Digital Realty’s CEO Thumbs His Nose at Code of Conduct

.

A. William Stein, Digital Realty executives and even board members received expensive gifts from a vendor worth more than $75,000. In turn, Stein made sure the vendor was provided with an improper favor in return. Stein handled the transaction personally and failed to obtain a waiver from the Board of Directors. In doing so, Stein engaged in multiple violations of Digital’s Code of Business Ethics and Conduct.

The vendor was Chubb. Chubb paid for dozens of Digital Realty employees, wives, children and Board members to attend the oral argument at the Supreme Court of the United States in November 2017.

Digital had no business going that far up to challenge Dodd Frank. Chubb stood to gain the most by going to the to SCOTUS. Stein agreed to allow Chubb to make the run on one condition. Stein wanted a bribe; rumors are that he obtained free insurance for his family, reduced rates to Digital and all expenses paid trips for up to 40 people to Washington D.C. Chubb agreed to foot the bill.

Digital’s Code of Business Ethics and Conduct states: Gifts and entertainment may not be offered or exchanged under any circumstances to or with any employees of U.S. or foreign federal, state or local governments unless expressly permitted under the Company’s FCPA and AntiCorruption Compliance Policy. If you have any uestions about this policy, contact your supervisor or the General Counsel for additional guidance.

Bill Stein, Josh Mills, Digital Board members, you’re fired.

Foust- “It’s too bad about the changes at Digital.” DLR’s Board Chairman Misled Investors in Press Release to Cover Up Stein’s Misconduct

.

Digital Realty dropped the word Trust from its name in several years ago. Perhaps it was to clear the way for innapropriate behavior in years to come when the likes of A. William Stein took over.

Let’s face it. We still like Mike. We miss Mike. Digital wouldn’t be engaged in untoward business with federal judges if Mike were still at the helm. Digital used to be a big family. It used to be a great place to work.

Now it’s toxic leadership is engaged in perjury, discrimination and retaliation. Digital went to the Supreme Court to be able to fire its employees for abiding by its Code of Conduct. Digital’s leadership is also buried its collective head in the sand concerning it’s corruption of judges and court staff which occurred in the District Court under under Joshua Mills’ guidance.

Digital’s current less than honest way of doing business started in March 2014, with fraudulant press releases. Digital lied to shareholders and the public to cover up what Bill Stein was doing to gain control of Digital for himself and his chosen people.

Stein’s cloak and dagger way of operating Digital Realty started out that way and hasn’t changed under his leadership. Stein’s first act as “interim” CEO was one of dishonesty. Here’s what they said:

Digital Realty Trust said today that its long-time CEO Michael Foust has stepped down, effective immediately. The company’s board has appointed Chief Financial Officer William Stein to take over as Interim Chief Executive.

Board chairman Dennis Singleton said that the Foust and the board had “mutually agreed that it was an appropriate time to find the next leader to help guide Digital Realty to the next level and scale of operational sophistication.”

March 17, 2014

That press release is false. Singleton was dishonest. It turns out there was no mutual agreement. Foust had no idea that he was about to be fired. In an email to me, Mr. Foust stated the following:

M Foust <____t@yahoo.com> Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 5:15 PM

To: Paul Somers <paul_____@gmail.com>

Paul, I’m sorry how badly things turned out at DLR. My departure was abrupt, told on Sat that Mon was my last day. It is too bad about the changes at Digital.

Good luck on new opportunities. Let me know what you are up to.

Best,

Mike

Foust then filed a lawsuit against Digital because Stein tried to stiff him on pay. Public corporations are not permitted to lie to investors and the public. More dishonest acts have been found and will be presented in the coming weeks. Check back for information on this topic, Digital’s federal court bribery scheme and the other big one developing related to an massive unreported SLA breach – it’s extraordinairy.

Ex-Chubb Vice President of Claims Says Company Destroyed Pertinent Litigation Documents

.

“If at first you don’t succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried.”

Anthony Guerriero, a former vice president in charge of claims, filed a lawsuit in Union County Superior Court, New Jersey, claiming he was fired after raising concerns that Chubb destroyed documents related to insurance claims litigation and asked him to keep quiet about it. He alleges that company officials disregarded legal department notices about preserving documentation and tapes, knowing the materials might contain relevant evidence.

These are particularly damaging allegations against a company with a track record for being reasonable when it comes to covering claims.

In the complaint, Guerriero accuses Chubb representatives of recording telephone conversations of brokers, clients, and employees—including himself—that in part involved private matters. What those private matters are is not certain.

The legal department at Chubb sends out emails known as “litigation hold notices” which remind employees to preserve certain documents that are or can be subject to litigation. In November 2013, Guerriero received an email from his IT department which referenced deletion of files from the “Curtis claim.” Guerriero was aware that this claim was the subject of a litigation hold and that information related to the claim should not be deleted. Guerriero was allegedly told by a company lawyer this decision to destroy evidence was made by their legal department and that they would assume the risk that the destruction would not be discovered. Guerriero was later deposed in the Curtis claim and—according to the complaint—advised by Chubb’s lawyers not to volunteer any information, specifically about the tapes.

Chubb has publicly responded to the lawsuit only to say the company doesn’t comment on pending litigation.

At this moment, a separate complaint has been filed in federal court seeking to compel arbitration in the case. Stay tuned for further information on the outcome. I leave you with a relevant quote by comedian Steven Wright: “If at first you don’t succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried.”

Sexual Predators Now Protected by Chubb’s New Insurance Product

.

Chubb has lawyers, like Brian Ashe of Seyfarth Shaw, who specialize in protecting wealthy sexual predators. If you are a wealthy sexual predator like Harvey Weinstein, you call Chubb and obtain insurance to pay for your legal fees and bribes to judges and witnesses. If you can afford the coverage, and are accused of sexual harrassment, or worse, you simply hand off the issues to Chubb’s assigned concierge:

“coverage helps protect you if you are accused of wrongful termination, sexual harassment or employment discrimination. Additionally, it helps defray the defense costs you may incur as a result of such allegations.

Because You Value Your Reputation: Masterpiece Employment Practices Liability Coverage includes insurance for reputational injury, which is designed to defray expenses arising from allegations of a wrongful employment act that result in an employment practices crisis. With preapproval from Chubb, you can employ:
“a professional public relations consulting firma professional security consulting firm and/or a professional media management firm

Reputational injury coverage helps reimburse the expense of hiring such firms that can assist with damage control surrounding the allegations as well as secure your residence(s) and family members from media intrusions.”

https://www.chubb.com/us-en/individuals-families/employment-practices-liability.aspx

This is the same insurance used by Digital Realty to allow Bill Stein to grab all the body parts he wants yet he’ll never have to worry about the repercussions.

Sam Lee’s Loyalty to Digital Realty Paid for by Chubb

.

HOW FAR IS SAM LEE, (now at Global Switch) WILLING TO GO TO LIE FOR HIS FORMER EMPLOYER, DIGITAL REALTY? IT LOOKS LIKE ALL THE WAY TO CHANGI PRISON.

ASK YOURSELF, WOULD YOU PROVIDE THREE PAGES OF FALSE TESTIMONY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY AS AN EXPAT LIVING IN SINGAPORE?

Last June, Digital’s lawyer, Brian T. Ashe, filed a fabricated and forged document in federal court. Ashe made it appear that Sam Lee, a former subordinate of Paul Somers, had written three full pages of damaging and false testimony about his former boss under oath and subject to perjury. A copy of Lee’s signature appeared on the last page representing that he signed it.

We now know that the document is not from Lee and the signature is a forgery by Brian T. Ashe. There are multiple felonies associated with Mr. Ashe actions. Lee has known about that he is a victim of Mr. Ashe’s crimes for more than a year, yet does nothing. Sam Lee’s silence makes him a criminal too. It’s called abetment, according to the penal code in Singapore. Singapore will prosecute those who engage in abetment of a crime committed by someone (Ashe) overseas while (Lee) on Singapore soil.

Lee had nothing to do with the false Declaration nor did he sign it. Lee had left Digital three years earlier after he was passed over for a promotion for four straight years. (Due an internal investigation which involved Lee’s laundering money via cleaning vendors). Why would Lee have written a declaration full of false statements to help out his former employer? He would have had no reason to tell a series of lies only to put himself at risk for committing perjury. The first Lee knew of the fraud was when Somers emailed him a copy of Mr. Ashe’s fictional work in July 2018.

“Mr. Lee, one of the declarants, unfortunately apparently is no longer as friendly…”

Mr. Brian Ashe is caught in a lie covering up his crimes during a hearing speaking to a federal judge by stating that “Mr. Lee, one of the declarants..” Mr. Lee is not a declarant. It’s also a slip by Mr. Ashe admitting that Lee was upset when he found out about the fake declaration. Mr. Ashe is facing disbarment for several dozen criminal acts and serious misconduct.

-Brian Ashe
Sam Lee’s Current Employer is Global Switch

If Lee was a law-abiding citizen, he would have confirmed with Somers that he was not the author of the declaration and provided a sworn statement along those lines. Given Lee’s nefarious history of shaking down Digital’s cleaning companies for cash and for defamation, it’s no surprise that Sam Lee instead called Brian Ashe to see how he could profit from the situation.

Lee struck a deal with Ashe requiring indirect hush money payments to an entity controlled by Lee as well as payments to a family member in California. Considering what’s at stake for Digital’s insurer, Chubb, Ashe was once again able to access Chubb’s “dark money” fund to obtain to pay Lee and gain his cooperation.

How do we know Sam Lee had nothing to do with the declaration? No one of sound mind would swear, under penalty of perjury, three pages of false statements without some upside. In addition to this, we know the signature was cut and paste from another document by Ashe’s assistant, Gloria Garcia.

Ask yourself, would you provide testimony under penalty of perjury:

  1. if every statement in your Declaration was false and can be proven false.
  2. to help a former employer that you quit three years ago?
  3. considering that your former employer is a direct competitor to your current employer (Global Switch vs. Digital Realty)?
  4. knowing that you are breaking the law as an expat in Singapore?
  5. knowing there is no upside?

When facing the metadata proving he did not write or sign the Declaration Lee won’t be able to justify witholding the truth. Lee’s been asked to prove he participated in the drafting or at least reviewed and signed the document. He failed to do so.

Given the forensic digital evidence in hand to prove Ashe’s crimes, Lee should tell the truth and do it soon. The longer he waits the greater the risk he’s going to Changi.

**Make no mistake that this is criminal behavior on the part of Brian Ashe, purportedly a Boston College Alumni who claims to have attended Oxford and obtained his law degree from George Washington University. Either Mr. Ashe is faking his credentials or he has strayed far from his flock, indeed.

.

NAVEX GLOBAL’S EthicsPoint® Incident Management is a Sham, Refuses to Investigate Chubb’s Public Corruption

.

According to its website:
NAVEX Global’s goal is to ensure that you can communicate issues and concerns associated with unethical or illegal activities safely and honestly with an organization’s management or the board of directors while maintaining your anonymity and confidentiality.

NAVEX Global is certified under the EU-U.S. and Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield Programs through the United States Department of Commerce as having security measures in place to address EU privacy initiatives and other global privacy directives.”

The words above, may sound reasuring but they ring hollow. It’s simply corporate nonsense to placate sharholders and investors and the SEC. Reality is quite different. I reported the head of Chubb Ltd’s legal department, Joseph Wayland – Executive Vice President and General Counsel Chubb Limited / Chubb Group to Chubb’s third party ethics hotline, NavexGlobal. I gave them examples of Chubb bribery federal judges. What did Navex do? Nada.

They sweep it under the rug without even doing an investigation. Chubb wasn reported for engaging in multiple criminal activities. See the bottom of the image above. Navex Global indicated that they’ve closed the investigation of their client, Chubb. NAVEX NEVER BOTHERED TO CONTACT THE PERSON WHO MADE THE COMPLAINT.

NavexGlobal, that’s not an investigation, it’s a coverup.

______________________________________________________________________________

Chubb Bribe$ T-Shirts – On Sale Now – Paid Advertisement.

______________________________________________________________________________

Chubb told them to shut it down. Now that’s unethical and serious misconduct, Chubb. NavexGlobal rolled over when its client determined that misconduct by its chief legal officer would be permitted. After that does anyone actually care to hear the excuses from Navex? Not really.

Follow-Up Questions/Comments2/7/2019 11:54 AM

posted by Navex Global: Thank you for contacting the Chubb Helpline. We are investigating the concerns you reported. If you have any additional information or documents (such as the document that you refer to in your report) that you think could assist us in fully investigating this matter, please provide them at this time.

3/7/2019 1:28 PM posted by Navex Global:

Thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention. The matter has been fully investigated with the information you have provided and the allegations cannot be substantiated. If you have anything further to add in this matter which may warrant additional investigation, please provide this information. This matter has been closed.

3/13/2019 5:20 AM posted by P. Somers: “Case in point: Look at the Summary Judgment “Order.” The court did not turn around a 32-page order based upon a 600-page motion in 2 days. It was written well in advance by Seyfarth and several employees at Chubb are aware that Chubb has engaged in criminal activity related to our federal court system.”

How did you fully investigate that? Did Navex not see an issue with the Orders as written? If the court didn’t write that order, who did? You have got to be kidding me with the “thorough investigation.”

No one believes that. You failed to contact me, for starters.

Ethics investigation fail.

Navex Global Refused to Respond and will not answer any questions.

Do Big Insurance Companies Fix Elections? Or Bribe Judges in America?

.

Of course they do.

By Gaddis, Kin, Herd & Craw, P.C. | November 29, 2018

We would all like to believe that “buying judges” is not a problem in real life. It only happens in the movies, right? And, who would suspect an auto insurance company of fixing an election in America? A recent settlement, reported in the November 2018 ABA Journal, seems to prove that both of these events can, and do happen – even in the USA.

The ABA Journal reports that State Farm Insurance paid $250 million to settle a lawsuit that alleged State Farm manipulated an election in Illinois. It claimed that State Farm and its in-house attorneys recruited a specific candidate for the election of a new Justice to the Illinois Supreme Court. State Farm picked its man, got him on the ballot, and then used political action committees to send their candidate lots of “dark money,” or political contributions that do not reveal the origin of the money. In fact, so much money was involved that it was the most expensive election of any judge in Illinois history.

Why Does State Farm Care About Judicial Candidates?

The ABA article provides some interesting, additional information about how this scenario pans out. There was a particular motive for State Farm picking and secretly backing the campaign to elect this Judge. It turns out that the $250 million State Farm paid was just a “drop in the bucket” for what it got in return. With the financial support of State Farm, its chosen candidate won the election and became a member of the Illinois Supreme Court. There, he voted to overturn a $1 billion judgment against State Farm that was being reviewed on appeal in the Supreme Court.

When insurance companies get hit with a big judgment, they typically blame it on “runaway juries.” They tell the public that “frivolous law suits” and “runaway juries” are what drives up their insurance rates. But this case did not involve a “runaway jury” verdict. It was not a case that was even decided by a jury or a judge. The decision to pay $250 million was made entirely by State Farm, who also even gave up their ability to appeal the $250 million judgment.

Is Pulling Electoral Strings a Criminal Violation?

Was State Farm’s behind-the-scenes intervention in the Illinois Supreme Court election a crime or an act of fraud? Or, was it just a business investment of the insurance company? Did anyone from State Farm involved in this scheme get arrested, get charged, or go to jail?

Not unexpectedly, State Farm has denied any wrongdoing in the case, and says the allegations of manipulating elections and/or buying judges allegiance are without merit. But when is the last time you heard about an insurance company agreeing to pay $250 million when it did nothing wrong? Or, when there was no merit to such outrageous allegations of misconduct? Even the greenest sleuths can smell something fishy here.

(For more about this story, you can click here to view it on Law.com, or click here to view the original ABA Journal article. Login information or subscription may be required.)

SUPREME COURT DECISION ON WHISTLEBLOWERS TO BE OVERTURNED.

.

CHUBB’S QUEST FOR HIGHER PROFITS FOR IT’S EPLI PRODUCT MAY TURN OUT TO BE A WASTE MONEY, AND A STAIN ON DIGITAL REALTY’S REPUTATION.

– Paul Somers

Digital Realty’s narrowing of Dodd-Frank whistleblower protection was due to an apparent drafting error in Section 922 of the Dodd-Frank Act.

Wednesday, May 8, 2019

Today a majority of the House Financial Services Committee marked up and approved H.R. 2515, which would clarify that whistleblowers who report potential violations of securities laws to their employers are protected by the anti-retaliation provision of the Dodd-Frank Act. The legislation overturns the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Digital Realty, Inc. v. Somers, which limited Dodd-Frank whistleblower protection to disclosures to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Digital Realty’s narrowing of Dodd-Frank whistleblower protection was due to an apparent drafting error in Section 922 of the Dodd-Frank Act.  Congress intended to protect both internal disclosures and disclosures to the SEC, but it included a definition of “whistleblower” in the statute that was inconsistent with the text of the anti-retaliation provision, which in turn expressly protects internal disclosures (by incorporating Sarbanes-Oxley protected conduct within the ambit of Dodd-Frank protected conduct).  The definition of “whistleblower” in Section 922 appears to have been drafted solely for the provision creating the SEC whistleblower reward program and was not intended to apply to the anti-retaliation provision.  H.R. 2515 corrects this error by adding a separate definition of “whistleblower” for the anti-retaliation provision.

Limiting Dodd-Frank protected conduct to disclosures to the SEC essentially excludes most corporate whistleblowers from Dodd-Frank whistleblower protection in that  whistleblowers typically raise concerns internally prior to reporting a violation to a regulator or law enforcement). See, e.g., Ethics Resource Center 2011 National Business Ethics Survey.  To learn more about the impact of Digital Realty, see our article Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Protection Post-Digital Realty.

H.R. 2515 enjoys broad bipartisan support because companies benefit from whistleblowers reporting potential violations of federal securities law internally, i.e., internal disclosures offer companies an opportunity to investigate and remedy the violation.  As Senator Grassley pointed out in an amicus curiae brief that he submitted in Digital Realty,

[T]he testimony to Congress suggests that members of the business community, while advocating for internal reporting requirements, assumed or took for granted that Dodd-Frank’s anti-retaliation provisions apply to internal whistleblowers. . . .  Similarly, it was the business community that successfully lobbied the SEC to adopt rules favoring internal reporting. See 76 Fed. Reg. at 34,300, 34,323.

Brief for Senator Charles Grassley as Amicus Curiae, 2, Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Paul Somers, No. 16-1276 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2018), available at https://bit.ly/2UXMyy5.

Revised Section 922

As revised by HR 2515, Section 922 of Dodd-Frank would define the term “whistleblower” as follows (the bolded text is the new definition of “whistleblower” applicable solely to the anti-retaliation provision:

(A) IN GENERAL.—The term“whistleblower” means any individual who provides, or 2 or more individuals acting jointly who provide, information relating to a violation of the securities laws to the Commission, in a manner established, by rule or regulation, by the Commission; and

(B) SPECIAL RULE.—Solely for the purposes of subsection (h)(1), the term ‘whistleblower’ shall also include any individual who takes an action described in subsection (h)(1)(A), or 2 or more individuals acting jointly who take an action described in subsection (h)(1)(A).

And the anti-retaliation provision in Section 922 would add the bolded text below:

(h) Protection of whistleblowers

(1)Prohibition against retaliation

(A)In general    No employer may discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, directly or indirectly, or in any other manner discriminate against, a whistleblower in the terms and conditions of employment because of any lawful act done by the whistleblower-

(i) in providing information to the Commission in accordance with this section;

(ii) in initiating, testifying in, or assisting in any investigation or judicial or administrative action of the Commission based upon or related to such information;

(iii) in making disclosures that are required or protected under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.), this chapter, including section 78j-1(m) of this title, section 1513(e) of Title 18, and any other law, rule, or regulation subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission; or

(iv) in providing information regarding any conduct that the whistleblower reasonably believes constitutes a violation of any law, rule, or regulation subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission to— (I) a person with supervisory authority over the whistleblower at the whistleblower’s employer, where such employer is an entity registered with or required to be registered with the Commission, a self-regulatory organization, or a State securities commission or office performing like functions; or (II) such other person working for the employer described under sub-clause (I) who has the authority to investigate, discover, or terminate misconduct.

Hopefully Congress will act promptly to enact this important legislation.

© 2019 Zuckerman Law

Chubb Ltd. & Ace Holdings Underwriting Bribery of Judges

.

THIS SERVES AS OFFICIAL NOTICE TO CHUBB LTD AND ACE HOLDINGS.  IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT YOU INVESTIGATE THE MATTER BELOW IMMEDIATELY.  WHAT IS DESCRIBED IS OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE.  CRIMINAL ACTS BY BY CHUBB INSURANCE AND ACE HOLDINGS ARE SEVERELY AND NEGATIVELY IMPACTING OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM.  IF YOU DECIDE TO IGNORE THIS ISSUE AND DO NOTHING, OFFICERS AND BOARD MEMBERS MAY BE LIABLE FOR CRIMINAL AND CIVIL PENALTIES.


After months of analysis involving experts in the field of data science and forensics, it has been determined that ACE Holdings and Chubb Ltd. have been underwriting the cost to have its lawyers take the place of Judge Ed Chen and Magistrate Westmore in the lawsuit Paul Somers v. Digital Realty and Ellen Jacobs.


Nearly all of the Orders since late November 2016 have been written by Seyfarth Shaw as directed by ACE Holdings and Chubb Ltd.
Each of those orders are unlawful. 


Metadata exposes detail about how Seyfarth Shaw and other private parties drafted the fraudulent orders, ex parte.  They then sent the Word and/or pdf documents to a secret drive on one of the judge’s computers.  The judges or their staff picked up the document and, without a review, simply robo-signed them.  They were then filed in our U.S. legal system despite being unlawful.


Those unlawful orders are now polluting case law ecosystem.  
Attorneys and judges are already citing the one-sided, fake rulings. ACE Holdings and Chubb Ltd., Digital Realty and Judge Chen and Magistrate Westmore are aware that they are responsible this serious matter.
Your company paid for and directed the bribes to the judges that ultimately led to the unlawful orders now appearing in multitudes of legal publications.


ACE Holdings and Chubb Ltd. will be forced to mitigate the damages for litigants impacted by the fraud.


While ACE Holdings and Chubb Ltd. may only be liable for $10 million in mitigation today, costs may balloon to $100 million next month to billions in claims and punitive damages over the course of 24 more months. The earliest of the fraudulent orders were filed in November 2016. It is fairly likely that great amount of damage has  already been done.


Your company would be well served to create a weekly surveillance report, in the form of a heat map, prepared for the Department of Justice indicating weekly citation activity estimates to understand the spread of the ACE-Chubb fraud.  It may also be a tool to allow ACE-Chubb to keep the media, shareholders and analysts informed of its mounting liabilities during the upcoming public relations crisis.


In closing, the forensic evidence collected about the criminal activities is going to the media and departments within our government who are best suited to investigate the ACE-Chubb’s crimes. No evidence will be released at this time to either judge, ACE Holdings, Chubb Ltd., or Digital Realty its attorneys. 

Two Lawyers Found Holed Up in a Basement in Atherton, Hallucinating.

.

Throughout litigation Digital Realty’s in-house lawyer, Justin Chang, has refused to abide by common standards of civility. He has unfairly targeted Plaintiff and his family. As earlier posts have shown, he has engaged in perjury. He did this to intimidate Paul Somers into dropping his claims against Digital Realty.

He’s one of many lawbreaking lawyers like Brian Ashe, Josh Mills, Kyle Pedersen and, of course, Shireen Wetmore. Each day they think of new ways to pervert the law and damage the good and innocent. They long for a world where justice is for sale at price that only a few can afford. It’s happening now, we are not that far off.

Chang’s willful abuse of the judicial process can be seen in just this one example. His conduct is becoming increasingly severe and frequent. Many readers are familiar with Chang and Mills’ embarrassing attempt to paint me as a computer genius who delights in following the “Digital people” around while seducing their wives and hypnotizing their children. I am not making that up. That is what Mills and Chang swore happened in Washington D.C. during the visit for the oral arguments. Mr. Chang swore one more thing under penalty of perjury.

We have a simple task for Mr. Chang. He swore under penalty of perjury many false statements in declaration dated 1/24/18. Let’s make him prove just one. He swore under oath that after my partner and I finished our $200 lunch and walked out to get our Lyft, that he phoned the other party revelers in the restaurant to warn them not to come outside because I was there. Yes, that’s right. I was standing near the curb waiting for my Lyft. How scary of me. So he’re He swore that he informed the other partygoers to exit the back door and what, start running? Chang has written the stupidest declaration possible, one that can be used to disbar him. This is what Chang swore to:


“Following the lunch in Washington, D.C., I saw Plaintiff holding a smart phone in a manner that I understood to mean he was photographing me and members of our party as we left the restaurant. I was concerned for the safety of our party because of this conduct by the Plaintiff and immediately telephoned other members of our party who remained in the restaurant in order to alert them to use an alternate exit so as to avoid Plaintiff. I immediately telephoned other members of our party who remained in the restaurant in order to alert them.”

So Chang pulled out his smartphone to call other smartphones to warn them of the madman outside by the curb using his smartphone.

No further questions your honor. I believe the defendants just entered a plea for insanity.

If smartphones are weapons, I think we’ve all got some explaining to do. I have carried mine onto more airplanes than I can remember. The TSA never said a word. I’ve even used my smartphone on an airplane, in stadiums, courtrooms. I’ve even taken my smartphone to the office more than once. My God, I let my 5 year old nephew play with my smartphone, how thoughtless.

This goes back to that day in January 2018 when Chang and Mills got up and ate far too many bowls of sugar frosted crazy. Or perhaps the shrooms you can get in Atherton are, like people of Atherton, better than anywhere else.

That must be it. Magic msuhrooms. Its safe to say Mills and Chang were hold-up in the basement at Josh’s $19M house tripping on something when they wrote down their hallucinagenic/epiphionic statements under oath. The two are so obsessed with Paul Somers that they had visions of him following them around Washington D.C., at their hotel, “breaking” into their computers even trying to seduce their wives. Oh yes, these are written statements, not by 13 year olds, but by grown men. They managed to pass a bar exam, but that’s where it appears to have ended. They aren’t lawyers, they’re criminals. Intimidating a plaintiff to drop his case is against the law. Lying under oath is against the law. Doing mushrooms is a against the law. It therefore must be against Digital Realty’s hallowed Code of Conduct. It’s a problem when a publicly traded company’s general counsel and a senior paralegal get caught engaging in perjury on company time.

Back to the point of this article. It is quite simple. Digital Realty, turn over Chang’s phone records. Show everyone what a(n) (dis)honest guy he is. Let’s see those phone calls he made after lunch at Charlie Palmer’s on that warm November day in our nation’s capitol. Then we’ll cross-verify his records with those of the people he was supposed to have made calls to. If he won’t provide them, we’ll subpeona them in the next round.

We will get to it, Mr. Chang. If you think there is any value providing the truth, now is the time to do it.

paid advertisement

Kiss Your Privacy Goodbye Forever. Digital Realty Employees Should Read This.

.


HR keeping tabs on employees net worth and websites surfed while at home.

The former senior vice president of HR, Ellen Jacobs had an EXACTIS account. This means Digital Realty personal have been investigated needlessly for improper reasons. Jacobs had access to the most detailed data that exists collected as part of Exactis’ service as a “compiler and aggregator of premium business & consumer data” which they then sell for profiling and marketing purposes.

They want to know everything and probably do:

Credit status information,

Dates of birth,

Education levels,

Email addresses

Ethnicities,

Family structure

Financial investments,

Genders,

Home ownership statuses,

Income levels,

IP addresses,

Marital statuses,

Names,

Net worths,

Occupations,

Personal interests,

Phone numbers,

Physical addresses,

Religions,

Spoken languages