Alleged Harvard-Westlake Breach of Arbitration Agreement

It remains to be understood who has leaked the details outside the court, and has not given the court the courtesy to release those details first.

It is inappropriate to discuss or disclosure to anyone the still-sealed arbitration agreement terms. We see no record that the court has permitted discussion of this ongoing arbitration, or that there have been permissible discussions beyond what counsel and the court have agreed.

It would be a breach of an agreement if someone were allegedly engaged in illegal activity, fraud, or other alleged war crimes.

* * *

The rumors of a settlement, final arbitration, or other ongoing matter before the court cannot lawfully be commented on, and could be a breach of the court-counsel agreements. Until the court signs and releases the final arbitration order, it is appropriate to respond to all questions, with “No comment.”

Any other comment may unfairly and illegally affect legal matters only the court may lawfully adjudicate. It would be inappropriate for any party to have released any information outside the existing arbitration agreement for the purposes of taking advantage of that disclosure, or using that information in any way during the final stages of the arbitration.

It's a serious matter to reveal details which remain sealed and are not for public consumption. No discussion and disclosure means just that. It's not nice, and may be a matter the court need to review, for anyone to reveal details of the arbitration discussion before the Court signs the final agreement.

The court should ask counsel and the parties to certify in writing that they remain in compliance with the arbitration agreements; and have not revealed the ongoing discussions to parties outside what the Court and parties have jointly agreed, or understand remain sealed.

* * *

Alleged Improper Relationship Between Hudnut And LA Land Developer

In 2002, Mayor Jim Hahn appointed four San Fernando Valley citizens to the South Valley Area Planning Commission, including Headmaster Hudnut.

The problem is despite the link between MPP, Hudnut, and HW, the 2004 ethics opinion did not identify Hudnut in the ethics advisory, nor identify Hudnut or MPP as being in potential conflict.

It would be a shame to discover the "neutral" Harvard Westlake arbitrator was directly or indirectly linked with Latham & Watkins, which has a legal relationship with Harvard Westlake, and subject of the LA Planning Commission Ethics Advisory opinions.

Surprise, there's one tiny problem. Hudnut's daughter Sarah Hudnut is or was involved in a production company. Her husband is linked with a gentleman who was a former lobbyist for an LA land Developer, which Hudnut apparently had an indirect relationship, and duty to oversee.

Sarah Hudnut, the HW Headmaster's daughter, is a graduate of USC, and married to Peter; Marc Turtletaub founded Big Beach Films with Peter and Jeb Brody.

Sarah Hudnut is a well recognized stage and film actress having appeared on various prime time sitcoms, including the character Amanda Tomko, in the television series Judging Amy, which aired April 2005.

Sarah's husband worked with Jeb Brody and Turtletaub, a former lobbyist for Manatt, Phelps & Phillips. Here is the US enate documentation affirmatively linking Turtletaub with MPP Ref. $20,000 was transerred bewtween MPP and Tutletaub for tax-related lobbying efforts. Ref. Robert J Kabel is listed as the Point of Contact, 202.463.4300 for questions relaed to the MPP-Turtletaub fund transfers.

Marc Tutletaub and his brother Alan, are or were officers in The Money Store, assocaited with Sacramento, CA. Marc has been linked with the Sacramento operations through this PO Box: PO Box 162849 Sacramento, CA 95816-2849, and a name "Paula Diann." Bill Templeton was the former CEO of The Money Store in 1999 before resigning.

The Money Store is a division of First Union, whose CIO Barbara L. Laughlin was also on the DoD Trip with Hudnut, jcoc_67 June 6-12, 2004. Turtletaub sold The Money Store to First Union for $2.1 billion.

Marc is also linked with Student Advantage, with a Boston MA address, and AT&T provided 34% of the firms revenues, 46% of the student services revenues in 2000.

HW has a tax-exempt entity, a title holding company for pensions, called the HWS Real Estate Corporation Ref.

Marc Tutletuab in 1987 appeared before Congress representing the Independent Bankers Association.

Mannatt's 2001 lobbying registration is here: ref.

Hudnut while serving on the Land Development committees was at one time issued an ethics letter, but the subject did not include the named land developer.

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips were related to issues Hudnut's land oversight responsibilities. MPP is linked with the LA Ethics oversight Ref, which includes Playa Capital Company, appearing before Hudnut's land development. Both Hudnut and Playa are linked with this candidate: Rocky.

Playa Vista is a conglomerate that invests in real estate. The Money Tree is a brokerage firm, and Manatt has a real estate investment practice group which includes Playa Vista as a client.

Jack Weiss, Hudnut and Manatt Phelps Phillips LLP, are also linked through the Westwood Village Rotary Club, and the funds appeared to have flowed through Account I.D. NUMBER 1234332.

George David Kieffer is a Government and Policy Partner Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, and is or was at one time Chair of the Board of Directors of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce.

Christine Helwick is or was at one time General Counsel of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, and knows about the links between MPP and Western Area Power Administration, indirectly related to Enron, Latham, and the Bush Energy Commission task force related to Iraq.

The problem is that Playa Vista and Harvard Westlake share a common agent: PCR, and suggests that Hudnut when Playa appeared befire the land development commissio was not independent, yet there's no record of him having recused himself as is apparently otherwise required.

There is a relationship bewteen the current HW counsel and MPP, who jointly defended the same client in discpute over a settlement agreement related to the covenants and waivers. In 2002, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips (Leonard D. Venger) and Musick, Peeler & Garrett (William McD. Miller; Cheryl A. Orr) jointly defended Nationwide Theatres Corporation before Judge Robert E. Thomas, Orange County Sup Court 754881. The court found the parties intended to waive the enforcement of the covenant.

The court cannot undo an agreement after the agreement has been reached. A party to a settlement agreement must ensure it understands that it is giving up that right of enforcement prior to a decision to settle or not settle. If there are intentions of the party to mean a specific term, that intion must be made at the time of the settlement, not retroactively devised.

Thomas M. Neches, CPA (Thomas Neches & Company) jointly represents MPP and MPG for tax, audit, and accounting purposes; and is an expert witness in forensic aaccounting.

* * *

Counsel Duty To Disclose Evidence To HW Plaintiff

Whether Headmaster Hudnut's alleged improper relationship with a land developer, connected through his daughter's production company may or may not have any bearing on the litigation, remains to be explored by the LA City Ethics Commission.

However, if there is a conflict, it remains for Hudnut's counsel to comment whether the relationship between Hudnut, his daughter's production company, and the land developers has or has not been disclosed to plaintiff counsel in the Harvard Westlake Litigation. These matters are not attorney-client privileged, have been disclosed to third parties, and are allegedly related to post-2002 decisions, and cannot lawfully be protected as a secret or privileged.

The issue is one of witness impeachment. If as it appears, Hudnut has an ongoing, indirect relationship with one of the parties appearing before him while working land development issues, then the entire HW litigation gets case in a new light.

The issue isn't a "simple" matter of a student being abused, but not being afforded attention as is required; but whether the underlying currents of alleged malfeasance, negligence, and unresponsiveness spring from an under current linked with something gravely wrong with American corporate governance.

The implications are stunning. On the basis of a single complaint by a single student being harassed and given no assistance, it appears one of the reasons for the inaction had nothing to do with the subject matter, but an underlying managerial approach to do nothing when faced with serious issues.

Indeed, as it appears to be the case, even when legal counsel liked between HW and the White House through Latham have allegedly remained silent about allegedly unlawful war crimes in Iraq, is any wonder why the HW management did nothing about the "trivial" complaint of a student being threatened with death?

By all accounts, the common course of conduct stemming from the White House to the abuse chambers in Eastern Europe, the torture at Abu Ghraib, and the reckless disregard for FISA in American homes appears no different than the gross disregard the HW board appears to have taken to internal matters.

The issue isn't simply one of analogy. The issue is one of complicity. It appears, based on the tenuous link between Hudnut, MPP, Latham, and the White House, that the same players involved in the pre-2001 illegal surveillance, were also instrumental in carving up Iraq, fully in a position to stop illegal activity both in the classroom, on the battlefield, at the POWs sites, and in American homes.

This is a stunning connection. It is no wonder why corporate board members at Hewlett-Packard have a problem. Indeed, the same lines of evidence linking Hewlett Packard and the illegal pre-texting, also link to DoJ Staff personnel, Narus, AT&T, and the domestic FISA violations.

As with the other lines of evidence linking the White House to illegal war crimes in Eastern Europe, the same players, DoD entities, lawyers, and oversight failures recurs across all spectrums of American society, whether it is domestic surveillance, war crimes, or inaction in American classrooms.

Is this the kind of society you wish to export? The losses on the battlefield are clear: America has lost moral authority, is not committed to successful planning, and when the legal community is left to its own devices, it fails to adequately oversee and regulate itself.

A young man trusted the system. He thought, as did his parents, when someone was entrusted to the care of Americans, that he would be taken care of. Sadly, the results as with the CIA rendition, Guantanamo, and Abu Ghraib have taught Americans and the world the opposite: Despite grave breaches of the law, the American leadership is unwilling to quickly correct what is wrong, and timely bring about what is right.

This is not a simple matter of arrogance, laziness, or recklessness. These are alleged war crimes. Americans should take note of the stunning links between Harvard Westlake, DoD, DoJ, and the White House. The same personnel who failed in one arena in Katrina and Iraq, have been affirmatively linked to the same personnel, law firms, and energy entities who stood to benefit from the gains in Iraq.

Sadly, the expected payoffs have not occurred. Rather, the EU continues to investigate the alleged war crimes in Eastern Europe. The unfortunate reality is that these alleged war crimes were known before the events of Sept 2001, and already planned and fully in place before the aircraft first hit the towers or the Pentagon.

We can only speculate how the Caplin's son is faring, and to what extent he and his family comprehend the apparent wholesale collapse of American oversight, responsibility, and fiduciary duty. The way forward is to accept that the issues at Harvard Westlake have been linked with alleged war crimes, the same individuals, firms, and parties are already under investigation at the international level.

If the Congress isn't willing to investigate, is there any option other than litigation to remedy these defects. Sadly, the American approach to the courts has been of disdain. The FISA revelations show us the American legal experts will defy the courts, ignore the law, and otherwise twist things to the interests of their client, even when their client is an alleged war criminal.

Justice is not a compromise between what is right and what is wrong. It is the lawful assertion of Article III power to compel a student's teacher or an alleged war criminal to assent to the Rule of Law. We have no higher duty, and everything else is secondary.

America's problem is that the reckless disregard for human rights around the globe isn't something that is isolated to the battlefield, but touches us each day, whether private rights are are violated, or whether our public acts are thwarted.

America needs to decide whether it will cooperate with the law, or have the Rule of Law imposed by force from without. Congress has seen fit to distract Americans with non-sense excuses to violate the law, and like HW not investigate before proposing a way forward.

Real leaders in America will find out what is wrong, then correct what should be remedies. A real remedy to the Caplin's situation is to explore the inner workings of the alleged link between the Headmaster, MPP, and the land decisions.

Perhaps there s nothing. Perhaps this is merely a curiosity. However, if there is a time to decide a real remedy, let that remedy address the real problem, not appear to address only part of the problem.

Arguably, the entrenched HW business practices are there for a reason, and the alleged malfeasance by the HW board is rewarded not only on Wall Street but around the globe. Alleged war criminals cannot be rewarded.

It is time to know the truth, before We the People are asked to believe that the Caplin's have been treated fairly, with dignity; or that HW has been sufficiently punished to compel them to do what they should have always done.

Let the court be the forum to provide the evidence, explore facts, and make the final judgment as to the fairness. But do not let the system of justice be compromised today because of what the lawyers and politicians hope to hide tomorrow.

Tomorrow has come. There is no statute of limitations on war crimes. Each of the decisions you make after the decisions in 2001 is admissible. If you have something to share, the time is now to share. It remains to be seen whether any agreement between Caplin and HW has been conditioned on an agreement that there is no fraud; or that future revelations may undo what the parties agree.

* * *

The Harvard Westlake Board has a fiduciary duty of care.

The problem Marc was the Hawaii property. Ref. When you have multiple addresses, you triggered a reporting requirement.

The real issue is: Was money sent to the Hawaii address through the BIS and SWIFT system, or did you have it funneled through the Senate accounts with MPP.

Maybe this would explain why the US Attorney's office took a long time to review that matter. A certain person on the LA DA's office just happens to be a Bush political appointee: Carla.

It remains to be seen who got paid off to keep silent, and which contracts can be traced to funding for the wonderful AT&T through the domestic surveillance activity.

What's really bad is when NARUS, the firm that made the STA is linked with MPP.

Quite a mess you have.

* * *

If, as it appears, this activity is linked though the funding which went to the oil companies, Latham, and the Iraqi reconstruction; and also links us to the funding through AT&T and NARUS, this isn't simply a civil issue.

These are matter of international criminal law and war crimes.

Maybe this explains the DoD interest in sending Hudnut on an all expense paid trip -- the Joint Civilian Orientation Conference.

Then again, maybe the war crimes prosecutors will have a really nice time digging through this. Your President spilled the beans on the CIA rendition sites, and someone has to come up with a very good story why Geneva was ignored; and the same legal crowd at the White House is linked to Latham.

The EU war crimes prosecutors have already been notified.

The DOJ Staff counsel has been under surveillance. Their online surfing habits do not match the times that Gonzalez said they were too busy to review FISA or the Geneva requirements. Gonzalez problem is that he failed to notify Congress as required under Title 28.

The lawyers already know there is a problem. The question is what was it going to take to make you do your job, and stand up to the illegal activity; or is this really about a young student that was arrogantly treated by a nation that really doesn't care about how it treats other people.

Congratulations, you're on the list of alleged war crimes defendants. See detailed charges.

Questions

What was the reason the LA Ethic letters in 2002 did or did not raise issues of the relationship between Hudnut, MPP, and the clients appearing before the board?

Is the LA Ethics computer system incapable of doing multiple steps through the system, linking personnel, family members, private corporations, legal entities, and matters before the board?

What kind of relationship is there between Hudnut, MPP, and the HW trustees through Latham and Watkins?

Was there a financial benefit which his daughter's production company, Turtletaub, or MPP gained as a result of Hudnut's position on the board, and any decisions related to MPP clients?

What is the reason MPP is concerned with the litigation at Harvard Westlake?

Are there issues of ethics, oversight, and other duties of responsibility and recusal Hudnut should have taken prior to matters related to MPP?

How do the conclusions related to Hudnut, MPP, and his alleged ethics compliance-non-compliance-issues have on the credibility of Hudnut as a witness, or other efforts that may be subject to discovery, interrogatories, or other responses provided to plaintiff counsel in the Harvard Westlake Arbitration?

Once defense counsel is aware of this information, have they timely made the potentially adverse information available to plaintiff counsel as required under the model rules of professional conduct and rules of evidence, and was the court given the opportunity to adjudicate on the admissibility of this potentially adverse information prior to the final arbitration settlement agreement?

These issues were to have remained a matter of arbitrary. If the final arbitration conference is not scheduled until the end of October 2006, what is the curiosity with the Harvard Westlake litigation discussion in September?
* * *

Issues

Is there an ethics issue which the LA City should have been made aware of?

Is the Harvard Westlake Board aware of the apparent relationship between Hudnut, and one of the LA land developers?

Is the relationship something that would have bearing on the ongoing arbitration agreement and discussion for the parities when considering the reliability of witnesses?

What is counsel's explanation for Hudnut's apparent relationship, through his daughter, to a lobbyist connected with one of the objectives of Hudnut's land development oversight responsibilities?

* * *

Consider the implications. Hudnut delegated responsibilities to the Homework Committee. If we compare his alleged conduct in the LA City issue, is there a reasonable basis to question whether there may have been private, non disclosed arrangements and agreement to do or not do something that he should have?

"Hudnut is the kind of truly strong leader who lets teachers make the important decisions." [Ref ]

One of the requirements to have attended the military conference was that the participants be non-partisan, yet Hudnut is on record through his Beverly Hills address to have donated to the Republican Party. Are there other requirements which Hudnut is granted discretion?

* * *

If as it appears Hudnut, MPP, Latham, and others are linked with alleged war crimes, and other financial payoffs or rewards, then the issue for the Harvard Westlake plaintiffs is: Can you really be sure who you up against; and does this alleged fraud and illegal activity have any bearing on an upward adjustment for the arbitration settlement amount?

If it is as it appears to be, the arbitration settlement, like the efforts to deny CIA rendition-prisoners the right to trial, then the real objective does not appear to be for a lawful purpose. Rather, justice would demand that the larger alleged course of conduct be understood before agreeing to any settlement agreement.

Alleged war criminals, when they allegedly fail to take action on something they have the legal obligation to do, is important whether that legal duty relates to a specific ministerial duty to enforce the Geneva requirements, remove oneself from alleged war crimes, not participate in illegal pre-war planning, or unlawfully fail to act when a young student dares to request that school officials do their job.

From the President on down to the alleged cess pool in Harvard Westlake, America's problem has only just started. Even the Senate isn't interested in asking questions, just rubber stamping more phony solutions to the war crimes that have alleged occurred 2001-2006. It doesn't matter what the voters or Congress do or do not do, the President and others may lawfully be prosecuted for war crimes. The indictments are ready, and the prosecutors continue their work.

Congratulations, your clients have been successfully linked with the alleged illegal activity to undermine Geneva, violate the laws of war, and otherwise fail to do what you had the legal duty to do: Enforce the law, and see that justice is done.

Justice shall be done.

There is no statute of limitations on war crimes.

You wished this.