Housing Discrimination by Trinity Center Walnut Creek / CONTACT HUD: CALIFORNIA

The Trinity Discrimination Center used to arrest, detain, jail while intimidating a witness.

This guitar vanished during a tow conducted by Regional Parking in connection with Wilson Meany, Bob Powers, Benny Chetcuti Jr., certain members of the Walnut Creek Downtown / Walnut Creek Chamber and B & D Towing under orders by the Walnut Creek Police (Pre Chaplin)

CONTACT HUD: CALIFORNIA

For general questions about HUD or its programs, contact the HUD office nearest you. In California, offices are located in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Santa Ana.

For questions about FHA loans or programs, contact our FHA Resource Center:

• Find the answer online
• Email us
• Call toll-free (800) CALL-FHA (800-225-5342)
• TTY: (800) 877-8339 or dial 7-1-1 (Not available in all areas.)

For questions about HUD rental programs, including Housing Choice (Section 8) Vouchers, contact our Public and Indian Housing (PIH) Information Resource Center:

• Email us
• Call toll-free (800) 955-2232
• TTY: (800) 877-8339 or dial 7-1-1 (Not available in all areas.)

Los Angeles Field Office

United States Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD)
Los Angeles Field Office
300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 4054
Los Angeles, CA 90012

Phone: (213) 894-8000
Email: Customer Service
Fax: (213) 894-8107
TTY: (213) 894-8133 or (800) 877-8339 or dial 7-1-1 (Not available in all areas.)

Jurisdiction: Primarily Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Mono, Inyo, San Diego and Imperial Counties

Vacant, Field Office Director
Contact the Director's Office

Office Hours: 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Monday through Friday
Get Directions

San Francisco Regional Office

Dept. of Housing and Urban Development
One Sansome Street, Suite 1200
San Francisco, CA 94104

Phone: (415) 489-6400
Email: Customer Service
Fax: (415) 489-6419
TTY: (800) 877-8339 or dial 7-1-1 (Not available in all areas.)

Jurisdiction: San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Sonoma, Solano, Santa Cruz, San Benito, Monterey, Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino and Lake Counties; Northern 23 California Counties: Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, El Dorado, Glenn, Lassen, Modoc, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Tuolumne, Yolo, and Yuba Counties; Stanislaus, Madera, Merced, Mariposa, Fresno, Kings, Tulare and Counties in California's Central Valley, 

Christopher Patterson, Regional Administrator
Contact the Administrator's Office

Office Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
Monday through Friday
Get Directions

Santa Ana Field Office

Dept. of Housing and Urban Development
Santa Ana Federal Building
34 Civic Center Plaza
Room 7015
Santa Ana, CA 92701-4003

Phone: (714) 796-5577
Email: Customer Service
Fax: (202) 485-5705
TTY: (213) 894-8133 or (800) 877-8339 or dial 7-1-1 (Not available in all areas.)

Jurisdiction: Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties

Thomas Rose, Acting Field Office Director
Contact the Director's Office

Santa Ana Homeownership Center (FHA)
Insures single family FHA loans and oversees the selling of HUD homes. The Santa Ana Homeownership Center serves the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. We also serve the Pacific Islands of American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas.

Phone: (800) CALL FHA or (800) 225-5342
TTY: (800) 877-8339 or dial 7-1-1 (Not available in all areas.)
Email: Customer Service
Fax: (202) 485-5716

Office Hours: 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Monday through Friday
Get Directions

Read More

The Antitrust Division’s Citizen Complaint Center (CCC) antitrust.complaints@usdoj.gov

 

CITIZEN COMPLAINT CENTER

To report antitrust concerns to the Antitrust Division:

• Step 1: Fully Describe Your Concern
• Step 2: Submit the Concern to the Citizen Complaint Center

Please keep in mind that the Antitrust Division is prohibited from giving legal advice to private individuals.

STEP 1: FULLY DESCRIBE YOUR CONCERN

If you have information about a possible antitrust violation or potential anticompetitive activity, use the following questions as a guideline to describe your complaint:

• What are the names of companies, individuals, or organizations that are involved?
• How do you believe they have violated the federal antitrust laws? (For details on federal antitrust laws, see Antitrust Laws and You.)
• Can you give examples of the conduct that you believe violates the antitrust laws? If so, please provide as much detail as possible.
• What is the product or service affected by this conduct? Where is the product manufactured or sold, or where is the service provided?
• Who are the major competitors that sell the product or provide the service?
• What is your role in the situation in question?
• Who is harmed by the alleged violations? How are they harmed?

STEP 2: SUBMIT THE CONCERN TO THE CITIZEN COMPLAINT CENTER

You may submit your concern by e-mail, regular mail, or phone.

E-mail	antitrust.complaints@usdoj.gov
Mail	Citizen Complaint Center Antitrust Division 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Room 3322 Washington, DC 20530
Phone	1-888-647-3258 (toll free in the U.S. and Canada) or 202-307-2040

HOW WE HANDLE YOUR COMPLAINT

The Antitrust Division’s Citizen Complaint Center (CCC) handles complaints in the following way:

1. The CCC creates a record of the information that you provided.
2. The CCC conducts a preliminary review of your complaint for possible antitrust violations.
3. If your complaint raises sufficient concern under the Federal antitrust laws, the CCC refers it to the appropriate Division legal staff where additional research may lead to a formal investigation into the reported conduct.
4. If the Division needs more information, we will contact you typically within one month of submitting your complaint. Due to the confidential nature of Division investigations, you will not be notified if we open an investigation.

In some instances, the volume of mail, e-mail, and phone calls on a particular issue is so great that we cannot respond to each message individually. We would like you to know, however, that your views are important and all incoming correspondence is reviewed for possible antitrust violations.

Confidentiality Policy and Privacy Policy

Our Confidentiality Policy and Privacy Policy apply to all complaints received by the Antitrust Division.

CRIMINAL ANTITRUST LENIENCY PROGRAM FOR CORPORATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS

Individuals or companies who (a) believe they may have been involved in criminal antitrust violations and (b) cooperate with the Antitrust Division can avoid criminal conviction, fines, and prison sentences if they meet the conditions of the Division’s Leniency Program.

Leniency application instructions, the Division’s corporate and individual leniency policies, model leniency letters, and other information regarding the Division’s Leniency Program are available on the Leniency Program page.

Updated November 22, 2019

Read More

Former Symantec Programmer Speaks About Cyberterrorism

Connecting Success Factors to Bennett to other deals

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 and more. .

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.

In 2013 my letter to Fremont Group in San Francisco triggered of You by Accenture CEO Pierre Nanterme. 

I watched his post regarding his cancer sadly in 2019 he was gone.

Several months later they arrested the CEO of tpg growth, who has a relationship the success factors and tpg Newbridge Richard Blum, and tpg purchased Prepaid Legal renamed it as LegalShield are the same people that walked away from my legal case involving the Russians in 2001 something about 9/11.

Intel and TPG in talks to sell McAfee to Thoma Bravo for significantly more than $4.2 billion

PUBLISHED FRI, DEC 14 20183:20 PM ESTUPDATED FRI, DEC 14 20184:21 PM EST

• Private equity firm Thoma Bravo is in early talks to acquire all of McAfee from TPG and Intel, sources say.
• TPG acquired a majority stake in McAfee in 2017 in a deal that valued the cybersecurity company at $4.2 billion.
• Thoma Bravo would pay a “significant” premium to $4.2 billion if a deal occurs, sources say.
• Thoma Bravo isn’t likely to pursue a deal for Symantec if it acquires McAfee, sources say.

Private equity firm Thoma Bravo is in early discussions to acquire security software company McAfee from TPG and Intel for a significant premium over the company’s 2016 $4.2 billion valuation, according to people familiar with the matter.

Talks may still fall apart and a deal announcement isn’t expected soon, said the people, who asked not to be named because the discussions are private.

McAfee, founded by John McAfee in 1987, historically developed cybersecurity software for personal computers and servers, protecting users from malware and other viruses. This type of computer security prevented attacks on personal devices. More recently, it has expanded into mobile devices and cloud computing, which is where hackers have migrated.

The company was publicly traded until 2010, when Intel bought it for $7.6 billion. The chipmaker hoped to closely align its chips with McAfee’s security technology. That vision didn’t pan out for Intel, which took a haircut of more than $3 billion when it sold 51 percent of the business to TPG in a deal announced in 2016 at a valuation of $4.2 billion. Several months later, TPG brought on Thoma Bravo to make a minority investment.

TPG’s majority ownership has helped transform the McAfee business in less than two years with add-on acquisitions. In January, McAfee closed its takeover of Skyhigh Networks, which helps companies monitor which cloud services employees are using. In March, McAfee also acquired Tunnelbear, which provides virtual private networks that protect data when using shared WiFi accounts.

Intel sees itself as purely a financial investor in McAfee now, according to one of the people. Still, Intel has participated in the recent value creation of the standalone McAfee by holding its minority stake and stands in line to recoup some of the lost value if the Thoma Bravo deal goes though. A deal would unify the ownership of McAfee and could put it in position to go public again, two of the people said.

Reuters reported in November that Thoma Bravo had approached Symantec with a takeover offer. A deal for McAfee would rule out a Symantec purchase, one of the people said.

Spokespeople for TPG and Intel declined to comment. A spokesman for Thoma Bravo did not immediately respond.

--CNBC’s Jon Fortt contributed to this report.

Correction: When Intel sold its partial stake in McAfee to TPG in 2016, McAfee’s total valuation in that transaction was $4.2 billion.

Read More

Justice Department Files Antitrust Lawsuit to Block AT&T’s Acquisition of T-Mobile

Home » Office of Public Affairs » News

SHARE

JUSTICE NEWS

Department of Justice

Office of Public Affairs

---

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Justice Department Files Antitrust Lawsuit to Block AT&T’s Acquisition of T-Mobile

Transaction Would Reduce Competition in Mobile Wireless Telecommunications Services, Resulting in Higher Prices, Poorer Quality Services, Fewer Choices and Fewer Innovative Products for Millions of American Consumers

WASHINGTON – The Department of Justice today filed a civil antitrust lawsuit to block AT&T Inc.’s proposed acquisition of T-Mobile USA Inc. The department said that the proposed $39 billion transaction would substantially lessen competition for mobile wireless telecommunications services across the United States, resulting in higher prices, poorer quality services, fewer choices and fewer innovative products for the millions of American consumers who rely on mobile wireless services in their everyday lives.

 The department’s lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeks to prevent AT&T from acquiring T-Mobile from Deutsche Telekom AG.

“The combination of AT&T and T-Mobile would result in tens of millions of consumers all across the United States facing higher prices, fewer choices and lower quality products for mobile wireless services,” said Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole. “Consumers across the country, including those in rural areas and those with lower incomes, benefit from competition among the nation’s wireless carriers, particularly the four remaining national carriers. This lawsuit seeks to ensure that everyone can continue to receive the benefits of that competition.”

“T-Mobile has been an important source of competition among the national carriers, including through innovation and quality enhancements such as the roll-out of the first nationwide high-speed data network,” said Sharis A. Pozen, Acting Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division. “Unless this merger is blocked, competition and innovation will be reduced, and consumers will suffer.”

Mobile wireless telecommunications services play a critical role in the way Americans live and work, with more than 300 million feature phones, smart phones, data cards, tablets and other mobile wireless devices in service today. Four nationwide providers of these services – AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint and Verizon – account for more than 90 percent of mobile wireless connections. The proposed acquisition would combine two of those four, eliminating from the market T-Mobile, a firm that historically has been a value provider, offering particularly aggressive pricing.

According to the complaint, AT&T and T-Mobile compete head to head nationwide, including in 97 of the nation’s largest 100 cellular marketing areas. They also compete nationwide to attract business and government customers. AT&T’s acquisition of T-Mobile would eliminate a company that has been a disruptive force through low pricing and innovation by competing aggressively in the mobile wireless telecommunications services marketplace.

The complaint cites a T-Mobile document in which T-Mobile explains that it has been responsible for a number of significant “firsts” in the U.S. mobile wireless industry, including the first handset using the Android operating system, Blackberry wireless email, the Sidekick, national Wi-Fi “hotspot” access, and a variety of unlimited service plans. T-Mobile was also the first company to roll out a nationwide high-speed data network based on advanced HSPA+ (High-Speed Packet Access) technology. The complaint states that by January 2011, an AT&T employee was observing that “[T-Mobile] was first to have HSPA+ devices in their portfolio…we added them in reaction to potential loss of speed claims.”

The complaint details other ways that AT&T felt competitive pressure from T-Mobile. The complaint quotes T-Mobile documents describing the company’s important role in the market:

• T-Mobile sees itself as “the No. 1 value challenger of the established big guys in the market and as well positioned in a consolidated 4-player national market”; and
• T-Mobile’s strategy is to “attack incumbents and find innovative ways to overcome scale disadvantages. [T-Mobile] will be faster, more agile, and scrappy, with diligence on decisions and costs both big and small. Our approach to market will not be conventional, and we will push to the boundaries where possible. . . . [T-Mobile] will champion the customer and break down industry barriers with innovations. . . .”

The complaint also states that regional providers face significant competitive limitations, largely stemming from their lack of national networks, and are therefore limited in their ability to compete with the four national carriers. And, the department said that any potential entry from a new mobile wireless telecommunications services provider would be unable to offset the transaction’s anticompetitive effects because it would be difficult, time-consuming and expensive, requiring spectrum licenses and the construction of a network.

The department said that it gave serious consideration to the efficiencies that the merging parties claim would result from the transaction. The department concluded AT&T had not demonstrated that the proposed transaction promised any efficiencies that would be sufficient to outweigh the transaction’s substantial adverse impact on competition and consumers. Moreover, the department said that AT&T could obtain substantially the same network enhancements that it claims will come from the transaction if it simply invested in its own network without eliminating a close competitor.

AT&T is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Dallas. AT&T is one of the world’s largest providers of communications services, and is the second largest mobile wireless telecommunications services provider in the United States as measured by subscribers. It serves approximately 98.6 million connections to wireless devices. In 2010, AT&T earned mobile wireless telecommunications services revenues of $53.5 billion, and its total revenues were in excess of $124 billion.

T-Mobile, is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Bellevue, Wash. T-Mobile is the fourth-largest mobile wireless telecommunications services provider in the United States as measured by subscribers, and serves approximately 33.6 million wireless connections to wireless devices. In 2010, T-Mobile earned mobile wireless telecommunications services revenues of $18.7 billion. T-Mobile is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Deutsche Telekom AG.

Deutsche Telekom AG is a German corporation headquartered in Bonn, Germany. It is the largest telecommunications operator in Europe with wireline and wireless interests in numerous countries and total annual revenues in 2010 of €62.4 billion.

Download a copy of the Complaint (PDF)

Component(s): 

Antitrust Division

Press Release Number: 

11-1118

Read More