The origin of the Antonini Companies begins in 1891 with the birth of Virgilio Antonini in Castiglione Chiavarese, a small town in northern Italy. With a dream of a better life, Virgilio came to America in 1909 and made his way from the East Coast to San Francisco before settling in Stockton, California, a burgeoning agricultural community in the San Joaquin Valley. After working on a farm for a short period of time, he soon managed to purchase his own farm.
Realizing the importance of getting his and other farmers’ products to market and recognizing an opportunity to provide a necessary service to the community, Virgilio started Antonini Fruit Express in 1926, the foundation of what has become the Antonini Companies today.
As the agricultural industry grew and developed, so too did the Antonini trucking business. Vic, as Virgilio was known to his friends and associates, forged strong relationships throughout the community and the agricultural industry. Establishing a reputation for reliable transportation enabled Vic to secure contracts with several tomato and peach processors, which spurred further growth of the budding trucking company.
While the trucking business flourished, Vic and his wife Rose, raised a family of five and continued to manage their farm.
“Prompt and Efficient Service” was more than a slogan, it was his way of doing business, and he passed along to his sons, Louis, Jack and Rudy, that ideal of commitment to service as they matured and came into the business.
The family and the company were stunned by Vic’s death from pneumonia in 1951, but the values instilled in them by their father enabled them to persevere. Carrying on in their father’s tradition, Antonini Bros. Trucking continued to grow by primarily focusing on hauling agricultural commodities, with special emphasis on cannery tomatoes and peaches. They also were involved extensively in selling fertilizer and seed.
The deaths of Louis and Jack left Rudy at the helm of the blooming trucking company. Through his persistence and hard work, he guided the company through another period of strong growth and continued to nurture business relationships with old customers and develop new ones along the way.
In the mid 1980’s two of Rudy’s children came to work in the business. His sons Joe and Mark who had worked in the business as youngsters during summer vacation were now college graduates and eager to grow the business. Both of them worked their way through various maintenance and operational roles to sharpen their saws in the trucking industry. The scope of the overall operation changed dramatically in 1990 when the freight hauling division was officially formed. The business was no longer a seasonal operation and since 1990 has grown at an annual rate of 14%. Joe and Mark’s sister Karen would enter the business in 1995. As a certified public accountant, Karen complimented her two brothers by bringing in her knowledge and practical experience in the financial side of the business.
In July 2005 with business moving forward, Mark Antonini decided to switch careers. After 20 plus years in the business Mark ultimately was looking for a change of pace and took a leap of faith to try something new. That left Joe and Karen to continue running an organization that has grown into a model of a progressive corporation. Today, the company operates two distinct divisions – agricultural hauling and general freight hauling. Two separate trucking entities operate out of five terminals utilizing 150 company owned tractors and over 400 sets of trailers. The combined resources of Antonini Enterprises LLC, Antonini Freight Express, Inc. and Antonini Fruit Express, are integrated into an efficient, multi-functional organization to provide a broad range of services.
There is a great deal of excitement at the Antonini Companies today. Every day, every call, every haul represents a new opportunity to continue to strive to improve, to succeed, to be a premier carrier.
Antonini 1 The History of Democracy,
fond by Jacquelyn R. Antonini A Senior Essay submitted in partial f ulfillment of the
requirements for the degree, Bachelor of
Arts in the Integral Curriculum of Liberal Arts. _____________________________________ ___ Steve A. Cortright , Advisor Saint Mary’s College of California April 9, 2014 Antonini 2 Introduction: What is it to govern? The purpose of government is to enable the people of a nation to live in safety and happiness. Government exists for the interests of th e govern ed , not for the governors . — Thomas Jefferson The term “ governme nt”
has multiple meanings and applications.
It i s derived from the Latin word, g ubernatio , “ management ,”
d from the Ancient Greek word, kubernismos , “ steering, pilotage,
guidin g. ” However , modern day usage expands “ governm ent” into various connotations . Some are philosophical:
they go to
ethical , political , and speculative considerations . Today , when an individual discusses “government,”
it is unclear whether he or
she tends to conflate the core
(denotative) and associated (connotative) meanings, but
or not, most
combine both elements — denotation and connotation — when they speak of government. And there is reason for the combination of both elements. To govern,
r, manage, or guide , implies
. The aim may
power, or wealth; government is the action toward an execution of the
“ Government, ”
may signify as end or aim ,
or as instrument, or both
. An aim can be chosen for its own sake,
also for something else . For instance, an aim of government could be equality for equality’s sake (the thing for the thing itself). This example speaks to the philosophical notion many governments incorporate into political doct rine. But, take another
n aim of a government
could be power, which is both philosophical
and use - based. In one sense, an individual
desires power for power’s sake; however,
he or she desires such power in order to attain more wealth
(physical things) for him or hersel
f. Hence the confusion when “government” and its aims and means are discussed. In the Republic , Plato speculates that the aim of government is philosophical : the claim to ward s
of government must reflect that aim.
The term politeia , which Antonini 3 Plato employs
more accurately reflects
the group, or the body of people w hose comprehensive partnership, or regime, is e ffected by government .
ship between the body of people the government represents and the gover nment itself functions as a partnership, with the particular form of government representative of the
type that characterizes a
good member of the polis
of the political
- regime. The focus of this partnership is not how to implement govern ment , but what pro motes the common good of the poli s ; and the government that
promotes the common good of the
is in accordance
with the truth. In the Republic, Socrates
evaluates five different forms of government, as he attempts to
assess what specific form best re presents the partn ership between those who share
and the polis ,
in accordance with truth. In this evaluation,
e ach of the various
orms of government results from
a corruption of the prior form of
for instance, democracy
is the c orruption of oligarchy . In the Repub l ic , Socrates demonstrates how the corruption
from one form of government
in to another occurs. Socrates denies that democracy is preferable to aristocracy and decrees that any regime at all is preferable to
, tyranny results directly from the corruption of democracy. While , then,
democracy is not a
favorable form of government in Plato’s Re public, t he Greek city - states — most notably, Athens — are the prototype s
on which modern day democracies
ar e constructed ,
modifications . While Athenian democracy flourished for ap proximately 100 years (508 bce - 411bce ) ,
American Democracy is the longest running democracy in recorded history.
The American form of democracy, embodied in the United States Con stitution and in the attachment of the Bill of Right s
(the first ten
amendments ) , includes use - based aims — ends that are also means ,
ental ends — and philosophical considerations. Originally, the Federalists attempted to persuade the populace with t he Constitution alone — which is merely an Antonini 4 explanation of how the government would be
organized and function.
There was no invocation of a philosophical aim. Anti - Federalist s
were concerned that basic rights and freedoms were not
specified in the Constitutio n alo ne. Consequently, the first amendments were written to satisfy Anti - Federalist s ’
ut philo sophical considerations such as equality, individual freedoms, liberties, and justice . The bases
of American Democracy included philosophical
n otions from modern philosophers: Locke, Montesquieu and Coke. Locke and Montesquieu influenced the structure of the government and Coke influenced the inclusion of civil liberties. Because the framers of the Constitution were well educated to the concerns over tr aditional democracy, they attempted to preclude a civil conflict
between the property
- less and
propertied . About fifty years following the ratification of the United States Constitution, Fren ch observer , Alexis d e Tocqueville, was sent by the French G overnment to study penal institutions in the United States.
In his text,
Democracy in America, Tocqueville explicates the democratic revolution in America. Tocqueville was intrigued by the unique version of democracy that had taken hold in fledgling Americ a, especially as it differed from the democracy in France and in Europe in general .
On the one hand, he identifies various elements in American Democracy that
thwart the progression towards tyranny ,
as predicted by Plato and experienced in Europe
. Two of t he most important aspects unique to American Democracy, which provided a check against tyranny, were
a weak central gover
and the lack of a clear a
ristocracy. On the other hand, Tocqueville
speculates that there are also
in American De
mocrac y which ,
develop into what he calls
“ a tyranny of the majority . ” Tocqueville would be surprised at the condition of American Democracy today. No longer would he see a weak central government or t he lack of a clear a ristocracy . I n fact, he Antonini 5 would observe an oppressive
central government whose actions infringe upon the rights of the
a growing inequality among socio - economic classes . So what does that mean for American Democracy today? This discourse
term “government” from two essential perspectives — the aim and the means to fulfill that aim. Plato’s speculative philosophy concerning the de volution of governments ,
specific characterization of American Democracy
in practice ,
rovides the basis for the evaluation of American Democracy today. Plato asserts that democracy will co llapse in to tyranny ,
tyrant is viewed as a
person . Tocqueville
similar point of view;
however, he views
tyranny as the unrestrained rule o f any one or any group . In both cases, the outcome is alike in concep t and in practice. Consequently, it is arguable, that as American Democracy progresses in time, it is in fact regressing towards tyranny . Antonini 6 Section I: Is democracy a viable form of government? The
world says: "You have needs
— satisfy them. You have as much right as the rich and the mighty. Don't hesitate to satisfy your needs; indeed, expand your needs and demand more." This is the worldly doctrine of today. And they believe that t his is freedom. The result for the rich is isolation and suicide, for the poor, env y and murder. ? Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brother’s Karamazov In book eight of Plato’s Republic, Socrates
acknowledges that the many types of human
any forms of constitutions, “ that of necessity there are as many forms of human character as there are constitutions [idea s
” ( Plato 544 d). The term “constitution” applies to an individual and to a n incorporated
group of individuals. In
both the individual case and the s ocietal case, the constitution promotes the attainment of human flour ishing, in some sort. The method by which Socrates judges the various forms of government begins with the general constitution, which governs the populac e. Then, he looks to the particular — the human character — that
mirrors the general principles which rule the city
just as we began by looking for the virtues of character in a constitution, before looking for them in the individual, thinking that they’d be
clearer in the former, shouldn’t we first examine the hon
or - loving constitution? ”
Plato 545 b) Although Socrates asserts that there are as many constitutions as
there are human characters, he specifies four parti
cular constitutions to discuss. These four constitutions are not discrete,
on a continuum — each emerging from its
While Socrates a ssert s, “ the one [constitution]
that’s like A
ri stocracy ” is “ rightly said to be good and just” ( Plato 544 e) over all others, the remaining four are ord ered in a declension : First, there’s the constitution praised by most people, namely, the Cretan or Laconian
. The second, which is also second in the praise it receives, is called oligarchy and is filled with a host of evils. The next in order,
Antonini 7 antagonistic to it, is democracy. And finally there is genuine tyranny, surpassing all of them, the fourth and last of the diseased cities. ( Plato 544 c) All four of these constitut ions a re diseased, defective;
the degree of disease
as one form
of government declines in to the next. Although timocracy and oligarchy are preferable to
democracy and tyranny, the specifics
of timocracy and oligarchy
are inconsequential to the scope of
this paper . Consequently, the discussion will commence with the d efinition and judgment of democracy. “ It seems, then, that we must next consider democracy, how it comes into being, and what character it has when it does, so that, knowing in turn the character of a man who resembles it, we can present him for judgment” ( Plato 555b) . Socrates identifies war or some sort of uprising as the catalyst
different regimes . W hen open conflict among factions becomes the very basis of the state :
I suppose that democracy comes about when the poor are victorious, killing some
opponents and expelling others, and giving the rest an equal share in ruling under the constitution, and for the most part assigning peo ple to positions of rule by lot”
Plato 557a) . So for Plato, the spirit of democracy, when taken to its extrem e, results in rule by lot. Rule by lot is like drawing tokens ; take a handful of tokens , throw them into
a hat, and pick one at random.
This analogy highlights the extreme lack of need for judgment in a democracy , where each member of the polis
— to fellow members . It also highlights, in one sense, how individuals in positions of rule are chosen based in response to
no standard, and in
another sense, how equal access to positions of rule is not discriminatory ,
ased on socio - economic standing . In effect, the policy maker is a reflection of any individual member
participates in the partnership between the governed body ( polis ) and those governing . Antonini 8 Not only are individuals equal by token , but also by
the freedom to live thei
r lives in whatever way they choose, “ First of all, then, aren’t they free? And isn’t the city full of freedom and freedom of speech? And doesn’t everyone in it have the license to do what he wants. ... And where people have this license, it’s clear that each of them
will arrange his own life in what
ever manner pleases him” ( Plato 557b) . The emphasis on the i ndividual allows for
a diversity of
for a diversity in the exploration of many desires . There are many different kinds of desires that range from sens uous, physical desir es to intellectual
desires. However, sensuous
desires are instantly gratifying, while intellectual desires are gratifying over time. Thus, man, who by nature, is susceptible to what is pleasing to his senses and to what is instantly gra tifying, fulfills his thirst for such. Because man is free to desire whatever he chooses and man is free to attain such desires, man’s appetite in a democracy has little to no restraint. On the surface, then: it looks as though this is the finest or most b eautiful of the constitutions, for, like a coat embroidered with every kind of ornament, this city, embroidered with every kind of character type, would seem to be the most beautiful. And many people would probably judge it to be so, as women and children do when they see something multicolored. ( Plato 557c) However, Socrates hints at
what lurks beneath the surface when he suggests that women and
children are drawn to this particular way o f life — due
to its appeal to the senses.
For, what good are desires i f there is no direction or judgment of the desires themselves? To
familiar image, it seems that a natural democratic
individual living in a
democracy — where all p ersonal regimes are acceptable — is riding in a chariot controlled by t he horses with no a im in sight or in mind. With no order among the desires ,
r than what comes to mind first: Antonini 9 he doesn’t admit any word of truth into the guardhouse, for if someone tells him that some pleasures belong to fine and good desires and others to evil ones and that he must pursue and value the former and restrain and enslave the latter, he denies all this and declares that all pleasures are e qual and must be valued equally . ( Plato 561c) The notion of e quality becomes likened
to the notion of good
For, it is go
od to be equal. And in no ot her sense can the judgment term ‘good’
be applied to any differentiating characteristic or
quality or desire of a person or persons.
Therefore, the basis for any judgment is equality. With
qualitie s and desires being
, there is no sense of good or of bad, or of r ight
wrong . This
results in the
of the individual in the democratic
society : And so he lives on, yielding day by day to the desire at hand. Sometimes he drinks h eavily while listening to the flute; at other times, he drinks only water and is on a diet; sometimes he goes in for physical training; at other times, he’s idle and neglects everything; and sometimes he even occupies himself with what he takes to be philo sophy. He often engages in politics, leaping up from his seat and saying and doing whatever comes into his mind. If he happens to admire soldiers, he’s carried in that direction, if money - makers, in that one. There’s neither order nor necessity in his life , but he calls it pleasant, free, and blessedly happy, and he fo llows it for as long as he live s . ( Plato 561 d) The insatiable desire for freedom , and the fear of the iron - fisted oligarchy, overrules
Rulers, in order to maintain the st ate, behave at the whim of the people; and in effect the rulers behave like subjects while the subjects behave like the ruler s .
Even though there
Antonini 10 is a partnership between those governed and those governing, as every individual is equal to every other, Socr ates maintains that
there is a ruler to subject dichotomy still in effect. Just
because an individual participates in government, this
participation does not exempt him from
being subject to the greater ruler — those in positions of rule
the name o f
implementation of government al policies .
This role reversal between subjects and rulers can be
explicated on the micro level, “...a father accustoms himself to behave like a child and fear his sons, while the son behaves like a father, feeling neither
shame nor fear in front of his parents, in
order to be free”
Plato 562 e). Over time, the extreme abhorrence of control eventually necessitates the reinstitution of extreme control . For, “Extreme freedom can’t be expected to lead to anything but a change to extreme slavery, whether for a private individual or for a city”
Plato 564 a). Tyranny cannot possibly evolve from anything but a constitution overwhelmed by permissiveness. The tyrant comes into power by the s tratification
of the populace.
Socrates p resents three categories of people. The first and most vocal
“the class of idlers”
Plato 564 d) , a class of the dispossessed, inherited from the oligarchy, and grown accustom ed
to “feeding” off of the
state . People in this class do not participa te
in government directly; however, they do not tolerate
opposing opinions regarding freedom. Because they are the most vocal class that dictates
this class “manages everything” (
Plato 564 e). The second group
consists of the
e most organized. While the second group may be the sm allest in number, they possess
what the others desire most
The third class, the worker class, “...take no part
in politics and have few possessions, but, when they are assembled, they are the lar gest and most powerful class in a democracy”
Plato 565 a). What motivates the worker class to assemble is the expectation of getting
a share of the wealth that
the second group possesses. The leaders of the
Department of Justice Seal Department of Justice FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2007 WWW.USDOJ.GOV NSD (202) 514-2007 TDD (202) 514-1888
Four Foreign Nationals Arrested and Charged with Being Illegal Agents of a Foreign Government
WASHINGTON -- Three Venezuelans and an Uruguayan national were arrested last night and appeared in federal court in Miami today on charges of acting and conspiring to act as agents of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela within the United States, without prior notification to the Attorney General of the United States, as required by law, announced Kenneth L. Wainstein, Assistant Attorney General for Justice Department’s National Security Division, R. Alexander Acosta, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and Jonathan I. Solomon, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Miami Field Office.
Charged in the complaint were defendants Moises Maionica, 36, Antonio Jose Canchica Gomez, 37, Rodolfo Edgardo Wanseele Paciello, 40, Franklin Duran, 40, and Carlos Kauffmann, 35. All have been arrested, except for defendant Antonio Jose Canchica Gomez, who remains at large. If convicted, the defendants face a statutory maximum penalty of ten (10) years’ imprisonment and a $250,000 fine.
According to the complaint filed in federal court, the defendants coordinated and participated in a series of meetings, beginning in August 2007, in South Florida with Guido Alejandro Antonini Wilson to procure Antonini’s help in concealing the source of an intended $800,000 cash contribution to the political campaign of a candidate in the recent Argentine presidential election of Oct. 28, 2007. The last meeting took place on Dec. 11, 2007, when defendants Maionica, Duran, and another individual met with Antonini to discuss the creation of false documents in furtherance of the cover-up.
The events culminating in today’s criminal charges began on Aug. 4, 2007, when Antonini flew by Cessna Citation, bearing registration number N5113S, from Venezuela to Aeroparque Jorge Newbery in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The privately chartered aircraft had previously departed from Caracas Maiquetía International Airport in Venezuela, carrying eight passengers on board, including, among others, Guido Alejandro Antonini Wilson. Upon arrival at Buenos Aires, Argentine Customs Service inspected the luggage offloaded from the Cessna Citation, and found approximately $800,000 in United States currency in luggage being carried by Guido Alejandro Antonini Wilson. The Argentine authorities seized the money and Antonini returned to his South Florida home.
The complaint alleges that beginning in mid-August, 2007 and continuing through Dec. 11, 2007, the defendants and other participants in the conspiracy, acting as agents of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, sought to obtain the assistance of Guido Alejandro Antonini Wilson, a U.S. citizen who travels under both United States and Venezuelan passports, in concealing from the people of Argentina and others, the source and destination and the role of the government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in the attempted delivery of the approximately $800,000.
During these meetings, the defendants told Antonini that various high-ranking Venezuelan government officials, including the Office of the Vice President of the Republic, members of the DISIP (Intelligence and Preventive Services Directorate), and a high-ranking official from the Justice Ministry of Venezuela, were aware of this matter. The defendants told Antonini that these funds had been destined for the campaign of a candidate in the Argentine presidential election of Oct. 28, 2007.
“The complaint filed today outlines an alleged plot by agents of the Venezuelan government to manipulate an American citizen in Miami in an effort to keep the lid on a burgeoning international scandal. These arrests should serve as a warning to other agents who operate illegally in America on behalf of foreign powers,” said Kenneth L. Wainstein, Assistant Attorney General for National Security.
U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta stated, “Today’s complaint alleges an effort by the agents of Venezuela to travel to the United States for the purpose coercing our citizens to help conceal the true nature of a growing international scandal. This is not the first time in recent years that we have charged individuals with operating illegally in South Florida as agents of foreign powers, and likely will not be the last. The U.S. Attorney’s Office will continue to make prosecution of these cases one of our highest priorities.”
“The FBI is committed to working with our law enforcement and intelligence community partners to pursue those who act illegally as agents of foreign governments while in our country," said Acting Assistant Director Daniel L. Cloyd, FBI Counterintelligence Division.
FBI Special Agent in Charge Jonathan Solomon stated, “South Florida takes pride in the diversity of the people that have chosen to live here and we will always embrace those that come here to enjoy the freedom and opportunities that are available to us all. When unregistered foreign agents believe that they can operate on our soil with impunity and disregard for U.S. laws, it undermines the national security of our country and the safety of our citizens. This case demonstrates our resolve in ensuring that activities conducted in the United States are free from nefarious foreign influence.”
Mr. Acosta commended the investigative efforts of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for its work in this investigation. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas J. Mulvihill and Senior Trial Attorney Clifford I. Rones, of the Counterespionage Section at the Justice Department’s National Security Division.
A copy of this press release may be found on the Justice Department’s website at www.usdoj.gov, or on the website of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida at www.usdoj.gov/usao/fls. Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at http://www.flsd.uscourts.gov/ or on http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov.