Water is the source of life - treasure it! R5.
Water is the source of all life on earth. It touches every area of our lives. Without it, we could not thrive — we could not even survive.

Sustainability – “We strive to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.
We should discourage wastefulness and misuse, and promote efficiency and conservation.
"Conservation is really the cheapest source of supply,"
For the benefit of mankind, maintain the quality of life and preserve the peace and tranquility of world population. Water resources must be preserved - to sustain humanity. We must eliminate wasteful utilization of water, conserve our water sources and implement rigid conservation methods. We should utilize solar and or other source of renewable energy to operate desalinization projects from the oceans. Utilize renewable energy sources to purify and transport the water to its final destination. As world population increases the scarcity of water will become a cause for conflict, unless we take steps now to develop other sources of water for drinking, rainwater harvesting – storm-water and gray-water utilization. Designing of landscaping that uses minimal amount of water.
"With power shortages and a water scarcity a constant threat across the West, it's time to look at water and energy in a new way,"
To preserve the future generations sustainability, we should look into urban farming – vertical farming. The term "urban farming" may conjure up a community garden where locals grow a few heads of lettuce. But some academics envision something quite different for the increasingly hungry world of the 21st century: a vertical farm that will do for agriculture what the skyscraper did for office space. Greenhouse giant: By stacking floors full of produce, a vertical farm could rake in $18 million a year.
YJ Draiman, Energy, Telecom and water conservation consultant
Sept. 29, 2009
PS.

NACHSHON DRAIMAN 09-17582 and Multiut 09-17575 file for bankruptcy
ilnbke
09-17582

ilnbke
09-17575

On May 14, 2009, NACHSHON DRAIMAN filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The filer is being represented by Michael L Ralph, Sr of the firm Ralph, Schwab & Schiever, Chtd.
I certify under penalty of perjury that the information provided above is true and correct.
Signature of Debtor: /s/ Nachshon Draiman
Nachshon Draiman
Date: May 14, 2009
Software

B4 (Official Form 4) (12/07)
United States Bankruptcy Court
Northern District of Illinois
In re Nachshon Draiman Case No.
Debtor(s) Chapter 11
LIST OF CREDITORS HOLDING 20 LARGEST UNSECURED CLAIMS
Following is the list of the debtor's creditors holding the 20 largest unsecured claims. The list is prepared in
accordance with Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1007(d) for filing in this chapter 11 [or chapter 9] case. The list does not include (1)
persons who come within the definition of "insider" set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 101, or (2) secured creditors unless the value of
the collateral is such that the unsecured deficiency places the creditor among the holders of the 20 largest unsecured claims.
If a minor child is one of the creditors holding the 20 largest unsecured claims, state the child's initials and the name and
address of the child's parent or guardian, such as "A.B., a minor child, by John Doe, guardian." Do not disclose the child's
name. See 11 U.S.C. § 112; Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1007(m).
(1)
Name of creditor and complete
mailing address including zip
code
(2)
Name, telephone number and complete
mailing address, including zip code, of
employee, agent, or department of creditor
familiar with claim who may be contacted
(3)
Nature of claim (trade
debt, bank loan,
government contract,
etc.)
(4)
Indicate if claim is
contingent,
unliquidated,
disputed, or subject
to setoff
(5)
Amount of claim [if
secured, also state
value of security]
Alan Mandel
7520 N. Skokie Blvd.
Skokie, IL 60077
Alan Mandel
7520 N. Skokie Blvd.
Skokie, IL 60077
Attorney's Fees and
Costs
Disputed
Subject to Setoff
193,963.62
BankFinancial, F.S.B.
3443 W. Touhy Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712
Bank Financial
3443 W. Touhy Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712
Personal Line of
Credit
120,000.00
BankFinancial, F.S.B.
3443 W. Touhy Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712
Bank Financial
3443 W. Touhy Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712
Guaranty on Bank
Loan, Lifescan
Laboratiries, Inc.
Contingent
Unliquidated
259,748.58
BankFinancial, F.S.B.
3443 W. Touhy Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712
Bank Financial
3443 W. Touhy Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712
Guaranty on Bank
Loan, Peterson Park
Health Care Center
Contingent
Unliquidated
1,048,361.25
BankFinancial, F.S.B.
3443 W. Touhy Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712
Bank Financial
3443 W. Touhy Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712
Guaranty of Real
Estate Mortgage
Loan, Lifescan
Laboratiries, Inc.
Contingent
Unliquidated
859,670.31
Brickyard Bank
6676 N. Lincoln Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712-3631
Brickyard Bank
6676 N. Lincoln Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712-3631
Guaranty on Bank
Loan, Embassy
Holdings, LLC
Contingent
Unliquidated
2,200,000.00
Brickyard Bank
6676 N. Lincoln Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712-3631
Regina Hirn
Brickyard Bank
6676 N. Lincoln Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712-3631
847-979-2265
Personal line of
credit
677,251.85
Cole Taylor Bank
225 W. Washington St.
8th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Jonathon Rothstein
Cole Taylor Bank
225 W. Washington St., 8th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
312-442-5000
Guaranty of Bank
Loan LOC, LCF
Associates
Contingent
Unliquidated
400,000.00
Cole Taylor Bank
225 W. Washington St.
8th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Cole Taylor Bank
225 W. Washington St., 8th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Guaranty of Real
Estate Mortgage
Loan, LCF
Associates
Contingent
Unliquidated
1,000,000.00
Danny Shabat
3531 W. Howard
Skokie, IL 60076
Danny Shabat
3531 W. Howard
Skokie, IL 60076
200,000.00
Software Copyright (c) 1996-2007 Best Case Solutions - Evanston, IL - (800) 492-8037 Best

B4 (Official Form 4) (12/07) - Cont.
In re Nachshon Draiman Case No.
Debtor(s)
LIST OF CREDITORS HOLDING 20 LARGEST UNSECURED CLAIMS
(Continuation Sheet)
(1)
Name of creditor and complete
mailing address including zip
code
(2)
Name, telephone number and complete
mailing address, including zip code, of
employee, agent, or department of creditor
familiar with claim who may be contacted
(3)
Nature of claim (trade
debt, bank loan,
government contract,
etc.)
(4)
Indicate if claim is
contingent,
unliquidated,
disputed, or subject
to setoff
(5)
Amount of claim [if
secured, also state
value of security]
Dynegy Marketing and Trade
1000 Louisiana
Suite 5800
Houston, TX 77002
Dynegy Marketing and Trade
1000 Louisiana, Suite 5800
Houston, TX 77002
Judgment Creditor -
Appeal Pending
Disputed 15,348,244.72
First Bank
900 East Higgins Road
Elk Grove Village, IL 60007
First Bank
900 East Higgins Road
Elk Grove Village, IL 60007
Guaranty of Bank
Loan for now
inactive business,
Embassy Day Care
Center, Inc.
Contingent
Unliquidated
Disputed
800,000.00
Great-West Life & Annuity et al.
c/o Chittenden Murday Novotny
303 W. Madison #1400
Chicago, IL 60606
Great-West Life & Annuity et al.
c/o Chittenden Murday Novotny
303 W. Madison #1400
Chicago, IL 60606
Pending litigation -
health insurance
claims
Contingent
Unliquidated
Disputed
142,360.00
Greenberg Traurig
77 West Wacker Drive
Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60601
Greenberg Traurig
77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60601
Attorneys' Fees and
Costs
Disputed
Subject to Setoff
827,310.10
Israel Discount Bank
Yehuda Halevy 27-31
POB 456
Tel Aviv , Israel, 65136
Israel Discount Bank
Yehuda Halevy 27-31, P.O. Box 456
Tel Aviv, Israel 65136
Pending Litigation Contingent
Unliquidated
Disputed
Subject to Setoff
25,000,000.00
Peterson Park
7520 Skokie Blvd.
Skokie, IL 60077
Peterson Park
7520 Skokie Blvd.
Skokie, IL 60077
Contingent
Unliquidated
Disputed
3,000,000.00
Premier Bank
1210 Central Avenue
Wilmette, IL 60091
Ginett Ramos
Premier Bank
1210 Central Avenue
Wilmette, IL 60091
847-920-1400
Guaranty on Bank
Loan, Embassy
Holdings, LLC
Contingent
Unliquidated
749,316.68
Robert Hartman
6633 N. Lincoln Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712
Robert Hartman
6633 N. Lincoln Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712
Loan - Business 200,000.00
Ron Shabat
5936 N. Bernard
Chicago, IL 60659
Ron Shabat
5936 N. Bernard
Chicago, IL 60659
750,000.00
Virginia Feddeler et al.
c/o Paul R. Shuldiner
20 S. Clark #500
Chicago, IL 60603
Virginia Feddeler et al.
c/o Paul R. Shuldiner
20 S Clark #500
Chicago, IL 60603
Pending litigation -
personal injury torte
claim
Contingent
Unliquidated
Disputed
3,000,100.00
Software Copyright (c) 1996-2007 Best Case Solutions - Evanston, IL - (800) 492-8037 Best Case Bankruptcy

B4 (Official Form 4) (12/07) - Cont.
In re Nachshon Draiman Case No.
Debtor(s)
LIST OF CREDITORS HOLDING 20 LARGEST UNSECURED CLAIMS
(Continuation Sheet)
DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY
ON BEHALF OF A CORPORATION OR PARTNERSHIP
I, Nachshon Draiman, the debtor in this case, declare under penalty of perjury that I have read the foregoing list
and that it is true and correct to the best of my information and belief.
Date May 14, 2009 Signature /s/ Nachshon Draiman
Nachshon Draiman
Debtor
Penalty for making a false statement or concealing property: Fine of up to $500,000 or imprisonment for up to 5 years or both.
18 U.S.C. §§ 152 and 3571.
Software

Embassy Holdings, LLC
7520 Skokie Boulevard
Skokie, IL 60077
1ST Equity Bank
3956 W. Dempster
Skokie, IL 60076
Alan Mandel
7520 N. Skokie Blvd.
Skokie, IL 60077
AT&T
Bankruptcy Department
P.O. Box 769
Arlington, TX 76004
AT&T
Bankruptcy Department
P.O. Box 76004
Arlington, TX 76004
Bank Financial Visa
P.O. Box 491
Lincolnshire, IL 60069-0491
BankFinancial, F.S.B.
3443 W. Touhy Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712
Brickyard Bank
6676 N. Lincoln Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712-3631
Bruria Draiman
6005 N. Kimball
Unit 304
Chicago, IL 60659
Business Card Services
P.O. Box 84030
Columbus, GA 31908-4030

Capital One FSB (Add Notice)
Ref:
P.O. Box 85015
Richmond, VA 23285-5015
Capital One FSB (Collections)
Attn: Collections/Ref:
P.O. Box 85147
Richmond, VA 23285
Capital One FSB (Main Corresp)
Ref:
P.O. Box 30285
Salt Lake City, UT 84130
Chase Card Services/5493-Auto
P.O. Box 15298
Wilmington, DE 19850-5298
Chase Card Services/8882-Office
P.O. Box 15298
Wilmington, DE 19850-5298
Chase Card Services/9301
P.O. Box 15298
Wilmington, DE 19850-5298
Cole Taylor Bank
225 W. Washington St.
8th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Comcast
P.O. Box 3001
Southeastern, PA 19398
ComEd, Attn: Revenue Mgmt.
Customer Care Center Building
2100 Swift Drive
Oak Brook, IL 60523
Countrywide
P.O. Box 5170
Simi Valley, CA 93062-5170

Countrywide Bank
P.O. Box 5170
Simi Valley, CA 93062-5170
Countrywide Home Loans
P.O. Box 5170
Simi Valley, CA 93062-5170
Danny Shabat
3531 W. Howard
Skokie, IL 60076
DirecTV, Inc.
P.O. Box 9001069
Louisville, KY 40290-1069
Dr. J Segev & Co Law Office
4 Wissotzky St.
Tel Aviv 62502 Isreal
Dynamex, Inc.
131 E. Thorndale Avenue
Wood Dale, IL 60191
Dynegy Marketing and Trade
1000 Louisiana
Suite 5800
Houston, TX 77002
Dynegy Marketing and Trade
c/o Barry Hyman and Helen Wilson
SCHIFF HARDIN & WAITE
Chicago, IL 60606
Embassy Care Center, Inc.
7520 Skokie Blvd.
Skokie, IL 60077
Federal Express
P.O. Box 94515
Palatine, IL 60094
First Bank
900 East Higgins Road
Elk Grove Village, IL 60007

Ford Motor Credit
1005 Convention Plaza
Saint Louis, MO 63101
Gershon Bassman
Great-West Life & Annuity et al.
c/o Chittenden Murday Novotny
303 W. Madison #1400
Chicago, IL 60606
Greenberg Traurig
77 West Wacker Drive
Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60601
Haim Samet, Steinmetz, Haring, & Co
Levinstein Tower, 18th Floor
23 Begin Road
Tel Aviv 66184 Isreal
Hinkley Springs
P.O. Box 660579
Dallas, TX 75266-0579
Humana Comp Benefits
200 W. Jackson Blvd.
9th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Indy Mac Bank
1 Banting
Irvine, CA 92618
Internal Revenue Service
Department of the Treasury
Cincinnati, OH 45999
Israel Discount Bank
Yehuda Halevy 27-31
POB 456
Tel Aviv , Israel, 65136

Key Bank
4910 Tiedeman Road
Cleveland, OH 44144
Leland J. Cohn
7519 N. Lowell
Skokie, IL 60077
Melissa Maddy
c/o Steven J. Malman Law Office
205 W. Randolph, #1040
Chicago, IL 60606
NAME OF PARTY
12922 Bullfrog Creek Road
Gibsonton, FL 33534
Peterson Park
7520 Skokie Blvd.
Skokie, IL 60077
Premier Bank
1210 Central Avenue
Wilmette, IL 60091
Robert Hartman
6633 N. Lincoln Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712
Ron Shabat
5936 N. Bernard
Chicago, IL 60659
Safe Alarm Industries
7855 N. Gross Point Road
Skokie, IL 60077
Sam Lipshitz
3942 N. Enfield
Skokie, IL 60076
Sprint
P.O. Box 660075
Dallas, TX 75266-0075

Standard Insurance Company
P.O. Box 5676
Portland, OR 97228-5676
State Farm Insurance
Insurance Support Center
P.O. Box 680001
Dallas, TX 75368-0001
State Farm Insurance Companies
P.O. Box 2329
Bloomington, IL 61702
The Hartford
P.O. Box 2907
Hartford, CT 06104-2907
The Hartford/Business
P.O. Box 2907
Hartford, CT 06104-2907
Unicare Health Insurance
P.O. Box 0797
Carol Stream, IL 60132
Virginia Feddeler et al.
c/o Paul R. Shuldiner
20 S. Clark #500
Chicago, IL 60603

Yehuda Jay Draiman reported the fraud
Posted 09-14-2008 at 04:17 AM by jaydraiman
Yehuda Jay Draiman reported the fraud

Nachshon Draiman, Chicago – Fraud - a disgruntled owner and operator of Gas co.

Nachshon Draiman, Chicago – Fraud - a disgruntled owner and oper
Nachshon Draiman, Chicago – Fraud - a disgruntled owner and operator of Nursing homes and Multiut gas

Nachshon Draiman, Chicago – a disgruntled owner and operator of a Natural Gas Supply company – who was caught by his brother Yehuda Jay Draiman and others was stealing from employees, customers, suppliers, banks and his partners including his own blind elderly mother. Initiated a campaign of smear and fraud with the presentation of fraudulent documents (a common practice) to the courts. State and Federal court records are replete with lawsuit and litigations against Nachshon Draiman and his businesses, Multiut, Future Associates and various Nursing Homes operated by Nachshon Draiman.
The revocation of the Nursing Home license which was issued in 1975 initiated Nachshon Draiman’s involvement in syndicating the purchase of numerous Nursing Homes in the Chicago metro area – the whole pyramid was based on fraud and deception by obtaining his license through fraud. (Some of the nursing homes were closed down and or forced by State officials to be sold. Lawsuits for patient’s abuse and causing the death of a patient are common, including bank fraud confirmed by former Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Ellis. A major lawsuit by Dynegy vs Nachshon Draiman, Multiut, Future Associates Case No. 02 C 7446 for $22 million – numerous contempt of court orders and a $45 million by Israel Discount Bank for fraud, just to name a few, Utility billing fraud Gore vs. Multiut No. 01 CH 19688. There are currently numerous cases in Federal, State and International courts against Nachshon Draiman and his entities. Convicted in the death of a patient. (See People of the State of Illinois vs. Gurell, Nachshon Draiman et al – 456 N.E.2d 18)
Nachshon Draiman, Chicago – nursing home administrator license (044001323) revoked and fined
Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation
NEWS
IDFPR
Disciplinary Actions for January 2008 SPRINGFIELD
The Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR)
announced today that the Directors of the Division of Professional Regulation, Daniel E. Bluthardt, and Insurance, Michael T. McRaith, signed the following disciplinary orders in January. Orders for the Division of Banking were authorized by Director Jorge Solis.
NURSING HOME ADMINISTRATOR
Nachshon Draiman, Chicago – nursing home administrator license (044001323)
revoked and fined $2,000 for misrepresenting information in his application concerning postgraduate education degree, to obtain nursing home administrator licensure from the Department.
For additional information see: www.nachshondraiman.net

Unwanted Charges on Your Local Phone Bill?
How to Find Them, Eliminate Them & Get Your Money Back!
If your business still gets its phone service through the old "AT&T and Verizon, etc" local phone company (as opposed to one of the newer competitive phone providers) then you need to double check your phone bill each and every month for charges you did not authorize. You may not know it but the local phone company allows other companies to bill you through your local phone bill. And while the local phone company allows other businesses to bill you through your local phone bill, the local phone company does not verify that the charges being billed to you by the other company are valid. When these unauthorized charges fraudulently appear on your phone bill it's called "cramming". Unfortunately you as the business owner or manager are the only one that can spot the unauthorized charges and if you don't comb over your bill every month to spot these unauthorized charges - you'll pay for them.
Why does the local phone company allow other companies to pass charges onto your phone bill? "Third-party billing" is supposedly a great convenience in that you only have to pay one bill instead of separate bills for obvious authorized phone related charges like yellow-page advertising in the "real yellow pages", 411 information calls and long-distance calls from your chosen long distance carrier. Over the years though, some less-than-scrupulous companies have realized that most businesses rarely scrutinize their local-phone bills. To take advantage of this, these companies have come up with elaborate schemes to place
unauthorized charges on your phone bill that you'll end up paying for without even thinking. Unauthorized
charges you can end up paying for include charges for unwanted (and unused) email accounts, web sites,
directory information calls, directory advertising in obscure publications, voice mail accounts and other
services.
In theory, before these charges can be placed on your phone bill, the company that is originating the third-party billed charges is supposed to have a verification of the order like a voice recording. In reality though,
all the company needs to do to initiate the charge is submit your name and phone number to the billing
entity. The verifications are only required to be produced if a complaint is filed.
To prevent these charges from appearing on you business phone bill it's helpful to understand the four
parties that make unauthorized third party phone charges a costly reality. Party number one is any
employee who can answer your business phones. The unauthorized charge is rarely random and it usually
happens after one of your company employees gets a telemarketing call. Employees should be instructed to
document and report any overly aggressive telemarketing calls they receive. Party number two is the
telemarketing company that originates the unauthorized charges by trying to get your employee to accept
some service for which you'll be billed through your local phone bill. Party number three is the third-party
billing company that has billing agreements with your local phone company. The name of the third-party
billing is the one that is prominently displayed on your phone bill. After the third-party billing company's
name is the name of the company that is originating the unwanted charges. Party number four is your "former Ma Bell" local phone company that collects the unwanted charges (keeps a share for "Ma") and then passes the rest to the third-party billing company (who keeps a big share) and then passes the balance on to the company that initiated the unwanted charge.
Following are some of the top third-party billing names and unauthorized charge originators you'll find on
your phone bill. If you see these names on your phone bill you'll want to call the toll free number listed next to the charge to confirm it's a charge that's been properly authorized to be placed on your bill. Following are actual examples that we've recently found while auditing business phone bills.
We recommend customers should review any utility bills issued by deregulated utility companies. (In most instances today, consumers are paying higher charges to the deregulated gas and electric supply companies).
All gas, electric and water bills should be reviewed for proper reading and tariff.

Yehuda Draiman (Jay Draiman) is a convicted felon who has been found guilty of charges leading to millions of dollars in judgments by the Illinois and federal court system.

A man left with no legal or rational alternative, Yehuda has resorted to conjuring up false stories and contrived meritless accusations on the internet and public forums, in an attempt to smear his former employer, Nachshon Draiman using various aliases.

Public documents verify that Yehuda Draiman (Jay Draiman) was convicted of 10 counts of wire and mail fraud during the 1980's. Nachshon, Yehuda’s brother, originally provided Yehuda with a job in the Multiut company subsequent to general assistance he provided to help Yehuda and his family following Yehuda's first stint of a four year sentence to the federal penitentiary for that conviction in the 80's. See United States v. Draiman, 784 F.2d 248 (7th Cir. 1986)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/023922p.pdf

Federal courts have also entered subsequent judgments against Yehuda Draiman (Jay Draiman) and his wife Miriam for committing false bankruptcy filings in yet another attempt to defame his former employer. Federal courts declared the judgments to be non-dischargeable due to the fraud involved by Yehuda Draiman, for abusing the court system in a manner similar to the way he now attempts to abuse the internet. These facts can be verified by federal court records available from a Google search for "Doyle Draiman".
http://www.ilnb.uscourts.gov/JudgeDoyle/Opinions/Draiman_Yehuda.pdf

Yehuda J Draiman (Jay Draiman) was subsequently found guilty of breaches of fiduciary duty, consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices and conspiracy, and a judgment in excess of $1.5 million was entered against him, in addition to several findings of contempt, by the Cook County Circuit Court & upheld by the Appellate court (ruling 1-03-0857).

http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2005/1stDistrict/Ju...

Yehuda "Jay" Draiman is known to use these aliases: Jay Draiman, Jay Drai

For information about Nachshon Draiman, and Future Associates, see below.

www.futurellc.com
www.nachshondraiman.com
www.nachshon-draiman-online.com
www.nachshon-draiman-profile.com

Confronting the Challenges of Tomorrow
While Cherishing Today

Our world today confronts current economic hardship, which represent both a challenge and an opportunity for us to assert our ability to work together for the good of all. Efforts to combat abuse and waste have fallen short. Many countries around the world suffer from the shortage of resources such as water and energy, which threatens their stability and whose capacity and resources disable them from containing the panic, thus necessitating, in such a situation, assistance for those countries in dealing with the crisis. Our world also confronts numerous environmental challenges such as limited and declining natural resources, climate change, drought and desertification, all of which require the redoubling of worldwide efforts to address them in order to safeguard the right of future generations to a secure life. The scarcity of water and energy threatens the eruption of conflicts in different parts of the world, and the nations of the world are therefore called upon to maximize the benefit from, and the proper management of, available water and energy resources while respecting and protecting the acquired rights of nations to utilize and further develop those resources.
We must work together as a cohesive force to expedite development of natural resources, eliminate the abuse of the environment. Utilize today’s technology to expand the desalinization of water increase the development of Alternative energy with an environmental balance.
We must learn to appreciate what we have today while protecting and preserving our natural resources for future generations.
Jay Draiman

Runaway Energy Costs – causing inflation and panic

Spurred by soaring energy costs, food prices and other goods and services have risen nearly 20 percent or more in the past 20 months — more than double the usual increase.
Commodity prices for corn, wheat, soybeans and other staples have been skyrocketing over the past year to more than double their prices from 2006.
Economists have also pointed toward the growing demand for grains for ethanol and other biofuels, tying the price of corn to the price of oil and increasing the pressure and demand for land use.
“It is important to note the contribution of runaway energy prices to the retail cost of food goods and services. “Transportation, processing and packaging all cost significantly more now than in prior years.”
The snowball effect of soaring energy prices is causing increased prices for all goods and services, from food, medical, construction and other material.
Speculation is often criticized as the cause of surging grain prices. But the current abnormal price increases could not have occurred without firm demand. Indeed, farmers are cultivating cash plants while buyers are seeking cheaper alternatives, forming a chain of price surges.
World food production must rise by 50 percent by 2030 to meet increasing demand.
Biofuels to blame?
The increasing diversion of food and animal feed to produce biofuel, and sharply higher fuel costs have also helped to shoot prices upward, experts say.
The senate and the House should call for expanded funding for weatherization and tax credits for other energy-saving programs, $100 billion for expansion of mass transit systems, $100 billion for renewable energy development and renewable energy projects and $50 billion in bonds for roads, bridges and other transportation projects.
Traders are also at fault
A boom in speculation and trading by investment banks and hedge funds has put our energy markets on steroids. Contract volume in the futures markets has risen by a third in just the last year. Oil closed at a record high of $125.96 a barrel (USO: , , ) on the New York Mercantile Exchange on Friday. That's double the price two years ago, a difference clearly caused by market manipulation.
This isn't complicated finance. The way traders push up prices is surprisingly simple. They buy in European futures markets, which don't have the limits that U.S. markets do. That drives up U.S. prices where they may already have positions. It's a move to think about next time one of these exchange chiefs talks about all of the benefits of "market globalization."
None of it would matter except that these markets are supposed to be driven by supply and demand. China and other rapidly growing countries may be using more, or will use more resources, but the reality is that demand and supply haven't changed enough to warrant the price of oil doubling in less than three years.

Hedge Funds and Banks driving oil prices

In the most recent sustained run-up in energy prices, large financial institutions, hedge funds, pension funds, and other investors have been pouring billions of dollars into the energy commodities markets to try to take advantage of price changes or hedge against them. Most of this additional investment has not come from producers or consumers of these commodities, but from speculators seeking to take advantage of these price changes. The CFTC defines a speculator as a person who “does not produce or use the commodity, but risks his or her own capital trading futures in that commodity in hopes of making a profit on price changes.”

The large purchases of crude oil futures contracts by speculators have, in effect, created an additional demand for oil, driving up the price of oil for future delivery in the same manner that additional demand for contracts for the delivery of a physical barrel today drives up the price for oil on the spot market. As far as the market is concerned, the demand for a barrel of oil that results from the purchase of a futures contract by a speculator is just as real as the demand for a barrel that results from the purchase of a futures contract by a refiner or other user of petroleum.

Perhaps 60% of oil prices today pure speculation

Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley today are the two leading energy trading firms in the United States. Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase are major players and fund numerous hedge funds as well who speculate.

In June 2006, oil traded in futures markets at some $60 a barrel and the Senate investigation estimated that some $25 of that was due to pure financial speculation. One analyst estimated in August 2005 that US oil inventory levels suggested WTI crude prices should be around $25 a barrel, and not $60.

That would mean today that at least $50 to $60 or more of today’s $115 a barrel price is due to pure hedge fund and financial institution speculation. However, given the unchanged equilibrium in global oil supply and demand over recent months amid the explosive rise in oil futures prices traded on Nymex and ICE exchanges in New York and London it is more likely that as much as 60% of the today oil price is pure speculation. No one knows officially except the tiny handful of energy trading banks in New York and London and they certainly aren’t talking.

By purchasing large numbers of futures contracts, and thereby pushing up futures prices to even higher levels than current prices, speculators have provided a financial incentive for oil companies to buy even more oil and place it in storage. A refiner will purchase extra oil today, even if it costs $135 per barrel, if the futures price is even higher.

As a result, over the past two years crude oil inventories have been steadily growing,

resulting in US crude oil inventories that are now higher than at any time in the previous eight years. The large influx of speculative investment into oil futures has led to a situation where we have both high supplies of crude oil and high crude oil prices.

Compelling evidence also suggests that the oft-cited geopolitical, economic, and natural factors do not explain the recent rise in energy prices can be seen in the actual data on crude oil supply and demand. Although demand has significantly increased over the past few years, so have supplies.

Over the past couple of years global crude oil production has increased along with the increases in demand; in fact, during this period global supplies have exceeded demand, according to the US Department of Energy. The US Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) recently forecast that in the next few years global surplus production capacity will continue to grow to between 3 and 5 million barrels per day by 2010, thereby “substantially thickening the surplus capacity cushion.”
Compiled by: Jay Draiman

Our war for energy independence and economic growth

The US government and other governments are not serious about energy efficiency and renewable energy development and implementation – they are too busy playing politics and capitulating to the Oil Companies.
IT is time to get series to avert an economic catastrophe – I hope it is not too late
The world needs to invest $50 trillion in energy in coming decades, building some 1,400 nuclear power plants and vastly expanding wind power, solar power, geothermal energy in order to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, according to an energy study released Friday.
The report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency envisions an "energy revolution" that would greatly reduce the world's dependence on fossil fuels while maintaining steady economic growth.
"Meeting this target of 50 percent cut in emissions and replacing fossil fuel represents a formidable challenge, and we would require immediate policy action and technological transition on an unprecedented scale," IEA Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka said.
The scenario for deeper cuts would require massive investment in energy technology development and deployment, a wide-ranging campaign to dramatically increase energy efficiency, and a wholesale shift to renewable sources of energy.
Assuming an average 3.4 percent global economic growth over the 2010-2050 period, governments and the private sector would have to make additional investments of $50 trillion in energy, or 1.2 percent of the world's gross domestic product, the report said.
That would be an investment more than three times the current size of the entire U.S. economy.
In addition, the world would have to construct 38 new nuclear power plants each year, and wind-power turbines would have to be increased by 18,000 units annually, solar energy output would have to be increased 20 fold every year.
Let us not forget as we are increasing the use of renewable energy and energy efficiency – the world population is increasing – the demand for energy by advancement in technology worldwide is also increasing. We have to take these factors into account.
Oil is going to hit at least $200 per barrel, gasoline at the pump will hit $6 or more per gallon, in some countries it is already $10 per gallon.
Most of the money would be in the commercialization of energy technologies developed by governments and the private sector.
"If industry is convinced there will be policy for serious, actions for accelerated development of renewable energy and efficiency, then these investments will be made by the private sector."
People are hurting financially and economically, this must end, we should strive for a thriving economy with new technology for renewable energy and efficiency.
We have the technology and knowhow let us stop playing politics – unite our people and our nation in a common goal to avert an economic disaster and maintain our quality of life for generations to come.
Let us serve as an example to the rest of the world.
Jay Draiman, Energy Analyst – June 6, 2008

American economy in crises - a long time coming

When a country and its society import more than they export for over a quarter of a century, it is bound to erod the economy to its primate state.

We have only ourselves to blame, what goods and products are we exporting, what goods and services are produced in the USA, the answer is very little by comparison.

In the past 50 years as our population has increased, technology advanced, we have become a nation that consumes enormous amounts of resources, we shop for competitive prices. Corporate America is constantly looking to increase the bottom line.

Most of the goods for and by Americans and its companies are produced overseas and in the past decade with the advancement of telecommunications, many of the services sector are also imported.

The increased costs of energy over the past 10 years, has affected the economy to unimaginable comprehension.

This economic activity has eroded our economy to its core. It seems that the situation is getting worse every year. American debts are increasing beyond our wildest dreams, endangering the future economic vitality of our future generation.

I hope it is not too late for our society to recognize the graveness of our economic predicament and its resolve to take appropriate action to stem the tide of our economic downturn.

Americans are a nation of great technology and knowhow. We must utilize that technology and our resources to find new means to regain our economic independence.

We must face and implement fiscal responsibility, both by the government and the population with its infrastructure of corporate America.

It is no longer an option, it is a must if we as a nation want to survive and retain our way of life and economic vitality.

Inflation, recession and financial crises are here. Let us take the bull by the horn, initiate immediate actions to minimize and hopefully reverse our economic crises.

Jay Draiman, Northridge, CA.

PS
The US economy has enormous momentum. Metaphorically speaking, if someone turned off the locomotive that drives the US economy, the economy would go on for miles before anyone would likely notice something was wrong. But something has been wrong for many years. Is there really hope for the future? Maybe. But the terrible truth is that no one really knows. But if there is hope, we're already on the wrong track. And that has to change..

This is just another one of the many conspiracy theories. It will all come out of the shade in a few years but until than all will be dead and buried and no one will even care.

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.

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
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: www.antidefamationusa.com or www.antidefamation.us

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.

JAY DRAI..AKA YEHUDA JAY DRAIMAN...THE REAL FRAUD...the ADJUDICATED FACTS ARE THAT..His claims are malicious, false, meritless,misrepresentations of the REAL FACTS and contrived. These baseless accusations are the fabrications of a disgruntled former employee, Yehuda "Jay" Draiman, a CONVICTED FELON who has been FOUND GUILTY of charges leading to millions of dollars in judgments by the Illinois and federal court system.

"Jay" has resorted to conjuring up false stories and contrived meritless accusations on the internet and public forums, to attempt to smear his former employer.

These facts can be verified by court records available from a Google search for "Multiut v. Yehuda".

Yehuda Jay Draiman is a former employee who was terminated in 2001 from Multiut Corporation when he was discovered diverting clients and funds of the company. He was subsequently FOUND GUILTY of breaches of fiduciary duty, CONSUMER FRAUD and deceptive trade practices and conspiracy, and a judgment in excess of $1.5 million was entered against him, in addition to several findings of contempt, by the Cook County Circuit Court & upheld by the Appellate court (ruling 1-03-0857).

http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/Appella ...

Federal courts have also entered subsequent judgments against Yehuda and his wife Miriam for committing false bankruptcy filings in yet another attempt to defame his former employer. Federal courts declared the judgments to be non-dischargeable due to the fraud involved by Yehuda Draiman, for abusing the court system in a manner similar to the way he now attempts to abuse the internet. These facts can be verified by federal court records available from a Google search for "Doyle Draiman".

http://www.ilnb.uscourts.gov/JudgeDoyle/Opini ...

Public documents verify that 'Jay' was also CONVICTED of 10 COUNT OF wire and mail FRAUD during the 1980's. Nachshon, Yehuda’s brother, originally provided Yehuda with a job in the Multiut company subsequent to general assistance he provided to help Yehuda and his family following Yehuda‘s first stint of a four year sentence to the federal penitentiary for that conviction in the 80's. See United States v. Draiman, 784 F.2d 248 (7th Cir. 1986)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th ...

Yehuda Draiman was also the subject of a special investigation conducted by the Illinois Legislative Investigating Commission for the Illinois General Assembly (see:4/22/75 Illinois Nursing Homes: A Report to the Illinois General Assembly).“Jay” was barred from serving in the nursing home field after HE DEFRAUDED a RESIDENT under his care of more than $40,000. The report cites testimony from a resident stating that Yehuda offered to return her money if she took a ride with him to his “bank”, and instead left her STRANDED in a DESERTED cornfield in the DEAD OF WINTER in 8 degree weather. Only by luck was she spotted by a passerby who reported the incident to the MCHENRY COUNTY SHERIIF"S Department. When the sheriff’s office interviewed Yehuda, he claimed “when they got out into the country she asked to be let out. He let her out and drove back to Chicago…and found her purse in the back seat.” In these instances, as well as the recent litigation, Yehuda Jay Draiman's tactic has been to invent illegalities to accuse his victims of, in order to shift the focus of attention away from him.
http://multiut.com/responses_to_YJD /IL_Assembly_Report_04_75.pdf

The current posting is just another example of Yehuda Jay Draiman's tactics.

For more information about defamation attempts by Yehuda Jay Draiman, see www.Illinoisantidefamation.com or www.IllinoisDefamationProtection.com

Nachshon Draiman Conviction for the death of a patient and abuse in his Mill View nursing homes in Niles, Illinois. R1

Nachshon Draiman - Multiut Corp. – Future Associates Fraud
You will note that State and Federal Court records in Illinois and elsewhere are replete with lawsuits, judgments and wrongdoing by Nachshon Draiman and his companies. Causing the death of patients in the Nursing homes and a lawsuit by the State of Illinois with civil and criminal conviction People v. Gurell, Nachshon Draiman (1983), 98 Ill.2d 194, 207, 74 Ill.Dec. 516, 456 N.E.2d 18.). Abusing nursing home patients see State of Illinois records.
See People of the State of Illinois vs. Gurell, Nachshon Draiman et al – 456 N.E.2d 18 there has been numerous patient abuse and deaths due to that abuse. In 127 Ill.App.3d 1165, 483 N.E.2d 731, 91 Ill.Dec. 385 Sonnenberg v. Mill View Associates, Nachshon Draiman where millions of dollars had to be paid as damages for abuse and death of a patient, not to mention numerous patients who died falling down an elevator shaft.

Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian W. Ellis Claims he has DNA forensic evidence that Nachshon Draiman - Multiut forged and modified documents presented to the Court in his lawsuit against his brother Yehuda J. Draiman
The Supposed 1991 IMA Agreement Put Into Evidence by Multiut – Nachshon Draiman Is a Fraud
The evidence overwhelmingly favors Yehuda Draimans' account of events. There are at least eight separate, independent indicators that Nachshon Draiman deceptively modified an IMA Agreement that Yehuda received and signed in 1989, added terms to which Yehuda never agreed, including the incorporation of an unsigned Employee Confidentiality Agreement, and inserted a false date of execution to create the document introduced as Plaintiff's Exhibit 10. First, Defendants' expert forensic ink analyst, Erich Speckin, testified that he found manufacturer date tags in the ink for the disputed writings on Plaintiff's Exhibit 10, and that the sequence of those date tags establishes without question that the ink was manufactured in 1993, two years after Nachshon Draiman said he made the writings. (8/14/02 Tr., at 2214-25) That testimony is undisputed.

It is a known fact that justice in Chicago can be swayed in your favor with proper incentives. The trial judge left the bench after this case when the court ignored overwhelming evidence against Multiut and Nachshon Draiman and other cases were investigated by the government.
Nachshon Draiman’s intimidation of witnesses, blackmail and other scare tactics will not work.

Nachshon Draiman defrauds Israel Discount Bank in Hotel financing to the tune of $45 million dollars.
Utilizing modified and fabricated sales contract of units in the Jerusalem Pearl purchased and totally paid for by 1. Nachshon Draiman, 2. Elitzur Draiman, 3. Irwin Katz a former Federal Judge and part owner of Multiut, 4. Barry Ray, 5. Danny Shabat, 6. Gershon Bassman, 7. Dr. Sam Lipschitz, 8. It seems presenting false and deceptive documents is a way of life for Nachshon Draiman

Nachshon Draiman presented a forged College Diploma to the Illinois Department of Registration in order to receive his Nursing Home Administrator’s license No. 44001323.
See: www.antidefamationusa.com

JAY Drai AKA YEHUDA JAY DRAIMAN..THE REAL FRAUD...AND ADJUDICATED FACTS..His claims are malicious, false, meritless,misrepresentations of the REAL FACTS and contrived. These baseless accusations are the fabrications of a disgruntled former employee, Yehuda "Jay" Draiman, a CONVICTED FELON who has been FOUND GUILTY of charges leading to millions of dollars in judgments by the Illinois and federal court system.


Left with no legal or rational alternative, "Jay" has resorted to conjuring up false stories and contrived meritless accusations on the internet and public forums, to attempt to smear his former employee.


These facts can be verified by court records available from a Google search for "Multiut v. Yehuda".


Yehuda Jay Draiman is a former employee who was terminated in 2001 from Multiut Corporation when he was discovered diverting clients and funds of the company. He was subsequently FOUND GUILTY of breaches of fiduciary duty, consumer FRAUD and deceptive trade practices and CONSPIRACY, and a judgment in excess of $1.5 million was entered against him, in addition to several findings of contempt, by the Cook County Circuit Court & upheld by the Appellate court (ruling 1-03-0857).
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2005/1stDistrict/July/Html/1030857.htm


Federal courts have also entered subsequent judgments against Yehuda and his wife Miriam for committing false bankruptcy filings in yet another attempt to defame his former employer. Federal courts declared the judgments to be non-dischargeable due to the fraud involved by Yehuda Draiman, for abusing the court system in a manner similar to the way he now attempts to abuse the internet. These FACTS can be verified by federal court records available from a Google search for "Doyle Draiman".
http://www.ilnb.uscourts.gov/JudgeDoyle/Opinions/Draiman_Yehuda.pdf


Public documents verify that 'Jay' was also CONVICTED OF 10 COUNTS of wire and mail FRAUD during the 1980's. Nachshon, Yehuda’s brother, originally provided Yehuda with a job in the Multiut company subsequent to general assistance he provided to help Yehuda and his family following Yehuda‘s first stint of a FOUR YEARS sentence to the FEDRAL PENITENTIARY for that conviction in the 80's. See United States v. Draiman, 784 F.2d 248 (7th Cir. 1986)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/023922p.pdf


Yehuda Draiman was also the subject of a special investigation conducted by the Illinois Legislative Investigating Commission for the Illinois General Assembly (see:4/22/75 Illinois Nursing Homes: A Report to the Illinois General Assembly). “Jay” was barred from serving in the nursing home field after HE DEFRAUDED A RESIDENT under his care of more than $40,000. The report cites testimony from a resident stating that Yehuda offered to return her money if she took a ride with him to his “bank”, and instead LEFT HER STRANDED in a deserted cornfield in the DEAD OF WINTER in 8 degree weather. Only by luck was she spotted by a passerby who reported the incident to the MCHENRY COUNTY SHERIFF'S Department. When the sheriff’s office interviewed Yehuda, he claimed “when they got out into the country she asked to be let out. He let her out and drove back to Chicago…and found her purse in the back seat.” In these instances, as well as the recent litigation, Yehuda Jay Draiman's tactic has been to invent illegalities to accuse his victims of, in order to shift the focus of attention away from him.
http://multiut.com/responses_to_YJD /IL_Assembly_Report_04_75.pdf

The current posting is just another example of Yehuda Jay Draiman's tactics.

For more information about defamation attempts by Yehuda Jay Draiman, see www.Illinoisantidefamation.com or www.IllinoisDefamationProtection.com

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.

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
Ira P. Gould
(312) 456-8400
Firm Name: Greenberg Traurig, LLP.
Firm Address: 77 West Wacker Drive
Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60601
Ronald F. Labedz
(312) 456-8400
Firm Name: Greenberg Traurig, LLP.
Firm Address: 77 West Wacker Drive
Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60601
Steven C. Coberly
(312) 456-8400
Firm Name: Greenberg Traurig, LLP.
Firm Address: 77 West Wacker Drive
Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60601
Party Name: Nachson Draiman an Illinois Resident
Party Type: Defendant
Attorney(s): Paul Thaddeus Fox
Firm Address: (See above for address)
Alan Jay Mandel
Firm Address: (See above for address)
Ira P. Gould
Firm Address: (See above for address)
Ronald F. Labedz
Firm Address: (See above for address)
Steven C. Coberly
Firm Address: (See above for address)
Party Name: Future Associates an Illinois General Partnership
128 01/10/2005 MINUTE ORDER of 1/10/05 by Honorable Michael T. Mason : As stated on the reverse of this order, plaintiff’s motion to compel financial documents [124-1] and for sanctions is granted in part and denied in part. [124-2] Defendant’s request for reconsideration is denied. (See reverse of minute order.) Notices mailed by judge’s staff (hp) (Entered: 01/10/2005)
Order Document for Later Delivery
126 01/04/2005 BRIEF by Dynegy Mkg & Trade in opposition to defendants’ motion for reconsideration and in support of Dynegy’s motion to compel [95-1] (Attachments). (vmj) (Entered: 01/06/2005)
Order Document for Later Delivery
125 12/23/2004 MINUTE ORDER of 12/23/04 by Honorable Michael T. Mason : Plaintiff’s reply to its motion to compel financial documents [124-1] and in response to defendant’s motion for reconsideration to be filed by 01/03/05. Mailed notice (hp) (Entered: 12/27/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
124 12/20/2004 MOTION by plaintiff to compel financial documents and for sanctions (Attachments); Notice. (hp) (Entered: 12/27/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
86 06/22/2004 RESPONSE by defendants to Dynegy’s motion to compel [85-1] or for sanctions [85-2] and motion for protective order (Attachment). (hp) (Entered: 06/23/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
85 06/17/2004 MOTION by plaintiff Dynegy Marketing and Trade, to compel or for sanctions for failure to respond to discovery (Attachments); Notice. (hp) (Entered: 06/23/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
79 05/13/2004 MINUTE ORDER of 5/13/04 by Honorable Michael T. Mason: Status hearing held and continued to 9:00 a.m. on 6/29/04. Plaintiff has until 6/4/04 to answer or otherwise plead to defendant’s first amended counterclaims. Fact discovery cutoff is extended to 7/19/04. Defendant’s disclosure of expert and expert report by 8/2/04. Deposition of defendant’s expert to be completed by 9/1/04. Plaintiff’s disclosure of expert and expert report by 10/1/04. Deposition of plaintiff’s expert to be completed by 10/15/04. Dispositive motion filing deadline of 8/16/04 is stricken. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is granted in part and denied in part [78-1]. Defendants are ordered to respond to plaintiff’s discovery requests by 5/27/04. Plaintiff’s request for attorneys fees is denied. Mailed notice (air) (Entered: 05/14/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
77 05/12/2004 MINUTE ORDER of 5/12/04 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied. [44-1] Defendants’ motion for leave to file the first amended answer is granted. [72-1] (See reverse of minute order.) Mailed notice (hp) (Entered: 05/13/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
76 05/12/2004 RESPONSE by defendants to plaintiff Dynegy’s motion for sanctions [59-1] [65-1] (hp) (Entered: 05/13/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
78 05/10/2004 MOTION by plaintiff for sanctions (Attachment); Notice. (air) (Entered: 05/14/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
68 03/18/2004 MINUTE ORDER of 3/18/04 by Honorable Michael T. Mason : Motion hearing held. Plaintiff’s second motion for sanctions is granted in part and denied in part. [65-1] Defendant is ordered to turn over any unproduced damage requests, invoices and related volumes for 2002 by 03/22/04. Plaintiff’s request for dismissal of defendant’s affirmative defenses and counterclaims and request for attonrey’s fees are denied. Mailed notice (hp) (Entered: 03/19/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
67 03/15/2004 AMENDED NOTICE of motion by plaintiff regarding motion for sanctions [65-1] (Attachments). (hp) (Entered: 03/19/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
64 03/08/2004 AMENDED NOTICE of motion by plaintiff regarding second motion for sanctions (hp) (Entered: 03/09/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
65 03/05/2004 SECOND MOTION by plaintiff for sanctions (Attachments); Notice (hp) (Entered: 03/11/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
61 02/17/2004 MINUTE ORDER of 2/17/04 by Honorable Michael T. Mason : Status hearing held and continued to 03/09/04 at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is granted in part and denied in part. [59-1] Plaintiff’s request for an order dismissing the defendants’ affirmative defenses and counterclaims is denied. Defendants to respond to outstanding written discovery regarding the breach of contract claims by 02/24/04. Defendants to respond to outstanding written discovery regarding the fraudulent transfer claims by 03/08/04. Plaintiff’s request for attorneys fees incurred in bringing the motion for sanctions is granted. Fact discovery to close on 05/07/04. Expert discovery to close on 06/21/04. Dispositive motions to be filed by 07/21/04. No further extensions. Mailed notice (hp) (Entered: 02/18/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
60 02/13/2004 ADDENDUM by plaintiff to their motion for sanctions (Attachments) [59-1]; Notice (hp) (Entered: 02/18/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
59 02/12/2004 MOTION by plaintiff for sanctions against defendants for failure to comply with discovery (Attachments); Notice (hp) (Entered: 02/18/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman et al 1:02-cv-07446
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of a judgment in its favor and against Multiut, for $12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgement, in an amount in excess of $593,997.74, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.
-4-
COUNT III
(Fraudulent Transfer In Law- Multiut)
27. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 26, inclusive, as paragraph 27.
28. At all relevant times, Draiman has been a director, officer and/or control ling shareholder of Multiut.
29. At all relevant times, Draiman has been a general partner in Future Associates or otherwise had authority and/or control over the business affairs of Futures Associates or an entity that had authority over the business affairs of Futures Associates.
30. Since at least January 1999, Multiut failed to make timely payment, when due, for some or all of the natural gas delivered by Dynegy.
31. On March 7, 2001, Ginger Wright of Dynegy and Lenore Kamien of Multiut ‘ agreed that Multiut owed Dynegy approximately $11,000,000, excluding interest.
32. On September 5, 2001, Dynegy representatives Pete Pavluk and Mark Ludwig met with Multiut representatives Lenore Kamien and/or Nachshon Draiman at Multiut’s offices to discuss the amount owed by Multiut.
33. At that meeting, Mr. Draiman said that Multiut did not have funds sufficient to pay the debt owed and that Multiut would propose a payment plan by September 17, 2001.
34. In a September 17, 2001 letter, Multiut proposed a payment plan by which it would make monthly payments, from October 2001 through March 2002, in order to pay down the amount owed to Dynegy. The proposed payments ranged from $600,000 in some months to $1,800,000 in other months. According to Mr. Draiman, Multiut was, “insurefd] [sic] an additional annual profit of $2,000,000? and that, “in the meantime, [Multiut] was working on bank financing as well as funds from private sources for capital infusion.”
-5-
35 . In an October 4, 2001 letter to Multiut, Dynegy responded to Multiut’s September 17, 2001 proposal by asking for “a detailed formal plan by no later than Wednesday, October 10, 2001 that outlines bringing your account balance current by no later that [sic]-January 15, 2002.”
36. In an October 12, 2001 letter, Multiut responded to Dynegy’s October 4, 2001 letter by proposing “weekly payments for October through January.” The weekly payments proposed by Multiut totaled $7,700,000.
37. Multiut did not make all the weekly payments described in its October 12, 2001
letter.
38. Multiut’s check , dated August 23, 2001, made payable to Dynegy for $300,000, was returned for insufficient funds.
39. Multiut’s check, dated October 26, 2001, made payable to Dynegy for $150,000, was returned for insufficient funds.
40. Multiut’s check, dated November 9, 2001, made payable to Dynegy for $200,000, was returned for insufficient funds.
41. Multiut check no. 1946, made payable to Dynegy for $200,000 and deposited on December 7, 2001, was returned twice due to insufficient funds.
42. On January 8, 2002, Multiut claimed it could not pay the amounts owed to Dynegy because of slow payment by the government in connection with Mr. Draiman’s nursing homes.
43. On January 31, 2002, Multiut told Dynegy that it would make a $200,000 payment while it worked to raise cash through a factoring company and while it attempted to arrange a line of credit with Bank Leumi.
-6-
54. Multiut did not receive reasonably equivalent value for the transfer described in paragraph 53.
55. In the years 1999 through 2003, Multiut transferred cash or other assets to Future Associates, Draiman and/or other entities, including Draiman’s nursing home, hotel or other business interests when Multiut was indebted to Dynegy.
56. Multiut did not receive reasonably equivalent value for the transfers desciibed in paragraph 55.
57. When Multiut made the transfers described in paragraphs 53 and 55 (the “Transfers”), Multiut was insolvent and/or became insolvent as a result of the Transfers.
58. The Transfers were fraudulent conveyances in violation of applicable laws.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of an order granting judgment in its favor and against Multiut, for $12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgment, in an amount in excess of $593,997.74; voiding the fraudulent transfers and returning the Transfers to Multiut to be used to satisfy the debt to Dynegy; and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate.
COUNT IV (Fraudulent Transfer In Fact- Multiut)
59. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 58, inclusive, as paragraph 59.
60. The Transfers were made with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud Dynegy, a creditor of Multiut and as-such constituted fraudulent conveyances in violation of applicable laws.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of an order granting judgment in its favor and against Multiut, for $12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgment, in an amount in excess of $593,997.74; voiding the fraudulent transfers and returning the money to Multiut to be
-8-
used to satisfy the debt to Dynegy; punitive damages and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate.
COUNT V
(Fraudulent Transfer in Law- Future Associates)
61. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 thorough 58, inclusive, as paragraph 61.
62. Future Associates accepted the Transfers of the assets without having provided adequate consideration for the Transfers.

INCREASING COST OF ENERGY and INFLATED FRAUDULENT BILLING

It is not enough that consumers are paying higher cost for energy – Gas, Electric, Tel., Etc.
Due to the market volatility and the increase demand for energy worldwide and the manipulation of market conditions by various corporation.
Deregulation, which was designed to save the consumer on the cost of energy. Many new companies have started selling gas and electric in the past 20 years, as a result of this deregulation. We now have numerous deregulated third party suppliers of Gas and Electric that are gouging the consumers – billing prices higher than the regulated utility companies, inflating the bill, billing for product never delivered, billing phantom tax on the product, reneging on fixed price contract – when market prices go beyond the fixed contract. In short any way they can cheat, deceive and defraud the consumer is fair game.
Among the companies that practice such tactics is MULTIUT CORP or Multiut LLC of Skokie, Illinois the owner of the company Nachshon Draiman is well connected, one of the previous owners of Multiut was a federal judge and therefore has gotten away with numerous over billing and deceptive practices, there are numerous lawsuits for fraud pending against Multiut Corp and its owner Nachshon Draiman among them a Class Action Suit and Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman et al 1:02-cv-07446 The Federal Court has imposed numerous contempt orders against Multiut and its owner and its owner Nachshon Draiman is involved in numerous other fraud in the Nursing Home business (defrauding the state Nursing License with false documents to obtain a Nursing Home License) and a hotel project where he committed a fraud of $45 million dollars and numerous other fraud and deception too numerous to mention. (Especially since Multiut and its owner Nachshon Draiman is represented by Jack Abramoff Law Firm – which has clout).
Another Company is Santana Energy out of Texas. Some utility companies were forced to refund the consumers hundreds of million of dollars due to manipulation of pricing and billing – many of those shenanigans stem from the Enron debacle some precede it and continue on to date.
Many of these suppliers of Gas and Electric who are promoting saving are actually charging higher prices than the local utility company which defeats the intent of deregulation – Multiut’s billing shows 20% to 30% higher cost and billing for gas that was never delivered. Not to mention Multiut’s inflated billing for lighting retrofit to various Nursing Homes which inflates the Medicaid billing to the government.
Corporate CEO and other higher ups in the corporate world have been convicted of fraud and sentenced/fined (WorldCom, Enron, Adelphia, Etc.). But it seems that some companies can continue to defraud the public without being hindered by the authorities.
Other frauds by Gas Electric suppliers are: Centerpoint Energy Inc.,
Pending lawsuits are: AG files fraud suit against Sempra affiliate alleging Enron-like games,
This article is presented by Citizen for Honest and Fair Billing

PS
THREE FORMER NICOR ENERGY EXECUTIVES AND OUTSIDE
LAWYER INDICTED IN ALLEGED CORPORATE FRAUD SCHEME

CHICAGO -- Three former executives of Nicor Energy L.L.C. and an outside lawyer for the Lisle, Ill.-based company were indicted today for allegedly engaging in a corporate fraud scheme to obtain $400,000 in bonuses and other benefits for themselves by inflating revenues - at times by as much as $6 million - and understating expenses to make the company appear more profitable than it actually was in 2001. The defendants allegedly fraudulently deprived Nicor Energy - a retail energy marketing company established in 1997 as a 50/50 joint venture by Nicor Inc. and Dynegy Inc. - of their honest services and caused a loss to investors in publicly-traded Nicor, Inc. and Dynegy. On July 18, 2002, Nicor Inc. issued a press release announcing that its financial results for the second quarter and first half of 2002 were negatively affected by several factors, including irregularities in accounting at Nicor Energy, and the following day, the stock price of Nicor Inc. fell approximately 40 percent. Nicor Energy is currently in the process of final liquidation.

The five-count indictment returned by a federal grand jury charges Kevin Stoffer, formerly Nicor Energy's President and Chief Executive Officer; Andrew Johnson, former Director of Financial Services; John Fringer, former Vice President of Major Markets and Power Services; and outside counsel Michael Munson, announced Patrick J. Fitzgerald, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois
MADIGAN, DALEY ANNOUNCE $196 MILLION SETTLEMENT WITH PEOPLES ENERGY; CUSTOMERS OF PEOPLES GAS AND NORTH SHORE GAS TO RECEIVE $100 MILLION IN CREDITS
Chicago – Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Mayor Richard M. Daley today announced that Peoples Energy has agreed to more than $196 million in consumer credits and benefits as part of a settlement that will provide much-needed relief to current Peoples Gas and North Shore Gas customers, establish a more than $25 million program of conservation and weatherization assistance for low- and moderate-income households and reconnect customers who have been disconnected from their heating services due to an inability to pay the high gas prices.
MADIGAN, DALEY, CUB ANNOUNCE REFUND CREDITS TO APPEAR ON NEXT GAS BILL FOR CUSTOMERS OF PEOPLES GAS AND NORTH SHORE GAS
Chicago — Attorney General Lisa Madigan, City of Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley and Citizens Utility Board (CUB) Executive Director David Kolata today announced that as a result of their settlement agreement with Peoples Energy more than one million current customers of Peoples Gas and North Shore Gas will see refund credits on their next gas bills.
To compensate for over billing consumers between 2000 and 2004, Peoples Energy has agreed to provide a refund credit to each of the 1,014,071 current customers of Peoples Gas and North Shore Gas. The credits – totaling $100 million – will be included on the first bill received by customers after April 24.
“These refund credits cannot change the conduct of Peoples Energy, but they will help consumers who suffered as a result,” Madigan said. “This is an appropriate response to Peoples' conduct.”
“We are pleased that consumers are finally receiving the refunds that they deserve,” said City of Chicago Corporation Counsel Mara Georges. “Consumers should not have to pay for bad planning and business decisions by Peoples Gas.”
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 2007
Justice Department Investigating NY Energy Markets
New York's wholesale energy market is being investigated for possible antitrust violations, according to a recent news report. A Newsday story indicates that a subject of the investigation may be possible withholding of capacity from the market, to drive prices up. This revelation has raised further questions regarding the proposed merger of National Grid and Keyspan, which controls significant amounts of generation capacity in the New York City markets.
2007.07.26