNov. 6, 1991–Jan. 20, 1993
R. James WoolseyFeb. 5, 1993–Jan. 10, 1995
John M. DeutchMay 10, 1995–Dec. 15, 1996
George J. TenetJuly 11, 1997–July 11, 2004
Porter J. GossSept. 24, 2004–May 26, 2006
Gen. Michael V. Hayden, USAFMay 30, 2006–Feb. 13, 2009
Leon E. PanettaFeb. 13, 2009–June 30, 2011
David PetraeusSept. 6, 2011–Nov. 9, 2012
John BrennanMarch 8, 2013–Jan. 20, 2017
Mike PompeoJan. 23, 2017–April 26, 2018
Gina HaspelMay 21, 2018–
Share:

#deadwitness Emery Strack Nieces and Nephews of Alex Bennett and a slew of his High School Friends. Dozens of overlapping connections

Connecting Mormons to the Million dollar fraud

While exploring Mormonism at Alamo 1st Ward Pete Bennett was also in the midst of a divorce. Unknown to Bennett when his truck exploded he was up against corrupt police officers later indicted for small stuff like Abuse of Authority Under Color of Law codified under Racketeering Statutes.

Emery Strack

She was the brightest light so similar is this story to Jineva Driscoll, Allison Bayliss, Michelle Mischeloff, Lisa Dickinson 

 One average person barely knows or has connections to a single murder case.  Pete Bennett created deadwitness.com and other blogs after endless murders near him.  

During July 2020 one attorney would have been willing to take on Contra Costa County was murdered in Southern California.

Julie Denise Strack Resident of Benicia

This odd case was another incident occuring in Benicia CA. Allegedly, Walter Little killed his fiance

enicia police officers stand near a home where two bodies were discovered Tuesday morning.
PUBLISHED:  | UPDATED: 

BENICIA – A Benicia woman appears to have been the victim of a murder-suicide inside a house in the first block of Vista Grande Avenue, police said Tuesday.

It”s the city”s first homicide of 2010, and the first in more than a year, police said.

The victim has been identified as Julie Strack, 49, and the suspect, who is also deceased, is Walter Little, 48. The unmarried couple lived in the house together, Benicia Police spokesman Lt. Mike Daley said.

Benicia Police Department Investigative Sgt. Scott Przekurat said Strack was found on the living room floor suffering from a gunshot wound to the head. Little was also found dead in the room, having apparently shot himself in the mouth, he said

Share:

Advertisement

Ad 300x250

Popular Posts

No one has ever become poor by giving, Please Donate

Blog Archive

Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Popular Posts

Labels

Blog Archive

sss

open all | close all

Recent Posts

Pages

-->