West Michigan News Company

Home

West Michigan News Company

Home Page

Contact   About   Subscribe

Subscribe to

Automatic Data Processing presents 2018 Tax Changes:

   Download pdf  2018 Tax Changes  

Government v Private Sector

By Pat Foster


When I was in high school in the late fifties, I had checked various careers. I wanted to be an oceanographer, and work for the government in that capacity. At the time, government employees made substantially less than the private sector, and I remember my grandfather talking me out of career even though my heart was truly into it. I am now a Certified Public Accountant with over 45 years experience as a tax accountant.

Today, the whole thing is reversed as the graph above prepared by the Congressional Budget Office clearly shows. Erich Wagner writes in the Government Executive that the differential can be attributed to the fact that federal government employees largely still have “defined benefit pension” plans that have “largely disappeared  in the private sector.” The private sector is therefore guaranteeing benefits to government workers, and the private sector is being taxed to pay those benefits out of salaries and wages that are below their government counterparts.


When did this big change occur? James Douglass in his JFK and the unspeakable made the point that when JFK was assassinated on Nov. 23, 1963, there was a coup de tat that took place in our government. The argument he makes points the finger directly at the CIA and the Joint Chief’s of Staff in carrying out the assassination under the direction of Alan Dulles, the first head of the CIA. Mr. Dulles was fired by JFK for setting the president up at the Bay of Pigs in Cuba. Chief Justice Warren was appointed to head the investigation into JFK’s assassination, and he appointed Alan Dulles to chair the committee investigating it.


The conclusion that Mr. Douglass made relative to the CIA and the Joint Chief’s of Staff was in line with most other investigative reports on the subject. Mr. Douglass’s conclusion that there was a coup de tat was strictly his own, and he made a very convincing argument, but it needed some backup proof to make it more credible.

 

The one department that the CIA would need to control in order to control the government was elections. To control them, you would not put your operatives in the highest position of each department, but it would be an underling that actually controlled, so if there was a problem, the head of the department could be changed, while the real power was at the underlings position. In the Michigan Bureau of Elections, the head was Chris Thomas in 2009 when I started my audit of the 2008 General Election. His underling was Brad Whitman. On Aug. 23, 2009, when I put four groups of volunteers to go to various townships and cities in Allegan County and request to see the ballots under the Freedom of Information Act, it was Brad Whitman who the clerk’s called and he controlled how each clerk would decline our requests.

In 2010 as the audit was coming to a close, and the Attorney General, Mike Cox issued AG Opinion 7247 allowing the citizens to see and photograph the ballots under a Freedom of Information request, I ran an article regarding my theory about Brad Whitman, and within six weeks he was replaced. We must then ask who governs us; if elections are fake, what keeps elected officials there?


Collusion Between Ganges Township’

And the Developers on

Recreation Development Subdivision No. 1

By Pat Foster


The developer of the  platted subdivision placed a dedication on the plat that the two private roads Blue Goose Avenue and Mallard Street are dedicated to the use of the lot owners and adjacent property owners. The validity of this dedication is now before both the Michigan Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. This subdivision was platted in 1965 under the Plat Act of 1929, which was replaced in 1967 by the Subdivision Control Act, which was amended 1998 as the Land Division Act of 1967. Neither act provides for “adjacent property owners”, and there are no cases involved with this issue. Both acts have a simple way of providing for “adjacent property owners” by dedicating the road not as private, but as public. This meets the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution’s “equal protection under the law” clause. If the road is public, both the lot owners and the “adjacent property owners” are subject to the same law, like who pays for the maintenance and upkeep of the road. When the road is dedicated as “private” it allowed the township to take money from both both the developers and “adjacent property owners” to the detriment of the lot owners.


























Proofs regarding validity of dedication:


Dedication itself:


Recreation Development Corporation developed two platted developments by purchasing a ¼ section or just over 48 acres on Lake Hutchins in 1964 shown in the tax map above. The two platted subdivisions are Recreation Development Subdivision on Lake Hutchins and Recreation Development Subdivision No. 1 (RDS1) on a channel off of Lake Hutchins. The plats accounted for approximately 22 acres, while 9 acres were adjacent to the platted roads, and the balance allocated to wet lands and road ways. By the time the developers recorded the plat for RDS1 on Nov. 12, 1965, they owned not only all of the lots for the plat, but all of the adjacent properties.


The two sets of principals that controlled Recreation Development Corporation (RDC) were the Dangermond brothers doing business as ERA Resorts, a partnership, and Myron Sale and his wife. RDC deeded ERA Resorts all of the adjacent properties on April 1, 1967 almost a year and half after the subdivision was platted. This parcel included the adjacent properties south of Mallard Street. Myron Sale and his wife were not distributed the adjacent properties until much later on a deed dated Jan. 31, 1977, and it included the four parcels west of Blue Goose Avenue.


It is an established rule of law that an owner cannot create an easement across their own property. There is a motion and brief in support of that motion before the Michigan Supreme Court questioning the validity of the dedication on the plat based upon not only establishing an easement across their own property, but the violation of the  “equal protection under the law” clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.


Collusion between the township and the developer:












The township approved two land division applications to “adjacent property owners” that we currently have.   One was on the south side of Mallard Street. As you can see from the tax map above, none of the land parcels just to the south of Mallard Street have frontage on the public road, 122nd Avenue. The land division application (Exhibit A) proposed that one parcel, which is a “division” has frontage on an existing public road.” It is obvious from looking at the tax map that this statement is false.


Roger Dengermond, one of the principals of RDC signed an affidavit that states “ I agree the statements made above are true, and if found not to be true this application and any approval will be void.”  (Ex A2) Ganges Township issued two building permits on Mallard Street based upon a “void” application filed under the Land Division Act of 1967. This application was not been approved by the township assessor on page 2 (Ex A2), but it appears that on page 4 (Ex A4), Melvin Koenes the assessor accepted it on May 17,2000.


A second land division application (Exhibit B) on Blue Goose Avenue was accepted on both page 2 (Ex B2) and page 6 (Ex B6) by Mr. Koenes. Again on the first page, it states that “each new division has frontage on a public road”.  The map on page 3 shows that out of four divisions, only one has frontage on a public road, the other three are on Blue Goose Avenue. Pages B7 through B10 are soil evaluations that show The water table to be at 6’, 18”, 3’, and 5’ respectively. That is why they could not get it to be accepted as buildable under their plat application.


Continued  









Continued

The West Michigan News Company is an interactive, investigative news service that differs from everyone else. Like a good mystery novel, we present clues in the form of facts and documents that are hyper linked into the article. Exhibit identifications are in the upper right corner of the document if indexed. All documents that are hyper-linked are shown as separate documents from your internet pages, so you can refer to them as you read or save them. Become a detective and show me where I am wrong. There are always multiple sides to every issue. It is fun, and you will certainly know a lot more about the world you live in.

Shareholder Objects to Class Action Lawsuit Because of Collusion Between Plaintiff & Defendants

Pat Foster


CenturyLink, Inc was originally started as the Oak Ridge Telephone Company in Oak Ridge, Louisiana by F.E. Hogan, Sr in 1930. He sold the company with 75 paid subscribers, to Clarke Williams and Marie Williams for $500. It was operated out of their front parlor until 1947 when they gave it to their son, Clarke Williams. The son then expanded his new business by acquiring the Marion Telephone Company which became the base of his operations. The formula for success in the telephone business that the son learned was to use the value of his existing business to acquire other corporations, thereby growing his business over the years. See Wikipedia - CenturyLink.

After multiple 3 for 2 stock splits, and steady growth through acquisitions during the late twentieth century, the son of the company’s original founder and Chairman of the Board Clarke M. Williams died in 2002. He was succeeded by then Vice Chairman Glen F. Post III.

October 31, 2016, CenturyLink announced its intention to acquire Level 3 Communications in a deal valued at around $25 billion. This deal was closed on November 1, 2017. The shareholders of CenturyLink have an issue with the deal. Todays current value for the combined companies is $16.6 billion, which is a substantial decrease in value to the CenturyLink shareholders of $25 billion at the time of the merger.  A 20 year chart showing the price of CenturyLink stock indicates a low of the stock over a 20 year period since Glen F. Post III took control of the company.


Up until 2016, when the company announced it’s intention to merge with with Level 3 Communications, the stock never dropped below $25/share. After that announcement, it started a downhill slide where today it is only valued at around $16/share, or a 36% drop hitting lows that it had not seen in the period from 2002 until the date of the announced merger. Jeffery Tomasulo, a trader and founder of Vespula Capital filed a class action lawsuit against CenturyLink, Inc., it’s CEO, and Directors for “himself and all other shareholder’s similarly situated.”

In his petition  that he filed on Jan. 11, 2017, Mr. Tomasulo alleged that “Defendants caused CentuyLink to conceal material information from Plaintiff and CenturyLink’s other public shareholders.”  See page 2. On or around the 2nd or 3rd of January, 2018 shareholders received a Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action . On page 4 of this notice, plaintiff stated:

“Beginning Jan. 24, 2017, counsel for the Defendants and counsel for the Plaintiff engaged in good faith discussions with regard to the possible settlement of the Action.

As a result of these negotiations, the Parties reached an agreement concerning the settlement of the Action, which was set forth in a Memorandum of Understanding dated as of February 13, 2017 and formalized in the Stipulation.”

They give the shareholders no access to the stipulation, and when I called the Plaintiff’s law firm, The Brualdi Law Firm, PC, and asked for a copy, nothing was ever done by them. None of the court filings made by either plaintiff or defendants were made available to the shareholders. If you wanted to file an objection, you must serve both plaintiff and defendants so that they have it in their hands by January 15, 2019 or 14 days prior to the hearing. The settlement was just as Mr. Tomasulo claimed in his petition to hide the true information of what happened from the shareholders, but now he was a party to the deception.

The case was filed in Monroe, Louisiana, which is where the corporate headquarters for CenturyLink are located. The company is the largest company in Monroe, and exerts a lot of influence. The court is asked to rule on the motion which is supported by the stipualtion between the parties. The settlement states:

“Settled Claims” means any and all claims, demands, rights, action or causes of action, costs, expenses, amounts, liabilities, damages, losses, obligations, judgements, suits, matters, and issues of any kind or nature whatsoever, whether known or unknown, contingent or absolute, suspected or unsuspected, disclosed or undisclosed, that have been or could have been asserted in the Action or in any court, tribunal or proceeding (including, but not limited to, any claims arising under federal, state, common or foreign law, whether such claims relate to alleged fraud, breach of duty, negligence or violation of federal or state securities laws) by or on behalf of the Plaintiff in the Action, his successors and assigns, or by any and all of the members of the Class…”

Blanche Hudson’s objection:

Ms Hudson had 9 shares of CenturyLink, Inc and she mailed her objection to the plaintiffs, defendants, court clerk, and included a Judges Copy on Jan. 11, 2019, and it was received by all parties on Jan. 14, 2019, one day before the required due date. Mr. Tomasulo, the Plaintiff in his original Petition named two large banks in the conspiracy to get shareholders to accept the merger with Level 3. Bank of America (BofA - Merrill Lynch) and Morgan Stanley.

BofA was to receive $3 million for a fairness opinion attached to the merger prospectus that states:

“Based upon and subject to the foregoing, including the various assumptions and limitations set forth herein, we are of the opinion on the date hereof that the Consideration to be paid in the Transacation by CenturyLink is fair, from a financial point of view to CenturyLink.”

BofA was to receive $35 million for services rendered. $3 million was designated for their “fairness opinion”, while $32 million was contingent upon consummation of the merger.

Morgan Stanley’s favorable opinion stated “that the Consideration to be paid by the Buyer pursuant to the Merger Agreement is fair from a financial point of view to the Buyer.”  $12 million of Morgan Stanley’s $15 million was contingent upon consummation or the Merger Agreement.”

While plaintiff and defendants had two years to tell the shareholders that the agreement made between them was to strip their constitutional rights of due process away from them, neither plaintiff nor defendants said anything prior to mailing the Notice of Pendancy two years after making the agreement. Two major banks played a major role in deceiving the public at large.  Ms Hudson and other shareholders had at best a week and half to object to an agreement where the primary litigants would win at the expense of the CenturyLink shareholders.

The question now is what will the judge in Monroe, Louisiana do at the hearing scheduled for Jan. 29, 2019? Ms Hudson plans to appeal any acceptance of the motion before it, and start another Class Action suit with people like her who are angry at the way the CEO and Board of Directors of CenturyLink, Inc have treated them for possible personal gains.

Ms Hudson’s objection has all relevant documents that both plaintiff and defendants refused to make available.