So what does Scott Brown’s victory in the Massachusetts Senate race mean?

This morning at Starbucks, my pal Jack Mason who’s lived on this earth for almost as many years as have I, opined that Brown’s election “saved our country.”

NPR’s Michael Feldman, who hosts the popular show “Wait, wait…don’t tell me!” took a different tack, noting that “Now we’ll find out whether the (Senate) democrats can be as ineffectual with 59 votes as they were with 60!”

Democrats are trying to spin Brown’s win as an anomaly, not a stunning repudiation of the President, democrats, healthcare reform and uppity liberals everywhere.

And Republicans, given up for dead a year ago, have risen up joyfully, ready to retake Congress this year, and the presidency come 2012.

We’ll see.  My guess is that the Dems are a little too pessimistic, and the GOPsters are celebrating a little too soon.

We all know why Brown won, don’t we?  People hated Obamacare, the voters were outraged at the administration’s coziness with the bailed-out fat cats of Wall Street, his opponent didn’t bother to campaign, and even Massachusetts lib’ruls can see the light eventually!

All true - and it comes down to Obama’s inability and/or unwillingness to move quickly and decisively, or to understand that a country in recession is in no mood to have a thousand-page healthcare reform bill shoved down its throat.

Do I support healthcare reform?  Sure.  Do I support the president’s bill?  Beats me-I don’t know whether it would benefit me or not.  I’d guess that most of us looked upon its (no longer impending) passage as we would look upon the approach of a major winter storm - disruptive, inconvenient and inevitable.  Some good would come of it (reservoirs full! plains farmers expect bumper crops of winter wheat!), but it wouldn’t help us much (schools close! travelers stranded in Limon! City says snow removal budget exhausted, side streets to remain buried!).

And as for those smooth-talking, obscenely rich Wall Street scam artists, couldn’t Obama at least raise his voice, and make it clear that he understands just how much many of his fellow citizens hate the SOB’s?

But the real problem for the Dems lies in their own weakness of character.  You’d think that a simple majority would be enough to pass a bill, even one as significant as healthcare reform.

In the Senate, thanks to its own cozily arcane rules of procedure, it takes 60 votes to end debate, proceed to a vote.  Now that Republicans have 41 votes, they can mount a filibuster, and just keep talking until the Dems give up, and abandon the fight.

Filibusters are inconvenient for both sides, and the lazy, self-important, silver-haired old men who occupy the Democratic side of the aisle aren’t willing to engage in a good old-fashioned knock-down, drag out fight.  There are 59 Dems, and 41 Repubs-so if the Dems had any conviction and determination, they could grind down their opponents, and keep debating until they collapsed.

But that’d mean hard work, fiercely principled beliefs,and a fighter’s willingness to go all the way and find the strength to drop your opponent in the 15th round.  The present Senate majority, to quote Yogi Berra, “doesn’t have the necessities.”

The Dems may have the numbers, but it appears that the Gopsters have the heart.

<- Back to csbj.com

---

Posted by John Hazlehurst on January 21st, 2010 :: Filed under Blog
Tags :: Democrats, healthcare reform, Jack Mason, Michael feldman, Obama, Republicans, Scott Brown, Yogi Berra

---

As of early this morning, the Independent Ethics Commission had yet to release the results of their investigation into alleged conflicts of interest involving Mayor Lionel Rivera.

We don’t know who the ethics commission interviewed during their investigation, or whether they made use of their notably weak powers of subpoena. As we pointed out when the investigation was first launched, the commission has the power of subpoena, but there’s no prescribed penalty for failure to comply.

We may not know who was interviewed, but we do know a few individuals who were not.

Real estate investors Jack Mason and Ward Berlin, both of who were involved in now-settled lawsuits with LandCo and Ray Marshall, were not asked to appear.

Why not?

Berlin and Mason may know the details of any financial involvement that Mayor Rivera may have had with Marshall and LandCo. Mason’s lips are sealed, however, because the court documents that may conatin any such details were sealed by court order, and remain so, as a consequence of the settlement agreement.

If the commission has subpoenaed the documents, who knows what might have happened? Would have Mason’s lawyers released them-or would have lawyers representing LandCo, Marshall or the mayor contested any such release? We’ll never know-and not because the ethics commission has been careless or negligent.

The scope of any commission inquiry is limited by law to events that took place no more than a year prior to the receipt of a complaint. The Mason/Berlin lawsuits were filed well before that deadline, so the commission has evidently concluded that they fall outside the purview of the investigation.

So whatever the commission decides, the rumors may continue to fly. That’s unfortunate - but it’s the inevitable result of the commission’s inherent toothlessness, not because of any coverup or failure to investigate the obvious.

<-Back to CSBJ.com

---

Posted by John Hazlehurst on August 6th, 2009 :: Filed under Blog
Tags :: ethics commission, Jack Mason, LandCo, Lionel rivera, Ray Marshall, Ward berlin

---

Last Friday, the Colorado Springs Independent Ethics Commission asked Central Bancorp CEO Ron Johnson to provide a list of all individuals whom he believes possess relevant information about the conflict of interest allegations that Johnson has made concerning Mayor Lionel Rivera.

In a reply dated June 19, consisting of 15 rambling pages of often-turgid prose, Johnson’s attorney, Lindsay Fischer, lists Rivera, LandCo CEO Ray Marshall, recused Ethics Commission member Jan Doran, Councilman Jerry Heimlicher, Vice Mayor Larry Small, Ward Berlin (an investor in a Marshall-controlled LLC), Jack Mason (as Mason Properties, an investor in a Marshall-related LLC), the board members of the Downtown Development Authority, “media persons” (including yours truly), the manager of the “local UBS office,” Jim Scherr (former head of the USOC), “Ms. (Stephanie) Streeter, the current head of the USOC,” Marshall attorney John Cook, and “any other person who does not come to mind at this time.”

Fischer notes that both Mason and Berlin are under “gag orders” arising from their agreement to confidential settlements of lawsuits involving Marshall, LandCo and certain LLCs. Because of these agreements, neither man could legally disclose any of the “relevant” information that Fischer believes they possess, absent a subpoena by the Ethics Commission.

The word “subpoena” has a certain awful gravity about it. Translated from the latin, the word means “under penalty.” One assumes that, if an entity has the power of subpoena, any failure to comply carries unpleasant consequences — like being jailed for contempt of court, or fined or hauled willy-nilly to the courthouse and forced to testify.

That might be true of a grand jury subpoena, or one from a court of appropriate jurisdiction.

But even a cursory reading of the ordinance establishing the Independent Ethics Commission reveals it to be a panel with neither bark nor bite.

The commission has “jurisdictional authority” only over members of City Council, city employees and appointees to various city boards and commissions. It can, in theory, require that persons belonging to any of those classes appear before the commission.

It can ask anyone else to appear, and can even issue subpoenas.

But here’s some “free legal advice”: If you don’t want to show up, don’t bother, subpoena or not.

That’s because there’s no “poena” in the subpoena. The ordinance prescribes no penalty for failure to appear. All the commission can do to scofflaws is to say “tut-tut, dear fellows — how terribly unsporting of you to decline our kind invitation!” The commission is a cat without claws, a pit bull without teeth, a rattlesnake without fangs.

It’s as if council passed an ordinance empowering the city to set speed limits, but neglected to include any penalties for speeding.

In that happy state, some of us would speed, some would slow down and some would obey the limits anyhow.

But in the event that the commission, in all of its august majesty, issues subpoenas, some recipients might be ready, even eager, to comply — while and others will politely (or impolitely) decline.

We’ll see — or, since the commission has decided to close its proceedings, maybe we won’t.

Our very own Star Chamber — albeit one which is utterly powerless.

And by the way, don’t interpret my ramblings as legal advice. Don’t want to get subpoenaed for impersonating a lawyer …

<- Back to CSBJ.com

---

Posted by John Hazlehurst on June 25th, 2009 :: Filed under Blog
Tags :: ethics commission, Jack Mason, Jan Doran, John Cook, larry Small, Lindsay Fischer, Lionel rivera, Ray Marshall, Ward berlin

---

Time/date: 8:30 a.m., Monday, June 14

Place: El Paso County Courthouse, Judge Ronald Crowder’s chambers

The event: The long-delayed trial of Case # 08CV3286, North County Land LLC et al v. Mason Investments III LLC et al.

Defendants and plaintiffs in attendance: Jack Mason and two lawyers. Ray Marshall, five lawyers, and a paralegal.

Interested observers in attendance: Linda Dix from the economic crimes unit of the DA’s office; several former investors in various of Marshall’s projects who have either been involved in lawsuits against him or are contemplating such action; Jack Mason’s parents; a journalist; and yet more lawyers.

To be decided: Mason alleged that Marshall, without his knowledge or approval, used $1.6 million belonging to North County Land as collateral for leveraged trading in securities at UBS, where he maintained personal and corporate accounts (managed, it appears, by Mayor Lionel Rivera). Dissatisfied with Marshall’s alleged failure to account for these transactions, Mason sued.

The original suit was settled, but, Mason alleged, Marshall failed to comply with the terms of the settlement - so Mason sued again. Marshall countersued. The suit was scheduled to come to trial on Feb. 20, but Marshall’s attorneys asked for a stay. The reason (verbatim from court documents): “Plaintiff Marshall motion for stay due to criminal allegations by Defendant Mason to DA-Granted …The FTR record of this proceeding ordered sealed pending further order of the court.”

The trial was scheduled for 8:30. Nothing happened. Judge Crowder was nowhere to be seen. Groups of lawyers wandered in and out of the courtroom, conferred in hallways, came back, left again. The attorneys had the satisfied mien of men who were each earning several hundred dollars an hour for standing around and waiting for something to happen.

Understanding nothing, I spotted an attorney of my acquaintance who happened to be passing by, and asked for his take.

“They’re gonna settle,” he said.

And how, I asked, did he know this?

He laughed.

“I’ve practiced law for a long time,” he said, “and I know how I’d advise a client in a similar position. (David) Isbell, (John) Cook - they’re as good as they come. They’ll do what they have to - but (Ken) Siegel (Mason’s attorney) is just as good. I’d love to be there when they close the doors, and hammer out a deal. Don’t bother to wait around - the terms will be confidential, and no one will talk.”

Sure enough, after another 15 minutes elapsed, we were all shooed out of the courtroom, the doors were closed, the judge ascended to the bench, and the parties made a deal. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed, and the court records thereof were sealed.

One last note: Before the doors were closed, Marshall spotted an investor in one of his projects, cornered her in the hallway, waved a piece of paper in her face and demanded that the investor sign it on the spot, and thereby settle their dispute.

She refused.

“He wanted me to sign something he’d drawn up, without showing it to my lawyer, without consulting anyone,” she said. “I couldn’t believe it - but I guess that’s just Ray.”

<-Back to CSBJ.com

---

Posted by John Hazlehurst on June 17th, 2009 :: Filed under Blog
Tags :: David Isbell, Jack Mason, John Cook, Judge Crowder, Ken Siegel, Linda Dix, North County Land, Ray Marshall

---