Posted on 04/20/2006 6:32:52 AM PDT by Ooh-Ah
FALLS CHURCH, Va., April 18 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) conducted a nine-month investigation into Rep. Alan Mollohan's Financial Disclosure Reports and concluded that it contained more than 200 errors or omissions. NLPC issued the following statement responding to Rep. Mollohan's defense of his sharp rise in wealth in recent years:
Mollohan's recent statement was characterized as "a detailed response to two major allegations" which described as the alleged unexplained increase in the value of his assets from 2000 to 2004 and the allegation that he grossly underestimated the value of his investments over nine years.
Rep. Mollohan claimed that the increase in his holdings was "easily explained," stating, "It is substantially due to the surge in real estate values in recent years, particularly in the District of Columbia."
NLPC Chairman Ken Boehm responded:
Rep. Mollohan's explanation failed to list much in the way of dollar figures and it's no wonder. The figures from his own Financial Disclosure Reports contradict him in a way that is beyond dispute. At issue is the value of Mollohan's 50 percent interest in the Foggy Bottom condominium company Remington, Inc. was advertised as "Washington's Best Kept Secret." Below is the information taken from Mollohan's own filings along with property information (units owned) taken from the D.C. Recorder of Deeds Office:
Year: 2000; Asset Value: $2,002 - $30,000; Units on 12/31: 26; Income Type: Sub S Corp Income; Income Amt.: $30,002 - $100,000Year: 2001; Asset Value: $30,002 - $100,000; Units on 12/31: 26; Income Type: Sub S Corp Income; Income Amt.: $30,002 - $100,000
Year: 2002; Asset Value: $30,002 - $100,000; Units on 12/31: 26; Income Type: Sub S Corp Income; Income Amt.: $200,002 - $2,000,000
Year: 2003; Asset Value: $1,000,002 - $2,000,000; Units on 12/31: 27; Income Type: Sub S Corp Income; Income Amt.: $100,002 -$200,000
Year: 2004; Asset Value: $2,000,002 - $10,000,000; Units on 12/31: 27; Income Type: Sub S Corp Income; Income Amt.: $100,002 - $200,000
The Financial Disclosure Reports require the value of assets to be listed within specified ranges. While this makes an exact figure for the increase in value between two years impossible to assess, it does allow anyone with a calculator to determine the minimum increase in value. Simply calculate the percentage increase between the highest figure in the base year (2000) range and the lowest figure in the most recent year (2004).
Here's the math: Mollohan's interest in The Remington was valued by him to be worth between $2,002 and $30,000 in the year 2000. His Financial Disclosure Report for 2004 valued the same asset at being worth $2,000,002 to $10,000,000. To give Rep. Mollohan the benefit of the doubt and calculate the lowest possible increase in value, you take the highest figure in the year 2000 range ($30,000) and the lowest possible figure in the 2004 range ($2,000,002).
The percentage increase between those two figures is an astounding 6,566 percent.
Rep. Mollohan's claim that the increase was due to the "surge in real estate values" during this four year period is truly absurd. To illustrate how huge a 6,566 percent increase in value is, consider this illustration. You buy a modest condo for $100,000 and it increases in value 6,566 percent over four years. The resulting new value would be over $6.6 million.
The kind of increase in value Rep. Mollohan is claiming for his Remington asset does not even remotely resemble the D.C. real estate market in recent years.
As the chart above indicates, the incredible increase is certainly not due to a large increase in assets. Remington owned 26 units in 2000 and bought one additional unit in 2003 for about $275,000.
Rep. Mollohan's explanation failed to explain why he chose to become a business partner in the Remington in 1996 with an individual who was a government contractor performing work with funding which originated in a Department of Energy facility in Mollohan's congressional district. The business partner received a noncompetitive subcontract for work for which his company had no track record and set up offices in the Alan B. Mollohan Center, an office building run by a nonprofit which has received tens of millions of dollars in federal earmarks from Rep. Mollohan. NLPC obtained the subcontract through the Freedom of Information Act and found that the Mollohan's business partner listed the "Principal Place of Performance" for the contract was 601 24th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037 - the address of the Remington which the partner co-owned with Rep. Mollohan.
There are numerous other problems related to Mollohan's incredibly profitable Remington investment. From 1999 through 2003, Mollohan and his partner owned a $2.3 million income- producing Note with the Remington. The value increased to $4.1 million in 2003 and finally Mollohan disclosed this asset on his 2004 Financial Disclosure Report, valuing it as being worth $1 million to $5 million. Anyone researching the public records could see that Mollohan had a 50 percent interest in this income- producing asset for five years (1999 through 2003) without disclosure as required by law.
It is not surprising that Rep. Mollohan's explanation failed to even mention the numerous issues raised by the two front-page articles in The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times.
To date, he has failed to name a single Member of Congress who has earmarked tens of millions of dollars - or any amount - to a group run a business partner with whom he has more than two million dollars in investments. His action is unprecedented and sets a new low in congressional ethics.
To date he has refused to list the donors to the Mollohan Family Foundation despite clear evidence it comes directly from nonprofits he has funded with earmarked taxpayer dollars and from government contractors, lobbyists and special interests.
To date, he has failed to explain why Mitchell Wade, the head of MZM who recently pleaded guilty to bribing a member of the Appropriations Committee, chose to direct some $23,000 to Rep. Mollohan's political committee. Or why a company sharing government business with MZM, Information Manufacturing Corp., gave $50,000 to the Mollohan political committee during the same period as MZM.
Instead of addressing the real issues, Rep. Mollohan has decided to attack the National Legal and Policy Center as politically motivated. Any review of NLPC's outstanding record in exposing corruption would have shown that many of NLPC's greatest successes have been in exposing corruption regardless of party:
Boeing Scandal: NLPC investigated the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force in the Bush Administration, Darleen Druyun, for financial conflicts of interest. The Wall Street Journal ran a front-page story in October 2003 and Druyun pleaded guilty. She was sentenced to nine months in federal prison.
Rep. J. Fox (R-PA): NLPC uncovered a questionable undisclosed $25,000 loan from a real estate developer and campaign contributor for whom the Congressman had done favors. The Philadelphia Inquirer ran a series of articles on the issue and the congressman was not re-elected.
Food and Drug Administration Commissioner David Kessler: a former Senate staffer for Sen. Hatch's (R-UT) committee, he was appointed to head the FDA by the first President Bush. NLPC learned that Kessler had over-billed the government numerous times on his expense account. The Associated Press ran the story nationwide, there was a call by a leading Congressman for an investigation and Kessler announced his retirement.
http://www.usnewswire.com/
No mention of party affiliation....oh yeah...he's a demoncrap. Nice of them to point out the pubbies tho.
Mr. Taylor's actions do not carry as high a price tag as Mr. Mollohan's, and he is not as high profile a Member of Congress. However, both are Members of the House Appropriations Committee, and that is the primary place where the federal financial pie is sliced up and distributed.
House leadership should immediately remove Mollohan from the House Ethics Committee, and then immediately put these matters before the House Ethics Committee for its action. Anything less than that, and the House leadership, both Republican and Democrat, are complicit in the "culture of corruption" that Minority Leader Pelosi so frequently and loudly lays at the doorstep of the Republicans alone.
As I understand House Rules, it is the duty of Pelosi to remove Mollohan from the Ethics Committee because he is one of its Democrats.
As a matter of full disclosure, I am running against Taylor in the primary here in NC.
P.S. I have an early primary for Congress in the 11th District of North Carolina, 2 May, less than a month away. visit my website in the tagline, and help however you can.
Congressman Billybob
Wow! ... That's quite an accomplishment considering the quality and depth of the competition.
Hey, is this what you mean by a housing bubble?
Top Democrat on Ethics Panel Charged with Ethics Violation
April 13, 2006
The senior Democrat on the House ethics committee said he won't step down from his post. Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.V.) accused Republicans of orchestrating the complaint by a congressional watchdog group and then using it to call for him to leave the ethics committee.
The National Legal and Policy Center said it filed a complaint with federal prosecutors, alleging that Mollohan committed over 250 offenses and consistently undervalued assets on congressional financial reports and also omitted assets.
"I don't see why I should step down," said Mollohan. "All I did was fudge my income statement to save on taxes. Everybody does that. Besides, 250 offenses is less than one a week. What's the big deal?"
Democrats have made ethics a major campaign issue this election year. They accused Republicans of allowing "a culture of corruption" that included an influence-peddling scandal involving a former lobbyist, Jack Abramoff. Republicans have blamed Democrats for partisan battles that have kept the evenly divided ethics committee from opening any major investigations since the current Congress convened in January 2005.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she would not ask Mollohan to step down. "It's not as if he's a Republican or anything," said Pelosi. "They're the ones who should be stepping down."
Mollohan said the complaint is unfair. "Corruption is our issue," said Mollohan. "We have dibs on it. They're just copycats. It's not fair."
The National Legal and Policy Center began investigating Mollohan's assets after his financial disclosure reports showed a significant jump in his net worth between 2000 and 2004. Mollohan's 2000 report indicated he had assets worth between $170,012 to $562,000 and liabilities of $170,000 to $465,000. Mollohan's 2004 report showed he had assets of $6.3 million to $24.9 million and liabilities of $3.66 million to $13.5 million.
Mollohan says he made the money from "wise investments."
read more at...
http://www.azconservative.org/Semmens1.htm
Then, see if he shows up at City Hall to protest and downgrade his evaluations. We'll find out what he REALLY thinks these properties are worth, toot sweet!
I thought the original story when this first came out was that he got an inheritance. Clearly owning 26 condos would be worth much more than what he initially listed those for. Hang him and Jefferson from the same rope to save on tax payer dollars.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.