Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund is proud to endorse Ed Martin for Attorney General.
Ed Martin is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment who is dedicated to protecting the rights of Missouri’s gun owners.
As state Attorney General, Ed will stand against unconstitutional intrusions of the federal government. He understands that the U.S Constitution is a check federal power—not a grant of unlimited authority.
In the ad, an African-American woman who used to own an adult day care business tells how a state worker berated her and hurled a racial epithet at her during an inspection. One problem: Mr. Spence’s opponent, Gov. Jay Nixon, wasn’t even governor when the alleged incident, outlined in a lawsuit, even occurred.One of the most salacious aspects of Stephanie's story was the October 2008 inspection in which DHSS inspector, Cassie Blum, hit Patton and called her the n-word; however, those actions alone did not lead to the closure of Patton's business. They do beg the question: why does Cassie Blum still have a job?
As a result of Peace of Mind's failure to maintain a medical model license, DSS terminated Peace of Mind's participation in the MO HealthNet program effective on the close of business of December 20, 2008, and stopped making payments to Peace of Mind. DSS informed Patton of its decision in a letter dated February 2, 2009.
The Attorney General's office (AGO) retained the right to reject proposals for contingency fee contracts even though state law does not include any provision for doing so once the Office of Administration (OA) has taken over the bid process. The Attorney General also accepted campaign contributions from law firms that submitted proposals. The AGO should not retain the power to reject responses or solicit new responses for contingency fee contracts after it requests the OA to handle the procurement process.Now, Koster's opponent, Ed Martin (R), is criticizing Koster for taking nearly $750,000 in campaign donations from law firms who have sought contracts with Koster's AG office:
Schweich’s audit caught Koster red-handed accepting over $170,000 in campaign contributions from law firms actively bidding on state contracts – a situation Auditor Schweich definitively called “a conflict of interest.” Now, Koster’s own campaign finance reports and official government documents show he received almost $750,000 in campaign contributions since the 2008 election cycle from law firms that replied to Requests for Proposal (RFP’s).
During the 2008 election cycle, Koster received more than $260,000 in campaign contributions from firms who later bid on contracts from his office. Since 2008, Koster has received nearly $475,000 in contributions for a total of nearly $750,000. These large donations routinely come from some of the largest law firms in Missouri, including Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, Hershewe Law Firm, Strong, Garner, Bauer PC, and Langdon & Emison – all of which have received payment from the state during Koster’s time in office.Pay-to-play seems to be entrenched in the upper echelons of Missouri government. Former Missouri AG and current Governor, Jay Nixon (D-MO), awarded a a $1.1 billion dollar contract to Centene after they had contributed over $60,000 to Nixon's campaign.
...DHSS's actions were the result of a racially discriminatory animus and that DHSS's actions deprived Patton of due process and equal protection of the laws, in violation of U.S. Const. amend. 5, 14 and 15, and Mo. Const. art. I, §§ 2 and 10.The state appealed the decision. In September of 2011, the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri, upheld Judge Chapel's decision in a terse one page judgment.
The state appealed again and on August 8th, 2012, Judges Karen King Mitchell, Victor C. Howard, and Cynthia L. Martin of the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, heard the case. Harvey Tettlebaum of the law firm Husch Blackwell represented Patton at the appeals court hearing.We seriously question whether Patton raised her constitutional claim at the "first available opportunity." The complaints Patton filed with the DHSS did not include allegations -- either explicit or implied -- of DHSS acting with a discriminatory animus toward Patton. In fact, there is no evidence in the record as a whole that Patton ever registered a complaint or concern with DHSS that Blum had called her a racial epithet and illiterate. In contrast, the record as a whole leads to the inescapable conclusion that the first time this complaint was registered was during Patton's testimony. This does not appear to comport with the obligation to raise a constitutional claim at the first available opportunity.
However, we are not persuaded that the Departments preserved an objection to Patton's late assertion of a constitutional claim. The Departments did not object to Patton's testimony as untimely. Instead, the Departments took the position at hearing that the AHC did not have "jurisdiction" to decide the constitutional issue being raised by Patton.17 See transcript at 169 ("[D]iscrimination is not something that, or constitutional issues are not something that this Commission has the jurisdiction over, and case law sets forth that the first notice to raise constitutional issues would be at the circuit court level,not at this level. And so by not testifying here they're not waiving their first availability to introduce evidence. The factual record would be made on the circuit court level where the court has jurisdiction over it."). This objection suggested that Patton was required to wait to assert her constitutional claim -- a position in inherent conflict with the position taken by the Departments on appeal. [emphasis added]In other words, the state argued "Heads--I win. Tails--you lose." Judges Mitchell, Howard, and Martin should be commended for calling the the state out on this. However, that Chris Koster's attorney would stoop so low to make contradictory arguments underscores the importance of replacing Koster with Ed Martin in November to restore a sense of justice to the Attorney General's office.
We need not determine whether Patton's testimony was sufficient to raise and preserve a constitutional claim or whether the AHC acted sua sponte in addressing the constitutional claim because we find in any event that the AHC's conclusion that DHSS acted with discriminatory racial animus toward Patton was legally erroneous.
The AHC concluded that DHSS, as an agency, acted with a racially discriminatory animus toward Patton. The only evidence in the record to support this legal conclusion was the testimony by Patton that a single DHSS employee, Blum, directed a deplorable racial epithet toward Patton and called her illiterate. There was no evidence presented at trial that Blum's statements could be legally attributed to DHSS as a whole or that DHSS was even aware that the comments were made. Evidence that a single agency employee made a racial remark to Patton is insufficient as a matter of law to support a conclusion that the entire agency thereafter acted in its handling of Patton with racial animus. See James v. City of Jennings , 735 S.W.2d 188, 191 (Mo. App. E.D.1987). Even if the single (and wholly unacceptable) comment by Blum could be legally attributed to DHSS, standing alone that comment does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation in the absence of other evidence connecting the comment to subsequent agency action. DeWalt v. Carter , 224 F.3d 607, 612 (7th Cir. 2000) ("The use of racially derogatory language, while unprofessional and deplorable, does not violate the [U.S.] Constitution."); Blades v. Schuetzle , 302 F.3d 801, 805 (8th Cir. 2002) ("[W]e believe that the use of racially derogatory language, unless it is pervasive or severe enough to amount to racial harassment, will not by itself violate the fourteenth amendment."). The AHC erred in finding otherwise.
The Departments do not argue that the AHC's error in finding that the DHSS acted with racially discriminatory animus requires reversal of all other conclusions reached by the AHC affecting DHSS. And in any event, as we have already discussed, the AHC's conclusion claimed to be erroneous in the Departments' fifth points relied on is defensible, independent of the AHC's finding on Patton's constitutional claim. Thus, although we agree with that the AHC committed legal error in finding that DHSS acted with racial animus toward Patton thus violating her constitutional rights, that conclusion was harmless. [emphasis added]
I had to laugh at that last bit. Surely Judges Mitchell, Howard, and Martin know full well that had they sustained Judge Chapel's finding that DHSS acted with racially discriminatory animus the budgetary damage from the resulting civil rights lawsuit would cause plenty of harm. Maybe they were being ironic.The Missouri attorney general’s office will not appeal a Cole County judge’s ruling this week that removed one of Secretary of State Robin Carnahan’s ballot summaries from the November ballot.
Judge Dan Green on Tuesday sided with Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder and other Republican officials, who said Carnahan’s summary for a measure that deals with the creation of a state-based health insurance exchange was not “fair and sufficient,” as required by law.The original ballot language for Proposition E was a travesty of partisanship concocted by Missouri's leftist Secretary of State Robin Carnahan and approved and defended by liberal Democrat Attorney General Chris Koster. Here's the ballot summary language that the court threw out at the end of August:
"Shall Missouri law be amended to deny individuals, families, and small businesses the ability to access affordable health care plans through a state-based health benefit exchange unless authorized by statute, initiative or referendum or through an exchange operated by the federal government as required by the federal health care act?”Here's the court approved ballot summary that will replace it:
"Shall Missouri law be amended to prohibit the governor or any state agency from establishing or operating state-based health insurance exchanges unless authorized by a vote of the people or by the Legislature?"Interestingly, Koster seems to abandon Carnahan after Judge Green's decision as reported by the P-D:
On his decision not to appeal, Koster, also a Democrat, said Greene’s summary more accurately reflects the Legislature's intent.
"My job is to call balls and strikes in an impartial manner," he said. "The argument is over.”However the Janus-faced Koster defended the Carnahan language in court and inexplicably approved it before that. CBS St. Louis reports conservative Republican Ed Martin, who is running to unseat Koster, was critical of Koster for failing to address the ballot language when Carnahan had originally submitted it:
Koster’s office is responsible for representing the state in lawsuits and defended Carnahan and the ballot summary in court. The attorney general declined to appeal the judge’s ruling, although the secretary of state’s office wanted to do so.
Martin said Tuesday that Koster should have said Carnahan’s ballot summary was misleading. The attorney general’s office is responsible for approving the legal content and form of ballot summaries prepared by the secretary of state’s office.
Martin criticized the handling of the ballot summary and court challenge, charging that Koster “signed off on ballot language that was inappropriate, not clear and should never have been allowed to be presented.”Had Koster returned Carnahan's blatantly biased language to the Secretary of State's office for revision instead of approving it, Missouri would have avoided the court costs of defending Carnahan's partisanship.
Attorney General Chris Koster must go!
In a campaign message distributed today, Attorney General, Chris Koster refers to Missouri as the "puppy mill capital of the nation."
....
It should come as no surprise that HSUS has praised Attorney General, Chris Koster for his support on a number of HSUS-driven issues!...
Koster for Leadership, a Missouri committee, contains just one transaction in the amount of $23,254.25 with no assigned (MEC) Committee ID#. Problem is who was the donor? Why is it that no committee ID# exists under (MEC)?It's odd that a campaign committee would not have an MEC (Missouri Ethics Commission) committee number, but I couldn't find one or, indeed, any record of "Koster for Leadership" on the MEC website. Well, aside from what Hobbits found squirreled away on page 6 of Chris Koster's April 15th, 2007, filing for another campaign committee: Missourians for Koster. This is what you'll find there:
The Attorney General's office (AGO) retained the right to reject proposals for contingency fee contracts even though state law does not include any provision for doing so once the Office of Administration (OA) has taken over the bid process. The Attorney General also accepted campaign contributions from law firms that submitted proposals. The AGO should not retain the power to reject responses or solicit new responses for contingency fee contracts after it requests the OA to handle the procurement process.Schwich's full audit report is available online.
Martin’s plan will expand the Missouri Accountability Portal to include the following information:Read the whole press release. Martin has more about Koster at ObamasLawyer.com.
- All costs legal or otherwise with backup documentation
- All fees to outside lawyers with backup documentation
The plan will also establish a moratorium on contingency fee awards.
- All campaign contributions to the Attorney General’s campaign or related committees while in office.
Any lawyer can make an argument that down is up, that blue is red and that the Cubs are really the greatest baseball team in history, and not the Cardinals. That’s why people get fed up with lawyers, and that’s the problem with Chris Koster’s argument. It flies in the face of a common-sense regular-guy understanding of the Health Car Freedom Act. liberal attorneys, but the simple meaning of Prop C is clear in the minds of Missourians.
The people of Missouri said loud and clear “No Obamacare”. Building the infrastructure of Obamacare is wrong because it clearly controverts the plainly understood will of the people. Koster’s contorted reasoning may impress Obama’s cronies, and he may even convince some fellow liberal attorneys, but the simple meaning of Prop C is clear in the minds of Missourians.
By now, the SweetO plant on the edge of town was supposed to be up and running. It was supposed to be pumping out high-grade artificial sweetener by the truckload, paying nearly 200 people making $17.50 an hour, and serving as Exhibit A of how foreign — Chinese — investment could bring new life deep into the Missouri heartland.
Instead, the half-built plant sits idle, and the city could be on the hook for $39 million of the company's bad debt.
"At a time when too many American companies are shuttering their plants and moving jobs overseas, we are thrilled to have a global company creating hundreds of good manufacturing jobs right here in Missouri," Gov. Nixon said. "These jobs will be a significant boost to Missouri's economy and our manufacturing sector, and they're another positive sign that our economy is beginning to move forward. I am pleased that my administration was able to provide a competitive package of strategic economic incentives to help bring these jobs to Missouri."
“Substantial concerns have arisen regarding the entity known as Mamtek International Ltd. and its proposed construction and operation of a manufacturing facility in Missouri,” Koster said. “The Attorney General’s Office is assisting Prosecuting Attorney Mike Fusselman and the Randolph County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office in reviewing this matter to determine whether any violations of Missouri civil or criminal laws have occurred. Our review of this matter will begin immediately.”
...Nixon’s administration screwed the pooch so poorly with this China deal, can we really trust that he knows what he’s talking about when it comes to the China Hub project in St. Louis?
Mamtek US Inc. highlighted a little-known U.S. visa program as an added enticement to lure Chinese investors for the failed effort to build a taxpayer-subsidized artificial sweetener factory in Moberly.On a Chinese-language investor website, Mamtek sought 15 people willing to put $500,000 each into the project. In return, investors would receive an EB-5 visa from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, good for bringing themselves and their entire immediate family — up to three generations — to the United States.
Koster has told Missourinet affiliate KWIX that he expects to make a decision in the next few weeks about whether Missouri should join the legal challenge of the health care law.
Campaign Requests Action by Koster, Carnahan Over Election Irregularities
“Robin Carnahan must answer why she failed to maintain database and Koster must investigate St. Louis Election Board misconduct”
St. Louis - In November, Missourians faced unexpected trouble and questionable conduct by election officials. Secretary of State Robin Carnahan’s statewide voter database failed for most of election day resulting in election day chaos that forced some voters to cast ballots provisionally or being turned away from the polls. In addition, an election official with the City of St. Louis has now admitted to conduct that appears to violate state and local law.
The Ed Martin for Congress campaign has, in keeping with its commitment to fight for the rights of citizens, continued in its efforts to hold officials accountable. To that end, the campaign has asked Attorney General Chris Koster to investigate the admissions by St. Louis Election Chair Eileen McCann that she inappropriately hired a security firm that was also under contract with candidate Congressman Russ Carnahan. The campaign also requested that Secretary of State Robin Carnahan explain to citizens why she failed to operate the statewide database.
“Citizens place their trust in election official like Secretary of State Robin Carnahan and Election Board Chair Eileen McCann and, then these official violate that trust, the integrity of our democracy is threatened” said Ed Martin. “We need a full investigation and a frank explanation of what went wrong and why so we can begin to rebuild the trust. Democracy needs it and Missourians deserve it.”
Patton testified that Blum called her a "nigger" and said she was illiterate during the October 16, 2008 inspection. We consider this as a claim that DHSS's actions were the result of a racially discriminatory animus and that DHSS's actions deprived Patton of due process and equal protection of the laws, in violation of U.S. Const. amend. 5, 14 and 15, and Mo. Const. art. I, §§ 2 and 10.The rest of Chapel's ruling reads like a 2x4 to the head, but we first have to return to Stephanie to understand the ramifications that her run-in with Blum would have.
At the time of the hearing, [Stephanie] was emotionally distraught, but otherwise was able to testify.While discussing the trial with Stephanie, I learned that the court reporter was so moved by what she heard that she too was crying during the testimony. The collapse of the business and with it Stephanie's life was precipitated by the false report that there wasn't a nurse on duty. As Judge Chapel notes [emphasis added]:
We have found that Peace of Mind had a nurse on duty at all times. There is not a basis for sanctions under Regulation 13 CSR 70-3.030(3)(A) 12.
DSS argues that Peace of Mind failed to maintain a license, as required for participation in the MO HealthNet program. DHSS granted a provisional license for a social model to Peace of Mind for a limited time. We have found that Peace of Mind had a nurse on duty; thus, there was no reason not to continue Peace of Mind's license as a medical model. We find no basis for sanctions under Regulation 13 CSR 70-3.030(3)(A)13 for failure to meet program requirements, such as licensure.The judge also ruled that because Stephanie did not have any prior sanctions from DHSS, going after her for $487,462.08 of Medicaid fraud was not justified. He noted that DHSS never required provider education or other available remedies. With 15+ years of service, they decided to throw the book at her. From the ruling:
We also conclude that the sanction of termination of Peace of Mind's status as a MOAs Peace of Mind was dealing with licensing issues in late 2008 and early 2009, they were still caring for patients. However, their Medicaid claims to the tune of $45,340 were denied. Without revenue to pay her operating costs, Stephanie had no choice but to wind down her business. The closing summary of ruling provides:
HealthNet provider was not warranted. There has been no allegation or showing that Peace of
Mind provided substandard services, committed any fraud, or failed to perform any service for
which she received payment.
...
We conclude that Peace of Mind is not subject to MO HealthNet sanctions.
[Stephanie] is entitled to payment of$45,340 for services rendered from December 20, 2008,During her ordeal, Stephanie reached out to leaders in Jefferson City, MO. She said that the Missouri Legislative Black Caucus was unresponsive. Jay Nixon did not return her calls. Margaret Donnelly Director of DHSS was unresponsive. Interestingly, Donnelly represented Stephanie before Stephanie moved to Chesterfield. Cole McNary, her current state rep, took the time to hear her story, was instrumental in setting up meetings, and sent a supportive letter to Judge Chapel.
through February 20, 2009.
Posts
All Comments
