Payroll taxes, also should Creamer judge have recused himself from case?
Crossposted on Marathon Pundit.
Well, I think he should've done just that. But before I get to that, my last two posts on Robert Creamer focused on the check-kiting. He also pleaded guilty to not promptly paying $50,000 in payroll taxes of Illinois Public Action Council employees to the government.
Oops! Creamer is of course married to liberal Congresswoman Jan Schakowksy. As you'll read here on her political blog, Schakowsky is a vehement opponent of the Bush tax cuts.
Yet her husband took his time in paying that beloved tax revenue to the government.
Schakowsky, although she was not implicated in this scheme, was on the IPAC board of directors while this financial funny business was taking place.
Randall Sherman, a frequent commenter on the Illinoize blog, brought this issue up this morning on that blog. Why didn't Judge James Moran, who sentenced Creamer yesterday, recuse himself from the case?
From the Chicago Tribune, free registration may be required:
Creamer's ties to the Democratic community are so deep that Moran considered recusing himself from the case. The judge, a former Democratic state representative from Evanston (my note, that's where Creamer and Schakowsky live), said he had a potential conflict of interest because his son-in-law, political consultant Peter Giangreco, had worked with Creamer and Schakowsky and had sat on the board of one of Creamer's organizations.
However, neither defense attorneys nor prosecutors voiced concerns about Moran's connections to Creamer.
Assistant U.S. Atty. Joseph Ferguson said Wednesday that he was disappointed in the sentence and that prosecutors would consider whether to appeal.
70 comments:
The prosecutors should appeal. This sentence sends a message that if you are politically connected you get a light sentence.
Their group was a money con artist group from the beginning. Jan was on the board and intimately involved. Do not think Jan did not know.
There is more out there for the finding but the media gave them a pass.
Moran has many many conflicts on this and the sentence is a joke.
Of course this is a conflict of interest. Giangreco worked on the Congressional campaigns and a board with Bob.
Jan and Bob are super phonies all about the money.
Randall Sherman is right.
Doesn't Peter Giangreco work for "Elected Official A"
If this is true why did't the prosecutor bring it up, looks like they dropped the ball. having a political monster like Pete Giangreco involved smells like a conflict of interest if I ever heard of one.
is this a culture of corruption?
Yes, Giancgreco is on the "A Team."
Are all of you morons, or is it just Ruberry? Did any of you bother to read a newspaper? Or just this post?
Judge Moran made his relationship with Giangreco clear when he offered to recuse himself before this even got near trial time. Neither the prosecution nor defense wanted him to recuse himself.
Stop the smear tactics John. And do some basic research before you work yourself up into such a lather.
Yeah the prosecution and the defense said Moran was fine. But that was before Creamer got the light sentence.
Moran should've recused himself.
Assistant U.S. Atty. Joseph Ferguson said Wednesday that he was disappointed in the sentence and that prosecutors would consider whether to appeal.
From the same Tribune article:
But he escaped the longer sentence of 30 to 37 months suggested by federal guidelines.
All I can figure is, Bob Creamer must've run over your dog. Otherwise, I don't understand this crusade.
We pass legislation in Springfield that allows people who write bad checks (a.k.a. check-kiters) to get off with supervision if they take a money management class and make restitution, but you think our federal tax dollars should be spent putting a first-time offender in jail for three years?
Excuse me, but didn't Duke Cunningham only get 8 years for selling his office to the highest bidder and pocketing millions in bribe money, all for personal gain?
By contrast, here's what the Chicago Tribune said about Creamer:
"There was no intention to cause a loss," [Judge] Moran said in court. "Neither the banks nor the government suffered any actual out-of-pocket loss."
Creamer's attorney, Ted Poulos, said Wednesday in court that the prosecution had a "seriously myopic view" of the case and had wrongly lumped Creamer in with the fraud defendants who take a bank's money and run.
"None of the offenses here--not one--was for personal gain," Poulos argued. "Not one dime was lost."
I'd accept your argument for throwing the book at Creamer on the grounds that sentences for white collar crimes in general are too lenient. But if your going to argue for proportionality, George Bush and Ken Lay should get the death penalty for telling lies that cost over 2,000 americans their lives and defrauded investors of billions.
That is what the DEFENSE lawyer said. Creamer had a BIG salary and dished out money is a SCHEME.
Maybe Creamer and Jan should of got PRIVATE SECTOR jobs and produced something. Bush is worse, that is fine but Creamer is still bad. This is only what he was caught on and plead too.
That is what the DEFENSE lawyer said. Creamer had a BIG salary and dished out money is a SCHEME.
Maybe Creamer and Jan should of got PRIVATE SECTOR jobs and produced something. Bush is worse, that is fine but Creamer is still bad. This is only what he was caught on and plead too.
John Ruberry said...
Yeah the prosecution and the defense said Moran was fine. But that was before Creamer got the light sentence.
Moran should've recused himself.
Do you read, John?
JUDGE MORAN OFFERED TO RECUSE HIMSELF.
THE PROSECUTION DECLINED.
Why isn't that clear to you?
Do you think that by repeating your same tired lies they will become truth?
You owe the judge an apology.
I guess I am confused here too.
1. The judge disclosed his connections to the defendant.
2. The judge offered to recuse himself from the case.
3. Neither the defense nor the prosecution saw the need
4. Your quote from above: Yeah the prosecution and the defense said Moran was fine. But that was before Creamer got the light sentence. So it is a problem because the defendant received a light sentence.
The judge disclosed and offered, the attorneys said no, the judge ruled, people (not those involved) complain about partiality because the result was less than they thought deserving.
From John Kass' Tribune column, Schakowsky ire phony as kited checks, today:
Judge Moran says he thought about recusing himself from the trial, but the defense and the prosecution didn't ask him to leave. So he stayed.
A federal judge with a conflict of interest as glaring as that shouldn't wait to be asked. He should have walked away on his own. But he didn't.
Kass said it?
He served three terms on the Appellate Court, didn't he?
He didn't? He doesn't even have a law degree?
Well, Kass must have been in chambers or read the transcripts, didn't he?
He didn't?
Well, maybe he is known as a fair and unbiased report?
He's not? How can that be?
Ruberry cited Kass as an authority?
In fact, Kass is as ignorant as Ruberry. Both are talking about the law and the case without having the slightest clue as to either.
But I guess a nod is as good as wink to a blind bat, so feel free to follow the Word of Kass.
Of course, if Ruberry has any illusion of being a journalist or as having a reputation for getting his facts straight, he would do well to actually do some research on his own.
I am of the opinion that the prosecutor who failed to demand that Judge Moran recuse himself in this case should be fired, as he is too naive to be an effective prosecutor.
Judge Moran was appointed by President Jimmy Carter, also a Democrat. Not that it means anything.
Ravenswood Right Winger said...
"Judge Moran was appointed by President Jimmy Carter, also a Democrat. Not that it means anything."
What's the alternative?
Are you suggesting that a Republican appointee would have to be disqualified for potential bias AGAINST Creamer?
I am going to tangent of Skeeter's point. All judges whether elected, appointed or otherwise in their judgeships will have biases. The skill to being a good judge is the ability to rule impartially given your pre-diposition.
In my belief, Judge Moran followed a reasonable path wherein he disclosed his potential bias and allowed the attorneys involved to make that decision for him. If there is any question of partiality, it should have been resolved by one of the attorneys requestion the judge to remove himself.
Skeeter: If the only potential conflict of interest was the fact that Moran was appointed by Carter, I wouldn't be upset.
However, this fact, along with the fact that he served as a Democratic State Rep, along with the fact that his son-in-law had worked as a political consultant for Democrats and had served on boards with the defendant Creamer (the most compelling argument against Moran being the judge, IMO) create at the very least, a conflict of interest.
If Moran himself perceived there to be a conflict of interest, he should have recused himself.
I am with Randall Sherman 100% re: the prosecutor.
RRW:
If you don't like the law, change it. Republicans control the White House, Congress, and the courts. If you have failed to make law effectively, take the blame yourself. Stop whining about the judge.
Moreover, if you all had any real issues in the race, I'm sure I would be hearing about them rather than about some guy who made zero net gain on his crime.
He did make proft Skeet, he made a salary, and he did not make restitution until caught and forced too. It was a shell game.
skeeter-it has nothing to do with "changing the law." It has everything to do with judicial ethics. Next....
Giangreco and the A team have no ethics.
Ravenswood Right Winger said...
skeeter-it has nothing to do with "changing the law." It has everything to do with judicial ethics. Next.... "
2:55 PM
Judge Moran advised the parties. They did not take action.
Blame Congress and Mr. Bush for allowing the current sentancing guidelines.
Blame the Republicans in the A.G.'s office.
Stop whining about the judge.
You Republicans screwed this up. Don't blame anyone else.
Next . . .
Blame the Republicans I can agree to that
But also blame Creepy Conartist CONVICT Cramer
Outrageous! There seems to be two tiers of justice in Cook County: 1)the justice for the politically connected, and 2)the justice for the those that aren't among the rich & powerful.
Let's see if these prosecutors are worth their salt. If they don't attempt to overturn this sentence, then this will make us aware that justice is dead in Illinois.
Creamer and Shakowsky are the rich and powerful. They use poverty and liberal issues for cover but they have no minorities, and favor Jewish and rich people. They promoted Jewish Deb Shore and Jewish super rich Bill Marovitz. They favor rich Machivellean lying lobbyist Suffredin. All of their operatives are Jewish or white, no minorities. Nobody is poor. The only poor people they help is with your tax dollars.
Creamer is getting off easy.
Let's toss out some FACTS:
1. What did the fed. sentencing guidelines say about this?
2. What have others with similiar crimes received in terms of sentence?
When you can answer that, then you may have a point. Until then, it is just partisan whining.
And to my 7:43 friend:
This was all in FEDERAL COURT. It has nothing to do with justice in Illinois. IT IS ABOUT THE FEDERAL COURTS, where Republicans control:
1. Congress;
2. The White House, including the A.G.'s office; and
3. Have a majority on the Supreme Court.
Get your facts straight. It is about justice in AMERICA, not Illinois. Cook County had nothing to do with it.
It sure is fun to blame Cook County, though, isn't it? Fun, but completely ignorant.
Skeeter (was that the guy from Saved by the Bell?) you are right on most of your points. Republicans suck and corrupt. This is Federal and not Cook County Circuit Court etc.
BUT you still can't seem to accept that Creamer did something wrong, only made restitution when he got caught, that Jan probably knew something about this, and he is sleazy. The judge could of recused alone but this was the probably Republican lawyers fault.
Skeeter is also right that DeLay and Abramaoff are far far worse.
Creepy, Sleazy, Conartist, Convict Creamer.
Hey Skeeter. It's opinion. Sheesh. Also, are you an attorney? What field of law are you in, if you are.
anon 9:47 sounds like a plant. The same kind of plant who writes slurs at DePaul and labels them from conservatives.
9:47 Sounds like Pat McDonagh
John Ruberry said...
"Hey Skeeter. It's opinion. Sheesh. Also, are you an attorney? What field of law are you in, if you are. "
Opinion?
Great. You have an opinion but zero facts to back that opinion.
It is actually more of a whine than an opinion. An opinion implies at least some thought or some research. You displayed none.
It is actually more of a whine than an opinion.
I know you'll find it hard to believe, but although I am a conservative, I am capable of rational thought.
Clearly, on the other hand, we're upsetting your mental apple cart on this issue.
I've already got another Schakowsky post ready. Timed for a certain day.
John,
Is the new post going to include any facts?
If not, then it will again be just a whine.
You are not upsetting me. You are just showing yourself to be ignorant in the real sense of that word. You lack knowledge. You lack a factual basis for your opinions. Your scholarship is weak to the point of being non-existent.
You provide opinions without thought, facts, or reasoning.
You are the poster boy for Illinois conservatives though. I always knew that when it came down to it, most Illinois conservatives did not have facts on their side.
I invite you to prove me wrong. Just once, provide a well researched and well reasoned piece.
I don't expect you to do so though. You have yet to show anything other than a child-like reaction to events so far.
Skeeter, you'll be pleased to know that this evening I e-mailed one of my Schakowsky/Creamer to Peter Schweizer, author of Do As I Say (Not as I Do). I read it last year. True, your hero Schakowsky may be a bit obcure outside of the 9th District, but I'm sure Peter will enjoy learning about Jan and Robert:
"Peter Schweizer's Do As I Say (Not As I Do) is an entertaining exposure of the hypocrisy among some prominent liberals. In a series of 11 profiles on leftist icons from Noam Chomsky and Al Franken to Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy, Schweizer reveals that the most vocal liberals do not practice what they preach."
--The Weekly Standard
"Here's a book that will make your eyes pop out...As this book engaginginly documents, these lefties are in many respects even bigger hypocrites than are fallen conservatives."
--Forbes Magazine
Shakowsky and Creamer are definitely hypocrites. They live a very rich lifestyle and the only poor people they know are in theory. They do not support minorities and that is proven.
John,
Why do you think she is my hero?
Does my defense of the judge and my attack of your weak scholarship necessarily imply that she would rank as a "hero"?
It is funny how he can still run his business, earned a salary, had 3 million in no interest loans and lived a high lifestyle but can claim he is a hero. You never see any low income or middle income around Creamer only rich. Look at his suits, his lifestyle, his 4 star travel. He is a high end liberal con man. He elected his wife Congresswoman to push it.
They are sick and disgusting.
If you are not rich or Jewish, Convict Cramer and witch Jan will only exploit you. Creamer is pimping the poor to get mercy. Evil
Sorry, Skeeter. I meant "heroine."
Any evidence John?
In any case, what is it like pandering to the anti-Semites who make anon comments here?
You all see eye to eye? I note that you have spent a lot of time arguing with me, but haven't had a word for the Nazis who side with you.
Why is that John? Do you agree with people like the 2:54 poster?
This decision is certainly no gift to Jan Schakowksy. It's going to be brought up and tossed in her face forever. Whenever there's a white collar decision here in Illinois where somebody gets the book thrown at them, guess what's even money to get put back up front and center as part of the debate.
Personally, I can't see how the Federal prosecutors can't appeal the sentence. The biggest winners in this whole case isn't Robert Creamer, it's actually all the other corporate defense counsel dealing with federal financial fraud cases.
Those defense counsel just got handed a gift from heaven (or more likely, the Chicago District Court) - especially if the fed's don't appeal it. This case will get cited time and time again, particularly in light of the absolutely minimal sentence handed down.
Btw Skeeter, the normal rule in any debate is that the first person who compares ANYTHING to the Nazi's, normally loses. See: Durbin, Richard, US Senator (D-IL).
Pointing out that Jan Shakowsky is a racist, regardless of her ethno-religious heritage, is not being a Nazi.
Making the wheels:
Read the comments.
The comment (and other prior comments along the same lines) clearly was anti-Semetic. It alluded to some Jewish conspiracy to screw over the poor. The remark was a Nazi-like comment. In fact, comments like that were exactly what brought Hitler to power. He made exactly that type of statement. Read the comments and read some history.
I just wondered why Rubbery accepted the comments and did not repudiate them.
Also, you might want to read Senator Durbin's actual remarks before making that analogy. Senator Durbin's comments were right on point. Knowing that, though, would mean looking up the comments rather than just hearing the summary of Rush Limbaugh. You don't want to make that effort, do you, since you did not even make the effort to read the comments here?
Skeeter:
First off, I really don't care about those types of comments - meaningless to me. What counts in this case is how the sentencing decision is going to get 'played' - and it will get 'played' by every white collar defense attorney down the road. That's what is important.
And my comment on Senator Durbin still stands - because unlike you, I get out and travel a lot over the State of Illinois. If you think...
"Also, you might want to read Senator Durbin's actual remarks before making that analogy. Senator Durbin's comments were right on point."
...that's true, then I sincerely suggest that you head downstate (driving) through many of the little small towns in Southern and Central IL with your opinion, because you'll end up arguing with a whole lot of people who don't see Sen. Durbin's remarks in the same light as youself. And just as a point, many, many of them are Democrats.
Btw, the "rule" quoted comes via retired General Wesley Clark during a TV interview around the time the comment was made by Sen. Durbin.
Let me get this right:
According to Making the Wheel:
1. It is perfectly acceptable to rip Sen. Durbin for his comments without knowing what those comments were, since people downstate don't know what the comments were.
Is that your point?
2. Is it wrong to call somebody a Nazi because the person, like Hitler, claims that Jews are out to screw over the poor.
Is that your point?
We differ on the issues.
I believe that knowledge is better than lack of knowledge. I believe that knowing facts is a good thing.
You disagree.
I believe that when somebody makes an anti-Semetic comment, it should be labeled as such. You disagree.
I have to say that your tolerance of those comments does make me wonder about you. Do you agree with the nameless poster that Jews are out to screw over the poor, or do you find those comments completely disgusting and disgraceful?
Jews are not out to screw over the poor. JAN AND BOB are out to use and exploit the poor. Jan likes to have rich people and mostly Jewish candidates, staff and operatives around--THAT IS OBJECTIVE STATISTICAL FACT just look at Deb Shore, her staff, Billy Marovits. You never see them with minorities except in rhetoric or theory. Creamer may talk about being Robin Hood but he had big salaries, lived in nice homes, took lavish vacations--all while pretending to be an advocate for Seniors, the Consumers and the poor. Try to get Jan or her staff to help you personally, it is all supposedly public policy. Her statements and votes are anti-Christian. Creamer himself is a con-artist. None of this has to do with anti-Semitism. It is NOT anti-Jewish. It IS anti Creamer and Jan who expoit the poor and liberalism to justify their lifestyles and crimes.
Uh Skeeter, I've been working on my taxes a good part of today. Since this blog doesn't use Halosacan, it's a bit harder to monitor comments. I did manage to sneak in a post here though.
I'm not sure if you ever bother to actually visit Marathon Pundit, http://marathonpundit.blogspot.com, but I'm exceptionally pro-Israel.
I don't pander to Nazis. You should retract that statement.
In fact, I reqularly rip liberal icon Noam Chomsky for playing footsie with Neo Nazis such as Robert Faurisson. Chomsky regulary equates Israeli policies with Nazi ones. DePaul's Norman Finkelstein, although lesser known, is of the same ilk.
See my post on Marathon Pundit from last week, "Chomskying at the bit." The author of the book I referenced, Paul Bogdanor, sent me an appreciative "thank you" note about the post:
http://marathonpundit.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_marathonpundit_archive.html#114411170179933086
Ironically, or maybe not so, my views on Israel and the Mid East match those of Alan Dershowitz.
A fairly well-known author who I've met told me last summer that Schakowsky spoke a few years ago in front of some local Palestinian extremist group, and her speech seemed, according to this individual, right out of Yasser Arafat's play book.
Ruberry:
I note that you still have yet to condemn the anti-Sementic comments here.
You've spent a lot of time condemning me, but none condemnning them.
I must draw the obvious conclusion: That you agree with them.
Anti-semetic comments should be condemned. However, being anti the Congresswoman or her husband Robert Creamer are not anti-semetic comments.
Which specific comments by John are anti-semetic? We have not followed the entire discourse but it is not clear what you find most objectionable.
Anon 7:16:
I am not claiming any of Ruberry's comments are anti-Semitic. I am claiming that his failure to condemn comments here makes him anti-Semitic.
I am claiming that posts here of people backing his position that claim some cabal of Jew and rich people are out to screw over the poor is anti-Semitic and is exactly the sort of language used by Hitler. This is not an exaggeration. That was Hitler's basis for extermination. He claimed that Jews were conspiring to hurt the masses. That is what the poster here said.
I blame Ruberry for spending a lot of time discussing my views on Creamer, but none on condemning the anti-Semitic comments.
The failure to condemn is a sign of anti-Semitism. If you tolerate it from your supporters, then you are guilty of it.
Ruberry has accepted without condemning them the following comments:
Anonymous said...
If you are not rich or Jewish, Convict Cramer and witch Jan will only exploit you. Creamer is pimping the poor to get mercy. Evil
2:54 PM
Anonymous said...
Creamer and Shakowsky are the rich and powerful. They use poverty and liberal issues for cover but they have no minorities, and favor Jewish and rich people. They promoted Jewish Deb Shore and Jewish super rich Bill Marovitz. They favor rich Machivellean lying lobbyist Suffredin. All of their operatives are Jewish or white, no minorities. Nobody is poor. The only poor people they help is with your tax dollars.
Creamer is getting off easy.
9:47 AM
While the above comments may be distasteful or innacuurate they are not anti-Semetic, maybe even borderline, but it says that Creamer and his wife and not Jews exploit poor people. It says that the Congressman prefers or only has Jews and no minorities. This would not be my choice of verbage and it could be implicit or misunderstood but it is not anti-semetic. There is a far reach to say that Jews exploit the poor and that is the justification for Hitler and have people post on message boards about Robert Creamer exploiting the poor or using his involvement in liberal politics to get out of a crime or get a better sentence. If Congressman Shakowsky has a lot of Jewish people around her or supports Jewish candidates that is not different than Louis Guttierez or Jess Jackson supporting Hispanic or Black candidates respectively. I don't know if John knows the posters or if he is the poster himself but his lack of condemnation of others statements that are not explicitly anti-semetic even if distasteful and incorrect does not make him a Nazi, a supporter of Hitler, or silently condoning their statements. Sk has defiintely exageerated this whole thing and made it something it is not.
That skeeter really is a goofball and embarrassing to us democrats with his irrational ranting. Can't he get a job or something so he has less free time.
Skeeter could get a job now that Creamer is gone, maybe not at the same salary if he can't bounce checks though
Bob said...
That skeeter really is a goofball and embarrassing to us democrats with his irrational ranting. Can't he get a job or something so he has less free time.
4:01 PM
Actually, I'm a Republican just like you. No, I'm just kidding. I'm not that dumb.
You are a Republican, aren't you? Nice to see you drop the anon and pick a name. That is a nice touch.
Sorry Skeeter for delay in getting back to you. I have a full-time job, and tonight I was at a meeting that was blog-related. About half the people there were Jewish. I'm not sure if they saw this post, as they are more familar with Marathon Pundit.
I didn't ask them about those comments, since, well, there are more important things going on in my life.
The two comments which you found objectionable are not anti-semitic in my opinion. In a crude way, the poster is saying Jews favor other Jews over other groups. I don't agree with the comments, but I'm not going to denounce them in the fashion you expect me to.
It's borderline stuff, but calling those comments anti-semitic, is a stretch.
John,
Your comments were exactly what I would expect from you.
It doesn't bother you in the slighest to have racists or anti-semites on your side.
And then people like you wonder why certain groups vote for the Dems.
Your failure to condemn them speaks volumes about your own real beliefs.
Skeeter condemn Congressman Jan for only supporting Jews, and her staff using the word pig "goy" to describe opponents of Jewish candidates, and condemn Creamer for using the cover of the poor and homeless to justify his criminality
Right on, anon: 3:09
Matzoh, matzhoh man, I've got to be, a matzoh man...
Nice work, John. It is great that you have endorsed the claim that the Congresswoman only supports Jews. Next time that the Nazi Party hold a rally in Skokie, you can be on the front lines wearing your brown shirt and condemning her.
This is no joke John. The comments were completely offensive and it is pathetic that you have endorsed them.
Next time you wonder why Illinois Republicans get a small percentage of the Jewish vote, you can just remember your own comments.
Are you still at it? Just so you know, on one of my Marathon Pundit posts, there was poster who said that all US labor unions are controlled by the Communist Party.
I'm pleased that I've become such an intregal part of your life.
Post a Comment