On Monday January 5, Utah County businessman and talk radio host C. Rick Koerber announced that he will begin releasing to the public a mountain of evidence implicating several government employees and officers.  The evidence is in the form of secret audio recordings, photographs, recordings of telephone conversations and printed documents authored by Utah officials.  Beginning Friday January 9, 2008 Koerber has announced his plan to publish in a series information releases including web links to audio files and .pdf documents.

“Given the current climate and the behavior of these people I just decided that it wasn’t worth letting things continue with business as usual,” said Koerber. “I think its best for everyone if the truth was revealed and everyone can see how things are done by some of Utah’s top ranking bureaucrats.  A few key individuals seem to enjoy ruining the reputations of sincere, hard working men and women and its costing normal every day citizens their jobs, their retirement, and in some cases their life savings.  I bet not a single one of them has ever created a real job and several of them seem to think they are above the law.”

The evidence being released implicates several Department of Commerce personnel including Utah Securities Division Enforcement Director Michael Hines, Enforcement Analyst Jennifer Korb, Licensing examiner A. Gary Bowen, former Division Director Wayne Klien and former Division of Real Estate officer John Brown.  Among the more then fifty recorded segments and documents in Koerber’s possession government employees are revealed lying, admitting conspiracy, misstating the law, admitting coercion, threatening witnesses, leaking protected information, bragging about excessive power and discretion and in at least one instance possible violations of a federal court rule prohibiting certain disclosures related to a grand jury proceeding.

Koerber is part of a growing number of Utah businessmen turning to State lawmakers and to the courts in an effort to reign in the alleged abuses by appointees, staff and employees in Gov. Huntsman’s Department of Commerce.

Henry S. Brock, a Utah based CPA associated with Americans for Civil Rights, is another local businessmen who is fed up with the Utah Department of Commerce and has created a laundry list of documented abuses on the ACR website where a petition is being circulated to pressure lawmakers to take action.  “Whether you are a doctor, contractor, realtor, or financial advisor, we all have similar concerns,” writes Brock, who uses the recently released State Audit of one division inside the Department to call attention to what he calls widespread abuse.

In what is becoming increasingly discussed nationally, Utah’s state officials, under Gov. Huntsman’s tenure, are now ranked, according to a recent study published by the New York Times, as one of the top 15 most corrupt States in the union.

In December of 2007 lawmakers approved a State audit of the Department’s Division of Securities which uncovered an array of problems including impropriety, internal conflict, coercion, violations of due process, and numerous other failures in its official 43-page report released in July of 2008.

“The audit only uncovered the tip of the iceberg” claims Utah businessman James Claybourn.  “If you read the audit carefully you’ll notice that it only looked at a few cases, and that it also describes the need for much further investigation.”

Claybourn, Brock and Koerber are part of a growing business community increasingly disillusioned by the lack of attention and scrutiny being directed at the widely reported abuses by the Department which operates under the sole elective oversight of Huntsman and his appointee Department of Commerce Director Francine Giani.

Koerber hopes that by announcing the systematic release of the recordings and documents he’s been gathering over the last several years that a more thorough investigation of the Department will be conducted and that the State legislature will not take only small, token efforts at reform.

“Look, the situation in the Department of Commerce is out of control.  They brag about being able to break the law, about ruining people’s lives and they regularly demonize small businessmen who are supposed to be treated as innocent until proven guilty,” extols Koerber.  “In today’s financial climate bureaucrats should not be freely spreading lies and acting like they are above the law, forgetting that small businessmen and women are citizens deserving of equal protection under the law.  It’s just plain wrong.”

In fact, the Department has had to drop fraud charges and issue public apologies in the past for erroneously accusing businessmen of fraud and misconduct using punitive premature media, for example its March 30, 2007 release related to Gary W. Teran and Carl A. Page of First Western Advisors.

The Department has been gaining a growing number of critics that extends beyond the business community.  Over the last year, several government insiders, including at least one former Executive Director and one former Division of Securities Director, have suggested that a “changing of the guard” is urgently needed along with several substantial reforms.

The Utah legislature has also begun addressing the reported impropriety, however, several prominent Utahans, are concerned that the gravity of the situation is not being fully appreciated by lawmakers.

“The bills [being proposed] are grossly inadequate and do not go far enough to protect the constitutional and civil rights of all licensees under the Department of Commerce, including the Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing, the Division of Real Estate, and the Division of Securities,” says Brock.  “Regulators are not above the law, and are accountable for their acts in relation to the public trust reposed in them…the Legislative Auditor’s Official Report said that employees within the agency themselves fear to speak-up due to reprisals, and the licensees are certainly fearful of retribution; hence, an unwillingness to speak out on legislation such as this. I have no doubt there may be reprisals against me for speaking up.”

One disturbing example of such reprisals involves State Representative Carl Wimmer who began looking into potential abuses by Huntsman’s Department in 2007.  After learning of Wimmer’s inquiry, then Securities Division Director Wayne Klein fired off an email to State Attorney General Mark Shurtleff suggesting that Wimmer should not be trusted and that his efforts be downplayed because he was an investor in one of the companies being investigated by Klien.  Wimmer, however turned out not to be an investor in any company being investigated by the Division.

“A government bureaucrat, trying to sabotage a State legislator to protect his territory- this is exactly what they do.” said Koerber.  “If you accuse them of wrong doing they line up a row of supposed victims of fraud-never mind that the story of fraud might be entirely made up by the regulators-and suggest that by attacking the government you are somehow harming or being insensitive to potential victims.”

In one of the audio recordings yet to be released by Koerber, Klien can be heard justifying his division’s targeting of Koerber himself because of statements made about Klein on Koerber’s his talk radio program and because of legislative scrutiny being brought on the Department by Rep. Wimmer and his colleague Rep. Jim Bird, pressure which Klein seems to attribute to Koerber.

–Partial Transcript-

Within a month of the announcement of last year’s audit and amidst a storm of controversy Klein resigned from his position as Securities Director.  But in commentary released after the release of the official audit, Audit Manager Tim Osterstock immediately preempted any suggestion that Klein’s resignation would solve the problem.  “It’s not just a director, it’s an organization,” Osterstock said.

One Department of Commerce insider, who requested to remain unnamed for fear of reprisal, confided about the Department and actions taken by Executive Director Francine Giani, “You have no idea how crazy this place is.  Its all about territory, power and egos.  Once the audit came out Francine put on a happy face but things around here got put on lock down. Quite frankly, so long as Francine and people like Michael Hines have free reign, I would hate to be a business owner in Utah.”

Regarding Koerber’s January 5th announcement that these recordings will be released to the public, this same insider remarked, “This is extraordinary evidence, I hope it starts to get the kind of attention it deserves.”

Huntsman who has been Utah Governor since 2004, appointed Giani to her present position in 2005, and has remained silent since the scandal started brewing in 2007.  Several businessmen, lawmakers, citizens organizations and government insiders now appear committed to making sure his Department doesn’t escape legitimate scrutiny and reform.

[Note: C. Rick Koerber is the Founder and President of FreeCapitalist Enterprises, LLC  that parent company in charge of operations for FreeCapitalist Daily]

Related Content on the Web:

• January 05, 2009 – FranklinSquires Press Release
• Audit blasts state securities division
• Utah’s securities chief is resigning under cloud
• Francine’s Domain – Scandal Brewing in Utah State Government
• Rogue Agency Arrests Utah Mom
• Audit: Corruption, Failure and Incompetence in Utah Government
• Open Letter to the Legislature
• Division of Securities Apology Regarding Teran and Page

“This case is a travesty,” said Alex Epstein, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. “Cuban is accused of selling his stock in Mamma.com after the CEO told Cuban that the company would be making a new stock offering that Cuban thought was a bad idea. But there is nothing wrong with this whatsoever–unless Cuban had a contractual obligation or fiduciary duty not to act on the information. And if Cuban violated a contract, which there is no evidence of, then that is the injured party’s–the company’s–job to pursue, not the SEC’s. In all likelihood, if there is anyone who violated a contractual obligation, it is the CEO who divulged confidential, unsolicited information–not the famous billionaire recipient who just happens to make a juicy target for SEC bureaucrats thirsting for another high-profile case to justify their regulatory power.

“The question of ‘insider trading’–when employees and investors of a company can act on certain information–should be left entirely up to private contract, such as restrictions on CEOs shorting their own stock. The criminalization of ‘insider trading’ has authorized the SEC to terrorize those whose only sin was to be a savvy investor. The Mark Cubans of the world deserve to be left free to make investment decisions under a government with clear laws against force, fraud, and breach of contract–not to spend years of their lives enduring witch hunts and prisons.”>>>>Read the Full Article

In a major speech focused on Obama, titled “A Springtime of Possibility,” CPUSA leader Sam Webb declared the U.S. is now “on the road to socialism.”

Webb defined socialism as a “society that is egalitarian in the rough sense, eliminates exploitation of working people, brings an end to all forms of oppression, and is notable for the many-layered participation of working people and their allies in the management of the economy and state.”

In the speech, delivered at the CPUSA’s national convention Nov. 15 and posted on the party’s website, Webb stated it is “no exaggeration” to call Obama’s victory a “sea change.”

He referred to last month’s election as a “rout of right-wing extremism, a reaffirmation of the decency of our country and people, a leap forward on freedom road and a people’s mandate for change.

“A sense of joy, catharsis and renewal is in the air,” said Webb. “Expectations are high. A new era of progressive change is waiting to become a reality. If the past eight years of the Bush administration seemed like a winter of discontent, Obama’s ascendancy to the presidency feels like a springtime of possibility.”

He continued>>>>Read the Full Article

New Jersey plaintiff Eric McKinley can now crown himself the new Rosa Parks — heroically breaking down inhumane barriers to Internet matchmaking by forcing a law-abiding private company to provide services it was never created to provide. “Men seeking men” has now been enshrined with “I have a dream” as a civil rights rallying cry of the 21st century. Bully for you, Mr. McKinley. You bully.

Neil Warren, eHarmony’s founder, is a gentle, grandfatherly businessman who launched his popular dating site to support heterosexual marriage. A “Focus on the Family” author with a divinity degree, Warren encourages healthy, lasting unions between men and women of all faiths, mixed faiths or no faith at all.

Don’t like what eHarmony sells? Go somewhere else. There are thousands upon thousands of dating sites on the Internet that cater to gays, lesbians, Jews, Muslims, Trekkies, runners, you name it.

No matter. In the name of tolerance, McKinley refused to tolerate eHarmony’s right to operate a lawful business that didn’t give him what he wanted. He filed a discrimination complaint against eHarmony with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights in 2005.

To be clear: eHarmony never, ever refused to do business with anyone. The company broke no laws. Their great “sin” was not providing a politically correct service that a publicity-seeking gay plaintiff demanded they provide. For three years, the company battled McKinley’s legal shakedown artists — and staved off other opportunists as well. The dating site had been previously sued by a lesbian looking to force the company to match her up with another woman, and by a married man who ridiculously sought to force the company to find him prospects for an adulterous relationship.

This case is akin to a meat-eater suing a vegetarian restaurant for not offering him a rib-eye, or a female patient suing a vasectomy doctor for not providing her hysterectomy services. But rather than defend the persecuted business>>>>Read the Full Article

Yet I have a hunch Congress will get over its reluctance, maybe as early as next month. Things just seem to work that way in Washington. Remember the first bailout bill?

Instead of getting a new $25 billion “bridge loan” as requested, the companies will probably have to be content with just a quicker dispersal of a $25 billion loan already approved or a smaller short-term handout — if the they can come up with an acceptable plan showing the way to “viability,” an attribute that is very much in the eye of beholder. That $25 billion already approved was supposed to be used to develop high-tech fuel-efficient vehicles. But General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler have a higher priority than new products: immediate cash simply to keep operating. GM and Ford say they could run out of money by year’s end.

Even if Congress passes a compromise bill in December and President Bush signs it, that won’t be the last of the matter. The companies will need more help next year, and President-elect Obama will have a sympathetic ear.

None of this should be happening, of course. There should have been no initial $25 billion in loans for new products. If the products Detroit wants to build show that much promise, let the companies find private investors to throw in with them. ? Does the computer or mobile-phone industries need taxpayer help in rolling out new products? Why must the taxpayers be compelled to kick in money for new cars?>>>>Read the Full Article

Somehow, Mavericks owner Mark Cuban ended up on the floor at the periphery of the mêlée.

Cuban, a legitimate self-made billionaire internet entrepreneur, can usually be found sitting court-side. With splendid indifference to the informal rules of team owner decorum, Cuban can be found mingling with the fans and hurling abuse at opposing players and officials alike. So when the scuffle erupted, Cuban figured he’d get a taste of the action – or at least a suitable substitute that he could enjoy at a minimum safe distance.

The following day, Cuban made a comment to the effect that he wanted a piece of Jazz power forward Karl Malone. This gesture was a bit like an asthma hound Chihuahua calling out a cape buffalo. I found myself admiring Cuban’s audacity even as I entertained doubts about his sanity.

Only recently did I learn that Cuban, in addition to being a wildly successful businessman and a genuinely brilliant if occasionally abrasive person, is an individualist whose favorite author is Ayn Rand.

Cuban’s favorite book is The Fountainhead, which in my view was Rand’s best work; Cuban claims to have re-read it on several occasions, and was prepared to finance an updated version of the film. (The 1949 film, in my view, is among the finest movie adaptations from a novel, surpassed only by the pitch-perfect 1962 adaptation of To Kill a Mockingbird.)

Much to his credit, Cuban’s defiant individualism extends to more important matters than court-side deportment. He provoked the theatrical condemnation of coprocephalic talk show goon Bill O’Reilly by offering to bankroll the cinematic distribution of the 9-11 revisionist documentary Loose Change, which presented evidence that the Black Tuesday atrocity was an “inside job” by the Bush Regime, which sought a pretext for war with (inter alia) Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.>>>>Read the Full Article

In 1949, the Federal Communications Commission created the “Fairness Doctrine,” which mandated that federally-licensed radio and television stations “provide a reasonable opportunity for the presentation of contrasting viewpoints” on “vitally important controversial issues.” Rather than be deluged with demands for air time by aggrieved listeners, the broadcasters generally opted not to cover controversial issues, thereby leaving the public less informed.

In 1987, President Reagan’s FCC jettisoned the Fairness Doctrine, and conservative talk radio grew like topsy, unencumbered by the logistical nightmare of determining what is “controversial” and what is “fair.” Rush Limbaugh’s meteoric, syndicated rise is directly attributable to this repeal, as radio stations were freed to air what listeners wanted to hear without airing what few wanted to hear. If you think that’s unfair, check out how Air America is doing.

Limbaugh even today correctly says, “Don’t me ask for equal time; I am equal time. I am the rebuttal to the liberal, mainstream, drive-by media.”

With the Democrats now set to control the Presidency and both houses of Congress, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid say they want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine to stifle conservative talk radio’s criticism of the Democrats.

Barack Obama, however, in June 2008, , stated that he opposes bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, through his Press Secretary Michael Ortiz: “He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible.” [emphasis added]

Obama knows that exhuming the Fairness Doctrine would be a frontal assault upon the First Amendment that would evoke a Boston Tea Party-like response>>>>Read the Full Article

“Every day brings this nation closer to a Nazi-style totalitarian abyss,” writes Hilmar von Campe, now a U.S. citizen, and author of “Defeating the Totalitarian Lie: A Former Hitler Youth Warns America.”

Von Campe has founded the national Institute for Truth and Freedom to fight for a return to constitutional government in the U.S. – a key, he believes, to keeping America free.

“I lived the Nazi nightmare, and, as the old saying goes, ‘A man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument,’” writes von Campe. “Everything I write is based on my personal experience in Nazi Germany. There is nothing theoretical about my description of what happens when a nation throws God out of government and society, and Christians become religious bystanders. I don’t want to see a repetition. The role of God in human society is the decisive issue for this generation. My writing is part of my life of restitution for the crimes of a godless government, of the evil of which I was a part.”>>>>Read the Full Article

In question is a rendering of the Seven Aphorisms of Summum which the Summum religious group sought to donate to Pleasant Grove for display in a city park, beside a monument of the Ten Commandments.

The case in America’s highest court tests whether a government body can choose what is displayed on public land without infringing on private groups’ right to freedom of speech under the first amendment to the US Constitution.

Lawyers for both sides have filed briefs with the court, and today fleshed out those arguments under intense questioning by the nine justices of the supreme court.

Representing the city is a conservative legal group, American Centre for Law and Justice, which argues that the city is not obligated to display any and all monuments offered.

“In short,” the group argues,>>>>Read the Full Article