Bill Clinton, Ron Burkle and the McDonald's scandal
EXCERPT:
Another business caught up ostensibly in the bigger scandal of which the game prizes are a tiny part, is Yucaipa Companies. Yucaipa owns 70 per cent of Golden State foods, one of McDonald's Hamburgers largest food suppliers. Yucaipa also is an investor in Simon Worldwide, Inc.

An interesting sidelight is how Rev. Jesse Jackson apparently pressured Yucaipa to reward Jesse's mistress, Karin Stanford, by paying her as a purported "consultant", ten thousand dollars per month. {See, Chicago Sun-Times, 1/26/2001.]

Some of the illicit dealings of Simon Marketing have come out in a suit where they and Coca-Cola are named defendants. The suit, pending in Chicago's federal courts also involved a fraud upon the court by Judge Blanche Manning hearing the case. The attorneys for Simon Marketing's liability carrier, referring to themselves as "attorneys for Simon Marketing", had originally stated in Court in the lawsuit, that they did not know of Cyrk. Later, the same lawyers, exposing their false prior statements, said they DID know of Cyrk.

Ohio supreme court declines to hear appeal of former GOP funraiser conviceted in coin-Beanie Babies scandal
EXCERPT:

Prosecutors said Noe used state money to pay off business loans and to fund a lavish lifestyle, including the renovation of his Florida Keys home. Noe was allotted $50 million to invest for the state injured worker insurance fund, which he put into such questionable items as rare coins, Beanie babies and other collectibles.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/economy/ohio-supreme-court-declines-to-hear-appeal-of-former-gop-fundraiser-convicted-in-coin-scandal-95976474.html#ixzz0s630eDiR

The Billary's connection to the Vatican
EXCERPT:
More importantly, Doug introduced him to Bill Clinton and his close personal friends, including supermarket magnate and billionaire Ron Burkle. In April 2005, Ron formed a joint venture with Raffaello, called Follieri/Yucaipa Investments, to develop unused Catholic properties

Ron Burkle breaks up with the Billarys
EXCERPT:
First of all, he was the good guy in the relationship.
"When Clinton left the Presidency he had to make money, and there were certain limits on how he could do it," says Burkle. "In that regard, having him work for Yucaipa was the right thing to do. In other ways, it was the dumbest thing I ever did."

Nice guys always finish last! Burkle knows that now.

And the idea that he might be the one who embarrassed Clinton? Well. That's pretty rich.
"If someone wanted to embarrass [Clinton], I got thrown in it, too," says Burkle. "I got all that for free."

By the way, in the end, it was his decision, not Clinton's, to end the relationship.
Why? Because he was bored. "Burkle says he and Clinton don't see much of each other anymore and explains the rupture this way: "Before, every trip with him seemed like a once in a lifetime opportunity. Now I have so many things to do."

More on Burkle-Clinton
EXCERPT:
Source Interlink was backed by billionaire Ron Burkle through The Yucaipa Companies, a Los Angeles-based private investment firm specializing in acquiring and operating companies in the retail, distribution, and logistics areas. A former grocery store bag boy, Burkle is a prominent Democratic party activist and fundraiser. He is a close friend of former President Bill Clinton, and investments in Yucaipa made by Clinton and his wife Senator Hillary Clinton have generated millions of dollars in income for them.

Ron Burkle and Bill Clinton's partnership ends
EXCERPT:
Bill Clinton Leaves Yucaipa Business Partnerships .ArticleComments (15)more in
Former President Bill Clinton has ended his high-profile business connection to his friend Ronald Burkle's Yucaipa Cos. by walking away from a final payment that was once estimated at up to $20 million.

Ron Burkle
EXCERPT:
[edit] Golden State Foods
Burkle sold his majority stake in supplier Golden State Foods to St. Louis-based Wetterau Associates for about $110 million. Golden State, one of McDonald's biggest suppliers, operates 11 distribution centers in the United States and abroad and two U.S. processing plants.[13]

[edit] Follieri and the Vati-Con scandal
On April 30, 2008, a Delaware judge dismissed Burkle's lawsuit against Raffaello Follieri, ex-boyfriend of actress Anne Hathaway, after he agreed to repay Burkle more than $1.3 million Burkle loaned him, a small amount of the money Burkle lost in the Vati-Con Scandal.[14]

Pittsburgh Penguins
He is part owner of the Pittsburgh Penguins[11] National Hockey League team, although his current share is unknown. He co-owns the franchise with Penguins legend Mario Lemieux. The Penguins won the Stanley Cup in 2009.

[edit] Wild Oats
Wild Oats Markets was an operator of natural foods stores and farmers' markets in North America. Burkle started buying Wild Oats stock in February 2005. By the time Whole Foods Market, a natural-foods grocer, agreed to pay $565 million for Wild Oats, Burkle was the largest shareholder of Wild Oats.[12]

Raphael De Niro Real Estate connecting the dots
EXCERPT:
But there's trouble brewing below Canal Street. "He has all of the good listings because of his last name!" fumes a competitor. "His father does mailings for him and gives lists of his friends' addresses. If your father is famous, you make it really quick in this business. "

Despite what his detractors say, Raphael, 32, told real estate magazine The Real Deal in 2006: "My name is a hot commodity. [But] I only use it when I can put my integrity behind it 110 percent."

Going above and beyond means assembling a client list that boasts Matt Damon, Naomi Campbell and model Carmen Kass. Recently, he's taken both Jessica Alba and Victoria's Secret mannequin Adriana Lima to check out massive apartments at the Fairchild building in Tribeca.

Following PDF is 16 pages....... (I've only put an excerpt)
Beanie Babies Fraud
EXCERPT:
PODGORPPREVISED.DOC 6/18/2001 1:04 PM
1031
ESSAYS
DO WE NEED A “BEANIE BABY”* FRAUD
STATUTE?
ELLEN S. PODGOR**
INTRODUCTION
This is not an Essay calling for the protection of “Peanuts,” the
royal blue elephant.1 Nor is this Essay concerned with the confusion
surrounding “Iggy,” the Iguana or “Rainbow,” the Chameleon.2 This
Essay does not even reflect on the ramifications of Ty, Inc.’s decision
to retire Beanie Babies on December 31, 1999,3 followed by its later
decision to continue production.4 Rather, the focus of this Essay is on
whether Congress needs to pass a specific statute to criminalize
Beanie Baby fraud.
* “Beanie Babies” are produced by Ty, Inc.
** Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of Law. Visiting Scholar, Yale
Law School, Fall 1998. B.S., 1973, Syracuse University; J.D., 1976, Indiana University
School of Law at Indianapolis; M.B.A., 1987, University of Chicago; LL.M., 1989, Temple
University School of Law. The author thanks Professor Neil Kinkopf for his research
suggestions and Professor Peter Henning for his comments on a draft of this Essay.
1. Ty, Inc., produced two different “Peanut” Beanie Babies. One is a light blue
elephant that was retired on May 1, 1998, and the other is a royal blue elephant that
was retired on October 2, 1995.
2. “Iggy” and “Rainbow’s” tags were inadvertently reversed in January, 1998. See
LES & SUE FOX, THE BEANIE BABY HANDBOOK 66 (1998).
3. See Paula Lyon & Natalie Evans, Ty to Retire Beanie Babies at Year End, CRAIN’S
CHI. BUS., Sept. 6, 1999, at 106 (reporting that Ty, Inc., announced the retirement of
all Beanie Babies as of Dec. 31, 1999); see also Claudia H. Deutsch, Ty Puts Beanie
Babies’ Fate Into the Hands of Consumers, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 25, 1999, at B11 (discussing
Ty, Inc.’s announcement to “let the public vote on whether it should keep producing
new Beanie Babies in the new millennium”).
4. See Renee Strovsky, Beanie Babies Show Up Again, ST. LOUIS DISPATCH, May 1,
2000, at D1 (discussing Ty’s decision to continue producing Beanie Babies following
an online vote of the public supporting continued production of Beanie Babies).
PODGORPPREVISED.DOC 6/18/2001 1:04 PM
1032 AMERICAN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 49:1031
In the past, I have argued in favor of specific fraud statutes.5 The
widespread use of generic fraud statutes, such as mail fraud6 and
conspiracy to defraud,7 have allowed prosecutorial discretion to
exceed what historically would have been considered part of the
executive function.8 Prosecutors have attempted to legislate against
new forms of criminality by prosecuting illegal activity under generic
fraud statutes.9 I considered the passage of the computer fraud
statute,10 the health care fraud statute,11 and the bank fraud statute12
to be legislative advancements because these statutes offered specific
legislative definitions of what would constitute criminal conduct.13
But in calling for specific statutes, it is equally important to realize
that enacting a multitude of specific statutes to address every new
instance of fraud is absurd. Although the constant enactment of new
federal statutes may foster political careers by demonstrating a tough
stand on crime,14 adding new volumes to the criminal code for
political purposes serves little benefit in the development of criminal
law.15 The excessive number of federal statutes is well documented
and is detrimental to the development of an efficient legal process.16
Discerning the appropriate line in legislative drafting between the
5. See Ellen S. Podgor, Criminal Fraud, 48 AM. U. L. REV. 729, 735 (1999)
(advocating that “specific fraud statutes . . . offer tighter restraints which conform
more closely with the initial legislative purpose of the statute.”).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>