Fwd: Paul Campaign Convention Strategy

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jesse Benton

Memorandum

To:               Supporters, Interested Parties

From:          Jesse Benton, Chief Strategist

Date:           May 15, 2012

Re:              Paul Campaign Convention Strategy

Every day, I see firsthand how humbled and encouraged Dr. Paul is to have the enthusiastic support of so many who are committed to revitalizing our country.

Let me be very clear.  Dr. Paul is NOT dropping out or suspending his campaign.

As Dr. Paul has previously stated, he is in this race all the way to the Republican National Convention in Tampa this August.

And he is deeply grateful for every resource he has been entrusted with to run an historic campaign that continues to defy all expectations.

Looking ahead, our campaign must honor that trust by maximizing our resources to ensure the greatest possible impact at the National Convention.

So while our campaign is no longer investing in the remaining primary states, we will continue to run strong programs at District and State Conventions to win more delegates and alternate delegates to the National Convention.

To this end, our campaign has several positive and realistic goals:
1)    Having recently WON Maine, we believe we can win several more states.
2)    We will win party leadership positions at both the state and national levels.
3)    We will continue to grow our already substantial total of delegates.
We will head to Tampa with a solid group of delegates.  Several hundred will be bound to Dr. Paul, and several hundred more, although bound to Governor Romney or other candidates, will be Ron Paul supporters.

Unfortunately, barring something very unforeseen, our delegate total will not be strong enough to win the nomination.  Governor Romney is now within 200 delegates of securing the party's nod.  However, our delegates can still make a major impact at the National Convention and beyond.

All delegates will be able to vote on party rules and allow us to shape the process for future liberty candidates.

We are in an excellent position to make sure the Republican Party adds solid liberty issues to the GOP Platform, which our delegates will be directly positioned to approve.  Our campaign is presently working to get several items up for consideration, including monetary policy reform, prohibitions on indefinite detention, and Internet freedom.

Finally, by sending a large, respectful, and professional delegation to Tampa, we will show the party and the country that not only is our movement growing and here to stay, but that the future belongs to us.

Dr. Paul will begin this new phase of the campaign this Friday by speaking and holding several events at the Minnesota State Convention.  He has also recently accepted an invitation to speak at the Texas Convention, and we are busy scheduling appearances around other State Conventions later this month and into June.

As Dr. Paul stated in his message yesterday, this fight is NOT over.  We will continue fighting and expanding, and "we will not stop until we have restored what once made America the greatest country in human history."

But for Dr. Paul's efforts in the remaining State Conventions to be successful, and to ensure we get as many Ron Paul delegates to Tampa as we can, he needs you to continue standing with him.

Along those lines, as you probably already know, the grassroots are holding a Money Bomb on Thursday, May 17.  Any money raised from that Money Bomb will go toward winning delegates and finalizing our plans for Tampa.

As those plans for the National Convention come together, we will make sure all of our delegates, whether bound or unbound, get the information and aid they need.

Your support on May 17 will also help us reach more Americans with the solutions we know can restore our nation.  Each person we add to our cause strengthens our movement for the critical work that awaits us beyond Tampa.

Dr. Paul, John Tate, myself, and the entire campaign staff know what incredible sacrifices have been made by each of our supporters.

Thank you for all of your hard work and your dedication to liberty.  Together, we will champion Ron Paul and his message in Tampa, and we will lay the groundwork for future victories.

Republicans are cheaters and that party will never be able to recover.

Fwd: Project Report from Julian Heicklen, 12–11–11

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Julian P Heicklen <jph13@psu.edu>
Date: Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 4:08 PM

Hi Tyranny Fighters:

PROGRESS REPORT, 12–9–11

We are now Living in Stalin's Soviet Union.

The Congress has just passed a bill by overwhelming margins to permit the President to arrest and detain any person indefinitely without a trial whom he deems to be a threat to the country.

1. Already it is the illegal immigrants and the presumed terrorists.

2. Next it will be the militias and gun owners.

3. Then the opposing press and intellectuals.

4. Then a Democrat President will dispose of the far right.

5. Then a Republican President will dispose of the far left.

6. Then come the atheists, Zoroastrians, and Rastafarians.

7. Then the Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Shintos, and Mormons.

8. Then the dissenting Christian clergy.

They will all be used as slave laborers until they die.  If they do not die fast enough, then comes the gas chambers.  Already the U. S. government is reopening the FEMA camps to house all of the new prisoners.

It only took about 15 years for Stalin and Hitler to accomplish this.

The good news is that I may die before they come for me.

Jury Tampering Case

As many of you know, I am being tried for jury tampering.  On Monday, December 12, 2011, at 10:00 am, I was supposed to have a court hearing in front of Judge Kimba Wood at the U. S. District Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York , NY 10007.  Presumably the only issue to be discussed was the Constitutionality of the indictment.  However the hearing has been postponed, until when or why I do not know.

The U. S. Attorney's position is that:

1. Jury nullification is legal, but that jurors are not to be informed of this.
2. It is permissible to distribute my literature in a public forum.
3. The plaza in front of the courthouse is not a public forum.

All of my pertinent submissions to the Court are posted on my web page at: 

http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/p/jph13/U._S._v._JPH_in_Manhattan_NY_12_08_11.html

To make sense of this you need two other documents which are attached.  They are:

1. Memorandum of Law submitted by Sabrina Shroff

2. Response to her Memorandum by the U. S. Attorney

Chronologically, they precede my letter to Judge Wood and Reply Memorandum of November 29, 2011.

I have prepared a new flyer to distribute at federal courthouses.  It appears at the end of this E-mail for your comments.

Another View

Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP (c.k.a. Stroock) is an American law firm based in New York City with approximately 350 lawyers in three offices, the other two being in Miami and Los Angeles. Stroock, founded in 1876, maintained an office in Boston from 1996 to 2000 and briefly maintained an office in Budapest as well.

Stroock was named "Law Firm of the Year" by Securitization News in 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroock_%26_Stroock_%26_Lavan

Joel Cohen, a lawyer at Strroock & Stroock and Katherine A. Helm have written an article about jury nullification 

(http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202535168513&slreturn=1)

much of which attacks me as a person.  Of more concern is their ignorance of the law.  They state that: "It is a doctrine that encourages jurors to decide cases irrespective of the law given to jurors during trial." Actually jury nullification does not encourage jurors to decide cases irrespective of the law unless justice is not being served.  

They also state "Runaway jury verdicts would amount to little more than a random 12-person vote, where each person could vote their conscience, their pocketbook, a flip of their coin, or what have you."  This is a deliberate falsehood.  Jury nullification only requires that the issue of justice be predominant.  They do not seem to be equally concerned that a judge, prosecuting attorney, the President, or a police officer can dismiss for any reason whatsoever.  

They further write: "But, for the U.S. Attorney's Office prosecuting him, on a misdemeanor charge, for violating Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 1504 ("Influencing Juror By Writing"), Heicklen was intentionally, and very directly, seeking to impede the legal process by stopping jurors in their tracks."  This statement is incorrect for two reasons: 

1) The statement in the code says: "influencing juror by writing or sending to him."  I do not send stuff to jurors.

2) I do not stop jurors in their tracks.  I do not even know who jurors are.  I only distribute literature to people that approach me. 

They go on to state: "The truth is: That's not the law. Our justice system is based on jurors following the law as instructed by judges. As the 2nd Circuit made exquisitely clear in U.S. v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606, 614 (2d Cir. 1997):"  Actually the Constitutions of both New York and New Jersey require the jury to judge the law as well as the fact.  Several U. S. Supreme Court decisions and opinions have upheld this view.

This article is interesting for several reasons.  Much of it attacks me as a person, which is irrelevant.  The authors are completely ignorant of the Constitutional requirements for the Jury.  They incompletely quote a statement in a statute to alter its meaning.  They are willing to permit me to discuss my ideas where no jurors are present, in what are often called free speech zones.  That is a euphemism which means where no-one interested in the information will be present.

The article was written by a lawyer in the "Law Firm of the Year," a law firm with 350 lawyers and branches in several U. S. cities, presumably with the sanction of that firm.  Is this the best that the legal profession can provide?

The Free Dictionary defines judiciary as "A system of courts of law for the administration of justice."  Most lawyers and all judges consider the purpose of a judicial system is to uphold the law, when its real purpose is to deliver justice.  Law is only the means to that end, not the end in itself.  

Michael Allison

Michael Allison was charged with five counts of eavesdropping in Illinois because he took pictures of police making arrests.  Each charge carries a 15-year sentence, so Allison could have spent 75 years in prison.  Subsequently the charges have been dropped.  In 12 states it is a crime to photograph police making arrests.

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNlJYSIzjoU)

THE PRICE OF LIBERTY IS IMMEDIATE VIGILANCE

THE PRICE OF JUSTICE IS IMMEDIATE PUBLICITY

The time is now.  Tomorrow will be too late.  Yours in desperation—Julian

WHAT IS THE JURYʼS DUTY?

JUDGEʼS CHARGE

JUDGE WILL TELL THE JURY THAT IT MUST UPHOLD THE LAW AS HE GIVES IT

HE WILL BE LYING; TWICE 

THE LAW

"...THE JURY SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE THE LAW AND THE FACT."

NY Constitution Article I § 8

U. S. Constitution Amendment X

GUILT MUST BE ESTABLISHED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT

Leland v. Oregon 343 U.S. 790 (1952) 

Winship 397 U. S. 358 (1970) 

Sullivan v. Louisiana 508 U. S. 275, 278 (1983)

U. S. ATTORNEYʼS POSITION

JURY NULLIFICATION IS LEGAL

THE JURY MUST NOT BE SO INFORMED

JURY NULLIFICATION CAN BE DISCUSSED ONLY IN A PUBLIC FORUM

THE PLAZA IN FRONT OF A COURTHOUSE IS NOT A PUBLIC FORUM

JURYʼS DUTY

THE JURY MUST JUDGE THE LAW AS WELL AS THE FACTS

IF THE JURY UPHOLDS THE LAW, IT MUST BE THE WRITTEN STATUTE

IF THE COURT HAS NOT GIVEN THE JURORS THE WRITTEN STATUTE THERE IS REASONABLE DOUBT

THEN THE JURY MUST ACQUIT

PSU predictions N@

Do the victims expand (be it at a much smaller measure) to include the 55 men on the football team today, and the 20 woman volleyball squad in 2014 if $20-M evaporates at PSU because of an abrupt removal of people due to a wicked backlash?

It is an honest question.

An airplane pilot can be pulled out of the drivers seat because a co pilot some years ago became an accused rapist. But there is a full plane of different people still in flight. Auto pilot can't land that jumbo jet with confidence. We have time, space and relationship problems and these matters need to be measured in real time.

My guess is Jo Pa is in the press box on Saturday in Nebraska and is not on the sidelines or even in the stadium the final two regular season games. He will get to talk to the team a few more times. He will get to game prep with film and such. All the assistants will be gone after the regular season. A bowl game might be declined. Who in the world hires the next staff is for another day.

Public Transit and Private Investments - Dan Sullivan's mentions

Brian O'Neil of the P-G wrote about a Libertarian friend, Dan Sullivan:

Though hard to believe, private transit was worse
Sunday, March 27, 2011
By Brian O'Neill, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

If ever you get to thinking an idea is new or will solve all problems, read some history.

Take public transit. (And take it quick, before your route is axed.)

Why not privatize it? The very word evokes a cleanup, like Simonizing the car or deodorizing your armpits.

But Pittsburgh had private bus service for a very long time. Only old-timers would remember the almost annual fare hikes in the 1950s, and fewer still would know that the Pittsburgh Railways Co. spent much of the first part of the 20th century in and out of bankruptcy proceedings.

Allegheny County's Port Authority took over Pittsburgh Railways and other transit lines, each with its own fare structure and no transfer privileges, in 1964 -- when these private carriers were circling the drain.

Dan Sullivan, 61, is an Oakland resident who rode the private trolleys as a kid and has been poking the powers on Grant Street for most of his adult life. But he isn't nostalgic for private lines.

A student of local history, Mr. Sullivan reminded me that Christopher L. Magee, Pittsburgh's 19th-century political boss, became nationally famous by artfully ripping off this city through the streetcar lines he owned.

Lincoln Steffens, the great muckraker, outlined that history in 1903 in "Pittsburg: A City Ashamed.'' (So many people were stealing from the city then that someone evidently absconded with Pittsburgh's "h''.)

Pittsburgh long has been allergic to a genuine two-party system, so a Republican machine ran the city then. Mr. Magee, a charming rogue in partnership with the harder-edged William Flinn, ruled all but absolutely.

"The city has been described physically as 'hell with the lid off,' '' Mr. Steffens wrote in McClure's magazine in May 1903. "Politically it is the same with the lid on.

"Magee wanted power, Flinn wealth. Each got both those things; but Magee spent his wealth for more power, and Flinn spent his power for more wealth.''

Rail, specifically the Pennsylvania Railroad, was king then. In Pittsburgh and in Harrisburg, its lobbyists distributed railroad passes to politicians. (Until Super Bowl tickets were invented, lobbyists had to make do.)

Rail barons became so adept at seizing land through eminent domain, Mr. Sullivan says, that America gained a new verb, "to railroad,'' meaning to rush something through. But the Magee-Flinn machine was too canny to just give plums away. The bosses kept the lion's share for themselves and the two men made ridiculous money.

"Magee did not steal franchises and sell them. His councils gave them to him. He and the busy Flinn took them, built railways which Magee sold and bought and financed and conducted, like any other man whose successful career is held up as an example for young men.''

Mr. Magee's Consolidated Traction Company was capitalized at $30 million at a time when the city's public debt was $18 million, Mr. Steffens wrote. Yet Pittsburghers not only tolerated this legal graft for a quarter century, they revered Mr. Magee. When he died in 1901, they began pitching in for his monument.

His memorial stands near the Carnegie Library in Oakland. Dedicated in 1908, when it attracted a crowd of 2,000 people, this bronze-and-granite tribute to Christopher Lyman Magee was one of the final works of the great sculptor Augustus Saint-Gaudens.

Magee-Womens, the hospital Mr. Magee founded in honor of his mother, stands at the site of one of his old railway administration buildings.

There is a Citiparks swim pool also called Magee.

Mr. Sullivan's website, http://www.savingcommunities.org, has a long section under the heading "Private Railroads and Plunder.'' He believes "forward-thinking plunderers are recognizing that the era of the automobile is coming to an end, and want to get their transit back.''

I don't buy predictions of the car's demise, nor of any wholesale switch from public to private transit. But it's clear the Port Authority can't continue as a vital way to get around without a massive overhaul.

On Friday, the head of the transit union offered the equivalent of 13 percent in wage givebacks (with some of that diverted to the pension fund). The Port Authority board rejected that offer and decided Saturday to move ahead with the route cutbacks that take effect today.

And there's no talk of building any monuments to anyone.

He refers to Dan's website. The pertinent link is:

http://www.savingcommunities.org/issues/transportation/railroadplunder.html

This is what I will touch on at the conference in Minnesota, where several transit experts will speak on funding transit through land value capture.

http://www.cgocouncil.org/conf11.htm

Dan's Note: Our objection to privatized transit is that it consists of licensed monopolies. Truly private enterprise is either unlicensed or based on open licenses to all who can meet safety standards.


Harold wrote: I wish Brian had explained the basis of Magee's "legal graft" - one assumes it was through city and borough councils giving him bankrupted trolley and bus lines for free, rather than making him and Flinn pay the market price through a public auction, but it'd be nice to know for sure.

Navigate to this link: http://www.savingcommunities.org/issues/transportation/railroadplunder.html

The end point from Dan on the page above says: If public transportation is to function properly, it must be placed completely under public control and funded from the land values it creates. 

I support the "Land Value Tax."

But to the point of public transit, I also think that the PAT, an AUTHORITY, is wrong on a number of critical matters. First off, I don't think any authority is really under public control. The board members are appointed and are not accountable to the voters. I would love to see authority board members face 'retention votes' so that they must pass a layer of public review at the ballot box to retain their appointed positions. Last week I squeaked about this to Chelsa Wagner.

Furthermore, the public authority is too big and itself a monopoly. If we must have public transportation, allow for a bit of competition among the public entities. For example, PAT should be split into a bus company, a rail / light rail company, and then a tunnel and bridge and busway company. The third would be a physical asset company, more like a PAT Pike.

If PAT's busway, or PAT Pike, was a stand alone company, then I am sure that we'd have bikes on the East Busway and through the tunnel under Mt. Washington. I'm sure that we'd have the Presidential motorcade hit the busway for mid-day trips into and out of the city without jamming the Parkway West for a full day. And, I'm sure that the operation and maintenance of the tunnel under the river would not be seen as a wise investment as each rider would have to pay far more than $20 a trip. Plus, we'd get real transit hubs with small business development that made sense -- far beyond a few park and ride stations.

Ethics in Politics

Good job to Wayne Allen Root, Libertarian.

West Mifflin school director cites death threats

West Mifflin school director cites death threats: "In the report, the workers said they made repairs to Dr. Graham's swimming pool and installed a new dishwasher. Later, the workers provided photos of the work alleged to have been done at Dr. Graham's pool."

Swimming pools are in the news again. But, not in a good way -- and with mentions of deaths -- and that's never in a good way. But here, it swirls in with ethics. Good golly. The Mon Valley is so special, isn't it.

Put a fork in the City's Ethics Hearing Baord

Pittsburgh has an Ethics Hearing Board. It stinks. And, it stinks as to how City Council set it up and maintains its mission and adjusts its framework. The shame is big and wide and everyone in City Hall is to blame as well as those who have been on the board there. They've done next to nothing and there is no hope in sight.

So today's news of a PIC bring a new wrinkle. Let's just get rid of the City's Ethics Hearing Board. Of course the PIC isn't for real just yet. But, we do know that the Ethics Hearing Board in Pittsburgh is really bad.

Good News: Public Integrity Commission Proposed


Rep. Curt Schroder, R-Chester, today announced that he will introduce legislation to create the PA Public Integrity Commission (PIC). The PIC, which would incorporate the existing State Ethics Commission, would have new powers to root out public corruption among PA’s local, state and federal officials in all three branches of government. Click here for today’s story in the Harrisburg Patriot.


At a news conference in front of Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Schroder said, “Our freedoms and liberties, guaranteed and enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, are under attack and the threat is from within. The corruption that has taken root in our system of government here in Pennsylvania is a direct threat to the social contract that establishes our government subject to the consent of the governed.”


Unlike the current Ethics Commission, the new Public Integrity Commission would have a cadre of trained law enforcement personnel to “look over the shoulders” of public officials, investigate allegations of corruption and refer cases to state or local prosecutors when warranted. The PIC also would have subpoena power and the power to grant immunity in order to compel reluctant witnesses to testify in corruption cases.


Schroder began asking for co-sponsors last Wednesday and as of this writing has 28. The bill is being revised and will not have a bill number until it is formally introduced. When that happens, DR News will let you know.


Another prime sponsor is Rep. Eugene DePasquale, D-York. At the news conference, DePasquale made a telling observation.


“When lawmakers introduce a bill, the first question is always, ‘Why do we need this?’ With this legislation, no one is asking why. We all know why,” DePasquale said.


As if to underscore the point, the news conference occurred on the same day that two former House leaders were back in court. Former Speaker Bill DeWeese, D-Greene, and former Whip Mike Veon, D-Beaver, are seeking different things from the court. At a preliminary hearing, DeWeese is arguing that he should not go on trial for allegations of using tax-funded offices and personnel for partisan political campaigns. Veon, currently serving 6 to 14 years after being convicted of using millions of tax dollars for illegal campaign activity, is in court seeking a new trial on that conviction.


Click here for an early story from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette about the DeWeese hearing.


Independents and Education


Two other elements of the proposal warrant attention. The bill requires a nominating committee to select potential members of the commission. Both the nominating committee and the commission membership must include members who are neither Republicans nor Democrats. This gives the large percentage of voters who do not belong to the two major parties a seat at the table for the first time.


Another key feature of the PIC proposal is a requirement to educate public officials about legal and illegal conduct in office. This aspect gains new importance as defendants claim they didn’t know their actions were illegal.

Attorneys for DeWeese and others who await trial – former Revenue Secretary and Rep. Steve Stetler, D-York, and former Senate Whip Jane Orie, R-Allegheny – argue that the existing law is too vague for public officials to know what they can and can’t do. They also argue that their clients should be set free because “everyone else was doing it” and that whatever illegal activity might have occurred didn’t amount to much.

Click here for an Orie story from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.


The PIC proposal is not perfect, and it is likely that some lawmakers will seek to strengthen it with amendments to ban gifts and gratuities for public officials (favored by 66% of PA voters), for example. All of that will take place in a public process that citizens can watch and weigh in on.


Questions:
Has your Representative co-sponsored this proposal?
If not, what are his or her objections?
If so, how will your Representative work to move the proposal through the House?


Note:
Because we are a tax-exempt non-profit organization, Democracy Rising PA does not endorse specific legislation or lawmakers. However, we can acknowledge proposals and lawmakers who make extraordinary efforts to advance higher standards of public integrity.


This PIC proposal is the only comprehensive attempt in the past five years to change the culture of corruption in the capitol. For that alone, it deserves the close attention of citizens throughout the Commonwealth.
Please forward this edition of DR News and encourage your friends to sign up for future editions by clicking here .


Please support DR’s work with a tax-deductible contribution.
Thanks!




Democracy Rising Pennsylvania abides by strict NO-SPAM rules. Please read our Privacy Policy for more details.
We can be reached at: P.O. Box 618, Carlisle, PA 17013

Election Machine, Firmware Verification Meeting at 9 am

Original posting at 8:50 AM. Update(s) below.

I just sent this letter via fax to the Allegheny County Election Department to insure that the Libertarians are going to be present at a firmware verification event at 9 am this morning on the North Side.

---

Mark Rauterkus
Vice-Chair
Libertarian Party of Allegheny County
924 Chislett St.
Pittsburgh, PA 15206
(412) 661-1135 = chair
(412) 298-3432 = vice-chair’s cell

Mr. Mark Wolosik
Manager, Division of Elections, Allegheny County
604 County Office Bldg., 542 Forbes Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2953
(412) 350-4500
Monday, December 22, 2008

Dear Mr. Wolosik:

As Vice-Chair of the Libertarian Party of Allegheny County, I write this letter to inform you that we authorize Ronald Bandes, a qualified elector of Allegheny County, to observe on our behalf the verification of voting-machine firmware which will be carried out today. As you may recall, in the November 2008 general election our party fielded several state-wide candidates and also a candidate for the General Assembly, David Posipanka of Homestead.
Sincerely and Respectfully,

______________________________, Vice-Chair

Allegheny County

This letter was also faxed to the Allegheny County Department of Elections before 9 am today.

---

Update at noon.

At 12:15 PM I got an alarming call from our designated watcher, Ron. He was asked to leave the firmware validation meeting. He was there for a while, perhaps 90-minutes. But then when the task of getting into the process began in earnest, he was sent packing. The Libertarians were not invited, so it seems, according to the election official.

Nobody wants to go to jail on the eve of Christmas Eve.

Golly, what the hell are they hiding?

First point of keen interest. The process was described to those at the meeting. Then a chip was pulled from the board. And, according to Ron, the chip that was pulled was not the chip that they had talked about in the pre-process description. Another, different chip was pulled for the first test. Then it was time to show Ron the door.

So, I just called Dan Onorato.

Courthouse 436 Grant Street Dot Room 101 Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Phone: (412) 350-6500 Dot Fax: (412) 350-6512

I'll call the Election Department next. Then I'll call the media.

Mark Wolosik, Division Manager County Office Building 542 Forbes Avenue Room 604
Fax: (412) 350-5697 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 350-4500

Called the Allegheny County Election Department. They got my letter. They faxed it to the North Side warehouse where Mark W, Director, was working. He got it. I understand it was Mark W, director, who asked the guy to depart.

Voiced displeasure and said that I'd like to have that decision reversed and would accept an invite and apology. And, said my next call was to the media.

Called the Post-Gazette, Rich Lord and then the Pittsburgh City Paper, Chris Potter. Both are looking into the matter, so I was told.


Getting kicked out of places is not so fun. This is worth a photo.

Older photo. Election Protection volunteer and Mark Rauterkus.

The Burgh Report gets an insightful quote from City Councilman, Bruce Kraus

The blog reads:

The Burgh Report'Oh bite me,' Bruce Kraus volunteered to the Burgh Report when asked for his own reaction. 'You can put that on the record.'

Splendid quote from such a deep thinker.

Q & A about Pgh Ethics Hearing Board from a student at Pitt

Hello Mark,

I am a student at the University of Pittsburgh that happens to be working on a case study involving Luke and the Ethics Hearing Board. The course is Board Governance and we are studying different aspects of board governance (especially those that are not for profit). You seem very opinionated and I am requesting your thoughts on the Pittsburgh Ethics Hearing Board to use in my analysis. I thought instead of using the different newspaper articles and simply highlighting what everyone already knows, I would turn to bloggers to get the “real deal” and see what actual Pittsburghers think about the Ethics Board, Luke, and their actions especially during the investigation period. Please forward this message to your fellow bloggers if you think they would be willing to share some insight as well.

1) Was the City of Pittsburgh Ethics Hearing Board board structure and composition helpful or hurtful to the organization? Did board members have conflicts of interest?

2) Was the City of Pittsburgh Ethics Hearing Board board a “good board?”

3) In your estimation, did the City of Pittsburgh Ethics Hearing Board reach a fair decision on clearing Mayor Luke Ravenstahl on any wrong-doing? Were there any clear signs of negligence or incompetence on the part of the board or any of its members?

4) Did the board operate independently or did it do the bidding of Mayor Luke Ravenstahl (recall that two members of the board are nominated by the major)?

5) In your research, did you see any board activities that seemed questionable?

6) What did the board do right? What did the board do wrong?

7) Should the City of Pittsburgh Ethics Hearing Board change their policies and/or procedures as a result of this set of hearings against Mayor Luke Ravenstahl?

8) What do you think motivated board members to join the Pittsburgh Ethics Hearing Board? What agenda if any do you think each has as a board member?

Thank you, (Student's name and contact NUKED until I hear from him again.)

My replies:

#1) I've come to understand that the Pittsburgh Ethics Hearing Board is nothing but a big joke. It is not helpful. It is not going to improve upon the ethical behaviors of those in local government. It is a sink. It is much like a fiddle for the mayor and others to play at their will. It moves too slow. I've seen glaciers move more quickly.

Those that are presently on the Pgh Ethics Hearing Board seem ill-prepared for the duty of being on the board. They have put in a request for a budget of $40,000 per year to the President of Pittsburgh's City Council. A big portion of that payment is for 'training.' These folks are not trained. They are in the dark and they know it. They are in over their heads. They are frozen with in-action. And, they won't move until others come to their aid and hold their hands.

I think those on the board who are not ready to be ethical and act as they are called to behave should resign. This is not a place for on the job training.

The organization of the board is fine. However, the people they have picked are fine with being in their role as puppets.

The board's leader, Sister Patrice, was in a conflict of interest by putting out a mention about the golf to Luke. She can't be judge and prosecutor in the same instance.

The board is also building a task force to look at the matter of gifts from the nonprofits. They are all from the nonprofit world. And, they seek more input from the nonprofits. This is okay -- but it comes at the exclusion of taxpayers, citizens, voters, residents. Everyone there has a nonprofit job. The want to increase the direction given to the nonprofit weenies. So, there are certain conflicts of interest because citizens are being excluded.

Rather than reform, however, it is often better to just replace first.

2) The City of Pittsburgh Ethics Hearing Board board IS (present tense) a joke. The board stinks. That is NOT a "good board." I'm not sure why you ask about "WAS" (past tense). The board operates. It is not changing, sadly.

3) In my estimation, the City of Pittsburgh Ethics Hearing Board has not yet reached a clear decision on Mayor Luke Ravenstahl's golfing in the summer of 2007. The code is still up for discussion and changes. Letters have been sent. Various filters and opinions are still brewing. A task force has been called, but not gathered. This matter won't be completed until 2008. Perhaps it will be over by the middle of the next golf season.

If the same offer was put forth again today, I expect that the same outcomes would unfold from the administration. It is not resolved. The lessons are not firm in everyone's understanding. Moving forward, there is much doubt that lingers.

The board members put Luke on trial and that was a very clever way of getting him off the hook. What they found could not stick. The complaint needed to come from a citizen. The Ethics Hearing Board just acts as JUDGE.

4) Without doubt, the Pgh Ethics Hearing Board operates without any hint of independence. It is a branch of the Law Department, in turn, a branch of the Administration, and, of course, the mayor!

5) In my opinion and research, I have found that all of the board activities are to be questioned. First, the entire process is undermined with the confidentiality requirement. Citizens should not be subject to fewer rights of speech because they file a complaint with the Ethics Hearing Board. The Ethics Hearing Board is unconstitutional.

The Ethics Hearing Board should look to all city officials, employees, contractors and candidates. The Ethics Hearing Board seems to think that candidates can't be unethical and that if they are -- that is not within their scope of concern. Go figure.

6) The Ethics Hearing Board has been worthless to the citizens and the struggle to live in a more ethical region.

7) The City of Pittsburgh Ethics Hearing Board should change its policies. Radical changes are needed. They should happen quickly. First, those that can't tell what is right and wrong should resign. Those that can't open their own mail without it being screened by the law department should quit. Those that are clueless to the first amendment rights such as freedom of speech, should never be in any public capacity. The board should call for massive changes to the code and operations by saying it will stike down the provisions of confidential behavior from anyone who makes a complaint. And, all liabilities should be revoked as well. The board isn't in any position to dish out punishments. It should never be in that role.

8) Board members are motivated to help with the city for countless reasons. Pride, civic duty, and an awareness of the city's ills are just a few reasons. The agenda of the board members are for them to reveal -- not me. I can't begin to read their minds.

Ethics Hearing Board replies with 3 letter from George R. Specter to me, Mark Rauterkus

Letters are dated November 14, 2007. There are three of them.

Dear Mr. Rauterkus:

I am writing to you in response to the Complaint which you have filed with the City of Pittsburgh's Ethics Hearing Board against Bruce Kraus. As you know, the Pittsburgh Ethics Code vests the City Solicitor with the initial duty of conducting a preliminary inquiry into the validity of the Complaint. If that preliminary inquiry fails to establish reason to believe that the City provisions have been violated, the Solicitor is to terminate the inquiry and so notify the complainant, the subject of the complaint and the Board.

Accordingly, please accept this letter as official notice that your Complaint against Mr. Kraus is being dismissed for the following reasons:

Lack of jurisdiciton. The Ethics Hearing Board has jurisdiction to hear Complaints alleging violations of the City Ethics provisions. The City Ethics Code is applicable to City officials and City employees. Because Mr. Kraus is not a City employee, the Board lacks jurisdiction to hear a complaint against him.

Prematurity: Your Complaint alleges wrongdoing which has not yet occurred, and many never occur. Therefore it must be dismissed on the grounds of prematurity.

On behalf of the Board, I think you for your interest in the City's Ethics Code.

Sincerely, George R. Specter, City Solicitor

---

So, this letter tells that the City Ethics Hearing Board will do nothing about a candidate for office in a race for a position in the city.

And, the letter tells us that the City's Ethics Hearing Board is not going to be proactive.

Dear Mr. Rauterkus:

I am writing to you in response to the Complaint which you have filed with the City of Pittsburgh's Ethics Hearing Board against Michael Lamb. As you know, the Pittsburgh Ethics Code vests the City Solicitor with the initial duty of conducting a preliminary inquiry into the validity of the Complaint. If that preliminary inquiry fails to establish reason to believe that the City provisions have been violated, the Solicitor is to terminate the inquiry and so notify the complainant, the subject of the complaint and the Board.

Accordingly, please accept this letter as official notice that your Complaint against Mr. Lamb is being dismissed for the following reasons:

Lack of jurisdiciton. The Ethics Hearing Board has jurisdiction to hear Complaints alleging violations of the City Ethics provisions. The City Ethics Code is applicable to City officials and City employees. Because Mr. Lamb is not a City employee, the Board lacks jurisdiction to hear a complaint against him.

Prematurity: Your Complaint alleges wrongdoing which has not yet occurred, and many never occur. Therefore it must be dismissed on the grounds of prematurity.

On behalf of the Board, I think you for your interest in the City's Ethics Code.

Sincerely, George R. Specter, City Solicitor

Then the third letter.

---

Dear Mr. Rauterkus:

I am writing to you in response to the Complaint which you have filed with the City of Pittsburgh's Ethics Hearing Board against the Ethics Hearing Board. As you know, the Pittsburgh Ethics Code vests the City Solicitor with the initial duty of conducting a preliminary inquiry into the validity of the Complaint. If that preliminary inquiry fails to establish reason to believe that the City provisions have been violated, the Solicitor is to terminate the inquiry and so notify the complainant, the subject of the complaint and the Board.

Accordingly, please accept this letter as official notice that your Complaint against the Ethics Hearing Boards is being dismissed for the following reasons:

Your Complaint alleges that the City's Ethics Code is itself unethical insofar as it requires that Complaints be kept confidential. The Code rpovision to which you refer was enacted by City Council in 1990. Though the Board can request changes to the City Ethics Code, the Board has no authority to change the Code without Council approval.

A Complaint to the Board is an inappropriate forum for your challenge. Unless and until it is changed by Council, the Board intends to abide by the law as it is written.

On behalf of the Board, I think you for your interest in the City's Ethics Code.

Ethics Hearing Board of Pittsburgh meets. Everything they do should be turned on its head.

Once again I punished myself and went down to another Pittsburgh Ethics Hearing Baord meeting at 10 am today (Friday, Nov 9, 2007). This little blog of mine, I'm going to let it shine.

In the bible, we learn that it is a stupid -- if not a sin -- to put a candle under a basket. Praise the Lord. We learned that next year's meetings of the Ethics Hearing Board will NOT be made closed to the public on an every other month basis as they talked about last month.

I suggested to them that we need more ethics in the city, not less. The Ethics Hearing Board should meet every week -- not every month.

In other developments, I told them that they need to set their record straight. The Ethics Hearing Board was not formed one year ago, as one of the members spoke about in the meeting. Sophie was the Mayor of Pittsburgh when the Ethics Hearing Board came into being. That was about 15 years ago.

Since the board began, we've come to discover that there have been four complaints filed to the Ethics Hearing Board from citizens. I filed three in September. Those matters were hinted at in the October meeting. And, as of now, still, after the November meeting, there is no progress on those matters. They have not been put on an agenda. They have not been talked about by the board. Nothing.

When a citizen files a complaint to the Ethics Hearing Board -- if they are doing their jobs -- you'd expect a reply of some sort. I do. I did. I am waiting. I have gotten nothing.

http://Elect.Rauterkus.com/ethics/

In no uncertain terms, the gag order that goes upon citizens who file a complaint undermines the entire process. And, it is unconstitutional. Rights of a citizen to free speech should never be taken away.

There is a larger book, not the bible, in this case, but the Constitution, that rules.

i want the Ethics Hearing Board to stand tall and ask that city council and the mayor change the code so as to strike down all elements of confidentiality plus the powers of the board to dish out liabilities and punishments.

In other matters, the head of the Ethics Hearing Board, Sister Patrice, is going to meet with City Council President Doug Shields today at 1 pm. After the meeting I ran to Doug's office to try to give him a head's up. He wasn't in -- and all the staffers were busy.

I'll send him an email next, as an open letter.

The Ethics Hearing Board is putting in a request to City Council for an annual budget of $40,000.

I didn't have the heart to tell them that the 2008 budget had already been approved by the OVERLORDS and that the city was broke.

The Ethics Hearing Board is trying to expand government and spend more taxpayer money. I object.

The members of the Ethics Hearing Board would like to go to the Local Government Academy. Fine. They should go. It is a great program. But, they each can pay for their own admission. And, don't go asking for a foundation or the church / temple to pay -- as we'll encounter another goofy situation with admission fees being covered by outside sources. This time it is not golf, but a class.

It seems that the Ethics Hearing Board members are convinced that they need to bring in experts on Ethics to give them training to do their jobs. They are hungry for insights. They want a training budget.

They are in over their head! If the members of the Ethics Hearing Board can't do the job because they are unaware of what it entails, they should resign. They are not up to the tasks. The Ethics Hearing Board is not a place for on the job training at taxpayer expense. Do the job.

The Ethics Hearing Board might need secretarial assistance to make phone calls. They might need webmasters to build web pages. They might need a stenographer. They might need to hire their own attorney. The might need to pay for outside speakers. They might need to educate the employees and hold seminars.

The Ethics Hearing Board is now forming a new sub-committee to look at a part of the ethics code, section 1.97.07. This concerns the golf outing from the summer. Today they put a deadline on this resolution from the sub-committee to the Ethics Hearing Board of April 2008.

So, when I posted here, or elsewhere, that Luke's golf outing problem from the summer of 2007 would have final resolution around the first of the year -- I was wrong. Looks like it won't be resolved until the sub-committee does its work, makes a report in April, and then it goes back to the Ethics Hearing Board to chew it over. Perhaps something will be to City Council in the middle of next summer's golf season.

That's some round, or two, of golf.

The Ethics Hearing Board is forming a sub-committee to focus in upon 1.97.07 and the gift matters from charities. So they thought it was a good idea to invite in the nonprofits to join the task force. They debated if one or two slots should go to the foundation types, as there are social service providers on one hand and foundation folks on the others. Those folks, after all, are the ones where the impact of the golf fees resides.

OMG.

Not a peep about taxpayers, citizens, voters, nor everyday people. These members of the Ethics Hearing Board, a nun, a rabi, a member of the Alcoa Foundation and a minister (I think) are worried about what the foundation folks might think. They don't want to have an "unyielding body" in that task force. Or was is "un-wheeling" body?

The Ethics Hearing Board wanted to add to the weight of the recommendations of golf outings for their consideration so they can forward them to city council so that votes might be proposed for the eventual change in the city ethics code.

If we are looking for people to replace the deck chairs on the Titanic, I know just who to turn to, Pittsburgh's Ethics Hearing Board.

If anyone has a hand-me-down 8-ball fortune teller toy -- could they please pass that on to the Ethics Hearing Board. They are looking for a tech upgrade and need some direction.

Ethics Hearing Board -- have you ever heard of "Do it yourself?"

Re-write the code. And, do it yourself.

Get educated. And, do it yourself.

Do the job. And, do it yourself.

While you are doing things, begin by sending a letter to the new controller. Tell him you think that confilcts of interest are a big deal and they should be avoided at all costs. So, he should resign from the board of A+ Schools, right away.

Michael Lamb, the new controller, said in the media, that he would seek the opinion of the Ethics Hearing Board as to his board position for a booster group for the Superintendents and Foundation's agenda for schools. In so many words, Lamb said he was clueless as to the ethics of the matter at hand and he would be looking for guidance from you. Give it to him -- in a letter -- for all to see.

This little blog of mine, I'm going to let is shine. Let is shine, let it shine, let it shine.

Update: Coverage in the P-G the next day:

Task force considers charitable event changes
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The city of Pittsburgh's Ethics Hearing Board voted yesterday on the composition of a task force that will recommend changes to rules on public officials' attendance at charitable events.

The task force will be chaired by ethics board Vice Chair Kathy Buechel, and members will include fellow board member Rabbi Danny Schiff, one member appointed by the mayor, one or two members appointed by City Council, and one member each from the foundation and the corporate world.

The ethics board has opined that officials should only be allowed to attend charitable functions as guests of the charity, rather than under sponsorships from third parties. Mayor Luke Ravenstahl has opposed restrictions on official attendance at charitable events, proposing instead a requirement that any gift of an event ticket worth more than $500 should be reported on annual disclosure forms.

The board also intends to ask for a $40,000 budget line from the city to pay for ethics training, clerical help and an independent investigator when needed.

Ethics Hearing Board boss, Sister Patrice, due any moment on KDKA Radio

Why would Sister P.H., boss of the Ethics Hearing Board, be slated to a KDKA Radio call-in show today? She'll be on Kevin Miller's show. Who is booking her to those appearances?

Is the Sister going to speak out about the arrival of the new Bishop?

Is the Sister going to speak about the secrecy of the Pittsburgh nonprofit trust fund that generates money for the city in unknown ways from unknown sources in unknown amounts with an unknown future -- by design?

I hope to call into the show and ask her if she'll hold a meeting in October. The last monthly meeting was scratched as a quorum was not present.

Am with good assumptions that the Sister would have gotten copies of these documents by now. They were delivered to her via the Pgh Law Department on Friday. http://Elect.Rauterkus.com/ethics/

As one who files a complaint, I'm under the thumb of 'confidentiality.' But, is she?

Blab about it bloggers.

Wayne Fontana should have resigned post in Allegheny County Council when candidate for PA Senate

Campaign intro paperwork

This was on the Rauterkus.com website in the past.

Visiting a pool in the Cheh Republic

The moms and babies get to swim in the pools in the day. Very popular as the moms get time off of work. 

Not certain on the date of our trip to Praha and Vienna.