Posted on 09/13/2002 7:28:52 AM PDT by snopercod
Bill Simon, the Republican nominee for governor, spoke with CaliforniaJournal recently for a story to be published in the magazine's special election issue this October. In that story the governor and a broad arrayof other state leaders and politicians examine the current race for governorand the state of politics in California today. Here, California Journal offers a timely sample of the coverage that will appear in its October special issue.
SACRAMENTO-Bill Simon said in a recent interview with California Journal that some of the jurors who found hisfamily company guilty of fraud earlier this summer were Democrats who may have been influenced by his Republican campaign for governor.
"It could be possible," he said. "Occassionally, there are outlandish jury verdicts. Was this a politically motivated verdict?I don't know. But it is not founded on the facts."
Simon spoke with the magazine before a Los Angeles judge Thursday overturned the jury's unanimous finding that William E. Simon and Sons defrauded a former business partner, who also turned out to be a convicted drug dealer.
Campaign officials said the candidate's suspicions about the jury were based on interviews with jurors conducted by attorneys for William E. Simon and Sons after the verdict.
Attorney John Morrissey told California Journal that the jurors said their decision was not influenced by politics. Buthe also said they had seen campaign television commercials by the time the trial started in July. And he said they identified one juror who was active in Democratic politics and had strong feelings about the court case.
"In many ways, she apparently drove the conversation,"he said. "How big a part of [the verdict] it is, I don't know."
Morrissey did not reveal the identity of the juror and he said the lawyers did not interview her. But during the juryselection process, he said she described herself as a "politically active" college graduate student. He said she had experience on ballot measure campaigns and she assisted a college professor working on the recent Democratic reapportionment process.
Morrissey was not involved in the jury selection for the case and he did not know why the individual juror was not excused by attorneys for the Simon firm. He speculated that the lawyers may havereached their limit on how many prospective jurors they were allowed torule out.
Morrissey also said his notes from the jury selection process did not identify how many jurors were registered as Democratsor Republicans, which he said is a customary question during a trial likethis one.
While the jurors said their decision was not influenced by politics, Morrissey said, "for whatever reason … [jurors] saw this as big guys versus little guys-and they saw Simon and Sons as the big guy."
Last July, the jury found that William E. Simon and Sons concealed from the founder of a Southern California payphone company its plans to borrow heavily and expand the company so it could go public. The plan failed and the company was taken over by banks, costing the partner, Edward Hindelang, $23 million. The jury ordered Simon's firm to pay $78 million.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant overturned the jury verdict because he said Hindelang "defrauded" Simon's firm and other investors by not disclosing his previous drug conviction and the fact that federal authorities were attempting to recover drug money, some of which may have been used to found the phone company.
Simon's suspicions about the jury were not the only political fingers pointed at this court case, however.
Campaign aides to Governor Gray Davis reacted to the judge's decision by noting that Chalfant was appointed by former Republican Governor Pete Wilson and that he and his wife and father have been contributors to GOP campaigns, including Wilson's. Garry South, chief strategist for Davis, stopped short of saying the decision was politically motivated.
"I'll let you decide," he said.
Well let me tell you simply: You don't know what would have happened had public financing not been there to enrich the few, do you? You are assuming that because they were publicly financed that there was no private alternative.
Railroads? The way they were financed was a mistake. These were the first fascist empires in the US. Had the land for the corridors not been stolen by an unconstitutional exercise in eminent domain, land speculation companies would have used the capital gained from the seeming windfalls to have created the corridors anyway. The only difference would have been the beneficiaries: Instead of Eastern financial interests buying political influence, there would have been Western land use contract marketing entrepreneurs.
We might be much further along toward my system had we not embarked upon this archetypal example of socialism for the benefit of a political elite.
Highways? I would suggest to you that they would have happened anyway and that they would probably now be in better repair. The land use speculation mechanics that would have developed for railroads would have been in place to do roads.
You keep citing these things as if they were still the unmitigated blessings they seemed to be when new while ignoring the endemic disrepair and obsolescence we have seen in publicly financed infrastructure. They are still running the original generators at Hoover Dam.
You missed one: air travel. Under my system you would pay to fly over my land and airports would be privately funded. Of course, lacking that would mean a heavier demand for telecommunications.
Between subsidized air travel and regulated telecommunications forcing phone companies to keep their copper, we would be AT LEAST ten and perhaps twenty years further down the road toward full integration of broadband Internet had we not pursued those policies because there would be more fiber in the ground. That would mean less driving. That would mean less imported... oil.
Yup. Them again. The people who have regulated telecom pricing are the same people who gave us the power crisis.
No, definitely not. But asking hard questions with an open mind. There's a big difference.
There are two issues here. One is the accrual of Federal Power. The other is whether or not rivers would be better protected under public or private stewardship (the kayak industry would certainly exist under either). I realize that you've developed a system of incentives which you feel would definitively answer the question in favor or private - but I want to emphasize a point here. Without those incentives private ownership would be extremely destructive.
Socializing risk is why it was possible for four airliners to crash on September 11.
Nobody's had that thrown at them in - oh - 150 years. Is it a compliment?
No. I keeping citing these things because they are real issues ... illustrating two vastly different points of view.
The government undertook these ventures for several very good reasons. Their benefits are obvious. Their drawbacks increasingly so. As you say it is hard to know whether an alternative would have been better. But if you're doing a cost/benefit analysis - and especially if you're recommending on future policy - you have to take a position.
The dominant don't do too badly under private enterprise either, often managing in one way or another to socialize the risk while privatizing the profits. Surely you don't believe all those who swindled stockholders are going to jail (not least because a lot of swindling is legal)? There will always be politically dominant - because nature did not make all men equal. The dominant will always seek - and gain - advantage. Presumably your system will mitigate the more destructive aspect of the situation - as capitalism was an improvement on feudalism.
Under my system you would pay to fly over my land and airports would be privately funded
It used to be that strong individuals would sit on important passes and exact tolls from travelers. Military force was necessary to unseat them - and it was done because free passage was deemed more important to the body politic than the preservation of individual rights. Do you believe that was wrong?
I'm all for experiments of this type.
No, my "in other words" was an attempt to explain what I perceived as an unfairness in the law. Such things exist.
As long as a bargain is entered into with full disclosure
Here is where we disagree. I preface my "in other words" by the assertion that Simon concealed, hid, did not disclose an element essential to the contract - no different than what Hindelang did with his criminal past. If you accept that assertion then it looks like the judge interpreted the law as allowing concealment by one party but not by the other.
The assertion may not be true. That is in dispute. The L.A. Times reports the judge's final judgement as saying it is true. Post #62 reports his summary judgement as saying it is false. Until the final judgement becomes available this can't be resolved.
These issues are difficult enough to resolve given good faith on all sides. The "nice try" remark is a pretty rude assumption of bad faith on my part, don't you think?
Hindelang was convicted of drug smuggling in 1981 or 1982. Simon purchased his Coin Phone Company is 1998 - 16 (or 17) years later. It's possible that Hindelang used some drug money to start his company but that's a possible personal liability only (I've not read anywhere of government intentions to lien the company). Otherwise there's no connection between the two events.
So how was Simon defrauded by Hindelang's concealment of his criminal past? Had there been no bankruptcy there would have been no lawsuit and no accusation of fraud. If Hindelang had been exposed, Simon would have claimed he'd done due diligence, his experience with Hindelang was entirely positive , he was not responsible for events 16 or so years in the man's past...and that would have been the end of it.
It's the bankrupcty which has been so damaging - that's what's exposed him to charges of fraud - and that is entirely the result of Simon's business strategy.
That's odd - it was a unanimous verdict. Maybe the 22 yo activist browbeat them all into it, but you're not much of a juror if you let that happen against your better and considered judgement.
Camejo ain't looking too good either.
Judge throws out fraud verdict against Calif. GOP gubernatorial candidate
It's truly amazing how many articles I had to go through to find this. Please ping anyone you know who might be interested. I've run out of time for the moment.
Yes. I didn't realize it was a unanimous verdict till I read your post. Since this was a civil trial, I had assumed it was not unanimous since at least one juror was glad it was overturned.
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.