| Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Harriet Miers In Trouble? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 9 2005, 03:31 PM (253 Views) | |
| cruiser | Oct 9 2005, 03:31 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Member
|
How Miers' law firm helped defraud investors Posted: October 8, 2005 1:00 a.m. Eastern © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com In 2000, Locke Liddell & Sapp, the Texas legal firm of which Harriet Miers was then co-manager, paid out $22 million to settle out-of-court with investors, many of whom had been defrauded of their life savings in the Austin Forex International currency-trading Ponzi scheme run by former Texas football star Russell Erxleben. Locke Liddell agreed to pay the $22 million restitution to investors because legal representation the firm provided Erxleben figured prominently in the perpetration of the fraud itself. Michael Shaunessy, the Austin attorney who represented the investors in the Locke Liddell settlement, told WND that Erxleben's Ponzi scheme defrauded over 600 investors who had established more than 800 separate investment accounts with Austin Forex International, or AFI. "Many of these investors were seniors," Shaunessy explained. "Erxleben convinced some of them to borrow the equity out of their homes, others he showed how to convert their IRAs to self-directed IRAs, so their IRA money could be handed over to him. Investors in AFI lost everything; some were retirees who lost their life savings. People were not able to make their home payments and their homes were foreclosed; some had to move in with relatives because they had nothing left after Erxleben was finished with them." What had Locke Liddell done wrong? According to the petition filed by Shaunessy, Locke Liddell's lawyers allowed AFI to sell unregistered securities. Moreover, the firm signed off on Erxleben's fraudulent investment brochures and promotional materials that contained misrepresentations. Locke Liddell knew for months that AFI's was taking staggering losses; still, the firm did nothing until they found out that state securities regulators had begun investigating. "These were not sophisticated investors," Shaunessy explained. "Many of them were older, and their economic means were limited. There were a lot of retired people. People's lives were disrupted; there were divorces. I even heard rumors that some people become suicidal." "Erxleben was the perfect con man," noted Ed Martin, who was then the IRS special agent who tracked down the AFI Ponzi scheme. "He was this University of Texas football star, a kicker who then went to the NFL. He was the guy next door, your buddy on the golf course. Everybody liked him – the trouble was that he'd shake your right hand with his right hand, but his left hand would end up in your pocket." In 1997, when Erxleben's scheme was in full swing, the Austin Business Journal wrote him up as a rising star. "In its first year," the Austin Business Journal reported in its Oct. 17, 1997, print edition, "Erxleben says Austin Forex averaged 8 percent to 10 percent monthly return for its clients, a 100 percent annual average. That's nearly double what a Top 25 mutual fund makes, according to a Bloomberg Business News study." Almost sounding like a sales brochure, the Austin Business Journal promoted Erxleben's hype: "Word is spreading from Austin Forex's small core of clients, and people are cashing in life insurance policies and college savings accounts to increase their initial investments. Austin Forex requires a minimum investment of $20,000." Like all gifted con artists, Erxleben knew how to create the "can't lose" feeling. He would brag that he had the same law firm the governor had, playing off the fact that George W. Bush, then the governor of Texas, was known to be one of Harriet Miers' clients. "He created the feeling that the boat was going to leave the dock, and you had to be on board," Martin explained to WND. "The problem was that you got on the boat only to find out the boat was going to sink, with you still on board." When AFI began to take loses, Erxleben went the way of all Ponzi schemes – he used the money of new investors to pay off old investors, a pattern which led to the bragging about how great returns "everybody" was getting from AFI. "It's like all Ponzi schemes," Ed Martin continued. "It works great until the con artist runs out of money. When the cash flow dries up, the deal is done. While the money lasts, the con artist lives high on the hog." Erxleben knew how to do that; AFI rented plush space in an Austin high rise at 100 Congress Avenue with a glass-enclosed corner office that overlooked the Capitol. "Trouble is that when the money is gone, the investors are left high and dry," Martin explained. Martin, now retired from the IRS, operates his own private investigation firm in Austin, where he specializes in preventing people from falling victim to financial swindles. "It's a tragedy," he said, reflecting back on AFI. "The investors are all ordinary people – doctors, lawyers, Indian chiefs – except that some of them were seniors who lost their retirement money when Erxleben's scheme ran out of gas." How responsible was Harriet Miers for allowing her law firm to participate in this fraud? Granted, Locke Liddell is a large law firm, and the fraud involved the Austin office, not the Dallas office where Miers worked. Still, she was supposedly "on watch" as the firm's co-manager when Erxleben perpetrated his fraud through Locke Liddell. In the press quotes of the time, Harriet Miers was typically the spokesperson for the firm. Moreover, Locke Liddell was caught not once, but twice. The firm was also burned by con artist Brian Stearns, who used the law firm's advice to defraud investors in an elaborate fake-bond scheme. For its role in this scam, Locke Liddell had to cough up another $8.5 million to settle out-of-court with the fleeced investors, many of whom again were senior retirees. In a two-year period of time while Miers was co-managing the law firm, Locke Liddell paid out $30.5 million to pay back ordinary citizens who had been robbed of their money, in part because the firm allowed its advice to be parlayed by crooks. "All in all, we did the best we could," settlement attorney Shaunessy told WND. "With the money Locke Liddell agreed to pay back, the defrauded investors ended up with something like 66 cents on their dollar." The conclusion of the Texas legal community is that the bilked investors will never again see the 34 cents of every dollar they put into these schemes that Locke Liddell ill-advised. Unfortunately, in a post-Enron era, these credentials do not help build a positive resume justifying a lifetime position as an associate justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. |
|
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction. Blaise Pascal (1623 - 1662) | |
![]() |
|
| 5thwheeler | Oct 9 2005, 04:05 PM Post #2 |
|
Get the message?
|
I don't think having a crook sitting on the Supreme Court is a good thing, maybe she would be best suited as Governor of Florida. Oops, I almost forgot... that position is already occupied by one. |
|
History 101: When a popular myth is believed to be factual, teach the myth. Its not possible to underestimate the intelligence of the voting populous. Hummm, after seeing the results of the 06 election, I may have to modify my perception of the voting populous and refer to them as "Late Bloomers".
| |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Oct 9 2005, 04:13 PM Post #3 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
More character assassination from the moralists of the Right. As for moralists on the Left, Robert Novak, in The criminalization of American politics, made this statement the other day: "The criminalization of politics may work, even if the case against DeLay is as threadbare as it looks." |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| 5thwheeler | Oct 9 2005, 04:24 PM Post #4 |
|
Get the message?
|
Speaking about DeLay, now why didn't they use him to get aid for the Hurricane victims. If anyone knows how to funnel big bucks, its "Good Ole Boy" Tom. |
|
History 101: When a popular myth is believed to be factual, teach the myth. Its not possible to underestimate the intelligence of the voting populous. Hummm, after seeing the results of the 06 election, I may have to modify my perception of the voting populous and refer to them as "Late Bloomers".
| |
![]() |
|
| tomdrobin | Oct 10 2005, 10:56 PM Post #5 |
|
Member
|
5th Are you saying Jeb Bush is a crook? And, if so please post information confirming that. I'm not aware of any criminal charges. Some said the Clinton's were crooks too. Unsubstantiated statements mean nothing without proof. |
![]() |
|
| 5thwheeler | Oct 11 2005, 12:25 PM Post #6 |
|
Get the message?
|
And I thought you would never ask. tomdrobin, you must have been very young, or kept in seclusion during the late 80's and early 90's not to have heard about the Bush family's involvement in the S&L Scandal. Click away and spend a few hours looking up other sites about these guys! But beware, it may make you sick to your stomach knowing you were duped by them. The Bush family and the S&L Scandal |
|
History 101: When a popular myth is believed to be factual, teach the myth. Its not possible to underestimate the intelligence of the voting populous. Hummm, after seeing the results of the 06 election, I may have to modify my perception of the voting populous and refer to them as "Late Bloomers".
| |
![]() |
|
| Fr. Mike | Oct 12 2005, 01:25 PM Post #7 |
|
Member
|
I found this article today on the "Nation" online site. I suppose these are just 10 examples of many questions that she should be prepared to answer. After all--constitutional law should be a forte of a court justice sitting on the highest court of the land. I copied the article here with the questions. Now we will see if the senators have the will to get to this level of discovery. ____________________________________________________________________ The Nation Morton Mintz Tue Oct 11,11:46 AM ET The Nation -- Senate Judiciary Committee members have the opportunity to ask Harriet Miers, President Bush's nominee to succeed Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, certain bedrock but nervous-making questions that they did not ask--or were perhaps too timid to ask--of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. at the hearings on his nomination to be Chief Justice of the United States. ADVERTISEMENT The questions spring from a conveniently forgotten 1978 Supreme Court ruling and from the declaration in the Fourteenth Amendment that no state shall deprive "any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Here are ten sample questions for the committee to pose to Harriet Miers: 1. In a 1978 ruling on a case titled First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, the Court decided, 5 to 4, that banks and business corporations--just as you and me--have a First Amendment right to spend their money to influence elections. But in a dissent widely neglected in the eulogies attending his death, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote, "It might reasonably be concluded that those properties, so beneficial in the economic sphere, pose special dangers in the political sphere." Do you believe that the influence of corporate money in our elections poses "special dangers in the political sphere"? 2. The late Chief Justice went on to write, "Furthermore, it might be argued that liberties of political expression are not at all necessary to effectuate the purposes for which States permit commercial corporations to exist." Do you agree? 3. Finally, Justice Rehnquist said, "I would think that any particular form of organization upon which the State confers special privileges or immunities different from those of natural persons would be subject to like regulation, whether the organization is a labor union, a partnership, a trade association, or a corporation." In plain words, he was saying that the state, having created the corporation, can regulate the corporation. Do you agree? 4. Who was the "person" whose basic rights the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the people who approved it, sought to protect? (The person was, of course, the newly freed slave. The history of the amendment, adopted in 1868--soon after the end of the Civil War--proves this.) 5. Was the person a corporation? (No. "[W]hen the Fourteenth Amendment was submitted for approval, the people were not told that [they were ratifying] an amendment granting new and revolutionary rights to corporations," Justice Hugo L. Black wrote in Connecticut General Life Insurance Co. v. Johnson in 1938. "The history of the Amendment proves that the people were told that its purpose was to protect weak and helpless human beings and were not told that it was intended to remove corporations in any fashion from the control of state governments. The Fourteenth Amendment followed the freedom of a race from slavery.... Corporations have neither race nor color.") 6. The people ratified the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. Only eighteen years later, the Supreme Court had before it Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite disposed of it with a bolt-from-the-blue announcement: "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a state to deny any person the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." How would you characterize the Court's refusal to hear argument in a momentous case before deciding it? In proclaiming a paper entity to be a person, was the Court faithful to the intent of the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment and to the intent of the people who ratified it? Would you characterize what the Court did in Santa Clara as conservative? As radical? As "judicial modesty," which was the phrase Judge Roberts used at his hearing? 7. In 1973, after being fully briefed, hearing argument and long deliberation, the Court decided Roe v. Wade. Judge Robert H. Bork famously denounced the decision as "a wholly unjustified usurpation of state legislative authority." Without regard as to whether Roe v. Wade was rightly or wrongly decided, was Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad "a wholly unjustified usurpation of state legislative authority"? 8. Again without regard as to whether Roe v. Wade was rightly or wrongly decided, how does it strike you that the Court declared a corporation--a paper entity--to be a person but declared a fetus not to be a person? 9. Nathan Hecht, your longtime friend, who is a Texas Supreme Court Justice, told the Washington Post that he recalled you saying, "I'm convinced that life begins at conception." He added, "She thinks that after conception, it's not a balancing act--or if it is, it's a balancing of two equal lives." Do you equate the life of the fetus--a moment, an hour, a day, a week, a month or three months after conception--with the life of the "person" protected by the Fourteenth Amendment? 10. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in a 1992 case, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Robert P. Casey, that "the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.... Indeed, no Member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition." Do you question this proposition? Corporate power and money having become so controlling in our lives as well as our politics, it's not just "conservatives" who shy away from asking questions involving the concept of the corporation as a person. "Liberals" and lawmakers--whether Democrats or Republicans matters not--shun the subject, too. Perhaps most unfortunately, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee duck such questions when they consider judicial nominees--even nominees for the highest court in the land. This time around, will a committee member break the mold? Don't bet the store. |
|
A humble servant of the Lord Jesus Christ Don't forget to say your prayers! The unborn have rights too. | |
![]() |
|
| PRT | Oct 12 2005, 04:42 PM Post #8 |
|
Member
|
Well, Harriet has a religion!
from an AP article I found on sfgate.com. This is actually not new news...I did hear her probable church membership a few days ago. You might want to look at the article. I think there are a lot of interesting comments. However, it's still all about the law. |
![]() |
|
| Fr. Mike | Oct 12 2005, 04:59 PM Post #9 |
|
Member
|
That is an interesting article. I was wondering during Roberts confirmation hearings when the fact of his Roman Catholism would be brought up. And it wasn't. I hope whoever ends up as the Justice does have a strong religious background and that it has built up theircharacter to the point where they do what is right while a judge. A firm constructionist Justice "should" be the result of one who lives their faith. To be deceitful and use the position to legislate their own or a parties particular mantra in decisions would be immoral. The Justices that currently vote their own personal beliefs are living a life of deception. I hope they see the light and do what is right. This position should be above politics and personal beliefs. That is what it was chartered to do and therefore requires a person who is moral and sets their own impulses to the side when considering a case. I felt that Roberts was that sort of person by listening to him in his hearings. |
|
A humble servant of the Lord Jesus Christ Don't forget to say your prayers! The unborn have rights too. | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Oct 12 2005, 05:57 PM Post #10 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
If religion is a personal belief, and Christianity certainly is, then does "Justices that currently vote their own personal beliefs are living a life of deception." still apply? |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| roscoe | Oct 12 2005, 07:02 PM Post #11 |
|
Member
|
Soon We will all find out the good, bad and the ugly about her. |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Oct 12 2005, 07:50 PM Post #12 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
If she can now be given a fair hearing. This was not intended to be a democratic process. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| jackd | Oct 12 2005, 08:09 PM Post #13 |
![]()
Member
|
Spacebeing said:
I assume your comment would also apply to an eventual fundamental Muslim, Buddhist or Jehovah's Witness judge's job candidate or are they automatically excluded from the position because of their religious beliefs? I was under the impression the only requirement for a judge was to apply the laws as they are written,.
|
|
Walk in front of me, you lead me, Walk behind me, I lead you Walk beside me, you are a friend. | |
![]() |
|
| Fr. Mike | Oct 12 2005, 08:28 PM Post #14 |
|
Member
|
It certainly does Jack. Chris, I'm not sure what all the beliefs of the individual Justices are. I was referring only to those that are religious as defined by the the quoted definition of "religious"-- as found in the dictionary. Noun S: (n) religion, faith, religious belief (a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny) "he lost his faith but not his morality" S: (n) religion, faith, organized religion (an institution to express belief in a divine power) "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him" |
|
A humble servant of the Lord Jesus Christ Don't forget to say your prayers! The unborn have rights too. | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Oct 13 2005, 03:50 AM Post #15 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Still a pesonal thing, Mike. Also something Roberts explicitly said would not interfere in his judgement of Law and Constitution. I think, perhaps, what you seek is a justice with a fundamentalist philosophy. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2








10:38 AM Jul 13