Business Watch 23Categories
Pages
-
Recent Posts
Archives
Tags
-
Top Clicks
- None
Hi Visa Card CEO (Discover) Mr. Nelms:
For some odd reason I have not received my current credit card, which was good through February 2006, although you have had my current address for many months now, provided in my 05-08-2007 letter to you. I understand that I am a little behind the ball, but I rarely use credit cards. I do, however, desire to have this card RE-ACTIVATED with a super mature line of my earned credit limit ASAP in the event of unforeseen emergencies.
The card was held in both my & my now deceased partner mom’s, Rosemarie Bonas, name. I didn’t handle any bit of that estate, but I sense that the administrator of that estate decided to cancel my card on me, for some odd reason. His name is Bradley O’Husky. Please send me a copy of that purchase & payment file. I shall require that in re-viewing his unauthorized, self appointed, illegitimate in-testate handling of my & my moms’ affairs. My Card Number Is: 6011 0004 7020 1009.
Now I don’t know if this is true or not, but the administrator of my Rose Bonas’ in testate estate told me, by proxy, that he used my funds to pay a $24,000 balance on that card of mine, without my knowledge, which I apprised you of many months ago now, in multiple memos, like my March 17-2007 letter to you (Point Contract Agents). If that $24,000 was in fact paid to you, I’d also like confirmation as to exactly whose bank account IT was cut from. And, IF it was cut from or signed by an “O’Husky, Carrie or Brad,” account, IT was not cut from ME & was not authorized, which triggers “trespass to money property” actions, which you are now party to, directly, given your breach of duties, if that was the case, so you know.
MY NON-IN-TESTATE ESTATE
With the above in mind, IF the O’Husky’s unauthorized administration of my non-in-testate estate was wrongly executed, wrongly closing my Discover account with you, please cut that check-back, with interest, to me directly.
I was recently cut 100% back from my job (laid off) & I need that money of mine to survive – to cover my very basic overhead costs: food, gas, car, cloths, shelter, & so forth. As I explained in detail months ago, I prefer sticking with my monthly payments IF there is any outstanding balance on my account.
My partner mom & I, who shared that account, like our real estate mortgage bill of credit, since 1993, by my side contract with on title until ’04 Aaron Petersen, at 639 Roskilde Dr., Solvang, California, have been clients members of yours since 1999, so you know. And so you know, were, by definitions, silent, well known & well documented partners: silent partner n. a non-legal term for one who puts money into an enterprise … is often unknown to others.[1]
Date: 09-23-07 By
[1] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/silent%20partner
Good day Mr. Sloan & Joanne Remke:
I have an application packet from you to re-activate my status with you, which I am analyzing for publication. In connection with that, I have a couple questions about your progress in Uniting by the Supremely binding rules our founders outlined for US.
First, I was wondering why your staff endorses underwriters, contracting with them to emit, which means sell, credit, which insurance is? In your ad campaign you said, verbatim:
A) The State Bar [Ms Remke & Mr. Bleich[1]] of California endorses several … Insurance [company CEO] Programs;
B) NEW JANUARY 2006! Auto/Homeowners Insurance: The State Bar of California has teamed up with Liberty Mutual [and underwriters];
C) Life Insurance Programs [State people emit Bill of Credit];
D) Underwritten by American General Life;
E) Underwritten by American General Life. Contact Raquel Hines at 415-538-2201 for … information;
F) [Mrrs. Nisperos & Bleich’s] State Bar’s … Dismemberment insurance program;
G) Long Term Care Insurance [State Bill of Credit Emission]; &
H) The State Bar Endorse[s] … Insurance Program[s] … [&] discount– rates.[2]
The above facts viewed in light of the rule, no statesman, like Ms. Remke & Mr. Jeffrey Bleich shall “team up” with, meaning contract with, for money, anyone who sells credit, which insurance is. I am confused about sending the message that it is O.K. for a Statesmen to emit, which means sell, insurance credit when the rule says it is NOT O.K., Article 1:10, which is required, as opposed to elective, teaching in A) high school, B) College & C) graduate school & D) law school. Perhaps I’m missing something, but I checked a lot!
I do agree with you stating that your aim is, “To ensure that lawyers receive quality legal education, [but when you say] the State Bar [Mr. Bleich] approves MCLE Providers and education activities,” I wonder if you contract with the executive providers you “approve” for A) Sugar Concessions & B) not to educate about Supremely controlling rules that don’t align with your State bill of credit emission business, for example? Now I know how lucrative emitting credit insurance is because my uncle, Jimmy Munoz, does it. But, I was thinking that your selling “Maybe” credit might have something to do with the way unbalanced distribution of wealth & poverty levels: [O]f the wealth in America, the bottom 40% hold .03%’01 study.[3]
See my INS files & loss of Citizenship, filed with Sitgraves, LA. INS court – ’09 to be!
The Money Sadists
Money sadists play vicious power games with money as a way of asserting their power & greed. They often, for example, make you wait for money that is owed you, promising things like “the check is in the mail” or ignoring a legitimate debt reality.
The Bargain – Demon
Powerful people judge everything by what it costs, not just in money but in time, dignity, & peace of mind. And this is exactly what bargain demons can not do. Wasting valuable time, they balk.[1]
The Cash & The Power
In the realm of power, everything must be judged by its costs, & everything has a price. What is offered for free or at the bargain rates often comes with a psychological price TAG – complicated feelings of obligation, compromised rule bending & so forth.
The powerful learn early to protect their most valuable resources: independence and room to maneuver. By paying the full price, they keep themselves free of dangerous entanglement & worries.
Being open & flexible with money also teaches the value of strategic generosity, a variation on the old trick of “giving when you are about to take.”
The Greedy Fish & False Sincerity
The greedy fish take the human side out of money. Cold & ruthless, they see only the lifeless numbers & chances to come up at another’s expense, viewing others solely as pawns, they trample on people’s sentiments & alienate valuable allies. No one wants to work or associate with the Greedy Fish, & over the years they end up isolated, which often proves their own undoing.
Some play with money control power & lose it all by a fatal mistake. Some go too far. Others make all the right moves, drawing power to oneself with an almost superhuman dexterity.
The Mirror Effect
The mirror reflects reality, but it is also the perfect tool for deception; when you mirror your rivals words & behavior, they, like human animals, often over-react. Few can resist the power of the Mirror Effect. Mirrors have the power to disturb us. In using the mirror effect, mimicking their acts & words, in context, they feel mocked, they get angry & react defensively, often animal like, lying & creating false records of fact & character assassination attacks. The Mirror Effect is a powerful psychological tool because it operates on the most primitive man animal emotions, as expected.
The “verbatim” mirror effect applied, in the money control context, follows!
[1] The Concise 48 Laws of Power, by Robert Green (2002, Profile Books Ltd.). All cites to this book!
Cooper & Bonas
21355 Bungalow Court
Valencia, California 91355
Date: 04-11-08
RE: In Re Williams Securitites Lit (80 Mil – Hmm!)
Greetings honorable Justice Friot Clerks:
This is another part of our “insider” briefing about the “prices” submitted, under oath, by leads. The enclosed CD provides detailed fact & law background, in condensed format.
First, with regard to the owed check & balance relating to the sticker price tags lead counsel has sworn, under oath, to have been set by legal price protocol & the monstrous hours billed to the case to have been “necessary & proper,” from A-Z, in this nature of cookie cutter class actions, as the supreme court said:
[S]imply ignores the “practical economics” of the matter.[1]
Second, what rival lead counsel sold to the court with no questions asked is their price & hour units in this joint venture case partnership. A summary view reveals that these rivals have entirely aligned, within a maximum and minimum price box, their “matched” items sold (staff time, from A-Z). Here is a court verified sticker price tag formulary sample:
MAX
Third, in light of the owed disclosure confirming “correct hourly price protocol (See Attached Ex 300 short one page package), Bernstein’s Artificial ’07 Max $750 creates the false perception that those under that number are not grossly inflated & aligned, in concert, in lieu of employing correct, isolated or independent price right protocol:
$750 (Bernstein’s Artificial Max)
$675 (Squire & Kirby Rival) ‘07
$695 (Bernstein’s Shulman Rival) ‘07
$695 (Bernstein’s Coffey Kirby Rival) ‘07
Min – Floor Roof
Bernstein’s Max Berger’s Minimum Price Structure, by getting & using:
$150 Interns – Law Clerks – Paralegals (Secretaries? – I.D. & Name Check Up)
Kirby, Mcinerney & Jeffrey Squire’s Minimum Price Match Alignment
$150 Interns – Law Clerks – Paralegals – Secretaries?
Ex A (Berstein’s Price Formulary Schedule)
Ex B (Kirby Squire’s Matched Item Price Schedule):
Matched Unit Items
Structured By Unit Person
Fourth, the matched Unit items, from partner to paralegal (not mentioning units of secretaries they charge for, by the “matched unit hour,” called “professional staff), here I draw the factual protocol parallel to other retail chain very top shot caller’s “matched unit item” price protocol:
Ex 07-11-06 La Brea Fat Alb (See My Bair Nicholas’ 01-10-00 “IT” debriefing)
Ex 10-30-96 Co Chino Hills (See My Bair Nicholas’ 01-10-00 “IT” debriefing)
Ex 04-01-97 Von Empire Ralph (Bair Nicholas’ 01-10-00 “IT” debriefing)
Ex 02-25-07 S Tater Bros (Bair Nicholas’ 01-10-00 “IT” debriefing)
About IT, these supreme quotes place the criminal conspiracy on all fours, verbatim:
The exchange of price information seemed to have the effect of keeping prices within a fairly narrow ambit. 393 U.S. 333, 336 (’69)
The continuation of some price competition is not fatal to the Government’s case. The limitation or reduction of price competition brings the case within the ban, for, as we held in United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., supra, at 310 U. S. 224, n. 59, interference with the setting of price by free market forces is unlawful per se. Price information exchanged in some markets may have no effect on a truly competitive price. But the … industry is dominated by relatively few [lead counsel] sellers. The product is fungible, and the competition for sales is [not] …. For a lower price does not mean a larger share of the available business, but a sharing of the existing business at a lower return. Stabilizing prices as well as raising them is within the ban of § 1 of the Sherman Act. As we said in United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., supra, at 310 U. S. 223, “in terms of market operations, stabilization is but one form of manipulation.” The inferences are irresistible that the exchange of price information has had an anticompetitive effect in the industry, chilling the vigor of price competition. The agreement in the present case, though somewhat casual, is analogous to those in American Column & Lumber Co. v. United States, 257 U. S. 377, and United States v. American Linseed Oil Co., 262 U. S. 371. [Footnote 3] 393 U.S. 333, 337 (’69).
Now, About “Matched” or Narrow Ambit Law Clerk Sticker Prices – Paralegal Unit’s Sticker Tag Prices all the way up to Max’s Top Esquires’ Unit Price Alignment:
(a) The agreements do not escape condemnation under the per se rule against price-fixing agreements because they are horizontal and fix maximum prices. Horizontal agreements to fix maximum prices are on the same legal – even if not economic – footing as agreements to fix minimum or uniform prices.[2] The per se rule is violated here by a price restraint that tends to….
(b) Nor does the fact that doctors rather than nonprofessionals are the parties to the price-fixing agreements preclude application of the per se rule. Respondents do not claim that the quality of the professional services their members provide is enhanced by the price restraint, Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773 , and National Society of Professional Engineers v. United States, 435 U.S. 679 , distinguished, and their claim that the price restraint will make it easier for customers to pay does not distinguish the medical profession from any other provider of goods or services. Pp. 348-349.
(c) That the judiciary has had little antitrust experience … is insufficient reason for not applying the per se rule here. “[T]he Sherman Act, so far as price-fixing agreements are concerned, establishes one uniform rule applicable to all industries alike.” United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150, 222 .
All Industries – All Trades
(d) The per se rule is not rendered inapplicable in this case for the alleged reason that the agreements in issue have procompetitive justification. The anticompetitive potential in all price-fixing agreements justifies their facial invalidation even if procompetitive justifications are offered for some. Even when [Niche Esquire] respondents are given every benefit of doubt, the record in this case is not inconsistent with the presumption that respondents’ agreements will not significantly enhance competition. The most that can be said for having doctors fix the maximum prices is that doctors may be able to do it more efficiently than insurers, but there is no reason to believe any savings that might accrue from this arrangement would be sufficiently great to affect the competitiveness of these kinds of … plans. Pp. 351-354.
(e) Respondents’ maximum [attorney] -fee schedules do not involve price-fixing in only a literal sense. Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 441 U.S. 1 , distinguished. As agreements among independent competing entrepreneurs, they fit squarely into the horizontal price-fixing mold. Pp. 355-357. 643 F.2d 553, reversed.[3]
It Fits Squarely Into The Per Se,
Meaning There Is No Defense Esq. Rig Mold
Container, 393 U.S. 333, 336 (’69) (Footnote 4) reads, verbatim:
Thorstein Veblen in The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904) makes clear … the … business appetite to regulate or control prices or output or both. And so the restless, never-ending search for price control and other types of restraint.
Ruinous competition, financial disaster, evils of price-cutting, and the like appear throughout our history as ostensible justifications for price-fixing. If the so-called competitive abuses were to be appraised here, the reasonableness of prices would necessarily become an issue in every price-fixing case. In that event, the Sherman Act would soon be emasculated; its philosophy would be supplanted by one which is wholly alien to a system of free competition; it would not be the charter of freedom which its framers intended.”
Respectfully Submitted,
Gary Joseph Bonas II
[1] Summit Health, LTD v. Pinas, 500 U.S. 322, 337-338 (1991).
[2] Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 340 U.S. 211; Albrecht v. Herald Co., 390 U.S. 145 .
[3] Arizona, 457 U.S. 332, 332-333 (1982).
Welcome to IT.
