(From Bloomberg News, dated March 21st, 2002)
The Microsoft Corporation bullies computer makers by withholding discounts if they promote products that threaten its Windows monopoly, a former Gateway Inc. executive testified today on behalf of states seeking tough antitrust remedies against Microsoft.
The executive, Peter Ashkin, said that the Justice Department’s proposed settlement of the four-year-old case would not stop Microsoft from punishing computer makers like Gateway that develop rival products. The states called Mr. Ashkin to testify on the fourth day of what is expected to be eight weeks of court hearings on their demands.
In 1999 and 2000, Microsoft reduced discounts Gateway received for the Windows operating system when Gateway developed an Internet-connection device and a network computer powered by the rival Linux system, Mr. Ashkin said.
“Our decision to choose Linux over Windows was often cited by Microsoft executives when explaining why they considered Gateway to be a ‘bad partner,’ ” Mr. Ashkin, who was dismissed by Gateway in 2001, said in written testimony.
The proposed settlement was negotiated last year after an appeals court ruled that Microsoft illegally protected its monopoly for Windows, which powers 95 percent of the world’s personal computers. California, Iowa and seven other states, along with the District of Columbia, refused to sign the plan that would require Microsoft to give computer makers freedom to promote certain types of products without retaliation.
The settlement would not prevent “Microsoft from retaliating in this situation,” said Mr. Ashkin, now an executive with AOL Time Warner.
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly is reviewing the settlement and the opposition by the states. She got the case after the appeals court overturned an earlier judge’s order to break up Microsoft.
Microsoft says the standard Windows contract for the top 20 computer manufacturers under the settlement would free Gateway and other companies to promote programs that compete with the Microsoft Internet Explorer Web browser or the Windows Media Player.
A Microsoft lawyer, Richard Pepperman, questioned Mr. Ashkin’s assertion that Microsoft once threatened to end its license to load Windows onto PC’s if it did not agree to continue selling the popular Microsoft Office set of word processing and spreadsheet programs.
Was there “any paper trail” documenting the threats? Mr. Pepperman asked. Mr. Ashkin replied that he did not write memos or e-mail messages to warn colleagues of the threat.
The states want to force Microsoft to make a version of the Windows operating system that would let computer makers easily extract the Internet Explorer Web browser and other applications and substitute competing programs.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com
LOAD-DATE: March 22, 2002
TECHNOLOGY; Ex-Gateway Executive Says Microsoft Bullies PC Makers, The New York Times, March 22, 2002 Friday, Late Edition – Final , Section C; Column 3; Business/Financial Desk; Pg. 4, 452 words, Bloomberg News , WASHINGTON, March 21
June 22, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Energy Billing Fraud Charges vs Multiut owned by Nachshon Draiman! 2
Multiut Admitted to holding money belonging to customers.
It is holding over $1.5 million in Collected City of Chicago Tax on Natural gas and refuses to pay the City of Chicago or refund the customers plus interest.
Chicago Metro Area Consumers are taken for a ride by Multiut – Nachshon Draiman – Energy Billing fraud. Plus Adding charges to a bill without a customer’s approval. This practice is illegal and penalties are enforced.
In a Class Action proceeding initiated in November 2001 – The case after numerous delays by Multiut, is now proceeding.
Gore vs Multiut – IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS Case No. 01 CH 19688
Posted on September 29st, 2007:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT – CHANCERY DIVISION
FILED
JACK GORE on behalf of himself and all ) NOV 28, 2002
other persons or entitles similarly situated, |
•
vs. No. 01 CH 19688
DOROTHY 8ROWN CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT
MULTIUT CORP, an Illinois corporation, } Judge Stephen A, Schiller
Defendant ) Courtroom 2402
RESPONSE TO §2-619.1 MOTION TO DISMISS J/
Plaintiff JACK GORE (“Gore”). by his attorneys LARRY D DRURY LTD., hereby responds to the Motion to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint, pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-615 and 619, brought as a combined 2-619.1 motion by defendant MULTIUT CORP. (“Multiut”).
Introduction
Multiut is trying to time-bar this case by transforming express a written agency-service contract drafted by Multiut into a contract for sale of goods, and by disputing Gore’s allegations as to concealment and discovery of the wrong – but without submitting any Rule 191 affidavit or documentation. This is a class action arising out
of a written contract drafted by Multiut, attached here and to the 2nd Amended Complaint as Exhibit A and B collectively referred to herein as the “contract” or “agreement “ unless otherwise indicated by context): (1)
(A) A service contract to act as Gore’s “purchasing representatives” in obtaining natural gas from “off system” suppliers. This contract, entered into on or about December 1990, was titled “Agreement,” Exh. A 1, 3-6, 10. And,
{B} A series of supplemental agency contracts to act as Gore’s agent, in so doing with respect to various Properties. These were entered into contemporaneously with the service contract and thereafter, and titled “Natural Gas Purchasing and Agency Agreement.” Exh.-B. (2)
(1) Similarly Multiut refers to them collectively as “the agreement” in its brief (Mem. p. 2, fn. 1). Although the documents are on separately filed pages, they are mutually inclusive and one could not be entered into without the other; e.g. the service contract refers to and incorporates the agency contracts, wherein Multiut refers to itself as Gore’s ‘exclusive natural gas purchasing agent’. See Exh. A, third introductory paragraph and 16-17; Exh. B 1,
(2) Exh. 8 one of the series, is dated 1998, Exh. C is Gore’s §2-806 affidavit as to the others. Gore has stated he does not have a copy of each, they are inaccessible to him i.e. no longer in his possession, whether missplaced or otherwise, and cannot be located or returned. 2nd Amd.. Compl. {4; Exh, C, in the 1st Amd. Complaint, Count 4 for breach of oral contract was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice after Gore’s deposition of May 8,- 2002, when the service contract and the 1998 agency contract were produced by Multiut and adequately established, Exhs, A-B are the same Exhs. 1-2 attached to the Gore transcript, excerpts of which are attached herein as Exh. D, Similarly the missing agency agreements are likely in Multiut’s possession and will be produced in discovery.
The contract was drafted by Multiut, it unequivocally defines Multiut’s role in the transactions, and shows that this case is not governed by the UCC. What is at issue here is not the “good” that Multiut obtained for Gore, but the service Multiut provided as his purchasing agent. Gore is suing upon the service and agency contract – not the natural gas – and has alleged that Multiut breached its duties in two respects;
{1} By falsely and intentionally charging and retaining for its own use funds that were to be applied to a City of Chicago 8% gross receipts tax (“Tax”), which it had promised would be placed in escrow and forwarded to the City. Between December 1990 and January 1995 (after the City of Chicago changed the Tax), Multiut collected approximately $14,000 from Gore and at least $1 million to $1.5 million from the Class, for this Tax that was not actually imposed upon Multiut. 2nd Amd. Compl. 7-9, ‘3! Multiut not only failed to inform Plaintiff and
the Class that the money collected was not so applied or escrowed, but also failed to escrow, account for, and refund the funds with interest.
(2) By overcharging for the service of providing natural gas. Multiut was to charge for natural gas actually supplied to Gore and the Class on a set per therm cost basis, plus an amount equal to 1/2 of their respective per therm cost savings per month, instead, Multiut overcharged and billed Gore at least $100.000 and the class millions of dollars and refuses to provide an accounting and refund with interest. Id. 10-11.
Gore has further alleged that Multiut prevented him from discovering the wrongs by intentionally concealing them until at least December 2000, when he discovered the truth and could not reasonably have done so earlier. (Gore testified at his deposition on May 8, 2002 that he first discovered the discrepancies in his bills, the overcharges, the taxes, and failure to escrow the taxes, in December 2000. See Exh, D, pp. 25-28,) Thereafter he was unable to obtain any refund and based thereon, terminated Multiut’s services on or about June 2001, However, the wrongful acts are continuing to date, in that Multiut continues to ‘refuse to provide an accounting and refund with interest to Gore and the Class, all to their detriment and damage. They seek imposition of constructive trust (id. 22), an accounting and damages in not less than the foregoing amounts plus interest (id, 9-13, 23).
Gore filed the original Class Action Complaint on Nov. 20, 2001, and in lieu of responding to a motion to dismiss, filed the 1st Amended Class Action Complaint Feb. 14, 2002, setting forth 4 counts for (1) breach of
3-: The City did not and will not collect the 8% Tax, presumably because of U.S. constitutional restrictions as to the interstate commerce clause and exceptions for interstate pipelines and out-of-state suppliers. As a result in 1994 the City changed the tax from an 8% gross receipts tax to a flat rate tax of 1.4 to 1.5 cents per therm. 2nd Amd. Comp. P 8. in Multiut’s response to First Request to Admit {attached hereto as Exh. F), it has admitted the following statements about this Tax; (8) that Multiut collected approximately $14,000 in Tax from Gore between 1991-1994; and (9) that Multiut spent its customers Tax payments on business expenses.. Yehuda Draiman testified to the same effect in his deposition 1-10-02 See transcript excerpts attached hereto as Exh. E, at pp, 36-37,40, 68, and Exh, 6 thereto.
Activity Date: 8/15/2007 Participant: GORE JACK
CASE SET ON STATUS CALL
Court Date: 8/29/2007
Court Time: 0930
Court Room: 2402
Judge: BRONSTEIN, PHILIP L.
As of March 2008 a third judge has taken over the case. The previous 2 Judges Schiller and Bronstein resigned from the bench under suspicious circumstances.
August 30th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
RE: MULTIUT CORP. FORMER CUSTOMERS!
Multiut owner is Nachshon Draiman of Cook County, Illinois
PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT YOU ARE PROBABLY DUE A REFUND PLUS INTEREST FOR SALES TAX ON NATURAL GAS WHICH WAS COLLECTED FROM YOU AND WITHHELD BY MULTIUT CORP. TEL # 847-982-0030 at 7514 N. Skokie Bl. Skokie, Illinois.
MULTIUT IS HOLDING APPROXIMATELY OVER ONE MILLION DOLLARS THAT MAY BELONG TO CUSTOMERS.
MULTIUT HAS OVERBILLED CUSTOMERS ON SHARED SAVINGS FOR THE PAST 14 YEARS.
THERE IS CURRENTLY A CLASS ACTION SUIT AGAINST MULTIUT.
I STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT YOU HAVE ALL YOUR BILLS THAT WERE ISSUED BY MULTIUT CORP. AUDITED THOROUGHLY THERE MAY BE STORAGE CREDITS DUE YOU AND ERRORS IN BILLING WHICH CREDITS MAY BE DUE YOU.
Multiut has admitted in Court that they are holding the money.
Gore vs Multiut 01 CH 19688 Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
A concerned citizen
For honesty in billing
Fraud, Insolvency and numerous contempt of court orders
anti defamation usa – Home – Justice
Detailing fraud by Nachshon Draiman his alter ego companies such as Multiut, Future associates and more, and justice for all.
http://www.antidefamationusa.com/
Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman et al
On August 16th, 2007: Numerous Federal contempt of court orders against Nachshon Draiman and Multiut
Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman et al 1:02-cv-07446.
Multiut Corp and Nachshon Draiman dba Future Associate of Skokie, IL. are withholding evidence of fraudulent activities in the Energy industry and inflated Medicaid billing to the government for Nursing Home patients. Also Bank fraud against their bank by presenting fraudulent and inflated receivable reports in order to get and keep a credit line, Nachshon Draiman was a large stock holder of the bank. Draiman Nachshon • SC 13G • Success Bancshares Inc • On 2/17/98
Filed On 2/17/98 • SEC File 5-53545 • Accession Number 950137-98-586
Court: United States District Court Northern District of Illinois -
Case Title: Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman Future Associates et al
Case Number: 1:02-cv-07446
Judge: Hon. John A. Nordberg
Filed On: 10/16/2002
SUMMARY
Case Number: 1:02-cv-07446
Referred To: Honorable Michael T. Mason
Jury Demand: Defendant
Demand: $9999000
Nature of Suit: Contract: Other (190)
Jurisdiction: Diversity
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Case Updated: 01/20/2005
NAMES
Party Name: Multiut Corporation an Illinois Corporation,
Party Type: Defendant
Attorney(s): Paul Thaddeus Fox
(312) 456-8400
Firm Name: Greenberg Traurig, LLP.
Firm Address: 77 West Wacker Drive
Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60601
Alan Jay Mandel
847-329-8450
Firm Name: Alan J Mandel Ltd
Firm Address: 7520 North Skokie Blvd
Skokie, IL 60077
03/30/2007 225
NOTICE of Motion by Ira P. Gould for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney224 before Honorable John A. Nordberg on 4/19/2007 at 02:30 PM. (Gould, Ira) (Entered: 03/30/2007)
04/18/2007 226
MINUTE entry before Judge John A. Nordberg: Motion of Ira Gould to withdraw his appearance on behalf of Multiut Corporation 224 is granted. The motion will not be heard on 4/19/07 as noticed. Mailed (vmj, ) (Entered: 04/19/2007).
For More Information See: http://www.antidefamationusa.com or http://www.antidefamation.us or http://www.nachshondraiman.net
THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO BE BETTER INFORMED AND EDUCATED ABOUT THE OPTION AVAILABLE, GUARD AGAINST FRAUD – FREE ECONOMIC VENTURES FROM REGULATIONS ARE GOOD – BUT THEY NEED ADDITIONAL SAFEGUARDS.