« Yet another reason why I remain an Independent | Main | On Mark Foley And Other Matters »

October 06, 2006

Bill Sizemore Says the Darndest Things

Imagine my surprise today to find out that contrary to all media reports, Bill Sizemore won his appeal. Wow. I guess the liberal media really got it all wrong.

Bill Sizemore, executive director of Oregon Taxpayers United, said today that he was appalled at the spin the teachers unions placed on the Oregon Court of Appeals decision handed down yesterday in the case of the OEA and AFT vs. Oregon Taxpayers United.

“It is unbelievable that the unions are claiming victory,” Sizemore said.

Well knowing a thing or two about Sizemore, I couldn't take his word for it, so I thought, hey, I'll read the actual court decision and see what really happened. That darned liberal media. Turns out Sizemore did win. Well, that is if you go by the lone dissenting minority opinion. If you're a liberal and you go with the majority (you know, the opinion that actually counts) Sizemore's ass just got kicked again. But don't expect his right-wing supporters, whose heads are permanently planted in the sand (or else whose morals are irreversibly perverted), to ever see anything but Sizemore's ever-charming spin (a.k.a. lies – yes, I'll call it as I see it, because his latest line of COMPLETE BULLSHIT just proves that he has not changed since I quit working for him five years ago, which actually depresses me a bit). Are you listening Tim Trickey?

Okay, so let's take a bit of a look at what Sizemore told the Court as an excuse for why the previous rulings should be thrown out:

First, the unions who brought the lawsuit had alleged that Kelli Highley forged signatures on statements of sponsorship for Measures 92 and 98, and as a result of those forgeries, the Secretary of State approved the measures for circulation, thereby causing the unions to have to spend a lot of money. It is true that the subsequent election cycle Sizemore bragged about putting so many ballot measures on at once that the unions would have to spend all their money fighting them and would be unable to be proactive. But that was a different election. Sizemore did not deny that Kelli Highley forged signatures – and, in fact, she did forge them – but he said that her forgery and the subsequent approval to circulate petitions wasn't sufficient link to the damage the unions claimed. I actually agree with him and so did the Court. The Court reasoned that the expenditure of funds was not required until the measures made the ballot. That logic seems a bit absurd to me – I agree with Sizemore for an entirely different reason. We did not know Kelli had forged the signatures until much later, at which time we had collected FAR more than the 25 required to file a measure; therefore, sufficient public support had been demonstrated for the measure to be allowed to proceed. And the forgery was definitely something Kelli did all on her own and had nothing to do with Sizemore or OTU.

Second, the unions said Sizemore's petitioners forged signatures on the petitions and without that forgery, the measures would not have qualified for the ballot. Without hesitation, I can say that such activity, while it seems to inevitably occur in petition drives all around the country, was never condoned by Sizemore and he did try, so far as I saw, to eliminate forged signatures and report forgers. This is right in line with Tim Trickey's current assertions that they do not tolerate forgery or break the law. HOWEVER, in Sizemore's opinion, proper paperwork for signature gathering be damned and if Sizemore was able to siphon off a couple hundred thou (at least) for himself in the process, well, that was no problem. It was fair reward for the risks he was taking by subcontracting to a fly-by-night petitioner who might skip town if the Employment Division ever came after the petitioner (of course, the fact that the signature gathering was subcontracted shielded Sizemore from any such risk, but it sounded good and allowed copius embezzlement opportunities).

Okay, so where is the problem with Sizemore? Well, it's obviously NOT in the issues that most people think – forgery on petitions. The problem is much worse, and can be found in events that most people don't really know about, thanks to lackluster reporting by the liberal media.

The real problem begins to show up in the third thing unions alleged: that OTU knowingly filed false IRS tax forms claiming educational work that never took place and hiding political contributions of non-profit funds (true) and that OTU PAC knowingly filed false C&E reports (also true). And for all you Sizemore-supporters out there, note this: Sizemore doesn't deny knowingly filing false reports to the IRS or to the Oregon Elections Division. Instead, he made a technical argument over definitions of words in the statute under which OTU was found liable.

The trial court erred in denying defendants' motion … on the ground that it failed to sufficiently allege cognizable predicate offenses of "unsworn falsification" …

"A person commits the crime of unsworn falsification if the person knowingly makes any false written statement to a public servant in connection with an application for any benefit."

Key word: "application." Sizemore basically said, "Yes, we filed false tax reports to the IRS, avoided paying taxes on money we raised for political purposes, and misled the public as to how much money we received and from whom, but it doesn't matter because those reports were not 'applications.'" Sizemore also claimed that it didn't matter that the false reports were filed because the unions couldn't prove that filing false reports would necessarily mean his educational foundation would lose its charitable organization status. Makes me feel so remorseful for ever questioning the man's character. Can you believe the judge didn't go for that? Those darned liberal biased judges. I mean, look at how those liberal judges described Sizemore's charity:

Sizemore… devised a scheme by which tax-deductible donations to OTU-EF could be secretly and unlawfully funneled to OTU-PAC and used to put Measures 92 and 98 on the November 2000 ballot. But for the unlawful scheme, the OTU-EF contributions could not have been used in that manner. The OTU-EF contributions that were unlawfully expended on OTU-PAC activities were significant. … Moreover, plaintiffs presented evidence that the unlawful scheme benefited the OTU-EF donors because they could take tax deductions and also could shield their identities as supporters of the initiatives, which would have been revealed on accurate C&E reports had the contributions been made directly to OTU-PAC. Finally, plaintiffs presented the testimony of an expert, Pancoast, that, if OTU-EF had filed truthful CT-12 forms, the Oregon Department of Justice "almost certainly would have followed up on that" and would have had a variety of options to pursue, including "the least of which * * * would have been a cease and desist order."

None of this really touches on his money laundering scheme with Grover Norquist, or any of the many other things that went on in his various entities. It's quite the interesting saga, actually. I wouldn't believe it if I hadn't been a part of it.

Anyway, I think my favorite part of the Court's most recent decision was the following rant by the liberal majority (as opposed to the one dissenting judge who gave Sizemore a "victory") in response to the assertion that picking on poor Bill Sizemore like this is really going to have a chilling effect on the initiative process, which every good Republican knows the evil liberals are actively trying to destroy:

For generations of Oregonians, the initiative has been, and remains, a cherished legacy. It is not only part of our heritage but, as much, a vital, integral part of our political present and future. The initiative process was--as every Oregon school child once learned--adopted in 1902, as a feature of "the Oregon system," to remedy legislative fraud and corruption…. The citizens who ratified the initiative in 1902 certainly never intended that it would confer a license for fraud and a shelter for "money laundering." The citizens of Oregon did not intend to trade governmental corruption for private corruption by individuals and interest groups.

This case is not about innocent participation in the initiative process; it is not about good faith mistakes or errors in judgment in the course of such participation. Rather, as pleaded--and as ultimately found by the jury--this case is about a calculated course of criminal conduct perpetrated for the express purpose of crippling, and even destroying, defendants' political opponents.

For the Oregonians of a century ago, the initiative process meant pure, "open" democracy--and (at least) most Oregonians would like to think that it still does. But this case involves the antithesis of that ideal: It involves cynical, criminal manipulation of the democratic process.

That is the conduct that is subject to ORICO liability. That is the conduct that is "chilled."

Okay, so let's summarize. Sizemore didn't deny the accusations against him – and he really couldn't because the evidence was overwhelming. Rather, he argued that technicalities in the law should prevent the Court from imposing the punishment it had imposed on him. Now he's claiming victory because the Court's decision has made it virtually impossible for the unions to make him pay them what he owes them, because he is able to hide behind his now-dissolved (thanks to the "liberal" court) educational foundation, which will never be able to raise the money to pay the judgment against it. The next step will be his claim that the Court exonerated him.

Skating away from a $4 million debt doesn't make Sizemore a winner in my opinion. It just makes him a slick crook who has weaseled his way out of paying yet another debt he owes. Just like he wiggled out of paying back former fellow church members, friends and many others who have trusted him because of his effusive charm. See, most people don't expect someone to be able to look them in the eyes and very sincerely lie with big puppy eyes and a lot of good Christian words. It's unnatural and kind of freaky. But I've seen him do that many, many times. That's why no matter what sort of amazing things Bill Sizemore says, and no matter how reasonable they sound, I always look to see what's in it for him and what does the evidence have to say. 'Cause Sizemore will say the darndest things.

Posted by Becky at October 6, 2006 11:33 PM