Connecting Success Factors to Bennett

The Dubious Phone Call and Time Wasting Project

The folks at TPG will have to answer to my Whistleblower Complaints on the truly odd collection of RFPs emanating from companies connected to Richard Blum, William McGlashan, CBRE, Regency Centers, Trammel Crow, Lennar, Catellus.

---

My story is about witness murders, private equity, mergers and acquisitions linked back to the Matter of Bennett v. Southern Pacific lost in 1989.  It was a winnable case as long the witnesses testified.  

xxxx2

xxxx9

TPG STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE - Trademark Details

Status: 700 - Registered

Serial Number

86923160

Registration Number

5601706

Word Mark

TPG STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE

Status

700 - Registered

Status Date

2018-11-06

Filing Date

2016-02-29

Registration Number

5601706

Registration Date

2018-11-06

Mark Drawing

4000 - Standard character mark Typeset

Published for Opposition Date

2016-06-28

Attorney Name

Emilia F. Cannella

Law Office Assigned Location Code

L10

Employee Name

STOIDES, KATHERINE

Statements

Disclaimer with Predetermined Text

"STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE"

Goods and Services

Financial services, namely, investment advice, investment management, investment consultation, investment of funds for others, and raising debt and equity capital for the funding of investments

Classification Information

International Class

036 - Insurance; financial affairs; monetary affairs; real estate affairs. - Insurance; financial affairs; monetary affairs; real estate affairs.

US Class Codes

100, 101, 102

Class Status Code

6 - Active

Class Status Date

2016-03-03

Primary Code

036

First Use Anywhere Date

2018-06-16

First Use In Commerce Date

2018-06-16

Current Trademark Owners

Party Name

Tarrant Capital IP, LLC

Party Type

30 - Original Registrant

Legal Entity Type

16 - Limited Liability Company

Address

Please log in with your Justia account to see this address.

Trademark Owner History

Party Name

Tarrant Capital IP, LLC

Party Type

30 - Original Registrant

Legal Entity Type

16 - Limited Liability Company

Address

Please log in with your Justia account to see this address.

Party Name

Tarrant Capital IP, LLC

Party Type

20 - Owner at Publication

Legal Entity Type

16 - Limited Liability Company

Address

Please log in with your Justia account to see this address.

Party Name

Tarrant Capital IP, LLC

Party Type

10 - Original Applicant

Legal Entity Type

16 - Limited Liability Company

Address

Please log in with your Justia account to see this address.

Correspondences

Name

EMILIA F. CANNELLA

Address

Please log in with your Justia account to see this address.

Madrid International Filings

Entry Number

1

Reference Number

A0061144

Original Filing Date USPTO

2016-08-25

International Registration Number

1322607

International Registration Date

2016-08-25

International Status Code

480

International Renewal Date

2026-08-25

Madrid History Events
Date	Code	Description
2019-02-06	CBPCP	PARTIAL CEASING OF EFFECT TO BE PROCESSED
2016-12-08	CREAT	APPLICATION FOR IR REGISTERED BY IB
2019-02-14	CBNAR	CEASING OF EFFECT REVIEWED - NO ACTION REQUIRED BY OFFICE
2016-08-25	ACERT	AUTOMATICALLY CERTIFIED
2016-08-25	NEWAP	NEW APPLICATION FOR IR RECEIVED
2016-08-25	APPST	IR CERTIFIED AND SENT TO IB

Trademark Events

Event Date	Event Description
2016-03-03	NEW APPLICATION ENTERED IN TRAM
2016-03-03	NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED IN TRAM
2016-03-20	ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER
2016-03-24	NON-FINAL ACTION WRITTEN
2016-03-24	NON-FINAL ACTION E-MAILED
2016-03-24	NOTIFICATION OF NON-FINAL ACTION E-MAILED
2016-05-13	EXAMINERS AMENDMENT -WRITTEN
2016-05-13	EXAMINERS AMENDMENT E-MAILED
2016-05-13	NOTIFICATION OF EXAMINERS AMENDMENT E-MAILED
2016-05-13	ASSIGNED TO LIE
2016-05-16	EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT ENTERED
2016-05-17	APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER
2016-05-23	LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED
2016-06-08	NOTIFICATION OF NOTICE OF PUBLICATION E-MAILED
2016-06-28	PUBLISHED FOR OPPOSITION
2016-06-28	OFFICIAL GAZETTE PUBLICATION CONFIRMATION E-MAILED
2016-08-23	NOA E-MAILED - SOU REQUIRED FROM APPLICANT
2017-01-24	TEAS EXTENSION RECEIVED
2017-01-24	EXTENSION 1 FILED
2017-01-24	EXTENSION 1 GRANTED
2017-01-26	NOTICE OF APPROVAL OF EXTENSION REQUEST E-MAILED
2017-08-15	TEAS EXTENSION RECEIVED
2017-08-15	EXTENSION 2 FILED
2017-08-15	EXTENSION 2 GRANTED
2017-08-17	NOTICE OF APPROVAL OF EXTENSION REQUEST E-MAILED
2018-02-15	TEAS EXTENSION RECEIVED
2018-02-15	EXTENSION 3 FILED
2018-02-15	EXTENSION 3 GRANTED
2018-02-17	NOTICE OF APPROVAL OF EXTENSION REQUEST E-MAILED
2018-08-15	TEAS STATEMENT OF USE RECEIVED
2018-09-10	CASE ASSIGNED TO INTENT TO USE PARALEGAL
2018-08-15	USE AMENDMENT FILED
2018-09-11	STATEMENT OF USE PROCESSING COMPLETE
2018-10-04	ALLOWED PRINCIPAL REGISTER - SOU ACCEPTED
2018-10-05	NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE OF STATEMENT OF USE E-MAILED
2018-11-06	REGISTERED-PRINCIPAL REGISTER

Read More

Cerberus Buys Safeway and Mayor Ed Lee dies in San Francisco

Connecting Cerberus to Safeway to KKR to Bennett v. Southern with the link former SP Executive Steve Burd

The Dubious Phone Call and Time Wasting Project

The folks at TPG will have to answer to my Whistleblower Complaints on the truly odd collection of RFPs emanating from companies connected to Richard Blum, William McGlashan, CBRE, Regency Centers, Trammel Crow, Lennar, Catellus.

---

My story is about witness murders, private equity, mergers and acquisitions linked back to the Matter of Bennett v. Southern Pacific lost in 1989.  Pete Bennett owner of Mainframe Designs Cabinets And Fixtures was key fabricator of Safeway Store Development where Safeway contacted Bennett 1982.

After Bennett sued Southern Pacific in 1987 millions in contracts with Safeway were cancelled.  Bennett was unaware that CEO Steve Burd was former Southern Pacific Executive.

 

Cerberus Buys Safeway, Merges It With Albertsons For Over $9 Billion

Brian Solomon

Forbes Staff

After a long courtship, private equity giant Cerberus Capital Management agreed to buy Safeway SWY +0% for over $9 billion on Thursday afternoon.

Safeway, the 2nd-largest grocer in the US, will merge with Albertson's, the 5th-largest grocer, which Cerberus bought from SuperValu last year. The deal will give Safeway shareholders an estimated $40 per share, including $32.50 in cash.

The deal making may not be over soon, though. Kroger KR +1.38%, the country's largest grocer (nearly twice as large as Safeway by revenue), is reportedly considering making its own offer for its competitor. The company previous outbid Cerberus for the Harris Teeter chain of supermarkets, paying $2.4 billion last summer.

"Safeway has been focused on better meeting shoppers' diverse needs through local, relevant assortment, an improved price/value proposition and a great shopping experience that has driven improved sales trends," Safeway CEO Robert Edwards said in a statement. " We are excited about continuing this momentum as a combined organization."

"This transaction offers us the opportunity to better serve customers by adapting more quickly to evolving shopping preferences in diverse regions across the country," Albertsons CEO Bob Miller said. "Together, we will be able to respond to local needs more quickly and deliver outstanding products at the lowest possible price, more efficiently than ever before."

Safeway has more than 1,300 stores in the US. It ended the day trading at $39.47, but the stock fell over 3.5% after hours.

Follow Brian on Facebook and Twitter.

Brian Solomon

Forbes Staff

Brian Solomon was a Forbes staff writer from 2011 to 2017. He most recently covered technology startups, with a special focus on the on-demand economy of Uber, Airbnb, ...

Read More

Connecting Success Factors to Bennett

The Dubious Phone Call and Time Wasting Project

The folks at TPG will have to answer to my Whistleblower Complaints on the truly odd collection of RFPs emanating from companies connected to Richard Blum, William McGlashan, CBRE, Regency Centers, Trammel Crow, Lennar, Catellus.

---

My story is about witness murders, private equity, mergers and acquisitions linked back to the Matter of Bennett v. Southern Pacific lost in 1989.  It was a winnable case as long the witnesses testified.  

xxxx2

xxxx9

Read More

The Bodies of Walnut Creek

Connecting Success Factors to Bennett

The Dubious Phone Call and Time Wasting Project
The folks at TPG will have to answer to my Whistleblower Complaints on the truly odd collection of RFPs emanating from companies connected to Ric

A HOMELESS MAN IN WALNUT CREEK

Partially Disabled, Beaten by Homeless or

Parties Known and Unknown

THEY BLEW THE HEADS OF HIS FRIENDS

FORMER MAYOR CARLSON

Bennett and Carlson knew Jared Tucker
AMERCIAN KILLED IN BARCELONA
DONNA COLUMBO
DIRECTOR OF TRINITY CENTER

BANNED FROM TRINITY CENTER
RELATIVES MURDERED
BEATEN,ARRESTED AND JAILED

hard Blum, William McGlashan, CBRE, Regency Centers, Trammell Crow, Lennar, Catellus, Hercules Capital, Willkie and Senator Feinstein's connection or failed connection to Jim Jones.

The

---

My story is about witness murders, private equity, mergers and acquisitions linked back to the Matter of Bennett v. Southern Pacific lost in 1989.  It was a winnable case as long the witnesses testified.

The Death of Berkeley Fire Tony Nunes was another in a long list of Actors, Lawyers, Public Officials and Stories ~ CNET Scandal

Connecting TPG to Southern Pacific, BNSF, UNION PACIFIC to Catellus, Concord Naval Weapons Station to Golden Gate Capital ~ CNET Scandal


Pierre Omidyar and the H-1b Visa Murders ~ CNET Scandal

Accenture and Microsoft Launch New Hybrid Cloud Platform to Accelerate Enterprise-Wide Adoption ~ CNET Scandal

Caveat Emptor: Mcafee, NIMDA, AT&T and 9/11 ~ CNET Scandal

Blogger: CNET Scandal - All posts
The Bodies of Walnut Creek ~ CNET Scandal

OBIT: Pasi M. Hamalainen / Former PIMCO Executive dead at 46 ~ CNET Scandal

 

Read More

JUNE OF 1993 : APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION IN

Connecting the Dumbo Bar to looking out their back door

When Concord City Attorney Mark Coon committed suicide the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) resurfaced into my view.  

The folks at TPG will have to answer to my Whistleblower Complaints on the truly odd collection of RFPs emanating from companies connected to Richard Blum, William McGlashan, CBRE, Regency Centers, Trammell Crow, Lennar, Catellus.

ss

---

My story is about witness murders, private equity, mergers and acquisitions linked back to the Matter of Bennett v. Southern Pacific lost in 1989.  It was a winnable case as long the witnesses testified.  

xxxx2

Standards of Professional Courtesy

PREAMBLE

Attorneys are most often retained to represent their clients in disputes. The practice of law is largely an adversarial process. Attorneys are ethically bound to zealously represent and advocate their clients’ interest. Nonetheless, there exist certain standards of professional courtesy that are observed and certain duties of professionalism are owed by attorneys to their clients, opposing parties and their counsel, the courts and other tribunals, and the public as a whole. Members of the Contra Costa County Bar Association have practiced law with a level of professionalism that goes well beyond the requirements of the State Bar mandated Code of Professional Conduct. The following standards of professional courtesy describe the conduct preferred and expected by a majority of attorneys practicing in Contra Costa County in performing their duties of civility, professional integrity, personal dignity, candor, diligence, respect, courtesy, cooperation and competence. These standards are not meant to be exhaustive. They should, however, set a tone or guide for conduct not specifically mentioned in these standards.

These standards have been codified to make the level of professionalism reflected in them the standard of practice within Contra Costa County and with the hope that their dissemination will educate new attorneys and others who may be unfamiliar with the customary local practices. They have received approval of the Board of Directors of the Contra Costa County Bar Association. They have also been endorsed by the Judges of the Superior and Municipal Courts of Contra Costa County, who expect professional conduct by all attorneys who appear and practice before them. They will be considered by those judges in their rulings pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 128, 177, and 177.5, as provided for in the Contra Costa County Superior Court Rules, Rule 30.

All attorneys conducting any practice of law in Contra Costa County are encouraged to comply with the spirit of these standards and not simply blindly adhere to the strict letter of them. The goals stated and inherent herein are equally applicable to all attorneys regardless of area of practice.

This Code is, of course, not a substitute for the statutes and rules. No provision of this Code is intended to be a method to extend time limitations of statutes and rules, including fast track time limitations, without appropriate court order.

1. SCHEDULING:
   1. (1) Attorneys should communicate with opposing counsel prior to scheduling meetings, depositions, hearings and other proceedings and make reasonable efforts to schedule such meetings, hearings, depositions, and other proceedings by agreement whenever possible. At all times, attorneys should endeavor to provide opposing counsel, parties, witnesses and other affected persons, sufficient notice thereof.
      (2) Where such advanced efforts at scheduling are not feasible (for example, in an emergency, or in other circumstances compelling more expedited scheduling, or upon agreement of counsel) an attorney should not arbitrarily or unreasonably withhold consent to a request for scheduling accommodations that do not prejudice their clients or unduly delay a proceeding.
   2. In all cases, attorneys should endeavor to reserve sufficient time for the completion of the proceeding to permit a complete presentation by counsel for all parties.
   3. An attorney should not engage in delay tactics in scheduling meetings, hearings and discovery; nor should they seek extensions or continuances for the purpose of harassment or solely to extend litigation.
   4. Attorneys should notify opposing counsel, the court and others affected of scheduling conflicts as soon as they become apparent and shall cooperate in canceling or rescheduling. Attorneys should also notify opposing counsel and, if appropriate, the court or other tribunal as early as possible of any resolution between the parties that render a scheduled hearing, deposition or meeting unnecessary or otherwise moot.
   5. Consistent with existing law and court orders, attorneys should grant reasonable requests by opposing counsel for extensions of time within which to respond to pleadings, discovery and other matters when such an extension will not prejudice their client or unduly delay a proceeding.
   6. Attorneys should cooperate with opposing counsel during trials and evidentiary hearings by disclosing the identities of all witnesses reasonably expected to be called and the length of time needed to present their entire case, except when their clients’ material rights would be adversely affected. Attorneys should also cooperate with the calling of witnesses out of turn when the circumstances justify it.
   7. The timing and manner of service of papers should not be calculated to disadvantage, overwhelm or embarrass the party receiving the papers. Attorneys should not serve papers simply to take advantage of an opponent’s known absence from the office or at a time or in a manner designed to inconvenience the adversary, such as late in the day (after normal business hours), so close to a court appearance that it inhibits the ability of opposing counsel to prepare for that appearance or to respond to the papers (if permitted by law), or in such other way as would unfairly limit the other party’s opportunity to respond to those papers or other matters pending in the action.
2. DISCOVERY:
   1. Attorneys should pursue discovery requests that are reasonably related to the matter at issue. Attorneys should not use discovery for the purpose of harassing, embarrassing or causing the adversary to incur unnecessary expenses as a means of delaying the timely, efficient and cost effective resolution of a dispute, or to obtain unfair advantage.
   2. Attorneys should ensure that responses to reasonable discovery requests are timely, organized, complete and consistent with the obvious intent of the request. Attorneys responding to document demands and interrogatories should not do so in an artificial manner designed to assure that answers and responses are not truly responsive or solely to attempt to avoid disclosure.
   3. Attorneys should avoid repetitive or argumentative questions, questions asked solely for purposes of harassment or questions that are known to the questioner to be an invasion of the rights of privacy of third parties not present or represented at the deposition.
   4. Attorneys should bear in mind that depositions are to be taken as if the testimony was being given in court. Therefore, they should not engage in any conduct during the deposition that would not be allowed in the presence of a judicial officer. Attorneys should avoid, through objections or otherwise, improper coaching of the deponent or suggesting answers.
   5. Attorneys should meet and confer on discovery requests in a timely manner and make good faith attempts to actually resolve as many issues as possible before proceeding with motions concerning the discovery. Before filing a motion concerning discovery, or otherwise, attorneys should engage in more than a mere pro forma effort to resolve the issue(s).
3. CONDUCT TOWARDS OTHER ATTORNEYS, THE COURT AND PARTICIPANTS:
   1. Attorneys must remember that conflicts with opposing counsel are professional, not personal, that vigorous advocacy is not inconsistent with professional courtesy, and that they should not be influenced by ill feelings or anger between clients in their conduct, attitude or demeanor toward opposing attorneys.
   2. Attorneys should never use the mode, timing or place of serving papers primarily to embarrass a party or witness.
   3. Motions should be filed sparingly, in good faith and when the issue(s) cannot be otherwise resolved. Attorneys should not engage in conduct that forces opposing counsel to file a motion and then not oppose the motion, or provide information called for in the motion only after the motion is filed.
   4. Attorneys should refrain from disparaging or denigrating the court, opposing counsel, parties or witnesses before their clients, the public and the media.
   5. Attorneys should be courteous and respectful (not rude or disruptive) with the court, court personnel, opposing counsel, parties and witnesses (and should encourage their clients and witnesses to do the same).
   6. Attorneys should make an effort to explain to witnesses the purpose of their required attendance at depositions, hearings or trial. They should further attempt to accommodate the schedules of witnesses when setting or resetting their appearance and promptly notify them of an cancellations. Dealings with nonparty witnesses should always be courteous and designed to leave them with an appropriately good impression of the legal system. Attorneys should instruct their clients and witnesses that they are not to communicate with the court on the pending case except with all counsel and/or parties present in a reported proceeding.
   7. Where applicable laws or rules permit an exparte application or communication to the court, before making such an application or communication, attorneys should:
      1. make diligent efforts to notify opposing party or opposing counsel known to represent or likely to represent the opposing party;
      2. make reasonable efforts to accommodate the schedule of such attorney or party to permit the opposing party to be represented;
      3. avoid taking advantage of an opponent’s known absence from the office.
   8. Attorneys should draft agreements and other documents promptly so as to fairly reflect the true intent of the parties.
   9. No attorney shall engage in any act of age, gender, sexual orientation, physical or mental impairment, religion or race bias while engaging in the practice of law in Contra Costa County.
4. CANDOR TO THE COURT AND OPPOSING COUNSEL:
   1. Attorneys should not knowingly misstate, misrepresent or distort any fact or legal authority to the court or to opposing counsel and shall not mislead by inaction or silence. Written materials and oral argument to the court should accurately state current law and fairly represent the party’s position without unfairly attacking the opposing counsel or opposing party.
   2. If, after all briefing allowed by law or the court has been submitted, an attorney locates new authority that s/he desires to bring to the court’s attention at the hearing on the matter, a copy of such new authority shall be provided to both the court and to all opposing counsel in the case at or prior to the hearing.
   3. Attorneys should draft proposed orders promptly. The orders should fairly and adequately represent the ruling of the court. When proposed orders are submitted to counsel for approval, attorneys should promptly communicate any objections to the party preparing the proposed order to encourage good faith discussions concerning the language of the proposed order.
   4. Attorneys should respect and abide by the spirit and letter of all rulings of the court.
   5. Attorneys should not draft letters assigning to opposing party or counsel a position that party or counsel has not taken or to create a “record” of events that have not occurred.
5. EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION:
   1. Attorneys should refrain from actions which cause unnecessary expense or delay the efficient and cost-effective resolution of a dispute.
   2. Whenever appropriate, attorneys should stipulate to all facts and legal authority not reasonably in dispute.
   3. Attorneys should encourage principled negotiations and efficient resolution of disputes on their merits.
   4. Attorneys should be punctual in communications with others, as well as prompt and prepared for all scheduled appearances.
   5. As soon as and and every case can be reasonably evaluated, attorneys should consider whether the client’s interest could be adequately served and the controversy more expeditiously and economically disposed of by settlement, arbitration, mediation or other form of alternative dispute resolution.
   6. Attorneys making objections during a deposition, trial or hearing should do so for legitimate and good faith reasons. Attorneys should not make such objections only for the purpose of making a speech, harassment or delay. All remarks, argument, objections and requests by counsel during trial shall be addressed to the court rather than directly to adversaries. Objections should be in legal form and without argument, unless directed to make argument by the court.
   7. Attorneys shall arrange for the appearance of witnesses during presentation of their case so as to eliminate delay caused by waiting for witnesses who have been placed on call.
APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION IN JUNE OF 1993 (updated October 2009). ADOPTED AND APPENDED TO THE RULES OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT.

Read More

Columbus Nova - A Muellerized Russian Prawn for the unfounded facts of Justice

Connecting Success Factors to Bennett

The Dubious Phone Call and Time Wasting Project

The folks at TPG will have to answer to my Whistleblower Complaints on the truly odd collection of RFPs emanating from companies connected to Richard Blum, William McGlashan, CBRE, Regency Centers, Trammell Crow, Lennar, Catellus.

---

My story is about witness murders, private equity, mergers and acquisitions linked back to the Matter of Bennett v. Southern Pacific lost in 1989.  It was a winnable case as long the witnesses testified.  

xxxx2

Columbus Nova Statement In Response to Inaccurate Media Reports

Columbus Nova is an investment management company solely owned and controlled by Americans. After the inauguration, the firm hired Michael Cohen as a business consultant regarding potential sources of capital and potential investments in real estate and other ventures. Reports that Viktor Vekselberg used Columbus Nova as a conduit for payments to Michael Cohen are false. The claim that Viktor Vekselberg was involved or provided any funding for Columbus Nova's engagement of Michael Cohen is patently untrue. Neither Viktor Vekselberg nor anyone else outside of Columbus Nova was involved in the decision to hire Cohen or provided funding for his engagement.

Additionally, contrary to recent reports, Columbus Nova LLC and Renova U.S. Management, LLC (operated under the Columbus Nova umbrella) are not now, nor have ever been, owned by any foreign entity or person. In fact, since its founding nearly 20 years ago, Columbus Nova has been and continues to be 100% owned by Americans.

As reported in May 2018 by The New York Times, the Renova Group is Columbus Nova’s biggest client. When Columbus Nova formed a management company under the name Renova U.S. Management, its largest client at the time was a Renova Group company. Throughout its existence, Columbus Nova has managed assets on behalf of Renova Group companies and other clients. Columbus Nova itself is not now, and has never been, owned by any foreign entity or person including Viktor Vekselberg or the Renova Group. The same is true with regard to all investment management companies under the Columbus Nova umbrella.

xxxx12

Read More

Connecting Contra Costa Bar Association witness murders, witness intimidation, a Bennett Tragedy

Connecting Contra Costa Bar Association witness murders, witness intimidation, beating counsel, torching counsel, killing counsel offspring on top of murders of Witnesses

The Dubious Phone Call and Time Wasting Project

The folks at TPG will have to answer to my Whistleblower Complaints on the truly odd collection of RFPs emanating from companies connected to Richard Blum, William McGlashan, CBRE, Regency Centers, Trammell Crow, Lennar, Catellus.

---

My story is about witness murders, private equity, mergers and acquisitions linked back to the Matter of Bennett v. Southern Pacific lost in 1989.  It was a winnable case as long the witnesses testified.  

Whether you're the old bar or the new bar or founding members there is no way the witness murders have escaped the eyes of the Contra Costa Bar Association.  

Witness Murders
Murder Suicides
Racketeering
State Bar Complaints

The CCCBA Board of Directors

The Contra Costa County Board of Directors is comprised of four executive officers: President, President-Elect, Secretary, Treasurer, and Past President and twelve Directors.

President

James Wu
Quarles & Brady LLP
1990 N. California Blvd., 8th Floor
Walnut Creek, CA 94596-7261
Phone: (925) 658-0300
LinkedIn Profile

President-Elect

Oliver Greenwood
Law Office of Oliver Greenwood
367 Civic Dr., Suite 2
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Phone: (925) 957-1030
LinkedIn Profile

Secretary

Nicole Mills
Empower Mediation
P.O. Box 2166
Walnut Creek, CA 94595
Phone: (925) 351-3171
LinkedIn Profile

Treasurer

Mika Domingo
M.S. Domingo Law
1475 N. Broadway, Suite 435
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 891-5006
LinkedIn Profile

Past President

Nick Casper
Casper, Meadows, Schwartz & Cook
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 947-1147

Directors

Gina Boer
Haapala, Thompson & Abern, LLP
1939 Harrison St., Suite 800
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 763-2324
LinkedIn Profile

David Erb
Flicker, Kerin, Kruger & Bissada, LLP
3130 Crow Canyon Place, Suite 405
San Ramon, CA 94583
Phone: (925) 327-6200
LinkedIn Profile

David Marchiano
Brown, Gee & Wenger, LLP
200 Pringle Ave., Suite 400
Walnut Creek CA 94596
Phone: (925) 943-5000
LinkedIn Profile

Ericka McKenna
Brothers Smith, LLP
2033 N. Main St., Suite 720
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 944-9700
LinkedIn Profile
Facebook Business Page

Cary McReynolds
CDM Law
4125 Blackhawk Plaza Circle, Suite 207
Danville, CA 94506
Phone: (925) 385-8545
LinkedIn Profile

Craig Nevin
Law Offices of Craig Nevin
1401 Willow Pass Road, Suite 1010
Concord, CA 94520-7921
Phone: (925) 639-0221
LinkedIn Profile

David Pearson
Law Offices of David S. Pearson
48 Kingston Place
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Phone: (925) 287-0051
LinkedIn Profile

Dorian Peters
Phone: (510) 684-7696 

Michael Pierson
Key Counsel, P.C.
3440 Hillcrest Avenue, Suite 100
Antioch, CA 94531
Phone: (925) 238-0444
LinkedIn Profile

Summer Selleck
S.C. Selleck Law
150 N. Wiget Lane, Suite 105
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
Phone: (925) 899-9130
LinkedIn Profile

Qiana Washington
Washington & Associates
1990 N. California Blvd., 8th Floor
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 278-6430
LinkedIn Profile

Rachael Zeiph
Law Office of Rachael I. Zeiph
2255 Contra Costa Blvd., Suite 205
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Phone: (925) 969-9898
LinkedIn Profile

xxxx12

Read More

Connecting Bennett

Connecting Success Factors to Bennett

The Dubious Phone Call and Time Wasting Project

The folks at TPG will have to answer to my Whistleblower Complaints on the truly odd collection of RFPs emanating from companies connected to Richard Blum, William McGlashan, CBRE, Regency Centers, Trammel Crow, Lennar, Catellus.

---

My story is about witness murders, private equity, mergers and acquisitions linked back to the Matter of Bennett v. Southern Pacific lost in 1989.  It was a winnable case as long the witnesses testified.  

ddd

gdfdfdf

xxdfdfdddddddx12

Read More

The Death of Berkeley Fire Tony Nunes was another in a long list of Actors, Lawyers, Public Officials and Stories

District Attorney Priviledge

Topics from Elections to Qaudruple Homicides to Missing Children

xxxx_card_title_xxxx

card_text

The Kinder Care Details

card_text

Tony became a friend via his God Daughter Katelyn Strand. We talked about the devastating Oakland fire, the 1989 Safeway Warehouse Fire, the homeless that in his area that have been killed.

Tony was well informed in regards to my 2004 Arson fire connected former executives of Southern Pacific and Safeway.

The Public Lawyers

---

Council of Chiefs A Collection of Chiefs of Police entrusted to manage and oversee activities of Commander Norman Wielsch.  Somehow they've managed to kill plenty of suspects and non-suspects with 100% impunity.

---

SWAT A group of officers operated under the guise the Contra Costa County Law Enforcement Teams.  The sad truth Timothy Mitchell was shot and killed by associates of Wielsch.  They broke down the door and shot Mitchell
dead then realized they had targeted a suspect living hundreds of miles away.

---

Drug Enforcement Roles

The Contra Costa County Narcotics Enforcement Team

Made up of police officers from local departments, including Walnut Creek, San Ramon, Danville, Pleasant Hill, Martinez and Clayton and the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office. The county Probation Department and the district attorney’s
office have representatives on the council. The task force targets mid- to high-level drug dealers in central Contra Costa.  Members are trained by the Justice Department, work undercover and are available to agencies 24 hours a day,
seven days a week.

---

The Public Lawyers

To many that have seen their near terrorist tactics are known all over Contra Costa County for their often brutal and bruising tactics. In 2009 Timothy Mitchell was shot to death during a warrant search that appears to another botched
SWAT investigation. To some they are taking out a drug dealer (perceived) but to others they are taking a mother son who had a problem. If you want answers to why there so are so many shootings you might to see this as the battlefield
where tactical teams pursue enemy combatants where tactical wins and losses are deemed acceptable. With the scandals reach into the divorce court you migh wonder if the tactical operations were used to glean unsuspecting divorcees of their
assets with unscrupulous divorce attorneys.

---

Mixing Attorneys with cops - a brutal cocktail

They can fleece their clients very easily in fee disputes as the so-called independent arbitrator actually a long time peer of the attorneys in the room. They go through the motions during often the result is the same - pay up the attorney
that screwed you.

Read More