Orwell’s Perfect Specimen: Cass Sunstein
There has been a lot of discussion in recent months regarding the policies and direction the Obama administration is taking. Speculation and quite honestly, good deductive reasoning would lead one to conclude that Cass Sunstein is behind the push for net neutrality and other freedom quelching procedures. A move that Obama is following given his recent speech about the Internet and the “distractions” and “misinformation” it causes.
Cass Sunstein has been a part of both the legal world and academia since he graduated from Harvard Law in 1978. He gave a lecture in 2007 called “He said that, she did what?” a piece where we glean a little more about his own political philosophy. This lecture was in line with his book “On Rumors” and “Going to Extremes.” On Rumors discusses the harm that spreading rumors via the internet, media, or other forms of communication, can cause. In his book he suggests regulation for these sources of information so the truth is known and rumors aren’t spread. This view is controversial, and rightly so, because it is in direct violation of the first amendment. Most political philosophy, for example, is based upon personal beliefs and opinion and not on fact, like mathematics, so how can a regulatory agency enforce certain opinions or belief systems?
Opening his lecture, Sunstein declared that one of his goals was “to drive a wedge between the ‘Marketplace of Ideas’ and ‘Truth.’” Identifying truth specifically with factual accuracy, he outlined three mechanisms by which false rumors gain traction in that marketplace and become widely held beliefs.[…]
Focusing on false rumor propagation, Sunstein voiced two concerns unaddressed by these explanations. First, people tend to be unaware of the bias of the groups in which they are participants. Second, individuals discount the importance of ideologically minded people to willfully mislead. As he explained, “It’s underestimated the extent to which, with respect to certain rumors, there’s a self-interested or ideologically-motivated mover who is starting the information [process].”
Connecting these behavioral observations to issues of freedom of speech, Sunstein discussed certain Supreme Court decisions. Using the example of a case centered on a newspaper’s publication of the name of a rape victim, he noted the Court’s reliance on the argument that, if a fact is already in the public domain, then wide publication of that fact should always be protected. But this sort of publication can cause irreparable damage, he said, which might prompt a more nuanced application of law.
Raising a more recent phenomenon—YouTube—Sunstein warned of the dangers of turning every citizen into “their own Truman Show,” in which the minutiae of everyday life is broadcast to the world. “A life is not an incident or an event, but a series of them,” he explained, a fact which is lost when incidents are broadcast over the Internet or other media, without context. “Sometimes the isolated segment or event will have a kind of defining character, in a way that will be extremely destructive, not only to the individual involved, but also to people trying to make rational judgments about the relevant person.”
The freakiest part of his lecture wasn’t deciding truth from fiction from an already biased source such as himself, but what he said about the freedom of press: (Watch the webcast.)
Sunstein quoted Felix Frankfurter as saying, “Freedom of the press is not an end in itself, but a means to the end of achieving a free society.” After offering some examples in which uninhibited press freedom leads to the destruction of other freedoms, he proposed a reconsideration of the idea of the ‘chilling effect’”:
“Many First Amendment questions in this domain are resolved by reference to the ‘chilling effect’ concern. Indeed, it has become quite clear that references to the ‘chilling effect’ have had a very serious ‘chilling effect’ on engagement with the constitutional question …The question shouldn’t be whether there’s a chilling effect and how to avoid it, but how to achieve the optimal chilling effect.”
“Zero chilling effect, in light of the mechanisms just described, would be profoundly destructive to a host of relevant variables.”
One can only assume that a chilling effect in essence is the regulation of freedom. Chilling something usually slows it down. If I chill a gas does it not start to become a liquid and equally a liquid becomes a solid? I think it’s time to start saying “Hands off my youtube.”
Sunstein’s other book is “Going to Extremes” in which he believes that people become more and more polarized when they associate with like-minded people on a continuous basis like the internet, social networks, specific organizations and of course talk radio. I find it interesting that talk radio was mentioned specifically. I must also believe that he probably thinks there is no perfect time like the present to enforce his social and philosophical experiments on the masses when organizations and powerful grassroots movements like the Tea Party are shaping the political landscape.
It was Cass Sunstein, now a Harvard constitutional law professor, who first alerted a broad public to the kind of polarization that has preoccupied us most in recent years. Society, with the help of the Web, was sorting people by ideology in a way that eroded fellow-feeling and fostered mindless partisanship. Almost a decade ago, his Republic.com lamented that while daily newspapers confront people with all kinds of material they didn’t ask for, the Web allows them to dodge what they disagree with. This was an alarming refutation of our smug claims about the Internet. In theory, the Internet opens people up to new ways of looking at things. In practice, it lets people wall themselves off in informational micro-environments of their own design. It makes them not more cosmopolitan but more parochial.
Now Sunstein has written Going to Extremes, a short book about the nature and roots of extremism. It is meant to unsettle us in the way his earlier work did. He finds that sitting people down to deliberate does not necessarily lead them to compromise or to converge on their mean opinion. They tend to radicalize in the direction of whatever bias they had to begin with. Teams of doctors, deciding collectively, are more likely to support the “extreme” strategy of heroic efforts to save terminally ill patents than the average individual doctor among them. Juries tend to vote, after discussion, for much more “extreme” monetary awards than the average individual juror among them would. Talking things over isn’t necessarily wrong. But it doesn’t lead reliably to moderation, either.
An additional source can be found at the Harvard Law Record:
Sunstein stated that extremism in multiple domains (labor unions, corporations, environmental protection, gay rights, and more) “is a product of a distinctive kind of crippled epistemology resulting from group polarization.” In other words, individuals tend to come to more extreme views if they deliberate a given issue with like-minded people.
From Sunstein’s essay: “Delibrative Trouble? Why Groups Go to Extremes” [can’t you just hear Billy Joel singing as you read this?]
Polarization is also likely to be produced by magazines with identifiable political convictions, such as the American Prospect, the Weekly Standard, the New Republic, and the National Review; by Pat Robertson and his special television programs devoted to his preferred causes; and by talk radio hosts with distinctive positions that are generally shared by their audiences. Because the results of group polarization cannot be evaluated in the abstract, nothing need be dishonorable in these efforts.
What can be said, in the abstract, is that attempts to ensure discussion among people with similar predispositions may succeed in increasing the confidence of individual participants and also in moving them toward more extreme positions. Thus would-be social reformers do well to create forums, whether in person, over the air, in cyberspace, or in print, in which people with similar inclinations frequently speak with one another and can develop a clear sense of shared identity.
[…]
An understanding of group polarization raises more general issues about communications policy. Under the “fairness doctrine,” now largely abandoned, broadcasters were required to devote time to public issues and to allow an opportunity for opposing views to speak. The second prong of the doctrine was designed to ensure that listeners would not be exposed to any single view. When the FCC abandoned the fairness doctrine, it did so, on the ground that this second prong often led broadcasters to avoid controversial issues entirely, and to present views in a way that suggested a bland uniformity. Subsequent research has suggested that the elimination of the fairness doctrine has indeed produced a flowering of controversial substantive programming, frequently with an extreme view of one kind or another; consider talk radio. Typically this is regarded as a story of wonderfully successful deregulation. But from the standpoint of group polarization, things are more complicated. The growth of issues-oriented programming with a strong, often extreme view may create group polarization, and all too many people might be exposed to louder echoes of their own voices, resulting in social fragmentation, enmity, and misunderstanding. Perhaps it is better for people to hear fewer controversial views than for them to hear a single such view stated over and over again.
It is not clear what can be done about this situation. But it certainly makes sense to consider communications initiatives that would ensure that people are exposed to a range of reasonable views, not simply one. This was the original inspiration for the fairness doctrine, and there is reason to encourage media outlets to implement the same goal today. Thus Habermas’s suggestion: (Harbermas’ tenets are described as Marxist in nature)
The diffusion of information and points of view . . . is not the only thing that matters in public processes of communication, nor is it the most important. . . . [T]he rules of a shared practice of communication are of greater significance for structuring public opinion. Agreement on issues and contributions develops only as the result of more or less exhaustive controversy in which proposals, information, and reasons can be more or less rationally dealt with.
Perhaps a code of fair programming could promote voluntary self-regulation in this direction. With respect to the Internet, Andrew Shapiro has suggested public subsidy of a civic icon that would promote exposure to substantive discussions from a variety of viewpoints. An appreciation of group polarization suggests the need for creative approaches designed to ensure that people do not simply read their “Daily Me.”
[…]
The answer is that we often do know enough to see which views count as reasonable, without knowing which view counts as right, and this point is sufficient to allow people to construct deliberative processes that should correct for the most serious problems potentially created by group polarization. What is necessary is not to allow every view to be heard, but to ensure that no single view is so widely heard, and reinforced, that people are unable to engage in critical evaluation of the reasonable competitors.
When did it become the government or even one czar’s job to assess and regulate whether people decide to congregate with like-minds or with differing views? Is that not the freedom of choice we were given as a people when this country was founded? This is what is most disconcerting, although an intention may be good (and I still do not believe that is the case), ultimately all human beings have a bias. As a member and friend to an ideological Democrat, it can only be assumed that the regulatory czar, himself, is biased (especially when he was also a contributing editor to The New Republic). Ultimately, whatever party is in power would lean towards their ideological principles, especially if it came to enforcing a policy like net neutrality.
I will again draw the point that the tea parties are a huge contingent and based upon the writing of Sunstein and his views on “extremism” and “group-think,” or as he likes to call it, “polarization,” the tea party movement is a prime target of his regulatory experimentation. Sunstein would love nothing more than to decide which voices and views should be heard. A regulatory agency or an individual would decide which opinions are reasonable – with a liberal deciding those things, the tea party would never have a voice.
The exact arguments that Sunstein makes in the second paragraph of Sunstein’s preface to Republic.com 2.0 ‘Revenge of the Blogs,’ is that staying in like-minded circles is like 1984, when it reality, having some bureaucrat legislate what is extreme, enforcing multiple viewpoints, or deciding what is a rumor is more Orwellian than free. Extremism can be both good and bad, but it is within the individual to decide what they will do with it. Human nature can, and never should be legislated. It is something the founders knew, but it is something that progressives seem to cannot grasp.
So wouldn’t it make sense that the FCC is going to find a backdoor way to “nudge” this policy into place? Sunstein is also associated with FreePress.net, the Soros-funded group that advocates for, what they consider media diversity, localism, ownership caps and other regulations that restrict free speech. FreePress.net is pushing for Net Nuetrality and in 1995 published Sunstein’s work, “Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech.” A snippet:
Sunstein writes that an overhaul or requalification of the existing judicial, academic, and social interpretations of the First Amendment would lead to a greater understanding of the actual intent of the framers. He argues from a Madisonian standpoint that the First Amendment is above all designed to promote self-government, and that current free speech law compromises the intent of Madison and other founders.
The FCC:
This week, the FCC Chairman, Julius Genachowski, from many and various sources intends to change the classification of the Internet from Title I, which is an information utility, to Title II telecommunication’s utility. The new reclassification will allow the Title II regulatory authority to enforce Net Neutrality. At this time is doesn’t quite make a whole, more like a half change. The agency will not be enforcing the regulations to the fullest of extent, against broadband providers, immediately, though, it seems odd that the push would be to re-title, in order to enforce at some future point. Oddly enough, by this reclassification, the FCC is going against the last 10 years of its own legal rulings.
In order to sidestep the recent court’s rulings against the FCC’s authority to enforce Net Neutrality, and to be able to watchdog the internet, broadband usage, etc. the FCC is doing this unprecedented move. This will allow more ability for them to regulate what occurs on the Internet. Since the court’s decision on Net Neutrality and it’s stance that the FCC had no right or authority to enforce Net Neutrality, it is almost expected that this will open the door to further litigation by those affected by this decision that the FCC has chosen to make.
For your viewing pleasure I have included a fun little diddy from the movie “The Best Little Whore House in Texas” – “I like to do a little sidestep”
Wouldn’t it also make sense that Elena Kagan, a fellow colleague and an admirer of Cass Sunstein would follow in these same philosophies that academia so loves to experiment with? Kagan wants to suspend Miranda Rights for American citizens, wants to control gun rights, and give more power to the executive branch when it comes to REGULATION: PERFECT for both Obama and Sunstein, who see the Supreme Court as too right-wing, and find their rulings to be more ‘fundamentalist’ than ‘minimalist’ as Sunstein writes in his book “Radicals in Robes.” Sunstein also believes, and I would assume his former boss Kagan does as well, that the Regulatory State needs to be reconsidered in his Harvard Law Review article in 1989 “Interpreting Statutes in The Regulatory State,” and his 1993 book, After the Rights Revolution:
In this provocative and lively book, Sunstein argues that the Reagan adminstration’s vigorous attack on government regulation was misplaced, contending that government regulation is superior to the behavior of private markets…Sunstein thus offers a spirited defense of the ‘rights revolution’ embodied in the new social and economic regulation–from clean air and water to antidiscrimination rules–that have swept government since the New Deal, and especially since the 1960s…The result is a careful, prescriptive study positioned among theorists’ visions of justice, laywers’ concepts of due process, and politicians’ imperatives for effective policy. (American Library Association )
Over the past decade Cass Sunstein has emerged as one of the country’s most prolific and provocative legal scholars. After the Rights Revolution is a rich discussion of how the courts have handled–and should handle–the plethora of regulatory statutes enacted since 1932. It deserves to be read widely by students of politics.
Liberals really have issues when it comes to the imperfections that human nature gives us. Rather than seeing the beauty in the imperfections, they want to eradicate them so society becomes as homogenous and equal as possible. Take for example Sunstein’s view on American Exceptionalism and its false notion in regards to the Constitution:
The third explanation Sunstein rejects is a cultural one that he refers to as the story of “American exceptionalism.” This explanation proposes that America’s culture is hostile to the idea of positive rights because of America’s unique history, which has never included any significant experiment with socialism. Sunstein rejects the cultural argument because he believes that “it is utterly implausible to suggest that something in the [nation's] culture foreordains our practices, present and future.” Additionally, Sunstein points out that although the political left in America is relatively conservative in comparison to almost all other developed countries, America is not without its own social welfare tradition. He cites Roosevelt’s New Deal, the movement for female equality, and the recent movement for recognition of gay and lesbian rights as examples of the flexibility of American culture, and, therefore, the falsity of the cultural argument.
Come to think of it, that certainly sounds similar to what Elena Kagan recently said regarding socialism.
I would consider the Internet, blogs, talk radio all innovative examples of American Exceptionalism, where people have aspired to and become successful bloggers, online investigative journalists, talk radio hosts or large Internet companies. Content will not always be fair and equal, to the chagrin of Sunstein, because we have the freedom of speech and of press. Sunstein and his ilk, however, would prefer that equality is forced upon his “subjects.” Would the forcing of equality actually become an oxymoron? How can one enforce equality but then make it appear that freedom of choice, which gives us the most equality, is being adhered to?
Sunstein would also prefer that average citizens don’t do their homework on elected officials, lest it ruins a liberal’s reputation or give us information to work from in order to investigate. Most truths start out as conspiracies. They only become fact when they are proven. That means it’s time to sign off before Sunstein scrubs my post, which would probably be deemed a conspiracy theory – something he abhors.
Kagan’s Moment in the SUNstein
As Alanis Morisett would say, “Isn’t ironic doncha think?” that every ideological liberal in Chicago is intertwined in some shape or form? Well, Elena Kagan is no different. I think we need to come up with a new 6 degrees of separation game; Kevin Bacon is getting old anyhow.
Since Sunstein may be the driving force behind many of Obama’s decisions, I could only note his views on the Supreme Court within his own essay, “The Myth of the Balanced Court,” where he contends that the so-called liberals that exist on today’s Supreme Court are not really liberal but moderate, and those who are considered to the right, are radically to the right. In Sunstein’s mind, although past liberal justices may not have acted appropriately when interpreting the constitution or legislation, they were at least liberal. Sunstein wants more liberal judges on courts to combat what he sees as a far right tendency when interpreting law. I personally feel his views are radically skewed to the left mainly due to the fact that legal circles have embraced liberalism so fully, moderate looks conservative and liberal looks moderate, and so on.
Here’s what he thinks about Constitutionalists or those he derogatorily refers to as ‘Fundamentalists’ or ‘Originalists’:
Fundamentalist constitutional theory is based on the idea that the proper approach to constitutional law is discerning and applying the intent behind the Constitution when it was ratified in 1789, the intent behind the Bill of Rights when it was ratified in 1791 or when the Fourteenth Amendment (through which much of the Bill of Rights has been applied to the states) was adopted in 1868. This approach is most often advocated by conservatives. In particular, Sunstein associates it with a movement known as the Constitution in Exile. Proponents of that view contend that decisions dating from the 1930s have erased the original intent behind the Constitution and that it’s true meaning needs to be restored.
Sunstein views the constitution as nonexistent prior to 1925 since it would leave out minorities, women and homosexuals. He states that there is no way that a female, a homosexual or a person of color could associate or understand a 200 year old document and relate it back to the ratifier’s intent. [I take offense to that narrow-mindedness].
If one intellectual admits that they are upset that positive rights were never included in the Constitution, but that only intellectuals considered positive rights a hobby/pastime to debate and ponder, why should we not believe that one of Sunstein’s colleagues and a pure intellectual with no working experience would not feel the same? The constitution as it stands is not good enough for intellectuals, in fact it is just a major hindrance.
The explanation for America’s rejection of constitution protection for positive rights that Sunstein accepts is what he refers to as the “legal realist” argument. Sunstein posits that America’s current non-recognition of positive constitutional rights results from an unfortunate twist of fate in the 1968 presidential election. According to Sunstein’s view, had Hubert Humphrey, rather than Richard Nixon, won the 1968 election, America would have a catalog of judicially created, positive constitutional rights today. However, Nixon won the election, and he was able to use his presidential appointment power to reshape the Supreme Court and, according to Sunstein, effectively eliminate any chance of the recognition of positive constitutional rights in the near future.
Sunstein supports this thesis by noting that through its so-called “new property” cases of the late 1960s, the Supreme Court came very close to interpreting some positive rights into the Constitution. The term “new property” originated in an influential law review article by the same name written by Charles Reich. Reich defines the “new property” as the “the jobs we hold, plus benefits, credentials, licenses, public welfare and all of the other kinds of valuables that come from large organizations and government” that provide the economic security that is necessary for the exercise of liberty. Reich argues that these entitlements served the same role as land and more traditional personal property- securing the liberty of the individual-and therefore should receive a similar level of protection. Sunstein sees the post-New Deal period and the “new property” movement as evidence that Americans are not as opposed to the idea of positive rights as many have assumed. The implication of Sunstein’s legal realist explanation is that “[w]ith modest shifts in the future, parts of the second bill of rights could well be included in our constitutional understandings, and certainly in the nation’s constitutive commitments.”
Cass Sunstein believes his nudge principle applies not only in regulatory affairs, but also in law. He feels that a court could gradually become liberal by nudging decisions leftwards every so often.
Elena Kagan, may not have specifically written in terms of nudging or minimalism as Cass Sunstein describes in his book “Radicals in Robes,” but she holds the same type of liberal ideals as Sunstein and Obama. Sunstein wrote in an article on The New Republic, of which he co-edits, that Obama is a visionary minimalist.
Barack Obama is widely regarded as a visionary because of his emphasis on “change” and his soaring rhetoric, but he also has strong minimalist tendencies. In his victory speech in Iowa, Obama went out of his way to say that it is time for a president who will “listen to” those who disagree, and also “learn from” them. In The Audacity of Hope, he asks for a politics that accepts “the possibility that the other side might sometimes have a point.” In a crucial passage, he refers to “the middle-aged feminist who still mourns her abortion, and the Christian woman who paid for her teenager’s abortion.” In this way, he suggests that across one of the nation’s least tractable divides, Americans have far more in common than we tend to think.
Like all minimalists, Obama believes that real change usually requires consensus, learning, and accommodation–a belief directly reflected in many of his policies.
I don’t believe for a second what Cass Sunstein mentions above, but I do believe that what is happening behind the scenes is the gradual transformation of the United States into the “Utopia” that is envisioned by liberals. The Saul Alinsky tactics, conform to become “The Man” and enact change, and tear down traditional institutions is reminiscent of Gramsci Marxism which proposes the same route for transformation.
Elena Kagan believes in more executive powers in the government. She prefers that the executive branch regulate more than the legislative. This view would fit perfectly with both Obama and Sunstein, who believe in legislating morals, ethics, and human nature. They think that perfection (in their minds) can be regulated and the government can oversee it. Elena Kagan would fit perfectly into this mold and she would be incredibly malleable seeing as how she has had no prior judicial experience.
Both Kagan and Sunstein also lament the fact that more liberalism doesn’t exist or that socialism has failed to be implemented.
“In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism’s glories than of socialism’s greatness,” wrote Kagan, Obama’s solicitor general.
“Why, in a society by no means perfect, has a radical party never attained the status of a major political force? Why, in particular, did the socialist movement never become an alternative to the nation’s established parties?” she asked.
“Through its own internal feuding, then, the SP [Socialist Party] exhausted itself forever and further reduced labor radicalism in New York to the position of marginality and insignificance from which it has never recovered.
“The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism’s decline, still wish to change America,” she wrote. “Radicals have often succumbed to the devastating bane of sectarianism; it is easier, after all, to fight one’s fellows than it is to battle an entrenched and powerful foe. Yet if the history of Local New York shows anything, it is that American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies. In unity lies their only hope.”
Kagan brought Sunstein over to Harvard Law from Chicago in 2007 and in so doing had the following to say about him:
Introducing Sunstein before the talk, Dean Elena Kagan ’86 described him as “the world’s pre-eminent legal scholar,” one who “challenges our assumptions and changes the way we think about legal issues.” Suggesting that Frankfurter was a forebearer of what she called “Sunsteinian Minimalism,” Kagan noted that the Justice, who was sometimes accused of being too leftist, brought to the Supreme Court a strong belief in judicial restraint. “He believed more in the institutions of democracy than in the courts,” said Kagan. “He also insisted … on respect for Federalism, for the decisions of state governments.”
“Cass Sunstein is the preeminent legal scholar of our time, the most wide-ranging, the most prolific, the most cited, and the most influential,” Elena Kagan, dean of the Harvard Law School, said in a statement released yesterday.
“His work in any one of the fields he pursues – administrative law and policy, constitutional law and theory, behavioral economics and law, environmental law, to name a nonexhaustive few – would put him in the very front ranks of legal scholars,” Kagan said.
It would appear as if somebody had an idol, and how else would one better flatter their idol by exemplifying him?
America doesn’t need political ideologues on the Supreme Court, but rather those who interpret the law and are independent thinkers that have the experience and knowledge to back it up–Just being a legal wonk, a dean, connected to Democrats, Larry Summers, and Goldman Sachs isn’t enough.
Hardin Montana- A Conspiracy of ‘Twitter’ Proportions Revealed
Hardin, Montana has definitely seen some hard times the past few years. Two Rivers Authority is Hardin’s economic development branch. Building a detention center was supposed to help Hardin during it’s rough economic times. However, when the jail was completed in 2007, Montana no longer had the need for more prison space. Therefore, the Two Rivers Detention Center has sat empty for two years and the bonds used to pay for the jail have been in default since May 2008.
With foreclosure of the land and facility looming, Hardin – a struggling town of 3500, first came to national attention when, in its desperation to fill the jail, announced they were willing to take Guantanamo detainees. Unfortunately for the town, Congress voted not to fund the $80 million in the President’s plan to close Guantanamo. Thereby, leaving Hardin with a still empty jail. Enter, American Private Police Force Organization, Inc. (APF).
APF swooped into Hardin and made them an offer too good to refuse. Most private security firms who manage corrections facilities, receive money from the City, County, or State to administer the facility. Not so for APF. ‘Captain’ Michael Hilton, the company’s lead public figure and Greg Smith, then Two Rivers Executive Director, announced a 10 year contract had been inked. APF said it planned to invest $30 million in new projects for the city, including a military and law enforcement training center with a 250 bed dormitory and an expansion of the jail to 2000 beds. The company also said it would build a homeless shelter, offer free health care for city residents, deliver meals to the needy and possibly provide a local police force. Not bad for a city of only 3500 inhabitants.
All seemed well until Hilton brought in three Mercedes SUV’s complete with removable decals emblazoned with ‘City of Hardin Police Department.’ If Hardin actually had police department it probably would have gone relatively unnoticed. However, Hardin hasn’t had a police department in over 30 years and that brought the entire story worldwide attention. This time, bloggers and conspiracy theorists heated up the internet with stories of FEMA camps and Big Brother. At this point I am certain Hardin would be happy if that were the case. Instead, it is something far more mundane and possibly more harmful to the ones who were sucked in by the company. Add to it the fact that neither Hilton nor Smith would disclose the exact terms of the contract, who was backing APF in the multimillion investment, or who APF’s parent company was and you have a conspiracy of Twitter proportions. Factored in to the ‘conspiracy’ are dubious remarks by Smith’s wife, when questioned about the specifics, “Don’t panic, just go with the flow and everything will be fine,” Kerri Smith, City of Hardin Mayoral candidate.
Shortly after the contract was signed by Two Rivers Authority and APF, the executive director of Two Rivers, Smith, was place on administrative leave with no public explanation. In addition, the Billings Gazette staffer, Becky Shay, who had been covering the detention facility and the subsequent APF storyline, suddenly quit her job with the newspaper and became APF’s Public Relations Officer within an hour of quitting the paper. The supposed world wide paramilitary organization hired a local beat reporter to manage its worldwide PR. Just as the number of questions surrounding APF, Smith, and Shay were mounting up, the company’s website was mysteriously taken down; thus, fueling the internet rumors of black helicopters and interment camps.
Well, we can now declare the mystery has been solved. Unfortunately, I suspect jobs will be lost and reputations of life long Hardin citizens ruined. All at the hands of a grifter.
According to Matthew Brown (AP) who has been following this story closely:
Public documents and interviews with Hilton’s associates and legal adversaries offer a different picture, that of a convicted felon with a number of aliases, a string of legal judgments against him, two bankruptcies and a decades-long reputation for deals gone bad.
American Police Force is the company Hilton formed in March to take over the Hardin jail.
“Such schemes you cannot believe,” said Joseph Carella, an Orange County, Calif. doctor and co-defendant with Hilton in a real estate fraud case that resulted in a civil judgment against Hilton and several others.
“The guy’s brilliant. If he had been able to do honest work, he probably would have been a gazillionaire,” Carella said.
Court documents show Hilton has outstanding judgments against him in three civil cases totaling more than $1.1 million.
As for Hilton’s military expertise, including his claim to have advised forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, those interviewed knew of no such feats. Instead, Hilton was described alternately by those who know him as an arts dealer, cook, restaurant owner, land developer, loan broker and car salesman — always with a moneymaking scheme in the works.
Hilton did not return several calls seeking comment. American Police Force attorney Maziar Mafi referred questions to company spokeswoman Becky Shay.
When asked about court records detailing Hilton’s past, Shay replied, “The documents speak for themselves. If anyone has found public documents, the documents are what they are.”
Shay declined comment on Hilton’s military experience.
Al Peterson, vice president of Hardin’s Two Rivers Authority, which built the jail, declined to comment on Hilton’s legal troubles. He refused to say if he knew about Hilton’s past when the authority reached a 10-year agreement with American Police Force last month.
The deal is worth more than $2.6 million a year, according to city leaders.
Hilton has also pledged to build a $17 million military and law enforcement training center. And he’s promised to dispatch security to patrol Hardin’s streets, build an animal shelter and a homeless shelter and offer free health care to city resident’s out of the jail’s clinic.
Those additional promises were not included in the jail agreement, which remains in limbo because US Bank has so far declined to sign off on the contract. The bank is the trustee for the bonds used to fund the jail.
A US Bank spokeswoman declined to comment, but Peterson was adamant the deal would be approved.
“It’s a solid deal. That’s all I’ll say,” he said.
But a representative of a corrections advocacy group that has been critical of Hardin’s jail and has investigated Hilton’s past said city leaders dropped the ball.
“I’m amazed that city officials didn’t do basic research that would have raised significant questions about American Private Police Force and Mr. Hilton’s background,” said Alex Friedmann, vice president of the Private Corrections Institute.
Hilton, 55, uses the title “captain” when introducing himself and on his business cards. But he acknowledged it was not a military rank.
He said he is naturalized U.S. citizen and native of Montenegro. Aliases for Hilton that appear in court documents include Miodrag Dokovich, Michael Hamilton, Hristian Djokich and Michael Djokovich.
One attorney who dealt with Hilton in a fraud lawsuit referred to him as a “chameleon” and he has a reputation for winning people over with his charm.
His criminal record goes back to at least 1988, when Hilton was arrested in Santa Ana, Calif. for writing bad checks.
Beginning in 1993, Hilton spent six years in prison in California on a dozen counts of grand theft and other charges including illegal diversion of construction funds.
The charges included stealing $20,000 in a real estate swindle in which Hilton convinced an associate to give him a deed on property in Long Beach, Calif., ostensibly as collateral on a loan. Hilton turned around and sold the property to another party but was caught when the buyer contacted the original owner.
After his release, he got entangled in at least three civil lawsuits alleging fraud or misrepresentation. Those included luring investors to sink money into gold and silver collectible coins; posing as a fine arts dealer in Utah in order to convince a co uple to give him a $100,000 silver statue; and, in the case involving co-defendant Carella, seeking investors for an assisted living complex in Southern California that was never built.
Carella said he was duped into becoming a partner in the development project and that Hilton used Carella’s status as a physician to lure others into the scheme. He was described in court testimony as a “pawn” used by Hilton to lure investors.
Those involved with Hilton say he is an accomplished cook with a flair for the extravagant — wining and dining potential partners, showing up at the Utah couple’s house to negotiate for the silver statue in a chauffeur-driven Mercedes.
“This is the way we got taken,” said Carolyn Call of Provo, Utah, who said she gave Hilton her family’s silver statue to sell on the open market.
According to court documents, Hilton turned around and gave the statue to an attorney to pay for his services.
Two California attorneys said Wednesday that after learning of Hilton’s latest activities they planned to follow him to Montana to seek payment on the outstanding judgments against him.
“Once I know that there is an asset or some sort of funds to go after, we’ll go after it,” said Call’s attorney, Roger Naghash.
President Clinton to the Rescue!!!
First of all, I am exceedingly grateful for the release of our two American journalists who have been held by the North Korean authorities. There are two very happy Immigrant-American Families today and that is a joy worth celebrating.
But then there’s the politics:
This visit of a former President is a very dangerous display of legitimacy to the North Korean regime. Remember they are in desperate need of fresh propaganda at a time when they are flexing their nuclear muscles.
The timing couldn’t be worse: A few short months after a round of nuclear weapons tests by the North Koreans, America responds by apologizing (seems to be a trend) and begging for the release of prisoners. When did we become such pansies? When did we as a country decide that we owed anyone an apology for being the most generous and wealth-producing country the world has ever known? Now release those prisoners!!!
But all that is really of little consequence. North Korea has been playing these games for decades. They have their ups and downs, flex their muscles and get some desperately needed economic aid from a former President (remember Carter) who agrees to some shit we will never know about but which our children are on-the-hook for. The economic stimulus will shut them up temporarily while they plan their next big power play.
No, what bothers me the most is the double speak we get from the White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs. The efforts to downplay the significance of this event are astounding. Obama can’t afford to be seen as weak on foreign policy therefore he has avoided this issue for months. Biden is now no where to be seen or heard of except for the occasional gaff-truth. But alas, Obama has the political cover to deal with the situation without being personally involved. Mr. President you have received a gift, and it’s not even your Birthday!
Did he approve this trip and the preceding negotiations? I think so, and here is way. Obama can’t have direct talks with N. Korea for foreign policy reasons. Having the Secretary of State’s husband and Ex-President extend-an-olive-branch gives Obama significant political cover. If things get ugly he can always through the Clintons under-the-bus. Something he’s wanted to do since the early days of the campaign.
Ask yourself this, is there anyway that a former President went halfway around the world to meet with the leader of a rogue nation without the knowledge of our security forces? No.
Further, don’t you think the Sitting-President would be made aware of such a trip out of professional courtesy? I’m thinking yes. If not, he should be pissed!!! I would be…
Oink Oink – Porky the Pig Goes to Washington
The latest bill set to pass through congress, the health care bill, is stacked with pork products, and not the type you eat at baseball games.
Congress is trying to stuff the bill full of projects that have absolutely nothing to do with health care. I will provide some examples:
1. Walking Paths: walking paths drastically increase health because it is almost impossible to walk and exercise on streets, grass, gyms, your home, or school race tracks.
2. Streetlights: Although not directly associated with vitamin D – it could serve as a great replacement for the sun some time in the future… or wait…
3. Jungle Gyms: I am hoping that those who need health care the most, i.e. senior citizens, get some new ’sneaks’ and hit the playground. I’m sure their hips and joints will love climbing up and down. Is it just me or aren’t jungle gyms and things related to parks and recreation considered city works? – eh… who am I kidding – it’s not like Congress follows the rules; the Constitution.
4. Farmer’s Markets: After cap and tax and the new Food bill on the table – why worry about additional Farmer’s markets? Our grocery stores will become just that… Plus, given the economic downturn I may just be forced to grow my own food or steal some from Michelle Obama’s garden!
I am hoping that those of you reading this are beginning to see the insanity if you haven’t already. This is unbelievable, and the sad part; most Democrats think it all makes sense:
Advocates, including Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, defend the proposed spending as a necessary way to promote healthier lives and, in the long run, cut medical costs. “These are not public works grants; they are community transformation grants,’’ said Anthony Coley, a spokesman for Kennedy, chairman of the Senate health committee whose healthcare bill includes the projects.
Let’s compare public works to community transformation, because the way in which politicians mask the truth is through words and labels: Community = Society at large; a commonwealth or state; a body politic; the public, or people in general. Transformation = to perform a specified action or activity; work; operate
“If improving the lighting in a playground or clearing a walking path or a bike path or restoring a park are determined as needed by a community to create more opportunities for physical activity, we should not prohibit this from happening,’’ Coley said in a statement.
Teddy’s idea of exercise comes in the form of running from a murder scene…
But wait! That’s not all… A recent report came out that proved what many of us already knew:
Counties that supported Obama last year have reaped twice as much money per person from the administration’s $787 billion economic stimulus package as those that voted for his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, a USA TODAY analysis of government disclosure and accounting records shows. That money includes aid to repair military bases, improve public housing and help students pay for college.
$17 Billion in aid has gone to Obama backers from his stimulus bill. This is a captain obvious moment, but it should be disconcerting that when the country’s future is at stake, the good of the citizens takes a backseat to the pay-to-play political games of politicians – including Mr. Hope and Change himself.
