« November 2008 | Main | January 2009 »

December 31, 2008

Ted Piccolo Back Under Sizemore's Spell

This little entry by Ted Piccolo at Northwest Republican this morning left me laughing out loud:

Remember a few weeks ago when the left got all twitterpated that Bill Sizemore was over-paid for a website design?

Yes, that's right. Ted Piccolo is referring to Sizemore's tangled web of lies, his repeated "deceit" under oath, and his nearly a million dollars of ill-gotten gains as nothing more than being "over-paid for a website design." I see Bill has spent a bit of time whispering sweet nothings into Ted's ear, just as I predicted when Bill was released from jail claiming to be a "political prisoner":

Right now conservatives have backed away from Sizemore. The tone of what few posts you can find is very different than it was before - they are distancing themselves from him, and are subdued or silent about what has transpired. For this moment, their blinders are slipping off. But my prediction is it won't last. Sizemore's comments upon leaving jail yesterday convince me that within days, he will have managed to contact his supporters like those posting at NW Republican and have them under his spell once again. They will forget all the facts about his deception, buy his spin on the situation, and view him as he is describing himself: a "political prisoner."

This is only the beginning, so sit back and enjoy the show.

Posted by Becky at 03:37 PM |

James Dobson's gay-hating chickens come home to roost

Dobson's Focus on the Family organization continues to reel from the consequences of the deals they made compromising core beliefs in exchange for political help on Prop 8. In other words, just another "the ends justify the means" karmic reward being granted far sooner than I'm sure Dobson expected.

In this case it's actually quite interesting because the political ramifications are not entirely inconsequential.

See, Dobson et al have long categorized Mormons as members of an emphatically non-Christian cult. Then along comes the opportunity in California to further one of Dobson's other evangelical near and dear articles of faith - denying marriage to gays via California's Prop 8 ballot measure.

The Mormon church was not just willing but were eager to deny gays the right to marry. So much so that Equality California estimates that Mormons donated as much as $20 million to Prop. 8, while the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal group, gave $1.25 million to the effort and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, $200,000. Oh, and Focus on the Family gave $500,000... and then had to lay off employees to pay for it. I covered some of this back in September.

So anyway, Dobson did sorta embrace Mormons as legit Christians, but tried to keep it way, way under the radar screen. Then some Christian bloggers and media services caught on and started writing about it a week and a half ago (detailed here: Focus on the Family at Odds with Christians over Mormon Promo and here: Dobson Caves to Evangelicals Who Call Glenn Beck a Cultist).

But now we have Tom Minnery, senior vice president of government and public policy at Focus on the Family Action, making the claim that Mitt Romney has "acknowledged Mormonism is not a Christian faith"

Mitt Romney, the Mormon's great white hope aknowledges that his faith is not Christian? How do you suppose his fellow Mormons might react to that news?

(bigtime hat tip to reader Jason Echols for the email alert)

Posted by Kevin at 08:25 AM |

Kroger and Brown Will Have to Do More than Talk

Yesterday's Oregonian contained an article that seemed to imply that incoming Secretary of State Kate Brown and incoming Attorney General John Kroger are going to crack down on the likes of Bill Sizemore. I have my doubts they will actually do it, but they certainly have been handed a golden opportunity to put some action behind their words.

Brown has been talking to Attorney General-elect John Kroger about a joint effort to better monitor the system.

"He and I would like to work closely on criminal penalties and enforcement of initiative laws," she said. "We also need to examine civil penalties. I think it's appropriate that we enhance penalties for fraudulent signature gathering." ...

Kroger signaled his intention to make the initiative system a priority by hiring Margaret Olney, a Portland lawyer, as one of his top deputies. Olney, whose duties will include election law enforcement, has represented the Oregon Education Association and other labor unions that have been the leading opponents of Sizemore.

PK readers will remember Judge Wilson's addendum to her decision to jail Sizemore last month on his fourth contempt of court charge: “Examples of Deceit by Mr. Sizemore.” I know perjury is difficult to prosecute because you have to have such clear and convincing evidence that the person meant to lie, but really, how can one read that addendum and not readily recognize the deliberate perjury that was committed there?

Torridjoe over at Loaded Orygun did some research a couple of weeks ago to find out whether anyone in this state would have the balls to hold Sizemore to account for his "contempt for the court," as Judge Wilson so aptly put it. After getting the run-around from literally everyone with the power to act, his findings would seem to indicate that Kroger, like all the rest of them, is all talk that probably won't translate into action when it comes to the primary inspiration for all the new, restrictive initiative laws, Bill Sizemore:

If it were important enough to the Attorney General and his office to make sure that a needed investigation was done regarding Sizemore's conduct in the civil proceeding, the AG would have the power and the ability to conduct it centrally, regardless of the position and intent of local DA's.

I found this to be the key question, and the primary reason I went ahead and contacted the AG-elect, because of Kroger's assertions during the campaign that he wanted to be much more aggressive on the people's behalf in enforcing laws, to the point where stasis or local politics was inhibiting needed action.

…When I asked what could be done to hold petitioners and their agents more accountable for activities undertaken while trying to get a measure on the ballot, the answer was that Secretary of State-elect Kate Brown would naturally "drive the process" in this area, but that a Kroger AGship would make the office "as aggressive as we can be" to enforce sanctions on malefactors.

…*The AG-elect says the local DA is the best equipped to investigate, but they (the AG) could do it if they had to

which of course means

*Nobody's going to touch this fucking thing.

So is the Oregonian just creating a nice fiction around our two new elected officials? Or have Kroger and Brown thought about the shameful handling of Bill Sizemore's lawlessness by our current elected officials and decided perhaps it is time to really clean up the initiative process? Now, at the beginning of their term, is the perfect time to send a clear message to those who would abuse it: We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any more.

Sadly, I believe we are much more likely to get more restrictions on the process than we are to see the necessary funding allocated for enforcement of the restrictions we already have. We don't even know whether the laws already on the books would solve the problems because they are not being enforced. I'll believe the words coming out of Kate Brown's and John Kroger's mouths when I see some action to go long with them. And a very good place to start would be to enforce our longstanding laws against lying under oath.

Posted by Becky at 08:06 AM |

December 30, 2008

Israelis, Gazans, and the American political elite

Glen Greewald points to a poll taken a few months ago showing that 71% of Americans don't believe that our government should take sides between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Which puts us the the overwhelming international majority. 18 different countries were polled and 14 of them showed a majority not wanting their government to take sides.

Polls taken during Israel's disasterous invasion of Lebanon in 2006 showed the same thing - a majority of Americans opposed taking sides in the conflict. Instead, what Americans want is for our government to A.) remain neutral and B.) be even-handed in our treatment of the warring sides.

Yet our political leaders are virtually uniform in stating unqualified (or very nearly so) support for what Israel is doing and what Israel has done. Ditto for the 2006 war in Lebanon.

Greenwald notes the complexity of the situation in Gaza and the resulting variety of positions deemed "reasonable" by Americans voicing opinions on the conflict. He notes that even some who generally side with Israel are nevertheless opposed to this bombing of Gaza for strictly pragmatic reasons - it not only won't help but will make things worse - "that it won't achieve anything positive, that it will exacerbate the problem, that it makes less likely a diplomatic resolution, that there is no military solution to the rocket attacks".

But among our political elite there is lockstep rhetorical agreement in support for Israel. To the point that, as Greenwald notes, if a selection of quotes were lined up and the source names removed... it would be impossible to decipher which came from NeoCon warmongers and which came from Congressional Democrats.

Greenwald is incredulous:

In a democracy, one could expect that politicians would be afraid to express a view that 70% of the citizens oppose. Yet here we have the exact opposite situation: no mainstream politician would dare express the view that 70% of Americans support; instead, the universal piety is the one that only a small minority accept. Isn't that fairly compelling evidence of the complete disconnect between our political elites and the people they purportedly represent? (his emphasis, not mine)

Meanwhile, for those who claim that it is only Muslims and Arabs voicing support for genocide, I stumbled across an AP piece quoting an Israeli, "We should keep pounding them until they beg for mercy," he said. "As far as I'm concerned, all of Gaza can be erased." This man has lived under onerous conditions - frequent Hamas missiles raining down on his community. His being upset with Hamas is entirely understandable! But would erasing 1.6 million Gazans fix anything? Heck, that's not "an eye for an eye". It's "your life, the lives of your family and of your neighbors... for an eye". Which is what far too many (one is far too many) Palestinians have said regarding wiping out Israel.

Back to Greenwald, he cites a 2006 poll which showed that a strong plurality (46%) of Americans blamed both sides while Bush rushed bombs to Israel so that they could be dropped on villages and Lebanese government military bases (which hadn't lifted a finger to attack Israel or Israelis) in Lebanon.

Turns out Americans have a much stronger sense of fairness than our political leaders. Actually, I doubt that all of those political leaders truly hold such uncritical views of what Israel is doing and has done. It's just that it's political suicide for them to speak honestly about it... because that's how powerful the Jewish lobby is here in the "land of the free and home of the brave (sic)." Which, for those inclined to keep score on these sorts of things, should NOT be construed as letting our political elites off the hook for their own statements and positions. Real politick excuses nothing. It simply gives context.

Posted by Kevin at 07:15 PM |

December 29, 2008

A picture is worth a thousand words

Posted by Kevin at 02:20 PM |

December 27, 2008

Israeli/Gaza conflict: a study in joint insanity.

What a mess. I both empathize with and blame the two respective sides.

There simply is no excuse for the actions of those who lob bombs and missle indescriminately into Israel. It has never improved anything for the Palestinians, nor will it ever. I feel no pity for them. Those who live by the sword, die by the sword. They have created their own Karma. Unfortunately, a hell of a lot of innocents will pay a very steep price as "collateral damage."

The massively disproportionate bombing campaign by the Israeli's is no better. Harshly cracking down on Palestinians hasn't EVER led to peace, nor will it ever.

Remember, it was Bush and Olmert who claimed that they wanted a "free and fair" Palestinian election, only to turn around and penalize the Palestinians for doing just that.

Both sides and their enablers are simply insane. Innocent civilians pay the price over and over and over. I saw a pic earlier this morning showing a yard in Gaza with several young, dead children laid out for relatives to claim for burial. One Palestinian father was stooped over his dead child, weeping.

How can any of us ask him to forgive those who killed his child? Would you if it were your child?

The hatred runs deep in both communities.

The Palestinians:





The Israelis: Israelis voice horror at rejection of Arab child from Jewish daycare. (here too)

As the above linked story (and video) demonstrates, there is a minority on both sides who clearly yearn for a different way of living with each other. But they are too few who are too easily demonized and dismissed by the terminally insane on both sides.

The lay-definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over expecting different results. By this definition both sides are clearly and unmistakably insane, as are those who would make excuses for it.

One of the few who seem willing to actually be honest with and about apologists for both sides is Haaretz correspondant Bradley Burston. This week he's taking on the Leftists. Next week he'll take on the Rightists.

Posted by Kevin at 03:00 PM |

December 25, 2008

Guinea coup update

It appears that Camara has solidified his coup. A couple of the newest developements are of interest to me.

First, Camara is claiming that he wants to root out corruption and uses some pretty strong language in the process which makes it sound like he might actually be serious about it.

In radio broadcasts Thursday, Camara said he had no intention of being a candidate in the December 2010 vote but that his group wants to re-establish order and crack down on corruption.

"I want to warn anyone who thinks they can try to corrupt me or my agents. Money is of no interest to us," Camara said. "There are already people who are starting to show up with bags of money to try to corrupt us. They've tried to give money to our wives and cars to our children. I will personally go after anyone who tries to corrupt us."

The other thing that is even more interesting to me is a statement Camara made regarding the funeral of Conte, the deceased former dictator.

Camara promised a "grandiose funeral" for Conte on Friday. He died Monday but there has been no funeral despite Muslim custom calling for burial within 24 hours of death.

"How can you leave the body of a president like that without taking care of it?" Camara said. "I saw the body. It's not been treated. It leaves you to think we don't have a single ice room in all of Guinea." (my emphasis)

Camara appears to be using an issue intimately understood by even the least educated Muslim to make a point about how... backwards and undeveloped Conte has left Guinea - this despite holding HALF of the world's reserves of bauxite (used to make Aluminum) as well as meaningful gold, diamond and Iron ore deposits.

If - and it's a big if - that's what Camara was trying to communicate then I'd say it's another tentatively hopeful sign that he's serious about fundamental change for the better. If so, and only time will tell, then it seems to me that he could well end up on the short, shortlist - along with Nelson Mandela - of indigenous African leaders who genuinely care more about their people than they do about enriching themselves.

As I mentioned in the last post, it is significant that this coup appears to have come from junior military officers rather from command officers - who almost surely got their commands because they were loyal not just to Conte but to Conte's ideas. Just recalling off-the-cuff here but it seems to me that similar lower-level military coups around the world have heralded a fundamental change of direction for the country or at least for it's government. Not all have gone the way we Yanks would have liked (think: Gaddafi in Libia or Chavez in Venezuela or Gutierrez in Ecuador). But they do seem to typically represent a rebellion against both the existing government and the existing military leadership.

Posted by Kevin at 06:23 PM |

December 24, 2008

Guinea coup may actually be a good thing

At first blush the news coming out of Guinea seemed like more of the same up and coming strongman tactics. But this AP piece I read this morning encourages me.

It begins like so many others that I've read over the years. Prospective coup leader parades through the capital in a show of strength, thumbing his nose at the existing constitution... frightened citizens slowly emerge from behind bolted doors and shuttered windows to see what's going on... citizens begin publically demonstrating approval. After all, even the worst strongman represents stability. Whereas instability all too often means that innocent civilians get killed - frequently a lot of them.

But then the reporter cites one of the most cogent, rational statements from a civilian that I have ever read:

"Sompare (head of the national assembly and constitutionally mandated first in line of succession) is a continuation of Lansana Conte (recently deceased former dictator). That's not change," said 49-year-old Cozy Haba. "I recognize that what we are doing instead is jumping into the unknown. But to me that's better than Sompare — who unfortunately I know too well."

Put that way it sheds a whole new light on what's going on in Guinea. It stands to reason that Sompare became head of the national assembly because Conte wanted him to. Furthermore, how good of a document can a "constitution" drafted and ratified during the reign of a dictator really be?

State Department spokesman Robert Wood issued a statement expressing skepticism:

"One of the things we want to see happen immediately is the restoration of civilian, democratic rule. We're very disappointed that this transition process in Guinea doesn't have any civilian component."

But some experts are suggesting that a coup might be the best thing that could happen in Guinea.

Africa expert Peter Pham said it would be a mistake to regard a constitution drawn up by the supporters of a man who never intended to relinquish power as a legitimate instrument.

Pham said Sompare was so unpopular that Conte was forced to delay the opening of parliament so he could assure his chosen successor had the needed number of votes.

"Even with the old man standing there coercing them to vote for him, he almost didn't have a majority," said Pham, director of the Nelson Institute for International and Public Affairs at James Madison University. "The international community would be mistaken to ask Guinea to blindly adhere to the legality of a document Conte created, which was not the result of any democratic process."

It remains to be seen what the coup leader, Army Captain Moussa Camara, intends for Guinea. Indeed, it remains to be seen whether his coup attempt will be successful, as the military does not appear (yet) to be united behind him.

Actually, this coup attempt appears to be equal measures government takeover and military takeover. Which, again, may be a good thing given the fact that no dictator allows any whose loyalty he isn't sure of to attain anything resembling a powerful position. And that may help explain why the leader of the coup attempt is merely a Captain rather than a General. However, one of his chief allies is an Army Colonel with the same surname who almost certainly is a close relative. Still, even a Colonel isnt on par with the various Generals in titular control of the Guinea military and paramilitary forces.

Sorry if none of this is terribly interesting to many of our readers. But this kind of stuff is my absolute favorite aspect of being a political junky, bar none! International relations and all of the implications are infinitely more interesting to me than intranational politics. And local politics is only marginally more interesting to me than watching paint peel unless there's some salacious aspect to it that captures my interest.

Posted by Kevin at 03:07 PM |

December 23, 2008

Completely disillusioned 3.0

Yet more evidence of how seriously messed up our political "leaders" priorities are... via Bpaul.

Posted by Kevin at 10:47 AM |

Happy Festivus!!

...the festival for the rest of us.

According to religioustolerance.org today is the official day of Festivus. It's history dates back to the 3rd Century BCE, but the modern incarnation dates back to 1966. The son of the man who revived it in 1966 happened to be a writer for Seinfeld and the rest is pop culture history...

And what would Festivus be without the singing of traditional songs? Without further ado, the Cleftomaniacs perform Pink's "So What" at Festivus 2008 - an acappella fest in Baltimore.





In keeping with the Festivus theme here is Purrrfect Pitch covering the oft-covered "Tainted Love", also at Festivus 2008.





After the jump, a video recipe for making traditional Festivus Sourdough Fruitcake.

Posted by Kevin at 09:28 AM |

December 22, 2008

Snow

Some shots taken from my front door. Mouse-over each pic for a brief description.

Posted by Kevin at 12:47 PM |

December 21, 2008

Completely disillusioned 2.0

An AP study found that...

Banks that are getting taxpayer bailouts awarded their top executives nearly $1.6 billion in salaries, bonuses, and other benefits last year...

Here's where it gets truly disgusting.

_Lloyd Blankfein, president and chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs, took home nearly $54 million in compensation last year. The company's top five executives received a total of $242 million.

This year, Goldman will forgo cash and stock bonuses for its seven top-paid executives. They will work for their base salaries of $600,000, the company said. Facing increasing concern by its own shareholders on executive payments, the company described its pay plan last spring as essential to retain and motivate executives "whose efforts and judgments are vital to our continued success, by setting their compensation at appropriate and competitive levels."

Cry me a fucking river. $600K wasn't enough motivation? According to the Federal Poverty Level as a single parent with one child still at home I'm living ABOVE "poverty" as long as I earned more than $14K + $1 in 2008. Or, to put it another way, 42 people could live ABOVE poverty on the effing base salary of just one of these executives.

Congressman Barney Frank pithily put it this way:

Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services committee and a long-standing critic of executive largesse, said the bonuses tallied by the AP review amount to a bribe "to get them to do the jobs for which they are well paid in the first place.

"Most of us sign on to do jobs and we do them best we can," said Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat. "We're told that some of the most highly paid people in executive positions are different. They need extra money to be motivated!"

Not only do the coddled brats petulantly demand extravagant bonuses just to do their fucking jobs, I'm not seeing what makes a single one of them worth their damn BASE salary! A roomfull of drunken monkeys could have engineered the financial mess we're in and they'd have done it for a hell of a lot less money!

Banks that got bailout funds also paid out millions for home security systems, private chauffeured cars, and club dues. Some banks even paid for financial advisers. Wells Fargo of San Francisco, which took $25 billion in taxpayer bailout money, gave its top executives up to $20,000 each to pay personal financial planners.

At Bank of New York Mellon Corp., chief executive Robert P. Kelly's stipend for financial planning services came to $66,748, on top of his $975,000 salary and $7.5 million bonus. His car and driver cost $178,879. Kelly also received $846,000 in relocation expenses, including help selling his home in Pittsburgh and purchasing one in Manhattan, the company said.

This guy couldn't afford to pay for his own damn car & driver and financial planning services from the $8.5 million he was paid? And if this dolt is worth that kind of money to run a fucking bank then why does he need $66,748 worth of "financial planning services" in the first place??? Isn't there a pretty damn fundamental disconnect there? If he can't figure out how to handle his own millions then what fucking business does he have managing the bank's billions?

The damn inmates are in charge of the asylum... and they're taking us all down with them.

Posted by Kevin at 08:31 AM |

December 20, 2008

W. Mark Felt passes

In 1962 I was working as a 'gopher' at the local Teamster's Union office (Local 107) when I 'just happened to run into' a friend from the University of Pennsylvsnia College Dems who volunteered on the Kennedy Campaign.
He was working for the new Attorney General, Bobby Kennedy, who 'just happened' to be investigating the Teamsters.
One thing led to another and I got involved in the investigation.
(Especially after the shit hit the fan when Local 107 tried to go independent from the national Teamsters.)

One of the FBI agents that I met and got to know durng that investigation was W. Mark Felt.

Most of the country knows him now as "Deep Throat".
Bob Woodward's anonymous source inside the FBI during the Watergate years.

I knew him as a decent and honorable man.
Without his information, Woodward and Bernstein probably would never have 'broken' the Watergate case.
And Richard Nixon would probably never have been forced to resign in disgrace.

RIP Mark.
And Thanks, from a grateful nation.

Posted by Mac at 05:15 PM |

December 19, 2008

They write letters... about misogynists

(Editorial note: Following is the gist of an email I received asking for us to write about it. The Vision Forum membership is the only thing I was unable to verify, although it may well be true and certainly seems likely given what I was able to verify.)

Old Spice has named their Art of Manliness 2008 Man of the Year:

Matthew Chancey.

Chancey and his wife Jennie, who runs a misogynistic site called Ladies Against Feminism, are members of the racist, homophobic cult Vision Forum. Vision Forum’s statement on homosexuality includes the following: "Homosexuality is not a victimless crime. It is a cruel moral perversion that wreaks moral, physical and spiritual havoc on men, women, children, families and institutions. The Bible makes no distinction between homosexuals, pedophiles, bestials and rapists. All are criminals, the toleration of which brings judgment on the land and devastation to children."


Matt and his wife also believe that women should not attend college, work outside the home, or have the right to vote. Old Spice’s parent company, Procter & Gamble, was told about Chancey’s radical, right-wing beliefs but did not disqualify him. Chancey rallied his fellow cult members to vote for him, and he won. Please blog about this, and urge your readers to contact the Human Rights campaign and GLAAD as complaints to Procter & Gamble have fallen on deaf ears.

Thank you!

Posted by Kevin at 10:25 AM |

Completely disillusioned

After reading this AP piece about an investor who had for nine years been trying to alert SEC regulators to Bernard Madoff giant ponzi scheme, only to be ignored for nine years, I have zero trust in our regulatory system or political insitutions in so far as they deal with regulation of financial markets.

If it were just this one issue then it wouldn't seem so hopeless. But against the backdrop of everything that's been happening for the last several months it seems to me that Obama was being overly generous when he recently characterized our financial system as having been without adult supervision.

To regain my trust I'm going to need to see both serious accountability and a fundamental rethinking and increase in our national regulatory system. Too much would be vastly preferable to too little, IMHO.

Any theory of government which proposes that possessing an ounce of marijuanna poses a greater threat to society (as demonstrated by the resulting prison sentence) than the shenanigans that pass for business as usual on Wall Street is a theory utterly disconnected from reality.

Posted by Kevin at 10:08 AM |

December 16, 2008

Why is Sizemore's Perjury Being Ignored?

Torridjoe over at Loaded Orygun has posted a summary of his frustrating efforts to find out whether anyone with the authority to do so intends to prosecute Bill Sizemore for apparently committing perjury on an astonishing scale in Judge Janice Wilson's court. Back on December 2, I wrote about her findings and her decision to jail Sizemore for contempt. I did not at that time include in my post the content of the appendix to her ruling, "Examples of Deceit by Mr. Sizemore." After reading TJ's post, however, I feel it is necessary that people have ready, long-term access to her chronicling of the lies he told under oath so that appropriate pressure may be placed upon the authorities who have the power to pursue criminal perjury charges. Believe it or not, nobody is inclined at this time to do that.

I would just ask you after reading the "Examples of Deceit by Mr. Sizemore," if the man does not face criminal perjury charges for this behavior, will you feel respect for our legal system? Will you continue to have faith in a system of law that is regulated only by the citizen's willingness to follow the rules, and not by any exertion of force if a citizen chooses not to follow them? As someone who was told quite bluntly that I must, under oath, tell all I knew to the authorities investigating the OTU racketeering case or face severe legal repercussions, including perjury, I am at this moment very angry that Mr. Sizemore is being allowed to blatantly flaunt the law.

So, without further ado, read for yourself the "Examples" of Deceit by Mr. Sizemore, keeping in mind that the following is by no means anywhere near a complete chronicling of the man's rampant disregard for the truth and the law.

Examples of Deceit by Mr. Sizemore

ATRF's 2006 annual meeting minutes purport to be from a meeting on Janauary 29, 2006, yet they discuss a proposal to contract with CBS Consulting. In fact, on January 29, 2006, Mr. Sizemore's only proposal was to be executive director of ATRF. Mr. Sizemore admitted that he did dnot prepare these minutes (or the minutes of ATRF's 2007 annual meeting) until early 2008 and acknowledges that they could not be correct on this point. He attributes this error to a "faulty recollection."

(Footnote: Ms. Alexander testified in her deposition that she saw the minutes in 2006, which could not have happened. She explained that her memory was "foggy.")

ATRF applied with the IRS for recognition of an exemption from taxation as a 501(c)(3) organization by submitting a Form 1023. The form was prepared by Mr. Sizemore, or with information supplied by him, and was signed by Ms. Alexander under penalty of perjury on February 7, 2006. It omits Mr. Sizemore's name and anticipated compensation in the section requiring the listing of officers, directors, employees or independent contractors who are expected to be paid more than $50,000. Mr. Sizemore admitted in his testimony that at the time the form was prepared and signed he expected to receive more than $50,000 from ATRF either as its executive director or as a consultant. The form also omits the required attachment showing Mr. Sizemore's qualifications, average hours worked and duties.

The Form 1023 states that no officer or director was related to the most highly compensated employee or independent contractor. This was false because Mr. Sizemore was the most highly compensated employee or independent contractor and his mother was an officer and director.

The form 1023 states that no officer, director, highest compensated employee or highest compensated independent contractor received compensation from any other organization related to ATRF through common control. This was false because IRM and ATRF were related by common control. There was common control both nominally – because Michaela Alexander was president of both (albeit using different names) – and in fact, because Mr. Sizemore was in complete charge of both. IRM had paid Mr. Sizemore $100,000 in the preceding three months and six days.

The Form 1023 states that ATARF would not compensate its highest compensated employee or highest compensated independent contractor through "non-fixed payments such as discretionary bonuses or revenue-based payments." This was false because Mr. Sizemore knew he would be paid a "signing bonus" and also would receive a "commission" on funds he raised for ATRF.

(Footnote: Mr. Sizemore testified that he didn't know of any understanding that he would be so compensated when he provided information for the Form 1023, although he did "eventually agree to that." That explanation is not credible in light of the fact that Mr. Sizemore unilaterally made all of the decisions about how he would be compensated.)

The Form 1023 stated that ATRF would not have any loan agreements with its highest compensated employee or highest compensated independent contractor. This was false because Mr. Sizemore was planning to have ATRF loan him money.

The IRS requested additional information from ATRF in connection with its request for recognition as a 501(c)(3) organization. Among the many items requested was an explanation of the qualifications of the individuals operating the organization to provide the services it purported to offer and "detailed resumes of those involved in the operation of [ATRF]." Mr. Sizemore prepared the response for Ms. Alexander's signature. That response, dated May 31, 2006, stated "We have not yet determined the identity of the research team. The two individuals we are most likely to hire … are currently tracking measures for us at no charge." This was false because, by May 31, 2006, ATRF had paid Mr. Sizemore, through CBS Consulting, $46,800 (all in one cashier's check dated February 15, 2006).

Mr. Sizemore drafted another letter to the IRS for Ms. Alexander to sign on June 1, 2006. In an attachment to that letter, Mr. Sizemore also falsely stated that Ms. Alexander's duties for ATRF were to "help determine priority of measures for fiscal impact studies" and that his mother's duties for ATRF were "phones, secretarial, organizing bookkeeping records." Mr. Sizemore knew full well that neither Ms. Alexander nor his mother was to have the duties listed.

(Footnote: Mr. Sizemore first testified that he believed he drafted this letter, then said he thought an attorney or accountant had done so – or probably Nevada Corporate Headquarters. I find that he drafted the letter. This letter and the letter of May 31, 2006, are identical in format, style and phrasing of language. In any event, Mr. Sizemore could have been the only source of the information.)

In his April 23, 2007, deposition (taken in the action he brought to challenge the constitutionality of the injunction), Mr. Sizemore testified:

"There was an opportunity for me to work for a foundation that exists currently, American Tax Research Foundation, and I have – I have been offered a job working for them as executive director. I have not – I have not been employed by them yet. And they – but they have made – they made a specific offer to me. They do fiscal impact studies of the effect of ballot measures nationwide. Their research is as according to their mission statement, is totally unbiased, factual, not opinion, not politically slanted, no agenda, and they have asked me to and I have – to take the job. I have not taken the job, and I don't recall the specifics. But a couple of cases where I was exploring working for them, I signed a letter or something that – where I put executive director after my name, though, I am not an executive director yet."

[Note from Becky: Keep in mind that ATRF was created by Bill Sizemore and was Bill Sizemore.]

In the same deposition, Mr. Sizemore was asked "Are you currently or have you at any time since the conclusion of the trial in the first case been a manager of a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization?" He answered "No."

(Footnote: Mr. Sizemore was first asked whether he had "set up" any 501(c)(3) organizations, but said he did not know how to answer the question and asked to consult with his attorney. After that consultation, his attorney objected to the phrase "set up" and Mr. Hartman began asking questions about Mr. Sizemore's being a manager of a 501(c)(3).)

Mr. Sizemore's feigned ignorance of ATRF's founding and funding when he was deposed in April 2007 is also astonishing. He testified that he did not know specifically when it was founded and ultimately said "between the last two years." He was asked "Do you know where American Tax Research gets its funding?" He answered, "Some of it but I don't know where they get all of it. I believe that's an ongoing thing." After some colloquy between counsel, Mr. Sizemore restated the pending question as "Where does American Tax Research get some of their money that I know about." And began his answer "I'm racking my brain for specifics." He went on to say, "I believe – [Hire Calling] Public Affairs and I don't know what kind of entity that is." When he was asked specifically whether Loren Parks gave money to ATRF, Mr. Sizemore answered," I believe Parks has made a donation to them, maybe more than one…"

In truth, as of April 23, 2007, when he gave that testimony under oath, Mr. Sizemore had completely controlled ATRF and its finances for over 16 months. He had engaged in hundreds of transactions totaling more than three-quarters of a million dollars on ATRF's account, the vast majority of the money going for his financial benefit or that of his family. ATRF had received over $500,000 from Loren Parks or one of his organizations (in four separate payments) and over $60,000 from Hire Calling Public Affairs – all solicited by Mr. Sizemore.

Asked in the April 2007 deposition whether he had any current intention of becoming a manager of a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization, Mr. Sizemore answered "I'd like to, yes." When he was asked for more detail about what he would like to do, he began his answer "I haven't thought that through completely." After mentioning a foundation that helps homeless people, Mr. Sizemore continued "And I would like to be involved in a foundation that does research on ballot measures, the kind of research that would be clearly in the realm of 501(c)(3) educational, nonpolitical."

[Note from Becky: I swear I heard Eric Cartman's voice while I was reading the comment about the foundation helping homeless people.]

In his October 2, 2007, declaration (also given in the action he brought to challenge the constitutionality of the injunction) Mr. Sizemore stated under penalty of perjury, "I have been offered the position of executive director of American Tax Research Foundation, ATRF. I have declined the offer …" In truth, as noted above, Mr. Sizemore testified in the contempt hearing, he "ran the operations of the organization." On October 2, 2007, Mr. Sizemore had been in sole control of ATRF's bank account and had spent approximately a million dollars of ATRF's funds by checks, cash, cashier's checks, transfers and debit card transactions. He wrote in the minutes for ATRF's 2007 annual meeting (purportedly held on January 17, 2007 – eight and a half months before he swore to his declaration) that he had been appointed "as acting executive director of ATRF so he could open an interest bearing investment account, raise money, sign an office lease and do other business on behalf of the foundation."

Mr. Sizemore attempted to explain in the contempt hearing that he thought he was not the executive director because he "wasn't being paid as a paid position as executive director." The more likely explanation, given that he had also denied managing a 501(c)(3) organization even though he now admits he ran ATRF, was that he was simply lying on the witness stand.

Any doubt on that point is put to rest by the following exchange in the April 23, 2007, deposition:

"Q: Setting aside this executive director position for the moment, have you been active in working with the American Tax Research Foundation? [Italics mine.]

A: No. I work for CBS Consulting only."

He then falsely testified that he was not the controlling person of CBS Consulting.

At his judgment debtor examination on October 19, 2007, Mr. Sizemore was asked, "Other than reimbursement, are you permitted to write checks from [the ATRF] account for payment for services rendered?" He answered "No." This was false because, as of that date, as shown by ATRF's bank records, he personally had written ATRF checks (not including cashier's checks) totaling over $100,000 to CBS Consulting alone.

Now I ask you: Is it even remotely possible that Bill Sizemore was held in jail as a political prisoner, and that insufficient evidence exists to charge him with criminal perjury? Clearly, the answer is "No."

So what the hell is going on here? Is our justice system a complete sham? Who is protecting Bill Sizemore and why?

Posted by Becky at 10:16 AM |

Only in New Jersey...

Bloomfield New Jersey not only refused to accept legal tender coinage to pay a small traffic ticket fine, they issued an arrest warrant for the guy for trying to pay... with legal tender coinage. This despite the fact that the city explicitly states that it accepts "cash" to pay fines.

One would think that as an original party to the Revolutionary War against British tyranny that governmental entities within the former colony of New Jersey would be a wee bit more sensitive to official tyranny. But then again... this is New Jersey we're talkin' about.

Posted by Kevin at 08:46 AM |

December 15, 2008

Your Car is Now "Public Space"

In a new decision, the Oregon Appeals Court has ruled that the inside of your car is "public space." The particulars of the case may not raise some people's hackles the way it does mine - it pertains to the right to have an unconcealed loaded firearm in your vehicle - but the repercussions of this decision could reach into an area that does concern you.

ORS 161.015 defines public place this way:

(10) "Public place" means a place to which the general public has access and includes, but is not limited to, hallways, lobbies and other parts of apartment houses and hotels not constituting rooms or apartments designed for actual residence, and highways, streets, schools, places of amusement, parks, playgrounds and premises used in connection with public passenger transportation.

None of that sounds descriptive of a privately owned vehicle to me. I can assure you that the "general public" would not be particularly welcome hopping into my car whenever they wanted to, and you probably feel the same way.

I can immediately think of an example of why the Court's decision is obviously brain-dead anti-gun judicial activism run amok. If your car is "public space," then all those people who break into vehicles and steal private property could argue that some numbskull left that property unattended in "public space," and it's only natural to take something of value if it's left lying around, right?

In light of the ruling, the Oregon Firearms Federation is asking an excellent question that should really concern everyone: "If your car is now considered a "public place" will a law enforcement officer need a warrant to search it?"

The very thought ought to have every freedom-loving Oregonian up in arms. Though not in your car, of course.

Posted by Becky at 09:24 AM |

December 14, 2008

Deja vue: Perle -> Bush

It was deja vue of sorts for me as I watched this clip of Iraqi TV journalist Muthathar al Zaidi throwing both of his shoes at Bush.

Nearly 4 years ago Carla and I were at a Howard Dean v. Richard Perle debate when someone in the audience threw both of his shoes at Perle and, like al Zaidi, missed both times.

Speaking of Perle... he does seem lucid enough to understand that much more than the year which he'd predicted has passed and there is still no "George W. Bush Square" in Baghdad. But he still thinks that the Iraqis will name a grand square for Bush as thanks for all that Bush has done for them.

Posted by Kevin at 06:47 PM |

December 12, 2008

Powell Attempts to Show the GOP the Path Back to Legitimacy

In an interview that will air Sunday, Colin Powell has laid it on the line, accusing Sarah Palin of exacerbating the political polarization which he believes could lead to the downfall of the GOP, and urging Republicans to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh.

There is nothing wrong with being conservative. There is nothing wrong with having socially conservative views -- I don't object to that. But if the party wants to have a future in this country, it has to face some realities. In another 20 years, the majority in this country will be the minority ... I think the Republican Party needs to stop shouting at the world and the country. ...Can we continue to listen to Rush Limbaugh? Is this really the kind of party that we want to be when these kinds of spokespersons seem to appeal to our lesser instincts rather than our better instincts?

Of those minorities (African-American, Hispanic and Asian voters) who will in 20 years be the majority, Powell said the GOP must see what is in their "hearts and minds and not just try to influence them by... the principles and dogma."

Comments posted at this blog, which is highlighted today at the Drudge Report, would indicate that the Republican Party is itself so polarized that the leaders Powell says agree with him will have a tough row to hoe:

Mike: It just may be Gen Powell is jocking for a position with the new administration. The problem with Republcans is they left their core conservative values in the last election. Reaching out to the liberals does not work - ask John McCain.

Joe: "I think the party has to stop shouting at the world and at the country,”Powell said" How about all the yelling, shouting, hate mongering and other negative aspects coming from the left over the last eight years. They have the print, the tv media, Hollywood, unions, academia, blacks, hispanics, etc. Talk radio has been the only media outlet available to right, and the left wants to take that away. Shame on General Powell. He is a traitor to the cause.

Pattie: When we try to be like liberals instead of our core conservatism, we lose. Colin Powell has always been a liberal and will always be a liberal. Go and put a D behind your name and that goes for alot of other so called conservatives. Rush and Sara are right. Stick with core values, do not try to out liberal theliberals nd you will get elected.

What's that old saying about leading a horse to water?

Posted by Becky at 10:11 AM |

December 11, 2008

Humanzee Organ Donors? I'd Rather Die.

Dr. Calum MacKellar, director of research at the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics, says he believes that unless a law is passed to prohibit the practice, scientists will soon be crossing humans with chimpanzees in an effort to humanize the animals' organs so they can be made available for transplants.

I'm sorry, but I think any scientist who would do this has a far worse understanding of ethics than Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich does.

Dr. MacKellar says the law prohibits inseminating humans with chimpanzee sperm, but it doesn't prohibit inseminating chimpanzees with human sperm. And because humans and chimpanzees are biologically more similar than, say, sheep and goats, which have successfully been mated, he believes it is very likely that a "humanzee" will eventually result.

Dr MacKellar said the resulting creature could raise ethical dilemmas, such as whether it would be treated as human or animal, and what rights it would have.

"If it was never able to be self-aware or self-conscious it would probably be considered an animal," he said. "However, if there was a possibility of humanzees developing a conscience, you have a far more difficult dilemma on your hands."

As smart as chimpanzees are, does anyone really believe that a "humanzee" wouldn't have self-awareness and a conscience? I mean, really, I think it's patently obvious that chimpanzees have self-awareness and a conscience (if you've never heard of Oliver, you're missing out). My dog even has a conscience, and he's certainly well aware of his own feelings and remarkably tuned in to ours.

A couple of years ago I had the pleasure of watching a family of gorillas interact at the San Diego zoo. Several generations of the animals were outside enjoying the sunshine, when the youngest male began teasing what appeared to be his older brother. He would sneak up on the older gorilla, smack him, and then run off as fast as he could, with the older one in hot pursuit. It was obviously a game because the older one would gently rough him up and then go back to relaxing in the sun. At one point, the little brother actually stood up and pounded his fists on his little chest, daring the older brother to come get him. It was a wonderfully typical sibling interaction. I cannot comprehend what is wrong inside the head of a human being who can fail to value the lives of such amazing creatures, who clearly have personalities and relationships as real as ours. (I'll admit, I'm one of those "silly" people who will carry a spider outside rather than squish it, but even an exterminator should be able to recognize that apes deserve better.)

The prospect of creating organ-donor "humanzees" is reminiscent of "The Island," a 2005 movie that explored the morality of cloning wealthy humans to create biologically compatible organ donors who were warehoused until needed. The scientists were not concerned with the morality of killing and harvesting organs from the clones, but rather with whatever was necessary to keep them sufficiently placid to be safely contained. In the case of prospective "humanzees," this could play out in reality. As Professor Bob Millar, director of the Medical Research Council Human Reproductive Sciences Unit, based in Edinburgh, said, "Chimps would never be a source of organs for humans because of the viruses they carry and the low numbers." [emphasis mine] Why are those the factors that scientists consider? Those are matters one would expect could be solved. Once that happens, what's left to hold them back?

I suppose if the scientists inject their own sperm, the odds of the resulting "humanzees" having a conscience are fairly slim. Seriously, though, if I had a choice about receiving a "humanzee" donor organ or death, I'd chose death. I couldn't live with myself otherwise.

Posted by Becky at 01:14 PM |

Lynn Snodgrass Should Replace Vance Day

The rumor mill has turned up a very interesting possible candidate to replace Oregon GOP Chair Vance Day: former House Speaker Lynn Snodgrass. That is one of the more exciting political rumors I've heard in some time.

The current state of the GOP in Oregon is so bad that even Democrats seem to be wanting a change. The fight isn't any fun when you have no opposition. In a recent post at Blue Oregon, Kari Chisolm pointed out how entirely out of touch with reality the current GOP Chair seems to be. Jenni Simonis took it further in her comments, showing clearly how far the GOP has fallen - and it's no secret that the fall has been a long time coming. A one-party government really is not healthy. So how can all of this be turned around?

The GOP base leans hard to the right, and frankly will not vote for a moderate in any primary if they have a more conservative choice available. They also will not follow a moderate GOP Chair. They need someone who is a clear conservative to lead them out of this mess, but seem unable to distinguish between strong conservatives and right-wing cranks, and so have too frequently encumbered themselves with the latter. It will take some serious strategizing by GOP leadership to avoid having good, electable candidates picked off in the primaries by the sort of right-wing fanatics that have dragged the party into the trenches. So unless the next GOP Chair is smart, well-connected, and realistic, there is little hope that Democrats will have any real opposition in Oregon for a long time.

I have known Lynn Snodgrass personally before she went into politics, as her family's business was my husband's first employer many years ago when we moved to Oregon. She is a good, decent person and did a great job raising her family. Her family ran a successful business, treating their employees well and providing quality service. In my book, character counts. But so, too, does leadership ability. She definitely has demonstrated that ability and has, through the years, won the support of both moderate and conservative Republicans. If the Oregon GOP has one shred of brains left among them, they will recognize that if Lynn Snodgrass throws her hat into the ring, they have been tossed a life preserver - and will grab it with both hands. Injecting some brains, leadership, and character into the GOP would benefit all of us, not just Republicans.

Posted by Becky at 08:20 AM |

December 09, 2008

The Audacity of Hope - 1

I've recently purchased and begun reading Barack Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope" looking for insights into not just how he intends to lead but into his philosophical premises.

A popular lay-definition of "insanity" is: trying the same thing over and over, expecting different results. Seems to me that what we've been doing for a long while now simply isn't working. Furthermore, it seems to me that a heck of a lot of my fellow Americans have reached similar conclussions and that this directly contributed to our having voted for Obama.

With those premises in mind, I will periodically be posting excerpts from Obama's book that struck me as I read it. Hopefully we can all discuss and perhaps learn from it. Perhaps not, but nothing ventured/nothing gained.

"Whatever the explanation, after Reagan the lines between Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative, would be drawn in more sharply ideological terms. This was true, of course, for the hot-button issues of affirmative action, crime, welfare, abortion, and school prayer, all of which were extensions of earlier battles. But it was also now true for every other issue, large or small, domestic or foreign, all of which were reduced to a menu of either-or, for-or-against, sout-bite-ready choices. No longer was economic policy a matter of weighing trade-offs between competing goals of productivity and distributional justice, of growing the pie and slicing the pie. You were for either tax cuts or tax hikes, small government or big government. No longer was environmental policy a matter of balancing sound stewardship of our natural resources with the demands of a modern economy; you either supported unchecked development, drilling, strip-mining, and the like, or you supported stifling bureaucracy and red tape that choked off growth. In politics, if not in policy, simplicity was a virtue.

Sometimes I suspect that even the Republican leaders who immediately followed Reagan weren't entirely comfortable with the direction politics had taken. In the mouths of men like George H. W. Bush and Bob Dole, thepolarizing rhetoric and the politics of resentment always seemed forced, a way of peeling off voters from the Democratic base and not necessarily a recipe for governing.

But for a younger generation of conservative operatives who would soon rise to power, for Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove and Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed, the fiery rhetoric was more than a matter of campaign strategy. They were true believers who meant what they said, whether it was "No new taxes" or "we are a Christian nation." In fact, with their rigid doctrines, slash-and-burn style, and exaggerated sense of having been aggrieved, this new conservative leadership was eerily reminiscent of some of the New Left's leaders during the sixties. As with their left-wing counterparts, this new vanguard of the right viewed politics as a contest not just between competing policy vision, but between good and evil. Activists in both parties began developing litmus tests, checklists of orthodoxy, leaving a Democrat who questioned abortion increasingly lonely, and Republican who championed gun control effectively marooned. In this Manichean struggle, compromise came to look like weakness, to be punished or purged. You were with us or against us. You had to choose sides. - Chapter 1: Republicans and Democrats, pages 40-42 (emphasis supplied)

Posted by Kevin at 12:15 PM |

The Mistaken Belief in Persecution

It's always amusing to me when people break the rules and then claim they are somehow being persecuted by authorities or society when they are held to account. It is much the same situation when constitutional protections are extended to the expression of unpopular ideas and beliefs and that is interpreted as being a form of persecution against a more widespread belief system. Such is too often the case when religion is the subject. Two news stories today highlight the way Christians are getting themselves all worked up over supposed persecution that isn't actually occurring at all.

The first is a situation that is boiling up in Miami, Florida, where a church faces possible fines for erecting a concrete statue of Jesus. Some are viewing it as persecution. The code enforcers say it's blocking drivers' views. The problem is, it's been standing there for 14 years and nobody's said a word about it before. So what's really going on?

What's going on is you have a pastor who has no respect for his neighbors, and the City is punishing him the only way it can. His church is located in a neighborhood with children, but for some reason he thinks that it is the perfect spot for a soup kitchen. As a result, the area has become a magnet for vagrants. Nearby residents have been complaining that they are finding people sleeping in their yards and graffiti and obscene words are being painted on area buildings since the soup kitchen opened. Try as it may, the City has been unable to find a way to stop it. So while the pastor complains about persecution, the fact is he is being a horrible neighbor and entirely insensitive to the needs of the neighborhood in which his church sits. How rude.

The second persecution story is going on up at the state Capital in Seattle, Washington, where an atheist display is offending religious folks who think anyone who doesn't believe in God ought not be protected by the First Amendment. Hundreds of people have rallied on the Capitol steps, ignorantly convinced that by giving voice to nonbelievers, somehow their government is persecuting Christians. One pastor has even accused the State government of making Washington "the armpit of America." It's patently absurd.

Washington has historically allowed seasonal religious displays inside the Capital by Christians and Jews. This year, a Christmas tree, a nativity scene, and a menorah were displayed, something that is pretty typical. If memory serves, Christians across the country went through a bit of a persecution complex that their holiday was being coopted by the Jews a few years ago when Jews still had to fight for recognition of their own belief system at Christmas time. Now it's all been mucked up even worse, as the Freedom from Religion Foundation has been allowed an atheist display in the State Capitol building. The group has posted a sign reading:

At this season of the winter solstice may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.

Monica Guzman at the Seattle Times thinks they went too far, actually attacking religion and its followers. I wonder what she expected from a group calling itself the "Freedom from Religion Foundation." Atheists are probably equally offended by the very common belief that religion makes you a better person (it's been scientifically debunked, by the way).

Naturally, Bill O'Reilly also has chimed in, urging his viewers to call the governor and complain. Thankfully, however, David Sugarman seems to have a working brain and attempts to bring a little illumination into what seems to be an ever-darkening world:

Here's the problem with Mr. O'Reilly's outrage. If we are to allow religious displays and symbols in our government buildings, it's a all-or-nothing proposition under the First Amendment. You don't get to bar displays based upon the content of the message. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, that includes the content of non-believers' messages.

Mr. O'Reilly famously asserts that there is some sort of war on Christmas. To the contrary, some would see this as the simple fact that we live in a pluralistic country. More important, if Mr. O'Reilly has his way, then we must either throw out all religious displays in public areas, or make a mockery of the First Amendment.

All this brings me to an interesting editorial today by Larry Beinhart, author of "Wag the Dog," in which he says religion is becoming a principal cause of warfare throughout the world.

Mumbai. 9/11. Chechnya. Sectarian violence in Iraq. Somalia. Afghanistan. Nigeria.

The man with the most military power in the history of the world is reported to have said, "I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq ... ' And I did." …

The nature of the people who attacked us, and the results of our response to them, make it obvious that understanding fanatical faith is at least as important as developing a reusable hypersonic cruise vehicle, more useful than developing new tactical nuclear weapons. And if we can find a way to reach or to undermine the faith of fanatics, it will be far more economical than invading a series of foreign countries.

Maybe that's just what the Freedom from Religion Foundation is trying to do.

Posted by Becky at 10:07 AM |

December 04, 2008

Anti-Spokesman Ad Campaign May be Counter-Productive

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the Catholic Archdioses of Brooklyn may have misjudged this one.

In a new campaign to promote The Prayer Channel, the church plans to have the Devil act as an "anti-spokesperson" urging people not to watch the channel. The campaign will include MySpace and Facebook pages, a web site (www.StopGoodTV.com), and bus advertising. Included will be an online petition where signers will pledge not to tune into the network.

I have a couple of teenage boys and am as tuned in to their culture as I can be. From what I see, I think that petition will garner a very good number of signatures from people who the campaign's backers might think could use a few prayers. Meanwhile, those who are inclined to watch television shows about prayer aren't as likely to be spending a lot of time on MySpace or Facebook as those who would sign the petition, and probably few of them will "get" the joke in this campaign, which in my opinion is too clever for its own good.

Posted by Becky at 03:17 PM |

December 02, 2008

Bill Sizemore's Tangled Web of Lies

I don't recall ever feeling as vindicated as I do at this moment. At long last, someone is shouting out that Bill Sizemore has no clothes! Judge Janice Wilson's 46-page ruling, which is scathing, to say the least, is now posted on the Web (no pun intended). It is, in fact, so scathing it actually includes a 4-page addendum listing "Examples of Deceit by Mr. Sizemore." But because so few people will actually read the decision, and because I believe it is important to create a record online that will facilitate the public memory and future researchers, I will quote extensively from some of the more poignant passages here.

Yes, this is a long post, though one I believe is very interesting and particularly well written (perhaps I am biased?), but I have seen that my previous posts on Sizemore continue to be read by those researching his behavior and that of his cohorts; hence, I will do my best to lay out the important information so it will not be lost. Hardcore Sizemorephiles will want to read the full decision, particularly to get a better picture of the timing and amounts of money Sizemore took out for his own personal use (totaling approximately three-quarters of a million dollars over a two-year period), about which I have written before.

First, the prior three contempt of court citations are explained, and pertain to his efforts to avoid paying the unions the money he owed to them:

Mr. Sizemore, OTU-EF and various "successor organizations" have been found in contempt of court for violating the injunction three times. Judge LaBarre found a contempt for OTU-EF's transfer of assets and Mr. Sizemore’s failure to properly sign CT-12s and Form 990s. That proceeding is sometimes referred to by the parties as "Contempt #1". This court found Mr. Sizemore and OTU2-PAC, and OTU successor organization, in contempt for the transfer of assets by OTU2-PAC (Contempt #2). In Contempt #3, this court found Mr. Sizemore and Give Seniors a Break (another OTU successor organization) in contempt of court, likewise for transferring assets.

Sizemore did all he could to deceive the Court and his political opponents, and a full reading of the decision makes it plain that his lies flowed forth constantly (though I will not lay them out in this post):

In order to obfuscate the source of the money and his activities, Mr. Sizemore used various sham corporations including Initiative Resource Management ("IRM"), ATRF, CBS Consulting, Initiative Preservation Institute ("IPI") and Oregon Taxpayers United ("OTU3"). He also used Democracy Direct in his ploys. Mr. Sizemore shifted the money path to make it more difficult for the plaintiffs to collect their judgments against him and to prevent the plaintiffs from learning that he was violating the injunction.

He used the garnishment of his wages by the unions as an excuse to avoid paying bills (which, as a small business owner, I find utterly repulsive):

On January 14, 2008, Mr. Sizemore emailed Ms. Subramaniam, who was doing all of the work on ATRF’s website... In that email Mr. Sizemore was giving advice to Ms. Subramaniam on how to get rid of people who were trying to get money from her. He wrote: “Tell them the unions are now garnishing my wages and I can no longer pay you. It is true that they are garnishing my wages, though they are not getting anything for their troubles.”

Here’s a little bit of information about Ms. Subramaniam. She was in financial straits and contacted Sizemore because one of his ballot measures would help her. Typical of Sizemore, he took full advantage of the talents and trust of this sincere woman in pursuit of his own gain (emphasis mine):

By the time Ms. Subramaniam started, ATRF had paid Mr. Sizemore (or for his benefit or the benefit of his family) more than $165,000 for work that had no value. In contrast, while Ms. Subramaniam worked in excess of 2,000 hours for ATRF and her normal billing rate is $75 per hour, she received less than $15,000 from ATRF through the end of 2007.

Of course, he didn’t limit himself to taking advantage of poor women. Sizemore also, as most people are well aware, went after what was contained in the deep pockets of as many wealthy men as he could. One of those men is Dick Wendt. After many, many years of financially supporting Sizemore, Wendt, and particularly his attorney John Courtney, ultimately went to great lengths to hide that support, but in the end they were unable to do so. What is truly hilarious is that Sizemore actually misled Wendt and his people in order to milk them for all he could (this is hilarious to me because I have tried so long and hard to warn wiseacres like these guys about Sizemore, and have been ignored) (emphasis mine):

Mr. Courtney said that Mr. Wendt was interested in hiring Mr. Sizemore as an employee of HCPA [Hire Calling Public Affairs] and had encouraged him to move to Klamath Falls. Mr. Courtney was opposed to an employment relationship because some of the things Mr. Sizemore was doing were not consistent with the mission of HCPA. Mr. Wendt still wanted to find a way to provide financial support for Mr. Sizemore. Mr. Courtney discussed the matter with Mr. Sizemore, who recommended that HCPA pay him through ATRF. Mr. Sizemore told Mr. Courtney that ATRF was a nonprofit incorporated in Nevada and founded by Michaela Alexander. Mr. Sizemore led Mr. Courtney to believe that ATRF was active in many states. Mr. Sizemore never told Mr. Courtney that he was in complete control of ATRF.

Mr. Courtney was concerned that Mr. Sizemore not be an employee of HCPA and not be seen as involved with that organization. His concerns were shared by Jon Hobbs, another HCPA employee with whom he exchanged emails about the “Bill Issue” or the “Sizemore issue.” They agreed that there should be a “wall” between Mr. Sizemore and the American Institute for Full Employment (HCPA’s nonprofit arm). Even more, it is apparent that they were concerned about creating deniability for HCPA, which would in fact be paying Mr. Sizemore $8,850 per month, specifically calculated as the equivalent of the value of an annual salary of $80,000 per year plus, benefits (with an additional gross up for taxes) and office rent.

Now look at the official story that Mr. Courtney made sure everyone understood in order to protect himself, Mr. Wendt, and JELD-WEN from the “Sizemore issue”:

Mr. Courtney wrote to Mr. Hobbs in an email dated August 10, 2006, and copied to two other HCPA employees:

“We should all be versed in the following, in case asked.

- Bill Sizemore is not employed by AIFE, HCPA or JELD-WEN
- Bill is an independent contractor with a nonprofit tax research organization outside of Oregon (Nevada)
- The Nevada company leases space from HCPA in HCPA’s building, separate from AIFE, HCPA, etc. (the space is in Transitionswear, sep. entrance and sep. space)
- Dick is not on the board of the Nevada company (and as a nonprofit, by definition, he is not an owner)
- There is more than one funder of the Nevada company and we do not know who they all are
- Bill lives in Klamath Falls
- Bill’s work address is a P.O. box, his mail is diff from our and his phone is diff from ours”

Mr. Courtney ultimately told a fib of his own to the Court, and in fact Judge Wilson characterized him as “exquisitely evasive”:

Mr. Courtney first testified in the contempt hearing that the money HCPA paid to ATRF was a donation or contribution for which nothing was expected in return. That testimony was directly contradicted by an email exchange Mr. Courtney had with another HCPA employee.

To clarify Judge Wilson’s view of Mr. Courtney, I quote the following exquisite passage:

I cannot do justice to his [Mr. Courtney’s] ability not to answer questions without quoting his testimony in such detail that it would unduly lengthen this already-long opinion. It was the kind of obfuscation that lamentably gives lawyers such a bad reputation among many people.

Judge Wilson’s decision looks at the failure of Sizemore to fulfill the purpose of ATRF and lays out her conclusion as to what Sizemore, Wendt, and Loren Parks each got out of the “sham” foundation, ATRF (emphasis mine):

Why, then, was ATRF paying Mr. Sizemore such large sums of money? The inescapable conclusion is that ATRF was a sham charitable organization set up to pass money provided by Loren Parks and Dick Wendt to compensate Mr. Sizemore for his work on initiative measures. The arrangement potentially provided:

- a tax exemption for the donors, especially Mr. Parks and his organizations;
- a mechanism for Loren Parks and the Parks Foundation to violate the injunction against them in State of Oregon v. Parks Foundation, et al., Marion County Circuit Court No. 00017224 without easy detection;
- a cover for Dick Wendt’s support for Mr. Sizemore’s initiative work without employing him in his own organization and providing deniability of the very close relationship between HCPA and Mr. Sizemore;
- a means for Mr. Sizemore to evade his creditors, especially the plaintiffs in this case; and
- a mechanism for Mr. Sizemore and ATRF as a successor organization to OTU-EF to violate the injunction in this case by transferring assets without easy detection.

Even Grover Norquist was involved in the web of deceit (keep in mind that Norquist’s history indicates very strongly that he does not send money to other organizations unless it was given to him specifically for that purpose, and then he first skims a share off the top before laundering it through to the intended recipient):

On August 31, 2005, Americans for Tax Reform Foundation sent a check for $33,750 to CBS Consulting. Mr. Sizemore testified that he could not recall what the money was for.

Tim Trickey, a seemingly decent and enthusiastic young idealist whom I have repeatedly tried to warn to be careful of Sizemore, has also been caught up in Sizemore’s web of lies (emphasis mine):

Mr. Trickey gave more than one version of the source of the $100,000 paid to Mr. Sizemore through IRM in late 2005. He testified at one point that the entire amount was “profit” from the 2006 election cycle. At another point he acknowledged that the $30,000 came from Loren Parks, to be used to get initiatives for the 2008 cycle ready to go. At a third time, Mr. Trickey said that Mr. Parks had sent Democracy Diect a check for $30,000, but testified that the money was simply part of the funding for signature gathering for the 2006 election cycle, some of which was “left over”. In this version, Mr. Trickey decided on his own to use the money to have Mr. Sizemore start on the next cycle, but it was not intended as a pass-through from Mr. Parks to Mr. Sizemore.

Mr. Trickey’s testimony on the source of the $100,000 is contradicted by other evidence.

Footnotes from the above passage are enlightening:

In April 2007, Mr. Sizemore was deposed in a separate action he brought challenging the injunction on constitutional grounds. When asked whether he had “ever done any work for Democracy Direct for which you’ve been paid,” his answer was “No, not that I recall.” In this contempt hearing, Mr. Sizemore testified that when he read the transcript of the April 2007 deposition to prepare for his deposition in July 2008, he concluded the quoted answer was not accurate or complete and so notified his attorney. He never explained why he said it in the first place. Mr. Sizemore further testified in the April 2007 deposition that he was working two or three hours per month for Democracy Direct as an unpaid volunteer.

In more than one instance it appeared that Mr. Trickey was attempting to conform his testimony to what Mr. Sizemore had said in prior testimony. For example, in his deposition taken in June 2008, Mr. Trickey testified that Democracy Direct had never made any payments to Mr. Sizemore. That was consistent with Mr. Sizemore’s testimony in 2007, but not his testimony in this contempt hearing.

PLEASE NOTE: Mr. Trickey has responded to and clarified this matter in the comments below. I urge you to read those comments and for the record want to state that I believe him. It is my opinion that those who have prosecuted this case for so long have become so jaded by Sizemore's incessant lies that they have a hard time believing anyone, including, unfortunately, Mr. Trickey.

There’s another interesting character involved here, one Michaela Alexander who has gone by a wide variety of names in connection with Sizemore’s various organizations (Cynthia M. Miller, Michaela Rohrer, M. Miller, and C. Webb). She additionally seems to have something in common with a former employee of Sizemore’s, Kelly Highley, whose convenient car accident and subsequent amnesia (or aphasia) destroyed her ability to testify at the original racketeering trial.

Michaela Alexander was a friend of Mr. Sizemore from their college days in the 1970’s. She said she reconnected with him in recent years and now considers him her best friend. She testified that in the last several months she has had some medical problems and is taking powerful medications. She said that those circumstances, together with the turmoil in her life at the time of relevant events, cause her to have some memory impairment.

As events unfolded, Michaela seems to have realized at a point that there was a problem with Sizemore because she resigned as president of ATRF. Apparently, Sizemore pressured her to stay on in some capacity, and she wrote the following statement to him, which has not been explained:

“I was originally removed as of November, but you needed me one more time. So, I would like very much to consider my time as completed.”

Sizemore’s response was telling, and sounds remarkably similar to several talks that he and I had over my concerns about the activities of OTU between 1998 and 2001:

“ATRF is not doing anything illegal, so you have nothing to worry about. The unions are after me, not ATRF. They have not even been served in the lawsuit. A donor has put up the money to cover what the unions are demanding from me, but we do not intend to give it to them unless we have to and I don’t think we will.

I do not see you as having any vulnerability to worry about. If there was a vulnerability, it would only be financial and the foundation would cover that and has the money to do so. So don’t worry about any of this.”

Of course, any money to which Sizemore has access becomes, in his mind, his money, so the odds that he would allow any of that to be used to pay any liabilities that fell on his “best friend,” Ms. Alexander, are exceedingly slim in my opinion.

Here’s one example of how Sizemore finessed more money out of the various organizations than he was supposed to:

[Sizemore’s employment] agreement did not call for ATRF to pay rent for the Sizemores in Klamath Falls, but Mr. Sizemore apparently deemed this to be a cost of relocation. ATRF paid over $43,000 in house rent for the Sizemores between September 7, 2006 and February 5, 2008.

I’m sure many an employee seeking reimbursement of relocation expenses for a job would love to have a year’s worth of rent included in the deal, particularly if they were able to use that reimbursement to rent a house costing approximately $2700 a month. Sadly, the everyday people Sizemore claims to represent cannot typically afford such rent themselves, nor can they convince their employers to pay it for them.

There is so much more, and it is very clear to me that the longer Sizemore has been allowed to continue his scheming the more greedy and blatant he has become, but in any case, I find Judge Wilson’s summary, well, delightful in an admittedly perverse way (in a later passage, she calls the loan restructuring “phony”):

In summary, the Sizemores borrowed money from ATRF for things having nothing to do with the mission of ATRF and for things which were not permitted under the agreement between ATRF and Mr. Sizemore. The amount of the loan exceeded what the agreement allowed. Mr. Sizemore then “repaid” ATRF’s $235,000 loan by conveying to it a lot that was purchased for $200,000, of which $12,000 was ATRF’s own money.

Judge Wilson offered numerous statements which reflected her exasperation with Sizemore. Here are my favorites (emphasis mine):

ATRF’s corporate records, its filings with the Nevada Secretary of State and its filings with the Internal Revenue Service are either non-existent or so incomplete and riddled with errors as to lead this court to the conclusion that Mr. Sizemore was intentionally lying and attempting to mislead anyone who might be trying to understand whether or not he was complying with the injunction. (His actions might well have also misled anyone trying to collect a judgment against him, but that is not the subject of the proceedings currently before this court.) Mr. Sizemore’s repeated lying under oath in prior testimony and his efforts to prevent plaintiffs from obtaining ATRF’s records confirms this conclusion and made this court’s fact-finding process much more difficult than it should have been. A non-exclusive list of examples of the breadth and magnitude of Mr. Sizemore’s mendacity is set forth in Appendix A to this opinion.

Especially note her choice of language in the following passages (emphasis mine):

- From the very beginning of ATRF’s existence, Mr. Sizemore used it to pass money to himself and his family from Mr. Parks and used ATRF’s bank accounts as his personal piggy bank.

- The curious history of ATRF’s Form 990 for 2006 is also very telling as to Mr. Sizemore’s motives and intent to evade detection of his violations of the injunction.

- Mr. Romig [ATRF’s accountant] discussed with Mr. Sizemore whether ATRF would need to file a CT-12 in Oregon for 2006. As shown by Mr. Sizemore’s comments in his requested “corrections,” he did not want to do so. He lied to Mr. Romig about ATRF’s actual activities in Oregon in order to obtain the advice that no CT-12 was required. If Mr. Sizemore had been truthful with Mr. Romig about ATRF’s activities, Mr. Romig would have told him that a CT-12 was required for 2006.

- … Mr. Sizemore has demonstrated a near total disregard for the oath …

- I find that the amount of work done by Mr. Sizemore in furtherance of the legitimate work of ATRF was negligible and did not justify a fraction of the money Mr. Sizemore caused ATRF to pay him or pay to benefit his family. The website was a fig leaf.

Regarding communications between Sizemore and his accountant in preparation for ATRF’s tax return, Judge Wilson notes (emphasis mine):

Many of those statements by Mr. Sizemore were false, and he knew it. He asked that the changes be made because he knew plaintiffs would obtain the Form 990 and he did not want them to know the truth, including that he had violated the injunction.

Of course, Sizemore insists that his ATRF foundation was a legitimate nonprofit. Judge Wilson has this to say about that (again, emphasis mine):

What did ATRF do during the first two years of its existence? Did it carry out its purported mission to “research and publish the fiscal impact of real and proposed ballot measures”? The only evidence of what ATRF accomplished is reflected in the printouts of the content of ATRF’s website as of November 6, 2007 and January 3, 2008. The earlier printout is the most probative because it reflects what ATRF was doing before the flurry of activity after plaintiffs started investigating it. Furthermore, most of the content added by January 3, 2008, concerns initiative processes in various states (not tax systems or the fiscal impact of ballot measures) and it is undisguised cut and paste - most of it from the Initiative and Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California School of Law. [Perhaps that organization ought to go after Sizemore for plagiarism?]

Twenty-two months after ATRF was formed, and after it had spent over $1,000,000, its website contained almost no analysis of the fiscal impact of any real or proposed ballot measure. The website contained quite a bit of information about Oregon’s tax structure and its history, but provides a summary analysis of only one ballot measure by name or number – Measure 41, which was on the ballot in November 2006. That analysis, if it is not drawn completely from materials created in connection with the measure campaign, could have taken no more than a few hours to prepare.

This sounds suspiciously similar to my observations about the work product of OTU-EF back in 1998-2001.

I particularly loved this part:

Mr Byrne’s analogy in closing argument was apt:

“As I explained to Mr. Sizemore earlier today, well, you’re like the guy pulled over for the DUII. If you blow into the breathalyzer, you’re taking your chances; if you don’t you lose your license. You just lost your license.”

Of course, one is only taking one’s chances in taking a breath test if one is actually driving under the influence.

All of this is very interesting. But there is also a sort of soap opera unfolding here that is worth noting: Bill’s loyal wife has been caught up in the madness and her seemingly honest testimony has not been helpful to his efforts to stay out of trouble, so far as I can tell. Frankly, I think he has put her in a very, very tough situation, and one I don’t believe she deserves.

If there is anything about this entire mess that hurts me to this day, it is the impact all of this has had on Bill’s wife and children. It has always troubled me greatly that Bill has not seemed to prioritize what was best for his family, even going so far as to list his own mother, Grace Sizemore (a.k.a. Grace Foster, Gene Foster, or Imogene Foster), as a participant in some of his ventures, thereby placing her in legal jeopardy. With that in mind, the following portion of Judge Wilson’s ruling is a horror show in my opinion that reminds me of other incidents in which Bill lied to his wife and put her in a bad spot, as he also did me (though that, while unchivalrous, is far less egregious than betraying the trust of his wife, children, and mother):

“CBS Consulting” is apparently a for-profit company. It is owned by Mr. Sizemore’s wife, Cindy Sizemore. Cindy Sizemore testified that she does not run CBS Consulting, however. Bill Sizemore does. Cindy Sizemore has very little knowledge of CBS Consulting’s business. For example, she knows little about ATRF, although ATRF paid CBS Consulting more than $174,000 between February 2006 and February 2008 and paid her personally more than $30,000. She testified she was unaware that CBS Consulting had done business with Hire Calling Public Affairs (“HCPA”), although CBS Consulting invoiced HCPA $9,050 per month for July, August and September 2008.

CBS Consulting has filed no tax returns. Cindy Sizemore testified that her husband said that it was unnecessary for CBS Consulting to file its own tax returns because all of the information about CBS Consulting was reflected in their personal tax returns. (Mr. Sizemore testified that neither he nor his wife have filed personal tax returns for 2006 or 2007, however.) Cindy Sizemore testified that money held by CBS Consulting was the same as money in the family’s personal checking account.

That was not the only organization Bill claimed erroneously that his wife owned.

Mr. Sizemore testified that his wife owned IRM [Initiative Resource Management], although he also testified that IRM had never issued any stock and Cindy Sizemore testified that she did not own IRM.

I’m not sure which Sizemore will find worse – being in jail for a few days or seeing his wife again after putting her through a personal hell she did not deserve.

As for the “Examples of Deceit by Mr. Sizemore,” I will leave that to those who are willing to click through to read the decision. The insightful addendum begins on page 43.

Posted by Becky at 02:02 PM |

December 01, 2008

Palin Babygate may not be as dead as some thought

Jack Bog points us to the sleuths intent on proving that Sarah Palin faked being pregnant with baby Trib. Word is something's about to break.

Posted by Kevin at 10:57 PM |

:D

It's finally happened: Bill Sizemore is in jail.

Posted by Becky at 02:47 PM |

Terrorists "cannot be called Muslim"

A Muslim cemetary in downtown Mumbai has refused to accept or bury the corpses of the nine slain terrorists.

"People who committed this heinous crime cannot be called Muslim," said Hanif Nalkhande, a trustee of the influential Jama Masjid Trust, which runs the 7 1/2-acre Badakabrastan graveyard in downtown Mumbai.

While some Muslim scholars disagreed with the decision — saying Islam requires a proper burial for every Muslim — the city's other Muslim graveyards are likely to do the same.

Here's hoping that Nalkhande's interpretation wins out over the obtusely narrow interpretation of those claiming to disagree with it.

In any case, this is a very positive sign.

Posted by Kevin at 02:36 PM |