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.
“Across the country, Americans overwhelmingly support common sense voter ID laws that will make our elections fair and keep them free of fraud,” Hosemann said. “In Mississippi, voters overwhelmingly passed a constitutional voter ID law similar to Shane Schoeller’s proposal for Missouri. Mississippi and Missouri citizens know best how to ensure the integrity of the vote. But unfortunately, the Justice Department continues to attack voter ID laws in many states, including my state. Our country needs more Secretaries of States like Shane Schoeller that will stand up for what’s right, even in the face of attacks from the Justice Department. Shane Schoeller is a strong, courageous leader with proven leadership capabilities that will fight for a common sense voter ID law, clean up the state’s voter rolls, and stop election fraud.”
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.
Posts
All Comments
