Censored Whig Letters

Electronic Ballot Backup Clears Md. House
By Lisa Rein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 22, 2007

Voters in Maryland would have their electronic ballots backed up by a paper record under legislation that unanimously cleared the House of Delegates yesterday, one of several efforts underway in the General Assembly to change the way elections are run.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/21/AR2007032101946_pf.html

——————————————————————————–

Republican Political Mafia and Federal Law

There is nothing as corrupt as using the governmental powers of law enforcement, to selectively prosecute your political enemies and to cover-up criminal behavior by your political organization and allies, while in a position of political power. This situation is the essence of the current scandal concerning the firing of US Attorneys by the Bush White House.

The Watergate scandal should have taught the Republican Party that this kind of abuse is outside the bounds of acceptable political behavior in American society. Republican activists failed to learn the lessons of Watergate and are now reliving history on issue after issue. Republican Presidential pardon powers were used to thwart the rule of law and let the Republican political criminal Richard Nixon avoid the jail time he deserved.

Republicans should have gone to jail in large numbers doing the Iran-Contra scandals. In that case, a Republican White House ignored the rule of law. They abused the traditions of normal American political behavior and federal law to impose their minority foreign policy views on an American public opposed to the Republican ideologically based policies. Instead, Presidential pardon powers were abused to help Republican political criminals avoid the jail time they deserved.

The current Bush White House by executive order changed the process on revealing prior Presidential papers to the public early in George W. Bush’s first term in a way that prevented revelation of criminal behaviors concerning Iran-Contra figures. The role of his father, the first George Bush, in the criminal behavior concerning of Iran-Contra remains unexplored. The executive order may violate the Presidential Papers Act.

At issue is Republican Presidential politics influencing potential criminal investigations and prosecutions. The current Republican White House has definitely politicized the process of federal law enforcement in a way that corrupts American government. Unfortunately, they are continuing a long Republican tradition. Republicans seem to view this as politics as usual. It is not! It is corruption and deeply offensive to the real traditions of American government.

Under this Bush, it appears that federal prosecutors have targeted 7 or 8 times more Democratic officeholders than Republican officeholders. The investigations of Democratic state legislators in Tennessee looks politically motivated. Anyone familiar with Tennessee politics knows that Republican politicians in that state are just as corrupt or corruptible as Democratic ones. The federal government has not investigated the Republican officeholders in Tennessee in the way they have Democrats. The political strength of Republicans in Tennessee looks to be closely linked to politicized federal law enforcement by the Bush Administration. The Tennessee politicized law enforcement situation appears ripe for investigation.

Criminal investigations of Republican politicians are slowed to a snail pace by politicized appointees in case after case like the New Hampshire phone jamming scandal. The federal prosecutor who convicted California Republican Congressman Duke Cunningham for corruption was unjustly fired. The federal prosecutor who would not prosecute phony vote fraud charges against Democrats in New Mexico, in time for the 2006 elections as demanded by Republican politicians, was fired.

In 2005, a federal prosecutor investigating criminal charges surrounding the staff of then Republican Governor Bob Ehrlich was fired. The investigation was effectively derailed. This pattern of abuses repeats itself over and over again in state after state.

Unless the Republicans can purge their Party of this criminal tendency to abuse public office and government power for political ends, then Republicans at every level should be voted out of power. Public investigations and investigative journalism should be focused on abuses of office by those in power.

The Republican Party is starting to look like a potential target for a RICO indictment as a profit-making, criminal conspiracy. Their political traditions should be based on American political figures like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson and Teddy Roosevelt instead of Richard Nixon, Dick Cheney and Tom Delay. The current Republican Culture of Corruption is a very sad situation for the Party of Lincoln to find itself in at the beginning of the 21st century.

Written by Stephen Crockett (co-host of Democratic Talk Radio http://www.DemocraticTalkRadio.com .) Mail: P.O. Box 283, Earleville, Maryland 21919. Phone: 443-907-2367. Email: midsouthcm@aol.com .

Feel free to publish without prior approval.

Employee Free Choice Act and Republican Disinformation

Republicans opposing the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act are lying up a storm to swing public opinion against the proposed law. Their primary attack claim is that the bill denies workers a free, fair election by secret ballot. Unfortunately, there is nothing free or fair about the current system of voting on unionization. The law is tilted heavily in favor of company power and against the workers.

I have been involved in an unsuccessful attempt to unionize a business. I saw disturbing examples of intimidation and unfair tactics that the Employee Free Choice Act would have prevented.

Companies are able to hold “captive audience meetings” to argue against unionization. They are legally able to include certain workers and exclude others. Attendance is mandatory for some and prohibited to others. They are held on company time.

Workers trying to unionize are not able to meet on company property without permission of the company. Strong union supporters are usually excluded from “captive audience meetings” so the company position is the only one heard by the workers forced to attend. Sometimes illegal threats or statements are issued at these meetings when the company feels certain that workers attending them will not report them to the federal government.

The burden of proof by law regarding illegal tactics by companies in complaints filed with the National Labor Relations Board definitely tilts toward the company. Most companies fail to see violations of labor laws by anti-union “so-called worker committees” (often comprised of quasi-management employees) while pro-union workers are threatened frequently with being fired if suspected of engaging in pro-union activities. The anti-union “so-called worker committees” can operate on company time (which is illegal) without much fear. While most companies will deny knowing about such activity, it seems likely that these companies often secretly organize these anti-union “so-called worker committees” and direct their operations. In almost every case, the company has complete knowledge of their activities.

Supervisors will often threaten employees when no witnesses are present. Threatened workers are often afraid of reporting the threats or do not know the procedure for reporting them. These threats are illegal but very difficult to prove. The company can fire pro-union workers during the election process to intimidate other workers even if the federal government or courts eventually get their jobs back. In the meantime, the union vote will often go against unionization out of fear.

The company will sometimes threaten to close the business or move it if the workers vote for a union. This is illegal but it does happen. It is very difficult to prove. Illegal activity by the company is difficult to prove in part because many companies make rules against bringing recording devices or cameras into the work area. This also makes it difficult to document unsafe working conditions. Workers can lose their jobs trying to document violations of labor or safety laws by the company.

Union organizers and union officials do not have access to company property during the election cycle to discuss the benefits of unionization. They are not supplied with phone numbers of employees although the companies do have that information.

If you distribute any union materials including union pledge cards on company property during working hours, you can and usually will be fired. Pro-union workers are often warned about this even when they are not actively involved in the distribution of pledge cards or materials just to intimidate them from speaking up for unionization.

The current union election system is not fair or free. It is much like the “free elections” held in Communist countries or other dictatorships. The Republicans and their large corporate masters are being completely dishonest in the way they frame the issue and describe the current situation.

Republicans falsely claim that workers are intimidated into signing union pledge cards. This is so rare as to be almost non-existent. The intimidation is almost entirely on the side of the companies. Companies are in a position of power over workers. Co-workers are simply not in a similar power situation. Only the company is really in the kind of power position to intimidate workers.

Criminal behavior influencing union votes is almost always on the side of the company. The Employee Free Choice Act is designed to stop this criminal behavior and all intimidation of workers. The legislation says that if a majority of workers sign pledge cards in favor of unionizing the union will be automatically recognized by law. It is majority rule. It eliminates the opportunity for the company to block the majority desire for unionization by using illegal tactics and intimidation.

A vote against the Employee Free Choice Act is a vote in favor of the current rigged system. It is a vote in favor of company intimidation and illegal company behavior. It is a vote against the workers.

Democrats overwhelmingly support the Employee Free Choice Act. In the House vote, only 2 Democrats voted against the legislation. 13 Republicans voted for the Employee Free Choice Act. The final vote was 241 in favor and 185 against.

Some Senate Republicans may attempt to block a vote on this legislation. If they do, every working American should vote against them. If any Democrat joins them, they should be defeated at the next election. Workers should contact their Senators immediately and let them know their vote on this legislation will determine your vote in the next election.

It has been reported that Cheney has pledged that Bush will veto the Employee Free Choice Act. This is the best reason I can think of for voting Democratic in the 2008 Presidential Election if Bush vetoes this pro-worker legislation.

The Employee Free Choice Act is a vote for worker rights. A vote against it is a vote against worker rights no matter how the Republicans spin it.

Written by Stephen Crockett (co-host of Democratic Talk Radio http://www.DemocraticTalkRadio.com ). Mail: P.O. Box 283, Earleville, Maryland 21919. Phone: 443-907-2367. Email: midsouthcm@aol.com .

Feel free to publish or distribute without prior approval.

Bad IDea

Baltimore Sun Editorial
March 4, 2007
Maryland drivers now only have to show up in person once every 10 years to renew their licenses.

That’s reason enough to root for repeal of a foolish federal law that orders all 245 million drivers in America to flock to centralized locations in each state armed with a pile of documents including: the Social Security card acquired for that first job as a teenager; an official birth certificate - no copies, please; a passport or other citizenship papers; and proof of residence other than a driver’s license.

(click on link below to read the rest of the editorial)

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bal-ed.realid04mar04,1,2411371,print.story?coll=bal-opinion-headlines

March 6, 2007
Former Prosecutor Says Departure Was Pressured
By ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON, March 5 — The former federal prosecutor in Maryland said Monday that he was forced out in early 2005 because of political pressure stemming from public corruption investigations involving associates of the state’s governor, a Republican.

“There was direct pressure not to pursue these investigations,” said the former prosecutor, Thomas M. DiBiagio. “The practical impact was to intimidate my office and shut down the investigations.”

Mr. DiBiagio, a controversial figure who clashed with a number of Maryland politicians, had never publicly discussed the reasons behind his departure. But he agreed to an interview with The New York Times because he said he was concerned about what he saw as similarities with the recent firings of eight United States attorneys.

As in those cases, there are conflicting accounts of the circumstances that led to Mr. DiBiagio’s ouster. The Justice Department disputes his version.
His office had been looking into whether associates of Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. had improperly funneled money from gambling interests to promote legalized slot machines in Maryland. Mr. DiBiagio said that several prominent Maryland Republicans had pressed him to back away from the inquiries and that one conversation had so troubled him that he reported it to an F.B.I. official as a threat.

But he said that the Justice Department had offered little support and that that made it “impossible for me to stay.”

Several current and former officials in the Baltimore office said Mr. DiBiagio voiced concerns in 2004 that the corruption inquiries were jeopardizing his career, a view that they shared.
The Justice Department rejected Mr. DiBiagio’s explanation. An official in the department, David Margolis, said he told Mr. DiBiagio in 2004 that he had to leave because “we had lost confidence in him.” ha!

Mr. Margolis said the prosecutor’s harsh management style had caused resentments in the office that ran “wide and deep” and called “an absolute fairy tale” the idea that Mr. DiBiagio’s departure was tied to the gambling case or any other investigation.

Mr. Ehrlich, who was defeated for re-election in November, denied any involvement in Mr. DiBiagio’s departure and said there was nothing to the gambling investigations.
Like Mr. DiBiagio, several of the newly departing prosecutors were overseeing sensitive political corruption investigations when they left office.

The controversy over the dismissals continued to grow on Monday, as the head of the Justice Department office that oversees prosecutors stepped down, a watchdog group filed an ethics complaint, and House and Senate committees prepared for testimony on Tuesday from some of the ousted prosecutors.

Because Mr. Ehrlich was the sole statewide Republican in Maryland at the time of Mr. DiBiagio’s appointment in 2001, he had a critical role in recommending him to the White House for the position.
Mr. DiBiagio, a former assistant prosecutor, was a political unknown, but he and the governor had become friends as young lawyers in Maryland. The bond disintegrated soon after the prosecutor took office.

Mr. Ehrlich and his advisers acknowledged on Monday that they were unhappy with Mr. DiBiagio’s handling of an earlier corruption investigation that led to the indictment in 2003 of Mr. Ehrlich’s state police superintendent, Edward R. Norris, over his misuse of police money.
The gambling investigation caused less concern in the governor’s office because officials there considered it without merit, Mr. Ehrlich said. But because of lingering suspicions in Maryland political circles that Mr. Ehrlich’s people had a hand in Mr. DiBiagio’s departure in early 2005, a longtime aide to the governor, Jervis Finney, called Mr. DiBiagio a few months ago to deny any involvement, Mr. Finney said.

Mr. Finney said in an interview Monday that he wanted to “clean things up” and to let Mr. DiBiagio know that “neither Gov. Bob Ehrlich or his representatives had asked the Department of Justice to push him out.”

Mr. DiBiagio said he did not accept the explanation.
“I believe it was that investigation that played an integral role in what was done to me,” Mr. DiBiagio, now at a law firm here, said about the gambling inquiries. “I clearly got the message that I had alienated my political sponsor and I would not have any political support to stay another term. Clearly, they wanted me to leave.”

Mr. DiBiagio pointed to tense conversations in 2003 and 2004 with advisers to the governor who, he said, intimated that the corruption investigations could derail his career. He would not name them publicly.

The former prosecutor said he was particularly troubled by one visit in June 2004 in which, he said, a lawyer allied with the governor said the gambling inquiries were disrupting legislative consideration of the slots question and should be shut down.
Mr. DiBiagio said the lawyer inquired about his political future, asked whether he was interested in being a judge and suggested that his life could be closely scrutinized.

Mr. DiBiagio said he described the conversation in a memorandum for his records and reported it to an official of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Baltimore as a possible threat.
Soon after the meeting, Mr. DiBiagio told a Justice Department official in Washington about his office’s gambling investigation and said, “Powerful politicians and businessmen are very upset that we are looking into this matter,” according to an e-mail message that The Times reviewed.

In the gambling investigation, prosecutors secured a grand jury subpoena for the records of Mr. Ehrlich’s communications director, Paul E. Schurick.
Investigators were said to be interested in tracing substantial payments made by a gambling company to a political marketing business in Maryland with ties to Maryland Republicans, people involved in the issue said.

Mr. Ehrlich said Monday that he had no knowledge of any improper transactions to support the slots initiative, and he said the investigation was unfounded.
“I’ve been for slots for 20 years,” he said. “It wasn’t any shock that I was for slots. There wasn’t anything to this.”

The investigation appears to have ended after Mr. DiBiagio left office in January 2005.
In Maryland law enforcement circles, Mr. DiBiagio had as many detractors as supporters. The Justice Department publicly rebuked him in mid-2004 over a leaked memorandum that spoke of his desire to bring three “front page” corruption cases before November, a memorandum widely interpreted in Baltimore as an effort to pursue Democrats.

In response, the department said all public corruption cases in Maryland would have to obtain approval by superiors in Washington. Soon, the department initiated an unscheduled performance review of Mr. DiBiagio. Mr. Margolis said the review had shown deep resentment over the prosecutor’s aggressive management.

Several officials in the Baltimore prosecutor’s office said that although Mr. DiBiagio had been an unpopular manager, the timing of the events leading to his departure appeared to be linked, at least partly, to the corruption investigations.

“We had several investigations that were very sensitive publicly, and what did him in was the probes into prominent Republicans,” said a former official involved in the inquiries who insisted on anonymity.
The state’s attorney in Baltimore, Patricia C. Jessamy, who worked often with Mr. DiBiagio, said she believed that he had alienated too many important people to succeed.
“He was a good prosecutor,” she said. “But he did not play politics well, and that was his downfall.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/washington/06prosecutor.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

——————————————————————————–