Why are reporters protecting judges when Journalism 101 requires identifying the players?
http://www.tampabays10.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=73455
By: Dave Balut
Hudson, Fl. - Margaret Cochran is 51-years-old and wonders if she'll make it to 52. She has terminal ovarian cancer.
"I am in pain, I have problems with some of my organs working like kidneys bladder and so forth," said Cochran.
Having stage four ovarian cancer is bad enough, but Cochran has a more immediate concern. She says her ex-husband stopped paying alimony in November.
"I had contacted his wife to say why aren't you paying alimony and his response was, aren't you dead yet?" said Cochran.
Cochran's ex-husband is Stephen Paul Coleman, a 50-year-old former attorney who owns a mortgage company in Jacksonville.
Records show he's ordered to pay $1,650 a month in alimony, but a court statement indicates he's more than $11,000 behind.
"It's life or death. If I don't get it, I have nowhere to live, no medicine. No food no shelter, no vehicle, I would have nothing," said Cochran.
"If he's just ignoring it, the court's not going to have a lot of sympathy for him," said family law attorney David Plante.
Plante says the Florida Department of Revenue helps collect alimony if the person is also owed child support, but not alimony alone. So Cochran must go back to court.
"It's incumbent on him then to prove that he doesn't have the ability to pay for some reason to avoid the contempt power," said Plante.
Cochran has gone back to court in Jacksonville for alimony. She tried to have the case moved closer because of her health, but the judge said no.
"I don't think anyone should spend their last days on earth being drug through court, not being able to pay your bills," said Cochran.
Her church has helped with food and utility bills but Cochran says she's more than $8,000 behind in medical bills.
"I'm afraid I'm going to be on the street," said Cochran.
Our phone calls to Cochran's ex-husband Stephen Coleman were not returned.
But now, Cochran has some help from a family law specialist who heard about her situation. St. Petersburg attorney Wendy Doyle has offered to represent Cochran, free of charge.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Clark County judge accused of sexual misconduct.
Clark County judge accused of sexual misconduct
Del Vecchio confident 'hearing will clear my name'
By DAVID KIHARA
REVIEW-JOURNAL
The special prosecutor for the Judicial Discipline Commission has accused Family Court Judge Nicholas Del Vecchio of sexual misconduct and abuse of power, including coercing a judicial assistant into having a sexual relationship with him.
The complaint alleges that the relationship dates to before Del Vecchio was a judge, when the judicial assistant, the daughter of his ex-wife, was 14.
Del Vecchio took nude photos of the girl when she was between the ages of 14 and 16 and had her perform oral sex on him, the 38-count complaint states. The complaint adds that Del Vecchio kept the photos after he became a judge but later destroyed them.
The document, which is not a criminal complaint, also accuses Del Vecchio of using racial slurs against black and Hispanic court staff and of coercing staff into buying him lunches and airline tickets.
The commission's special prosecutor, Mary Boetsch, filed the formal complaint with the Judicial Discipline Commission on Friday.
The investigation into Del Vecchio's behavior on the bench dates back to May 2006, when the Clark County Office of Diversity began looking into allegations of sexual harassment. The office investigates allegations of sexual, racial and religious harassment in the workplace.
Del Vecchio, 50, denied all accusations against him Friday night.
He said the diversity office found that there was "insufficient evidence as to all the charges."
Del Vecchio strongly denied that he had a sexual relationship with his ex-wife's 14-year-old daughter in the early 1990s. She was named in the complaint as Rebeccah Murray.
"I feel confident that a hearing will clear my name," he said.
It was unclear whether authorities had or intended to file criminal charges against Del Vecchio.
Del Vecchio and Murray broke off contact in the mid-1990's but she wound up working for him when he was serving on the bench in 2002.
Del Vecchio sought to arrange a special work schedule for Murray that would allow her to work for him, according to the complaint. The request was refused by Chief Judge Kathy Hardcastle.
The complaint says he went around Hardcastle and adjusted Murray's schedule to allow her to work and attend law school at the same time, but did so on the condition she have sex with him. Murray didn't want to have sex with Del Vecchio and had to get drunk to do it, the complaint states.
When she tried to end the relationship, Del Vecchio was hostile to her and threatened to fire her, the complaint says.
Murray filed a sexual harassment complaint against Del Vecchio with the county's diversity office in May 2006.
Del Vecchio sexually harassed other court staff, according to the complaint. He told a family court employee, Beata Funk, that he wanted to have sex with her and wanted her to wear tight shirts while campaigning for him, the complaint says.
The complaint also accuses Del Vecchio of:
• Telling another judicial assistant she should date certain attorneys because it would help him get campaign contributions from them.
• Making offensive racial comments to a Hispanic bailiff, calling him a "lazy Mexican."
• Directing a bailiff who had a part-time job with a commercial airline to obtain free tickets for him.
• And making staff baby sit the child of a girlfriend.
Only the Judicial Discipline Commission has the authority to suspend or reprimand a sitting judge, court officials said. Del Vecchio will have a chance to respond to the complaint. The commission could then have a public hearing to consider the merits of the charges.
Chuck Short, county court administrator, said the court began investigating Del Vecchio in 2006 and reported its finding to the Judicial Discipline Commission in the summer of 2006.
"At this point, the court hopes the Judicial Discipline Commission will move at lightning speed to take action due to the egregious nature of the charges," he said. "Anything less is a disservice to the community, the judge and the lawyers and individuals with cases pending before the judge."
Del Vecchio was first elected as a Family Court judge in 2000. He had lost seven previous elections. He has filed for re-election and drawn challengers Ellen Bezian, Cynthia Giuliani and Vincent Ochoa.
Ochoa, a family law attorney who has argued cases before Del Vecchio, said he was surprised when he learned the extent of the accusations. He said the judge never asked him for anything inappropriate such as a free lunch.
Ochoa said there were rumors around Family Court that Del Vecchio was being investigated, but he was shocked to learn the details of the inquiry.
"I knew he had some problems, but I never dreamed they were this bad," he said. "I think it's an embarrassment to the judiciary."
Review-Journal writer Lawrence Mower contributed to this story. Contact reporter David Kihara at dkihara@reviewjournal.com or (702) 380-1039.
Del Vecchio confident 'hearing will clear my name'
By DAVID KIHARA
REVIEW-JOURNAL
The special prosecutor for the Judicial Discipline Commission has accused Family Court Judge Nicholas Del Vecchio of sexual misconduct and abuse of power, including coercing a judicial assistant into having a sexual relationship with him.
The complaint alleges that the relationship dates to before Del Vecchio was a judge, when the judicial assistant, the daughter of his ex-wife, was 14.
Del Vecchio took nude photos of the girl when she was between the ages of 14 and 16 and had her perform oral sex on him, the 38-count complaint states. The complaint adds that Del Vecchio kept the photos after he became a judge but later destroyed them.
The document, which is not a criminal complaint, also accuses Del Vecchio of using racial slurs against black and Hispanic court staff and of coercing staff into buying him lunches and airline tickets.
The commission's special prosecutor, Mary Boetsch, filed the formal complaint with the Judicial Discipline Commission on Friday.
The investigation into Del Vecchio's behavior on the bench dates back to May 2006, when the Clark County Office of Diversity began looking into allegations of sexual harassment. The office investigates allegations of sexual, racial and religious harassment in the workplace.
Del Vecchio, 50, denied all accusations against him Friday night.
He said the diversity office found that there was "insufficient evidence as to all the charges."
Del Vecchio strongly denied that he had a sexual relationship with his ex-wife's 14-year-old daughter in the early 1990s. She was named in the complaint as Rebeccah Murray.
"I feel confident that a hearing will clear my name," he said.
It was unclear whether authorities had or intended to file criminal charges against Del Vecchio.
Del Vecchio and Murray broke off contact in the mid-1990's but she wound up working for him when he was serving on the bench in 2002.
Del Vecchio sought to arrange a special work schedule for Murray that would allow her to work for him, according to the complaint. The request was refused by Chief Judge Kathy Hardcastle.
The complaint says he went around Hardcastle and adjusted Murray's schedule to allow her to work and attend law school at the same time, but did so on the condition she have sex with him. Murray didn't want to have sex with Del Vecchio and had to get drunk to do it, the complaint states.
When she tried to end the relationship, Del Vecchio was hostile to her and threatened to fire her, the complaint says.
Murray filed a sexual harassment complaint against Del Vecchio with the county's diversity office in May 2006.
Del Vecchio sexually harassed other court staff, according to the complaint. He told a family court employee, Beata Funk, that he wanted to have sex with her and wanted her to wear tight shirts while campaigning for him, the complaint says.
The complaint also accuses Del Vecchio of:
• Telling another judicial assistant she should date certain attorneys because it would help him get campaign contributions from them.
• Making offensive racial comments to a Hispanic bailiff, calling him a "lazy Mexican."
• Directing a bailiff who had a part-time job with a commercial airline to obtain free tickets for him.
• And making staff baby sit the child of a girlfriend.
Only the Judicial Discipline Commission has the authority to suspend or reprimand a sitting judge, court officials said. Del Vecchio will have a chance to respond to the complaint. The commission could then have a public hearing to consider the merits of the charges.
Chuck Short, county court administrator, said the court began investigating Del Vecchio in 2006 and reported its finding to the Judicial Discipline Commission in the summer of 2006.
"At this point, the court hopes the Judicial Discipline Commission will move at lightning speed to take action due to the egregious nature of the charges," he said. "Anything less is a disservice to the community, the judge and the lawyers and individuals with cases pending before the judge."
Del Vecchio was first elected as a Family Court judge in 2000. He had lost seven previous elections. He has filed for re-election and drawn challengers Ellen Bezian, Cynthia Giuliani and Vincent Ochoa.
Ochoa, a family law attorney who has argued cases before Del Vecchio, said he was surprised when he learned the extent of the accusations. He said the judge never asked him for anything inappropriate such as a free lunch.
Ochoa said there were rumors around Family Court that Del Vecchio was being investigated, but he was shocked to learn the details of the inquiry.
"I knew he had some problems, but I never dreamed they were this bad," he said. "I think it's an embarrassment to the judiciary."
Review-Journal writer Lawrence Mower contributed to this story. Contact reporter David Kihara at dkihara@reviewjournal.com or (702) 380-1039.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
CA Judges and DAs Plan to Eliminate Elections.
Heads up Californians. District Attorneys and Judges recently met to decide whether they should take away the right of voters to elect their judges.
What's troublesome is these elected officials feel, according to the article below from Metropolitican News; is that they have a right to.
(Readers may remember it's Bonnie Dumanis who wants less prison time for former Deputy Bruce Lowell, who shot his wife in the face, killing her in front of their small son. See (Dumanis has higher political aspirations and so courts police associations.)
Feb. 5, 2006 By KENNETH OFGANG, Staff Writer
Several members of a judicial task force suggested yesterday that the time has come for California to find a new way of selecting and retaining trial judges.
The system of direct elections 'gave me an opportunity' to become a judge, San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis acknowledged. 'But I do think it is a sleazy process.'
Dumanis made the comment in Burbank during a meeting of the Judicial Council Task Force on Judicial Selection and Retention. The task force is part of the
Statewide Commission for Impartial Courts, which was appointed by Chief Justice Ronald M. George last September.
Dumanis is one of three task force members who came to the bench by winning election to open seats. She won open seats on both the San Diego Municipal Court and the San Diego Superior Court before being elected district attorney in 2002.
The task force chair is Third District Court of Appeal Justice Ronald Robie, who won an open seat on the Sacramento Superior Court in 1980 and was elevated to the Court of Appeal 19 years later. Other members include Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Terry Friedman, who won an open seat in 1994, and David Wesley, who survived an election challenge in 2004.
Robie and Friedman both said they disliked the process.
Friedman, a member of the state Assembly at the time, agreed with Dumanis and others that elections give candidates who could not hope for a gubernatorial appointment the chance to serve. In his own case, he pointed out, it was highly unlikely that a Republican governor would have named a Democratic elected official to the bench.
But although he was 'lucky' enough to prevail, Friedman said, 'it was a terrible process.' He commented that his opponent, Valley attorney John Moriarity, 'ran as if it were a legislative office.'
Friedman offered no details yesterday, but his runoff contest with Moriarity was the most expensive judicial contest in county history to that point. Moriarity criticized Friedman for his liberal politics and membership in the ACLU, and Friedman, while not responding in kind, outspent his opponent, in part by raising money through transfers from Democratic candidates and donations by groups that had supported his legislative campaigns but usually did not involve themselves in judicial races.
Friedman said yesterday that at the time, he feared he would be defeated because he 'chose not to respond politically' to the attacks.
Earlier in the day, state courts Administrative Director William Vickrey made a presentation to the task force based on the system used in Utah, where Vickrey worked before taking up his current post.
In Utah, he explained, judges, both trial and appellate, are appointed by the governor, with the approval of the state Senate, from a list of three to seven candidates nominated by a commission. They then must seek retention by the voters, but prior to the retention election, an evaluation is conducted by the state Judicial Council.
The evaluation includes an independently administered survey of lawyers who have appeared before the judge and are asked to rate his or her performance in 14 categories. In the case of judges who regularly conduct jury trials, jurors are surveyed as well.
In addition to the survey results, judicial participation in judicial education, promptness in deciding cases, and physical and mental fitness are figured into the evaluation, and the results are published in the official ballot pamphlet when the judge faces retention.
The pamphlet also includes an explanation of the system of judicial appointment and retention.
The advantages of the system, Vickrey said, are that it keeps partisanship out of the process, while giving voters information that they can use to come to a reasoned decision.
The model would have to be modified, he acknowledged, for use in California, which has about 10 times as many judicial officers.
One option discussed by the task force was 'triggered retention' a system in which the Judicial Council or some similar body would evaluate judges and determine whether they merited retention. If a candidate failed to obtain the required amount of support within the evaluating body, whether a simple majority or more, the judge would have to take his or her case to the voters.
That and other options for retention elections are to be studied by a smaller group of task force members named yesterday. The group will be chaired by Court of Appeal Justice Walter Croskey of this district's Div. Three.
Copyright 2008, Metropolitan News Company
What's troublesome is these elected officials feel, according to the article below from Metropolitican News; is that they have a right to.
(Readers may remember it's Bonnie Dumanis who wants less prison time for former Deputy Bruce Lowell, who shot his wife in the face, killing her in front of their small son. See (Dumanis has higher political aspirations and so courts police associations.)
Feb. 5, 2006 By KENNETH OFGANG, Staff Writer
Several members of a judicial task force suggested yesterday that the time has come for California to find a new way of selecting and retaining trial judges.
The system of direct elections 'gave me an opportunity' to become a judge, San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis acknowledged. 'But I do think it is a sleazy process.'
Dumanis made the comment in Burbank during a meeting of the Judicial Council Task Force on Judicial Selection and Retention. The task force is part of the
Statewide Commission for Impartial Courts, which was appointed by Chief Justice Ronald M. George last September.
Dumanis is one of three task force members who came to the bench by winning election to open seats. She won open seats on both the San Diego Municipal Court and the San Diego Superior Court before being elected district attorney in 2002.
The task force chair is Third District Court of Appeal Justice Ronald Robie, who won an open seat on the Sacramento Superior Court in 1980 and was elevated to the Court of Appeal 19 years later. Other members include Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Terry Friedman, who won an open seat in 1994, and David Wesley, who survived an election challenge in 2004.
Robie and Friedman both said they disliked the process.
Friedman, a member of the state Assembly at the time, agreed with Dumanis and others that elections give candidates who could not hope for a gubernatorial appointment the chance to serve. In his own case, he pointed out, it was highly unlikely that a Republican governor would have named a Democratic elected official to the bench.
But although he was 'lucky' enough to prevail, Friedman said, 'it was a terrible process.' He commented that his opponent, Valley attorney John Moriarity, 'ran as if it were a legislative office.'
Friedman offered no details yesterday, but his runoff contest with Moriarity was the most expensive judicial contest in county history to that point. Moriarity criticized Friedman for his liberal politics and membership in the ACLU, and Friedman, while not responding in kind, outspent his opponent, in part by raising money through transfers from Democratic candidates and donations by groups that had supported his legislative campaigns but usually did not involve themselves in judicial races.
Friedman said yesterday that at the time, he feared he would be defeated because he 'chose not to respond politically' to the attacks.
Earlier in the day, state courts Administrative Director William Vickrey made a presentation to the task force based on the system used in Utah, where Vickrey worked before taking up his current post.
In Utah, he explained, judges, both trial and appellate, are appointed by the governor, with the approval of the state Senate, from a list of three to seven candidates nominated by a commission. They then must seek retention by the voters, but prior to the retention election, an evaluation is conducted by the state Judicial Council.
The evaluation includes an independently administered survey of lawyers who have appeared before the judge and are asked to rate his or her performance in 14 categories. In the case of judges who regularly conduct jury trials, jurors are surveyed as well.
In addition to the survey results, judicial participation in judicial education, promptness in deciding cases, and physical and mental fitness are figured into the evaluation, and the results are published in the official ballot pamphlet when the judge faces retention.
The pamphlet also includes an explanation of the system of judicial appointment and retention.
The advantages of the system, Vickrey said, are that it keeps partisanship out of the process, while giving voters information that they can use to come to a reasoned decision.
The model would have to be modified, he acknowledged, for use in California, which has about 10 times as many judicial officers.
One option discussed by the task force was 'triggered retention' a system in which the Judicial Council or some similar body would evaluate judges and determine whether they merited retention. If a candidate failed to obtain the required amount of support within the evaluating body, whether a simple majority or more, the judge would have to take his or her case to the voters.
That and other options for retention elections are to be studied by a smaller group of task force members named yesterday. The group will be chaired by Court of Appeal Justice Walter Croskey of this district's Div. Three.
Copyright 2008, Metropolitan News Company
Darren Mack's "sentencing"
Interesting in what was missed during the hoopla of the sentencing of Darren Mack.
Although it could be expect since it involved one murder and one attempted murder.
What was missed was that although Charla Mack received support orders; Judge Weller never allowed them to be enforced. Which explains why Charla had trouble keeping the lights on while Darren continued his over-the-top, lifestyle.
But as far as no firearms at all in the courtroom - Why? A tacit admission deputies are not trained to prohibit attacks, perhaps?
See below for the s-l-o-w-e-s-t moving deputies east of the Mississippi. Please note however, how many deputies arrived and then stood around aimlessly; uselessly, after the attorney was knocked out by the prisoner.
http://videos.kentucky.com/vmix_hosted_apps/p/media?id=1693323
Bad cop, no dough nut!
Although it could be expect since it involved one murder and one attempted murder.
What was missed was that although Charla Mack received support orders; Judge Weller never allowed them to be enforced. Which explains why Charla had trouble keeping the lights on while Darren continued his over-the-top, lifestyle.
But as far as no firearms at all in the courtroom - Why? A tacit admission deputies are not trained to prohibit attacks, perhaps?
See below for the s-l-o-w-e-s-t moving deputies east of the Mississippi. Please note however, how many deputies arrived and then stood around aimlessly; uselessly, after the attorney was knocked out by the prisoner.
http://videos.kentucky.com/vmix_hosted_apps/p/media?id=1693323
Bad cop, no dough nut!
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Billionaire Cleared to Sue Judge
Billionaire Gets Greenlight to Sue Judge, Lawyer
July 17, 2007
By Mike McKee
The Recorder
Self-made billionaire Thomas Siebel got the green light Monday to proceed with a malicious prosecution suit against a San Mateo County, Calif., judge and a former San Francisco Bay Area lawyer.
The California Supreme Court all but opened the courthouse door for the former Silicon Valley executive by unanimously ruling that a settlement in an underlying fraud suit constituted a favorable judgment that allows Siebel to sue the attorneys who brought the case.
The high court also dismissed arguments by Siebel's opponents, Judge Carol Mittlesteadt and E. Rick Buell II, that the ruling would discourage settlements, increase malicious prosecution actions and disrupt the attorney-client relationship.
Siebel, founder of Siebel Systems Inc., sued Mittlesteadt, then a lawyer but now a judge in San Mateo, and Buell, whom the State Bar lists as a Florida resident, for malicious prosecution after Siebel's company paid to settle a fraud suit with their client, Debra Christoffers, in 1999.
Christoffers, a one-time sales director at Siebel Systems Inc., had sued Siebel -- who made this year's list of billionaires in Forbes -- claiming she had been unfairly fired, subjected to gender discrimination and defrauded out of major commissions and stock options. Only the fraud claims went to trial.
Christoffers won a jury verdict of about $234,000, but only against the company, not Siebel himself. Various issues were appealed by both sides, with a subsequent settlement agreement requiring Siebel Systems to give Christoffers $352,000 as long as she paid Thomas Siebel's $52,000 in costs.
However, the agreement -- pulled together by a third lawyer retained by Christoffers -- specifically stated it would not prevent Siebel from going after Mittlesteadt and Buell for malicious prosecution. It did prevent Christoffers from assisting her ex-lawyers during subsequent litigation.
The question before the Supreme Court was whether the settlement agreement represented a favorable termination of the underlying fraud suit for Siebel. Under California law, a malicious prosecution suit cannot stand unless the person who filed it proves the underlying case was terminated in his or her favor.
Mittlesteadt and Buell had argued that the settlement agreement created an ambiguity about the merits of the fraud suit. They claimed Siebel settled, he didn't win.
The Supreme Court didn't agree.
Neither Mittlesteadt nor her appellate lawyer, Tony Tanke of Davis, Calif., returned calls seeking comment. Buell couldn't be reached for comment and he didn't respond to an e-mail. Robin Meadow, the partner at Los Angeles' Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland who represented Siebel, said he couldn't comment without his client's permission.
July 17, 2007
By Mike McKee
The Recorder
Self-made billionaire Thomas Siebel got the green light Monday to proceed with a malicious prosecution suit against a San Mateo County, Calif., judge and a former San Francisco Bay Area lawyer.
The California Supreme Court all but opened the courthouse door for the former Silicon Valley executive by unanimously ruling that a settlement in an underlying fraud suit constituted a favorable judgment that allows Siebel to sue the attorneys who brought the case.
The high court also dismissed arguments by Siebel's opponents, Judge Carol Mittlesteadt and E. Rick Buell II, that the ruling would discourage settlements, increase malicious prosecution actions and disrupt the attorney-client relationship.
Siebel, founder of Siebel Systems Inc., sued Mittlesteadt, then a lawyer but now a judge in San Mateo, and Buell, whom the State Bar lists as a Florida resident, for malicious prosecution after Siebel's company paid to settle a fraud suit with their client, Debra Christoffers, in 1999.
Christoffers, a one-time sales director at Siebel Systems Inc., had sued Siebel -- who made this year's list of billionaires in Forbes -- claiming she had been unfairly fired, subjected to gender discrimination and defrauded out of major commissions and stock options. Only the fraud claims went to trial.
Christoffers won a jury verdict of about $234,000, but only against the company, not Siebel himself. Various issues were appealed by both sides, with a subsequent settlement agreement requiring Siebel Systems to give Christoffers $352,000 as long as she paid Thomas Siebel's $52,000 in costs.
However, the agreement -- pulled together by a third lawyer retained by Christoffers -- specifically stated it would not prevent Siebel from going after Mittlesteadt and Buell for malicious prosecution. It did prevent Christoffers from assisting her ex-lawyers during subsequent litigation.
The question before the Supreme Court was whether the settlement agreement represented a favorable termination of the underlying fraud suit for Siebel. Under California law, a malicious prosecution suit cannot stand unless the person who filed it proves the underlying case was terminated in his or her favor.
Mittlesteadt and Buell had argued that the settlement agreement created an ambiguity about the merits of the fraud suit. They claimed Siebel settled, he didn't win.
The Supreme Court didn't agree.
Neither Mittlesteadt nor her appellate lawyer, Tony Tanke of Davis, Calif., returned calls seeking comment. Buell couldn't be reached for comment and he didn't respond to an e-mail. Robin Meadow, the partner at Los Angeles' Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland who represented Siebel, said he couldn't comment without his client's permission.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Judge Says FBI acted with Callous Disregard
U.S. Dist. Judge determines the Reno FBI and U.S. Attorneys Office acted with callous disregard of Mr. Montgomery’s Fourth Amendment rights, as the earlier order from Judge Cooke on November 28, 2006, was affirmed on March 19, 2007.
Ruling in Trepp case raises questions about Gibbons' role
The story unfolds, below.
How Deep Does Political Corruption Run?
Although most of the case was sealed...it's looking as if Pandora's Box will open any minute - affording the general public a breathtaking display of the lengths the FBI will go to protect its perceived political interests rather than protecting Amercians from attack - although the below lack of experience by the FBI agent, is enough to give anyone the willies.
However, what's Always true is:
A good government is a transparent government.
Ruling in Trepp case raises questions about Gibbons' role
The story unfolds, below.
How Deep Does Political Corruption Run?
Although most of the case was sealed...it's looking as if Pandora's Box will open any minute - affording the general public a breathtaking display of the lengths the FBI will go to protect its perceived political interests rather than protecting Amercians from attack - although the below lack of experience by the FBI agent, is enough to give anyone the willies.
However, what's Always true is:
A good government is a transparent government.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
FBI After Public Officials Not Paying 'Electric Bill. Wow! Big Crimes.
In the "Why write Fiction" department - the FBI is investigating a Memphis City Councilmember who didn't pay his bills.
Sunday, 03/18/07
Memphis councilman may have violated open government law
ASSOCIATED PRESS
MEMPHIS, Tenn. (AP) -- A councilman at the center of an FBI investigation may have violated the state's open government law when he talked privately to council members about supporting the man who would eventually become president of the city's utility.
Lawyers hired by the City Council have been trying to interview the president and CEO of Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division, Joseph Lee, as part of an independent probe into the utility accounts of Councilman Edmund Ford. The lawyers are scheduled to present their findings on Tuesday.
The FBI is investigating why the utility protected Ford's business and residential utility services from disconnection even though he owed more than $16,000.
Records show Lee aided in that by telling his staff to keep Ford's utilities on.
According to a councilman and other records recently obtained by The Commercial Appeal, Ford played a pivotal role in getting Lee his position and may have violated the law in doing so.
In the days leading up to a 2004 City Council vote on whether Lee should head the utility, Council Chairman Tom Marshall said Ford lined up votes behind the scenes to ensure Lee got the job.
Marshall said Ford privately lobbied council members, claiming Lee's appointment would end "the racial gridlock we were in."
Tennessee's Open Meetings Act prohibits deliberation of public business in closed meetings or electronic communication.
In 1990, the Tennessee Court of Appeals ruled that Shelby County commissioners violated the law when they discussed privately with each other, including in phone conversations, which candidate they would like to fill a board vacancy.
"He did ask me to consider voting for Lee," Marshall said. "He said that as far as he was concerned, it was becoming a very racial issue and we did not need that at the time."
The council eventually voted 7-5 to appoint Lee.
Ford served as chairman of the City Council's General Services & Utilities Committee, which oversees the city-owned utility, until December when he was removed from the post after his arrest on federal bribery charges.
The utility's systems were also set up to notify top utility employees if more than a dozen other Memphis politicos, including Mayor Willie Herenton and some City Council members, faced service cutoff due to unpaid bills.
In a letter to the council last week, Lee's lawyer, Robert Spence said Lee denies ever receiving monetary benefits or items of value from Ford or council members.
Spence also said Lee won't be cooperating in the council's independent investigation because he has already testified before a federal grand jury investigating the utility.
Sunday, 03/18/07
Memphis councilman may have violated open government law
ASSOCIATED PRESS
MEMPHIS, Tenn. (AP) -- A councilman at the center of an FBI investigation may have violated the state's open government law when he talked privately to council members about supporting the man who would eventually become president of the city's utility.
Lawyers hired by the City Council have been trying to interview the president and CEO of Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division, Joseph Lee, as part of an independent probe into the utility accounts of Councilman Edmund Ford. The lawyers are scheduled to present their findings on Tuesday.
The FBI is investigating why the utility protected Ford's business and residential utility services from disconnection even though he owed more than $16,000.
Records show Lee aided in that by telling his staff to keep Ford's utilities on.
According to a councilman and other records recently obtained by The Commercial Appeal, Ford played a pivotal role in getting Lee his position and may have violated the law in doing so.
In the days leading up to a 2004 City Council vote on whether Lee should head the utility, Council Chairman Tom Marshall said Ford lined up votes behind the scenes to ensure Lee got the job.
Marshall said Ford privately lobbied council members, claiming Lee's appointment would end "the racial gridlock we were in."
Tennessee's Open Meetings Act prohibits deliberation of public business in closed meetings or electronic communication.
In 1990, the Tennessee Court of Appeals ruled that Shelby County commissioners violated the law when they discussed privately with each other, including in phone conversations, which candidate they would like to fill a board vacancy.
"He did ask me to consider voting for Lee," Marshall said. "He said that as far as he was concerned, it was becoming a very racial issue and we did not need that at the time."
The council eventually voted 7-5 to appoint Lee.
Ford served as chairman of the City Council's General Services & Utilities Committee, which oversees the city-owned utility, until December when he was removed from the post after his arrest on federal bribery charges.
The utility's systems were also set up to notify top utility employees if more than a dozen other Memphis politicos, including Mayor Willie Herenton and some City Council members, faced service cutoff due to unpaid bills.
In a letter to the council last week, Lee's lawyer, Robert Spence said Lee denies ever receiving monetary benefits or items of value from Ford or council members.
Spence also said Lee won't be cooperating in the council's independent investigation because he has already testified before a federal grand jury investigating the utility.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)