Duke, Dynegy, Reliant, Bush

TheTip.org

Username:
Password:

Not a member?
Signup!

Polls

Impeach George Bush

Duke, Dynegy, Reliant, Bush

Source: green party, 2002-07-01

Candidate: Enron

Energy deregulation in the United States has utterly failed to deliver on its promise of lower prices for consumers due to more competitive markets. To the contrary, prices are soaring due to the cartelization of energy suppliers and the merger wave among utilities. Almost every state has felt the impact of wholesale electric prices manipulated by a small group of energy giants to create artificial shortages that sent spot market prices soaring by 500 percent to 1,000 percent in 2001.

Energy deregulation in most states was rhetorical cover for a massive bailout of the bad investments of investor-owned utilities (IOUs) in nuclear power plants and so-called �independent power producers,� which are often different subsidiaries of the same parent holding companies. The total bill for this bailout if �deregulation� is carried through in all the states with nuclear power plants is estimated at $500 billion to $1 trillion, far surpassing the record-breaking savings and loan bailout.

While serving as cover for the nuclear bailout, deregulation is also in the process of transforming electric power from a publicly regulated service into a market- and profit-driven commodity. Deregulation encompasses wholesale energy prices, increasingly retail energy prices, nuclear power plant oversight, and incentives and standards for energy efficiency and renewable energy production. Under this new regulatory regime, energy conservation has plummeted, renewable energy production has stagnated, nuclear waste and fossil fuel air pollution continues, deteriorating old nukes continue to operate despite dangerous mechanical flaws and energy prices surge.

The general public is raging over skyrocketing utility rates and collection agency intimidation to collect on overdue utility bills. The environmentally conscious are upset that the limited progress on conservation, efficiency and renewables that was made in the 1980s has been reversed. Meanwhile, aging and therefore more accident-prone nuclear power plants receive financial bailouts, license extensions and reduced Nuclear Regulatory Commission and public oversight and regulation. And fossil fuels remain the principal planned source of future transportation fuels as well as electric power generation while global warming continues without a serious public policy response.

Politically, the Democrats and Republicans are unalterably compromised by campaign contributions from the utility companies and their close allies in the banking industry. Bank financing charges for power plant construction amount to 40 percent of all utility costs. Historically, 60 percent of the entire underwriting business in the U.S. has come from the energy industry. The Democrats and Republicans don�t want to these hands that feed them. If there ever was an issue where the Greens can take the lead, energy is that issue.

Energy deregulation has been building as a policy since the Carter administration. In 1978, former President Jimmy Carter deregulated wholesale gas prices while prioritizing subsides for coal gassification and nukes over solar-based renewables. The Reagan administration removed most of the minimal federal tax credits for solar installations and subsidies weatherization of poor people�s homes that had been part of Pres. Carter�s energy policy.

At the end of the first Bush administration, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 was enacted to deregulate the market in interstate wholesaling of electricity and create the federal policy framework of incentives for state-by-state deregulation of utilities and the wave of utility mergers we have seen in the 1990s. Under the Clinton/Gore administration, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission promulgated in 1996 the regulations to implement the Energy Policy Act of 1992.

Then the states started deregulating. In 1996, the California state Legislature adopted, with every single Democrat and Republican voting in favor, the deregulatory bill that led to the rate shock and service blackouts of 2000 and 2001. In Nehttp://www.turn.org/turnarticles/DE.htm

Add a comment to this Message in our Forums.
While you're at it, check out our forums too!

User Originated Comments:

From: jay drai
2007-08-28 00:00:00
in the circuit court of cook county,
illinois

county department - chancery division

filed
jack gore on
behalf of himself and all ) nov 28,
2002
other persons or entitles
similarly situated, |

•
vs.
no. 01 ch 19688

dorothy 8rown
clerk of circuit court

multiut
corp, an illinois corporation, } judge stephen a,
schiller
defendant ) courtroom 2402

response to §2-619.1
motion to dismiss j/
plaintiff jack gore
(“gore”). by his attorneys larry d drury ltd.,
hereby responds to the motion to dismiss 2nd
amended complaint, pursuant to 735 ilcs 5/2-615
and 619, brought as a combined 2-619.1 motion by
defendant multiut corp. (“multiut”).

introduction
multiut is trying to time-bar
this case by transforming express a written
agency-service contract drafted by multiut into a
contract for sale of goods, and by disputing
gore's allegations as to concealment and discovery
of the wrong – but without submitting any rule
191 affidavit or documentation. this is a cl-ss
action arising out
of a written contract
drafted by multiut, attached here and to the 2nd
amended complaint as exhibit a and b collectively
referred to herein as the "contract" or "agreement
“ unless otherwise indicated by context):
(1)
(a) a service contract to act as
gore's "purchasing representatives" in obtaining
natural gas from “off system" suppliers. this
contract, entered into on or about december 1990,
was titled “agreement," exh. a 1, 3-6,
10. and,

{b} a series of supplemental agency
contracts to act as gore’s agent, in so doing
with respect to various properties. these were
entered into contemporaneously with the service
contract and thereafter, and titled "natural gas
purchasing and agency agreement.” exh.-b.
(2)
(1) similarly multiut refers to
them collectively as “the agreement” in its
brief (mem. p. 2, fn. 1). although the documents
are on separately filed pages, they are mutually
inclusive and one could not be entered into
without the other; e.g. the service contract
refers to and incorporates the agency contracts,
wherein multiut refers to itself as gore's
'exclusive natural gas purchasing agent'. see
exh. a, third introductory paragraph and 16-17;
exh. b 1,

(2) exh.
8 one of the series, is dated 1998, exh. c is
gore’s §2-806 affidavit as to the others. gore
has stated he does not have a copy of each, they
are inaccessible to him i.e. no longer in his
possession, whether missplaced or otherwise, and
cannot be located or returned. 2nd amd.. compl.
{4; exh, c, in the 1st amd. complaint, count 4
for breach of oral contract was voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice after gore's
deposition of may 8,- 2002, when the service
contract and the 1998 agency contract were
produced by multiut and adequately established,
exhs, a-b are the same exhs. 1-2 attached to the
gore transcript, excerpts of which are attached
herein as exh. d, similarly the missing agency
agreements are likely in multiut’s possession
and will be produced in discovery.
the
contract was drafted by multiut, it unequivocally
defines multiut's role in the transactions, and
shows that this case is not governed by the ucc.
what is at issue here is not the "good" that
multiut obtained for gore, but the service multiut
provided as his purchasing agent. gore is suing
upon the service and agency contract – not the
natural gas - and has alleged that multiut
breached its duties in two respects;
{1}
by falsely and intentionally charging and
retaining for its own use funds that were to be
applied to a city of chicago 8% gross receipts tax
(“tax”), which it had promised would be placed
in escrow and forwarded to the city. between
december 1990 and january 1995 (after the city of
chicago changed the tax), multiut collected
approximately $14,000 from gore and at least $1
million to $1.5 million from the cl-ss, for this
tax that was not actually imposed upon multiut.
2nd amd. compl. 7-9, '3! multiut not only failed
to inform plaintiff and
the cl-ss that the
money collected was not so applied or escrowed,
but also failed to escrow, account for, and refund
the funds with interest.
(2) by overcharging
for the service of providing natural gas. multiut
was to charge for natural gas actually supplied to
gore and the cl-ss on a set per therm cost basis,
plus an amount equal to 1/2 of their respective
per therm cost savings per month, instead, multiut
overcharged and billed gore at least $100.000 and
the cl-ss millions of dollars and refuses to
provide an accounting and refund with interest.
id. 10-11.
gore has further alleged that
multiut prevented him from discovering the wrongs
by intentionally concealing them until at least
december 2000, when he discovered the truth and
could not reasonably have done so earlier. (gore
testified at his deposition on may 8, 2002 that he
first discovered the discrepancies in his bills,
the overcharges, the taxes, and failure to escrow
the taxes, in december 2000. see exh, d, pp.
25-28,) thereafter he was unable to obtain any
refund and based thereon, terminated multiut’s
services on or about june 2001, however, the
wrongful acts are continuing to date, in that
multiut continues to 'refuse to provide an
accounting and refund with interest to gore and
the cl-ss, all to their detriment and damage. they
seek imposition of constructive trust (id. 22), an
accounting and damages in not less than the
foregoing amounts plus interest (id, 9-13,
23).
gore filed the original
cl-ss action complaint on nov. 20, 2001, and in
lieu of responding to a motion to dismiss, filed
the 1st amended cl-ss action complaint feb. 14,
2002, setting forth 4 counts for (1) breach
of
3-: the city did not and will not
collect the 8% tax, presumably because of u.s.
constitutional restrictions as to the interstate
commerce clause and exceptions for interstate
pipelines and out-of-state suppliers. as a result
in 1994 the city changed the tax from an 8% gross
receipts tax to a flat rate tax of 1.4 to 1.5
cents per therm. 2nd amd. comp. p 8. in
multiut’s response to first request to admit
{attached hereto as exh. f), it has admitted the
following statements about this tax; (8) that
multiut collected approximately $14,000 in tax
from gore between 1991-1994; and (9) that multiut
spent its customers tax payments on business
expenses.. yehuda draiman testified to the same
effect in his deposition 1-10-02 see transcript
excerpts attached hereto as exh. e, at pp,
36-37,40, 68, and exh, 6
thereto.

activity date:
8/15/2007 participant: gore jack
case set on
status call
court date: 8/29/2007
court
time: 0930
court room: 2402
judge:
bronstein, philip l.

From: jay drai
2007-08-15 00:00:00
dynegy mkg & trade v. multiut corp, nachshon
draiman et al 1:02-cv-07446.
multiut corp and
nachshon draiman dba future associate of skokie,
il. are withholding evidence of fraudulent
activities in the energy industry and inflated
medicaid billing to the government for nursing
home patients. also bank fraud against their bank
by presenting fraudulent and inflated receivable
reports in order to get and keep a credit line,
nachshon draiman was a large stock holder of the
bank. draiman nachshon • sc 13g • success
bancshares inc • on 2/17/98
filed on 2/17/98
• sec file 5-53545 • accession number
950137-98-586
court: united states district
court northern district of illinois -
case
title: dynegy mkg & trade v. multiut corp,
nachshon draiman future associates et al
case
number: 1:02-cv-07446
judge: hon. john a.
nordberg
filed on:
10/16/2002
summary
case number:
1:02-cv-07446
referred to: honorable michael
t. mason
jury demand: defendant
demand:
$9999000
nature of suit: contract: other
(190)
jurisdiction: diversity
cause:
28:1332 diversity-breach of contract
case
updated: 01/20/2005
names
party name:
multiut corporation an illinois
corporation,
party type:
defendant
attorney(s): paul thaddeus
fox
(312) 456-8400
firm name: greenberg
traurig, llp.
firm address: 77 west wacker
drive
suite 2500
chicago, il
60601
alan jay
mandel
847-329-8450
firm name: alan j
mandel ltd
firm address: 7520 north skokie
blvd
skokie, il 60077
ira p.
gould
(312) 456-8400
firm name: greenberg
traurig, llp.
firm address: 77 west wacker
drive
suite 2500
chicago, il
60601
ronald f. labedz
(312)
456-8400
firm name: greenberg traurig,
llp.
firm address: 77 west wacker
drive
suite 2500
chicago, il
60601
steven c. coberly
(312)
456-8400
firm name: greenberg traurig,
llp.
firm address: 77 west wacker
drive
suite 2500
chicago, il
60601
party name: nachson draiman an illinois
resident
party type:
defendant
attorney(s): paul thaddeus
fox
firm address: (see above for
address)
alan jay mandel
firm address:
(see above for address)
ira p. gould
firm
address: (see above for address)
ronald f.
labedz
firm address: (see above for
address)
steven c. coberly
firm address:
(see above for address)
party name: future
associates an illinois general partnership
128
01/10/2005 minute order of 1/10/05 by honorable
michael t. mason : as stated on the reverse of
this order, plaintiff’s motion to compel
financial documents [124-1] and for sanctions is
granted in part and denied in part. [124-2]
defendant’s request for reconsideration is
denied. (see reverse of minute order.) notices
mailed by judge’s staff (hp) (entered:
01/10/2005)
order document for later
delivery
126 01/04/2005 brief by dynegy mkg &
trade in opposition to defendants’ motion for
reconsideration and in support of dynegy’s
motion to compel [95-1] (attachments). (vmj)
(entered: 01/06/2005)
order document for later
delivery
125 12/23/2004 minute order of
12/23/04 by honorable michael t. mason :
plaintiff’s reply to its motion to compel
financial documents [124-1] and in response to
defendant’s motion for reconsideration to be
filed by 01/03/05. mailed notice (hp) (entered:
12/27/2004)
order document for later
delivery
124 12/20/2004 motion by plaintiff to
compel financial documents and for sanctions
(attachments); notice. (hp) (entered:
12/27/2004)
order document for later
delivery
86 06/22/2004 response by defendants
to dynegy’s motion to compel [85-1] or for
sanctions [85-2] and motion for protective order
(attachment). (hp) (entered: 06/23/2004)
order
document for later delivery
85 06/17/2004
motion by plaintiff dynegy marketing and trade, to
compel or for sanctions for failure to respond to
discovery (attachments); notice. (hp) (entered:
06/23/2004)
order document for later
delivery
79 05/13/2004 minute order of 5/13/04
by honorable michael t. mason: status hearing held
and continued to 9:00 a.m. on 6/29/04. plaintiff
has until 6/4/04 to answer or otherwise plead to
defendant’s first amended counterclaims. fact
discovery cutoff is extended to 7/19/04.
defendant’s disclosure of expert and expert
report by 8/2/04. deposition of defendant’s
expert to be completed by 9/1/04. plaintiff’s
disclosure of expert and expert report by 10/1/04.
deposition of plaintiff’s expert to be completed
by 10/15/04. dispositive motion filing deadline of
8/16/04 is stricken. plaintiff’s motion for
sanctions is granted in part and denied in part
[78-1]. defendants are ordered to respond to
plaintiff’s discovery requests by 5/27/04.
plaintiff’s request for attorneys fees is
denied. mailed notice (air) (entered:
05/14/2004)
order document for later
delivery
77 05/12/2004 minute order of 5/12/04
by hon. john a. nordberg : defendants’ motion to
dismiss is denied. [44-1] defendants’ motion for
leave to file the first amended answer is granted.
[72-1] (see reverse of minute order.) mailed
notice (hp) (entered: 05/13/2004)
order
document for later delivery
76 05/12/2004
response by defendants to plaintiff dynegy’s
motion for sanctions [59-1] [65-1] (hp) (entered:
05/13/2004)
order document for later
delivery
78 05/10/2004 motion by plaintiff for
sanctions (attachment); notice. (air) (entered:
05/14/2004)
order document for later
delivery
68 03/18/2004 minute order of 3/18/04
by honorable michael t. mason : motion hearing
held. plaintiff’s second motion for sanctions is
granted in part and denied in part. [65-1]
defendant is ordered to turn over any unproduced
damage requests, invoices and related volumes for
2002 by 03/22/04. plaintiff’s request for
dismissal of defendant’s affirmative defenses
and counterclaims and request for attonrey’s
fees are denied. mailed notice (hp) (entered:
03/19/2004)
order document for later
delivery
67 03/15/2004 amended notice of
motion by plaintiff regarding motion for sanctions
[65-1] (attachments). (hp) (entered:
03/19/2004)
order document for later
delivery
64 03/08/2004 amended notice of
motion by plaintiff regarding second motion for
sanctions (hp) (entered: 03/09/2004)
order
document for later delivery
65 03/05/2004
second motion by plaintiff for sanctions
(attachments); notice (hp) (entered:
03/11/2004)
order document for later
delivery
61 02/17/2004 minute order of 2/17/04
by honorable michael t. mason : status hearing
held and continued to 03/09/04 at 9:00 a.m.
plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is granted in
part and denied in part. [59-1] plaintiff’s
request for an order dismissing the defendants’
affirmative defenses and counterclaims is denied.
defendants to respond to outstanding written
discovery regarding the breach of contract claims
by 02/24/04. defendants to respond to outstanding
written discovery regarding the fraudulent
transfer claims by 03/08/04. plaintiff’s request
for attorneys fees incurred in bringing the motion
for sanctions is granted. fact discovery to close
on 05/07/04. expert discovery to close on
06/21/04. dispositive motions to be filed by
07/21/04. no further extensions. mailed notice
(hp) (entered: 02/18/2004)
order document for
later delivery
60 02/13/2004 addendum by
plaintiff to their motion for sanctions
(attachments) [59-1]; notice (hp) (entered:
02/18/2004)
order document for later
delivery
59 02/12/2004 motion by plaintiff for
sanctions against defendants for failure to comply
with discovery (attachments); notice (hp)
(entered: 02/18/2004)
order document for later
delivery
dynegy mkg & trade v. multiut corp,
nachshon draiman et al
1:02-cv-07446
wherefore, dynegy requests entry
of a judgment in its favor and against multiut,
for $12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the
date of judgement, in an amount in excess of
$593,997.74, and such other relief as the court
deems appropriate.
-4-
count
iii
(fraudulent transfer in law-
multiut)
27. dynegy repeats and re-sserts the
allegations of paragraphs 1 through 26, inclusive,
as paragraph 27.
28. at all relevant times,
draiman has been a director, officer and/or
control ling shareholder of multiut.
29. at
all relevant times, draiman has been a general
partner in future associates or otherwise had
authority and/or control over the business affairs
of futures associates or an entity that had
authority over the business affairs of futures
associates.
30. since at least january 1999,
multiut failed to make timely payment, when due,
for some or all of the natural gas delivered by
dynegy.
31. on march 7, 2001, ginger wright of
dynegy and lenore kamien of multiut ‘ agreed
that multiut owed dynegy approximately
$11,000,000, excluding interest.
32. on
september 5, 2001, dynegy representatives pete
pavluk and mark ludwig met with multiut
representatives lenore kamien and/or nachshon
draiman at multiut’s offices to discuss the
amount owed by multiut.
33. at that meeting,
mr. draiman said that multiut did not have funds
sufficient to pay the debt owed and that multiut
would propose a payment plan by september 17,
2001.
34. in a september 17, 2001 letter,
multiut proposed a payment plan by which it would
make monthly payments, from october 2001 through
march 2002, in order to pay down the amount owed
to dynegy. the proposed payments ranged from
$600,000 in some months to $1,800,000 in other
months. according to mr. draiman, multiut was,
“insurefd] [sic] an additional annual profit of
$2,000,000″ and that, “in the meantime,
[multiut] was working on bank financing as well as
funds from private sources for capital
infusion.”
-5-
35 . in an october 4,
2001 letter to multiut, dynegy responded to
multiut’s september 17, 2001 proposal by asking
for “a detailed formal plan by no later than
wednesday, october 10, 2001 that outlines bringing
your account balance current by no later that
[sic]-january 15, 2002.”
36. in an october
12, 2001 letter, multiut responded to dynegy’s
october 4, 2001 letter by proposing “weekly
payments for october through january.” the
weekly payments proposed by multiut totaled
$7,700,000.
37. multiut did not make all the
weekly payments described in its october 12,
2001
letter.
38. multiut’s check , dated
august 23, 2001, made payable to dynegy for
$300,000, was returned for insufficient
funds.
39. multiut’s check, dated october
26, 2001, made payable to dynegy for $150,000, was
returned for insufficient funds.
40.
multiut’s check, dated november 9, 2001, made
payable to dynegy for $200,000, was returned for
insufficient funds.
41. multiut check no.
1946, made payable to dynegy for $200,000 and
deposited on december 7, 2001, was returned twice
due to insufficient funds.
42. on january 8,
2002, multiut claimed it could not pay the amounts
owed to dynegy because of slow payment by the
government in connection with mr. draiman’s
nursing homes.
43. on january 31, 2002,
multiut told dynegy that it would make a $200,000
payment while it worked to raise cash through a
factoring company and while it attempted to
arrange a line of credit with bank
leumi.
-6-
54. multiut did not receive
reasonably equivalent value for the transfer
described in paragraph 53.
55. in the years
1999 through 2003, multiut transferred cash or
other -ssets to future associates, draiman and/or
other entities, including draiman’s nursing
home, hotel or other business interests when
multiut was indebted to dynegy.
56. multiut
did not receive reasonably equivalent value for
the transfers desciibed in paragraph 55.
57.
when multiut made the transfers described in
paragraphs 53 and 55 (the “transfers”),
multiut was insolvent and/or became insolvent as a
result of the transfers.
58. the transfers
were fraudulent conveyances in violation of
applicable laws.
wherefore, dynegy requests
entry of an order granting judgment in its favor
and against multiut, for $12,504,912.51, plus
interest, through the date of judgment, in an
amount in excess of $593,997.74; voiding the
fraudulent transfers and returning the transfers
to multiut to be used to satisfy the debt to
dynegy; and such other relief as this court deems
appropriate.
count iv (fraudulent transfer in
fact- multiut)
59. dynegy repeats and
re-sserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 through
58, inclusive, as paragraph 59.
60. the
transfers were made with actual intent to hinder,
delay or defraud dynegy, a creditor of multiut and
as-such constituted fraudulent conveyances in
violation of applicable laws.
wherefore,
dynegy requests entry of an order granting
judgment in its favor and against multiut, for
$12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of
judgment, in an amount in excess of $593,997.74;
voiding the fraudulent transfers and returning the
money to multiut to be
-8-
used to satisfy
the debt to dynegy; punitive damages and such
other relief as this court deems
appropriate.
count v
(fraudulent transfer
in law- future associates)
61. dynegy repeats
and re-sserts the allegations of paragraphs 1
thorough 58, inclusive, as paragraph 61.
62.
future associates accepted the transfers of the
-ssets without having provided adequate
consideration for the transfers.

From: MarkH
2006-02-07 00:00:00
i see stupid people. i have never seen so much
negative commentary about things that are
ultimately good for the united states. let me see
since september 11, 2001 we have had zero
rerrorist attacks on us soil. sounds like we are
doing a pretty good job to me.

From: g. bush
2006-01-28 00:00:00
you people are all nuts! if bush was impeached do
you really think that a new president is going to
come in and change everything. change takes time
and a lot of hard work. unfortunetly bill clinton
was to busy getting blowjobs to do any hard work
while he was in office and the only reason things
went well while he was president was because of
all the hard work put in by george bush sr. and
now that junior is in office the shit hit the fan.
its true the shit hit the fan. 911 and we are at
war we are in dept and natural disasters destroyed
new orleans and gas prices are rising.
it
s--ks that gas prices are rising but we pay less
for our gas than most of the people in the world
and who ever crys about gas prices probubly drives
an suv thats really good for the environment let
me tell you. we are spoiled as americans tv's in
every room everyones got a car, running water hot
water cold water, 99 cents dollar menu at
mcdonalds, steve & barry's pants t-shirts sneakers
everything in the store is $7.95. drive through
liquer store. i meen come people we have freedoms
in this country that people could only dream of
and what we are doing in iraq is trying to give
innocent children women and men the same freedoms
we as americans take for granted. imagine having
your father being put through a shredder by one of
suddams people. lets face it the guy is nut case.
and if you read the declaration of independents it
says something along the lines of when man can
take action and get rid of evil then he should
cause it is the right thing to do! sure maybe
bush isnt the smartest president or most popular
but if there really is this conspericy going on
and hes getting away with all of this shit then i
think alot more people would be involved in it
than you think and if that is the case then i
think we are f--ked and the good people of this
country will have to find a way to take out the
whole government. but besides for all of that
mess the only real complain i can say i have is
that rich peoples taxes should be alot more than
they are. if you dont make that much then you
shouldnt have to pay that much.

From: PoorMe
2005-11-28 00:00:00
mike, how do you expect them to understand econ.
when they can't even count correctly.
dems
where in charge when it all happened.
poor
dems!!!

Send this article to:

Your Email: