Gen-X VP

Congratulations Gov. Palin!



Governor Sarah Palin (R-Alaska)

==

Never trust anyone over 40.

I've had to amend that axiom as the oldest of my Gen-X co-generationists have been turning 44 over the past year. Maybe I can clarify and simplify at the same time. Never trust one of those self-centered materialistic Boomers.

Gov. Palin is one of a special breed of Gen-X politicians. Likely a conscious reaction to the excesses of our preceding generation, these public officials are staunchly anti-corruption. I briefly mentioned Gov. Palin and her anti-corruption credentials in this March 2008 post entitled Restoring Trust. Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-La.) is another of these rising Gen-X anti-corruption office holders.

I like the McCain-Palin ticket. A 1-2 anti-corruption punch. A Traditionalist and a Gen-Xer, skipping over the Boomer generation. The Traditionalist / Gen-X combo works. Most of the oldest Gen-Xers had Traditionalist parents, and we had an understanding with our parents. We accepted much of the Traditionalist worldview and, with our parents, rejected the worldview of the Boomers. We Gen-Xers got haircuts. We bathed. We did well in school. We didn't "Turn on, tune in, drop out."

The world will be a better place with X-ers in positions of authority. I just have to wonder if Gov. Palin has ever danced to New Order.

Abramoff Sentencing Memo

On Wednesday, the Justice Department submitted a Sentencing Memorandum in anticipation of the sentencing of Jack Abramoff next week. Here are the things I found interesting:

Things of Value

Several of the "things of value" Mr. Abramoff provided to government officials seem to point in the direction of our former Congressman, Tom DeLay (R-Fort Bend County).

As stated, in dealing with government officials, Abramoff generally provided a stream of things of value to public officials in exchange for official actions and influence...

Abramoff also provided all-expenses-paid trips with little or no official purpose to overseas destinations like Scotland, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands ("CNMI"), and Russia. Among the most expensive were the three Scotland trips, which ranged in value from approximately $120,000 in 2000 to more than $150,000 each in 2002 and 2003 for all participants including the lobbyist hosts. (pp. 3,4)

Mr. DeLay hits the trifecta here. He went to Scotland with Mr. Abramoff in 2000. Mr. DeLay took an Abramoff-funded trip to Saipan, CNMI in 1997. Lastly, Mr. DeLay and Mr. Abramoff went to Russia in 1997. The only government officials Mr. Abramoff ever took to Russia were former Rep. DeLay, a DeLay staff member, Ed Buckham, and a staffer for former Senator Jesse Helms, James Lucier. [See Update]

A little off-topic, but I found it interesting that this minor trip was mentioned ....

There were other trips to U.S. destinations, too, and they included golfing, viewing sporting events, or visiting Abramoff's tribal clients. For example, in January 2001, Abramoff funded a trip to the Super Bowl aboard a private jet for three high-ranking Congressional staffers. (p.4)

The three high ranking staffers? One was DeLay staffer Tim Berry. The other two were staffers for exonerated (and electorally defeated) Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Montana).

I have no clue why the Super Bowl trip was singled out. If there's anything to be read into it, Mr. Berry has the most to fear. If Sen. Burns is no longer under investigation, there is no reason to pressure his aides.

==

Employment for Wives of Members of Congress

There are ongoing investigations focusing on Abramoff's relationships with other public officials. To date, our investigations reveal only the same type of conduct which was outlined in Abramoff's plea documents. In other words, the allegations are that the lobbyists provided a stream of things of value to public officials in exchange for a stream of official action. The things of value include the same types of things identified in Abramoff's plea papers, namely trips, tickets to sporting events and concerts, unreported in-kind campaign contributions, and employment for wives of members of Congress or staff. Abramoff's attorneys have agreed that, by contemporaneous sealed, ex parte pleading, we can provide specific information as to these concluded and ongoing grand jury investigations of other public officials. (pp. 7-8)

Emphasis added

First I want to point out the significance of the last sentence. The Justice Department submitted a sealed ex parte pleading containing grand jury testimony of ongoing investigations. There are more shoes to drop.

Two and a half years ago, I made an entry entitled Employment for the Relatives of Officials when it became clear to me that this was the manner in which Mr. Abramoff and his associates paid Congressmen. Let me be clear here, I have no evidence that Mr. Abramoff employed Mr. DeLay's wife, Christine DeLay. Mrs. DeLay was employed by Abramoff associate Edwin Buckham. However, as I wrote back in 2006, Julie Doolittle, wife of Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) was employed by Mr. Abramoff. In light of what I know, Mrs. Doolittle is the most likely person to have been employed by Mr. Abramoff. You may recall that Mrs. Doolittle's business records were seized by the FBI in April 2007.

==

Sixty-Four Months

Justice Department lawyers are recommending a 64-month sentence for Mr. Abramoff. I found this discussion of the length of the sentence interesting:

As for the defendants yet to be sentenced, none faces the likelihood of a sentence as high as Abramoff. Even Michael Scanlon, whose conduct comes closet to matching that of Abramoff due in large part to the Sentencing Guidelines for the fraud offenses, is capped by a five-year statutory maximum before any consideration of his cooperation. In other words, regardless of the basis for comparison, a 64-month sentence ilikely will qualify as the longest sentence of any defendant in this investigation. (p. 25)

The convicted yet unsentenced defendants include Michael Scanlon, Mark Zachares, Robert Coughlin, and John Albaugh. A clear reading of the above excerpt indicates none of these defendants will have a sentence that exceeds 64 months. Mr. DeLay, however, is not currently a defendant. Is it a bad case of schadenfreude if I hope the 64 month maximum doesn't apply to Mr. DeLay?

==

I have a few thoughts on how the Abramoff Sentencing Memo applies to Kevin Ring. Check back in a day or two to see if I get around to making that post.

==

Update
March 21, 2009

I trying to reconstruct Mr. Lucier's role in the Russia trip. While I still believe that Mr. Lucier was present on an Abramoff-funded trip to Russia to meet NaftaSib officials, I do not believe he was a government official at the time. According to this 1992 article in the New York Times, Mr. Lucier was fired by Sen. Helms in 1992. The Columbia Journalism Review indicates that Mr. Lucier worked for conservative-leaning Insight Magazine at the time of the trip. Mr. Lucier was not the only journalist Abramoff brought to Russia. Tod Lindberg, then-editor of the Washington Times and Erica Tuttle of the National Interest were on the same trip to Russia. I believe this trip occurred a few weeks before former Rep. DeLay's Abramoff-funded trip to Russia.

Therefore, the only government employee other than Tom DeLay to go to Russia on Abramoff's nickel was Edwin A. Buckham.

Future Headline: Charges Against Tom DeLay Dismissed

Kuff helpfully shows me this article regarding an opinion from the Third Court of Appeals regarding the state money laundering charge surrounding associates of Tom DeLay. (Kuff proceeds to shepherd me into clarifying an old forgotten wager in his favor.)

The headline of the Houston Chronicle article, "Laundering indictments against DeLay aides upheld", buries the lede. As Kuff and many others have pointed out, the justices formed some conclusions of law that will make the money laundering case impossible to prosecute:

But the ruling provided a potential defense for James Ellis and John Colyando by finding that personal checks were not covered by the money laundering statute prior to 2005.

Here is the court's opinion. I admit I haven't been following the TRMPAC case. But here is my synopsis of the opinion. James Ellis and John Colyando ran TRMPAC. They sent some money via check to the Republican National State Elections Committee (RNSEC), and the RNSEC sent a similar amount to candidates to the Texas state legislature. The Travis County DA made the dubious claim that this was illegal because it changed the nature of the TRMPAC money from being ineligible for use in state elections into being eligible for such use. Mr. Ellis and Mr. Colyando argued that the pre-2005 money laundering statute was unconstitutionally vague because it didn't specify that money laundering could be consummated when the means of money transfer was by check. The court said that the pre-2005 law isn't vague at all ... transfer by check weren't covered under the money laundering statute.

[W]e find that checks and other negotiable instruments were added to the description of the term "funds" in section 34.01 in 2005 precisely because they were not included in the prior version of the statute. We find that the term "funds" in the pre-2005 money laundering statute did not include checks or other negotiable instruments that are not the functional equivalent of cash.

Since we hold that checks and other negotiable instruments such as those added by the amendments to section 34.01 in 2005 were not included within the definition of the term "funds" as it was defined in the statute at the time of the acts at issue here, Ellis and Colyandro's contention that the statute under which they have been charged is unconstitutionally vague on its face fails.

Footnote eliminated

Basically the judges wrote, "The law isn't vague ... you guys are in the clear!"

I won't defend the judges' interpretation of the law. Honestly, it seems a little odd to me. There might be some case law behind this that isn't clear to me. The 2005 change to the money laundering law certainly raised the possibility that the legislature knew what it was doing when it didn't include checks as "funds" for the purposes of money laundering. I'm not going to belabor this.

The consequence of the court's opinion is that, assuming it stands, Ellis, Colyando and DeLay could not have possibly committed any crime. I expect this opinion to stand. Therefore, the indictments of Ellis, Colyando and DeLay will be dismissed.

There are two major points left to make:

This in no way exonerates Tom DeLay. Mr. DeLay faces serious legal jeopardy in the federal investigation surrounding Jack Abramoff. The TRMPAC case is *totally* unrelated to the Abramoff investigation. I fully expect Mr. DeLay to be indicted with respect to the Abramoff corruption.

Secondly, there should be no claim that Ronnie Earle unfairly derailed Mr. DeLay's Congressional career. Many of the GOP voters who abandoned Mr. DeLay in 2006 knew that Mr. Earle was an out-of-control partisan prosecutor. Let's look at some of the comments from back then:

One Republican voter said Mr. Earle's indictment was "trumped up". Nevertheless, this voter didn't back Mr. DeLay because "He's taking care of lobbyists." Link

Another Republican voter intuitively knew that Mr. Earle was on a "witch hunt", but he was undecided two days before the primary. Link

DeLay supporters like to blame Mr. Earle for Mr. DeLay's electoral loss. The evidence simply doesn't support that. As I wrote back in March 2006:

Mr. DeLay, we don't worry about Ronnie Earle's preening here in TX22. We worry about Jack Abramoff's cooperating.

As Ronnie Earle's partisan lawsuit heads to dismissal, let no one claim that he had anything to do with Tom DeLay's problems. Tom DeLay caused his own problems, and the most serious ones are still ahead of him.

Now, will there be any lefties who will criticize Mr. Earle's politically inspired prosecution?

Revisiting South Lakes High School (Fairfax County, Va.)

I've had a noticeable spike in traffic since I've made a couple of posts about the IB experience at South Lakes High School in Fairfax County, Va. While I've always had a lot of readers from Washington, DC, northern Virginia and suburban Maryland, a new interest from that area seems to be the International Baccalaureate Program. I decided to investigate what was driving this interest.

I have no clue what is driving these new readers to my site, but I did learn a lot from the Fairfax County experience. There is a group of parents and other interested community members that have formed a group called Fairfax County Coalition of Advocates for Public Schools (FairfaxCAPS). FairfaxCAPS appears to be dedicated to advising the local school board on how to strengthen the school district in Fairfax County. FairfaxCAPS also provides some extremely in-depth quantitative analysis. Being a quantitative thinker myself, I found that irresistible.

FairfaxCAPS takes a detailed look at the demographics at South Lakes on this page. As recently as 2000, the enrollment at South Lakes High was over 95% of the high school age population in the South Lakes attendance zone. That ratio is outstanding. But by 2005, that percentage had dropped to 77%. FairfaxCAPS projects that by 2010, the ratio of South Lakes enrollment to high school age population will drop to 68%, but recent experience indicates to me that South Lakes is far more troubled than that. Given what we know now, 68% may be optimistic.

FairfaxCAPS doesn't seem to draw any conclusions as to what is causing the mass exodus from South Lakes High, but the group does make these observations:

1. Consistently, more kids leave South Lakes through intradistrict transfers than come to South Lakes.

2. Kids from higher income families are leaving South Lakes.

3. Something unique is happening at South Lakes; neighboring schools (Oakton, Chantilly and Westfield) aren't seeing the same exodus of students.

Interestingly, Oakton, Chantilly and Westfield are all AP schools (.pdf). FairfaxCAPS doesn't mention one relevant fact in its dry quantitative demographic analysis, but we do see it here:

Statistical data indicates an exodus from South Lakes coincides with the implementation of the IB program at South Lakes...

Many of those opting out of this school appear to be placing into AP schools...

They are largely non-free and reduced lunch students.

The obvious conclusion is that the IB program may be a large part of the problem rather than the solution of South Lakes continued loss of students.

Emphasis in original

According to Wikipedia, South Lakes High eliminated Advanced Placement classes after the 2002-2003 school year. In my opinion, the assertion by FairfaxCAPS is accurate that the IB Program caused the problems at South Lakes. Prior to the elimination of AP, 95% of high school age kids went to South Lakes; by 2010, that ratio with by 68%. I believe the International Baccalaureate Program is putting South Lakes into a death spiral.

[FairfaxCAPS says that some unnamed party claims that the attendance zone for South Lakes High has "an aging population that results in lower enrollment figures". I'd love to know who would make such a claim because a demographic research report commissioned by Fairfax County Public Schools indicates that the high school age population in the South Lakes attendance zone will increase by 25% from 2000 to 2015]

==

Woodson High School

Another Fairfax County High School flirted with the idea of implementing the International Baccalaureate Program. Parents identified 25 criteria to help them determine whether IB or AP was better for their school. AP passed all 25 criteria. IB failed or fell short in 12 of the items considered:

1. Availability to a majority of students
2. Does no harm
3. Is portable
4. Encourages everyone to strive and achieve
5. Offers a broad array of elective choices
6. Doesn’t forget “late bloomers”
7. Peacefully coexists with the other programs in the building
8. Allows students not equally strong in all subject areas to succeed
9. Doesn’t require advanced program be subsidized at the expense of regular classes
10. Allows access to college credit
11. Helps students in the college admission process
12. Provides access to potential college and placement

Discussion of why IB is inferior may be found here

==

Conclusion

I found the experience of South Lakes High School to be exceedingly instructive. I applaud FairfaxCAPS for their demographic analysis. It is the most complete analysis I have seen with respect to how the implementation of the International Baccalaureate Program impacts a school district.

Fairfax County Public Schools mitigates the negative impact of the International Baccalaureate Program by allowing students to transfer out of IB schools. This at least keeps the kids in the school district. Pearland ISD has no similar policy. If a student seeks a more rigorous academic program, they must leave Pearland ISD. We are already seeing that happen.

Fairfax County Public Schools is lucky to have a group like FairfaxCAPS help them understand the incentives parents and students face when searching for a top notch education. Since the students who want a more rigorous program than the International Baccalaureate Program remain in the school district, those students and their families have a vested interest in reforming the school district. FCPS can learn from the families of high performing students. Pearland ISD doesn't have that advantage. By chasing families with high performing kids out of the district entirely, there isn't anyone left to tell Pearland ISD administrators what they're doing wrong.

IB vs. AP: A Case Study

Back in May, I wrote about the elimination of the International Baccalaureate Program at John Tyler High School in Tyler, Texas. One of the reasons stated by a Tyler ISD administrator was that the Advanced Placement Program would "reach a lot more students" and that the IB Program was for "just a select few".

That alone seems to be a reason to favor AP over IB. Given that the credit earned by IB students is significantly inferior to the credit earned by AP students, I don't understand why any school, parent or student would want anything to do with the IB Program.

Anyway, the purpose of this post is to compare the experiences of two schools, John Tyler High School and South Lakes High School in Fairfax County, Va.:

When John Tyler High School eliminated the IB Program, Tyler ISD allowed any John Tyler student interested in the program to transfer to Tyler Lee High School to continue the program:

In answer to board questions, John Tyler officials explained that students currently in IB have the option of taking IB courses from the other IB program in the district, which is at Robert E. Lee High School, or they can go onto the AP track at John Tyler.

No juniors in IB are planning to transfer to Lee, they said.

No student accepted the offer according to the Tyler Morning Telegraph. None. Zero. Nada.

Meanwhile, as we learned yesterday, the Fairfax County, Va. school district rezoned 225 students into South Lakes High School, an IB school. The district allowed students to transfer out of South Lakes and into an Advanced Placement school if they wanted to. About a third of those students chose to transfer out of South Lakes High School. A Third.

Even though school administrators are somehow attracted to the IB Program, parents and students seem to overwhelmingly prefer the AP Program due to its more rigorous curriculum. At least that's what this survey with a sample size of two tells us.

Let this be a lesson to school administrators everywhere. Do you want to poach the high performing students from neighboring districts? Encourage your rival district to implement the International Baccalaureate Program. The high performers will avoid the IB district and enroll in your district. A few families have already abandoned Pearland ISD in favor of Friendswood ISD over the deteriorating academics in Pearland. The long term solution for the Anti-Corruption family is to find refuge in Friendswood ISD, too.

Seriously, though, it is difficult to quantify the number of high performers that the IB Program repels due to its less rigorous academics. How do you count families that never move to a district due to IB? The South Lakes experience provides us with the best estimation for that number. A third of all the newly rezoned students will never enroll at South Lakes High School due to the IB Program. The percentage of high performers that will never enroll is undoubtedly higher. This case study suggests the second rate IB Program repels high performers. All I can say is that this case study is in alignment with my own feelings about the IB Program.

IB Program and Schools Across Nation

From time to time, I take a look around the country to see how the International Baccalaureate Program is affecting other schools. A couple previous installments include Monument Academy in Colorado Springs, Colo., Saginaw Twp. (Mich.) Community Schools.

==

Santa Rosa, Calif.

From the Press Democrat (Santa Rosa, Calif.):

Doyle Park Elementary has had a rough go of it lately.

The school lost its academically rigorous International Baccalaureate program in February amid school board concerns that it wasn't drawing in new students and was taking away from teachers' focus on test scores.

In 2004-05, the school had 398 students and scored 720 on the Academic Performance Index, the state's main performance ranking. Last school year, enrollment was 269 and the API score was 683.

This summer, Principal Fran Link left the school -- the fourth principal to do so in five years. District officials are conducting a search for Link's replacement but do not expect to have made a new hire by the first day of school Wednesday.

Doyle Park Elementary appears to be quite the troubled school. Four principals in five years? That kind of shocked me until I reflected on the fact that Carleston Elementary here in Pearland had three principals in the 2 1/4 years my son attended there. Anyway, there are undoubtedly a lot of moving parts in the Doyle Park Elementary experience. I certainly wouldn't suggest that the declining enrollment and declining test scores are solely attributable to the IB Program. In fact, I don't even know what the test scores measure.

I just find it extremely interesting that Doyle Park Elementary failed to meet the School Board's expectations when it came to enrollment and test scores. The Board decided that the proper course of action was to eliminate the International Baccalaureate Program. Whatever the reason for the declining enrollment at Doyle Park, it is clear that higher performers left in a higher proportion than the general population. Let's hope that Doyle Park can now turn around its performance.

Lastly, notice that the School Board in Santa Rosa concluded that the IB Program took away educators' focus from state mandated academic tests. On more than one occasion, I've stated my opinion that the IB Program distracts Pearland educators from academics, too.

==

Moore County, N.C.

The theme of the academically inferior IB Program replacing the more rigorous AP Program is found time and time again. Here, we see it in Moore County, N.C. From the Pilot (Southern Pines, N.C.):

During the public address portion of the meeting, several Pinecrest parents expressed concern over the "melding" of International Baccalaureate and Advance Placement classes, arguing that the integrity of both curriculums is being compromised. They also were bothered by the lack of honors core courses offered to juniors and seniors.

AP Program compromised? Lack of honors courses? What is going on at Moore County?

We've seen the fear that the less rigorous IB Program is crowding out the AP Program in Corning, N.Y. and Glen Cove, N.Y. (link), Saginaw Twp., Mich. (see link above) and now Moore County, N.C. Trust me, I'm sympathetic to parents who see their school districts decreasing the academic rigor in the public schools. It is happening here in Pearland ISD.

==

Fairfax, Va.

From the Fairfax County (Va.) Times:

Parents of some of the students affected by the West County boundary adjustment have found a way around the redistricting mandate.

In February, the Fairfax County School Board voted 10-2 to approve boundary adjustments for South Lakes, Oakton, Chantilly, Madison, and Westfield high schools, Thoreau and Hughes middle schools, and Wolftrap and Sunrise Valley elementary schools.

The immediate plan, which was upheld by a Fairfax County judge late last month, redistricts incoming freshmen from attending overcrowded Westfield, Oakton and Madison high schools, to instead attend Reston's under-enrolled South Lakes High School. Also, some students who would have gone to Chantilly High School will attend Oakton.

But according to Fairfax County school records, about a third of the 225 students affected by the redistricting have instead transferred to schools other than South Lakes, stating academic reasons.

The primarily stated impetus is that South Lakes High School does not participate in the Advanced Placement (AP) program. Instead, it offers the International Baccalaureate (IB), a relatively new advanced studies program that began in Europe and took hold in the United States in the 1980s

Emphasis Added

A third of the newly zoned students to South Lakes chose to go to a more distant school in search of the more rigorous AP Program instead of staying at South Lakes for the IB Program. Now that is a third of all students. Obviously not all the newly zoned students were high performers. So the percentage of high performers who will accept the hardship of traveling to an AP school when given the choice is even higher than 33%, probably significantly higher.

Opponents of the IB program have claimed that colleges simply don't offer the same credits for IB classes as they do for AP courses.

"One can accrue more credits in AP, but the universities really respect the qualities that IB students bring to their universities," said South Lakes High School Principal Bruce Butler, adding that 20 students have transferred into South Lakes specifically for its IB program.

While AP proponents always seem to be able to quantify why they support AP (colleges offer superior credit to AP), IB is advanced using the lamest subjective measures. "Universities really respect the qualities that IB students bring to their universities."

Oh, really? For some reason, that respect doesn't extend to offering high quality college level credit. AP students are much better situated to take higher level college coursework, particularly in math and science. Judging from the credit schedules of colleges in Texas and around the country, AP is much more respected than IB.

FCPS Superintendent Dr. Jack Dale, in a letter to FairfaxCAPS, the advocacy group that funded the redistricting suit against the school board, said it is a longstanding policy to let students attend the closest AP or IB high school.

"This ensures we don't force anyone into either program, but allow students/families the choice of what best fits their needs," he wrote.

I applaud the Fairfax County Public Schools for allowing students to opt out of the inferior IB Program. Unfortunately, Pearland ISD doesn't allow the same flexibility. If parents are seeking a more rigorous academic education for their children, they must either move (I know of three families that have moved to Friendswood) or enroll their kids in private school (like the Anti-Corruption family and the two families I mentioned earlier this week.) And those are just the parents I know about. There are still more that are upset about the academic deterioration at Pearland ISD that have yet to determine what to do.

It is not clear to me why Pearland ISD would squander millions of dollars of community resources to implement the second-rate IB Program. Why not save the money and return Pearland ISD to academic excellence? There must be some incentive there that I can't see ... is the state subsidizing this lower-grade program or something? I'd like to think that community groups like the Pearland Chamber of Commerce would find it in their interest to pressure the school district to save taxpayer money, scrap the IB Program, and return its focus to academics.

I don't want to see a disproportionate number of high performers leave Pearland ISD like they did at Santa Rosa's Doyle Park Elementary.

John McCain and Ralph Reed

"[Ralph Reed] is a bad version of us! No more money for him." -- Jack Abramoff

==

Presidential candidate John McCain plans a fundraiser hosted by former Christian Coalition leader and Jack Abramoff business associate Ralph Reed:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain so far is ignoring calls from several watchdog groups to cancel an Atlanta fundraiser promoted by Ralph Reed, a longtime friend and business partner of imprisoned lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Public Citizen, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), and Campaign Money Watch are urging the Arizona senator to cancel plans for the Aug. 18 fundraiser at the Marriott Marquis in downtown Atlanta and remove Reed from McCain’s Victory 2008 Team.

Reed lost his 2006 campaign for Georgia lieutenant governor in large part because of details about his relationship with Abramoff — much of the information uncovered by McCain’s Indian Affairs Committee investigation into the wide-ranging lobbying corruption scandal.

The Senate probe discovered $4 million in payments Reed accepted to run a bogus anti-casino campaign aimed at reducing gambling competition. An Indian tribe with a competing casino made payments to Reed, which according to the Senate investigation’s final report, were “passed through” Abramoff’s firm, Preston, Gates, Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds, and another organization, Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform.

I must admit that I've avoided this story because, well, I find it inconvenient. Mr. Reed duped a lot of good Christians (including Rev. Ed Young of Houston's Second Baptist Church) into being unwitting pawns in Jack Abramoff's corruption. Meanwhile, Mr. Reed laughed all the way to the bank. In 2006, one of my very first posts at the old place criticized Mr. Reed's behavior. How in the world can Sen. McCain bear to be in the same room as the discredited Ralph Reed? Certainly Sen. McCain shouldn't accept money through Reed's connections.

CREW and the others get it right. Sen. McCain needs to find some way to get Reed out of the fundraising picture. I've long been a McCainiac precisely because of Sen. McCain's principled stand against corruption. That said, we should credit Sen. McCain for exposing Mr. Reed's deceit when Sen. McCain chaired the Indian Affairs Committee.

Discovery!

Click on the Teltschik label below for background on Teltschik vs. Williams & Jensen, PLLC et. al.

==

Today, US District Judge Henry H. Kennedy issued an order outlining how he intends to proceed in Teltschik vs. Williams & Jensen, PLLC et. al. It appears to me that Judge Kennedy's order is rather boilerplate -- it could be used in nearly any civil case.

In the order, Judge Kennedy sets out some rules for the discovery phase of this lawsuit. The most interesting thing to me is that each side is limited to ten depositions. As always, let's speculate.

Here are the individuals I suspect Mr. Teltschik would like to depose:

1. Barbara Wixon Bonfiglio (Defendant; former assistant treasurer of ARMPAC)

2. Meredith Kelley (Defendant; person who signed the Conciliatory Agreement)

3. Robert Martinez (Defendant; Managing Director at Williams & Jensen)

4. Don McGahn (Former defendant; former lawyer to ARMPAC; current Chairman of the Federal Election Commission)

5. Tom DeLay (Former Congressman; former Chairman of ARMPAC)

6. Christine DeLay (Wife of Tom DeLay; person who convinced Mr. Teltschik to accept position as Treasurer of ARMPAC)

7. Dani DeLay Ferro (Daughter of Tom DeLay; former "event planner" for ARMPAC; recipient of "retroactive" "payroll" payments from ARMPAC)

8. Jim Ellis (Former Executive Director of ARMPAC; likely involved in hiring Don McGahn; recipient of "retroactive" "payroll" payments from ARMPAC)

9. Chris Perkins (Former ARMPAC staffer; recipient of "retroactive" "payroll" payments from ARMPAC; current Executive Director of Tom DeLay's advocacy group Coalition for a Conservative Majority)

10. (Designated Hitter -- Game time decision)

Who is Eric Cantor?

Eric Cantor is a Republican member of the House of Representatives from Richmond, Va. Rep. Cantor is mentioned as a possible Vice Presidential running mate for Sen. John McCain:

Fox has learned through a Republican official familiar with the situation that four-term Virginia Republican Eric Cantor is undergoing intense document reviews by John McCain’s presidential campaign.

The source said personal documents of Cantor’s are under review as McCain and his Democratic rival, Barack Obama, have allowed the public face of their secretive vice presidential search process surface in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Rep. Cantor is a poor choice for Sen. McCain. I'd like to suggest a document for Sen. McCain's staff to review:

[Tom] DeLay has also shown support for causes important to Abramoff's clients. A source close to Abramoff who asked not to be named because of the continuing grand jury investigation said Abramoff lobbied DeLay's office to organize a June 2003 letter -- co-signed by DeLay, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and Deputy Whip Eric I. Cantor (R-Va.) -- that endorsed a view of gambling law benefiting the Coushattas' desire to block gambling competition by another tribe.

The letter, sent to Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton, said the House leaders opposed a plan by the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians to open a casino at a non-reservation site, expected at the time to be outside Shreveport, La., not far from a casino owned by the Coushattas. The intent of the letter, the source said, was to protect the income from the Coushattas' casino -- about $300 million a year.

V. Heather Sibbison, a lobbyist at the time for the Jena Band, said: "I do this for a living, and I have never seen a letter like that before. It was incredibly unusual for that group of people, who do not normally weigh in on Indian issues, to express such a strong opinion about a particular project not in any of their home states."

Emphasis added

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington reprints a Richmond Times-Dispatch article connecting a January 2003 fundraiser hosted by Jack Abramoff to the June 2003 letter:

Rep. Eric I. Cantor of Virginia signed a letter with other House leaders in 2003 that was favorable to an Indian tribe in Louisiana represented by Jack Abramoff, a lobbyist now under criminal and congressional investigation.

Cantor, R-7th, is chief deputy majority whip and an ally of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Cantor received $12,000 in campaign contributions from Abramoff, his wife and associates in 2003-2004, according to records from online campaign-finance tracking services.

The Richmond-area Republican raised campaign money at a January 2003 event held by Abramoff at a deli the lobbyist partly owned, according to a published account at the time, and a sandwich there was named for Cantor.

I'd like to think that Rep. Cantor has no chance of being Sen. McCain's running mate. But Rep. Cantor's stock is rising at the online trading market at Intrade. As of 6:24 a.m. CDT, the last trade indicates a 1% chance that Rep. Cantor will be Sen. McCain's VP. Unfortunately, the bid on this contract has risen to 10.3, meaning that traders think Rep. Cantor's chances have risen by more than a factor of 10.

Percentage chance of Rep. Eric Cantor being named as Sen. John McCain's Vice-Presidential running mate

Storm Brewing in the Gulf

The computer models currently show that Houston would be on the dirty side of this storm. Fortunately, the models also show that, at worst, this thing won't develop beyond the most minimal tropical storm.

Click here for more info. Landfall predicted early Tuesday morning.

Bill Moyers - "Capitol Crimes"

Watch all four parts of "Capitol Crimes"

==

Yesterday, KUHT, the Houston PBS station, rebroadcast Bill Moyers' "Capitol Crimes". "Capitol Crimes" is a documentary on the government-by-lobbyist scheme led by Jack Abramoff, Ed Buckham, Tom DeLay and others. Apparently, this documentary originally aired in October 2006, but it was new to me. "Capitol Crimes" is as timely today as it was two years ago.

Of course Bill Moyers is a loon. I won't argue otherwise. Mr. Moyers has argued that capitalism and democracy are incompatible. I think that is because Mr. Moyers disapproves of capitalism. But the reality is that capitalism and democracy are intertwined. Where (other than Hong Kong) can you find capitalism without democracy?

That said, I found "Capital Crimes" to be overwhelmingly fair. Sure Mr. Moyers makes some over-the-top claims ... particularly when he tries to connect the Abramoff scandals to the White House. I've never been comfortable with that claim.

I don't think I learned a single new thing in "Capitol Crimes", but the documentary covered a lot of ground the MSM has not stressed strongly enough. Everyone needs to watch the whole thing. Here are some points that I particularly liked:

1. A shady Russian energy baron / arms dealer (Alexander Koulakovsky) gave $1 million to an organization closely linked to Tom DeLay. Koulakovsky even asked what would happen if a luxury car appeared in the DeLay's Sugar Land driveway. Meanwhile, Tom DeLay voted in favor of an IMF bailout that benefited the same energy barons. Blog Link

2. The Jack Abramoff-Grover Norquist-Ralph Reed manipulated Christian believers into unwittingly supporters of their corrupt agenda. Too few Christians have taken responsibility for their role in this scandal. In the very first month at the old place (even before Tom DeLay's resignation), I praised Christian journalist Marvin Olasky for bringing this matter to the forefront. It was Mr. Olasky's reporting that, in large part, opened my eyes with respect to this scandal. In "Capitol Crimes" Suzii Paynter of the Texas Baptist Christian Life Commission criticizes the Abramoff-Norquist-Reed abuse of Christians. To her credit, Ms. Paynter has been making these points as early as 2005. Not enough Christians hold themselves accountable for enabling this scandal.

3. My absolute favorite part of "Capitol Crimes" is the discussion of Edwin A. Buckham's payments to the DeLay family:

[Ed] Buckham, in turn, paid [Tom] DeLay's wife more than $3,000 a month and set up a retirement account in her name. In all, the money machine operating out of the safe house paid almost half a million dollars to the family of Tom DeLay. [6:24 of Part 4]

Do you see why when I gutted the old place last year, I renamed it "Edwin Buckham paid Christine DeLay"?

==

Watch all four parts of "Capitol Crimes"

"Speech or Debate" vs. "Statute of Limitations"

On Tuesday, July 31, 2008, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) was indicted for failing to properly disclose certain "gifts" he received. Of course I was pleased to hear this news. I thought about making an entry on this development, but I decided against it. Even though my readers knew Sen. Stevens "was toast" due to his connection to VECO nearly a year ago, I thought making a post that trumpets an indictment that everyone has heard about would be a victory lap. We don't do that at the Anti-Corruption Republican blog.

In the indictment (.pdf), Sen. Stevens is only accused of making False Statements on required disclosure statements. Although the indictment alleges that Sen. Stevens received over half a million dollars in "gifts", Sen. Stevens is not charged with receiving this largess. The indictment clearly says that "Stevens could and did use his official position and his office on behalf of VECO" (paragraph 17). VECO requested federal funding, including grants from the National Science Foundation, yet no quid pro quo relationship is alleged.

Why? Why didn't the Justice Department make more serious allegations in the indictment?

Frank Razanno, a former US Attorney, thinks that bribery charges may have triggered a "Speech or Debate" defense (see press release):

"Bribery charges could have been brought in Alaska, where the investigation has been centered. Instead, an indictment for false statements was brought in Washington, D.C. This suggests that the government did not believe it could prove bribery, or that difficult speech and debate clause privilege issues under the U.S. Constitution stood in the way. So, the Department of Justice appears to have elected to pursue easier-to-prove charges in Washington, D.C., a jurisdiction that is notorious for holding politicians' feet to the fire," said Razzano.

Last August, I observed the emerging trend of politicians using the Speech or Debate defense. Essentially, the Speech or Debate defense attempts to prohibit prosecutors from looking at any legislative act when building a bribery case. Without determining how a politician used his official position, a prosecutor is severely limited in terms of building a bribery case. It seems absurd to me that politicians would wrap themselves in the US Constitution to beat a bribery rap, yet here we are.

I'm sure Mr. Razzano's explanation is the correct one. After all, Mr. Razzano is a former US attorney. But while watching the news coverage this week, there might be another explanation.

Let's watch the Justice Department's press conference from Tuesday:



At 7:15 of this video, Assistant Attorney General Matthew Friedrich fields this question from a reporter:

Q: Is there any kind of statute of limitations issue that dealt with what statutes you all went after in charging?

Mr. Friedrich: We always need to pay attention to statute of limitations. Beyond that, I'm not going to comment.

Mr. Friedrich clearly doesn't confirm a statute of limitations problem. In fact, one simple explanation is that Mr. Friedrich is saying that the Justice Department is aware of the statute of limitation law and abides by it. Good. It is important for the Justice Department to feel constrained by the law.

But we know that the statute of limitations to bribery has been a factor in other cases. The Justice Department needed a waiver on the statute of limitations from former Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio):

Prosecutors signaled their intentions with Ney by identifying him as "Representative #1" in pleadings filed with the court. In October, Ney was formally notified that he was under criminal investigation, and at the prosecutors' request he agreed to extend the five-year statute of limitations for six months while they investigated possible bribery charges.

Ney's actions involving the cruise line could still expose him to criminal liability if the government brings a conspiracy case against him, legal analysts said. In that instance, the statute of limitations is pegged to the date of the last alleged criminal act in a chain, not the first.

Apparently, our own former Congressman Tom DeLay (R-Sugar Land) has given the Justice Department a waiver on the statute of limitations:

[Tom] DeLay, an outspoken opponent of gambling, was an instrument, witting or unwitting, in eLottery's campaign, documents and interviews show. Along with former aide [Tony] Rudy, he was a guest on a golfing trip to Scotland. As majority whip, he cast a rare vote against his party on the Internet gambling bill and for the rest of the year helped keep the measure off the floor. He told leadership colleagues that another vote could cost Republican seats in the hard-fought 2000 elections.

A statement from DeLay's lawyer said his votes "are based on sound public policy and principle."

The Scotland trip is one aspect of the gambling matter being investigated by the corruption task force. The trip took place more than five years ago, which ordinarily would be beyond the five-year statute of limitations on certain possible corruption charges. But legal sources say prosecutors have obtained a waiver of the time limit because of the need to gather information abroad.

Emphasis added

I've always wondered if Mr. DeLay's "fish or cut bait" temper tantrum was in response to another Justice Department request for a statute of limitations extension. My speculation is that the Justice Department cornered Mr. DeLay into signing another extension and that Mr. DeLay's outburst was in response to being outmaneuvered.

Predictive Power of Judge Kennedy's July 15 Order

Click on the "Teltschik" tag below for background on Teltschik vs. Williams & Jensen et al.

==

On July 15, US District Judge Henry Kennedy denied a Motion to Dismiss (.pdf) filed by several of the defendants in Teltschik vs. Williams & Jensen et al. The efforts of Williams & Jensen, PLLC, Barbara Wixon Bonfiglio, Meredith G. Kelley and Robert J. Martinez (the W&J defendants) to dismiss the case were unsuccessful. Meanwhile, plaintiff and former ARMPAC treasurer Corwin Teltschik still has an outstanding Motion to Reconsider (.pdf) a previous court order dismissing Federal Election Commission chairman Donald McGahn from the lawsuit. Let's look at Judge Kennedy's July 15 order and try to predict how he'll decide the outstanding Motion to Reconsider.

FACTORS IN FAVOR OF SETTING ASIDE ORDER DISMISSING DON MCGAHN

1. On November 30, 2007, Judge Melinda Harmon of the Southern District of Texas granted (.pdf) Chairman McGahn's Motion to Dismiss because she found that plaintiffs had not shown Chairman McGahn had the minimum number of contacts in Texas for the court to have jurisdiction over the case. In other words, Judge Harmon determined Texas wasn't the right place to bring suit. Mr. Teltschik has successfully transferred the case to Washington, DC. Mr. Teltschik has fixed the jurisdiction issue.

2. In their own Motion to Dismiss, the W&J defendants (.pdf) raised many of the same issues as Chairman McGahn does in his opposition (.pdf) to Mr. Teltschik's Motion to Reconsider. Mr. Telschik prevailed against the W&J defendants. If the questions of fact and law are similar enough, Mr. Teltschik should prevail in his Motion to Reconsider.

FACTORS IN FAVOR OF DENIAL

1. Judge Kennedy may show a great deal of deference to Judge Melinda Harmon of the Southern District of Texas. Judge Kennedy might be reluctant to change that outcome unless he is convinced the facts of the case demand it.

2. In his opposition to Mr. Teltschik's Motion to Reconsider, Don McGahn raised a number of reasons beyond the personal jurisdiction issue that Judge Harmon cited when she dismissed due to issues of jurisdiction. Even if Mr. Teltschik has fixed the issue of jurisdiction, he still may not prevail on all of the other issues.

3. In her order dismissing Chairman McGahn from the case, Judge Harmon seemed to see a distinction between the acts of the W&J defendants and Chairman McGahn. In short, I concluded that Judge Harmon thought the Chairman McGahn was less culpable than the W&J defendants. If the thinking Judge Kennedy and Judge Harmon are similar, Chairman McGahn may very well prevail on the failure to state a claim issues.

==

I'm no lawyer and have no position on the merits of Mr. Teltschik's Motion to Reconsider. I simply want this case to move forward in order to get to discovery. Mr. Teltschik has indicated that he will call DeLay family members as witnesses. I'd like to see Tom DeLay answer questions about ARMPAC under oath. I hope Mr. DeLay wouldn't invoke his 5th amendment rights.


Of course, it is in Chairman McGahn's interest to convince Judge Kennedy to deny Mr. Teltschik's Motion to Reconsider. Two new attorneys have advised the court that they will represent Chairman McGahn. The tighty-whitie law firm of Covington & Burling has always represented Chairman McGahn. Robert Kelner and another lawyer (.pdf) were named in a Notice of Appearance as counsel for Chairman McGahn.

Mr. Kelner is the Chairman of Covington's Election and Political Law Group. Wow! A big gun! I wonder if this case worries Chairman McGahn more than it did before the W&J defendants lost their Motion to Dismiss. I guess one can't be too careful.

Anyway, the court seems to have rejected the Notice of Appearance because two lawyers were listed on it. The other lawyer (.pdf) has filed his own individual Notice of Appearance. Mr. Kelner has yet to file his individual Notice of Appearance. C'mon Kelner. Find your helmet! Get in the game! Team McGahn needs to play some defense.

===

August 10, 2008
Correction / Clarification

At the time I made the above entry, I was under the impression that Robert Kelner had not represented Don McGahn. This was inaccurate. Mr. Kelner represented Chairman McGahn (.pdf) in this case when it was in Judge Harmon's court here in Southeast Texas.

Since Chairman McGahn was dismissed (.pdf) from this case in November 2007, Mr. Kelner's client was not a defendant. Therefore, when the case was transferred to Washington, Mr. Kelner wasn't representing anyone in this matter. He didn't have to filed a Notice of Appearance. Now that Mr. Teltschik has submitted a Motion to Reconsider Chairman McGahn's dismissal, Chairman McGahn needs representation again. That is why the Covington & Burling attorneys are advising Judge Kennedy that they represent Chairman McGahn. My earlier speculation that a "big gun" was being brought in due to fear generated by the loss of the W&J defendants in their own Motion to Dismiss is no longer operative.

That said, Mr. Kelner still hasn't filed his own Notice of Appearance. Can't you find your helmet Mr. Kelner?