U.S. Attorney nominee refuses to tell all

Add to Technorati Favorites
 
Here we go again.

In a process to make sure that people aren’t put in a position of conflict of interest, U.S. Attorney’s are required to put their client names on the application form.

This is to keep former clients cases from being affected one way or another by a former lawyer in their employ.

Once again, it doesn’t count for Barack’s friends though.

Paul J. Fishman, nominated to serve as the U.S. attorney for New Jersey, is citing the privacy interests of the clients – an exemption that is permitted under federal ethics laws, but that leaves prosecutors on an honor system to police their own conflicts, ethics watchdogs say.

While this is permissible, this also leaves room for corruption down the road if a particular client comes up in front of the attorney. You’ll forgive me, considering the last five month’s worth of nominees problems, if I don’t necessarily want to trust in Barack Obama’s nominee’s sense of honor.

[This attorney is holding back] the names of “approximately 37 confidential clients,” saying they cannot be named because they are involved in grand jury or other secret investigations.

Oh, I don’t see any problem here. But then again, it isn’t just me.

“If this person is going to be able to exercise the law enforcement powers of the U.S. government, you want to make sure he doesn’t have any conflicts,” said Gregory Ogden, a law professor at Pepperdine University who has taught ethics.

“To some extent, you have to trust the guy’s ethical integrity and experience and balance that against the possible concern that he might not be as vigorous with people he’s represented.”

I’m not entirely sure that’s possible at this point. I don’t know – maybe it’s splitting hairs, but I can’t see the harm in listing the names of the clients simply to make sure their folders never cross his desk. I know in his mind he has this right, but what about the rights of the people he will be representing in the position of U.S. Attorney? Don’t they have the right to feel comfortable in his ability to perform his duties without any likelihood of impropriety?

What makes me uncomfortable?

Mr. Fishman reported more than $2.3 million in “law partnership income” since the start of 2008 on his ethics form. Although more than half of his client list remains secret, Mr. Fishman’s public list reveals involvement in several high-profile and politically sensitive cases prosecuted by the same office that he is seeking to run.

Oh, isn’t that just cozy?

If this man is to receive a confirmation that just breezes through, someone else’s ethics should be questioned.

Oh, wait – most of their ethics are being questioned by the people they represent in the Senate.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/23/attorney-nominee-wont-id-all-clients/

Advertisements

Fired IG Calls White House Explanation Baseless – Says Hes Being Targeted

 
Add to Technorati Favorites
 
Okay – facts so far:

1. KJ asked for money for his organization for “tutoring, building rehab and art projects” – gets 850,000.00

2. IG asked in BY AMERICORPS to investigate money irregularities

3. IG investigates – files report (I have the full .pdf of this report)

4. IG finds that the money is going for inappropriate uses including padding the payroll at KJ’s company and personal ditties to include having people wash his car and get paid out of these funds

5. IG recommends to company that is giving out the money to stop KJ from getting that money

6. Company giving money agrees – cuts KJ off – chooses not to file charges

7. KJ gets elected mayor of Sacramento

8. Problems become public when judgement issued that Sacramento can’t receive stimulus money because guy who would be in charge of it (KJ) was guilty of screwing with federal funds before- Sacramento can’t have any federal dollars

9. Uproar – probable private phone call to BO who is friends with and supported by KJ in election

10.  BO aide calls IG – asks him to step down or be fired

11. IG resigns

12. IG goes public as he should with something as UNtransparent as this

13. BO now comes out with allegations that the IG was confused and disoriented at a meeting, as well as other allegations attacking the IG’s spotless character and rep. This was in no way questioned at any point up til now by anyone – guess the man went senile overnight because BO SAYS he did.

Wonder if Sacramento will get their money now? Anyone know?

 Fired IG Calls White House Explanation ‘Baseless,’ Says He’s Being Targeted – Political News – FOXNews.com.

Americorps fraught with Fraud? IG fired for discovering it?

Michelle Malkin has done it again, bringing us a story on Americorps and the fraud and corruption inside it.

This little-noticed story in Youth Today yesterday points to another example of Walpin blowing the whistle on fraud:

The inspector general (IG) of the Corporation for National and Community Service is being removed by President Barack Obama, a week after the IG questioned the eligibility of the largest and most expensive AmeriCorps program, and while the IG was contesting the “propriety” of a settlement made with a mayor for alleged misuse of AmeriCorps funds.

Funding for the largest AmeriCorps program – the Teaching Fellows Program, run by the Research Foundation of the City University of New York – is in abeyance pending resolution of widespread problems identified in a recent audit. Although Walpin recommended that funding be curtailed and that previous funds (perhaps as much as $75 million) be repaid to the corporation, the corporation has said it will take no action on that matter.
 

Walpin concluded that nothing was being gained by the grants to CUNY and that the money was simply being used to subsidize an existing and funded program.

This Inspector General filed his report which you can read here: http://www.cncsig.gov/AuditReports.html

This is only the beginning – here is a little piece of the report filed:

The Office of Inspector General (OIG), Corporation for National and Community Service (Corporation), contracted with Cotton & Company LLP to perform agreed-upon procedures to assist the OIG in grant cost and compliance testing of Corporation-funded Federal assistance provided to The Research Foundation of the City University of New York (RFCUNY). The Corporation awarded two Education Award Program grants to RFCUNY that were categorized as Professional Model grants.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

As a result of applying our procedures, we questioned education awards of $16,152,414 and draw downs of $773,254. In general, we questioned the education awards for members whose eligibility was not established in accordance with grant requirements for criminal background checks. Draw downs were questioned mostly for fixed fees related to members whose eligibility we questioned and also for drawing down in excess of fees earned. In addition, our compliance findings when taken as a whole indicate pervasive problems of eligibility, timekeeping, and documentation. A questioned cost is an alleged violation of a provision of law, regulation, contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or other agreement or document governing the expenditure of funds or a finding that, at the time of testing,
includes costs not supported by adequate documentation.

…Participants who successfully complete terms of service under AmeriCorps grants are eligible for education awards and, in some cases, accrued interest awards funded by the Corporation’s National Service Trust. These award amounts are not funded by Corporation grants and thus are not included in claimed grant costs. But at the time that a grant is awarded, and due to the grant award, these amounts become immediate obligations of the National Service Trust. Therefore, as part of our agreed-upon procedures, and using the same criteria used for the grantee’s claimed costs, we determined the effect of our findings on AmeriCorps members’ entitlement to education and accrued interest awards.

The following is a summary of grant compliance testing results…

1. RFCUNY drew down more funds than it was due.

2. RFCUNY did not follow certain AmeriCorps Provisions.

3. The supervisory signature on members’ timesheets was not the members’ supervisor, or that of someone with direct knowledge of hours served by the members.

4. Members did not always record actual service hours on their timesheets.

5. Some members’ timesheet hours were not accurately recorded in the Corporation’s Web-Based Reporting System.

6. RFCUNY did not require its members to timely submit their member contracts, forms, and timesheets.

7. RFCUNY used preprinted member documentation and did not ensure that all member documentation was completed, signed, and dated.

8. RFCUNY did not maintain documentation to demonstrate that each member’s evaluation complied with AmeriCorps Regulations and the Member Agreement.

9. RFCUNY did not maintain documentation to demonstrate that members received criminal background checks and that any background checks conducted complied with AmeriCorps Provisions.

10. RFCUNY entered incorrect member start dates in Corporation systems and in member contracts.

11. Some members worked beyond their contract-end date.

Personally – I would love to add something pithy or meaningful – but frankly, this is something I can’t add much to. This is just corruption and the cover up of corruption by people who are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the majority of the American people and act saintly while practicing cronyism, machine politics, and protection of a supporter caught with his hand in a cookie jar.

Since the American people, in their wisdom decided in their knee jerk pied piper routine to follow the media down this rathole to socialism and petty identity politics, we have no way of slowing this train down if the Democrats all decide to hop on the ride at the same time.

It’s becoming more and more apparent that investigations are going to be stopped, people looking into things will be punished or removed and people who question methods or ideas will be attacked, and generally in a hateful manner.

This is the hope and change that everyone was hoping for, right?

The debt everyone cursed Bush for is quadrupled, the war continues with more troops being sent back to the Middle East, our ally is being ignored in favor of Iran and Hammas, unemployment is worse than predicted, tax cheats put into office, people being fired to cover up fraud, dates, fly overs, etc.

I can’t stand what is going on here –  this IG did his job, and should be rewarded, not punished. The people who should be punished are the people who are committing misdeeds, not the ones discovering them.

If you want a lot more information, take a look at this site:

 http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/12/obamas-americorps-scandal-and-the-first-ladys-meddling/trackback/

Add to Technorati Favorites

Conservatives Confused over how to fight Sotomayor? The Answer is SIMPLE!

While reading Nealz Nuze (I learn so much from his “required readings”), I ran across this article today discussing how the Right cannot come together on how to oppose Sotomayor.  The big “official” sticking point is that everyone is seemingly unclear about her position on abortion.  THIS IS RIDICULOUS!

While I personally am against abortion (for very personal reasons), I believe that that is a decision that must be between a woman and her god(s), her morals, and her conscience.  My point here is that in my opinion, it is divisive and corrosive to focus on one issue, especially THIS issue. 

I also, personally think that the Right is afraid to look like they are bigoted or racist, because Sotomayor is Hispanic.  THAT kind of thinking is what got us Obama in the first place, isn’t it?  And obviously, the Left had no problem with that when Miguel Estrada was nominated to the Washington D.C. court of Appeals.

A note to the Right:  You want a talking point?  You want an issue to use to oppose this woman?  Here it is, in HER OWN WORDS:

“All of the legal defense funds out there–they’re looking for people with court of appeals experience. Because court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know, I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law. [Laughs] I know. I know. [Laughter] I’m not promoting it, I’m not advocating it, I’m…y’know.”

There ya go.  Just what we need – ANOTHER liberal judge who thinks that courts should MAKE policy, instead of judging by law.

If the Right doesn’t get together on this, there is gonna be a whoooole lot of shakin’ goin’ on come 2010!  I will personally look forward to it with great anticipation!

Here’s the article; with thanks again to Neal Boortz:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22984.html

Environmental Radical appointed by Obama

You know, sometimes you CAN indeed tell the type of person you are by the people you hang out with.

The Reverend Wright,  you might be able to excuse. A terrorist that you may or may not hang with, no big deal.

What if you appoint one? What if you put a self confessed communist and radical into a special position in your administration. Does that make any difference or are we still just whistling dixie? Are we still telling scurrilous lies to harm your character and keep you from getting elected or are your character flaws starting to really show through?

President Obama – if what everyone was claiming was such a falsehood, such an exaggeration to play politics, why did you appoint Van Jones as your environmental special adviser.

Want to hear some quotes from him?

Let’s try this one:

“I’ll work with anybody, I’ll fight anybody if it will push our issues forward,” he told the left-leaning East Bay Express in a 2005 interview. “I’m willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends.”

Maybe this one?

Speaking to the East Bay Express, Jones said he first became radicalized in the wake of the 1992 Rodney King riots, during which time he was arrested.

“I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th,” he said. “By August, I was a communist.”

“I met all these young radical people of color – I mean really radical: communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ‘This is what I need to be a part of.’ I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary,” he said.

Want to know more about his organization – STORM?

Jones was a founder and leader of the communist revolutionary organization Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM. That organization had its roots in a grouping of black people organizing to protest the first Gulf War. STORM was formally founded in 1994, becoming one of the most influential and active radical groups in the San Francisco Bay area.

STORM worked with known communist leaders. It led the charge in black protests against various issues, including a local attempt to pass Proposition 21, a ballot initiative that sought to increase the penalties for violent crimes and require more juvenile offenders to be tried as adults.

The leftist blog Machete 48 identifies STORM’s influences as “third-worldist Marxism (and an often vulgar Maoism).”

What country are we living in? What time/space warp did Obama suck us into?

For more info check out this blog:

http://politicaladept.com/2009/05/12/will-a-red-help-blacks-go-green/