CBS 21 Community

EXCELLENT POST !!!

EnterTheDragon:

05/05/09 B

 

ATTENTION PROSECUTORS!!!

 

YES, I AM CALLING YOU OUT—DAUPHIN COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS, THE PA STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL (SINCE CRIMES OCCURRED IN DIFFERENT STATES), THE F.B.I., AND THE I.R.S.  In a previous post, I challenged prosecutors to proceed with the correct ethical, moral, and legal course of action by charging TAD owner John Walton, President Benjamin Frazier, Vice-President Tom Gardner, Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Ann Richie, and Accountant Chuck Washington with crimes. To add to that, I/we (TAD employees) will not accept any displaced rationale for failing to cite these corporate crooks!!!

 

You cannot claim a failure to prove criminal intent because of management’s possible inexperience, ignorance, or ineptitude. Do not fool yourselves into allowing management to hide behind such faulty reasoning. Likewise, a claim on your part that no laws were broken will not be accepted and will only prove your own inexperience, ignorance, or ineptitude. COME ON PROSECUTORS!!! DO THE RIGHT THING HERE!!!!!

 

The argument that you cannot find criminal intent by reason of inexperience lacks merit. These individuals have received post-secondary education / training and have experience in business matters. John Walton is an investment banker, a securities dealer, a consultant, and an entrepreneur; Ben Frazier and Tom Gardner have been managers before (Frazier attended college with Walton); Ann Richie has a law degree specializing in bankruptcy; and Chuck Washington is an accountant. Walton has owned and/or is directly involved in or operating numerous businesses (see my earlier posts for more information). After seeing their résumés, no jury in the world would ever believe that these individuals were inexperienced in business matters!!!

 

The argument that you cannot find criminal intent by reason of ignorance would be a joke. As previously mentioned, these culprits are not only educated, but are seated in positions of power. You cannot attain positions of power in the business world (company owner, manager, CFO / attorney, accountant) by being ignorant of business laws and of proper business practices! These crooks are educated, with titles, and knew very well they were doing things illegally!!!

 

The argument that you cannot find criminal intent by reason of ineptitude borders on insanity. The fact that a crime occurred repeatedly AND over time proves that they were not inept when it comes to business matters. Let’s face it; ineptitude does not occur in a repeated fashion or over an extended period of time. Such ineptitude, if it were to exist, would eventually be challenged, countered, and reversed by logic, reasoning, and righteous accountability, among other things.

 

Finally, you cannot claim a failure to find laws that were broken because APPLICABLE LAWS DO EXIST in this case! How about CRIMINAL THEFT, MISAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS, and MONEY LAUNDERING!! Breaking these types of laws, in and of themselves, shows criminal intent. Will you take a look at these crimes?

 

CHARGE—Criminal Theft, BASIS FOR CHARGE—(1) occurred repeatedly, INDICATES—criminal intent, METHOD OF CRIME—withholding / misappropriating deductions taken from employees and failing to apply them to health care provider on numerous occasions (this also constitutes “breech of contract” with the union);

(CHARGE—Criminal Theft [continued]), BASIS FOR CHARGE—(2) occurred over time, INDICATES—criminal intent, METHOD OF CRIME—withholding / misappropriating deductions taken from employees and failing to apply them to health care provider over an extended period of time (approximately 5 or 6 months);

(CHARGE—Criminal Theft [continued]), BASIS FOR CHARGE—(3) occurred with deception, INDICATES—criminal awareness / culpability, METHOD OF CRIME—failing to inform employees that their health care deductions were not remitted AND failing to inform employees their health care benefits were terminated;

CHARGE—Misappropriation of Funds, BASIS FOR CHARGE—occurred with corrupt guile,  INDICATES—criminal graft / corporate greed, METHOD OF CRIME—funneling approximately 50% of grant money away from its intended purpose of directly aiding and improving TAD and into corporate coffers and for corporate excesses (a quick walk through the plant will reveal management’s lack of re-investment into the company);

CHARGE—Money Laundering, BASIS FOR CHARGE—occurred with furtive duplicity,  INDICATES—criminal fraud / corporate greed, METHOD OF CRIME—funneling money by means of bogus expenses that are excessive and unnecessary through fraudulent business practices (purchasing a business, selling the land it sits upon to an affiliated company, then self-charging rent).

 

Collectively, these charges represent ECONOMIC LARCENY—THEFT OF GOODS FROM EMPLOYEES, CONSEQUENTLY THE COMMUNITY, AND ULTIMATELY THE NATIONAL ECONOMY. These criminals are engaging in business impoverishment through fraudulent business practices aimed at depleting the assets of a company. It is my position that they should be charged one count for every deduction taken from employees that was not remitted correctly, one count for every employee whom deductions were inappropriately taken from, one count for each misappropriated portion of grant money, and one count for each excessive and unnecessary rent check that was paid to an affiliated company (of John Walton).

 

In closing, this statement provides a logical rationale for charging John Walton, Benjamin Frazier, Tom Gardner, Ann Richie, and Chuck Washington with crimes. They are ALL CULPABLE AND EQUALLY GUILTY!!! Richie and Washington should not be exempt from prosecution as they had to be fully aware of the practices of John Walton, his history of bankrupting companies, and the obvious downturn of conditions at TAD; at the very least they are guilty by association!!! Even if you disagree, it still merits investigation, lest you be guilty of dereliction of duty and lacking of due diligence!!!

 

Because there are so many laws governing crimes dealing with individuals, corporations and businesses—their practices and procedures, and business transactions, DUE DILIGENCE MUST BE GIVEN OR DERELICTION OF DUTY OCCURS!!! Have you prosecutors looked intensively into all the various laws which might be applied in this case? Perhaps you should contact different colleagues with expertise ultimately covering the breadth of law as they might know something you do not (to humble yourself for just cause is noble)! And if you have carefully scrutinized the facts of this case, have you applied your knowledge of the law creatively?

 

For YEARS we heard that tobacco companies could not be successfully prosecuted for damages their cigarettes produce. That was until an aggressive, dedicated, open-minded, and imaginative prosecutor from (I believe) Florida took up the case and filed suit against them and was successful in court. That precedent changed many laws across various cities and different states, changing the environment and culture of the entire nation.

 

DO ANY PROSECUTORS HAVING KNOWLEDGE OF OR HAVING A CONNECTION TO THE TAD CASE POSSESS AGGRESSIVENESS, DEDICATION, OPEN-MINDEDNESS AND CREATIVE IMAGINATION!!!!! I CERTAINLY HOPE SO!!!!!!!!!!

 

ETD

burdened:

Why is there no strike going on?How can this union allow this company to continue to operate.There is NO CONTRACT, Therefore the no strike clause does'nt apply anymore.People will not lose their unemployment compensation for not going to work because the company is not honoring their contractual obligations.Why isnt the union informing members of their rights?

Hi burdened,

Excellent points, by the way! If the management of TAD is contractually obligated through the CBA with the union to provide health care benefits and they fail to do so, THEY ARE IN "BREACH OF CONTRACT" AND IF THEY BREACH THE CONTRACT, THEN NO CONTRACT EXISTS!!!!! Consequently, any "No Strike Clause" written into the language of the CBA becomes nugatory—just worthless and invalid statements that are no longer actionable! What will the company do if you go on strike; sue the union for not following a contract that they (the company) already breached???

As I mentioned previously, I will be looking into the actions and/or inactions of the union currently in place at TAD.

Keep up the good work burdened,
ETD