Mamtek received $39 million in industrial development bonds from Moberly and authorization for up to $17 million of state incentives to build an artificial sweetener plant in the central Missouri city about 30 miles north of Columbia. Construction was halted on the partially completed facility after the company missed a bond payment in August 2011.In the video, Spence then talks about the role that government should play. As someone who turned a small business into a multi-million dollar operation, Spence believes that government has to have small business owners back by reducing the red-tape and creating an environment that encourages business in Missouri.
Bruce Cole, the chairman and CEO of Mamtek, has been charged with theft and securities fraud and is accused of using bond revenues to avoid foreclosure on his home in Beverly Hills, Calif. The federal Securities Exchange Commission also has filed a lawsuit against Cole seeking financial penalties. Last week, the remaining assets for the plant were sold at auction by UMB Bank, the trustee for bondholders.
Nixon's administration frequently has said no state incentives were paid to Mamtek, but Spence countered that the state incentives helped prompt Moberly to issue its bonds.
Both of Missouri's gubernatorial candidates were invited to speak at Greater Bethlehem Baptist Church in north St. Louis earlier this week. Incumbent Democrat Jay Nixon was a no show, but Republican challenger Dave Spence was there. The ten minute video above is of Spence's prepared remarks. He also answered questions submitted by the audience.
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.
Spence says his banking tenure actually cost him financially, drained him physically, took time away from his family and sometimes left him quite frustrated. If it now is a political liability, that's only because his opponents are ignoring the extent to which he tried to help out the financially strapped bank before finally resigning in March 2011 — eight months before he entered the governor's race as a self-financed, political newcomer.In the video above, Dave Spence talks about TARP and his time with Reliance Bank.
...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.
 |
| h/t: Instapundit |
It turns out that the population-weighted average unemployment rate in states with Republican governors is 7.6 percent. The number for states with Democratic governors is [sic] 8.8. In other words, blue America (defined in terms of governors) has a higher unemployment rate than red America. Make of that what you will.Yesterday, Brian Hook of Missouri Journal reported that the Show Me State was fifth in the nation for weekly jobloss claims: "Only four other states had a larger increase than Missouri in weekly unemployment claims."
Today, Hook crunched the numbers for the states in the region and discovered that employment in Missouri lags every bordering state:The labor force in Missouri dropped by more workers in a year than in any neighboring state.
Between last year in July and last month, the civilian labor force across the state dropped by 41,000 jobs, according to new data released on Friday by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.The largest losses among the eight states bordering Missouri came in Tennessee which lost 19,600 jobs--less than half of the 41,000 recently unemployed in Missouri.
ST. LOUIS • Months after he first discussed the goal of seeking the Republican nomination for governor, St. Louis businessman Dave Spence remains a virtual unknown to most party activists across Missouri.Thus begins Jake Wagman's coverage of Dave Spence in the Post Dispatch this past Saturday. Spence is a political newcomer, so I expect him to make some mistakes along the way. I think he could have announced his candidacy better, but I also appreciate the fact that he was willing to engage a grassroots organization like the St. Louis Tea Party. The photo above was from the Tea Party's Christmas Party last December. Since my initial criticism was about the fact that he didn't engage grassroots for his announcement, I see his willingness to meet with Tea Partiers in December as a course correction. Hopefully, he remains on his new heading.
St. Louis packaging executive Dave Spence told POLITICO Monday he will run for Missouri governor in 2012 if Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder passes on a campaign.
“I know Peter Kinder, I consider him to be a friend. But if there's an opportunity, I'd like to be part of the solution," he said in an interview. "If he decides not to run, I'd do it with two feet."
Spence, a 53-year-old executive at Alpha Packaging, met with the Republican Governors Association last week after his name circulated in GOP circles as a possible replacement candidate.It's interesting that Spence is priming his campaign with the old-guard GOP. It's also interesting that Spence gave $1000 to far-left NY Senator Chuck Schumer (D) in 2004.
Posts
All Comments
