September 2020 ~ The #Deadwitness Blog

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

2020 Walnut Creek City Council Candidate Kevin Wilk

Matching Donors to Candidates - you can see when you read enough

  


  • Kevin Wilk 
  • Mayor Rich Carlston (ret.)
  • Ronald Cassano, City Treasurer
  • Karen Cohen
  • Michael Cohen
  • Linda Rimac Colberg
  • Samantha Francois, Planning Commission
  • Barry Gordon
  • Sue Hamill
  • Katha Hartley
  • Mayor Kathy Hicks (ret.)
  • Gerald Hicks
  • Brian Hirahara
  • Jerry Kaplan, Planning Commission (former)
  • Peter Lezak, Planning Commission
  • Gage Mettler
  • Jill Okimoto
  • Mayor Sue Rainey, (ret.)
  • State Senator Richard K. Rainey (ret.)
  • Rayna Ravitz
  • Richard Ravitz
  • Steve Reiser
  • Nan Siegel
  • Mayor Gary Skrel (ret.)
  • Andrea Kelly Smethurst
  • Rob Stankus
  • Marilyn Weiss, Design Review Commission
  • Nessa Wilk
  • Diane Crowley Young
  • Share:

    #deadwitness ~ Another tragedy affecting yet another Tech Executive connected to Private Equity, Hedge Funds and Venture Capital

    The Pack Children

    Coming Soon

    Share:

    #deadwitness WALNUT CREEK (KRON) — A man has died after an explosion at a Walnut Creek apartment on Wednesday night. Mar 30, 2017

     




    A4E9C6ADABC34A4987D511A1E3666023_528313

    WALNUT CREEK (KRON) — A man has died after an explosion at a Walnut Creek apartment on Wednesday night.

    The elderly man was given CPR, as he was rushed to John Muir Medical Center. He has been identified as 91-year-old Wesley Peters, according to the Contra Costa County Coroner’s Office.

    At about 6:30 p.m., firefighters were dispatched to an apartment complex in the 200 block of Tono Way, located in an unincorporated area between Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek, Fire Marshal Robert Marshall said.

    When crews arrived, they discovered an apartment unit on fire and received reports that a person was still inside.

    Peters was burned and not breathing when firefighters pulled him from his burning home.

    Peters was taken to the hospital where he died.

    Peters lived at the Walnut Creek manor apartments on Mayhew Way right off Interstate 680 near the Pleasant Hill border.

    Investigators say a propane tank is to blame.

    “Some of the initial 911 calls were of an explosion,” Marshall said. “The propane inside did pressurize the structure to the point where the windows blew out. I don’t know that it was really an explosion, but there was definitely a flashback from the gas inside the apartment.”

    HazMat teams responded.

    No one else at the apartment complex was hurt.

    The fire was under control by 6:43 p.m., Marshall said.

    The exact cause of the explosion and fire are still under investigation and no other injuries were reported.


    CA-Walnut Creek 

    Share:

    #deadwitness Jeff Adachi Public Defender for the City of San Francisco

    Shrimp Boy’ Chow

    Jeff Adachi

    Card image

    Former Public Defender for the City of San Francisco

    Jeff Adachi

    August 29, 1959 - February 22, 2019

    Jeff Adachi, a tireless advocate for equal justice, passed away suddenly on Feb. 22, 2019 at 59 years old. He was the elected public defender of San Francisco, a filmmaker and author, and a beloved husband, father, son, brother and friend.
    Jeff was born Aug. 29, 1959. His parents and grandparents were among the nearly 120,000 Japanese Americans forced into internment camps during World War II. Learning of their ordeal would cement Jeff's lifelong commitment to due process and the right to counsel.
    Jeff's advocacy for the accused bloomed as an undergraduate at UC Berkeley after joining a student movement to free Chol Soo Lee, a Korean immigrant wrongly convicted of murder. Jeff earned his bachelor's degree from UC Berkeley in 1981 and his Juris Doctor from UC Hastings in 1985. He was hired as a deputy public defender at the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in 1986 and served as the office's chief attorney from 1998 to 2001.
    He was elected Public Defender of the City and County of San Francisco in 2002 and took office on Jan. 8, 2003 following two years in private practice. Under his strong leadership and fierce advocacy, the San Francisco Public Defender's Office became a national model of holistic defense. Jeff battled on the steps of City Hall for adequate funding, in Sacramento for laws favoring treatment over incarceration, and in court for the clients he personally represented. He tried more than 150 jury trials and handled more than 3,000 criminal matters in his career, including some of the Bay Area's highest profile cases. Today, more than 23,000 people each year rely on the office and the innovative services Jeff instituted. These programs include in-house social workers; expungement and reentry programs; and literacy, health and recreation opportunities for low-income youth. Specialized teams of attorneys devote their expertise to juvenile defense, education advocacy, immigration, mental health, bail, and pretrial release.
    Jeff was an advocate for racial justice and a watchdog against police and prosecutorial misconduct. Surveillance footage he turned over to the press and public led to federal investigations and criminal convictions against law enforcement officers who brutalized or stole from citizens, conducted warrantless searches, or fabricated evidence.
    He served on the board of numerous professional organizations over his career, including the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants, the National Board of Trial Advocacy, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the National Association for Public Defense, and the California Public Defenders Association. He is the co-author of Chapter 25: Immunity for Testimony, in California Criminal Law Procedure and Practice. He was a BAR/BRI bar review professor for more than two decades and published five books on passing the bar exam. He recently completed two additional manuscripts—his autobiography and a biography of San Francisco's first public defender, Frank Egan, who would later be convicted of murder.
    Jeff garnered numerous local, state and national awards for outstanding public service, managerial excellence, prisoner reentry, youth advocacy, and transparency.
    Jeff was an award-winning documentary filmmaker. He wrote, produced and directed The Slanted Screen, a 2006 film that explored stereotypes of Asian men in American cinema. In 2009, he directed You Don't Know Jack: The Jack Soo Story and in 2016 made the short film America Needs a Racial Facial. His 2017 film, Defender, focused on his defense of a young black man following a racially charged encounter with police and followed the work of the office's fledgling immigration unit. Ricochet, to be released later this year, chronicles the tragic death of Kate Steinle and the trial of the immigrant accused of her murder. In addition to his own creative projects, Jeff provided opportunities to other artists through his work with California Humanities the Center for Asian American Media.
    He is survived by Mutsuko "Muki" Adachi, his wife of 21 years; his daughter Lauren Adachi, a freshman at Brown University in Providence; his parents Sam and Gladys Adachi of Sacramento; and his brother Stan Adachi of Long Beach. He is also remembered by thousands of legal professionals across the country who benefitted from his mentorship, encouragement, and training and who will continue his legacy in the fight for justice.
    A public memorial will be held Monday, March 4 at 11 a.m. at San Francisco City Hall. The family desires that a fellowship in Jeff's name be created to aid deserving young law students and lawyers. In lieu of flowers, a tax-deductible donation payable to "AABA Law Foundation – Adachi" may be mailed to Prather Law Offices, 245 Fifth Street, Suite 103, San Francisco, CA 94103. Donations in Jeff's name may also be made to gofundme.com/jeff-adachi-legacy-fund.
    Share:

    #deadwitness ~The CIA Databases Developed by Oracle CEO Larry Ellison reveals facts on CIA Murders of my friends in 1975

    My buds in 1975 before some died.

    more to come 

    Hello, world!

    This is a template for a simple marketing or informational website. It includes a large callout called the hero unit and three supporting pieces of content. Use it as a starting point to create something more unique.
    Learn more
    Bootstrap Thumbnail First
    Chiquita Blvd.  a/k/a the Columbian Runway
    Map: 
    This is Pete Bennett and his pals being more than slightly wild on Chiquita Blvd. located in Cape Coral Fl. where the local open secret was drug landing strip.  When analyzing flight times, locations and distances the location is a perfect way point for Mena Airport.  
    Bootstrap Thumbnail Second
    Gary Webb - former reporter for Contra Costa Times 
    Mr. Webb published a great story regarding the drugs coming in Los Angeles during the 1985. That was the dawn of crack designed to destroy neighborhoods, keep values down and kill as many as possible while those behind the Real Estate Investment Trust industry slowly use a series of corporate shields to "acquire" the land.   

    Bootstrap Thumbnail Third
    Phillip Marshall - Author of False Flag 9/11 
    This man found me in Walnut Creek at Panera Bread.  Once he started talking it was clear he knew about Chiquita Blvd. was used as a CIA Runway.  Several of my friends in the above picture were killed just a few months later.  One died while drilling a hole in the trailer while standing in water.

    Another was killed via a car accident.  

    Share:

    Plans to take over McDonald - Successfully Shut Down - the thugs came daily and drove out the customers crazy

    The Pit of the former Walnut Creek McDonalds 


    Share:

    WILLIAM Y. TAUSCHER and Blackhawk Networks

    The 1995 SEC Fraud

    Computerland, Merisel, and Vanstar as told by their programmer

    Topics from Elections to Qaudruple Homicides to Missing Children

     

     

    BRUCE G. VANYO, State Bar # 060134
    LAURIE B. SMILAN, State Bar # 116740
    DAVID PRIEBE, State Bar # 148679
    MICHELE E. ROSE, State Bar # 154656
    SUSAN BOWER, State Bar # 173244
    WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
    Professional Corporation
    650 Page Mill Road
    Palo Alto, California 94304-1050
    Telephone: (650) 493-9300

    Attorneys for Defendants

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

    DAVID T. O'NEAL TRUST, DATED 4/1/77
    and TAMMY NEWMAN, On Behalf of
    Themselves and All Other Similarly Situated,

                          Plaintiffs,

               v.

    VANSTAR CORPORATION, RICHARD H.
    BARD, WILLIAM Y. TAUSCHER, JAY S.
    AMATO, ROBERT C. KUNTZENDORF,
    JEFFREY S. RUBIN, RICHARD N.
    ANDERSON, CHRIS M. LANEY,
    MICHAEL J. MOORE, AHMAD
    MANSHOURI, COLEMAN D. SISSON,
    THANOS M. TRIANT, E.M. WARBURG,
    PINCUS & CO., INC., WARBURG PINCUS
    & CO., L.P., STEWART K. P. GROSS,
    WILLIAM H. JANEWAY and JOHN L.
    VOGELSTEIN,

                          Defendants.
    ______________________________________


    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )

    CASE NO.: C-98-0216-MJJ

    CLASS ACTION

    MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
    AND AUTHORITIES IN
    OPPOSITION TO
    PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO
    STRIKE EXHIBITS
    SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT
    OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION
    TO DISMISS

    [filed c. Oct. 23, 1998]

    Date: November 3, 1998
    Time: 9:30 a.m.
    Court: Honorable
          Martin J. Jenkins

    INTRODUCTION

    Plaintiffs have moved to strike certain documents submitted with Vanstar's motion to dismiss: Vanstar's 1997 Form 14A ("Form 14A") and a calculation of stock sales by Vanstar's officers and directors ("Appendix"), which is taken directly from publicly filed SEC documents upon which plaintiffs rely. Plaintiffs argue that these documents are "outside" the Complaint, and therefore cannot be considered on a motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs also argue that the documents constitute inadmissible hearsay.

    Plaintiffs' arguments are ill-founded. Under the Private Securities Litigation Act of 1995, plaintiffs must plead specific facts giving rise to a strong inference of each defendant's required state of mind (i.e., scienter), or the Complaint must be dismissed. Plaintiffs attempt to plead scienter by arguing that the individual defendants' stock sales were unusual or suspicious. The documents in question simply assist the Court in analyzing the judicially noticeable information provided by plaintiffs. Courts in securities class action cases routinely take judicial notice of SEC filings -- including documents which demonstrate that stock sale allegations are false -- and will dismiss allegations which are inconsistent with the filings. It is contrary to the Reform Act, and palpably unfair, for plaintiffs to claim that the documents must be excluded from the Court's consideration, while at the same time averring that their stock sale allegations taken from the same documents, which may be judicially noticed, give rise to a strong inference of scienter. Thus, the Court should deny plaintiffs' motion; or, if the Court is inclined to strike these documents, it should also strike plaintiffs' stock sale allegations.

    Moreover, the documents are not "outside" the Complaint as they deal directly with allegations in the complaint. The law is clear that the mere fact that plaintiffs neglect to attach documents integral to their complaint does not render such documents "outside" a complaint, nor preclude the Court from considering the documents in a motion to dismiss. The Form 14A reveals the stock ownership of Vanstar's most senior management, ownership that is at the heart of plaintiffs' scienter allegations. Likewise, the Appendix was prepared directly from the Forms 3 and 4 filed with the SEC, which plaintiffs clearly used in drafting the Complaint (there is no other ultimate source from which plaintiffs could have obtained otherwise confidential information regarding the individual defendants' stock sales and holdings). Plaintiffs cannot seriously complain about a chart that was prepared to assist the Court in analyzing judicially noticeable information that was first provided by plaintiffs.

    Plaintiffs' hearsay objection also is misplaced. Plaintiffs waived any such objection by choosing to include in their Complaint stock sale allegations in the first instance. Moreover, to the extent the Form 14A is referenced for the truth of the matters asserted therein, it is admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Finally, as plaintiffs themselves admit, the documents at issue were not offered solely for their truth value: rather, they are also offered to indicate the individual defendants' state of mind., i.e., were they selling or retaining significant portions of their net worth in the securities of the Company.

    ARGUMENT

    I. THE COURT MAY TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE DOCUMENTS

      A. Courts Routinely Take Judicial Notice of SEC Filings.

    When deciding motions to dismiss, courts routinely take judicial notice of, or otherwise consider, documents other than the complaint.1 Indeed, the great weight of authority holds that SEC filings are properly considered when deciding a motion to dismiss, and that those filings are properly the subject of judicial notice. Seee.g.Wenger v. Lumisys, Inc., 2 F. Supp. 2d 1231, 1240 n.8 (N.D. Cal. 1998) (denying plaintiff's motion to strike documents filed with the SEC, specifically Form 4s showing the actual number of shares sold during the class period); In re Silicon Graphics Securities Lit., 970 F. Supp. 746, 758 (N.D. Cal. 1997) (court may take judicial notice of the contents of relevant public disclosure documents required to be filed with the SEC) (quoting Kramer v. Time Warner, Inc., 937 F.2d 767, 774 (2d Cir. 1991)); In re Gupta Corp. Sec. Litig., 900 F. Supp. 1217, 1228 (N.D. Cal. 1994) ("[T]he court may review 'public disclosure documents required by law to be and which actually have been filed with the SEC.'") (quotation omitted); Shaw v. Digital Equipment Corp., 82 F.3d 1194, 1206 n. 13, 1220 (1st Cir. 1996) ("In deciding a motion to dismiss a securities action, a court may properly consider the relevant entirety of a document integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint, even though not attached to the complaint, without converting the motion into one for summary judgment."); Lovelace v. Software Spectrum Inc., 78 F.3d 1015, 1018 (5th Cir. 1996) ("When deciding a motion to dismiss a claim for securities fraud on the pleadings, a court may consider the contents of relevant public disclosure documents which (1) are required to be filed with the SEC and (2) are actually filed with the SEC.").2

      B. Courts May Take Judicial Notice of Documents "Outside" the Complaint.

    Plaintiffs also assert that the subject documents do not fall within the scope of judicial notice because they are "outside" the Complaint. See Plaintiffs' Brief at 3-4. It is well settled, however, that a document need not be attached to a complaint in order for a court to properly consider it when deciding a motion to dismiss. In re Syntex Corp. Sec. Litig., 95 F.3d 922, 926, 929 (9th Cir. 1996) ("When deciding a motion to dismiss, a court may consider the complaint and 'documents whose contents are alleged in a complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but which are not physically attached to the pleading.'") (quoting Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 454 (9th Cir. 1994)).3

    Here, the authenticity of the subject documents is not truly disputed, and their contents are integral to the Complaint. The Form 14A reveals the stock ownership of Vanstar's senior most management and plaintiffs have made this ownership a central issue of the Complaint. Likewise, the Appendix was prepared directly from the Forms 3 and 4 which are the exact documents plaintiffs used to draft the Complaint.4 All that Defendants have done here is present the same judicially noticeable, integral information plaintiffs have included in their Complaint in such a way as to assist the Court.5

    II. THE SUBJECT DOCUMENTS ARE NOT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY

    Plaintiffs contend that even if the exhibits are properly the subject of judicial notice, the Court may not consider them because they may not be submitted to disprove scienter and because they constitute hearsay. See Plaintiffs' Brief at 4-6. Plaintiffs similarly argue that cases which have judicially noticed SEC filings have only taken judicial notice of the fact that the documents were filed or where the misrepresentations were contained in those documents. Id. at 4-5. For three reasons, plaintiffs are wrong.

    First, as shown above, plaintiffs themselves have alleged the truth of the matters asserted in the documents. Their Complaint alleges that the individual defendants sold particular amounts of stock, at particular prices, on particular dates. It also alleges that the individual defendants sold particular (albeit inflated) percentages of their stock holdings. Complaint ¶¶ 138-141. Thus, plaintiffs cannot complain if and when Defendants refer to the same SEC filings, or information extracted from the filings for the truth of the matters asserted therein. This is precisely the reason that courts have taken judicial notice of stock sales in securities cases. See Silicon Graphics, 970 F. Supp. at 759 ("Having raised questions about defendants' stock sales, [and] based their allegations on defendants' SEC filings . . . plaintiffs can hardly complain when defendants refer to the same information in their defense."); Wenger at 1240 n.8 (denying plaintiff's motion to strike documents filed with the SEC, specifically Form 4s showing the actual number of shares sold during the class period); see also United States v. Anderson, 532 F.2d 1218, 1229 (9th Cir. 1976) (defendant who introduced hearsay statement waived objection).

    Second, the exhibits are offered not only for their truth value, but also to demonstrate the state of mind of the individual defendants. As such, they are excepted from the hearsay rule. Fed. R. Evid. 803(3). Plaintiffs admit that these documents would demonstrate state of mind, if accepted by the Court. Pl. Br. at 6. Plaintiffs attempt to plead the individual defendants' state of mind by asserting that each of them intended to sell unusual amounts of Vanstar stock, rather than retaining his or her shares and stock options. Thus, the documents are relevant to plaintiffs' state of mind theory.

    Third, the Form 14A is admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(6). For a memorandum or record to be admissible as a business record, it must be: (1) made by a regularly conducted business activity; (2) kept in the "regular course" of that business; (3) "the regular practice of that business to make the memorandum, and (4) made by a person with knowledge or from information transmitted by a person with knowledge." Clark v. City of Los Angeles, 650 F.2d 1033, 1036-37 (9th Cir. 1981) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 803(6). The Form 14A was prepared by persons with knowledge of the facts contained therein, kept in the ordinary course of Vanstar's business, and required by law to be prepared and submitted to the SEC. Moreover, Vanstar relied on the preparation of those documents in its business; it was required by law to disclose proxy and officer stock sale information. Accordingly, all of the requisites of the business records exception are satisfied. See United States v. Childs, 5 F.3d 1328, 1333 (9th Cir. 1993) (documents properly admitted as business records notwithstanding defendant's objections that the circumstances surrounding preparation of documents indicated a lack of trustworthiness, and that documents were not made in regular course of business); United States v. Bland, 961 F.2d 123, 126-27 (9th Cir. 1992) (firearm registration form required by law properly admitted as business record; "the person completing [the form] had knowledge of the transaction at the time it occurred and [the document] was maintained as a regularly conducted business activity as required by law."); Keogh v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 713 F.2d 496, 499 (9th Cir. 1983) (card dealer's diary containing personal financial records properly admitted as business record; "Witlock's diary, even though personal to him, shows every indication of being kept 'in the [ordinary] course of' his own 'business activity,' 'occupation, and calling.' . . . The reliability usually found in records kept by business concerns may be established in personal business records if they are systematically checked and regularly and continually maintained.").

    III. IT WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE REFORM ACT TO STRIKE THE DOCUMENTS

    Under the heightened pleading requirements of the Reform Act, plaintiffs must allege facts sufficient to create a strong inference of scienter on the part of each defendant. See Securities Exchange Act of 1934 §§21D(b)(2), (3), 15 U.S.C. §§78 u-4(b)(2), (3). Plaintiffs attempt to meet this burden to plead the individual defendants' state of mind by arguing that those persons engaged in unusual or suspicious trading. Plaintiffs' Mem. of Points & Auth. in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss at 19-21. Nevertheless, plaintiffs contend that the actual stock sale information included in the Defendants' exhibits should not be considered.

    Plaintiffs are wrong. As the Reform Act imposes an affirmative duty on plaintiffs to present a complaint that provides a strong inference of scienter, it is only logical that "plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that any such sales are in fact unusual," when they rely on stock sale allegations to plead scienter. In re Health Mgm't Sys., Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 97-CIV-1865(HB), 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8061, at *18 (S.D.N.Y. May 28, 1998). Thus, plaintiffs cannot merely plead their conclusion that the stock sales are "suspicious" or "unusual." Instead, they must plead information indicating (1) the number of shares and options each defendant retained, and (2) each defendants' past pattern of sales, so that the "suspicious" or "unusual" nature of the sales in question can be discerned. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 §§21D(b)(1), (2), 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u-4(b)(1), (2) (Reform Act requires plaintiffs to set forth the factual basis of allegations made on information and belief).

    Thus, the Court is entitled to take judicial notice of those documents to determine if, as the Vanstar Defendants allege, they refute plaintiffs' allegations. In re Silicon Graphics, Inc. Sec. Litig., 970 F. Supp. 746, 751 (N.D. Cal. 1997 ("[T]he court need not accept as true allegations that contradict facts that have been judicially noticed."). Conversely, if the exhibits are not considered, neither should plaintiffs' stock sale allegations. Seee.g.Duncan v. Pencer, 1996 WL 19043, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (absent stock sale information, no inference of unusual or suspicious sales may be drawn).

    CONCLUSION

    For the reasons set forth above, the motion to strike should be denied in its entirety; or, if the Court is inclined to strike the Subject Documents, it should also strike plaintiffs' stock sale allegations.

    Dated: October __, 1998

    WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI

    By:___________________________________
         Susan Bower
    Attorneys for Defendants




    1 Seee.g.Kottle v. Northwest Kidney Centers, 146 F.3d 1056, 1064 n. 7 (9th Cir. 1998) (declining to treat Rule 12(b)(6) motion as summary judgment motion despite district court's consideration of affidavit whose "sole purpose was to put before the Court certain public records of the Department" for which court could take judicial notice); Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1198 (9th Cir. 1988) (declining to treat Rule 12(b)(6) motion as summary judgment motion despite district court's consideration of declaration requesting judicial notice of certain matters in public record, including other related proceedings).

    2 Plaintiffs' citation to In re Sun Microsystems, Inc. Sec. Lit., No. C-89-20351, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18740 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 1990), in support of their argument that the Court may not take judicial notice of the documents in question is more than a little misleading: the Court in that case declined to take judicial notice of certain SEC filings because the relevant SEC filings already were attached to the complaint by plaintiffs, and hence no judicial notice of those documents was necessary. Id. at *6. It is also curious that plaintiffs would cite Haltman v. Aura Systems, Inc., 844 F. Supp. 544, 550 (C.D. Cal. 1993), as the Court in that case merely decided that it could dismiss plaintiffs' claims without the necessity of reviewing the documents submitted for judicial notice.

    3 See also In re Stac Elecs. Sec. Litig., 89 F.3d 1399, 1405 n. 4 (9th Cir. 1996) ("[D]ocuments whose contents are alleged in a complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but which are not physically attached to the pleading may be considered in ruling [under] Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss.") (quotation omitted); Fecht v. Price Co., 70 F.3d 1078, 1080 n.1 (9th Cir. 1995); In re Verifone Sec. Litig., 11 F.3d 865, 868 n.2 (9th Cir. 1993); Branch, 14 F.3d at 453 ("The leading commentators state that 'when [the] plaintiff fails to introduce a pertinent document as part of his pleading, [the] defendant may introduce the exhibit as part of his motion attacking the pleading.'") (quoting 5 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil ' 1327, at 762-63 (2d ed.1990)).

    4 Plaintiffs admit that they reviewed Vanstar's SEC filings in drafting their Complaint. Complaint ¶ 160. In any event, any contention that the stock trading data alleged in the Complaint was obtained from sources other than Forms 4s is highly implausible (and no such other sources are disclosed). If Vanstar and its officers had not been required to disclose their trades and stock holdings in the SEC filings, the information would be protected from disclosure by the Article I of the California Constitution. Silicon Graphics, 970 F. Supp. at 758 (the trading "allegations can be derived only from the[] publicly-filed documents," any credible financial publications themselves must derive information concerning the personal financial affairs of executives from the SEC filings).

    5 Nor may plaintiffs contend that they genuinely dispute the accuracy of the exhibits at issue. The purpose of judicial notice is to avoid unnecessary costs associated with establishing a fact that "is not really disputable." 1 Weinstein's Evidence ¶ 201[03] at 201-24 (1996). Courts have rejected such attempts to circumvent the principles of judicial notice. See Silicon Graphics, 970 F. Supp. at 758 (rejecting theory where plaintiffs' challenge to accuracy of SEC forms submitted by the defendant was "weak," and there was no evidence presented which would cast doubt on those filings). Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has held that judicial notice may be taken of matters less trustworthy than SEC filings, where the matter is "capable of sufficiently accurate and ready determination." In Ritter v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 58 F.3d 454 (9th Cir. 1995), the Court held that the district court properly took judicial notice of widespread layoffs at Hughes Aircraft based on a newspaper article: "judicial notice of layoffs at Hughes was not an abuse of discretion [because] [t]his is a fact which would be generally known in Southern California and which would be capable of sufficiently accurate and ready determination." Id. at 458-59.




    Source: File to epost from Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
    Share:

    #deadwitness ~ Attorney Marc Angelucci killed before settlement in Wood vs. Contra Costa County (Bennett was waiting for call)

    #deadattorney where winners take all losers get killed before reaching the courthouse steps

    Pete Bennett has the unfortunate title of the biggest legal loser. He is not the only one but when Pete stood up people turned up dead

    Marc Angelucci

    Pete Bennett was introduced to Mr. Angelucci via the discovery of Woods v. Contra Costa County.  Woods is poised a game changing case in regards to CPS and Social Services.  

    Bennett knows this story very well which is why he created deadwitness.com as his witnesses have been killed.  

    Share:

    Pete has needed counsel for over 30 years with access blocked year after year while his witnesses get picked off

    Pete has needed counsel for over 30 years with access blocked year after year while his witnesses get picked off

    This bar association has denied Pete Bennett access to the legal community for 30 years. Bennett doesn't just have one witness murder he has many far too many for one constituent.

    Seeking Counsel #deadwitness

    Did this Sheriff? #deadwitness

    Bennett knows this story very well, knows the history from the late 70s to the early 90s. This is the Sheriff that missed the sighting of Jaycee Duguard by Pete Bennett who spotted Duguard clinging to the window at a Chevron Gas Station just after the kidnapping. The Sheriff said yellow van when it was brown. Bennett knew Garrido but did not make that connection until the van showed up on Google.

    Chief Chris Wenzel

    This former Chief and Commander has a sorted leadership as far back to the early nineties as Sgt. Wenzel. On the circle band are the names of numerous victims and cases some were friends or coworkers with Pete Bennett.

    Current Bar Association Leadership

     




    Oliver Greenwood

    President


    Law Office of Oliver Greenwood

    367 Civic Dr., Suite 2

    Pleasant Hill, CA 94523

    (925) 957-1030


    Nicole Mills

    President Elect


    Empower Mediation

    P.O. Box 2166

    Walnut Creek, CA 94595

    (925) 351-3171


    Mika Domingo

    Secretary


    M.S. Domingo Law

    1475 N. Broadway, Suite 435

    Walnut Creek, CA 94596

    (925) 891-5006


    Dorian Peters

    Treasurer


    (510) 684-7696


    James Wu

    Past President


    Quarles & Brady LLP

    1990 N. California Blvd.,

    8th Floor

    Walnut Creek, CA 94596-7261

    (925) 658-0300


    David Erb

    Director


    Flicker, Kerin, Kruger

    & Bissada, LLP

    3130 Crow Canyon Place,

    Suite 405

    San Ramon, CA 94583

    (925) 327-6200


    Mark LeHocky

    Director


    ADR Services, Inc.

    118 Diablo View Dr.

    Orinda, CA 94105

    (510) 693-6443


     


    David Marchiano

    Director


    Brown, Gee & Wenger, LLP

    200 Pringle Ave., Suite 400

    Walnut Creek CA 94596

    (925) 943-5000


    Ericka McKenna

    Director


    McKenna Brink Signorotti

    1981 N. Broadway, Suite 255

    Walnut Creek, CA 94596

    (925) 433-5448


    Cary McReynolds

    Director


    CDM Law

    4125 Blackhawk Plaza Circle, Suite 207

    Danville, CA 94506

    (925) 385-8545


    Craig Nevin

    Director


    Law Offices of Craig Nevin

    1401 Willow Pass Road,

    Suite 1010

    Concord, CA 94520-7921

    (925) 639-0221


    David Pearson

    Director


    Brothers Smith LLP

    2033 N. Main St., Ste. 720

    Walnut Creek, CA 94596

    (925) 944-9700


    Michael Pierson

    Director


    Key Counsel, P.C.

    3440 Hillcrest Avenue,

    Suite 100

    Antioch, CA 94531

    (925) 238-0444


    David Ratner

    Director


    David Ratner Law Firm, LLP

    33 Julianne Ct.

    Walnut Creek, CA  94595

    (415) 817-1200


     


    Summer Selleck

    Director


    S.C. Selleck Law

    150 N. Wiget Lane, Suite 105

    Walnut Creek, CA 94598

    (925) 899-9130


    Marta Vanegas

    Director


    Martin & Vanegas,  APC

    3100 Oak Road, Suite 230

    Walnut Creek, CA 94597

    (925) 937-5433


    Qiana Washington

    Director


    Washington & Associates

    1470 Maria Lane, Suite 240

    Walnut Creek, CA 94596

    (925) 278-1791


    The Subjective Cases

    The Scott Peterson Appeal

    Card image

    The conviction of Scott Peterson sits on shaky ground. There are several factors such as which individuals recovered Laci and Conner, why they headed to the Berkeley Marina and why they landed in the West County Area.

    Profile

    James Hogan

    Contra Costa Sheriff Search and Rescue (16yrs)
    Card image

    The death of search and rescue member jabs another stake in the heart of the conviction of Scott Peterson sits on shaky ground. Mr. Hogan career timeline placed near important rescues. At the time of his death he began his volunteer career in the mid nineties with strong correlation with Lace Peterson and the 2004 Kinder Morgan Explosion behind Las Lomas High School.

    Profile

    Deputy Carlos Francies

    This deputy was able to get out of custody before the illicit actions of another deputy plans were thwarted. That would be serious harm to Bennett inside the Martinez Detention Center during March 2012. Both of us existed the jail in the early morning hours allowing a 20 minute coversation. By 2012, Bennett was fully aware his witnesses were dead. That same night John Newman was beat to death in Concord then later on April 18th, 2012 the son of Contra Costa Bar President James S. Greenan died as a another accident victim.
    Card image

    The death of search and rescue member jabs another stake in the heart of the conviction of Scott Peterson sits on shaky ground. Mr. Hogan career timeline placed near important rescues. At the time of his death he began his volunteer career in the mid nineties with strong correlation with Lace Peterson and the 2004 Kinder Morgan Explosion behind Las Lomas High School.

    Profile

    Nathaniel Greenan (

    Nate raised in Danville but was residing in Pleasant Hill. He performed at VinniesBar.com at the weekly open mic. He is friends with many local Mormons and musicians.
    Card image

    He performed and Bennett performed and the the widow of a former Police Officer was present who worked with Nate at the Danville Musical Theater. At the time Bennett was attempting to recover funds from his stolen trust. Making many calls to local attorneys seeking redress via litigation as the trust drafted by Attorney Michael Harrington was flawed. Worse the correct Jurisdiction was Walnut Creek where officers refused to start the investigation. That problem extended over to Contra Costa District Attorney Mark Peterson involved in a separate murder coverup with then Sheriff Richard Rainey.

    Profile

    Councilman Mike Shimansky

    His nickname was Mr. Mayor, he walked our Cameo Acres neighborhood mmany times. Easy to chat with and ready to share . After the
    Card image

    After Bennett's truck exploded Council was concerned for the safety of Bennett and his family. Chief Wenzel professed to his committment to investigate but that never happend. Danville is a Town is better described as a murderous lot. What was unknown at the time is the corruption case that would emerge in 2011 with the arrest of officers and a private investigator. From there Bennett concluded that a long string of attempts on his life were connected to the theft of the Dorothea Leslie Milne Bennett Trust, a life death benefit policy valued at $855,000 by Prudential Life and receivables from Albert D. Seeno, SBCGlobal and other clients valued of over $100,000.

    Profile

    Attorney Mark Angelucci

    Bennett learned of Mr. Angelucci via Wood vs. Contra Costa who on appeal won her racketeering case against the county. The case calendered for settlement conference.
    Card image

    This case obviously will have impact around the country affecting overly zealous social workers and the financial network that springs up draining familie until they cannot get their children back from the system using the county treasury to fatten the wallet of attorneys, theraphists and specialist. The reality is often drug them until they can't cry for their families.

    Profile

    PCB20200917
    Share:

    #deadwitness ~ The Corrupted District Attorney and the Contra Costa Hate Crime Network

    MEET THE CORRUPT DA, COMMANDER, Deputy, Officer, Former Police Officers

    The worst is yet to come as truth

    The Dirty DUI Crew 

    •  Chris Butler 
    • Deputy Tanabe 
    • DA Mark Peterson
    • Officer Greg Thompson 
    • Commander Wielsch
    • Albert D. Seeno - fraud case and conviction linked Miller Starr and Regalia 

    Victim: Nathaniel Greenan


    Surrounded by family with his son Nate Greenan lying in casket Attorney James S. Greenan represented Kinder Care a subsidiary of Knowledge Universe a holding company controlled by Larry Ellison and Micheal Milken.   
    •  
    • Sister: Cecilia Greenan Ashcroft
    • Sister: Nancy Greenan Hamil
    • Father: James Greenan
    • Brother in-law: Dax Craven, disbarred represented Bennett who lost his sons to the Mormons
    James S. Greenan
    Profile and history of James S. Greenan
    Richard Rainey and the Mormons
    In the matter of Bennett vs. Southern Pacific a witness murder went down in 1989. The witness was slated to testify on behalf of Pete Bennett. The case fell apart on the courthouse steps. Judge Peter Spinetta should be a hostile witness now living in Darby Montana.
    Oracle and 9/11
    Profile of Oracle employee Todd Beamer killed during WTC Attacks.

    Larry Ellison
    Connecting Larry Ellison ownership of Knowledge Universe which owns Kinder Care, Leap Frog and other entities.
    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

    -->