Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 13 to 21 of 21
  1. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Thanks for sharing that story about Rocky Flats. Peter Boyles kept referring to it in his broadcasts after the grand jury indictments were released this past year, so I looked it up.

    HAL HADDON REPRESENTED ROCKWELL. It was an open and shut case of blatant pollution with deadly materials, but Rockwell/Haddon wiped the floor with the Grand Jury and the poor citizens who later spoke out and opposed turning the contaminated land into A PLAYGROUND.

    Yes, the Ramseys got the most corrupted in our justice system to represent them because they worked for the most corrupted in our country. That's who the Ramseys are.

    I think it would have been something to know you here, Quest, but I am afraid my time at FFJ is done, and I wanted to at least say that before I go. Keep looking, as all answers are in front of us, if only we can see through the fog of lies and greed.

    I know there will never be justice for the murdered child in Boulder, but we have told her story here, all of us who truly seek the truth. That's all we can do.

    But JonBenet has given us a gift we could not possibly have anticipated: we now know American justice is corrupt to its core. It is for sale to the highest bidder, and there is no more question about that
    .
    BBM
    Very well said, KK.

  2. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cynic View Post
    BBM
    Very well said, KK.
    I agree, Cynic, it’s very well said.

    FWIW, I also wanted to mention I never would have chosen to look into that dark ‘pit of justice’ except for the discovery of the R True Bills and subsequently investigating to find out THERE WAS NO INTRUDER. Thinking back to Patsy’s valium-fueled, bizarre comments on CNN, I’m still bowled over by what irony her comments contained: “America has just been hurt so badly by the OJ and Susan Smith cases.” I guess in those cases Patsy was referencing folks who kill members of their family, suggesting (I think) that we should conclude JonBenet’s death was something different. Of course, she was also inferring that JR and PR are the biggest victims. IDK, but I think the Ramsey case has affected way more people than the OJ or Susan Smith cases and not in a good way. It’s affected those directly in the R’s firing range and those of us who wanted to believe that justice would prevail for a killed child.
    ______________

    It couldn’t be more obvious if it were announced with trumpets and acrobats that this was a family for whom the cliché dysfunctional was meant. This is visible in the contradictory staging. The adult Rs were not a finely-tuned team that night and early morning. (You can look at it like dancing with a partner who is doing the 4 part tango beats, to your 3 beats waltz. You’re dancing, but “it’s all off.”) Since probably a high percentage of us come from a variety of unresolved conflicts within our own families, I thought I’d bring over a psychologist’s version of dysfunction.

    http://psychology.jrank.org/pages/19...-Family.html):
    Some of the characteristics of dysfunctional family systems are as follows:

    • Blaming; failure to take responsibility for personal actions and feelings; and invalidation of other family members' feelings.

    • Boundaries between family members that are either too loose or too rigid. For example, the parent may depend excessively on the child for emotional support (loose boundaries) (JR after Beth’s death?) or prevent the child from developing autonomy by making all the decisions for the child (rigid boundaries) (PR?).

    • Boundaries between the family as a whole and the outside world may also be too loose or too rigid. (Think incest; the outside world can never know.)

    • A tendency for family members to enact set roles— caregiver, hero, scapegoat, saint, bad girl or boy, little prince or princess—that serve to restrict feelings, experience, and self-expression.

    • A tendency to have an "identified patient"—one family member who is recognized as mentally unhealthy, who may or may not be in treatment, but whose symptoms are a sign of the inner family conflict. (Myself, I’m thinking of the kids, and particularly JB with her enuresis and encopresis.) Often the identified patient's problems function to disguise the larger family issues. For example, a child may be regarded as a bully and a troublemaker in school and labeled a "problem child," when he may in fact be expressing conflicts and problems, such as abuse from home, by acting out and being "bad."

    Since the crime scene itself manifests cross-contamination, and the separate behavioral issues of each of the Rs contribute to distorting who could have done what (the dynamics of dysfunction), it’s a mess to separate out the perpetrators of each action that Christmas night. The only thing I know for sure is PR wrote the note.

    I once wrote Charlie Brennan congratulating him on his DFMIE investigative reporting award. He responded to my email that he thought more truth about the crime would yet arrive. That’s my hope as well. Slowly but surely - of course, more slowly than we want - I hope for more bits of the truth. And thank you, KK, for the encouragement.

    Footnote: I understand KK’s move towards the FFJ exit door, knowing many people feel they’ve done what they can. All of us have other aspects of life which call us. But then there’s another part of me which wants to call out to you and Cherokee: “Hey. unless they’re hauling her butt off to jail , I don’t see why KK has to go!”

    JMO

  3. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by questfortrue View Post
    I agree, Cynic, it’s very well said.

    FWIW, I also wanted to mention I never would have chosen to look into that dark ‘pit of justice’ except for the discovery of the R True Bills and subsequently investigating to find out THERE WAS NO INTRUDER. Thinking back to Patsy’s valium-fueled, bizarre comments on CNN, I’m still bowled over by what irony her comments contained: “America has just been hurt so badly by the OJ and Susan Smith cases.” I guess in those cases Patsy was referencing folks who kill members of their family, suggesting (I think) that we should conclude JonBenet’s death was something different. Of course, she was also inferring that JR and PR are the biggest victims. IDK, but I think the Ramsey case has affected way more people than the OJ or Susan Smith cases and not in a good way. It’s affected those directly in the R’s firing range and those of us who wanted to believe that justice would prevail for a killed child.
    ______________

    It couldn’t be more obvious if it were announced with trumpets and acrobats that this was a family for whom the cliché dysfunctional was meant. This is visible in the contradictory staging. The adult Rs were not a finely-tuned team that night and early morning. (You can look at it like dancing with a partner who is doing the 4 part tango beats, to your 3 beats waltz. You’re dancing, but “it’s all off.”) Since probably a high percentage of us come from a variety of unresolved conflicts within our own families, I thought I’d bring over a psychologist’s version of dysfunction.

    http://psychology.jrank.org/pages/19...-Family.html):
    Some of the characteristics of dysfunctional family systems are as follows:

    • Blaming; failure to take responsibility for personal actions and feelings; and invalidation of other family members' feelings.

    • Boundaries between family members that are either too loose or too rigid. For example, the parent may depend excessively on the child for emotional support (loose boundaries) (JR after Beth’s death?) or prevent the child from developing autonomy by making all the decisions for the child (rigid boundaries) (PR?).

    • Boundaries between the family as a whole and the outside world may also be too loose or too rigid. (Think incest; the outside world can never know.)

    • A tendency for family members to enact set roles— caregiver, hero, scapegoat, saint, bad girl or boy, little prince or princess—that serve to restrict feelings, experience, and self-expression.

    • A tendency to have an "identified patient"—one family member who is recognized as mentally unhealthy, who may or may not be in treatment, but whose symptoms are a sign of the inner family conflict. (Myself, I’m thinking of the kids, and particularly JB with her enuresis and encopresis.) Often the identified patient's problems function to disguise the larger family issues. For example, a child may be regarded as a bully and a troublemaker in school and labeled a "problem child," when he may in fact be expressing conflicts and problems, such as abuse from home, by acting out and being "bad."

    Since the crime scene itself manifests cross-contamination, and the separate behavioral issues of each of the Rs contribute to distorting who could have done what (the dynamics of dysfunction), it’s a mess to separate out the perpetrators of each action that Christmas night. The only thing I know for sure is PR wrote the note.

    I once wrote Charlie Brennan congratulating him on his DFMIE investigative reporting award. He responded to my email that he thought more truth about the crime would yet arrive. That’s my hope as well. Slowly but surely - of course, more slowly than we want - I hope for more bits of the truth. And thank you, KK, for the encouragement.


    JMO
    Thanks for the info, QFT.
    Although the dictionary at the Ramsey home was open to a page including the word, "incest," having it open to the word, "dysfunctional," would have been a good second choice.

    Footnote: I understand KK’s move towards the FFJ exit door, knowing many people feel they’ve done what they can. All of us have other aspects of life which call us. But then there’s another part of me which wants to call out to you and Cherokee: “Hey. unless they’re hauling her butt off to jail , I don’t see why KK has to go!”
    JonBenet will have lost some true advocates - ones who have staunchly, articulately, passionately and tirelessly sought justice on her behalf. Sad.

  4. #16

    Default

    This post is just to elaborate on some details pertaining to LM and their sale of Access Graphics. The topic was referenced by Boyles with the comment “Bingo.” While I won’t offer any conclusions, there are a couple of thoughts about LM and the company’s relevance within the Boyles' interviews and the Prendergast article.

    First one might reflect on the complexity of the sale. It was not a simple divestiture of one division, as some may think. The deal had many moving parts. (Different aspects of such a deal include market research, financial analysis, dialogue with companies/divisions involved, lawyerly discussions, board meetings, contract development and seeking the blessing of the SEC.) Since the finalization of the sale took place in November ’97, one might wonder how long it took them to put this deal together. IOW, did LM begin the process before December ’96. A second and obvious consideration might be whether scandals hurt a company’s stock price.

    From Form 8-k filed with the SEC, and this press release detailing the deal:

    LOCKHEED MARTIN TO SPIN-OFF BUSINESSES IN EXCHANGE
    FOR LOCKHEED MARTIN PREFERRED STOCK HELD BY GE

    BETHESDA, Maryland and FAIRFIELD, Connecticut, 3 November 1997 --
    Lockheed Martin Corporation (NYSE: LMT) and the General Electric Company (NYSE: GE) today announced a definitive agreement under which Lockheed Martin will exchange the stock of a newly formed subsidiary comprising operating businesses, an equity interest and cash for all of the Lockheed Martin Series A preferred stock held by GE.

    The preferred stock is convertible into some 29 million shares of Lockheed Martin common stock with a current market value of approximately $2.8 billion. GE received the preferred stock in 1993 when the former Martin Marietta Corporation acquired GE Aerospace.

    In exchange for the preferred stock, GE will acquire a Lockheed Martin subsidiary containing two operating businesses, an equity interest and an amount of cash necessary to equalize the value of the exchange. GE expects to record a gain on the transaction of more than $1 billion. Lockheed Martin anticipates a gain in excess of $300 million.

    The assets that will be transferred to GE are Access Graphics in Boulder, Colorado, a wholesale distributor of UNIX-based workstations and other computer hardware; Lockheed Martin Aerostructures in Middle River, Maryland,which primarily produces thrust reversers for GE and Pratt & Whitney engines used on large commercial aircraft; and Lockheed Martin's stake in Globalstar, a partnership of telecommunications service providers and equipment manufacturers formed to create a low-Earth-orbit voice and data satellite network.


    Lockheed Martin's Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Vance D. Coffman,said, "This transaction is a positive step for both companies. The transfer of businesses to GE advances Lockheed Martin's ongoing portfolio- shaping activities and accomplishes a significant reduction in outstanding common shares, thereby enhancing shareholder value."

    "We're pleased at how well this transaction meets the needs of the two companies -- both strategically and financially," said GE's Chairman John F. Welch. "We feel the management of our GE Capital Services and Aircraft Engines businesses will help the businesses we are acquiring reach their full potential. In addition, the gain from this transaction will give us the opportunity to restructure our industrial businesses to position them for the global competition in the next decade."

    The transaction is subject to standard regulatory reviews and is anticipated to close during the fourth quarter of 1997.

    The consummation of the spin-off to GE also would mean that Lockheed Martin's strategic combination with Northrop Grumman, estimated to be completed in first quarter 1998, will be accounted for as a purchase instead of a pooling-of-interests.

    Headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland, Lockheed Martin is a highly diversified global enterprise engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture and integration of advanced-technology systems. The Corporation had 1996 sales of approximately $27 billion.

    GE, headquartered in Fairfield, Connecticut, is a diversified technology, manufacturing and services company with a commitment to achieving worldwide leadership in each of its major businesses. Revenues in 1996 exceeded $79 billion.

    _____________

    And a footnote from JR:

    The next comment is interesting in the context of what had transpired in that JR was ousted as CEO and the company he built was sold. It comes from the R interview with New Hope Church in Hawaii. “Well, at the time we were a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation, and they were wonderful to me. Absolutely wonderful. Totally dispelled the myth of an impersonal, big corporation. But, within a year, they were divesting themselves of companies that were not in the defense business."

    JR then described that the deal between LM and GE was structured to convey AG to GE, but his participation as CEO was not included. He goes on to say that after AG was sold to GE, LM took ‘wonderful’ care of him. "I can't say enough wonderful things about them, the compassion they showed to us as a family."

  5. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    Thanks for all that research! It does give an explanation for why Lockheed would have wanted to crush the investigation and keep JR "clean". And they certainly had the power to do so.
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  6. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by questfortrue View Post
    This post is just to elaborate on some details pertaining to LM and their sale of Access Graphics. The topic was referenced by Boyles with the comment “Bingo.” While I won’t offer any conclusions, there are a couple of thoughts about LM and the company’s relevance within the Boyles' interviews and the Prendergast article.

    First one might reflect on the complexity of the sale. It was not a simple divestiture of one division, as some may think. The deal had many moving parts. (Different aspects of such a deal include market research, financial analysis, dialogue with companies/divisions involved, lawyerly discussions, board meetings, contract development and seeking the blessing of the SEC.) Since the finalization of the sale took place in November ’97, one might wonder how long it took them to put this deal together. IOW, did LM begin the process before December ’96. A second and obvious consideration might be whether scandals hurt a company’s stock price.

    From Form 8-k filed with the SEC, and this press release detailing the deal:

    LOCKHEED MARTIN TO SPIN-OFF BUSINESSES IN EXCHANGE
    FOR LOCKHEED MARTIN PREFERRED STOCK HELD BY GE

    BETHESDA, Maryland and FAIRFIELD, Connecticut, 3 November 1997 --
    Lockheed Martin Corporation (NYSE: LMT) and the General Electric Company (NYSE: GE) today announced a definitive agreement under which Lockheed Martin will exchange the stock of a newly formed subsidiary comprising operating businesses, an equity interest and cash for all of the Lockheed Martin Series A preferred stock held by GE.

    The preferred stock is convertible into some 29 million shares of Lockheed Martin common stock with a current market value of approximately $2.8 billion. GE received the preferred stock in 1993 when the former Martin Marietta Corporation acquired GE Aerospace.

    In exchange for the preferred stock, GE will acquire a Lockheed Martin subsidiary containing two operating businesses, an equity interest and an amount of cash necessary to equalize the value of the exchange. GE expects to record a gain on the transaction of more than $1 billion. Lockheed Martin anticipates a gain in excess of $300 million.

    The assets that will be transferred to GE are Access Graphics in Boulder, Colorado, a wholesale distributor of UNIX-based workstations and other computer hardware; Lockheed Martin Aerostructures in Middle River, Maryland,which primarily produces thrust reversers for GE and Pratt & Whitney engines used on large commercial aircraft; and Lockheed Martin's stake in Globalstar, a partnership of telecommunications service providers and equipment manufacturers formed to create a low-Earth-orbit voice and data satellite network.


    Lockheed Martin's Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Vance D. Coffman,said, "This transaction is a positive step for both companies. The transfer of businesses to GE advances Lockheed Martin's ongoing portfolio- shaping activities and accomplishes a significant reduction in outstanding common shares, thereby enhancing shareholder value."

    "We're pleased at how well this transaction meets the needs of the two companies -- both strategically and financially," said GE's Chairman John F. Welch. "We feel the management of our GE Capital Services and Aircraft Engines businesses will help the businesses we are acquiring reach their full potential. In addition, the gain from this transaction will give us the opportunity to restructure our industrial businesses to position them for the global competition in the next decade."

    The transaction is subject to standard regulatory reviews and is anticipated to close during the fourth quarter of 1997.

    The consummation of the spin-off to GE also would mean that Lockheed Martin's strategic combination with Northrop Grumman, estimated to be completed in first quarter 1998, will be accounted for as a purchase instead of a pooling-of-interests.

    Headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland, Lockheed Martin is a highly diversified global enterprise engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture and integration of advanced-technology systems. The Corporation had 1996 sales of approximately $27 billion.

    GE, headquartered in Fairfield, Connecticut, is a diversified technology, manufacturing and services company with a commitment to achieving worldwide leadership in each of its major businesses. Revenues in 1996 exceeded $79 billion.

    _____________

    And a footnote from JR:

    The next comment is interesting in the context of what had transpired in that JR was ousted as CEO and the company he built was sold. It comes from the R interview with New Hope Church in Hawaii. “Well, at the time we were a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation, and they were wonderful to me. Absolutely wonderful. Totally dispelled the myth of an impersonal, big corporation. But, within a year, they were divesting themselves of companies that were not in the defense business."

    JR then described that the deal between LM and GE was structured to convey AG to GE, but his participation as CEO was not included. He goes on to say that after AG was sold to GE, LM took ‘wonderful’ care of him. "I can't say enough wonderful things about them, the compassion they showed to us as a family."
    It doesn’t sound good to have a CEO indicted for death of his child and undoubtedly LM would be in a stronger position to sell Access Graphics prior to a grand jury convening to look at the case. (Especially considering that the case had been played out on the international stage.)
    In terms of whether LM would have been capable of *cough* helping the investigation to proceed in a manner which would be beneficial to them, *cough* it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility given the past "escapades" of the company.
    http://articles.latimes.com/1995-08-...9_1_grand-jury
    http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec.../me-kotchian21
    I don’t happen to agree that AG was the superstar company that the “billion dollar sales” banter might suggest. (Although, I wouldn’t mind owning a company with those sales.)
    Of course, what determines survival within a larger business entity, such as LM, is profitability, and despite the question in the deposition below, AG wasn’t highly profitable and certainly not the most profitable subdivision of LM.
    In answer to your question about whether the divestment of Access Graphics was considered prior to December 1996, the evidence strongly suggests that it was.
    The sale of AG was essentially inevitable from a business standpoint, it was down to when – not if.

    • Some background:

    From John Ramsey’s civil deposition (1998) in Steven Miles vs. John Ramsey & The National Enquirer:
    21 MR. MYERS: We're back on the record
    22 approximately 10:28.
    23 Q. Thank you, Mr. Ramsey. Just to remind you, the
    24 oath that you took earlier continues as we continue the
    25 interview.
    Page 32
    1 A. I understand.
    2 Q. I've wondered about Access Graphics, learning
    3 about it. I've heard reports that it was the most
    4 profitable subdivision of Lockheed Martin?
    5 MR. CRAVER: I'm not going to let him answer any
    6 questions regarding profitability of this company. So if
    7 that's the area you're going to --
    8 MR. HILL: You'll mark the record where the
    9 witness is instructed not to answer.
    10 MR. CRAVER: Correct.

    http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ram...eposition.html
    http://www.acandyrose.com/s-stephen-miles.htm
    http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/...1/869/2516235/

    Ramsey's company may be sold
    By Mike McPhee, Denver Post
    Nov. 3 1997 - John Ramsey's Access Graphics Inc. of Boulder may be headed for new ownership and a new corporate culture under a proposed swap between Lockheed Martin and General Electric Capital Corp.
    Still being negotiated, the proposal would have Lockheed turn over four of its divisions, including Access Graphics, to General Electric, along with a small amount of cash and some real estate. GE, in return, would return some $2.75 billion worth of preferred stock it received from Lockheed four years ago.
    The swap would allow General Electric to avoid capital gains taxes on $1.75 billion and would allow Lockheed to unload some operations that no longer fit in its corporate profile. Access Graphics, a reseller of small computer systems with reported annual sales of $1 billion, was formed by Ramsey and then purchased several years ago by Lockheed Martin, a large manufacturer of aerospace equipment that was looking to diversify during lean years of defense spending.
    "Access Graphics has been a little bit of a fish out of water in Lockheed's portfolio, particularly since Lockheed has entered into major mergers to refocus on aerospace," said Peter Aseritis, an analyst with Credit Suisse First Boston.
    "Access Graphics hasn't been profitable in the norm of an aerospace company," Aseritis said. "The company has $1 billion in sales, but its 3 to 4 percent profit margin is well below the 12 to 15 percent margin carried by most aerospace firms."

    The other divisions included in the swap are manufacturers of jet engine parts - thrust reversers, cowlings and fans - that don't fit Lockheed's profile but fit with General Electric's jet-engine manufacturing division, analysts said.
    General Electric obtained the Lockheed shares in 1993, when it sold a substantial part of its operations in exchange for $1 billion in preferred stock. Those shares are now worth $2.75 billion.
    General Electric has the option of converting the shares to 29 million shares of common stock, a move that could significantly affect Lockheed's plans for expansion, including the purchase of Northrop Grumman, another large aerospace concern. General Electric must convert the shares by April. In return, General Electric would surrender the stock certificates, which Lockheed would effectively tear up, or retire, Aseritis said.
    [SNIP]

    http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon146.htm

    Merger May Lead to Cutbacks in Commercial Ventures : Conversion: Experts predict that Lockheed Martin will dump business lines that aren't solid money-makers.
    September 06, 1994,
    JILL LEOVY, THE LA TIMES
    CALABASAS — Lockheed Corp. and Martin Marietta say their planned merger will accelerate their expansion into commercial markets.
    But analysts are skeptical. They say the merger aims chiefly to create a leaner, meaner defense contracting giant. Beyond that, experts figure, the consolidation is a chance for both firms to give their commercial ventures a long, hard look--and dump the ones that aren't solid money-makers with roots in defense.
    Besides defense, "everything will be on the table now," said Rohit Shukla, executive director of the nonprofit Los Angeles Regional Technology Alliance.
    Calabasas-based Lockheed and Martin Marietta, based in Bethesda, Md., announced plans last weekto combine forces, creating an aerospace powerhouse with $23 billion in annual sales.
    Both say their commitment to diversify away from defense remains firm in the aftermath of the merger, the largest defense consolidation in industry history. And the companies' chief executives predicted that the new Lockheed Martin eventually would grow, after the unspecified job cuts that will come with the merger.
    But job applicants shouldn't hold their breath. Analysts paint a picture of a smaller, tighter Lockheed Martin, pared down to the areas in which it has clear superiority--be those civilian or military.Commercial markets expected to be emphasized by the new company include space systems, information services and environmental technology. As for other non-defense business lines, "They will shed like you wouldn't believe," predicted Shukla.
    Ventures such as CalComp, Lockheed's Anaheim-based computer graphics concern, will be among the first dumped by the new defense giant, he said. Profits at CalComp, which employs 1,600 worldwide, have been disappointing, and Lockheed tried unsuccessfully to sell the firm a few years ago. CalComp officials last week said it was premature to discuss the unit's future in a merged Lockheed Martin.
    Access Graphics, headquartered in Boulder, Colo., is another computer-related Lockheed venture that's likely to be a square peg in the new company, said Lior Bregman, an analyst with the investment banking firm Oppenheimer & Co. in New York. "Graphics and computer peripherals never fit, and it still doesn't fit," he said.

    Even profitable companies such as Burbank-based Lockheed Air Terminal, the airport management company, may eventually be sold, said Shukla. In recent years, the company has expanded from airport management to airport development, and exploring projects in far-flung spots such as Turkey and Siberia. But despite its modest success, the company "does not contribute anything to their core business," Shukla said.
    Lockheed and Martin Marietta have made strides in recent years to diversify away from making weapons and military aircraft. Lockheed is involved in everything from collecting highway tolls to developing commercial launch vehicles. U.S. defense sales shrank from 70% of Lockheed's total sales in 1991 to 64% last year.
    Martin Marietta's sales outside U.S. defense accounted for more than 30% of sales last year, up from 25% five years ago, said Charles P. Manor, a Martin Marietta spokesman. Martin Marietta's diversification efforts range from a joint partnership with a firm that dissolves pollutants in molten metal, to providing computer graphic technology for video games to Tokyo-based Sega Enterprises.
    Both companies were on a path toward expanding non-defense to 50% of sales, and that evolution will continue apace with the merger, Manor said. "Everyone has focused . . . on the creation of a defense juggernaut," he said. "But we did this not just to have a critical mass with (the Department of Defense), but to compete in global markets."
    Some analysts question, though, whether the huge new Lockheed Martin will be any more competitive outside defense. Being big "makes it harder for them to be flexible, adaptable and operate as a commercially successful enterprise," said Dan Flaming, president of the Economic Roundtable, a nonprofit public policy think tank in Los Angeles.
    Lockheed's more successful commercial offspring include Lockheed Information Management Services Co. in Teaneck, N.J. The company provides systems for processing parking tickets and toll-road collections for local governments. It also has developed so-called "intelligent highways," which will use sensors to assess fees to commuters as they drive by toll booths.
    But the company's most celebrated defense-conversion efforts are at Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. Inc., based in Sunnyvale.
    The unit is rooted in the development of ballistic missile systems. But it has also worked in space exploration for NASA, developing support systems and tests for the Hubble Space Telescope, and designing pieces of NASA's proposed manned space station

    http://articles.latimes.com/1994-09-...mercialization

    The Formation of Lockheed Martin
    To understand the antitrust issues raised by this merger, it is useful to describe the structure of both Lockheed and Martin Marietta before their combination. We then discuss the horizontal and vertical issues that were examined and ultimately resolved by the Federal Trade Commission.

    Firm Backgrounds:

    Lockheed
    At the time of the merger, Lockheed was one of the largest defense
    contractors, with over $13 billion in sales (having grown from about $7.7
    billion in 1984) (Lockheed, 1993 Annual Report, p. 26).
    Martin Marietta
    Like Lockheed, Martin Marietta was one of the largest defense contractors,
    having sales of $9.4 billion and earnings of $450 million before the merger.

    http://www.colorado.edu/econ/courses...d%20Martin.pdf

    Lockheed and Martin Marietta Set to merge in $10 Billion Deal
    By JACK LYNCH
    Published: August 30, 1994
    The Lockheed Corporation and the Martin Marietta Corporation announced early today that they had agreed to a merger in an exchange of common stock valued at more than $10 billion.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1994/08/30/bu...lion-deal.html

    Lockheed-Martin merger approved
    January 12, 1995,
    Ted Shelsby, Baltimore Sun
    The federal government gave its final approval yesterday to the merger of Martin Marietta Corp. and Lockheed Corp. -- a $10 billion marriage that will make Maryland home to the nation's largest defense contractor.
    By a 4-0 vote, the Federal Trade Commission approved the largest merger ever within the U.S. defense industry after the companies agreed to take steps to resolve antitrust concerns. The Department of Defense had approved the plan in late December.
    http://articles.baltimoresun.com/199...arietta-merger

    Portfolio Shaping
    As part of our strategy to exit certain businesses that did not fit well with our long-term direction
    , we completed, in 1996, the planned divestiture of Martin Marietta Materials (Materials), the nation's second largest producer of crushed rock. Splitting off our 81 percent interest in Materials, we launched an exchange offer that provided a financially efficient means of distributing approximately 37 million shares of Materials in exchange for approximately 8 million shares of Lockheed Martin common stock, removing $125 million in Materials' debt from our balance sheet and unlocking new growth opportunities for Materials. Other portfolio shaping during the year included repositioning our CalComp subsidiary and the sale of Lockheed Martin Defense Systems and Lockheed Martin Armament Systems to General Dynamics for $450 million. This transaction closed in 1997.
    Through internal cash generation plus a variety of transactions, including the sale of unneeded real estate, debt was reduced by over $700 million since the end of April 1996. Future divestitures and strong cash flow from operations should continue to enhance our financial flexibility and firepower.
    In February 1997, Lockheed Martin announced the repositioning of certain non-core business units into a new independent company to be jointly owned by Lehman Brothers Capital Partners III, L.P., Lockheed Martin, and a management team led by Frank C. Lanza, executive vice president of Lockheed Martin. The business units have nearly 4,900 employees and combined 1996 annual revenues exceeding $650 million. At closing (which
    remains subject to a number of contingencies), the transaction is expected to generate in excess of $400 million in cash proceeds (net of taxes), allowing the Corporation to continue its good progress in reducing debt. The Corporation's retention of a partial interest in this joint venture provides an opportunity to continue building additional shareholder value while at the same time concentrating on our core businesses. In conjunction with this transaction, we realigned the businesses that formerly comprised the C3I & Systems Integration Sector among the Corporation's Electronics and Information & Services Sectors.
    http://www.lockheedmartin.ca/content...ual-Report.pdf (February 1, 1997)

    Lockheed Martin to Shed 10 Units
    February 04, 1997
    Times Staff and Wire Reports
    Lockheed Martin Corp. said it plans to divest 10 divisions that are mainly involved in electronics and high-technology research. They will be spun off into a single entity called L3 Communications and jointly owned by the aerospace giant, a partnership led by Lehman Bros., and a management team led by Frank C. Lanza, Lockheed Martin's executive vice president. The divisions forming the new company had combined 1996 sales of $650 million and include the operations of Conic and Telemetry & Instrumentation in San Diego; Narda-Microwave in Rancho Cordova, Calif.; and Randtron in Menlo Park, Calif. L3 Communications, based in New York, would have about 4,900 employees. No layoffs are planned because of the transaction, Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed Martin said.

    http://articles.latimes.com/1997-02-...ockheed-martin

    BUYER SOUGHT FOR ACCESS GRAPHICS LOCKHEED LOOKING TO DIVEST ITS TWO HARDWARE COMPANIES.
    March 26, 1997 Rocky Mountain News, Lisa Greim
    Lockheed Martin is looking for a buyer for its two computer hardware businesses, Boulder-based Access Graphics and CalComp Technology Inc. of Anaheim, Calif., its CEO confirmed Tuesday.
    Norman Augustine, chairman and chief executive officer of the world's largest aerospace defense company, told Bloomberg News, ``Any business that is not core, we will divest.''

    He said Lockheed may expand its information-processing business through acquisitions or a joint venture with the European airplane group Airbus Industrie.
    Access Graphics' chief financial officer says the chairman's words came as no surprise to the Boulder firm, which sells and services high-end computer systems.


    John Ramsey's description from DOI:
    September 29, (1997) I flew back to Boulder from Atlanta on an early flight. I was in my office, preparing for the day, when I received a phone call from my boss at Lockheed Martin, Gary Mann.
    “I’ve got some disturbing information for you,” he said.
    Disturbing? For a moment I pondered what he might mean. “Humm, doesn’t sound good. But let it rip.”
    “Looks like General Electric is working on a deal with our corporate people at Lockheed Martin that would result in our selling Access Graphics to them.”
    I caught my breath. “You’re serious?”

    “Afraid so.”
    “Boy, Gary, I sure didn’t see this one coming.”
    “Well, it’s been something of a surprise to a number of people. Let me share some things you might expect in the immediate future.” He began outlining details of what might happen if the deal went through. Gary was a great person and a compassionate and forthright boss who had a way of making bad news seem not so bad.
    As I hung up the phone, I realized that everything in my world had again changed radically. The potential deal was disappointing to me for a couple of reasons. Lockheed had recently expressed an interest in divesting themselves of our company because it didn’t fit their current long-range strategy. I had been working to accomplish this, either through a management buyout or an Initial Public Offering, which would have been any entrepreneur’s dream: to be able to sell the same company twice! In our case it would have been first to Lockheed, then to the public. Apparently GE had a considerable amount of Lockheed Martin preferred stock, and Gary explained that the companies had agreed to an asset swap for the stock, in which Access Graphics was one of the assets to be traded.
    A more personal reason also troubled me. I couldn’t help but believe that General Electric would see me as a liability because of the accusations leveled against me in the press. I figured that most people in America had seen me labeled as a child killer on the front of the screaming tabloids. Lockheed knew me and believed in me, but GE did not. I could guess what the top executives at GE must be thinking and saying about John Ramsey.
    “This Ramsey guy runs a good business, but man, think about the bad publicity!” one of the executives might say. “Look at the media reports. Read them. He is one bad guy.”
    Someone at the other end of the long conference table would probably respond, “As part of our purchase of the company, you need to get rid of Ramsey.”
    Even though Gary Mann didn’t say so, I knew my days at Access Graphics were numbered. I called in the six people who reported directly to me and told them the news about a possible GE takeover. As I looked around the room, I could see that everyone was stunned and disappointed.
    Gary had told me that the GE people could possibly come in on Thursday or Friday to conduct due diligence, and we would need to be ready for them.
    The changes would probably go into effect quickly if the agreements between the two companies went through; I didn’t have any choice but to begin getting “our” business ready to become “their” business.

    Death of Innocence, John and Patsy Ramsey, pages 230 - 231

  7. #19

    Default

    While on the topic of the Whites, I’ve long been intrigued by Judge Roxanne Bailin
    She co-authored a book with one of Patsy Ramsey’s attorneys.
    She presided over most of the grand jury proceedings involving the Ramseys
    She terminated an investigation into Fleet White's libel case.
    She signed the warrant that brought back John Mark Karr.
    She came on the scene in the Ramsey case because of an abrupt and bizarre resignation by her predecessor, Judge Joseph J. Bellipanni

    DENVER - Former Ramsey-family friend Fleet R. White, Jr. is attempting to revive a now-dormant investigation in which he is seeking criminal charges against journalists who last year wrote stories mentioning him in the JonBenet Ramsey slaying. White, who was with John Ramsey when he discovered his 6-year-old daughter's body in the family's basement, also hopes to convince Attorney General Ken Salazar to launch a grand jury investigation into allegations that media members criminally libeled him in stories spurred by a California woman's claim she was sexually assaulted as a child.
    White has now asked the Colorado Court of Appeals to overturn Boulder District Judge Roxanne Bailin's order that ended the investigation launched by White and Boulder police in August of 2000. The appellate court has not decided if it will hear the case, according to records.
    White first sought criminal charges after a series of stories in which the California woman accused a group - some of were reportedly in Boulder on the day JonBenet Ramsey was killed - of sexually assaulting her as a child. The woman said she was assaulted in much the same manner as JonBenet and has known the White family since she was a small child. The woman's therapist later said the woman's allegations were made four years before the slaying of JonBenet Ramsey.
    Former Boulder County District Attorney Alex Hunter, after interviewing the woman, said he found her "very believable." Boulder police, however, did not believe her.
    The police department sought the criminal libel charges after White and his wife, Priscilla, supplied them with a stack of what he called "numerous documents, articles and Internet data" he believed wrongfully implicated him.
    The Boulder District Attorney's Office sought a special prosecutor, and the case was referred to Pueblo County District Attorney Gus Sandstrom.
    Sandstrom, however, never got to make a filing decision. White, in early September, wrote to Bailin and asked her to remove Sandstrom from the case because of comments he made in an article in the Boulder Daily Camera, one of the targets of the investigation. In that article Sandstrom said he "didn't have much choice" in taking the case and did so reluctantly. White called Sandstrom's comments "improper and unfavorable" and should "disqualify him from further involvement."
    In his letter to Bailin, White expressed the Boulder Police Department's desire to have the case assigned to a prosecutor of their choice - Larimer County District Attorney Stu Van Meveren. According to the letter, Van Meveren turned down the appointment because of a heavy caseload and the fact that his office was moving to another building at the time. Bailin responded to White's letter by terminating both Sandstrom's appointment and the criminal libel investigation.
    In a December order clarifying the termination, Bailin said she terminated the case "based on the Whites' request for the dismissal of the special prosecutor."
    In the September letter to Bailin, Fleet and Priscilla White said they were going to seek a state grand jury investigation, and took the unusual step of asking Bailin for her "support and cooperation" in obtaining the grand jury probe.
    There has been no sign of a state grand jury being called, and the attorney general's office does not normally announce the formation of grand juries.
    The appeal claims Bailin didn't have the legal authority to end either the special prosecution or the investigation.
    Boulder Police, meanwhile, continue to focus on John and Patsy Ramsey as suspects in their daughter's killing. Police chief Mark Beckner recently said that many people have been investigated in the crime, but that "no one outside the family" has become a suspect. White was one of John Ramsey's best friends prior to the murder, but the two had a falling-out within days of the murder of JonBenet.
    Colorado Springs attorney Douglas Price, who is representing the Whites in the appeal, ould not be reached for comment. According to court documents, all filings in the case must be made by April 25. There is no indication when the court will decide if it will hear the case.

    The Daily Times-Call, BJ Plasket, April 21, 2001

    Judge to trade Ramseys for Ramses
    By Karen Auge
    Denver Post Staff Writer
    May 20 (1998) - BOULDER - District Judge Joseph J. Bellipanni has traded the possibility of presiding over grand jury testimony in the JonBeneÚt Ramsey murder case for a chance to lend his expertise to Egyptian courts.
    Bellipanni, 49, notified Anthony Vollack, chief justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, on Tuesday that he expects to resign effective Aug. 1.
    The judge's departure, after 15 years on the 20th District Court bench, should have little effect on proceedings in the Ramsey case, according to Sherry Patten, spokeswoman for the Colorado Supreme Court.
    Outgoing Boulder Police Chief Tom Koby has requested that a grand jury hear evidence in the case of the 6-yearold beauty queen's murder. Detectives are preparing evidence and expect to turn that evidence over to District Attorney Alex Hunter in early June. Hunter then will review the case and decide whether to present it to the grand jury.
    Last month, Bellipanni presided over the selection of eight women and four men, and five alternates, to serve up to 18 months on Boulder County's grand jury, which would hear evidence in the Ramsey case if Hunter decides to present it to them.
    Patten said Chief Justice Vollack would designate an acting presiding judge for the 20th District while a nominating commission, which is already in place, would begin the process of selecting a permanent replacement.
    The seven-member commission, composed of three lawyers appointed by the chief justice and the attorney general, and four non-lawyers appointed by the governor, will solicit nominations for the post. Once all applications and nominations are received, the commission has 30 days to choose not less than two and not more than three candidates.
    Once those candidates have been selected, Gov. Roy Romer will have 15 days to appoint one.
    A judge's role in grand jury proceedings is less crucial than in trial court, Patten said. Grand jury proceedings are not governed by the same rules of evidence and testimony that apply to court trials, and judges rarely are asked to rule on evidence or motions during grand jury proceedings, Patten said.
    Grand juries rarely hear evidence in Colorado, where district attorneys have the authority to bring an indictment, University of Colorado law Professor Mimi Wesson has said. When a grand jury is convened, it is at the request of the district attorney, who is in charge of the proceedings, Wesson said.
    In his letter to Vollack, Bellipanni said he has accepted an offer to serve as a senior judicial specialist in Egypt, advising that nation's courts how to run more efficiently and fairly.

    http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon0520.htm

    Mom hires another lawyer
    By The Denver Post
    March 2, 1997 - JonBenet Ramsey's mother has hired a second attorney to help with the heavy legal workload, according to family spokesman, Pat Korten.Patrick Furman has joined attorney Patrick Burke to represent Patsy Ramsey, mother of the 6-year-old slain beauty princess."It was something Pat Burke needed to have done," Korten said. "That was the only significance of it." John Ramsey, the girl's father, is represented by attorney Bryan Morgan, from the legal firm of Haddon, Morgan and Foreman. "John's attorney is a member of a large firm, so he has a large team to back him up," Korten said. "Pat (Burke) is a solo practitioner working on other cases. He is working seven days a week and he needs a competent co-counsel." Korten said Furman, an independent attorney and a criminal law professor at the University of Colorado in Boulder, has worked with Burke on other cases.JonBenet was found strangled in the basement of her family's home Dec. 26, approximately eight hours after her mother found an alleged ransom note demanding $118,000 for her safe return.

    http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon39.htm

    Colorado Evidentiary Foundations, Roxanne Bailin (Author), James M. England (Author), Patrick H. Furman (Author), Edward J. Imwinkelried (Author)http://www.amazon.com/Colorado-Evide.../dp/B009AZDS5U

    COLORADO EVIDENTIARY FOUNDATIONS, With Hon. Roxanne Bailin, Jim England, Esq. & Professor Edward Imwinkelreid, LexisNexis (f/k/a The Michie Company) Publication April, 1997, Cumulative Supplements 1999, 2001, 2004.https://lawweb.colorado.edu/files/vitae/furman.pdf

    Boulder judge handling Karr familiar with Ramsey case
    By John Ingold
    Denver Post Staff Writer
    08/25/2006
    The Boulder District Court judge who has been presiding over matters relating to murder suspect John Mark Karr is no stranger to the JonBenét Ramsey case.
    In 1998 and 1999, Chief Judge Roxanne Bailin presided over the grand jury looking into JonBenét's killing. Those who know her and have argued before her say she would make an ideal judge should she end up handling the entirety of Karr's case.
    "There couldn't be a better judge to have to handle something of this magnitude," said Steve Louth, a Boulder attorney who has had numerous cases before Bailin. "She's got a lot of experience. I think she will take a lot of the circus out of the media circus."
    Bailin's involvement in Karr's case has been fairly minimal.
    She signed the arrest warrant for Karr, then, at the Boulder district attorney's request, ordered the warrant be sealed. She denied a request by several news organizations to allow cameras in the courtroom for Karr's first appearance and advisement of charges. And she has issued a set of rules governing news coverage of the case.

  8. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cynic View Post
    ~RSBM for brevity.
    Quote Originally Posted by cynic View Post
    ~RSBM for brevity
    Good grief, cynic! Did you hire some kind of team to organize 10,000 documents on this case!? (No, I’m not suggesting you hired the failed circus midget team referenced in FF .) Seriously, thank you for all that info. It really paints a total picture of what was going on in the background re JR’s career.

    There seems to be a discrepancy between what JR says to Gary Mann, his boss at Lockheed and what he writes in DOI. In the quote above from September ’97 JR comments , “Boy, Gary, I sure didn’t see this one coming,” in response to being told the deal with GE was going through, and he would no longer be retained by GE. Yet, in DOI, he shares that he and Patsy had discussed his leaving the business for a year, after May 1997, in order to have special time with the family, enjoy life, see the world. That dialogue happened around December ’96. It would appear that idea was either a manufactured thought in DOI, or JR knew something was afoot much earlier. I vote for an earlier recognition because of the knowledge of where the company was heading, as announced publicly by Norm Augustine in March of ‘97. Also, that kind of information does circulate among executives and managers and probably reached JR much earlier, as in ’96.

    Another ‘business inconsistency’ is the thought that he could buy the company or do an IPO and then sell Access Graphics to GE or someone else. The fact is JR sold 25% of the company to Lockheed for cash flow purposes (late ‘80s or early ‘90s). Then when he needed funds to be able to fulfill netting the big fish – the Sun Microsystems account – he asked for a loan from Lockheed in the amount of $15,000,000. Lockheed came through and AG then had the money to finance this operational expansion and fulfill their obligations as a reseller of the Unix systems. In 1991, JR stated that Lockheed purchased the remaining 75% of the company. (It’s unclear to me if Lockheed actually did purchase the rest of the stock, or if AG defaulted on the $15 mil loaned by Lockheed. IDK) How could JR do an IPO with no stock/ownership in the company?

    JR had business stresses, imo, in spite of hitting the billion dollar mark December ‘96. (He briefly ponders in DOI, what was next: 10 billion? Ego, nah not much. )

    Something else brought up again, does it strike anyone else that JR retained the ‘big name’ law firm for himself and hired a second tier law firm for PR as kind of strange? And that happened early. Does it seem he was very conscientious about his own defense, but Patsy’s wasn’t as dire, needing the heavy hitters? McCrary brought out that the hire of two separate law teams indicates that they had separate issues in the case.
    _____________

    Another question why did Bellipanni pick up for Egypt? Did someone offer him something too good to turn down? Anyone with any influence in Egypt? Well, only Bellipanni knows this one. But definitely seems strange.

    And I’ve also had questions about Judge RB. There were two instances of questionable calls from my perspective, and, of course, I’m just speaking as a common citizen, not as an attorney. The first was her call on sealing the Rapp phone records ‘forever’ and saying the police could not use them in a courtroom because they had been obtained illegally. (BTW KK asked Kolar whether something like that would be permanent, and he responded he did not see how this could be suppressed forever. But it’s Boulder, so who knows.)

    The second call which is extremely odd to me is that she presided over the GJ, so she knew what the evidence was against the Rs, possibly knew what was in the True Bills, and yet she still granted a warrant for the arrest of JMK. (So Hunter drug his feet on phone records and credit card records to be subpoenaed, but no problem to issue a warrant for a pedophile residing in Thailand? A warrant RB seals!) Again only an impression, but it sure looks like she played for the Team.
    Well, all this JMHO.

  9. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    LW became the de facto lawyer for the whole family eventually. He was present at Patsy's later interviews and also represented BR just a few years ago when BR was asked by the BPD if he would agree to speak with them again.
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.



Similar Threads

  1. Peter Boyles interviews Alan Prendergast and Fleet and Priscilla White
    By cynic in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 19, 2014, 2:45 am, Fri Dec 19 2:45:27 UTC 2014
  2. Alan Prendergast comes through again :)
    By Little in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: May 2, 2007, 10:04 pm, Wed May 2 22:04:34 UTC 2007
  3. Well said Alan Prendergast - New article in Westword
    By Paradox in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: December 26, 2006, 9:58 am, Tue Dec 26 9:58:40 UTC 2006
  4. Thank God For Westword And Alan Prendergast
    By Tricia in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: December 21, 2006, 9:15 am, Thu Dec 21 9:15:14 UTC 2006
  5. Fantastic Article! Actions of Hunter/Haddon/Smit/Tracey/Lacy In Ramsey Case
    By Cherokee in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: September 10, 2006, 12:14 pm, Sun Sep 10 12:14:36 UTC 2006

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •