Update: Jim King's wife Debbie announced that King died of Myeloma cancer after this story was posted. Our sincerest prayers to the King family.
Louisville, KY - Metro Council President Jim King died early Wednesday at age 63 after a long illness. Sources say that King had been suffering from heart problems for several months. Other rumors include worse. No matter what happened there is much to the life of Jim King.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query jim king. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query jim king. Sort by date Show all posts
Thursday, January 15, 2015
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
KING AND THE KREF EXPLANATION
I feel compelled to clarify some of the allegations against the King's I have initiated through the KREF. Why you may ask? Simply, in my opinion they are now doing nothing more than using delay tactics to stall the conclusion of this case.
Below are some highlights from the official complaint I filed with the KREF in February. Hopefully for some of you it will give you some idea of why this has become so important to the integrity of elections.
After filing an initial complaint with the Judicial Conduct Commission (JCC), and receiving a non response in this regard from them Louisville News and Politics: KING UPDATES AND MORE! , I was ready to let it go and figured they would have the power to keep a real investigation from being done. After being bombarded with email from loyal readers asking me to continue, and some giving me basic information I could start with, I decided to do a bit more research on the King's.
Below are some highlights from the official complaint I filed with the KREF in February. Hopefully for some of you it will give you some idea of why this has become so important to the integrity of elections.
After filing an initial complaint with the Judicial Conduct Commission (JCC), and receiving a non response in this regard from them Louisville News and Politics: KING UPDATES AND MORE! , I was ready to let it go and figured they would have the power to keep a real investigation from being done. After being bombarded with email from loyal readers asking me to continue, and some giving me basic information I could start with, I decided to do a bit more research on the King's.
Once I started researching it became more and more obvious to me that there was probable cause to believe that the election violations went beyond simple unethical behavior and into the possibility of criminal intent.
In a Judge's race, if in no other, I would expect candidates to be above illegality since we empower them to enforce the law against those who commit illegal acts. I therefore expect the standards to be higher for candidates in this office than any other. I also believe in the biblical saying of "judge not lest ye be judged."
While it may not mean much to many people in the case of our legal system it means everything.
With that in mind here is a short sample of some of the original allegations in the complaint. Since all can be obtained through normal open records request laying them out is not a problem I am worried about.
The Katie King Campaign for District Judge was operated entirely by financially interested family members and business associates. Each loan submitted by Respondent Katie King to her Campaign Committee was addressed to and from King Southern Bank, the depository bank of the Committee, which is owned and operated by her father and campaign treasurer, Jim King.
Furthermore, the dubious mortgage instrument dated October 27, 2008 was prepared by Raymond J. Naber Jr., a member of Gold-King Title Services LLC., of which Katie King is a founding member.
The Campaign Committee also employed the King family operated CPA firm for campaign bookkeeping and financial recording purposes.
Multiple treasurers resigned from Katie King’s campaign, all within two weeks prior and one day subsequent to this financing, including Matthew Conway and Jim King. The $209,000 in financing was made available by King Southern Bank nearly one week before the election on November 4, 2008. Five weeks thereafter, Respondents refused to disclose this and other information through retained legal counsel. This public lack of comments, if you will, coupled with the unavailability of bank records and other financial documents, made a formal inquiry necessary.
Although the note and mortgage were signed and secured by Katie King personally, the loan proceeds were deposited into the campaign account directly to and from the location of King Southern Bank at 3400 Dutchmans Lane.
The consistent policy behind conditionally excluding bank loans from contribution limits has been summarized best by the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission. In an advisory opinion, that state’s commission affirmed that a “mortgage loan,” when made in the ordinary course of business “is not a contribution because it is an arm’s length commercial transaction with no intent or opportunity that any portion of the loan proceeds will become a contribution or exert undue influence” Advisory Opinion No 01-2003.
In other words, a bank loan made in the ordinary course of business has the sole purpose of making profit for the lending institution.
In a Judge's race, if in no other, I would expect candidates to be above illegality since we empower them to enforce the law against those who commit illegal acts. I therefore expect the standards to be higher for candidates in this office than any other. I also believe in the biblical saying of "judge not lest ye be judged."
While it may not mean much to many people in the case of our legal system it means everything.
With that in mind here is a short sample of some of the original allegations in the complaint. Since all can be obtained through normal open records request laying them out is not a problem I am worried about.
The Katie King Campaign for District Judge was operated entirely by financially interested family members and business associates. Each loan submitted by Respondent Katie King to her Campaign Committee was addressed to and from King Southern Bank, the depository bank of the Committee, which is owned and operated by her father and campaign treasurer, Jim King.
Furthermore, the dubious mortgage instrument dated October 27, 2008 was prepared by Raymond J. Naber Jr., a member of Gold-King Title Services LLC., of which Katie King is a founding member.
The Campaign Committee also employed the King family operated CPA firm for campaign bookkeeping and financial recording purposes.
Multiple treasurers resigned from Katie King’s campaign, all within two weeks prior and one day subsequent to this financing, including Matthew Conway and Jim King. The $209,000 in financing was made available by King Southern Bank nearly one week before the election on November 4, 2008. Five weeks thereafter, Respondents refused to disclose this and other information through retained legal counsel. This public lack of comments, if you will, coupled with the unavailability of bank records and other financial documents, made a formal inquiry necessary.
Although the note and mortgage were signed and secured by Katie King personally, the loan proceeds were deposited into the campaign account directly to and from the location of King Southern Bank at 3400 Dutchmans Lane.
The consistent policy behind conditionally excluding bank loans from contribution limits has been summarized best by the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission. In an advisory opinion, that state’s commission affirmed that a “mortgage loan,” when made in the ordinary course of business “is not a contribution because it is an arm’s length commercial transaction with no intent or opportunity that any portion of the loan proceeds will become a contribution or exert undue influence” Advisory Opinion No 01-2003.
In other words, a bank loan made in the ordinary course of business has the sole purpose of making profit for the lending institution.
In this particular case though Jim King’s position as father to judicial candidate Katie King, treasurer of her campaign, chairman, president and CEO of King Southern Bank, and president and CEO of the campaign’s accounting firm, King & Company, PSC, establishes that this loan was not conducted by two unrelated parties bargaining at arm’s length.
In short the King family operated lending institution purposely extended financing with the knowledge that the funds would be deposited in an account for the payment of campaign expenses.
As a partisan elected official, past Louisville Metro Council President, 2004 Chairman of the Kentucky Bankers Association and member of its Board of Directors, Jim King is uniquely positioned to understand the specter of undue influence. The decision of Jim and Katie to ignore campaign finance law in this regard shows their collective disrespect for the integrity of public office.
The nature and timing of this financing arrangement suggests that Katie King would not have qualified for the terms without her relational ties, both family and employment, acting as registered agent of process for both the lending institution and its parent holding company.
Because of the close family and financial relationship each shares with the other, their conduct in this matter establishes a pattern of knowing, blatant disregard for campaign finance regulation promulgated under 32 KAR 2:180(2)(c). Because of this the October 27, 2008 loan fails to be classified as such under KRS 121.015(7)(b), and should be considered an illegal corporate contribution under KRS 121.025 and 121.150(21).
Furthermore, this illegal contribution subjects all parties to civil and criminal penalties under KRS 121.990(1-2), and the possible revocation of King Southern Bank’s corporate charter and forfeiture of its authority to conduct business in Kentucky under KRS 121.990(2).
The obfuscatory remarks of Respondent Kathryn King on December 12, 2008 also call into question the method by which the October 27, 2008 second mortgage or refinancing agreement was obtained. When provided the opportunity to explain how she obtained the $194,000, Katie King, in her public refusal to comment, did not reveal this mortgage existed.
Katie King’s statement that the campaign funds originated from her “personal accounts” does not comport with documentary evidence. KRS 121.150(12) would prohibit the transfer of funds into Katie King’s campaign account by a person acting as a disguised intermediary for another, including her father. If the prior unreleased mortgage was paid down substantially to allow later financing, where did the money come from to pay it down and when was it accomplished? This question is very relevant to the process.
We also still do not know whether the similarly reported loans totaling $50,700 that Katie King made to her campaign during the primary election were obtained through secured financing as well.
If Katie King knowingly accepted funds from her dad Jim King for the purpose of augmenting her campaign’s account balance and facilitating financing, then each would have acted in contravention of KRS 121.150(12).
Furthermore, these contributions would have exceeded the $1,000 limit stated in KRS 121.150(6). IF Katie King is found guilty of knowingly accepting such an illicit distribution of funds from her Dad Metro Councilman Jim King as passed through his lending institution, her judicial office would be declared vacant pursuant to KRS 121.999(7) and both individuals would be subject to criminal prosecution.
This is just a sample of some of the things in the complaint I have asked to investigate.
Jim King and his legal team have even alluded to an email they received from the KREF last summer saying that he could indeed gift money to his daughter legally. After receiving the emails through the Kentucky Open Records Act I have included them with this article for your review.
No where does the KREF give permission for King to do so. This is a blatant mischaracterization by King to try to make people believe he had justification for going forward with his plans to get Katie a Judgeship. In my opinion anyway.
A couple other quotes for you.
On November 5, 2008 when interviewed by Ben Jackey of WLKY news Katie King stated, “[w]ho’s to say, you know, what, how far he went, you know, I think it just depends on somebody’s opinion, I mean, I think that, um, I think he’s just an overzealous father” [WLKY-TV 32 Broadcast].
On December 12, 2008 even Joe Terry, a former chairman of the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance stated that if a parent gave a large gift to a child after he or she filed for office, “that would stink to me” and might be considered an illegal contribution.”
He now is employed by King as part of his legal staff.
Sarah Jackson, executive director of the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance, said that the agency would consider the “timing and the intent of a personal donation from a family member” in deciding whether it should be subject of an inquiry.
Bottom line? Simply this. Whether Katie King and Jim King robbed the judiciary blind, there is sufficient evidence in the mountain of misgivings stated in the complaint to subject this to further investigation.
And We The People are entitled to know if our Judges are above the law.
Furthermore, this illegal contribution subjects all parties to civil and criminal penalties under KRS 121.990(1-2), and the possible revocation of King Southern Bank’s corporate charter and forfeiture of its authority to conduct business in Kentucky under KRS 121.990(2).
The obfuscatory remarks of Respondent Kathryn King on December 12, 2008 also call into question the method by which the October 27, 2008 second mortgage or refinancing agreement was obtained. When provided the opportunity to explain how she obtained the $194,000, Katie King, in her public refusal to comment, did not reveal this mortgage existed.
Katie King’s statement that the campaign funds originated from her “personal accounts” does not comport with documentary evidence. KRS 121.150(12) would prohibit the transfer of funds into Katie King’s campaign account by a person acting as a disguised intermediary for another, including her father. If the prior unreleased mortgage was paid down substantially to allow later financing, where did the money come from to pay it down and when was it accomplished? This question is very relevant to the process.
We also still do not know whether the similarly reported loans totaling $50,700 that Katie King made to her campaign during the primary election were obtained through secured financing as well.
If Katie King knowingly accepted funds from her dad Jim King for the purpose of augmenting her campaign’s account balance and facilitating financing, then each would have acted in contravention of KRS 121.150(12).
Furthermore, these contributions would have exceeded the $1,000 limit stated in KRS 121.150(6). IF Katie King is found guilty of knowingly accepting such an illicit distribution of funds from her Dad Metro Councilman Jim King as passed through his lending institution, her judicial office would be declared vacant pursuant to KRS 121.999(7) and both individuals would be subject to criminal prosecution.
This is just a sample of some of the things in the complaint I have asked to investigate.
Jim King and his legal team have even alluded to an email they received from the KREF last summer saying that he could indeed gift money to his daughter legally. After receiving the emails through the Kentucky Open Records Act I have included them with this article for your review.
No where does the KREF give permission for King to do so. This is a blatant mischaracterization by King to try to make people believe he had justification for going forward with his plans to get Katie a Judgeship. In my opinion anyway.
A couple other quotes for you.
On November 5, 2008 when interviewed by Ben Jackey of WLKY news Katie King stated, “[w]ho’s to say, you know, what, how far he went, you know, I think it just depends on somebody’s opinion, I mean, I think that, um, I think he’s just an overzealous father” [WLKY-TV 32 Broadcast].
On December 12, 2008 even Joe Terry, a former chairman of the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance stated that if a parent gave a large gift to a child after he or she filed for office, “that would stink to me” and might be considered an illegal contribution.”
He now is employed by King as part of his legal staff.
Sarah Jackson, executive director of the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance, said that the agency would consider the “timing and the intent of a personal donation from a family member” in deciding whether it should be subject of an inquiry.
Bottom line? Simply this. Whether Katie King and Jim King robbed the judiciary blind, there is sufficient evidence in the mountain of misgivings stated in the complaint to subject this to further investigation.
And We The People are entitled to know if our Judges are above the law.
Your thoughts?
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
KING: I DID IT FOR MY DAUGHTER
Seems like Jim King is trying now to stand up, 2 days before the KREF hearing and 6 months AFTER the charges, and play the "gee I was only trying to help my daughter card and didn't think it was illegal." King defends gifts to daughter courier-journal.com The Courier-Journal .
The fact is I laid out this plan for him long ago most recently a month ago:
Louisville News and Politics: AND THE BEAT OF THE KING GOES ON....... Hell I gave him the advice for free. I should have charged for it since it is now his mantra.
The fact is that Jim King could have played the daddy card long ago and instead chose not to. Only now after the media has finally jumped on board this train wreck, special kudos to Andy Aalcock at WLKY for having the guts to tackle this first, does Jim King decide he must "be a man" and play for sympathy.
At this point why bother?
The KREF is intent on doing nothing, and actually based on the Steve Henry case laid out by Jake Payne over at www.pageonekentucky.com, who believes anything will happen? The players are all political and many have professional relationships with each other so why would we expect justice.
Attorney General Jack Conway's own brother Matt Conway publicly stated he resigned as Katie King's campaign treasurer because he had ethical concerns. Joe Terry in December stated this whole thing would look fishy if the cash was given after Katie was a candidate and went on King's payroll immediately after the charges were filed to defend King clearly against his public statements.
Of course Jack Conway has decided not to get involved instead waiting for the suspect KREF to rule first. Based on precedent and public findings why would anyone wait on the KREF? Especially when the charges may include your own brother?
Seems like Conway has his priorities and they are to try to stay elected not do his job. But at the expense of your own brother? Throwing your own brother under the bus by leaving him hanging? Hell I would investigate anything and everything if my family was involved. Especially when running for office. In my world leaving your own brother out to dry is about as bad as it gets. But hey these are my opinions.
Of course Joe Terry is ex chairman of the KREF. Coincidence in trying to garner favorable opinions perhaps?
You be the judge I have enough on my plate right now.
Let's look at Sheryl Snyder.
A supposed "crackerjack" attorney who is an expert in campaign election law yet did not know he needed a legal advisory opinion before telling Jim King it was OK to give Katie over a hundred thousand dollars as a "gift" fully knowing that he argued to allow the exception of cash gifts from family members be allowed in 2000 as part of HB 750, a bill that was thrown out and not made into law. Now today he wants to perpetrate the obscene suggestion that cash gifts from family members are legal or should be?
What a farce. Of course Sheryl Snyder has argued cases on behalf of the KREF and with at least one of the board members who will decide this case. Another coincidence?
Spare me.
Let's not forget that Amy Cubbage represented King before Snyder did. If Amy Cubbage and/or Sheryl Snyder gave Jim King the go ahead to infuse cash to his daughter's campaign, clearly knowing the law was never changed to allow it, then they should be guilty of malpractice and essentially aiding and abetting criminal behavior.
Of course now the argument is switched to the First Amendment rights of the King's having been violated. I guess Snyder has to go that route since he has obvious concerns fighting the merits.
Yawn.
Additionally, everyone knows about the $10,000 "gift" to Katie made by Jim King in May, 2 months prior to the email he says justified his actions, and no action was taken on that issue either. Now the argument is that King customarily gives Katie that money each year as a gift.
Fair enough yet there are some questions.
One there has been no documentation proving this was a reasonable and customary transaction just the word of Jim King. Though he probably does gift this amount each year it still requires evidence especially considering he is the one the charges of impropriety are against.
Two the gift is allowable, and no arguments here, during the calendar year so why not wait until after the election say until December to gift this money and avoid this type of charge of impropriety?
Because the money was knowingly going into the campaign account again clearly violating the $1000 limit by ANY person who contributes.
On top of all that he waits until AFTER Matt Conway resigns before giving this cash infusion to Katie? Hell according to him he had every legal right as of July 16, 2008 so why wait until Matt is gone and King is named treasurer? Because he had to get her the money before the election and lost his cover. Then after the money was given and knowingly violating campaign finance law, while he was treasurer, he resigns stating it could be perceived as a conflict of interest being her treasurer.
And we are to believe he committed this unintentionally against all the evidence that screams otherwise?
The KREF findings state very clearly that Jim King was intentionally looking for a way to circumvent the campaign limits on page 12. They clearly state that it is beyond belief that King or Snyder, as seasoned politicos, would make their determination based on one line in an ongoing email exchange.
Of course that email clearly shows King was trying to find a way to give more money.
Then they concluded that this was not a "knowing" violation.
It defies logic or belief that King did not know it was a violation. It clearly defies logic and belief that Katie King is a sitting Judge that judges others while gaining that office through illegal means. It defies logic and belief that Jim King is still on the Metro Council and wants to be Mayor.
We will know more on Friday but I will tell you this. The KREF is intent on a small fine and a slap on the wrist but there is much more to come legally if they go that route.
Stay tuned.............
The fact is I laid out this plan for him long ago most recently a month ago:
Louisville News and Politics: AND THE BEAT OF THE KING GOES ON....... Hell I gave him the advice for free. I should have charged for it since it is now his mantra.
The fact is that Jim King could have played the daddy card long ago and instead chose not to. Only now after the media has finally jumped on board this train wreck, special kudos to Andy Aalcock at WLKY for having the guts to tackle this first, does Jim King decide he must "be a man" and play for sympathy.
At this point why bother?
The KREF is intent on doing nothing, and actually based on the Steve Henry case laid out by Jake Payne over at www.pageonekentucky.com, who believes anything will happen? The players are all political and many have professional relationships with each other so why would we expect justice.
Attorney General Jack Conway's own brother Matt Conway publicly stated he resigned as Katie King's campaign treasurer because he had ethical concerns. Joe Terry in December stated this whole thing would look fishy if the cash was given after Katie was a candidate and went on King's payroll immediately after the charges were filed to defend King clearly against his public statements.
Of course Jack Conway has decided not to get involved instead waiting for the suspect KREF to rule first. Based on precedent and public findings why would anyone wait on the KREF? Especially when the charges may include your own brother?
Seems like Conway has his priorities and they are to try to stay elected not do his job. But at the expense of your own brother? Throwing your own brother under the bus by leaving him hanging? Hell I would investigate anything and everything if my family was involved. Especially when running for office. In my world leaving your own brother out to dry is about as bad as it gets. But hey these are my opinions.
Of course Joe Terry is ex chairman of the KREF. Coincidence in trying to garner favorable opinions perhaps?
You be the judge I have enough on my plate right now.
Let's look at Sheryl Snyder.
A supposed "crackerjack" attorney who is an expert in campaign election law yet did not know he needed a legal advisory opinion before telling Jim King it was OK to give Katie over a hundred thousand dollars as a "gift" fully knowing that he argued to allow the exception of cash gifts from family members be allowed in 2000 as part of HB 750, a bill that was thrown out and not made into law. Now today he wants to perpetrate the obscene suggestion that cash gifts from family members are legal or should be?
What a farce. Of course Sheryl Snyder has argued cases on behalf of the KREF and with at least one of the board members who will decide this case. Another coincidence?
Spare me.
Let's not forget that Amy Cubbage represented King before Snyder did. If Amy Cubbage and/or Sheryl Snyder gave Jim King the go ahead to infuse cash to his daughter's campaign, clearly knowing the law was never changed to allow it, then they should be guilty of malpractice and essentially aiding and abetting criminal behavior.
Of course now the argument is switched to the First Amendment rights of the King's having been violated. I guess Snyder has to go that route since he has obvious concerns fighting the merits.
Yawn.
Additionally, everyone knows about the $10,000 "gift" to Katie made by Jim King in May, 2 months prior to the email he says justified his actions, and no action was taken on that issue either. Now the argument is that King customarily gives Katie that money each year as a gift.
Fair enough yet there are some questions.
One there has been no documentation proving this was a reasonable and customary transaction just the word of Jim King. Though he probably does gift this amount each year it still requires evidence especially considering he is the one the charges of impropriety are against.
Two the gift is allowable, and no arguments here, during the calendar year so why not wait until after the election say until December to gift this money and avoid this type of charge of impropriety?
Because the money was knowingly going into the campaign account again clearly violating the $1000 limit by ANY person who contributes.
On top of all that he waits until AFTER Matt Conway resigns before giving this cash infusion to Katie? Hell according to him he had every legal right as of July 16, 2008 so why wait until Matt is gone and King is named treasurer? Because he had to get her the money before the election and lost his cover. Then after the money was given and knowingly violating campaign finance law, while he was treasurer, he resigns stating it could be perceived as a conflict of interest being her treasurer.
And we are to believe he committed this unintentionally against all the evidence that screams otherwise?
The KREF findings state very clearly that Jim King was intentionally looking for a way to circumvent the campaign limits on page 12. They clearly state that it is beyond belief that King or Snyder, as seasoned politicos, would make their determination based on one line in an ongoing email exchange.
Of course that email clearly shows King was trying to find a way to give more money.
Then they concluded that this was not a "knowing" violation.
It defies logic or belief that King did not know it was a violation. It clearly defies logic and belief that Katie King is a sitting Judge that judges others while gaining that office through illegal means. It defies logic and belief that Jim King is still on the Metro Council and wants to be Mayor.
We will know more on Friday but I will tell you this. The KREF is intent on a small fine and a slap on the wrist but there is much more to come legally if they go that route.
Stay tuned.............
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Jim King vs. the Morrises: Power run amok
As most are aware by now the case against Allen and Nancy Morris continues. After being abused by BOZA in January as I noted on January 27 (http://www.myviewmatters.org/) and a more recent article here on Louisville News I must say this thing is just getting more incredible each and everyday.
The Morrises are even required to get signed affidavits as to the relationship to them of those who get married there. This is a serious civil rights issue as well in my opinion but we will get into that in future articles.
The Morrises have done everything they were told to do by BOZA in January and yet continue to have to fight to use their carriage house for family and friend weddings.
They have already been vilified in court in regards to one wedding and won another victory today at the appeals hearing, requested by none other than Metro Council President Jim King, ruled in her favor as well.
I would think that the Morrises have spent enough money and time trying to comply to finally let this case rest.
According to Mrs. Morris Jim King's attorney today said not.
In fact now Metro Council President Jim King has decided to send his paid attorney to BOZA next week to make them define what constitutes an "event."
How many more obstacles will Jim King put in their way?
How much more must the Morrises endure for Metro Council President Jim King to continue wielding his own personal power play?
Who knows.
It is easy to define the word event.
In fact Wikipedia states that the word event can have several meanings:
In culture and social life:
Festival, for example a musical event
Ceremony, for example a marriage
Competition, for example a sports competition
Party, for example a birthday party
Convention (meeting), for example a gaming convention
Clearly a wedding ceremony fits this description and Metro Council President Jim King continues to harass the Morrises for his own gain.
The Morrises are even required to get signed affidavits as to the relationship to them of those who get married there. This is a serious civil rights issue as well in my opinion but we will get into that in future articles.
The Morrises have done everything they were told to do by BOZA in January and yet continue to have to fight to use their carriage house for family and friend weddings.
They have already been vilified in court in regards to one wedding and won another victory today at the appeals hearing, requested by none other than Metro Council President Jim King, ruled in her favor as well.
I would think that the Morrises have spent enough money and time trying to comply to finally let this case rest.
According to Mrs. Morris Jim King's attorney today said not.
In fact now Metro Council President Jim King has decided to send his paid attorney to BOZA next week to make them define what constitutes an "event."
How many more obstacles will Jim King put in their way?
How much more must the Morrises endure for Metro Council President Jim King to continue wielding his own personal power play?
Who knows.
It is easy to define the word event.
In fact Wikipedia states that the word event can have several meanings:
In culture and social life:
Festival, for example a musical event
Ceremony, for example a marriage
Competition, for example a sports competition
Party, for example a birthday party
Convention (meeting), for example a gaming convention
Clearly a wedding ceremony fits this description and Metro Council President Jim King continues to harass the Morrises for his own gain.
So here is a question for Metro Council President Jim King. Do political fundraising "events" qualify as an event per se?
Since the answer is a resounding YES, based on advertising it as an event, and since the people primarily involved are "friends" or family, HOW MANY TEMPORARY ACTIVITY PERMITS has he applied for while raising over $150,000 for his daughter Katie's ( see other posts for more info on her) Judge race?
Is Metro Council President Jim King in effect violating the same issues he is trying to handicap the Morrises with?
It should be an insult to each and everyone of us that an elected representative can continue to abuse the power of his office to try to wear constituents down so he can have his way.
It is time Metro Council President Jim King said enough is enough and let this go.
For someone like Metro Council President Jim King, who wants even more power such as a Mayor race in the coming years, this is a sure sign of someone who believes he can do what he wants when he wants and abuse his power in doing so.
We already have a Mayor like that.
We do not need another setting himself as "heir apparent."
Let's hope we the people are smarter than that and remember this come election for him.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
JIM KING CPA: WHO IS THE REAL KING?
A few months ago during the unending research I have been forced to undertake on Jim King thanks to his lack of openness and transparency I ran across an article at http://www.louisvillecourant.com/ concerning a King audit in Miami. This information actually made me start looking further and I have to say King concerns me even more than he did before.
While Jim King has had many problems of his own here literally no one I speak with even knew he had a business in Florida much less any of the people in Florida he is working with and how they are tied to Kentucky.
I will focus this article on one such person and business.
The Florida Gaming Commission owned by Bennett Collett is one such Company. Bennett Collett is from Kentucky and has a major checkered past including being sued by the SEC in 1979. the SEC alleged Collett headed a group of investors who acquired companies and gutted them by causing them to transfer valuable assets for inadequate consideration.
Collett was also, according to the Miami Herald, coming under fire from the Indiana Department of Insurance. In 1981 the Indiana Department of Insurance sued Collett personally claiming he stripped Pilgrim Life Insurance of its liquid assets. He settled the suit 2 years later for $175,000.
In 1993 a Company called Lexicon was on its way to being delisted by NASDAQ so none other than Bennett Collett, who owned Freedom Financial by that time, bought Lexicon.
Collett established Freedom Financial in 1985, less than 6 years after his SEC ordeal and his Indiana Insurance settlement, to serve as a bank holding company yet by 1988 ( 3 years later) he had sold off his banking subsidiaries.
When he tried to take Freedom Financial public in 1990 trying to raise $10 million state regulators in New Jersey, Indiana, and Kentucky killed the offering because "the prospectus issued to potential investors failed to disclose that Collett had been the subject of at least six prior legal actions."
According to Indiana Securities Division Commissioner Mark Maddux, as quoted by Business First-Louisville, Collett "had a history of bad relations with people who have invested in his entities. There's just been a long history of disgruntled investors in this person's companies."
Despite being unable to take Freedom Financial public, Collett gained the benefits of a publicly traded, listed company when Freedom Financial acquired Lexicon, which by 1993 was nothing more than a shell corporation.
Now the logical question. What in the world does this have to do with Jim King and perhaps Steve Beshear?
First, Jim King is Bennett Collett's CPA. Collett and the banks in Miami that King does work for have a very checkered past. Most would agree in life you generally surround yourself with like minded people. If this holds true then who King surrounds himself with in this situation is very alarming.
King himself in 1997 acknowledges auditing Florida Gaming Corporation's financial statements giving them a squeaky clean bill of health from 1993-1994 http://www.secinfo.com/dRQYx.8r.htm
The audits completed by King's company are not satisfactory to the PCAOB.
PCAOB Release No. 104-2009-074
Inspection of King & Company
Certified Public Accountants, P.S.C.
May 21, 2009
Page 4
inspection team that the Firm did not obtain sufficient competent evidential matter to
support its opinion on the issuer's financial statements.9/ Those deficiencies were –
(1) the failure to perform sufficient procedures to test the valuation and
accounting for stock options issued; and
(2) the failure to perform sufficient procedures to support the Firm's reliance
on controls at a service organization.
B. Review of Quality Control System
In addition to evaluating the quality of the audit work performed on a specific
audit, the inspection included review of certain of the Firm's practices, policies, and
procedures related to audit quality. This review addressed practices, policies, and
procedures concerning audit performance, training, compliance with independence
standards, client acceptance and retention, and the establishment of policies and
procedures. As described above, any defects in, or criticisms of, the Firm's quality
control system are discussed in the nonpublic portion of this report and will remain
nonpublic unless the Firm fails to address them to the Board's satisfaction within 12
months of the date of this report.
The evidence shows that Bennett Collett swindled investors and shareholders in Pilgrim Life and until Lexicon was bought as a shell company he could not trade publicly it seems. Jim King has been his CPA forever, giving his current control of a public company an air of integrity.
The 2009 audit above on Jim King's work did not pass with flying colors and they edited out the info that identified the client
Look at the chronological sequence of events below and draw your own conclusions on King and his relationships. Seems like a way of life for what he does here in Louisville does it not?
1979: Kentuckian W. Bennett Collett sued for fraud by the SEC. According the Miami Herald, "After a turn as an accountant, he struck out on his own, becoming primarily involved in insurance and banking. He served as principal shareholder and chief executive officer of 11 small banks across the country." http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Florida-Gaming-Corporation-Company-History.html
Sound familiar though King has less than 11 total.
1981: Indiana Department of Insurance sues Collett personally, claiming he had stripped Pilgrim Life Insurance of it's assets forcing it into liquidation. Collett settles but later denies settling, according to the Miami Herald: "In all, four of Collett's insurance companies ended up in liquidation. http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Florida-Gaming-Corporation-Company-History.html
1982: Former FBI Agent John Connolly sets up a mob-hit on a former President of the Miami Jai-Alai: Mr. John B. Callahan. Callahan's bullet-riddled body was found in the trunk of his Cadillac on Aug. 2nd in a parking lot at Miami. Connolly was killed after he told some guys about how the FBI was investigating his ties to the Winter Hill Gang and the murder of Roger Wheeler who had just been killed by the same hit man that killed Callahan in Tulsa, Oklahoma back in May.
Wheeler was owner of World Jai Alai. This story was later the basis for the movie, The Departed. http://wbztv.com/local/john.connolly.trial.2.856858.html In the movie, they left out "jai alai" because no one outside of the mob actually knew what it was.
1983: A body shop mechanic who took a $150 gamble raked in a cool $328,589.20 at Miami Jai-Alai on a Saturday afternoon, the second largest pari-mutuel pay-off in FL history.
1985: Collett founds the Freedom Financial Corporation.
1986: CPA Jim King buys controlling interest in Peoples State Bank in Bardstown. This is interesting simply because of the next line. He was later sued by William Pullman that went to the Supreme Court.
1988: Collett has sold off all his banking interests. Why did Collett sell off his banks?
1993: After unsuccessful attempts at taking Freedom public, Collett uses Freedom to acquire the Lexicon Corporation which was an empty shell of a company by then. He then changes its name to the Florida Gaming Corporation. This was beneficial for Collett because now he can have the benefits of a publicly traded company.
1997: King acknowledges auditing Florida Gaming Corporation's financial statements giving them a squeaky clean bill of health from 1993-1994 http://www.secinfo.com/dRQYx.8r.htm#7py
2003: King + Company, PSC is obligated to file reports with the PCAOB because it's previous year audit of the Florida Gaming Corporation. King reports that his firm received $90,000 for services from the Florida Gaming Corporation in 2002 for some of this (independent?) auditing. The audits completed by King's company are not satisfactory to the PCAOB. http://louisvillecourant.blogspot.com/2009/09/why-king-audit-is-relevant.html
2004: King Southern Bank pops up on the interweb tubes mysteriously for the first time.
2008: Florida Gaming Corporation has no trouble borrowing $1 million from Louisville-based Stuckert Financial Group. http://southflorida.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2008/09/15/daily64.html
And this brings us to Steve Beshear. With the history of Collett and Jim King, why then did he do the following? Is this relationship why he has been rumored to have halted the KSP investigation on King?
2009: Governor Beshear appoints James W. Stuckert to the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees. http://migration.kentucky.gov/Newsroom/governor/20090706appts.htm
Collett gets a $1 million loan with his history? Did Jim King orchestrate the loan because of his history? Why would Beshear appoint Stuckert to the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees if he is dealing with Collett?
And oh by the way.
2009: According to Forbes http://people.forbes.com/profile/w-bennett-collett/34082 Collett received $2,698,581.00 in 2007 as CEO of Florida Gaming Commission.
Make up your own minds but there is a helluva lot more going on with insider politics and schemes than we know about.
Your thoughts?
While Jim King has had many problems of his own here literally no one I speak with even knew he had a business in Florida much less any of the people in Florida he is working with and how they are tied to Kentucky.
I will focus this article on one such person and business.
The Florida Gaming Commission owned by Bennett Collett is one such Company. Bennett Collett is from Kentucky and has a major checkered past including being sued by the SEC in 1979. the SEC alleged Collett headed a group of investors who acquired companies and gutted them by causing them to transfer valuable assets for inadequate consideration.
Collett was also, according to the Miami Herald, coming under fire from the Indiana Department of Insurance. In 1981 the Indiana Department of Insurance sued Collett personally claiming he stripped Pilgrim Life Insurance of its liquid assets. He settled the suit 2 years later for $175,000.
In 1993 a Company called Lexicon was on its way to being delisted by NASDAQ so none other than Bennett Collett, who owned Freedom Financial by that time, bought Lexicon.
Collett established Freedom Financial in 1985, less than 6 years after his SEC ordeal and his Indiana Insurance settlement, to serve as a bank holding company yet by 1988 ( 3 years later) he had sold off his banking subsidiaries.
When he tried to take Freedom Financial public in 1990 trying to raise $10 million state regulators in New Jersey, Indiana, and Kentucky killed the offering because "the prospectus issued to potential investors failed to disclose that Collett had been the subject of at least six prior legal actions."
According to Indiana Securities Division Commissioner Mark Maddux, as quoted by Business First-Louisville, Collett "had a history of bad relations with people who have invested in his entities. There's just been a long history of disgruntled investors in this person's companies."
Despite being unable to take Freedom Financial public, Collett gained the benefits of a publicly traded, listed company when Freedom Financial acquired Lexicon, which by 1993 was nothing more than a shell corporation.
Now the logical question. What in the world does this have to do with Jim King and perhaps Steve Beshear?
First, Jim King is Bennett Collett's CPA. Collett and the banks in Miami that King does work for have a very checkered past. Most would agree in life you generally surround yourself with like minded people. If this holds true then who King surrounds himself with in this situation is very alarming.
King himself in 1997 acknowledges auditing Florida Gaming Corporation's financial statements giving them a squeaky clean bill of health from 1993-1994 http://www.secinfo.com/dRQYx.8r.htm
The audits completed by King's company are not satisfactory to the PCAOB.
PCAOB Release No. 104-2009-074
Inspection of King & Company
Certified Public Accountants, P.S.C.
May 21, 2009
Page 4
inspection team that the Firm did not obtain sufficient competent evidential matter to
support its opinion on the issuer's financial statements.9/ Those deficiencies were –
(1) the failure to perform sufficient procedures to test the valuation and
accounting for stock options issued; and
(2) the failure to perform sufficient procedures to support the Firm's reliance
on controls at a service organization.
B. Review of Quality Control System
In addition to evaluating the quality of the audit work performed on a specific
audit, the inspection included review of certain of the Firm's practices, policies, and
procedures related to audit quality. This review addressed practices, policies, and
procedures concerning audit performance, training, compliance with independence
standards, client acceptance and retention, and the establishment of policies and
procedures. As described above, any defects in, or criticisms of, the Firm's quality
control system are discussed in the nonpublic portion of this report and will remain
nonpublic unless the Firm fails to address them to the Board's satisfaction within 12
months of the date of this report.
The evidence shows that Bennett Collett swindled investors and shareholders in Pilgrim Life and until Lexicon was bought as a shell company he could not trade publicly it seems. Jim King has been his CPA forever, giving his current control of a public company an air of integrity.
The 2009 audit above on Jim King's work did not pass with flying colors and they edited out the info that identified the client
Look at the chronological sequence of events below and draw your own conclusions on King and his relationships. Seems like a way of life for what he does here in Louisville does it not?
1979: Kentuckian W. Bennett Collett sued for fraud by the SEC. According the Miami Herald, "After a turn as an accountant, he struck out on his own, becoming primarily involved in insurance and banking. He served as principal shareholder and chief executive officer of 11 small banks across the country." http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Florida-Gaming-Corporation-Company-History.html
Sound familiar though King has less than 11 total.
1981: Indiana Department of Insurance sues Collett personally, claiming he had stripped Pilgrim Life Insurance of it's assets forcing it into liquidation. Collett settles but later denies settling, according to the Miami Herald: "In all, four of Collett's insurance companies ended up in liquidation. http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Florida-Gaming-Corporation-Company-History.html
1982: Former FBI Agent John Connolly sets up a mob-hit on a former President of the Miami Jai-Alai: Mr. John B. Callahan. Callahan's bullet-riddled body was found in the trunk of his Cadillac on Aug. 2nd in a parking lot at Miami. Connolly was killed after he told some guys about how the FBI was investigating his ties to the Winter Hill Gang and the murder of Roger Wheeler who had just been killed by the same hit man that killed Callahan in Tulsa, Oklahoma back in May.
Wheeler was owner of World Jai Alai. This story was later the basis for the movie, The Departed. http://wbztv.com/local/john.connolly.trial.2.856858.html In the movie, they left out "jai alai" because no one outside of the mob actually knew what it was.
1983: A body shop mechanic who took a $150 gamble raked in a cool $328,589.20 at Miami Jai-Alai on a Saturday afternoon, the second largest pari-mutuel pay-off in FL history.
1985: Collett founds the Freedom Financial Corporation.
1986: CPA Jim King buys controlling interest in Peoples State Bank in Bardstown. This is interesting simply because of the next line. He was later sued by William Pullman that went to the Supreme Court.
1988: Collett has sold off all his banking interests. Why did Collett sell off his banks?
1993: After unsuccessful attempts at taking Freedom public, Collett uses Freedom to acquire the Lexicon Corporation which was an empty shell of a company by then. He then changes its name to the Florida Gaming Corporation. This was beneficial for Collett because now he can have the benefits of a publicly traded company.
1997: King acknowledges auditing Florida Gaming Corporation's financial statements giving them a squeaky clean bill of health from 1993-1994 http://www.secinfo.com/dRQYx.8r.htm#7py
2003: King + Company, PSC is obligated to file reports with the PCAOB because it's previous year audit of the Florida Gaming Corporation. King reports that his firm received $90,000 for services from the Florida Gaming Corporation in 2002 for some of this (independent?) auditing. The audits completed by King's company are not satisfactory to the PCAOB. http://louisvillecourant.blogspot.com/2009/09/why-king-audit-is-relevant.html
2004: King Southern Bank pops up on the interweb tubes mysteriously for the first time.
2008: Florida Gaming Corporation has no trouble borrowing $1 million from Louisville-based Stuckert Financial Group. http://southflorida.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2008/09/15/daily64.html
And this brings us to Steve Beshear. With the history of Collett and Jim King, why then did he do the following? Is this relationship why he has been rumored to have halted the KSP investigation on King?
2009: Governor Beshear appoints James W. Stuckert to the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees. http://migration.kentucky.gov/Newsroom/governor/20090706appts.htm
Collett gets a $1 million loan with his history? Did Jim King orchestrate the loan because of his history? Why would Beshear appoint Stuckert to the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees if he is dealing with Collett?
And oh by the way.
2009: According to Forbes http://people.forbes.com/profile/w-bennett-collett/34082 Collett received $2,698,581.00 in 2007 as CEO of Florida Gaming Commission.
Make up your own minds but there is a helluva lot more going on with insider politics and schemes than we know about.
Your thoughts?
Friday, August 21, 2009
JIM KING WANTS TRANSPARENCY AND THE MAYORSHIP? LAUGHABLE AT BEST
According to thevillevoice Jim King is now preparing an ordinance to be introduced next week that will require any project financed with taxpayer dollars to be subject to open records laws and that there be no confidentiality agreements concerning the way money is spent. You can read more here: King, Council Move to Prevent Another Cordish
Funnily enough rumor also has it that King is preparing to announce his candidacy for Louisville Metro Mayor next week as well. Allen Leaning To Yes in Mayor’s Race. Amazing coincidence huh?
For starters Jim King is obviously trying to use the "transparency" issue thinking he can get votes from this stance in preparation for his announcement. It is really pathetic as King has continued to be part of the problem in lieu of transparency and certainly is shady when it comes to politics. You can read my stories throughout this site for the reasons why I believe so.
Many believe that Jim King's involvement in financing Katie King's run for Judge was illegal or borderline anyway. Myself included.
To say he is behind anything to do with legislation for accountability is also an incredible thing for him to take ownership of.
If King was so concerned with taxpayer money why has it taken until now to start working towards accountability and/or transparency?
Many of us have been asking for transparency and accountability for years. Hell it was one thing I campaigned on in 2006 when I ran for Mayor. Where has Jim King been on this issue since then? Did he take the lead on the issue?
No he has not. So why now?
Manipulation and deception.
He believes this is a situation he can capitalize on and people will forget the behind the scenes ongoing investigations and his lack of transparency himself. I even did an article, Louisville News and Politics: ONLINE DATABASE: DOES IT REALLY MATTER?, exposing one way he himself avoids the transparency we seek even showing one email as an example.
This email clearly shows a conversation about City business that Jim King himself said should be responded to his personal email. Of course this is becoming known as standard practice by some Council members. Why is this a big deal now?
Because personal email is not subject to open records inquiry that is why. What does this mean?
Simply that you can talk about anything and everything when it comes to City business and shield the deals or intent from public view if you opt to use private email. This is a clear way to circumvent transparency and accountability.
This underscores the intent of open records laws and the trust once again in public officials.
King has proven time and again by his lack of getting involved in any meaningful way to helping us gain this transparency and accountability we have been seeking for years. He has also showed a willingness to bend the law, or at least attempt to, as evidenced in his ongoing investigation into the Katie King campaign last year.
Yes I take the hits for keeping this alive and yes I will in some circles continue to be beat up over it.
It does not matter.
We the people deserve transparency and accountability from our elected leaders. I will gladly take the hits if it helps us gain it. I put it on the line in 2006 by making this an issue and will continue to until we gain what we all seek.
I am thankful for all today that are finally getting involved and seeking the same thing.
I will continue calling out the hypocrisy of those like King who continue to mislead us in the hopes of getting what they want for their own gain. Not necessarily what we deserve in leadership.
Do I disagree with a Metro Council ordinance working to gain us the accountability King says is he now working on?
Not in the least.
I do believe Jim King is the wrong person to ask for something he himself spends a considerable amount of time and money trying to avoid.
Just saying.
Funnily enough rumor also has it that King is preparing to announce his candidacy for Louisville Metro Mayor next week as well. Allen Leaning To Yes in Mayor’s Race. Amazing coincidence huh?
For starters Jim King is obviously trying to use the "transparency" issue thinking he can get votes from this stance in preparation for his announcement. It is really pathetic as King has continued to be part of the problem in lieu of transparency and certainly is shady when it comes to politics. You can read my stories throughout this site for the reasons why I believe so.
Many believe that Jim King's involvement in financing Katie King's run for Judge was illegal or borderline anyway. Myself included.
To say he is behind anything to do with legislation for accountability is also an incredible thing for him to take ownership of.
If King was so concerned with taxpayer money why has it taken until now to start working towards accountability and/or transparency?
Many of us have been asking for transparency and accountability for years. Hell it was one thing I campaigned on in 2006 when I ran for Mayor. Where has Jim King been on this issue since then? Did he take the lead on the issue?
No he has not. So why now?
Manipulation and deception.
He believes this is a situation he can capitalize on and people will forget the behind the scenes ongoing investigations and his lack of transparency himself. I even did an article, Louisville News and Politics: ONLINE DATABASE: DOES IT REALLY MATTER?, exposing one way he himself avoids the transparency we seek even showing one email as an example.
This email clearly shows a conversation about City business that Jim King himself said should be responded to his personal email. Of course this is becoming known as standard practice by some Council members. Why is this a big deal now?
Because personal email is not subject to open records inquiry that is why. What does this mean?
Simply that you can talk about anything and everything when it comes to City business and shield the deals or intent from public view if you opt to use private email. This is a clear way to circumvent transparency and accountability.
This underscores the intent of open records laws and the trust once again in public officials.
King has proven time and again by his lack of getting involved in any meaningful way to helping us gain this transparency and accountability we have been seeking for years. He has also showed a willingness to bend the law, or at least attempt to, as evidenced in his ongoing investigation into the Katie King campaign last year.
Yes I take the hits for keeping this alive and yes I will in some circles continue to be beat up over it.
It does not matter.
We the people deserve transparency and accountability from our elected leaders. I will gladly take the hits if it helps us gain it. I put it on the line in 2006 by making this an issue and will continue to until we gain what we all seek.
I am thankful for all today that are finally getting involved and seeking the same thing.
I will continue calling out the hypocrisy of those like King who continue to mislead us in the hopes of getting what they want for their own gain. Not necessarily what we deserve in leadership.
Do I disagree with a Metro Council ordinance working to gain us the accountability King says is he now working on?
Not in the least.
I do believe Jim King is the wrong person to ask for something he himself spends a considerable amount of time and money trying to avoid.
Just saying.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
HERNDON DROPS LAWSUIT AND IMPLIES JIM KING INVOLVED
UPDATE: Rick Redding over Louisville Mojo had a great link on the story about Herndon. Check it out. Kudos Rick. http://www.tastymojo.com/LouisvilleMojo/photos_news/Herndon%20--%20Signed%20Notice%20to%20Dismiss%20Action%20I.pdf (warning pdf file is 24 pages long)
You know it is becoming a daily habit of having Jim King's name involved in something illegal or unethical at best. Take this Courier article by Joe Gerth for example:
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20091103/NEWS0106/911030350/Herndon+asks+for+dismissal+of+defamation+suit
Ken Herndon you may recall was running for the Metro Council 6th District seat held by George "do nothing" Unseld last year. Herndon ran a strong campaign and was defeated in the primary by Unseld. One of the contributing factors for this loss most believed at the time involved a mailer sent out by an "anonymous" source that purported to show a picture of Ken Herndon at a gay pride parade and said "this is the type of life he lives behind your back."
The photo was altered and Herndon claimed he was never there. I, for one, believe him.
It was one of the lowest most pathetic personal attack mailers I personally have seen used against an opponent for office. Ken Herndon filed suit, hired investigators, and did everything he could to find out exactly who did this as he should have done. I myself was contacted by an investigator in regards to this mailer. I was asked about different political people and what I may know about them and their possible involvement.
At the time there were many rumors and speculation that Jim King and Denise Bentley were involved. Bentley, who worked on George Unseld's campaign and a friend of the King's, and Jim King himself were pressuring Herndon to get out of the race in favor of Unseld. It didn't happen.
So what to do then?
Simple discount your opponent as some homosexual who lives a disgusting lifestyle and make sure families were sickened enough to remember it. While Herndon felt he did not have enough evidence to continue the suit he still points at King as being involved.
Many I speak with today still believe Jim King and Denise Bentley worked together on it. In my opinion I do not think it is a far fetched idea considering what I have reported on Jim King, the other things I have uncovered during research, and people I talk to who deal with him daily.
Even Matt Conway, King’s former chief of staff, saw a copy of the mailer in King’s Metro Council office seven to 14 days before it arrived in mailboxes. In an affidavit, Conway said he saw only the side of the mailer that displayed the photo of Herndon and didn’t attach any significance to it.
Conway, you may recall, also resigned being the treasurer for Katie King's campaign because of ethical concerns.
King of course denies ever seeing the mailer.
If I had to choose who to believe it would have to be Conway.
Seriously, a lawyer who would lie in an affidavit over something like this? A lawyer who resigned over ethical concerns while working in a prominent position for a Judge candidate?
Conway could have written his own ticket if he played ball. He could also lose his license to practice law if lying in an affidavit.With so much to lose or gain what does Conway have to prove here?
It just does not add up. Conway by his actions has proven so far to be a man with integrity.
King in so many of his actions finally being uncovered has not.
For Ken Herndon I hope he stays in politics and runs again. Every piece of feedback I have gotten on him says he is a man of integrity and we need people like that in office.
While we may never be 100% sure who actually mailed this garbage out and defamed Ken Herndon one thing is for sure.
Jim King sure does seem to have his hand in many shady dealings and apparently the list is growing.
Your thoughts?
You know it is becoming a daily habit of having Jim King's name involved in something illegal or unethical at best. Take this Courier article by Joe Gerth for example:
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20091103/NEWS0106/911030350/Herndon+asks+for+dismissal+of+defamation+suit
Ken Herndon you may recall was running for the Metro Council 6th District seat held by George "do nothing" Unseld last year. Herndon ran a strong campaign and was defeated in the primary by Unseld. One of the contributing factors for this loss most believed at the time involved a mailer sent out by an "anonymous" source that purported to show a picture of Ken Herndon at a gay pride parade and said "this is the type of life he lives behind your back."
The photo was altered and Herndon claimed he was never there. I, for one, believe him.
It was one of the lowest most pathetic personal attack mailers I personally have seen used against an opponent for office. Ken Herndon filed suit, hired investigators, and did everything he could to find out exactly who did this as he should have done. I myself was contacted by an investigator in regards to this mailer. I was asked about different political people and what I may know about them and their possible involvement.
At the time there were many rumors and speculation that Jim King and Denise Bentley were involved. Bentley, who worked on George Unseld's campaign and a friend of the King's, and Jim King himself were pressuring Herndon to get out of the race in favor of Unseld. It didn't happen.
So what to do then?
Simple discount your opponent as some homosexual who lives a disgusting lifestyle and make sure families were sickened enough to remember it. While Herndon felt he did not have enough evidence to continue the suit he still points at King as being involved.
Many I speak with today still believe Jim King and Denise Bentley worked together on it. In my opinion I do not think it is a far fetched idea considering what I have reported on Jim King, the other things I have uncovered during research, and people I talk to who deal with him daily.
Even Matt Conway, King’s former chief of staff, saw a copy of the mailer in King’s Metro Council office seven to 14 days before it arrived in mailboxes. In an affidavit, Conway said he saw only the side of the mailer that displayed the photo of Herndon and didn’t attach any significance to it.
Conway, you may recall, also resigned being the treasurer for Katie King's campaign because of ethical concerns.
King of course denies ever seeing the mailer.
If I had to choose who to believe it would have to be Conway.
Seriously, a lawyer who would lie in an affidavit over something like this? A lawyer who resigned over ethical concerns while working in a prominent position for a Judge candidate?
Conway could have written his own ticket if he played ball. He could also lose his license to practice law if lying in an affidavit.With so much to lose or gain what does Conway have to prove here?
It just does not add up. Conway by his actions has proven so far to be a man with integrity.
King in so many of his actions finally being uncovered has not.
For Ken Herndon I hope he stays in politics and runs again. Every piece of feedback I have gotten on him says he is a man of integrity and we need people like that in office.
While we may never be 100% sure who actually mailed this garbage out and defamed Ken Herndon one thing is for sure.
Jim King sure does seem to have his hand in many shady dealings and apparently the list is growing.
Your thoughts?
Saturday, September 26, 2009
KING GUILTY BUT UNKNOWINGLY
I have been trying to decide how to write this update on the King situation. Really I know that sounds strange considering I have been the one pursuing this case and should be able to write fluently at this point yet the KREF decision defies all logic and common sense.
You see I am a father and I would do anything for my kids that they needed. But I would do it legally and ethically. As a parent I believe we are responsible to lead by example with our children. But you see there is another problem here as well.
When does one become an adult and responsible for their actions whether legal or illegal.
In short, when does a parent stop getting to use the parent/child, or do it for the kids, argument for a scapegoat. The law says at 18 we are legal adults and legally responsible for our actions.
In this case considering a Judgeship was the goal wouldn't it be obvious that Katie King should be adult enough to stand on her own two feet? Or that Jim King cannot get by with the sympathy play of the poor dad helping his poor daughter?
My kids are now 25 and 22. They know better and they saw right through this immediately. As adults they expect to be punished if they commit a criminal act. Not hide behind me for cover. That is maturity and personal responsibility.
If we allow this kind of feeble attempt to cloud the judgement of this case then what does that say about the maturity level of a now sitting Judge that has now been found to use illegal means in trying to obtain that job? And she sits in judgment of others? What does that say?
Jim King says Katie asked him if it was legal.
Why would an attorney seeking a Judgeship ask a CPA for legal advice?
The law was clearly broken. Even I agree with the KREF findings in that regard. I do not agree that it was unknowingly when the evidence clearly states otherwise.
To date the King's have been using an email from July and focusing on one single sentence from that email that states the registry does not regulate the private finances of a candidate and conveniently ignoring the advice from Jan Hines and the link to the law that was given in the response.
Of course the Registry does not regulate the private finances. That is a no brainer.
However, the registry clearly does exclude family members from gifting unlimited amounts of cash to an announced family member who is running for office. This is a well known fact by Sheryl Snyder and Amy Cubbage of Frost, Brown, and Todd. And therein starts the major problems in this case.
You see it was not until Thursday afternoon that another email was faxed to me by the KREF themselves( one day prior to the hearing).
In June (one month prior to the King email they have used) Sarah Jackson at the KREF had sent an email to King attorney Amy Cubbage telling her that the King's could not do what they did as they were limited to the same $1000 contribution as anyone else.
Amy Cubbage had called the registry seeking the same advice that Jim King sought one month later. Sarah Jackson responded in the email assumedly so she would have some sort of written record of the phone call.
This is very important as Ms. Cubbage, and Mr. Snyder, both of Frost, Brown, and Todd had worked to get HB 750 passed in 2000.
HB 750 would have allowed unlimited cash gifts from family members but the General Assembly threw it out and never passed it into law. This essentially means that cash gifts from family members exceeding the $1000 contribution limits are not allowed as the Registry has clearly stated to the King's. A position the registry has always maintained.
In May 2008 the week prior to the primary election King "gifted" his daughter $10,000 that he says was customary of his normal gifting practices each year to her as part of estate planning. The problem is he never sent, nor in his defense was he ever asked to send, evidence of this practice.
The KREF took him at his sworn under oath word. Considering the serious allegations brought forth in this matter of campaign finance impropriety it would seem evidence should have at least been requested but was not.
This was prior to the July email that King later sent telling him family could only contribute what anyone else could. Of course we now know his lawyers had asked about the same thing in June 2008 and were given the same answer.
For their Response to the Complaint, Jim King stated as follows (sworn under oath of penalty of perjury):
Mr. King inquired of the Registry staff on July 18, 2008 whether he could make an unconditional gift of cash in excess of $1,000 to his daughter knowing that the daughter might then contribute the money to her own campaign. On July 21, 2008, the Registry staff replied to Mr. King's inquiry: ''The Registry does not regulate the private finances of a candidate.?" Based upon that advice from.the Registry staff, Mr.King's privately retained legal counsel advised Mr. King that he could, if he so chose, make a personal gift to Judge King that Judge King might then contribute to her campaign.
Of course we now know that Amy Cubbage of Frost, Brown, and Todd had requested guidance one month earlier. So what does this say about the defense attorney's? They knowingly left out the fact that they themselves had contacted the registry prior to the July email they now use as evidence?
My response was this:
At the time of.Mr. King's alleged July 18th_21st email exchange with the Registry, Respondents' campaign had already retained the services of attorney Amy D. Cubbage. Mr. King was uniquely positioned to know his rights, Ms. Cubbage's expertise in campaign finance and government relations belying the notion that Respondents were uninformed about the law at that time.
In fact, at no time from January 2008 to November 2008 did Respondents, by themselves, or through counsel request an advisory opinion from the Registry, nor does their Response indicate that Ms. Cubbage ever communicated with the Registry on this matter.
I was wrong in this as the email from June given to me Thursday afternoon now shows. But this raises serious charges now since the attorney for King at the time, Amy Cubbage of Frost, Brown, and Todd HAD contacted the registry prior to July.
Then King responded with this:
Mr. King then shared this exchange of e-mails with his private retained counsel, and she advised Mr. King that he could, if he so chose, make a personal gift to Judge King that Judge King might then contribute to her campaign,.....
The problem here is a simple one. According to a WLKY news report last night by Andy Aalcock, Shery Snyder, when asked if his office gave King permission to do this he responded "no of course not."
And now we have a serious issue even above and beyond the registry. Did Sheryl Snyder or Amy Cubbage tell King he could do this as King has sworn under oath they did? If so considering their involvement with HB 750 in 2000 they have facilitated a criminal act and therefore can be disbarred. If not, then King lied under oath under penalty of perjury and can be prosecuted for it.
The difference in law of knowing or unknowing in this case is substantial. If the KREF ruling holds up, and AG Conway does not do his job in appointing a special prosecutor, the Kings can be fined up to $65,000 only with no admission of guilt.
Seems like a lot of money to most of us but little to King himself.
Remember fines or other repercussions are by design to be used as punishment to deter someone from committing a crime again. Is a fine in this case ample punishment for knowingly breaking the law? If the King's were to be prosecuted then all counts would be felonies and punishable by forfeiture of office for himself and his daughter and possible prison time.
As is clearly the case by the registry's ruling most certainly everyone involved in the decision making part of this process is opting for a slap on the wrist and not a felony.
Sheryl Snyder's arguments included alluding to Bruce Lunsford's failed campaigns where he loaned himself $7 million. He stated that this case is no different than Lunsford gifting money to himself.
There is one huge difference.
The law does not regulate the private finances of a candidate and Mr. Lunsford gave himself his own money. He did not get it from his dad or other family members. The law has never kept a candidate from giving themselves money nor should it.
The other argument was it would be no different than if Jim King gave Katie this money 4 years ago from a trust fund and assumedly she kept it until now to spend on her campaign. Of course it does.
Giving money to her when not in an election is no one's business. Giving money to her knowing she will use it for election purposes, AFTER announcing yourself as a candidate, is illegal as the Registry clearly decided.
Based on the evidence even the registry stated in their summary report that it clearly defies logic that a seasoned veteran politician like King, or his counsel, did not know. Yet they made it an unknowing violation. This is so contradictory I cannot see how any eighth grader could not prosecute this mess and win.
So now we have seemingly possible bar violations by Frost, Brown, and Todd legal staff Sheryl Snyder and/or Amy Cubbage, as well as possible perjury by Jim King himself based on the new email, sworn statements, and public record by Mr. Snyder.
You see I am a father and I would do anything for my kids that they needed. But I would do it legally and ethically. As a parent I believe we are responsible to lead by example with our children. But you see there is another problem here as well.
When does one become an adult and responsible for their actions whether legal or illegal.
In short, when does a parent stop getting to use the parent/child, or do it for the kids, argument for a scapegoat. The law says at 18 we are legal adults and legally responsible for our actions.
In this case considering a Judgeship was the goal wouldn't it be obvious that Katie King should be adult enough to stand on her own two feet? Or that Jim King cannot get by with the sympathy play of the poor dad helping his poor daughter?
My kids are now 25 and 22. They know better and they saw right through this immediately. As adults they expect to be punished if they commit a criminal act. Not hide behind me for cover. That is maturity and personal responsibility.
If we allow this kind of feeble attempt to cloud the judgement of this case then what does that say about the maturity level of a now sitting Judge that has now been found to use illegal means in trying to obtain that job? And she sits in judgment of others? What does that say?
Jim King says Katie asked him if it was legal.
Why would an attorney seeking a Judgeship ask a CPA for legal advice?
The law was clearly broken. Even I agree with the KREF findings in that regard. I do not agree that it was unknowingly when the evidence clearly states otherwise.
To date the King's have been using an email from July and focusing on one single sentence from that email that states the registry does not regulate the private finances of a candidate and conveniently ignoring the advice from Jan Hines and the link to the law that was given in the response.
Of course the Registry does not regulate the private finances. That is a no brainer.
However, the registry clearly does exclude family members from gifting unlimited amounts of cash to an announced family member who is running for office. This is a well known fact by Sheryl Snyder and Amy Cubbage of Frost, Brown, and Todd. And therein starts the major problems in this case.
You see it was not until Thursday afternoon that another email was faxed to me by the KREF themselves( one day prior to the hearing).
In June (one month prior to the King email they have used) Sarah Jackson at the KREF had sent an email to King attorney Amy Cubbage telling her that the King's could not do what they did as they were limited to the same $1000 contribution as anyone else.
Amy Cubbage had called the registry seeking the same advice that Jim King sought one month later. Sarah Jackson responded in the email assumedly so she would have some sort of written record of the phone call.
This is very important as Ms. Cubbage, and Mr. Snyder, both of Frost, Brown, and Todd had worked to get HB 750 passed in 2000.
HB 750 would have allowed unlimited cash gifts from family members but the General Assembly threw it out and never passed it into law. This essentially means that cash gifts from family members exceeding the $1000 contribution limits are not allowed as the Registry has clearly stated to the King's. A position the registry has always maintained.
In May 2008 the week prior to the primary election King "gifted" his daughter $10,000 that he says was customary of his normal gifting practices each year to her as part of estate planning. The problem is he never sent, nor in his defense was he ever asked to send, evidence of this practice.
The KREF took him at his sworn under oath word. Considering the serious allegations brought forth in this matter of campaign finance impropriety it would seem evidence should have at least been requested but was not.
This was prior to the July email that King later sent telling him family could only contribute what anyone else could. Of course we now know his lawyers had asked about the same thing in June 2008 and were given the same answer.
For their Response to the Complaint, Jim King stated as follows (sworn under oath of penalty of perjury):
Mr. King inquired of the Registry staff on July 18, 2008 whether he could make an unconditional gift of cash in excess of $1,000 to his daughter knowing that the daughter might then contribute the money to her own campaign. On July 21, 2008, the Registry staff replied to Mr. King's inquiry: ''The Registry does not regulate the private finances of a candidate.?" Based upon that advice from.the Registry staff, Mr.King's privately retained legal counsel advised Mr. King that he could, if he so chose, make a personal gift to Judge King that Judge King might then contribute to her campaign.
Of course we now know that Amy Cubbage of Frost, Brown, and Todd had requested guidance one month earlier. So what does this say about the defense attorney's? They knowingly left out the fact that they themselves had contacted the registry prior to the July email they now use as evidence?
My response was this:
At the time of.Mr. King's alleged July 18th_21st email exchange with the Registry, Respondents' campaign had already retained the services of attorney Amy D. Cubbage. Mr. King was uniquely positioned to know his rights, Ms. Cubbage's expertise in campaign finance and government relations belying the notion that Respondents were uninformed about the law at that time.
In fact, at no time from January 2008 to November 2008 did Respondents, by themselves, or through counsel request an advisory opinion from the Registry, nor does their Response indicate that Ms. Cubbage ever communicated with the Registry on this matter.
I was wrong in this as the email from June given to me Thursday afternoon now shows. But this raises serious charges now since the attorney for King at the time, Amy Cubbage of Frost, Brown, and Todd HAD contacted the registry prior to July.
Then King responded with this:
Mr. King then shared this exchange of e-mails with his private retained counsel, and she advised Mr. King that he could, if he so chose, make a personal gift to Judge King that Judge King might then contribute to her campaign,.....
The problem here is a simple one. According to a WLKY news report last night by Andy Aalcock, Shery Snyder, when asked if his office gave King permission to do this he responded "no of course not."
And now we have a serious issue even above and beyond the registry. Did Sheryl Snyder or Amy Cubbage tell King he could do this as King has sworn under oath they did? If so considering their involvement with HB 750 in 2000 they have facilitated a criminal act and therefore can be disbarred. If not, then King lied under oath under penalty of perjury and can be prosecuted for it.
The difference in law of knowing or unknowing in this case is substantial. If the KREF ruling holds up, and AG Conway does not do his job in appointing a special prosecutor, the Kings can be fined up to $65,000 only with no admission of guilt.
Seems like a lot of money to most of us but little to King himself.
Remember fines or other repercussions are by design to be used as punishment to deter someone from committing a crime again. Is a fine in this case ample punishment for knowingly breaking the law? If the King's were to be prosecuted then all counts would be felonies and punishable by forfeiture of office for himself and his daughter and possible prison time.
As is clearly the case by the registry's ruling most certainly everyone involved in the decision making part of this process is opting for a slap on the wrist and not a felony.
Sheryl Snyder's arguments included alluding to Bruce Lunsford's failed campaigns where he loaned himself $7 million. He stated that this case is no different than Lunsford gifting money to himself.
There is one huge difference.
The law does not regulate the private finances of a candidate and Mr. Lunsford gave himself his own money. He did not get it from his dad or other family members. The law has never kept a candidate from giving themselves money nor should it.
The other argument was it would be no different than if Jim King gave Katie this money 4 years ago from a trust fund and assumedly she kept it until now to spend on her campaign. Of course it does.
Giving money to her when not in an election is no one's business. Giving money to her knowing she will use it for election purposes, AFTER announcing yourself as a candidate, is illegal as the Registry clearly decided.
Based on the evidence even the registry stated in their summary report that it clearly defies logic that a seasoned veteran politician like King, or his counsel, did not know. Yet they made it an unknowing violation. This is so contradictory I cannot see how any eighth grader could not prosecute this mess and win.
So now we have seemingly possible bar violations by Frost, Brown, and Todd legal staff Sheryl Snyder and/or Amy Cubbage, as well as possible perjury by Jim King himself based on the new email, sworn statements, and public record by Mr. Snyder.
Funnily enough Katie King herself has never been on the record in any way, shape, or form as even the registry themselves point out that she is clearly responsible for this as well.
I promised at the beginning of this that I would stay with this until the end. I had hoped this hearing would clarify this and end this. really I do have other things to do. the problem is we now have even more questions and serious issues to be addressed and answered than we did when this started.
It is because of my promise that I have to say the case goes on..........
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
UPDATES AND SUCH
First it seems I will have some time on my hands again to update you the reader. Dynacraft apparently overestimated their needs for manpower and have started laying off most they recently hired. Yep that includes me. So much for the new job and economic recovery.
Much has been going on lately so I will update a bit here and then get back to more research.
Jim King has gotten some more endorsements and there is much to be said by commentors. Read here: Fraternal Order of Police endorses Hal Heiner, Jim King for Louisville mayor courier-journal.com The Courier-Journal
As the one who brought about the charges against Jim King and fought to ensure it did not get swept under the rug as intended I can assure you that King should not be elected. This case is far from over.
Jim King has several criminal violations being investigated right now by Special Prosecutor Hart Megibben and the Kentucky State Police. This criminal investigation is ongoing and the KREF was just the beginning and only ONE part of the actual case.
Remember IF King wins the primary then is indicted the Mayoral race is over for Democrats.
Jim King is still under CRIMINAL investigation by the Special Prosecutor Hart Megibben AND the Kentucky State Police. For anyone thinking of voting for him remember this. If you elect King and he is found guilty after being indicted and before the General election he cannot serve as a felon. There goes your vote. And you will then have no choice on his replacement in the primary.
If King somehow pulls this off and wins the General election and is convicted then the Metro Council will appoint his replacement. Do you really want to take a chance on that? You can read more about the King spin machine here: Louisville News and Politics: JIM AND KATIE KING $30,000 IN FINES IS JUST THE BEGINNING
Chris Thieneman has been taking some heat for his statements about involvement in a play to pay scheme back in 2000. For years I have been told about pay to play schemes by people who would not use their name for fear of retribution. These stories are from multiple sources and would involve so many prominent people your head will spin.
Thieneman going forward with this during this campaign was an extremely bold risk to take. Though Chris has spoken of this issue previously no one in media ever wanted to pursue it. Now as a Mayoral candidate Chris used that platform to bring it to light. Quite frankly, I am glad Chris came forward with this revelation.
Chris has put his own name and rep on the line to bring it to the forefront. Whether you agree or not this could be the beginning of the end of this travesty of politics here in Louisville. The days of pay to play are numbered and it starts with people like this willing to go public.
The scheme includes those such as Fred Cowan and some have even alluded to Dave Armstrong.
Can anyone say whistleblower?
Commonwealth Attorney Dave Stengel should already be investigating this and pursuing Cowan, which will lead to many others I assure you, but Stengel cannot. Why? Because Stengel himself is bought and paid for by the machine in my opinion. His involvement with the Jim King case, and his lack of fortitude in doing his job accordingly, was a major red flag to me of just how far he is involved.
After Stengel received a loan of more than $500,000 from King's bank, and the rumors of the reasons behind his divorce, it is obvious to many Stengel cannot do his job due to his "obligations" to others instead of those who elected him. You sure can buy a lot of friends with $500,000 can't you?
This will get very interesting to say the least so stay tuned as charges may be forthcoming.
Much has been going on lately so I will update a bit here and then get back to more research.
Jim King has gotten some more endorsements and there is much to be said by commentors. Read here: Fraternal Order of Police endorses Hal Heiner, Jim King for Louisville mayor courier-journal.com The Courier-Journal
As the one who brought about the charges against Jim King and fought to ensure it did not get swept under the rug as intended I can assure you that King should not be elected. This case is far from over.
Jim King has several criminal violations being investigated right now by Special Prosecutor Hart Megibben and the Kentucky State Police. This criminal investigation is ongoing and the KREF was just the beginning and only ONE part of the actual case.
Remember IF King wins the primary then is indicted the Mayoral race is over for Democrats.
Jim King is still under CRIMINAL investigation by the Special Prosecutor Hart Megibben AND the Kentucky State Police. For anyone thinking of voting for him remember this. If you elect King and he is found guilty after being indicted and before the General election he cannot serve as a felon. There goes your vote. And you will then have no choice on his replacement in the primary.
If King somehow pulls this off and wins the General election and is convicted then the Metro Council will appoint his replacement. Do you really want to take a chance on that? You can read more about the King spin machine here: Louisville News and Politics: JIM AND KATIE KING $30,000 IN FINES IS JUST THE BEGINNING
Chris Thieneman has been taking some heat for his statements about involvement in a play to pay scheme back in 2000. For years I have been told about pay to play schemes by people who would not use their name for fear of retribution. These stories are from multiple sources and would involve so many prominent people your head will spin.
Thieneman going forward with this during this campaign was an extremely bold risk to take. Though Chris has spoken of this issue previously no one in media ever wanted to pursue it. Now as a Mayoral candidate Chris used that platform to bring it to light. Quite frankly, I am glad Chris came forward with this revelation.
Chris has put his own name and rep on the line to bring it to the forefront. Whether you agree or not this could be the beginning of the end of this travesty of politics here in Louisville. The days of pay to play are numbered and it starts with people like this willing to go public.
The scheme includes those such as Fred Cowan and some have even alluded to Dave Armstrong.
Can anyone say whistleblower?
Commonwealth Attorney Dave Stengel should already be investigating this and pursuing Cowan, which will lead to many others I assure you, but Stengel cannot. Why? Because Stengel himself is bought and paid for by the machine in my opinion. His involvement with the Jim King case, and his lack of fortitude in doing his job accordingly, was a major red flag to me of just how far he is involved.
After Stengel received a loan of more than $500,000 from King's bank, and the rumors of the reasons behind his divorce, it is obvious to many Stengel cannot do his job due to his "obligations" to others instead of those who elected him. You sure can buy a lot of friends with $500,000 can't you?
This will get very interesting to say the least so stay tuned as charges may be forthcoming.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
YES IT IS TRUE: CRIMINAL CHARGES FILED AGAINST KING ATTORNEYS
Many of you have seen the WLKY news story where I filed charges against Jim King attorneys' Amy Cubbage and Sheryl Snyder of Frost, Brown, and Todd. If not you can read about it here: Springston Files Complaint Against Kings' Attorneys - Politics News Story - WLKY Louisville
I stated a while back that criminal charges would be forthcoming against them and this is why I chose to go this route.
During the whole legal process with the KREF, Jim King, under oath of penalty of perjury, consistently stated he was told by his lawyers that it was ok to "gift" approximately $145,000 to candidate Katie King for her election.
The problem is this was knowingly and intentionally wrong. Each candidate is given a Candidate's Guide on Election Finance upon request from the KREF and this info can be found within that booklet. Check this out:
http://kref.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/AF6ABA31-FE52-4425-B05A-7974AAC7FEB4/0/2007GuideBook.pdf
Page 29 says that any gift of money to a candidate is a contribution. On page 31 it clearly says that a family loan that is forgiven (i.e. a gift) is a contribution. Page 42 says that you cannot contribute in the name of another after you have exceeded the 1,000 max. Page 43 says you cannot circumvent the limits.
If Snyder, Cubbage and the Kings don't know how to read the KRS, they could have just read the candidate guide. The introduction says that “whether you are a seasoned veteran or are seeking office for the first time, please study this handbook carefully.”
The reason Amy Cubbage and Sheryl Snyder are part of the issue here is simple.
On September 24, 2009, the day before the KREF hearing that found King guilty, I was given an email exchange between Sarah Jackson and Amy Cubbage that had been hidden for more than a year. This was given to me by KREF attorney, Emily Dennis, after I had already been told by her that no more correspondence would be accepted and that the case stood as submitted. Honestly I do not blame her as Snyder was playing every legal game he could to get my case dismissed. Since he kept writing so did I in answer to the maneuvers of this "crackerjack" attorney. The email I received is listed below please click it for view:
You will note that Sarah Jackson clearly states that while candidates are permitted to contribute unlimited amounts of personal money to a campaign, personal monies of a candidate have NEVER been interpreted by the KREF to include the money of “immediate families”. The law was made absolutely clear to the Kings attorneys in no uncertain terms: Simply put, you cannot gift this money.
If that is not enough, Cubbage and Snyder were paid in excess of $100,000 in 2000, by our tax dollars no less, to not only draft HB 750 which would have given anyone permission to do exactly what King did, but they also presented the case to the House in 2000 for approval.
They were denied which brings up the very relevant point of this situation.
Since Cubbage and Snyder wrote the legislation that was refused by the House and NOT made into law then they certainly knew that the law was clear and these cash gifts were illegal. Since Jim King stated under oath they gave him permission to gift this money then they clearly solicited criminal behavior.
As evidence WLKY did a news story on September 25, 2009, the day of the KREF hearing, and Andy Alcock asked Sheryl Snyder specifically on camera if his law firm gave Jim King permission to violate the law:
Snyder's response? “No. Absolutely not.”
Is Snyder telling the truth? Which is it? Did Jim King lie under oath or did Amy Cubbage and/or Sheryl Snyder intentionally advise their clients to violate the law. There can be no other way to present this. It is clear cut.
Snyder and Cubbage meanwhile have hired their own crackerjack criminal defense attorney, Frank Mascagni, who stated this:
"I am shocked that a complaint would be levied about two lawyers of this caliber especially in a criminal nature," said Snyder and Cubbage's attorney, Frank Mascagni.
The attorneys "of this caliber" have some clear cut explaining to do but opt instead to hire a criminal defense attorney. So much for cracker jack attorneys' huh.
Mascagni said an assistant county attorney reviewing the complaint said he planned to send Springston a letter suggesting he go to the Kentucky Bar Association with his complaint.
This is simply posturing it can be no other way. They can try to suggest anything they want but that suggestion will be ignored.
Since these charges are CRIMINAL in nature the courts will be the authority NOT the bar. The bar has no bearing on this situation at all and as usual all the attorneys involved know that as well. They would love the bar to get this case to protect one of their own. Snyder is a past President there.
Yep more stalling and insider tricks to get away with something.
I will not allow the County Attorney or anyone else to push this aside and not do their job. Period.
I plan on taking further action including bringing County Attorney Mike O'Connell (and any assistants') before the Prosecutors Advisory Council. I may also bring criminal charges against them for abusing their office.
Either Jim King is guilty of perjury or Sheryl Snyder and Amy Cubbage are guilty of soliciting criminal behavior. It is that simple.
We are in the middle of a Mayor's race and Jim King is a candidate. Katie King is also a candidate for judge again. This means time is of the essence. If somehow Snyder and Mascagni could review these charges and force some BS letter from County Attorney Mike O'Connell's office in less than an hour (complaint was actually filed after 3 pm on Friday afternoon no less an hour before close of business for the weekend) then surely we can get the truth before May.
Since the primary election is in May in the interest of fairness we must have the truth now. If Snyder and his legal team are proven to be the guilty party then I will be one of the first to say so. If Jim King is cleared of campaign finance fraud because of his attorneys' I will apologize to him in that regard. Wouldn’t that be the right and honorable thing to do?
We need to know who is lying NOW so that we the voter can make our choice based on facts. If this continues to drag out because of posturing by lawyers and/or the Kings what purpose is served? If Jim King were to somehow pull off a primary upset only to be found guilty of perjury later then there will be no Democrat on the November ballot as King would be disqualified. If Katie pulls off the Judge race she will be unseated and disbarred creating a similar situation.
Worse yet what if it happened after November and Jim King somehow had won the Mayor seat?
He would be unseated and the Council would then have the obligation to seat any person of their choice. Considering they cannot even give us straight answers on Cordish, transparency, and accountability, Do we really trust them with that power?
Interesting to note as well how many attorneys' have been involved in this case.
Snyder and Cubbage are supposed to be the best in this area and they have to hire criminal defense attorney Frank Mascagni to represent them? Mascagni is supposed to be one of the best criminal defense attorneys around and he doesn’t even know that this is a criminal case and that the Bar is not the proper authority?
County Attorney Mike O'Connell, who is an elected official, though he holds the job currently because he was appointed to finish this term by Jerry Abramson, thinks he can dismiss this and not permit the special prosecutor to deal with Snyder and Mascagni?
Scott Cox is now representing the Kings and maybe trying to get them a plea deal to avoid anything relevant.
Notice the common link here? All criminal defense attorneys' and so called experts. Telling in itself? You decide but it sure looks like a lot of Goliaths to me. There is one underlying fact here as well.
They have lost so far and will continue to lose because many of us believe in an old saying.
"The truth will set you free."
It is high time these folks quit distorting it, and playing with it, and focused on delivering it for everyone's sake.
Your thoughts?
I stated a while back that criminal charges would be forthcoming against them and this is why I chose to go this route.
During the whole legal process with the KREF, Jim King, under oath of penalty of perjury, consistently stated he was told by his lawyers that it was ok to "gift" approximately $145,000 to candidate Katie King for her election.
The problem is this was knowingly and intentionally wrong. Each candidate is given a Candidate's Guide on Election Finance upon request from the KREF and this info can be found within that booklet. Check this out:
http://kref.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/AF6ABA31-FE52-4425-B05A-7974AAC7FEB4/0/2007GuideBook.pdf
Page 29 says that any gift of money to a candidate is a contribution. On page 31 it clearly says that a family loan that is forgiven (i.e. a gift) is a contribution. Page 42 says that you cannot contribute in the name of another after you have exceeded the 1,000 max. Page 43 says you cannot circumvent the limits.
If Snyder, Cubbage and the Kings don't know how to read the KRS, they could have just read the candidate guide. The introduction says that “whether you are a seasoned veteran or are seeking office for the first time, please study this handbook carefully.”
The reason Amy Cubbage and Sheryl Snyder are part of the issue here is simple.
On September 24, 2009, the day before the KREF hearing that found King guilty, I was given an email exchange between Sarah Jackson and Amy Cubbage that had been hidden for more than a year. This was given to me by KREF attorney, Emily Dennis, after I had already been told by her that no more correspondence would be accepted and that the case stood as submitted. Honestly I do not blame her as Snyder was playing every legal game he could to get my case dismissed. Since he kept writing so did I in answer to the maneuvers of this "crackerjack" attorney. The email I received is listed below please click it for view:
If that is not enough, Cubbage and Snyder were paid in excess of $100,000 in 2000, by our tax dollars no less, to not only draft HB 750 which would have given anyone permission to do exactly what King did, but they also presented the case to the House in 2000 for approval.
They were denied which brings up the very relevant point of this situation.
Since Cubbage and Snyder wrote the legislation that was refused by the House and NOT made into law then they certainly knew that the law was clear and these cash gifts were illegal. Since Jim King stated under oath they gave him permission to gift this money then they clearly solicited criminal behavior.
As evidence WLKY did a news story on September 25, 2009, the day of the KREF hearing, and Andy Alcock asked Sheryl Snyder specifically on camera if his law firm gave Jim King permission to violate the law:
Snyder's response? “No. Absolutely not.”
Is Snyder telling the truth? Which is it? Did Jim King lie under oath or did Amy Cubbage and/or Sheryl Snyder intentionally advise their clients to violate the law. There can be no other way to present this. It is clear cut.
Snyder and Cubbage meanwhile have hired their own crackerjack criminal defense attorney, Frank Mascagni, who stated this:
"I am shocked that a complaint would be levied about two lawyers of this caliber especially in a criminal nature," said Snyder and Cubbage's attorney, Frank Mascagni.
The attorneys "of this caliber" have some clear cut explaining to do but opt instead to hire a criminal defense attorney. So much for cracker jack attorneys' huh.
Mascagni said an assistant county attorney reviewing the complaint said he planned to send Springston a letter suggesting he go to the Kentucky Bar Association with his complaint.
This is simply posturing it can be no other way. They can try to suggest anything they want but that suggestion will be ignored.
Since these charges are CRIMINAL in nature the courts will be the authority NOT the bar. The bar has no bearing on this situation at all and as usual all the attorneys involved know that as well. They would love the bar to get this case to protect one of their own. Snyder is a past President there.
Yep more stalling and insider tricks to get away with something.
I will not allow the County Attorney or anyone else to push this aside and not do their job. Period.
I plan on taking further action including bringing County Attorney Mike O'Connell (and any assistants') before the Prosecutors Advisory Council. I may also bring criminal charges against them for abusing their office.
Either Jim King is guilty of perjury or Sheryl Snyder and Amy Cubbage are guilty of soliciting criminal behavior. It is that simple.
We are in the middle of a Mayor's race and Jim King is a candidate. Katie King is also a candidate for judge again. This means time is of the essence. If somehow Snyder and Mascagni could review these charges and force some BS letter from County Attorney Mike O'Connell's office in less than an hour (complaint was actually filed after 3 pm on Friday afternoon no less an hour before close of business for the weekend) then surely we can get the truth before May.
Since the primary election is in May in the interest of fairness we must have the truth now. If Snyder and his legal team are proven to be the guilty party then I will be one of the first to say so. If Jim King is cleared of campaign finance fraud because of his attorneys' I will apologize to him in that regard. Wouldn’t that be the right and honorable thing to do?
We need to know who is lying NOW so that we the voter can make our choice based on facts. If this continues to drag out because of posturing by lawyers and/or the Kings what purpose is served? If Jim King were to somehow pull off a primary upset only to be found guilty of perjury later then there will be no Democrat on the November ballot as King would be disqualified. If Katie pulls off the Judge race she will be unseated and disbarred creating a similar situation.
Worse yet what if it happened after November and Jim King somehow had won the Mayor seat?
He would be unseated and the Council would then have the obligation to seat any person of their choice. Considering they cannot even give us straight answers on Cordish, transparency, and accountability, Do we really trust them with that power?
Interesting to note as well how many attorneys' have been involved in this case.
Snyder and Cubbage are supposed to be the best in this area and they have to hire criminal defense attorney Frank Mascagni to represent them? Mascagni is supposed to be one of the best criminal defense attorneys around and he doesn’t even know that this is a criminal case and that the Bar is not the proper authority?
County Attorney Mike O'Connell, who is an elected official, though he holds the job currently because he was appointed to finish this term by Jerry Abramson, thinks he can dismiss this and not permit the special prosecutor to deal with Snyder and Mascagni?
Scott Cox is now representing the Kings and maybe trying to get them a plea deal to avoid anything relevant.
Notice the common link here? All criminal defense attorneys' and so called experts. Telling in itself? You decide but it sure looks like a lot of Goliaths to me. There is one underlying fact here as well.
They have lost so far and will continue to lose because many of us believe in an old saying.
"The truth will set you free."
It is high time these folks quit distorting it, and playing with it, and focused on delivering it for everyone's sake.
Your thoughts?
Friday, December 12, 2008
JIM AND KATIE KING: Questions abound
Imagine if you will that you are a rich bank owner with a couple of kids to send through college. Also as a CPA you can find loopholes, or play with the books, to make their tuition a write off helping your bottom line with tax breaks. Hard for most of us who work for a living to imagine but a real life scenario nonetheless.
Take Katie King, and her dad Metro Council President Jim King for example. King is owner of the King Corporate Group which owns King Southern Bank, his CPA firm, and Peoples Bank in Nelson County. It has been said that Katie received paychecks from her dad for work she supposedly did on behalf of King Corporate Group or specifically King Southern Bank. Matter of fact what were her qualifications and what work did she actually perform?
Reasonable questions to be sure.
A great way to pay for college and get the write off huh? I mean Katie had all kinds of time to work at King Southern while attending school full time AND playing volleyball. Kind of hard to find where she would have time for a job isn't it? Good way to give money to the kid for college AND get the write off too. Not exactly legal so perhaps it should be investigated for merit.
Strike One.
Let's look at Katie's living arrangements shall we? She resides at 2440 Tyler Lane, a public record, and though the house is in her name the tax bill is sent to where? You guessed it 2900 Newburg Rd or King Corporate Group headquarters. So now King also pays the tax bills on property Katie owns.
Hmm. Strike two?
Finally this. According to mortgage records on file Katie has a mortgage on her house through People's Bank in Nelson County. Who owns the bank? Why none other than Metro Council President Jim King of course. Nelson County bank opens branch in Jefferson CPA office - Business First of Louisville:
Why would the mortgage be out of County in Nelson through a different bank then the one he owns here? Perhaps there is more to the financing than we know. Either way it is very interesting to say the least. It would also be interesting to note that she got a mortgage of $145,000 in 2002 on this property yet what was she doing for income at that time? Were mortgage guidelines followed in this regard since her dad owns the bank?
Strike Three.
For now we know that Katie reportedly received a paycheck from King while a student for work that probably was not performed thus enabling him to write off at least a portion of her tuition. This seems awful close to illegal action. We also know that Katie has her mortgage through daddy's bank, in another County, of which the tax bills get paid through King Corporate Group not Katie herself which makes one wonder again about the write off being given to daddy King.
And finally a mortgage one wonders who is really paying for, Jim King or Katie. Was it taken out of County to be harder to track and question? Makes you wonder doesn't it?
Questions should abound about possible tax evasion, possible lending violations, and many more.
Kind of makes you wonder how she has gotten by on her County Attorney salary doesn't it?
And of course we believe she had $194,000 to lend her own campaign to buy an election.
Time to seek answers.
There will be more to come.
Take Katie King, and her dad Metro Council President Jim King for example. King is owner of the King Corporate Group which owns King Southern Bank, his CPA firm, and Peoples Bank in Nelson County. It has been said that Katie received paychecks from her dad for work she supposedly did on behalf of King Corporate Group or specifically King Southern Bank. Matter of fact what were her qualifications and what work did she actually perform?
Reasonable questions to be sure.
A great way to pay for college and get the write off huh? I mean Katie had all kinds of time to work at King Southern while attending school full time AND playing volleyball. Kind of hard to find where she would have time for a job isn't it? Good way to give money to the kid for college AND get the write off too. Not exactly legal so perhaps it should be investigated for merit.
Strike One.
Let's look at Katie's living arrangements shall we? She resides at 2440 Tyler Lane, a public record, and though the house is in her name the tax bill is sent to where? You guessed it 2900 Newburg Rd or King Corporate Group headquarters. So now King also pays the tax bills on property Katie owns.
Hmm. Strike two?
Finally this. According to mortgage records on file Katie has a mortgage on her house through People's Bank in Nelson County. Who owns the bank? Why none other than Metro Council President Jim King of course. Nelson County bank opens branch in Jefferson CPA office - Business First of Louisville:
Why would the mortgage be out of County in Nelson through a different bank then the one he owns here? Perhaps there is more to the financing than we know. Either way it is very interesting to say the least. It would also be interesting to note that she got a mortgage of $145,000 in 2002 on this property yet what was she doing for income at that time? Were mortgage guidelines followed in this regard since her dad owns the bank?
Strike Three.
For now we know that Katie reportedly received a paycheck from King while a student for work that probably was not performed thus enabling him to write off at least a portion of her tuition. This seems awful close to illegal action. We also know that Katie has her mortgage through daddy's bank, in another County, of which the tax bills get paid through King Corporate Group not Katie herself which makes one wonder again about the write off being given to daddy King.
And finally a mortgage one wonders who is really paying for, Jim King or Katie. Was it taken out of County to be harder to track and question? Makes you wonder doesn't it?
Questions should abound about possible tax evasion, possible lending violations, and many more.
Kind of makes you wonder how she has gotten by on her County Attorney salary doesn't it?
And of course we believe she had $194,000 to lend her own campaign to buy an election.
Time to seek answers.
There will be more to come.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
JIM AND KATIE KING $30,000 IN FINES IS JUST THE BEGINNING
Today the KREF finally fined Jim and Katie King $15,000 apiece or $30,000 total for their violations during Katie's campaign. Gee I wonder if Jim paid the whole fine as well. This is one of the highest fines on record if not the highest. In recent years anyway. Of course Dilger of the KREF tried to spin it as expected but they could not stop the case and had to go high on the fine for fear of retribution.
That is thanks to the public outcry from each of you.
You can view the WLKY story by Andy Alcock here: KREF Fining Kings For Campaign Finance Violations - Video - WLKY Louisville
Of course they are still trying to blame this on some miscommunication from the KREF which can hardly be considered truthful.
That is thanks to the public outcry from each of you.
You can view the WLKY story by Andy Alcock here: KREF Fining Kings For Campaign Finance Violations - Video - WLKY Louisville
Of course they are still trying to blame this on some miscommunication from the KREF which can hardly be considered truthful.
Fact #1: On June 11, 2008 Amy Cubbage of Frost,Brown, and Todd,
then King attorney was sent an email from Sarah Jackson that said that King could not gift this money based on the fact that the Registry had never allowed it.
Of course this email was not sent to me until September 24 the night before the KREF hearing and it was too late to allow it into evidence. An oversight? Not hardly. It was intentional left out of previous disclosure because this would have been a smoking gun that destroyed the credibility of the "gee I didn't know defense.".
So if Amy Cubbage indeed did advise King he could do this then King would be right in denying any knowledge except there is a problem with that.
On WLKY news coverage by Andy Alcock on September 25, 2009 Sheryl Snyder, who took over from Cubbage as King attorney, was specifically asked if his office advised King he could gift this money. Snyder replied "of course not."
That means someone is lying it is that simple.
Mel Ignatow got away with murder but wen to jail for perjury. In this case King, Snyder, or both should do the same consideirng tis is a felony charge and perjury is involved..
Fact #2: July 18, 2009 one month AFTER his attorney was told he could not gift this money King sought a different answer from the KREF. He was advised that family members were considered the same as any other donor.
Craig Dilger of the KREF says he has no doubt Katie knows the day to day law that goes on her Courtroom but Election law is entirely different. I agreeit is different but is ignorance of the law an allowable excuse in most courtrooms? No it is not.
Guess what Dilger I am no attorney but I was able to figure out the law so why couldn't an attorney?
Fox41's Chris Turner also covered the story and you can read his report here: Jim, Katie King pay election finance fines - FOX41.com Louisville News Kentucky Indiana News Weather Sports
Dilger again continues to spin "The Kings' violations are called "non-knowing," because they asked an election finance registry attorney and a personal attorney for advice on the gift -- and both said it was likely legal. "He (Jim King) didn't hide it. It was out there, and everybody knew about it, which is how it came to the board's attention," Dilger said.
Sorry Craig this statement does not add up either. You see according to public disclosures by Sheryl Snyder they never advised King that it was legal see Fact #1 above. According to the original email exchange by Sarah Jackson to Amy Cubbage in June she was advised King could not do it as well.
By the way the reason everyone knew about it was not because King did not try to hide it it was because I refused to allow it to be hidden and kept you pressured to do your job. It came to the Board's attention because of the charges that I signed and filed.
At least be truthful about something.
King's fine is simply the tip of the iceberg folks. He has already spent almost a million bucks of his own money to buy 2 elections. One he was successful at in Katie's Judgeship, the other remains to be seen on May 18 of this year when he is hoping he will have been able to buy the Mayoral primary as well.
$30,000 fine to King is like a $5 fine to most of us. In short no big deal. After spending a million to buy elections what do you think he thought about a measly $30,000? He was thankful to pay it hoping it would go away.
They are trying to lull us into this false mentality of poor Jim and we should all be insulted.
The issue is still ongoing as the criminal complaint is still supposedly being investigated. To date there is no investigation period. they have not even contacted me after all this time and I am the one who initiated this and kept it alive. Do you not start at the complainant when investigating?
It is being stalled as we speak dependent on the outcome of the primary election. If King wins that primary then they will try to push this aside and kill it. If he loses then they have to rethink their logic and do something to him as it is a cut and dry case.
I will say this. Someone committed perjury n this whole deal as everything was under oath. King lied or his attorneys did which is why I filed charges against them as well.
That is where to start the real investigation. King knows Snyder denied telling him it was ok and he has done nothing to seek recourse against him or Amy Cubbage.
That is telling in itself.
KIng has tried playing the gee I made honest mistake games in his new TV commercials. They are funny as well considering he is trying to capitalize on St. X once again even after being chastised by St X for illegally using their logo and email lists. He still does not get it anymore than Katie gets it. The apple certainly does not fall far from the tree does it.
Does this seem like someone who recognizes wrongdoing and is remorseful? Nope.
He continues to act as though he cares about openness and transparency yet he has intentionally done everything he can to legally hold this up for two years forcing me to work hundreds of hours trying to sort through the legal quagmire King himself created by not being honest and truthful from the beginning. It was only after I beat his own attorneys, supposed cracker jack expert ones at that, that he decided to conciliate and try to put this behind him quietly.
He could have admitted fault and moved on 2 years ago instead opting to try and fool us all. I just wish I got paid for the hours I put into this whole ordeal like his attorneys have. I could retire I assure you. Instead thanks to him trying to hide and get away with illegal acts I have spent hundreds of hours working for free trying to insure this case was not thrown away because of politics.
He felt that he and his cracker jack attorney Sheryl Snyder could overwhelm me and I would drop it and it would go away quietly. That was the plan and it failed miserably.
So much for openness and transparency eh Jim?
We the people deserve better and it was necessary to work against those who work against us like Jim King.
There will be reckoning in the near future. Guaranteed. There are many investigations going on as we speak beyond the one the Special prosecutor supposedly ordered. When al is said and done the entire KSP and Governor's office may be involved in the ongoing investigation by others.
Stay tuned the Grand Jury has yet to hear this case and many others beyond the Grand Jury are looking into this and other charges yet to be revealed...........
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Constable David Whitlock shoots unarmed woman Jefferson County Constable David Whitlock shot an alleged shoplifter at Wal Mart in River... -
I was recently asked by some sportsmen why the Jim Strader Hunting and Fishing expo was not being held this year. Though I am an avid gun ri...
-
Apparently neither mind ethics violations for campaign purposes. On Saturday Councilwoman Vickie Welch had advertised a coffee with her Dis...