Sarah Palin, the wink says it all.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Oil Funded research in Sarah Palin's campaign against protection for Polar Bear
More On:
Sarah Palin
The Republican Sarah Palin and her officials in the Alaskan state government drew on the work of at least six scientists known to be sceptical about the dangers and causes of global warming, to back efforts to stop polar bears being protected as an endangered species, the Guardian can disclose. Some of the scientists were funded by the oil industry.
In official submissions to the US government's consultation on the status of the polar bear, Palin and her team referred to at least six scientists who have questioned either the existence of warming as a largely man-made phenomenon or its severity. One paper was partly funded by the US oil company ExxonMobil.
The status of the polar bear has become a battleground in the debate on global warming. In May the US department of the interior rejected Palin's objections and listed the bear as a threatened species, saying that two-thirds of the world's polar bears were likely to be extinct by 2050 due to the rapid melting of the sea ice. Palin, governor of Alaska and the Republican nominee for US vice-president, responded last month by suing the federal government, to try to overturn the ruling. The case will be heard in January.
Though the state of Alaska has no polar bear specialists on its staff, the governor's stance has pitted it against the combined scientific fire-power of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the US Geological Survey, and world experts on the mammal.
In its lawsuit, Alaska said it opposed the endangered label partly because the listing would "deter activities such as ... oil and gas exploration and development". Oil companies recently bid $2.7bn (£1.5bn) for rights to explore the Chuckchi sea, an established polar bear habitat.
The threatened species status might also impede the building of an Alaskan natural gas pipeline, which Palin has called the "will of God". In a letter last year to the US interior secretary, Dirk Kempthorne, she said she believed the polar bear population was "abundant, stable and unthreatened by direct human activity". She opposed the call for the listing because it "did not use the best available scientific and commercial information".
Her own Alaskan review of the science drew on a joint paper by seven authors, four of whom were well-known climate- change contrarians. Her paper argued that it was "certainly premature, if not impossible" to link temperature rise in Alaska with human CO2 emissions.
The paper, entitled Polar Bears of Western Hudson Bay and Climate Change, has been criticised for relying on old research and ignoring evidence that Arctic sea-ice is melting at a quickening pace. Walt Meier, a world authority on sea ice, based at the National Snow and Ice Data Centre, said: "The paper doesn't measure up scientifically."
One co-author of the paper, Willie Soon, completed the study with funding from ExxonMobil - which has oil operations in Alaska's North Slope - as well as from the American Petroleum Institute. Soon was a former senior scientist with the George C Marshall Institute, which acts as an incubator for climate-change scepticism. The institute has received $715,000 in funding from ExxonMobil since 1998.
In May, ExxonMobil announced that it was no longer funding Marshall and other groups linked with contrarian views. It said this was to avoid "distraction from the need to provide energy while reducing greenhouse gas emissions" and stressed that the company did not "control the research itself".
Another co-author of the document was Sallie Baliunas. In 2003 she and Soon were criticised when it was revealed that a joint paper had been partially funded by the American Petroleum Institute. Thirteen scientists whom they cited issued a rebuttal and several editors of the journal Climate Research resigned because of the "flawed peer review". A third co-author of the polar bear study, David Legates, a professor at Delaware University, is also associated with the Marshall Institute.
The citation by Palin and her officials prompted complaints from Congress. One member, Brad Miller, dubbed the polar bear study phony science.
Palin told Miller: "Attempts to discredit scientists ... simply because their analyses do not agree with your views, would be a disservice to this country." Miller now says that Palin's use of the paper shows she differs greatly from John McCain, the Republican presidential contender, who has pressed for scientific integrity. "Turning to the cottage industry of scientists who are funded because they spread doubt about global warming is not integrity," Miller said.
Palin's submission consulted J Scott Armstrong, a specialist in forecasting, who regards the global warming issue as "public hysteria".
Two other contrarian scholars were cited. One was Syun-Ichi Akasofu, formerly director of the International Arctic Research Centre, in Alaska, who argues that climate change could be a hangover from the little ice age. He is a founding director of the Heartland Institute, a thinktank that has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Timothy Ball, a retired professor from Winnipeg, is cited for his climate and polar bear research. He has called human-made global warming "the greatest deception in the history of science". He has worked with both Friends of Science, and the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, which each had funding from energy firms.
Kert Davies, research director at Greenpeace US, said the state of Alaska under Palin's leadership had relied on scholars who argue the opposite view to that of the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community. "It shows that she is completely out of touch with the urgency of the climate crisis."
Last month Palin agreed that the Alaskan climate was changing but added: "I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made." She later tried to retract the statement.
Source: Guardian
In official submissions to the US government's consultation on the status of the polar bear, Palin and her team referred to at least six scientists who have questioned either the existence of warming as a largely man-made phenomenon or its severity. One paper was partly funded by the US oil company ExxonMobil.
The status of the polar bear has become a battleground in the debate on global warming. In May the US department of the interior rejected Palin's objections and listed the bear as a threatened species, saying that two-thirds of the world's polar bears were likely to be extinct by 2050 due to the rapid melting of the sea ice. Palin, governor of Alaska and the Republican nominee for US vice-president, responded last month by suing the federal government, to try to overturn the ruling. The case will be heard in January.
Though the state of Alaska has no polar bear specialists on its staff, the governor's stance has pitted it against the combined scientific fire-power of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the US Geological Survey, and world experts on the mammal.
In its lawsuit, Alaska said it opposed the endangered label partly because the listing would "deter activities such as ... oil and gas exploration and development". Oil companies recently bid $2.7bn (£1.5bn) for rights to explore the Chuckchi sea, an established polar bear habitat.
The threatened species status might also impede the building of an Alaskan natural gas pipeline, which Palin has called the "will of God". In a letter last year to the US interior secretary, Dirk Kempthorne, she said she believed the polar bear population was "abundant, stable and unthreatened by direct human activity". She opposed the call for the listing because it "did not use the best available scientific and commercial information".
Her own Alaskan review of the science drew on a joint paper by seven authors, four of whom were well-known climate- change contrarians. Her paper argued that it was "certainly premature, if not impossible" to link temperature rise in Alaska with human CO2 emissions.
The paper, entitled Polar Bears of Western Hudson Bay and Climate Change, has been criticised for relying on old research and ignoring evidence that Arctic sea-ice is melting at a quickening pace. Walt Meier, a world authority on sea ice, based at the National Snow and Ice Data Centre, said: "The paper doesn't measure up scientifically."
One co-author of the paper, Willie Soon, completed the study with funding from ExxonMobil - which has oil operations in Alaska's North Slope - as well as from the American Petroleum Institute. Soon was a former senior scientist with the George C Marshall Institute, which acts as an incubator for climate-change scepticism. The institute has received $715,000 in funding from ExxonMobil since 1998.
In May, ExxonMobil announced that it was no longer funding Marshall and other groups linked with contrarian views. It said this was to avoid "distraction from the need to provide energy while reducing greenhouse gas emissions" and stressed that the company did not "control the research itself".
Another co-author of the document was Sallie Baliunas. In 2003 she and Soon were criticised when it was revealed that a joint paper had been partially funded by the American Petroleum Institute. Thirteen scientists whom they cited issued a rebuttal and several editors of the journal Climate Research resigned because of the "flawed peer review". A third co-author of the polar bear study, David Legates, a professor at Delaware University, is also associated with the Marshall Institute.
The citation by Palin and her officials prompted complaints from Congress. One member, Brad Miller, dubbed the polar bear study phony science.
Palin told Miller: "Attempts to discredit scientists ... simply because their analyses do not agree with your views, would be a disservice to this country." Miller now says that Palin's use of the paper shows she differs greatly from John McCain, the Republican presidential contender, who has pressed for scientific integrity. "Turning to the cottage industry of scientists who are funded because they spread doubt about global warming is not integrity," Miller said.
Palin's submission consulted J Scott Armstrong, a specialist in forecasting, who regards the global warming issue as "public hysteria".
Two other contrarian scholars were cited. One was Syun-Ichi Akasofu, formerly director of the International Arctic Research Centre, in Alaska, who argues that climate change could be a hangover from the little ice age. He is a founding director of the Heartland Institute, a thinktank that has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Timothy Ball, a retired professor from Winnipeg, is cited for his climate and polar bear research. He has called human-made global warming "the greatest deception in the history of science". He has worked with both Friends of Science, and the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, which each had funding from energy firms.
Kert Davies, research director at Greenpeace US, said the state of Alaska under Palin's leadership had relied on scholars who argue the opposite view to that of the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community. "It shows that she is completely out of touch with the urgency of the climate crisis."
Last month Palin agreed that the Alaskan climate was changing but added: "I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made." She later tried to retract the statement.
Source: Guardian
Sarah Palin thinks Afghanistan and US are neighbours
More On:
Sarah Palin
Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin called Afghanistan “our neighboring country” on Sunday in a speech that could revive questions over her tendency to stumble into linguistic knots.
Three days after a mostly gaffe-free debate performance, the Alaska governor fumbled during a speech in which she praised U.S. soldiers for “fighting terrorism and protecting us and our democratic values”.
“They are also building schools for the Afghan children so that there is hope and opportunity in our neighboring country of Afghanistan,” she told several hundred supporters at a fundraising event in San Francisco.
The gaffe could add fuel to comedians and late-night talk show hosts who have seized on her linguistic infelicities to portray her as someone not to be taken seriously.
Later in a speech in Omaha, Neb., Palin poked a little fun at herself when talking about one comedian in particular — actress Tina Fey whose dead-on impression of Palin’s looks, voice and body language has been a hit.
Fey, who bears an uncanny resemblance to Palin, has parodied her as a rambling, perky politician unfamiliar with world issues for three straight weeks on the comedy show “Saturday Night Live”.
“I was just trying to give Tina Fey more material — job security for Saturday Night Live,” Palin said.
The skits have become a sensation since an awkward interview with CBS News anchor Katie Couric in which Palin failed to coherently express her views about Russia, the U.S. government’s $700 billion financial bailout package, and the newspapers or magazines she reads.
In recent days, the 44-year-old self-described “hockey mom” has described the Couric interview as “less than successful”, and apologized to crowds of supporters for her shaky performance, saying she was “annoyed” and “impatient” because she wanted to talk about other issues like energy independence.
Palin’s opponent, Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden, has also committed high-profile gaffes, including claiming in a recent interview that President Franklin D. Roosevelt calmed fears in a TV address at the beginning of the Great Depression. There was no TV in 1929 — Roosevelt wasn’t president at the time.
From Reuters Blog
Three days after a mostly gaffe-free debate performance, the Alaska governor fumbled during a speech in which she praised U.S. soldiers for “fighting terrorism and protecting us and our democratic values”.
“They are also building schools for the Afghan children so that there is hope and opportunity in our neighboring country of Afghanistan,” she told several hundred supporters at a fundraising event in San Francisco.
The gaffe could add fuel to comedians and late-night talk show hosts who have seized on her linguistic infelicities to portray her as someone not to be taken seriously.
Later in a speech in Omaha, Neb., Palin poked a little fun at herself when talking about one comedian in particular — actress Tina Fey whose dead-on impression of Palin’s looks, voice and body language has been a hit.
Fey, who bears an uncanny resemblance to Palin, has parodied her as a rambling, perky politician unfamiliar with world issues for three straight weeks on the comedy show “Saturday Night Live”.
“I was just trying to give Tina Fey more material — job security for Saturday Night Live,” Palin said.
The skits have become a sensation since an awkward interview with CBS News anchor Katie Couric in which Palin failed to coherently express her views about Russia, the U.S. government’s $700 billion financial bailout package, and the newspapers or magazines she reads.
In recent days, the 44-year-old self-described “hockey mom” has described the Couric interview as “less than successful”, and apologized to crowds of supporters for her shaky performance, saying she was “annoyed” and “impatient” because she wanted to talk about other issues like energy independence.
Palin’s opponent, Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden, has also committed high-profile gaffes, including claiming in a recent interview that President Franklin D. Roosevelt calmed fears in a TV address at the beginning of the Great Depression. There was no TV in 1929 — Roosevelt wasn’t president at the time.
From Reuters Blog
Joe Biden's Fantasy World
More On:
Joe Biden
In the popular media wisdom, Sarah Palin is the neophyte who knows nothing about foreign policy while Joe Biden is the savvy diplomatic pro. Then what are we to make of Mr. Biden's fantastic debate voyage last week when he made factual claims that would have got Mrs. Palin mocked from New York to Los Angeles?
APStart with Lebanon, where Mr. Biden asserted that "When we kicked -- along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, 'Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't know -- if you don't, Hezbollah will control it.' Now what's happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel."
The U.S. never kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, and no one else has either. Perhaps Mr. Biden meant to say Syria, except that the U.S. also didn't do that. The Lebanese ousted Syria's military in 2005. As for NATO, Messrs. Biden and Obama may have proposed sending alliance troops in, but if they did that was also a fantasy. The U.S. has had all it can handle trying to convince NATO countries to deploy to Afghanistan.
Speaking of which, Mr. Biden also averred that "Our commanding general in Afghanistan said the surge principle in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan." In trying to correct him, Mrs. Palin mispronounced the general's name -- saying "General McClellan" instead of General David McKiernan. But Mr. Biden's claim was the bigger error, because General McKiernan said that while "Afghanistan is not Iraq," he also said a "sustained commitment" to counterinsurgency would be required. That is consistent with Mr. McCain's point that the "surge principles" of Iraq could work in Afghanistan.
Then there's the Senator's astonishing claim that Mr. Obama "did not say he'd sit down with Ahmadinejad" without preconditions. Yet Mr. Biden himself criticized Mr. Obama on this point in 2007 at the National Press Club: "Would I make a blanket commitment to meet unconditionally with the leaders of each of those countries within the first year I was elected President? Absolutely, positively no."
Or how about his rewriting of Bosnia history to assert that John McCain didn't support President Clinton in the 1990s. "My recommendations on Bosnia, I admit I was the first one to recommend it. They saved tens of thousands of lives. And initially John McCain opposed it along with a lot of other people. But the end result was it worked." Mr. Biden's immodesty aside, Mr. McCain supported Mr. Clinton on Bosnia, as did Bob Dole even as he was running against him for President in 1996 -- in contrast to the way Mr. Biden and Democratic leaders have tried to undermine President Bush on Iraq.
Closer to home, the Delaware blarney stone also invited Americans to join him at "Katie's restaurant" in Wilmington to witness middle-class struggles. Just one problem: Katie's closed in the 1980s. The mistake is more than a memory lapse because it exposes how phony is Mr. Biden's attempt to pose for this campaign as Lunchbucket Joe.
We think the word "lie" is overused in politics today, having become a favorite of the blogosphere and at the New York Times. So we won't say Mr. Biden was deliberately making events up when he made these and other false statements. Perhaps he merely misspoke. In any case, Mrs. Palin may not know as much about the world as Mr. Biden does, but at least most of what she knows is true.
From Wall Street Journal
APStart with Lebanon, where Mr. Biden asserted that "When we kicked -- along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, 'Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't know -- if you don't, Hezbollah will control it.' Now what's happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel."
The U.S. never kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, and no one else has either. Perhaps Mr. Biden meant to say Syria, except that the U.S. also didn't do that. The Lebanese ousted Syria's military in 2005. As for NATO, Messrs. Biden and Obama may have proposed sending alliance troops in, but if they did that was also a fantasy. The U.S. has had all it can handle trying to convince NATO countries to deploy to Afghanistan.
Speaking of which, Mr. Biden also averred that "Our commanding general in Afghanistan said the surge principle in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan." In trying to correct him, Mrs. Palin mispronounced the general's name -- saying "General McClellan" instead of General David McKiernan. But Mr. Biden's claim was the bigger error, because General McKiernan said that while "Afghanistan is not Iraq," he also said a "sustained commitment" to counterinsurgency would be required. That is consistent with Mr. McCain's point that the "surge principles" of Iraq could work in Afghanistan.
Then there's the Senator's astonishing claim that Mr. Obama "did not say he'd sit down with Ahmadinejad" without preconditions. Yet Mr. Biden himself criticized Mr. Obama on this point in 2007 at the National Press Club: "Would I make a blanket commitment to meet unconditionally with the leaders of each of those countries within the first year I was elected President? Absolutely, positively no."
Or how about his rewriting of Bosnia history to assert that John McCain didn't support President Clinton in the 1990s. "My recommendations on Bosnia, I admit I was the first one to recommend it. They saved tens of thousands of lives. And initially John McCain opposed it along with a lot of other people. But the end result was it worked." Mr. Biden's immodesty aside, Mr. McCain supported Mr. Clinton on Bosnia, as did Bob Dole even as he was running against him for President in 1996 -- in contrast to the way Mr. Biden and Democratic leaders have tried to undermine President Bush on Iraq.
Closer to home, the Delaware blarney stone also invited Americans to join him at "Katie's restaurant" in Wilmington to witness middle-class struggles. Just one problem: Katie's closed in the 1980s. The mistake is more than a memory lapse because it exposes how phony is Mr. Biden's attempt to pose for this campaign as Lunchbucket Joe.
We think the word "lie" is overused in politics today, having become a favorite of the blogosphere and at the New York Times. So we won't say Mr. Biden was deliberately making events up when he made these and other false statements. Perhaps he merely misspoke. In any case, Mrs. Palin may not know as much about the world as Mr. Biden does, but at least most of what she knows is true.
From Wall Street Journal
Bidens owe SimmonsCooper $1 million in hedge fund deal
More On:
Joe Biden
Vice presidential candidate Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden and brother James Biden owe $1 million to SimmonsCooper law firm of East Alton from a hedge fund buyout that fell apart in 2006.
SimmonsCooper attorneys have contributed hundreds of thousands to campaigns of Senator Biden, his other son Beau Biden, and John Markell, current candidate for governor, while turning Delaware into a national magnet for asbestos lawsuits.
In the hedge fund case, Hunter Biden and James Biden seek to shift their debt to former partner Joseph Lotito through counterclaims in a fraud suit he filed against them.
New York State Supreme Court Justice Bernard Fried rejected their bid in May, ruling that they should have checked out the fund more carefully.
"These counterclaims, conditionally pleaded, do not rest on a justiciable controversy, but seek only to foment uncertainty and chaos between the parties in the event that plaintiff is successful in presenting the main claims," Fried wrote.
"Such pleading will not be countenanced," he wrote.
He held that Hunter Biden and James Biden can't allege misrepresentation when they failed to allege their own due diligence.
In June, Hunter Biden and James Biden appealed Fried's decision.
SimmonsCooper committed $2 million but withheld the second million after seeing how Lotito wasted the first million, according to Hunter Biden and James Biden.
SimmonsCooper invested in Hunter Biden and James Biden after teaming with Beau Biden's firm in Wilmington, Del.
In 2005, SimmonsCooper shifted its focus away from Madison County, Illinois, after Chief Judge Edward Ferguson transferred the mammoth asbestos docket from Circuit Judge Nicholas Byron to Circuit Judge Daniel Stack.
The firm targeted Delaware because many businesses incorporate there and the firm's roster of defendants always includes Delaware corporations.
No one at SimmonsCooper held a Delaware law license, so Beau Biden's firm filed the suits and SimmonsCooper identified itself as, "of counsel."
Beau Biden dropped an asbestos defense client to accommodate SimmonsCooper.
At the same time, Joe Biden resisted asbestos litigation reform in the Senate judiciary committee.
On New Year's Eve 2005, SimmonsCooper attorneys, staff and spouses contributed at least $52,250 to Biden's campaign for a seventh Senate term.
In the following five weeks the firm contributed at least $56,100.
Campaign reports don't allow full accounting from any source because contributors ignore employment information requests or many channel cash through others.
While SimmonsCooper backed Joe Biden's reelection, he prepared to run for president.
Hunter Biden meanwhile earned his living as a lobbyist, but not for long.
According to court records filed by Lotito, Joe Biden wanted Hunter Biden to find a different line of work because he couldn't afford to run for president as father of a lobbyist.
Lotito claims he and James Biden discussed Hunter Biden's job prospects.
Lotito met James Biden in 2002 and they invested together in 2005, according to Lotito.
Lotito introduced James Biden and Hunter Biden to lawyer John Fasciano, and the four began planning to buy Paradigm Capital Management.
Majority owner James Parks had started Paradigm in 1991 and successfully promoted it as less volatile than most hedge funds.
Everyone agreed that the Bidens and Lotito would form a corporation to buy 54 percent of Paradigm for $21.3 million in cash.
They would install Hunter Biden as chief executive officer at a salary of $1.2 million.
In April 2006, they formed LBB Limited Liability Corporation.
In May 2006, SimmonsCooper invested $1 million.
In June 2006, according to Lotito, the Bidens told him to stay away.
In August 2006, according to Lotito, the Bidens formed a corporation, executed a promissory note for $8.1 million, and purchased Paradigm's assets.
In September 2006, Lotito signed an agreement relinquishing his third of LBB.
He sued the Bidens in January 2007, alleging fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.
Attorney Brian Wille claimed the Bidens made a secret side deal, terminated Lotito's rights, and fraudulently induced him to sign away his interest in LBB.
Willie wrote that Lotito found investors and the Bidens rejected them.
He wrote that the Bidens intimidated Lotito and accused him of receiving kickbacks from Fasciano.
"Ultimately, the Bidens threatened to use their alleged connections with a former U.S. Senator to retaliate against counsel for insisting that his bill be paid, claiming that the former Senator was prepared to use his influence with a federal judge to disadvantage counsel in a proceeding then pending before that court," Willie wrote.
For the Bidens, Nicholas Gravante answered that Lotito failed to tell them that Fasciano would soon go to federal prison on a fraud conviction.
Gravante alleged that Lotito exaggerated Paradigm's value.
He alleged that Lotito failed to tell the Bidens that Parks had acted for years as absentee owner of Paradigm due to substance abuse.
Gravante filed a counterclaim and brought it to a hearing before Fried in June 2007.
Gravante called Lotito a criminal, and Fried asked where his pleadings called him that.
Gravante stammered and Fried said, "In my courtroom I would like you to restrict yourself to acting civilly."
Fried said, "You have accused him of being a criminal in this courtroom and it's not in these papers."
Gravante said, "He is accused of crimes. I don't call him a criminal, correct."
Fried rejected the counterclaim last September but ruled that the Bidens could amend it.
Gravante amended it to allege that LBB "specifically recruited SimmonsCooper as a result of Lotito's and Fasciano's misstatements and omissions."
SimmonsCooper withdrew, he wrote, and its investment converted to debt.
At a hearing this January, Gravante said the Bidens had "an uncheckered history."
He said, "These are reputable people - discovery will bear that out - who wouldn't have agreed to have that kind of an attorney do this work for them."
In May, for the second time, Fried rejected the counterclaim.
"Certainly defendants do not claim that the law permits sophisticated investors to rely on whatever representations a potential advisor makes without the need for a diligent inquiry by defendants, and that such representations are actionable if they wind up to have been faulty," Fried wrote.
Although the dispute hinges on the SimmonsCooper investment, neither side has alleged that Lotito knew or didn't know that SimmonsCooper would invest.
From Madison County Record
SimmonsCooper attorneys have contributed hundreds of thousands to campaigns of Senator Biden, his other son Beau Biden, and John Markell, current candidate for governor, while turning Delaware into a national magnet for asbestos lawsuits.
In the hedge fund case, Hunter Biden and James Biden seek to shift their debt to former partner Joseph Lotito through counterclaims in a fraud suit he filed against them.
New York State Supreme Court Justice Bernard Fried rejected their bid in May, ruling that they should have checked out the fund more carefully.
"These counterclaims, conditionally pleaded, do not rest on a justiciable controversy, but seek only to foment uncertainty and chaos between the parties in the event that plaintiff is successful in presenting the main claims," Fried wrote.
"Such pleading will not be countenanced," he wrote.
He held that Hunter Biden and James Biden can't allege misrepresentation when they failed to allege their own due diligence.
In June, Hunter Biden and James Biden appealed Fried's decision.
SimmonsCooper committed $2 million but withheld the second million after seeing how Lotito wasted the first million, according to Hunter Biden and James Biden.
SimmonsCooper invested in Hunter Biden and James Biden after teaming with Beau Biden's firm in Wilmington, Del.
In 2005, SimmonsCooper shifted its focus away from Madison County, Illinois, after Chief Judge Edward Ferguson transferred the mammoth asbestos docket from Circuit Judge Nicholas Byron to Circuit Judge Daniel Stack.
The firm targeted Delaware because many businesses incorporate there and the firm's roster of defendants always includes Delaware corporations.
No one at SimmonsCooper held a Delaware law license, so Beau Biden's firm filed the suits and SimmonsCooper identified itself as, "of counsel."
Beau Biden dropped an asbestos defense client to accommodate SimmonsCooper.
At the same time, Joe Biden resisted asbestos litigation reform in the Senate judiciary committee.
On New Year's Eve 2005, SimmonsCooper attorneys, staff and spouses contributed at least $52,250 to Biden's campaign for a seventh Senate term.
In the following five weeks the firm contributed at least $56,100.
Campaign reports don't allow full accounting from any source because contributors ignore employment information requests or many channel cash through others.
While SimmonsCooper backed Joe Biden's reelection, he prepared to run for president.
Hunter Biden meanwhile earned his living as a lobbyist, but not for long.
According to court records filed by Lotito, Joe Biden wanted Hunter Biden to find a different line of work because he couldn't afford to run for president as father of a lobbyist.
Lotito claims he and James Biden discussed Hunter Biden's job prospects.
Lotito met James Biden in 2002 and they invested together in 2005, according to Lotito.
Lotito introduced James Biden and Hunter Biden to lawyer John Fasciano, and the four began planning to buy Paradigm Capital Management.
Majority owner James Parks had started Paradigm in 1991 and successfully promoted it as less volatile than most hedge funds.
Everyone agreed that the Bidens and Lotito would form a corporation to buy 54 percent of Paradigm for $21.3 million in cash.
They would install Hunter Biden as chief executive officer at a salary of $1.2 million.
In April 2006, they formed LBB Limited Liability Corporation.
In May 2006, SimmonsCooper invested $1 million.
In June 2006, according to Lotito, the Bidens told him to stay away.
In August 2006, according to Lotito, the Bidens formed a corporation, executed a promissory note for $8.1 million, and purchased Paradigm's assets.
In September 2006, Lotito signed an agreement relinquishing his third of LBB.
He sued the Bidens in January 2007, alleging fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.
Attorney Brian Wille claimed the Bidens made a secret side deal, terminated Lotito's rights, and fraudulently induced him to sign away his interest in LBB.
Willie wrote that Lotito found investors and the Bidens rejected them.
He wrote that the Bidens intimidated Lotito and accused him of receiving kickbacks from Fasciano.
"Ultimately, the Bidens threatened to use their alleged connections with a former U.S. Senator to retaliate against counsel for insisting that his bill be paid, claiming that the former Senator was prepared to use his influence with a federal judge to disadvantage counsel in a proceeding then pending before that court," Willie wrote.
For the Bidens, Nicholas Gravante answered that Lotito failed to tell them that Fasciano would soon go to federal prison on a fraud conviction.
Gravante alleged that Lotito exaggerated Paradigm's value.
He alleged that Lotito failed to tell the Bidens that Parks had acted for years as absentee owner of Paradigm due to substance abuse.
Gravante filed a counterclaim and brought it to a hearing before Fried in June 2007.
Gravante called Lotito a criminal, and Fried asked where his pleadings called him that.
Gravante stammered and Fried said, "In my courtroom I would like you to restrict yourself to acting civilly."
Fried said, "You have accused him of being a criminal in this courtroom and it's not in these papers."
Gravante said, "He is accused of crimes. I don't call him a criminal, correct."
Fried rejected the counterclaim last September but ruled that the Bidens could amend it.
Gravante amended it to allege that LBB "specifically recruited SimmonsCooper as a result of Lotito's and Fasciano's misstatements and omissions."
SimmonsCooper withdrew, he wrote, and its investment converted to debt.
At a hearing this January, Gravante said the Bidens had "an uncheckered history."
He said, "These are reputable people - discovery will bear that out - who wouldn't have agreed to have that kind of an attorney do this work for them."
In May, for the second time, Fried rejected the counterclaim.
"Certainly defendants do not claim that the law permits sophisticated investors to rely on whatever representations a potential advisor makes without the need for a diligent inquiry by defendants, and that such representations are actionable if they wind up to have been faulty," Fried wrote.
Although the dispute hinges on the SimmonsCooper investment, neither side has alleged that Lotito knew or didn't know that SimmonsCooper would invest.
From Madison County Record
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
