All posts in the topic Support Farheen hakeem, was Sierra Club Endorses Jeff Hayden for House 61B Seat (Short link)
Summary
- There are 12 posts — by 9 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Ed Felien at Oct 16 20:54 UTC
Mr Tim Salo,
I had promised you a response and here it is. I had been unable to answer
for a few days as this Nurse was busy doing a number of 12 hour shifts,
as well as spending valuable time with my family. Treating my patients and my
family has been much more important to me than your thoughts, quite frankly.
However, I did promise you a response and here it is.
Although this discussion started out as Farheen Hakeem and her campaign (whom
I heartily support obviously) it has now turned to an attack on my dear friend
and politically ally, Dean Zimmermann.
Ultimately, my address is to progressives, especially those who know and
understand the facts surrounding Dean Zimmermann and all that he has stood for.
Mr Salo, you are obviously not one of those people.
Dean took money, cash from a developer. That is undisputed. Of course, as Guy
Gambill correctly pointed out, lots of elected officials take lots of money
from shady corporate sources. The fact that one of the Green Party's central
tenants is opposition to this corporate corruption of our democracy goes to
the heart and soul of why I have considered myself a Green.
Now for the facts surround Dean Zimmermann's case. Again, these facts are
quite well known, at least in the political progressive communities it is.
Dean was involved in a lawsuit, in opposition to the blatant gerrymandering
of both he and Natalie Johnson-Lee, the two elected Green City Council members.
A gerrymandering as blatant and immoral as the Republican gerrymandering of the
Texas legislator it must be noted. It was to pay for this lawsuit that Dean was
raising money at the Black Forest Inn. A fundraiser I and other progressives
attended. It was here that Dean did his now famous "I need money, money, money"
schtick. He did it in speeches and he did it to individuals. It was a part of
what Dean Zimmermann did and we loved him for it. More importantly, we loved
him for his courageous stands and what he stood for.
As an aside, I wonder if Dean and Natalie Johnson-Lee had have been on the
City Council, that the Resolution 2008R-248 which gave the Minneapolis Police
the authority to beat, mace, torture and otherwise brutalize innocent
protesters
practicing their First Amendment Rights at the RNC, would have passed so
quickly
and quietly? I for one, doubt it very much.
Anyway, regarding the infamous envelopes, stuffed with cash. Like I said, it
was
given to Dean, by developer Carlson at said fundraiser. To help pay for the
aforementioned gerrymandering lawsuit. I myself saw the envelopes and Dean even
talked to me about them. He was unsure as to what he should do about them. Yet
I was unable to testify at his court case about this fact.
Meanwhile, our local corporate paper of disrepute, the Star Tribune did a
rotten
smear pice on Dean. To add insult to injury, when Dean's campaign manager wrote
an editorial response to it, the Star Tribune refused to publish it. Almost
like
their is a connection between a corporate corrupted media (with ties to Carl
Pohlad)
and a rotten, corporate corrupted political machine (with ties to Carl Pohlad).
Yet, despite all of this, the FBI sting, the smears of the corporate media and
other
factors, Dean Zimmermann only lost his election by 47 votes. Given this reality
gives me,
for one, great hope for our collective future.
One of the proudest moments I had, as a Green was when Dean Zimmermann arrived
at
his party, after the election. He was flanked by an honour guard from AIM, the
American Indian Movement. What made this even more telling was that Dean
Zimmermann
had run against Robert Lilligren, who is himself Native American. The members
of
AIM understand full well about FBI stings and set ups of activists who oppose
those
in power. They knew who their ally was and is.
To bring this back to Farheen Hakeem though, this is why I support Farheen
Hakeem
as strongly as I do. Farheen represents opposition to the corporate power
structure,
just as Dean Zimmermann did. Jeff Haden, although a nice guy, represents the
power
structure just as much as Robert Lilligren does.
Green Party activists and other progressives are opposed to the corporate
corruption
of our democracy and media. The Democratic party on the other hand are busy
supporting
corporate friendly bailouts of our tax money to the very robber barons who
created the
financial mess we all face. sadly, that reality has been lost on groups like
the
Minnesota Nurses Assoc., Sierra Club and others.
Political progressives understand all these facts and realities.
Mr Salo, I'll be blunt. Those who stand up for poor and working class folks do
not
really care about the opinion of some white, privileged, comfortable, middle
class
person who is part of the very power structure he pretends to speak truth to.
Progressives and working class people understand this all too well.
ROCK ON FARHEEN HAKEEM.
Michael Cavlan RN
Powderhorn
Minneapolis,
What follows is a missive I wrote to about 40 housing and homeless advocates
around the State. I entitled this, "Activism without participating in the
collective
hallucination." Personally, I believe that if you are so righteously indignant
about
Dean Zimmerman's retaining wall and unconcerned with things like why didn't
RT and most of the city council do something about predatory lending and the
mortgage crisis some years ago you are simply too stupid to talk to about this
stuff. This is right in keeping with locking up some bonehead for a 5th degree
possession for a crack pipe and sending a wealthy kid to Hazelden for a kilo
of flake and calling that "concern for public safety" tells me that the crack
epidemic
runs deeper than I had once thought.
Dean getting nailed for chicken feed was an act of stupidity on his part for
exposing himself...but focusing on that and ignoring much larger issues is how
we
got to the brink of disaster to begin with...a wee quiz: Which City Council
Member
fit most securely into the back pockets of realty agents and property
developers?
a). Lisa Goodman b). Dean Zimmerman. If you can't identify the shils on our
City
Council you have the analytical skills of a dead dodo.
Read what follows and weep;
Greetings,
There are a few people here who've been around long enough to understand what
I observe here, for the rest I offer this: If we are on the "right track" why
is it things
have gotten worse regardless of which major party holds the majority in
Washington
and despite who holds the Executive Office?
In the late 1970s I remember watching Cherie Honkala and some other old
friends
and acquaintances acting up in downtown Minneapolis right before the takeover
of the
Exodus. At that time those advocating on behalf of veterans were veterans.
Those
who had been homeless or very poor took up the challenge of finding their own
voice
and starting their own initiatives. The same followed for other marginalized
groups.
Today, our overly complex networks of non-profits "advocate" on
behalf of the
"impacted". However, those who control the formulation of policy on issue after
issue
are completely disconnected from the populations for whom they ostensibly
advocate.
One aspect of the mortgage crisis has not been discussed. In the 1980s and 90s
a segment of affordable housing advocates conceived of the ownership of real
property
as the best way for the poor to accrue personal wealth over time. Program after
program
sprang up and many who lived beneath poverty guide-lines were counseled,
packaged
and rushed into their first homes. There were those who cautioned against this
practice
as there seemed to be no consideration of what might happen to those who had no
financial buffer, those who had poor money management and budgeting skills.
Some
noted that in the event of a sharp spike in heating costs large numbers of
people would
be pushed over the brink.
The thing that is never spoken aloud in these things is the truth. The truth
is that
the DFL (and I have been a member for thirty years...these days more out of
lack of
another viable option than anything else) is as much to blame as the GOP for
our
current situation.
Many of you know that I have been continuously and vociferously critical of
the
areas of focus in policy chosen by affordable housing and homeless advocates
here
in Minnesota.
Where is your responsibility here, folks? There are a good twenty people here
who were approached by me and others regarding predatory lending practices in
Minnesota. Nearly everyone here knows that I and others have been relentlessly
critical of providers and advocates who have largely ignored the rising role of
criminal
justice systems in the issue of homelessness.
In this City, folks. our City Council
and the Office of our Mayor, as well as, many
State and Federal Legislators did absolutely nothing at all 4-5 years ago as
first the
Latino and then the African-American communities in Minneapolis were devastated
by
predatory lenders.
Not long ago a good segment of our City Council joined with Congressman
Ellison
and Mayor Rybak at Sabathani to "take up" the mortgage foreclosure crisis. The
crisis
was portrayed as having been thrust upon us by the denizens of the GOP, solely.
I
remember trying to get our Mayor's Office, some of the Council Members who were
on stage that day, and more than one State Legislator to take action behind
organizations
like ACORN Financial Justice via the introduction of some sort of protective
city
ordinance that would have curbed a good chunk of the foreclosures here in our
City.
What is going on here, people? Aside from the mortgage crisis we
are faced with
similar crises in immigration, transportation infrastructure, energy, prison
and judicial
reform, and other areas.
In each of these instances a similar lack of political courage, vision and
connection
with people and issues yielded the same results.
I hold the DFL just as accountable as the GOP in most of these things. In
terms
of affordable housing and homeless policy the same gang has prattled on for
nearly
15 years and more now, regularly missing the boat and allowing the situation to
remain
the same or, in most cases, to worsen.
Strategic thinking and planning, folks, implies that you will be able to
demonstrate
a concrete set of results that are demonstrative of your assertions around a
given topic.
Since 2000, when I returned to this City I've watched in horror as housing
advocates
failed to act on issue after issue;
corrections and judicial reform, immigration reform,
work on the issue of living wages, the persistent racial and economic equity
gaps...
I don't need to look to DC for culprits in each of these areas...all I need to
do is
look to our City Council, Mayor and our State Legislature.
Sorry, we have set up a complex system for advocacy here and across the
nation...those doing the advocacy are increasingly disconnected. They are risk
averse
and never accountable.
I cannot in good conscience subscribe to this collective hallucination wherein
guys like Mayor Rybak are depicted as "saviors" in the foreclosure crisis,
where
Congressman Ellison gets elected on promises not to continue to fund the war
and turns tail after a 20 minute conversation with Pelosi. Where the DFL
dominated
City Council in Minneapolis votes as if---on issue after issue--as if it were
pack
and parcel
staunch supporters of a right-wing agenda.
The collective ability to think and problem solve is in a state of suspense,
apparently.
Half the time I feel as if I am on the set of Orwell's 1984. I go to our
legislator hoping
to get DFL Legislators to quit smoking crack and start doing what they say they
doing
already. The GOP is not holding up prison reform, responsible lending
practices,
or work on racial inequity...
On this last issue, racial inequity we have a clear set of road maps available
to
us: From what I can see we spent 16.8 million total over 6 years on "Minding
the
Gap", the "Racial Disparities Initiative" and related actions stemming out of
the
report from our Supreme Court's Racial Fairness Task Force. This largely
publicly
funded body of research laid down some very clear recommendation sets....none
of which is being taken up, with two possible
exceptions.
Now, here we are again "the united forces of progressive America" assailing
the demonic forces of the GOP...only problem is that the lion's share of our
social
ills in the City of Minneapolis derive as much from the ranks of the DFL as
from the
other major party.
Sure, politics is the art of compromise, but compromise need not be a pee
in your pants at the starting gate and surrending your core beliefs at the hint
of
harsh language. Such demonstrations of political cowardice should not be
depicted
as heroic or visionary or shrewd...they should be portrayed exactly as they
are:
as an abject abandonment of the public interest.
Last week I wrote to the rest of the group planning Second Chance Day on
the Hill. I asked that we publicly read out the recommendations from "Minding
the Gap" and the "Racial Disparities Initiative" and that we provide a count
of action under each of the recommendation sets and a public request to those
who funded this research that they explain why it was that so much money and
time was invested in a set of public initiatives that they never had any
intention
of acting on. My query is out there...my guess is that it will not be acted
upon.
Not because the proposal lacks truth. Not because it is not the right thing to
do.
Not
because we have another option or set of options that has not been tried...but
because folks will be worried about losing funding. To say otherwise is simply
a lie.
Flying to Iraq does not make a Congressman an expert on the military affairs
or
global politics. Being a Mayor and standing on a stage to repair a problem you
helped create doesn't make you "a visionary". Calling yourself an "activist"
when
your primary concerns revolve around your title or salary does not mean you
need
to be taken seriously...but you need to be accountable in some form, at some
point in time.
The Collective Hallucination: A wonderful illustration of this soporific
method of
political action resides in the running of the son of a well-known city
resident. The
man is depicted as an affordable housing and homeless advocate. He has been
endorsed by every DFL State, Local
and Federal Legislator. To challenge the
assertion by publicly requesting an enumeration of what this man's claim to
legitimacy
as a "Homeless Advocate" might rest upon will earn you the opprobrium of
many...but
they will never answer the friggin' question. The simple fact of the matter is
that
this sort of thing is a commonplace. As far as I can see (and I sort of get
around in
this stuff) the assertion that this guy is "an activist" is similar to
depicting George
W. Bush as an incisive authority on French Drama because he saw a reproduction
of the Three Musketeers.
You want culprits in the mortgage crisis...go downtown right here in
Minneapolis...
half a dozen city council members couldn't kiss the butts of local lendors and
real
estate brokers frequently enough...by not noting that, folks, you are just as
god-damned
guilty as Bush.
For Housing
and Homeless Advocates here in Minnesota to pretend that they
were powerless in the mortgage crisis is just plain insulting.
I beg your pardon, but it is hard to get excited and get behind a group of
"advocates" who demonstrate one thing with crysal clarity during the course of
the
past decade: They have absolutely no idea what they are doing.
Those of us who are driven by conviction and by anger over the issues are
activists...the rest, well, I think careerists would be a fitting term.
Yeah, Guy writes e-mails that are too long...you are right, there is no place
for protracted analysis in these things...nor protracted debate...no place for
thought
or historical analysis longer than 2 paragraphs...what was I thinking! That is
not being "effective", right? I think I will continue to not listen to folks
who lecture
me about
"effectiveness" when even the village idiot can note that the long-term
impacts of their efforts mark out the outer limits of failure in public policy.
Sorry to disturb you with some facts in the midst of the yet another
collective
migration into the realms of intellectual dishonesty.
The postings here touch on so many different issues that I'm really not
sure where to begin. Please forgive me if I meander a bit.
First of all, I need to get this off my chest: more power to you and your
family time, Mr. Cavlan. Participants respond to this list as we feel
like it, and no one is compelling anyone else to participate. No need to
apologize or make excuses for not responding. Family time is undoubtedly
a good thing: it makes us all of us more sane. No one really wants to
take you away from that, or from your very worthy work as a nurse.
Second of all, I don't know of anyone who really cares about Dean
Zimmermann's "money, money, money" comment, and he certainly wasn't
convicted for this comment. He was convicted for taking bribes from a
developer AND SPENDING THE CASH. Did he hang onto the questionable
"donations" (for whatever saintly purpose--I truly was not a fan of the
redistricting, either) and hand them over to the attorney general? No, he
SPENT THE CASH. Whether you think that's evidence of stupidity or
evidence of corruption is really up to individuals to decide. Frankly, I
don't care what Dean's "true" reasoning was: I want ALL PUBLIC OFFICIALS
to err on the safe side and follow the law. Cam Gordon's guidelines
issued after Dean's conviction were about the best I've seen: politicians
should exercise good judgment and return any donation that appears even
remotely suspicious. [Again, I'd prefer that we passed more restrictive
campaign finance laws, but that's me. At the very least, politicians
should follow the laws we've got--and make sure their staff understand
those laws clearly.]
And the "facts"? Well, as I've said before on this list, I attended each
day of the Zimmermann trial, and I saw the evidence presented by the FBI.
I posted my notes on a blog, and people can make of them what they will.
But unlike Michael Cavlan and Dean's other defenders, I watched Dean ON
TAPE during the trial tell Carlson the developer how to circumvent the
campaign laws. There's really no validity to the argument that those
comments were taken out of context: I saw/heard Dean on tape, and he made
those comments. Period. No "context" is going to mitigate the impact of
what he said--both for me and, apparently, for the jury.
And maybe other sitting City Council Members are just as corrupt or naive
as Dean was. But so far, I have yet to see anyone provide any evidence to
support that claim. If you're going to discredit people, at least provide
the proof.
And would Dean or Natalie, our two former Green Party City Council
Members, have prevented Resolution 2008R-248 from being passed? Most
likely not. There are 13 City Council Members, and a majority (7 votes)
is required to pass a resolution. The Green Party was/is a minority
party, and Green City Council Members had/have to work hard to build
coalitions across party lines. Given the way the votes went on that
resolution, two additional votes wouldn't have been sufficient to pass it.
To my mind, that's truly a tragedy, but one I don't think that Dean or
Natalie would have prevented.
Now let me add a comment about reductive thinking. You do not have to
support Dean Zimmermann, or Farheen Hakeem, or the Green Party, or the
FBI, or the mainstream media in order to oppose what happened at the RNC
in St. Paul or to oppose predatory lending or to oppose the militarization
of this nation and its criminalization of the homeless. I'm sorry, but we
need a more nuanced approach to politics. Let's at least try not to put
people into boxes they don't deserve.
Liz McLemore
Bancroft
Liz, I always enjoy so very much your well thought out posts. Unlike the bulk of the postings here yours are always very concise and accessible. Yes, I must agree. Dean was guilty. What confounds me is that such a piddly and dense act as this and the opprobrium that accrues to them (and the act was,.if anything, pathetic more than anything else) are of small import in the grand scheme of things. Corruption in politics is a repellant thing, regardless of party affiliation. You make a plea for a more nuanced political analysis. When I think of Justice, corruption and politics I often wonder just what the Hell it is we are doing as a people. Let me give you about as clear an example as I can muster up. Michael Milken, one of the notorious junk bond kings of the 80s was convicted, hands-down, for bilking over one billion dollars out of retired American seniors. Let's be clear: This man ruined the lives of tens of thousands of Americans who worked lifetimes. Many of the men were members of the "Greatest Generation" and had fought in World War II against the forces of fascism. Milken, again, was convicted hands-down. What sentence did he receive? Six months in a minimum security facility in Vermont...but not before divorcing his wife, transferring all of his assets to her in a thinly "legal" proceeding, making any property seizure for recovery impossible. Such things have been repeated, over and over again, in contemporary America...but we never quip too much on that or dwell on the inequity. It is a mere blip where as the pathetic sin of Zimmerman is held up as the grossest of transgressions... it is a matter of scale that confounds my sensibilities. Let's take a local example: In 2000-2001 the MN Supreme Court's Racial Fairness Task Force issued an analysis of disparities in Justice that generated a flurry of action. Brookings and the Itasca Project collaborated in "Minding the Gap". The Council on Crime and Justice launched "The Racial Disparities Initiative" or RDI. The St. Paul Foundation started "Facing Race" the Housing groups "Changing the Face of Housing". CURA got into the game and the Institute on Race and Poverty worked with the CCJ on RDI and on de-segregation. The DOJ interceded in MInneapolis and the PCRC came into being. Of these initiatives I know several, intimately. I served on the PCRC for a time as an alternate and I still watch the proceedings. I served as the Advocacy Coordinator at the CCJ and orchestrated the community participation in the RDI public forum and led the legislative and policy efforts before and after. I sat on the Regional CoC for HUD, the Boards of MACV and the Minnesota Coalition for the Homeless and the Heading Home Hennepin planning group. In the realm of housing-homeless advocacy, I personally organized the "Housing and Communities of Color" series attended by State Legislative Staff, City Council Members, Law Enforcement and every major advocacy group in the Metro. What I saw playing out in housing policy prompted my resignation, with impunity, from HHH, MCH and the Regional CoC. In corrections, I served on the Legislature's Task Force on Expungement, Data Privacy and Criminal Records and on the Task Force on the Office of Corrections Ombudsman. At the National Level I have worked with the ABA's Commission on Effective Criminal Sanctions, with the Legal Action Center in New York and others on the Second Chance Act and on such national efforts as ":Ban the Box". I have served on many other Boards, Task Forces and Commissions concerned with Immigration policy, Veterans Services (I now serve as a consultant to the Department of Defense and to SAMHSA), correctioins and judicial reform (with one CLE I am doing for the RCBA this Friday in St. Paul, others with the National Publisher Thomson-West and with the Hennepin Bar), immigration (2 years on AFFIRM's Legislative Advisory Group and 8 years as a bi-lignual DHS staff-person), and in many other things....I organized and will be at a National Briefing in the US House of Reps on 10\24 on family violence, the military and veterans. When I write here as someone with expertise in housing-homelessness, veterans affairs and criminal justice that is an assertion that can be backed up by anyone willing to google or make some calls. On the various racial disparities initiatives I don't have to guess, I was a the table. I don't have to wonder about the role of the DOJ, the City and Mayor, the Council, the Congressional Offices or the myriadinous roles of the non-profits, churches and other groups invovled. I was the guy who did the invites, organized the forums and tried to carry out the recommendations. A total of over 5 million dollars was spent on RDI over the course of nearly 6 years. The funding derived from the St. Paul and Minneapolis Foundations, both City Governments, the State, the Department of Justice, Departments of Corrections and Public Safety and a number of National and other Foundations, including Bremer and Annie B. Casey. At the end of it all we held a large public unveiling at the Minneapolis Convention Center. We made 3 recommendation sets with 3 recs under each main set. This was derived of 17 major studies (13 on the justice system proper, 4 on collateral consequences). Both Mayors spoke as did 2 Supreme Court Justices. More than one Congressional Office was represented as were both Police Deparmtents and the Department of Corrections. Here is the web-site set up for that event; http://www.racialdisparity.org/get_involved_action.php Remember now, a good chunk of the funding for all of this was public. The recommendations were very clear. I do not need to ask others about the role that our Mayor, Council, State and Legislators played in the wake of RDI, nor do I need to ask someone else what the wealthy families who helped fund the project were willing to do. I was the guy who met with them and asked. Of the 3 recommendation sets with 3 sub-recommendations only one thing has been taken up, the Family Strengthening Project,which is funded by Annie B. Casey, in Baltimore. I don't need to speculate about the willingness of our Mayor, most of our City Council or State Legislators to step up and do what our efforts demonstrated needed to be done. Again, I met with them personally. We spent millions of dollars here and there was never any intention of doing much of anything. That is what I know. Look at the things I was involved in over time here and what I am involved in now. It would be virtually impossible for anyone who might be deemed "an activist in housing and homelesness" to have escaped sitting at the table with me at some point in the last 10 years. Yet Mr. Hayden, endorsed by every politican in twon, is referred to as just such an activist. Explain to me how it is possible for this man to have earned any legitimacy in this realm? I have asked that once, now I am asking again. Liz, we dwell on Dean Zimmerman's pathetic and piss ant infraction, yet we spend millions in public funding on stuff like RDI. To my mind that farce and the hurt, division and the injustice it prolongs and compounds are so far over the top that DZ becomes a minor blip in the grand scheme of things. Why do you think it is that when we have so much information telling us what we need to do that the likes of RT, Lisa Goodman, Barb Johnson, and so many DFL legislators choose to simply ignore publicly funded intitiatives? I can tell you...it is about money, Liz. Money...and a whole lot more than a few thousand. That, Liz, is corruption writ large....very, very large. The City-County Assistant to the Coordinator to end homelessness was hired with no qualification other than that he was the son of a county attorney. The Director for Outreach to the Homeless here was perhaps one of the clearest examples of nepotism I have yet seen here...and no one gave a damn. In terms of knowledge and experience on housing-homelessness, veterans, and justice reform I may very well be the most well-versed person on this list. For the things I have done, at all levels of Government, I have received wide notice and many awards and recognitions..the one thing I refuse to do is to lie about the BS I see out there. I remain utterly baffled that one can post here, cite authority and research with impeccable precision. One can offer clear cut instances of the abuse of power and a whole plethora of malfeasance, irresponsibility and a level of public corruption that is truly nauseating...and no one seems to really give a damn. Opiniion involves interpretation of fact....fact remains fact. There are many things I assert here...all of them can easily be referenced...it is so easy to focus on things like Dean Zimmerman...it is an easy decision to reach. Other things a bit more effort...but the corruption and malfeasnce are far greater...and apparently beyond the ability of the public to care..that is the greatest tragedy of all and the one which, compounded over time, will finish off this Republic. This is like watching the movie Idiocracy Guy Gambill Northeast
Re: Guy Gambill's post: Say Amen somebody!
There have been a number of postings related to Dean Zimmermann’s conviction
for bribery. Most suggest that Dean committed a serious crime and, by
implication, does not deserve our sympathy. The postings as a group are long on
interpretation and short on facts. Conceding that I admire Dean for personal
and political reasons, I want to express an opposing view.
Dean Zimmermann was convicted of bribery. Bribery, in essence, means that an
elected official exchanges his or her vote for money - money that goes into the
official’s personal account.
A bribe, then, consists of two elements: (1) The official must have voted in
the way that the giver of money wanted him to vote. (2) There must have been
an expectation that the money was given for the purpose of committing the
official to vote in a certain way.
On both accounts, the case against Zimmermann does not hold water.
First, Zimmermann voted the opposite of what Carlson wanted on his development
project.The “bribery”, if intended, was not consummated. Carlson, in this
case, had a right to become angry at Zimmermann if Zimmermann had taken the
money with an implicit promise to vote for Carlson’s project and then
doublecrossed him. But one of the essential elements of bribery fails.
Second, Carlson must have reasonably expected that Zimmermann that, in giving
him the money, Zimmermann would vote for his project. Zimmermann or Carlson
must have stated the reason for this donation. Here I do not have complete
knowledge of the facts. Was there explicit or implicit conversation to the
effect that this was an exchange of money for a vote? Perhaps the trial
brought out testimony to that effect? I don’t know.
I do think it relevant, however, that it was Carlson rather than Zimmermann who
initiated the conversation about money. In no sense was Zimmermann “shaking
down” a developer for a bribe. He was neither asking for money in the context
of a vote nor refusing to vote a certain way unless money was given.
Zimmermann was simply responding to an invitation to be given money by someone
who had business before the city. Zimmermann told the developer, Carlson, how
a legal donation could be made.
Someone wrote that Zimmermann “coached” Carlson on how to evade the law. This
is an interpretation. I need facts. If Zimmermann’s offense was that he told
Carlson he could legally contribute money to the redistricting legal-defense
fund, I see nothing wrong with it. That suggestion was both legal and ethical.
Maybe there was another conversation of which I am unaware.
Now, of course, Zimmermann was not entirely blameless. Timothy Salo points out
that when the FBI raided Zimmermann’s house, at least one of the cash-stuffed
envelopes was missing. Zimmermann must have diverted the money to his personal
use. In that case, Zimmermann was violating a fiduciary duty to use the
donated money only for legal costs in connection with the redistricting
lawsuit. But that is not bribery. What is the appropriate punishment in such
a case (keeping in mind that a relatively small amount of money was involved,
it was not a “vulnerable” person who gave the money but someone who set
Zimmermann up with the FBI, and it was Zimmermann’s first such offense)?
I suspect that the fact that the “bribe” was given in the form of envelopes
stuffed with cash rather than in the form of a check adds to the aura of Dean
Zimmerman’s guilt. We of the TV-generation can related to seedy crimes of this
sort. Zimmermann, a handyman, is a somewhat disheveled, ideologically
committed politician representing an inner-city district. He fits the
stereotype all right. I’m sure the FBI played on such stereotypes to the jury
for all they were worth.
When I ran in the IP Senate primary six years ago, I remember how the editor of
a newspaper in northern Minnesota who had once lived in Minneapolis. He told
me that a certain highly respected politician was known to have picked up bags
full of cash, donated by certain businessmen, under a bridge not far from where
I live. Yet, nothing ever happened to this man. It does seem to depend on how
the prosecutors, courts, and the newspaper choose to look at the situation
whether or not one is regarded as a crook.
Back to bribery. My principal opponent in the 5th District Congressional race,
who is the incumbent, has received more than one million dollars in campaign
contributions - all perfectly legal, I’m sure. But why did he receive those
donations? To ward off the challenge from Barb Davis White and me? If so, it
was overkill. Were these contributors worried that Ellison might be defeated
and his magnificent services to the public would be lost? No, I’d bet that
these well-heeled contributors were persons or groups which wanted something
from Ellison; and their donations to him rather than to me or Davis White
reflected the fact that he was likely to be reelected.
When such contributors and lobbyists “want something”, the politician usually
obliges. If he or she did not, the contributions would dry up. In essence,
then, the contributions “buy” a particular vote on bills of interest to the
contributor. I would call this arrangement substantively a “bribe”. But it’s
the way business is done in Washington these days. The amounts of money are
much larger than what Dean Zimmermann received. So there’s a lot of hypocrisy
in how the “respectable” people view Zimmermann and how he was treated.
Bottom line: What happened to Dean Zimmermann is now water over the dam. I,
however, will withhold moral judgment against him regardless of the conviction.
The system of justice is sometimes as rotten as the offense.
greenpartymike wrote: > <Mr. Cavlan's discussion of his personal life deleted> > Although this discussion started out as Farheen Hakeem and her campaign (whom > I heartily support obviously) it has now turned to an attack on my dear friend > and politically ally, Dean Zimmermann. I criticized the Green Party of Minnesota's response when one of its own was was convicted of bribery. I have no reason to attack the Green Party council member who was convicted of bribery, lost his appeal, and served his time. I am much more interested in our expectations for ethical behavior on the part of elected officials. All elected officials. I responded to Mr. Cavlan's claim that the Green Party was a "A political party ... whose core values include getting big money and corporate influence out of our democracy." I suggested that the Green Party of Minnesota would be more credible if it didn't continue to support the right a Green Party ex-city council member to surreptitiously accept envelopes stuffed with cash from a developer. > Ultimately, my address is to progressives, especially those who know and > understand the facts surrounding Dean Zimmermann and all that he has stood for. > Mr Salo, you are obviously not one of those people. It is my impression that the Green Party was divided over how to respond to this incident. Were those who opposed corruption by _anyone_ vilified and excluded from the Green Party? > Dean took money, cash from a developer. That is undisputed. Of course, as Guy > Gambill correctly pointed out, lots of elected officials take lots of money > from shady corporate sources. You and Mr. Gambill appear to be trying to equate surreptitiously accepting envelopes stuffed with cash (and spending most of it on personal expenses) where there are no receipts and no records, with accepting contributions that are well-documented. I think there is a tremendous difference. The court thought that there was a tremendous difference. Do you and Mr. Gambill see any difference? > The fact that one of the Green Party's central > tenants is opposition to this corporate corruption of our democracy goes to > the heart and soul of why I have considered myself a Green. I am merely asking that the Green Party reaffirm its traditional stand against corruption. It should start by withdrawing its press release that claimed that its convicted council member really didn't do anything (or at least much) wrong. > Now for the facts surround Dean Zimmermann's case. > <bunch of irrelevant claims deleted> > Anyway, regarding the infamous envelopes, stuffed with cash. Like I said, it was > given to Dean, by developer Carlson at said fundraiser. No it wasn't. There were three transfers of envelopes stuffed with $100 bills. The then-council member accepted the first envelope (with $5,000) in a secluded restaurant on June 14, 2005. He accepted four more envelopes with another $1,2000 on August 15 while walking around the West Bank with the developer. The Green Party ex-council member accepted yet another $1,000 at his home on August 31. He spent the first $5,000; during his trial he claimed that this money was "enrolled" in his finances. The FBI recovered the remaining 2,200 from his home. For a concise summary of the case, see the appeals court's affirmation of his conviction: http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/12/071062P.pdf This is your definition of clean government? > To help pay for the aforementioned gerrymandering lawsuit. No, only the first $5000 was. The next $2,200 was campaign contributions from fictitious people. > I myself saw the envelopes and Dean even talked to me about them. I see. Accomplice after the fact? > To bring this back to Farheen Hakeem though, this is why I support Farheen Hakeem > as strongly as I do. Farheen represents opposition to the corporate power structure, > just as Dean Zimmermann did. Frightening thought, given Dean's conviction for bribery. Perhaps, it is time for Ms. Hakeem to tell us the circumstances under which she thinks it is acceptable for an elected official to surreptitiously accept envelopes stuffed with cash (with no receipts and no records).
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on Mr. Zimmermann's appeal provides a nice summary of the facts and of the legal reasoning. http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/12/071062P.pdf Bill McGaughey wrote: > There have been a number of postings related to Dean > Zimmermann’s conviction for bribery. Most suggest that > Dean committed a serious crime This discussion is about our expectations for ethical behavior on the part of elected officials in Minneapolis and elsewhere. The activities for which Mr. Zimmermann was convicted are an important benchmark against which to judge ethical behavior. Some appear intent upon setting a lower ethical standard for elected officials. > and, by implication, does not deserve our sympathy. Why on earth should our level of sympathy for the accused or for the guilty affect our ethical expectations for elected officials? > The postings as a group are long on interpretation and short on facts. Indeed. As will be shown shortly. > Dean Zimmermann was convicted of bribery. True. > Bribery, in essence, means that an elected official > his or her vote for money - money that goes into the > official’s personal account. Not true. The Eight Circuit Court of Appeals wrote: "Each count alleged that Zimmermann knowingly and corruptly solicited something of value with intent to be influenced or rewarded in connection with business with the government of the City of Minneapolis in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B)." Your "interpretation" conflicts with a plain language reading of the law and with the findings of a federal district judge and three federal circuit judges. > A bribe, then, consists of two elements: (1) The official > must have voted in the way that the giver of money wanted > him to vote. (2) There must have been an expectation that > the money was given for the purpose of committing the official > to vote in a certain way. Not true. Again, the appeals court disagrees with your narrow and novel "interpretation". > Someone wrote that Zimmermann “coached” Carlson on how > to evade the law. This is an interpretation. I need facts. At your service. From the appeals court ruling: Zimmermann talked about trying to raise more money for his campaign and referred to the contribution limit of $300 per person. He suggested having Carlson donate in the names of his "cousins." ... Carlson gave Zimmermann $1200 in campaign contribution envelopes with the names of four straw donors. Carlson told Zimmermann that he had given the "donors" a little extra so that they would verify that the contributions were theirs. Carlson went to Zimmermann's home on August 31, 2005. While there Carlson gave Zimmermann $1000 in an unmarked campaign contribution envelope and suggested that the money was from people who wanted Zimmermann reelected. Carlson told Zimmermann to write in the donor names himself and stated, "That's for getting us the zoning over there," referring to the zoning for the development of the new Somali mall. Zimmermann replied "So . . . alright."
There are some disturbing new - to me, anyway - elements in the Appeal Court’s
decision. The trial court obviously decided to convict Dean Zimmermann. The
appeals court wrote that Zimmermann solicited “something of value” in exchange
for money. I would take that “something” to be Dean’s prospective vote, which
did not happen to be cast in a way that Carlson desired. Since public records
give numerous examples of campaign donations from multiple relatives under the
legal limits, Zimmermann’s evasion of the law seems in this case to be
suggesting that Carlson initiate what is common practice. But anyway, Dean
Zimmermann did break the law and was punished for it. Meanwhile, Carlson’s
donation affected no public policy and cost taxpayers nothing (except for the
trial and incarceration) while money freely influences, if not buys,
legislation at all levels of government.
I rise to the bait.
It is painful for all of us who love Dean to go over this tragic moment. And,
if it is painful for us, it must be doubly painful for Dean and his family.
But we should re-examine the moment to make sure we are all seeing it clearly.
I confess to an overriding prejudice in Dean's favor. I just published TAKE
THE STREETS! an account of demonstrations at the University of Minnesota in
1972. Dean played a prominent role in those actions and he was arrested for
his efforts. He stood by us at the barricades. I will stand by him.
I have taken Mr. Salo's invitation and examined the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals ruling. I find it interesting and contradictory:
Mr. Salo comments:
> Dean Zimmermann was convicted of bribery.
True.
Actually, Mr. Salo, not true. Dean was not convicted of bribery, but rather of
accepting a gratuity: "Zimmermann was indicted for, convicted of, and sentenced
for accepting gratuities rather than bribes." The government chose to indict
him for accepting a gratuity rather than a bribe because accepting of a
gratuity does not necessitate the proof of a quid pro quo. But he did not
accept the money after the fact, he accepted the donation to the legal defense
fund before he was to vote on the zoning proposal. This is contrary to the
most commonly accepted definition of a gratuity. One generaly does not tip a
wait person before the meal, and the courts have ruled that a gratuity is
"because of the act." (Muldoon, 931 F.2d at 287.) So, it was not a bribe after
all. The government obviously intended it to be a bribe. They gave him the
money before the vote, but Dean voted his conscience and voted to deny the
variance. So, the government gave him a tip for doing something he didn't do,
and then they gave him more money after the vote to thank him for something he
didn't do.
As part of the government's argument against entrapment, they cited two events
that supposedly showed Dean's predisposition to accept a gratuity:
First,"Zimmermann initiated the idea of using straw donors for campaign
donations and told Carlson how to go about it." Dean was telling Carlson how
to bundle contributions. It is a terrible practice and should be against the
law, but it isn't and it is common practice for politicians from City Council
Members to Presidents. It's a way to circumvent the limit on the amount you
can contribute to a campaign. During the last City elections there were many
instances of contractors contributing more than the legal limit to a candidate,
but each contribution was divided into small enough parts so that they could be
claimed as within the legal limits. Lawyers regularly contribute more than the
limit, but they list all their partners as fellow contributors. Contractors
regularly list their subcontractors as donors. Second, "Zimmermann's numerous
lies during his FBI interview showed guilty knowledge and predisposition."
When Zimmermann went to meet Carlson and was instead surprised by being
confronted by two FBI agents, he was, understandably, confused. It is my
understanding that Dean was not read his Miranda rights. He was not allowed to
have a lawyer present when evidence was being collected that would be presented
against him. If it is true that he was not read his Miranda rights, then this
was a serious violation of his constitutional rights.
There are many other areas we could look at. But this is tedious and too
painful.
Mr. Salo, accept it that some of us believe the government targeted Dean
because of his politics. I believe the trial was a farce and a miscarriage of
justice. You are entitled to your beliefs and I am entitled to mine.
Ed Felien
Powderhorn