Saturday, September 30

Effect of Ethics 2006 on Description of Purpose


In reality most of the changes made to the financial disclosure act, merely codified the Registry’s existing Rules, while giving a little more explicit explanation of the direction of their original intent for the Act.

An example would be:

In the Campaign Financial Disclosure Rules, last revised in Feb. 1999, Chapter 0530-1, Section 1-.04 and titled Expenditures from Campaign Contributions it says:

When providing the purpose of an expenditure or category of expenditures as required by T.C.A. §2-10-107(a)(2)(B), a candidate shall provide a brief description of why the disbursement(s) were made. . . .credit card payments shall not be deemed sufficient.

The Ethics Act of 2006, effective 2/15/06 added to (B):

The purpose thereof which shall clearly identify that it is an allowable expenditure under §2-10-114. The words ‘reimbursement’, ‘credit card purchase’, ‘other’ and ‘campaign expenses’ shall not be considered acceptable description for purpose. Any purchase made with a credit card shall also be disclosed as a payment to the vendor providing the item or service. Credit card payments to separate vendors shall be disclosed as separate expenditures.

Hasn't ‘A Brief Description of Why the Disbursement Was Made,’ meant to accomplish the same function and goal, to ‘Clearly Identify That It Is An Allowable Expenditure?’

Is there any argument that the General Assembly intended any lower standard than 'clearly allowed' standard, since the inception of the Act in 1980, and just added a ‘Clearly Identify’ as somehow, a higher standard. It has meant the same thing all along. A simple 'why' the disbursement was made, has meant all along to show that it is an allowable expenditure? Is there a problem, here?

Since we’re talking words, let’s try two more. Credit Card.

The long standings Rules are quite clear - credit card payments shall not be deemed
sufficient.

The Ethics 2006 is still quite clear- The words ‘reimbursement’, ‘credit card purchase’ shall not be considered acceptable description for purpose.
The Question: Could the words, "American Express - Monthly Bill", in fact, have any other meaning and was it not meant to say the same thing as, "Reimbursement Credit Card Purchase(s)? " Which, of course, can not legally be considered as an acceptable description for any purpose.
There is nothing in Ethics 2006, or any where else in the rules, that allow the Registry of Election Finance to waive any part of the statute or rules, for any reason. They Can't, BUT, They Do.
The Registry is suppose to enforce not waive. That's A Fact, Jack!!
Stay tuned,
Uncle Ted

Redress of Grievance - What's That?

Cook contends that the Registry of Election Finance erred by unlawfully and summarily dismissing the Sworn Complaint at it's monthly board meeting of the members of the Registry, because the filing of the nonfraudulent complaint is constitutionally protected, as a petition of Redress of Grievance. Requires notice and opportunity to prepare to be heard.

As the United States Supreme Court has held, the right to petition for redress of grievances is "among the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by the bill of rights." See United Mineworkers of America, District 12 v. Illinois State Bar Association, 389 U.S. 217, 88 S.Ct. 353, 356, 19 L.Ed.2d 426 (1967). Inseparable from the guaranteed rights entrenched in the first amendment, the right to petition for redress of grievances occupies a "preferred place" in our system of representative government, and enjoys a "sanctity and a sanction not permitting dubious intrusions." Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 65 S.Ct. 315, 322, 89 L.Ed. 430 (1945). Indeed, "[i]t was not by accident or coincidence that that rights to freedom in speech and press were coupled in a single guarantee with the rights of the people eaceably to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances." Id. at 323. Moreover, the Supreme Court has held expressly that the first amendment right to petition protects the individuals right to file an action with a "reasonable basis" in a state tribunal. Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB, --- U.S. ----, ----, 103 S.Ct. 2161, 2169, 76 L.Ed.2d 277 (1983).


Cook has genuinely attempted to protect his rights through the orderly pursuit of justice--the filing of a citizen complaint with a reasonable basis, with the proper authorities.


NOTE:

Likewise, we [the U.S. Supreme Court] consider it irrelevant to the applicability of the right to petition that its exercise might have the effect of causing professional injury to the official about whom complaints are made, or even that the complainer may be aware of or pleased by the prospect of such injury. Whenever substantial charges of any credibility are made, a shadow of doubt, at least, may fall upon their object. This effect follows too naturally from its cause for its presence to vitiate the propriety of the use of First Amendment rights, if those rights are to retain meaning. The possibility that a citizen who feels himself to have been abused by a particular federal official may take satisfaction when the official gets his perceived due is too human for First Amendment protection to depend on its absence.

Accord Bill Johnson's Restaurants v. NLRB, --- U.S. at ----, 103 S.Ct. at 2169.
Respectfully,

Adequate Notice to Cook and/or Public???

QUESTIONS:

Was there any notice as would have fairly informed either the complainer, or the public, that the Registry was going to consider summarily dismissing the Sworn Complaint without the statutorily required investigation?

No. The Public Notice contained only, "Item 6. Sworn Complaint against Randy Rinks" with no indication of what action might be taken on the Sworn Complaint.

No. Since statutorily, the only actions that the Registry could have taken was to either;

1. Make a finding that the Sworn Complaint was false or filed for the purpose of harassment and levy the statutory civil penalties for the filing, after notice and opportunity to be heard to the complainer; or

2. Determine, not if, but when and how that the Registry was going to investigate the Complaint pursuant to the TREF Campaign Finance Disclosure Rule 053-1-1-.11, with an Informal Show Cause Hearing, with it’s notice and opportunity to be heard to Rep. Rinks; or

3. Exercise the TREF’s statutory power to conduct a contested case hearing pursuant to the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, with it’s required notice to all parties concerned.


Did the Registry make any effort to contact Cook about the matter, before their meeting?.

NO. The only communication was initiated by Cook, by phone, to the Executive Director who advised Cook that he did not necessarily need to attend the monthly meeting. It would be just going to be routine. Well! Alrightty.
Submitted for your consideration,
Uncle T
Ted

180 Days - My Ass - Part II

What is this 180 day period all about and what is it not?

One needs to see also the Attorney General's Opinion No. 05-172 which discussed the application of the 180 day time period in 2-10-206(a)(4) to Statement of Local Candidates.

In the last paragraph of the Opinion it refers to this 180 day time frame as ‘time restrictions on the Registry’s ability to review statements.’

It does not follow that without any obvious review and just because statements are deemed sufficient by the passage of time, that makes them, in fact, sufficient. Because passage of time does not change the fact that insufficient statements are still, in fact, insufficient and will remain insufficient until they are changed.

Said another way, just because the Registry does not make the call during the 180 day time restriction on the Registry’s ability to review and challenge the statements, does not off-set the fact that by law, expenditures descriptions for monthly payments of credit card are still prohibited as being insufficiently described.

This insufficient description does not become sufficient just because the Registry says so, by the passage of time, because that, ‘says so,’ is in direct conflict of the ‘says no’ in the statutes and rules.

The Registry was created to ensure compliance with the Disclosure Act, not to waive compliance or the intent of the General Assembly. In any case the Registry summarily dismisses Sworn Complaints that basically challenged this waiver of sufficiency, based on factual violations within the words on the face of the statements.

The questions then become, do they just not know any better or did they do it, knowingly and with intent?


Respectfully submitted for your consideration.

Uncle Ted

Where's The Potential Fraud?

Appearance of Impropriety


Fraud Defined - In the broadest sense, a fraud is a deception made for personal gain, although it has a more specific legal meaning, the exact details varying between jurisdictions. Many hoaxes are fraudulent, although those not made for personal gain are not best described in this way. Not all frauds are hoaxes - electoral fraud, for example. In the broad legal sense a fraud is any crime or civil wrong for gain that utilizes some deception practiced on the victim as its principal method.

In the criminal law of common law jurisdictions it may be called "theft by deception," "larceny by trick," "larceny by fraud and deception" or something similar.


Campaign Expenditure Disclosure Discussed

Instructions on Reporting Campaign Expenditure Form. - The complete name and address of each payee, as well as the purpose and amount of the expenditure(s) must be listed here. The purpose of an expenditure must be a specific description (e.g., meals, advertising, travel, etc.). General phrases, such as "expenses" or "miscellaneous" shall not be sufficient for providing a purpose.
Why do you think we require candidates or officeholders to disclose the disbursement of their campaign funds with specific descriptions that provides a brief description of why the disbursement(s) were made, which shall clearly identify that it is an allowable expenditure?

Wasn’t the Disclosure Act of 1980 the results of the politicians playing fast and loose with their tax-free ‘campaign’ contributions and using them for taxable non-politically related purposes. At that time I believe there were court cases that said in general that this, in fact, was a potential deception made for personal gain and was therefore unlawful. IRS said so, too.

By failing to review the statements filed by the politicians and officeholders to any degree of certainty and allowing these folks to file, unchallenged, insufficient and illegal descriptions of the purpose of the expenditures, the Registry has failed in their statutory purpose. The Registry has failed to ensure compliance or to enforce this part of the Disclosure Act. A violation of their oath of office and the laws of the state.

In fact, the Registry, with only the passage of 180 days from the date of filing of the statement, now deems them sufficient, even for the investigative purpose of a Sworn Complaint that establishes the clear and unequivocal fact, the insufficiency of the statements and therefore potentially deceptive with it’s obvious appearance of impropriety.

Without further disclosure or description, these are the very type of disclosure descriptions that the Disclosure Act was intended to outlaw. And they did. What assurances do we, the citizens, have that an ‘American Express - Monthly Bill’ description is not a deception made for personal gain, a "theft by deception," a "larceny by trick," a "larceny by fraud and deception" or something similar.

By all means, no one should conclude that there has been any showing of fraud and none was alleged in the Sworn Complaint, nor should there have been. NO citizen, or even our representatives , is guilty of anything, just because of some allegations. Just not being done where you can tell, oneway or the other.
Respectfully submitted for your consideration.
Uncle Ted

Wednesday, September 27

What is Newsworthy Outside Hardin County?


If I could take a few minutes of you time, I would like your opinion, please.

It has now been clearly established on the record that, despite the intent of the new Ethics Reform Act, the politically appointed members of the Registry of Election Finance, in Nashville are still nothing more than hand-maidens for the powerful politicians that appoint them. That’s a fact, and I can prove it.

Consider the following:

In November, 2005 during the ethics reform exercise by the General Assembly, a item on one of the Nashville Stations (News Channel 5), and their internet site, raised concerns about my own District 71, State Representative, Mr. Randy Rinks, and his propensity to expense, among many other things, the monthly payments of his American Express Card with his campaign contributions, without any explanation of the purpose of the campaign expenditure, which is not allowed under the statutes, the rules or the IRS Code.

The virtually unexplained campaign expenditures account for substantial portion of $40,000 to $60,000 per year in total campaign contributions. Even in non-election years.

Understandably, Rep. Rinks was unwilling to provide his American Express bills to the reporter, but was quoted as saying that he would, to the Registry. Well, guess what? The Registry never ask for or received them, even though they, the Registry, who have a statutory duty to review all filings to ensure compliance with the Campaign Finance Disclosure Act, anyway. They have ignored Rep. Rinks' Sworn Disclosure Statements, for years.

Well, even after the media spotlight, things rock along and the Registry makes no documented inquiry or investigation into the matter. On February 8, 2006 Rep. Rinks files his Supplemental 2005, (1/1/05 to 12/31/05) Campaign Financial Disclosure Statement in which he lists an expenditure of $15,039.92 to AMERICAN EXPRESS for his MONTHLY BILL, again.

Before the new Comprehensive Governmental Ethics Reform Act of 2006, which rewrote a lot of the Campaign Financial Disclosure Act of 1980 and the Registry of Election Finance Act of 1989, among others, disclosure statement filed with the Registry for 180 days [now 2 years effective February 15, 2006] were considered sufficient, as to compliance with the Campaign Financial Disclosure Act, at least, by the Registry, absent a showing of fraud.

It is worth noting at this time that the Ethics Reform Act of 2006 was passed by the General Assembly, of which, of course, Rep. Rinks is a member, on February 6, 2006 (two days before the filings)and signed by the Governor on February 15, 2006 (7 days after the filings). Those dates will be handy, later.

It is also worthy of note that Rep. Rinks was a member of the Joint Legislative Ethics-Reform Committee that drafted and approved the Comprehensive Governmental Ethics Reform Act of 2006. Ya think he would know anything about Campaign Financing or Financial Disclosure Statements?

With no known action by the folks at the Registry of Election Finance during the 180 period, on August 11, 2006 there was a Sworn Complaint filed, in accordance with the statutes, that alleged that the statements filed by Rep. Rinks does not conform to law or rules and specifically noted the payment of the credit card bill with no description other than "monthly bill," which, of course, violates the statutes and the published Reporting Rules of the Registry, which had also been approved by the General Assembly, some time ago, and by, you guessed it, Rep. Rinks.

Well, wouldn’t you know it, at the regularly scheduled monthly meeting of the Registry of Election Finance, on September 13, 2006, as to "Item. 6 - Sworn Complaint against Rep. Randy Rinks," all of the member voted, without notice, to summarily dismiss the Sworn Complaint.
The summary dismissal was allegedly because it was not filed within the 180 day period of the Registry's review and contained no allegation of fraud.
This summary dismissal violates the statutory DUTY of the Registry TO INVESTIGATE ANY SWORN COMPLAINT and ignores the fact that there is no statutory or rule requirement for the filing of the Sworn Complaint within this 180 days or to allege or prove fraud, in order for the Sworn Complaint to comply with the Statutes and Rules.

As part of the Ethics Reform Act of 2006 the Legislature added a new section in the Registry Act that now allows Sworn Allegation to be filed against the individual members of the Registry who don’t do their duty and/or violate their Oath of Office to do their Duty, the Constitutions of the United States and/or Tennessee, or the statutes and rules applicable to the Campaign Finance Disclosure Act or the Registry of Election Finance Act, which will lead to members, statutorily, being deemed as removed from office, if the sworn allegations are proven or admitted to.

The completed Sworn Allegations were mailed priority mail on Friday, September 22, 2006 and signed for last Monday. We'll have to wait a few days to see how the Registry deals with these sworn allegations. Probably ignore them, left to their own devices.

The Law says investigation by the Registry. The members of the Registry says, No Thank You. Unprecedented summary dismissal by the Registry, as not timely filed (184 days vs 180 days) or alleging or showing fraud.
Again, the Statutes only require, ‘does not conform to law,’ allegations, which it doesn’t on it’s face. The Registry says, it says considered sufficient absent ‘a showing of fraud’ and you haven’t shown fraud, even though the statutes do not require you to show fraud or prove anything, just allege. Who do you think will win that debate?
Converting campaign contributions to non-campaign expenditures is unlawful gain. Unlawful gain, usually involves some sort of deceptive practice, and that is fraud. These folks wouldn’t recognize fraud, if it bit them on the butt.

That seems news worthy to me, but not to The Courier, here in Hardin County. What say you? Is any of that newsworthy or not?

Respectfully submitted for your consideration.
Uncle Ted

Sunday, September 24

Update - Source of Contributions - Rinks - 2006 Reports


I went ahead and sifted through Rep. Rinks’ First Quarter, Second Quarter and Pre-Primary Reports for 2006.

The total contributions during this period were $15,900, with $400 (2.52%) as Unitemized Contributions.

This sifting exercise yielded the following for Rep. Rinks’s itemized contributions of $15,500 or 97.48% of total contributions since the first of the year.

Nashville - $8,350 - 53.87%
Other 37*** Zips - $1,000 - 6.45 %
Out of State - $2,200 - 14.19%
Home District #71 - NONE - 0%
Memphis - $2,450 - 15.81%
Other 38*** Zips - $1,500 - 9.67 %


Now, if one takes the 2005 figures and add them to the 2006 figures, one should get the breakdown for the 2006 election cycle contributions through the Rinks’ Pre-Primary reports. They would look like this: Unitemized contributions $5,925 or 9.13% of total contributions; and

Nashville - $25,750 - 43.68%
Other 37*** Zips $9,050 - 15.35%
Out of State - $8,800 - 14.93%
Home District #71 - $6,250 - 10.10%
Memphis - $6,150 - 10.43%
Other 38*** Zips - $2,950 - 5.00%

We report, you decide.

Respectfully submitted for your consideration.
Uncle Ted

Source of Contributions - Rinks - 2005


The following was gleamed from the posting by the Tennessee Registry of Election Finance on their web site, which I have found to be dubious, at best, and borderline problematical, to say the least.

I sifted through Rep. Rinks’ Supplemental Report for 2005, an in between election year, and separated the contributions by zip codes in order to get a general ideal of the source of the contributions. Yielded some interesting indications. At least to me.

The total contributions were $48,975, with $5,525 (11.28%) as Unitemized Contributions

This sifting exercise yielded the following for Rep. Rinks’s itemized contributions of $43,450 or 88.72% of total contributions..

Nashville - $17,400 - 40.05%
Other 37*** Zips - $8,050 - 18.53%
Out of State - $6,600 - 15.10%
Home District #71 - $6,250 - 14.38%
Memphis - $3,700 - 8.52%
Shelby County Zips - $1,450 - 3.34%

Assuming (which I really hate to do) that the unitemized contribution percentages are about the same as the itemized contribution, the numbers still reflect that only 14.38% of Representative Rinks's financial support can be traced to his home district.

Could that figure make one wonder where his true representative loyalties reside?

We report, you decide.

Respectfully submitted for your consideration.
Uncle Ted

Let's Compare Reported Credit Card Expenditures

In an effort to be fair, balanced and thoroughness, with the data available, I wondered which group, the Republicans (Repubs) or Democrats (Demos) were more effective at reporting their credit card expenses for campaign expenditure reporting purpose.

Well, it took awhile, but, I made it through the all of the 2005 reports that are available online and in general the Repub’s fair much better at their reporting of credit card expenditures and only 2 of them (Montgomery and Overbey) had credit card charges on their reports.

Monty did pretty good, not a lot of ‘whys’ in the description (TRAVEL - $528.40 & RECEPTION - $268.89), but Overbey just said REIMBURSEMENT - $216.32.

It would be a fair statement that my representative, Rep. Rinks, still leads the pack, by a bunch, at not disclosing credit card purposes, ($15,039.92 in 2005)), followed by Rep. Hargrove, who just grouped $7,941.31 as tickets, air travel, car rental, meals & postage, on his VISA.

So, one could say, that all the Repub’s have less than $1,000 in ill defined credit card expenses and Randy, himself, has over $15,000, totally undefined.

If we just compared the top two, it would be $1,000 Repubs. and $23,000 for the Demos. and this is for an ‘in between election’ period, known also as an off year report.

I’m also working on a breakdown of the sources of Rep. Rinks contributions that should be posted shortly. The preliminary figures are quite revealing.
Respectfully submitted for your consideration,
Uncle Ted

Saturday, September 23

Absent a Showing of Fraud - How and By Whom?

2-10-206(a)(4) - The duties of the registry include. . . (4) Review all filled statements to ensure compliance with the respective disclosure laws. Statements filed with he registry for more than two years [180 days prior to 2/15/06] shall be deemed to be sufficient, absent a showing of fraud . .

As noted earlier, the only mention of 180 days in the statues is in this Part 2 - Registry of Election Finance Act of 1989. The reference to 180 days is mentioned only one (1) time in that section that applies only the to the duties of the Registry to review and ensure compliance. It is the intent of the general assembly for the Registry to ensure enforcement of these statutes.

Didn’t and Doesn’t Happen. That's a fact, Jack!

Basically, if the Registry has not asked for corrections or further documentation in 180 days, it is deemed sufficient, absence a showing of fraud, by the Registry. This compliance sufficiency is put forth and based exclusively on the premise that the Registry has actually preformed its duty and reviewed the statement to ensure compliance with the Campaign Finance disclosure laws, within that 180 days.

First - 2-10-206(a)(4), in Part 2, concerns the duties of the Registry and has nothing to do with the filing of a sworn complaint alleging that a statement filed regarding an election does not conform to law or to the truth . . . which is found at 2-10-108(a), in Part 1 of the statute. Part 1 is known as Campaign Financial Disclosure Act of 1980 and relates to ‘Financial Disclosure’ and Part 2 is known sd Registry of Election Finance Act of 1989 and relates to ‘Registry of Election Finance.’

Second - The Sworn Complaint is only required to allege that a statement regarding an election for which the complainer was qualified to vote does not conform to law or to the truth. Those elections to which these statements regarded, are the 2006 Primary Election and General Election of 2006. One of those elections has not even taken place and the Sworn Complaint was filed about a month after the 2006 primary, in which the Complainer did, in fact, vote.

There is no requirement in the statute, rules or case law for the Sworn Complaint to be file with an allegation of fraud, let alone be required to show fraud, before the Registry is required to revisit the statement’s compliance sufficiency via an investigation.

I find nothing in the statutes, rules or case law that even discusses, let alone allows or authorizes, the members of the Registry, sitting in a regularly scheduled monthly meeting, to dismiss any sworn complaint for any reason, let alone because the complainant did not specifically allege or show the fraud, particularly without any notice.

The only direct reference to a sworn complaint and the duties of the Registry is in 2-10-206(a)(7) which makes it a DUTY of the Registry to investigate any alleged violation upon sworn complaint or upon its own motion and the Registry has the power to conduct a contested case hearing in determining whether an actual violation has occurred.

Where the results of its (the Registry) investigation (the duty required investigation) indicate a criminal act may have occurred, the registry shall (that means required too) refer the matter to the appropriate district attorney general for criminal prosecution.

Why would the statutory scheme have the low standard of ‘indicate a criminal act may have occurred’ for the Registry to refer for criminal prosecution and the Registry require the much higher standard of ‘a showing of’ or ‘proof of" fraud for a Sworn Complaint, when the statutes requires only the allegation that the statements does not conform to law or the truth?

Why would the statutes require the candidate to maintain his campaign records for a year after the election, [now 2 years] if the statutory scheme was to bar a Sworn Complaint or bar any review for the possibility that it does not conform to law or to the truth, after 180 days?

It says on the face of the statements, for years 2003, 2004 and 2005, that Rep. Rinks paid for his monthly bill for his American Express Card, bought gifts and flowers, paid a lot to food and beverage establishments, and made a lot of ‘donations,’ with his campaign contributions, with no required ‘why’ explanations provided and none required by the Registry of Election Finance. Sounds like a Dereliction of Duty, to me.

An investigation is required to ascertain if these and his other unexplained campaign expenditures conform to the law or to the truth. Were they political or legislative expenditures and how the hell did the Registry miss these if in fact the reviewed them to ensure compliance with the disclosure laws?

Respectfully submitted for your consideration

Uncle Ted

Friday, September 22

A 180 Days, My Ass

Cook would submit that the 180 day statute of limitations period utilized by the Registry as a restriction on the authority and/or ability of the Registry to allow the Sworn Complaint, lawfully filed by Cook, to proceed to an investigation, is totally misplaced and absurd.

FACT: The only mention of this 180 day period in Part 1 or Part 2 is in Part 2 - Registry of Election Finance Act of 1989. The reference to 180 days is mentioned only the one (1) time in this section, which applies only the to the duty of the Registry to review all filed statement in order for the Registry to ensure statutory compliance sufficiency.

Basically, if the Registry takes no action in 180 days, its deemed sufficient as to any Registry to review and ensure compliance.

2-10-206(a)(4) - The duties of the registry include . . . Review all filed statements to ensure compliance with the respective disclosure laws. Statements filed with the registry for more than two (2) years [180 days prior to 2/15/06] shall be deemed to be sufficient, absent a showing of fraud or the existence of an ongoing investigation related to such statement:

2-10-206(a)(7) - The duties of the registry include . . . Investigate any alleged violation upon sworn complaint . . . [Note: no reference to 180 days and it is a DUTY to investigate, not an option]

2-10-206(a)(8) - The duties of the registry include . . . Preserve all reports or statements for five (5) years from the date of filing absent any pending investigation by the Registry of Election Finance or any other law enforcement agency or absent any administrative or court proceeding:
[ Note: Why would you be required to keep records for five years if you couldn’t do anything about them after 180 days?]

2-10-207 - The registry has the power (4) In determining whether an actual violation has occurred, conduct a contested case hearing and (8) Where the results of its investigation indicate a criminal act may have occurred, the registry shall refer the matter to the appropriate district attorney general for criminal prosecution.

2-10-108 (a) - Sworn complaint alleging that a statement filed regarding an election does not conform to law or to the truth or a failure to file.
NOTE: [NO LINKAGE OF THE 180 DAYS REFERRED TO UNDER DUTIES OF THE REGISTRY TO THIS SECTION AND NO REQUIREMENT TO SHOW FRAUD.]

See also : Rule 0530-1-1-.02 BOOKKEEPING PROCEDURES

(7) A candidate . . . shall maintain all bank statements, cancelled checks and other accounting records and required documentation listed in item 5 for a campaign account for at least one (1) year after the date of the election to which the records refer, except in the case of such accounting records used in completing a supplemental campaign financial disclosure report which shall be maintained for at least one (1) year after the date that the report to which the records refer is filed. . . .

[ Note: Why would one be required to keep records for at least (1) year, [now 2 years], if no one but the Registry could do anything about them after 180 days, without proving fraud, first? What the hell is the Registry to, if a Complaintent has to prove fraud, before the Registry does their investigation?]
I say again, 180 day, my ass!!!
Respectfully submitted for your consideration
Uncle Ted

Thursday, September 21

The Sworn Allegations

Sending this off on Friday, September 22, 2006. It's so new that they will have to day, Well, Hotdam.


From the desk of
Ted G. Cook
470 Hard Rock Road
Savannah, TN 38372

September 22, 2006


Chairperson Murray and All Members
Tennessee Registry of Election Finance
404 James Robertson Parkway, Suite 1614
Nashville, Tennessee 37243

In Re: Sworn Allegations filed against the
Individual Members of the Registry
Pursuant to T.C.A.§2-10-203(k)(1)&(2)

Dear Madam Chairman,

What follows is another fine example of the fact that there is abuse of the Financial Disclosure and Campaign Financing laws, not only in Hardin County, but, in the Nashville, as well.

Your expedited attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

SWORN ALLEGATIONS

Pursuant to Section §2-10-203(k)(1) and (2) of the Tennessee Code, I hereby file these sworn allegations against those members of the Tennessee Registry of Election Finance, (Collectively referred to as ‘the Registry’) who were present at the September 13, 2006 scheduled monthly meeting of the members and voted for the summary dismissal of the Sworn Complaint that was filed against Representative Randy Rinks, (District 71), dated August 11, 2006, for violation of the requirements of Section §2-10-107 of the Tennessee Code and Chapter 0530-1-1 of the Rules of the Tennessee Registry of Election Finance.

There have been no allegations, or findings, that the Sworn Complaint is false in any way or that it was filed for the purpose of harassment. There have been no civil penalties assessed nor attorney fees awarded.

There was no notice, phone calls, e-mails or any other communication or correspondence generated by the Tennessee Registry of Election Finance that the agenda would or could included a possible or potential action to dismiss the Sworn Complaint. Simply noting "Sworn Complaint against Randy Rinks" as an agenda item is not sufficient notice as would fairly inform the public of potential dismissal. That’s a sunshine law violation, so in reality the action taken by the Registry are void for lack of proper notice to Cook or anyone else.
NOW, THEREFORE In support of these sworn allegations, I would, under oath, believing them to be true and correct statements, allege as follows:

Alleged Violations of the Federal and State Constitutions

The members of the Registry knowingly, and unlawfully, summarily dismissed the lawfully filed Sworn Complaint of Cook for the purpose of preventing, and did, in fact, prevent, Cook from exercise Cook’s right to petition the government for redress of grievances and to enjoy the benefits of the petition, granted and guaranteed, by and under, both Constitutions; also

The Registry knowingly and unlawfully dismissed the lawfully filed Sworn Complaint of Cook for the purpose of denying Cook the benefit of or to prevent Cook from enjoying Cook’s right, to equal protection under the law and due process, granted under both Constitutions.

Generally. The members of the Registry who were present, at the September 13, 2006 scheduled monthly meeting of the Registry, and voted for the summary dismissal of the Sworn Complaint that was filed against Representative Randy Rinks, (District 71), willfully abandoned their duty to investigate any sworn complaint and did abdicated the Registry’s duty and responsibility, for the enforcement of the Campaign Financial Disclosure Act and the Registry’s rules. They have simply refuse to adhere to or enforce the Campaign Finance Disclosure Laws of the State of Tennessee, or even the intent of the Campaign Finance Disclosure Laws of the State of Tennessee.

Alleged Violations of State of Tennessee Laws.

The Registry knowingly and unlawfully dismissed the lawfully filed Sworn Complaint of Cook for the purpose of preventing Cook from exercise Cook’s right to the results of the statutorily mandated investigation under this title and committed a Class A misdemeanor, in so doing (T.C.A. §§ 2-19-103)

The individual members of the Registry willfully violated provisions of this title made for the protection of elections and committed a Class A Misdemeanor, in so doing. T.C.A. §2-19-113

The individual members of the Registry knowingly made or consented to false or entries ‘not deemed sufficient, by law, on an election document and further published these election documents on the internet, leaving the false impression and/or representation of the Registry’s assurance of compliance with the Disclosure Laws, and committed a Class D Felony, in so doing. T.C.A. §3-19-109

Summary of Allegations

Having first been charged, by Cook, with obvious sanctioned neglect of it’s duty to review all filed statements to insure compliance with Tennessee’s Campaign Disclosure laws and rules, the Registry, knowingly, and in an attempt to not to have to respond to these allegations and possibly in an effort to shield Representative Rinks from an investigation, unlawfully took it upon itself to summarily dismiss, without notice, the Sworn Complaint filed by Cook, dated August 11, 2006.
This is activity constitutes a prohibited activity and meets the requirements of T.C.A. §2-10-203(k)(1) and (2), for removal from office.

The members, unless they wish to challenge these allegations, should be deemed to be statutorily removed from office for violation of their oath of office and/or for their participation in an activity prohibited by this chapter.

The Registry has allowed, without question or correction, Representative Rinks, and others, to report their expenditures of campaign funds, for at least the last three years, in a format that the statutes, and the Registry’s rules promulgated by the Registry, itself, defined as ‘not deemed sufficient’ and in so doing, abdicated and abandoned their oversight responsibility and duties as members of the Registry to ensure compliance with the Campaign Finance Disclosure Laws, along with their oath of office.

WHEREFORE, The undersigned respectfully requests that the proper authorities causes an independent investigation of the above allegations, and upon an agreement or a finding of violation of the above-referenced statutes and Constitutions, the members of the Registry be deemed to be removed from office.



Respectfully submitted,


Ted G. Cook
470 Hard Rock Road
Savannah, TN 38372
731-925-4753
e-mail: tedgcook@charter.net

You Say There Is No Recourse From The Registry of Campaign Finance Actions - WRONG

Well check this out.
PUBLIC ACTS, 2006 - Chapter No. 1
Amend Tennessee Code Annotated
Comprehensive Governmental Ethics Reform Act of 2006


SECTION 25: Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 2-10-203, is amended by deleting subsections (h) through (k) and substituting instead the following:

[The following Section (k)(1) and (2) were added to 2-10-203 - Registry of election finance - Creation- Appointments - Qualifications - Administration.]
2-10-203(k)(1) Every member of the Registry of Election Finance shall before they proceed to business take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of this state, and of the United States and the laws of this state and also the following oath: I ________ do solemnly swear (or Affirm) that as a member of this Registry of Election Finance, I will, in all matters, vote without favor, affection, partiality, or prejudice; and that I will not propose or assent to any action, measure, or resolution which shall appear to me to be contrary to law.

2-10-203(k)(2) Unless otherwise provided by law, any member of the registry who violates the oath of office for such position or participates in any of the activities prohibited by this chapter commits a Class a Misdemeanor. If a sworn allegation is made that a member has violated the oath of office for such position or has participated in any of the activities prohibited by this chapter, then upon a unanimous vote of the remaining members, the member against whom the sworn allegation is made may be suspended from the registry for such purposes and for such times as the remaining members shall unanimously determine, but no such suspension shall extend beyond final disposition of the sworn allegation. The accused member shall not participate in the suspension vote. If a member of the registry is found guilty of or pleads guilty or nolo contendere to a violation of the oath of office for such position or participates in any of the activities prohibited by this chapter, then such member shall be deemed to be removed from office.

Effective Date of Section 25: February 15, 2006
You just know that I'm going to have to give this a shot. Oh, yah!

Monday, September 18

Odd Things About Rep. Rinks' 2006 Filings


I noticed that one of the comments on one of the political blogs was that they didn’t spot anything highly odd in Rep. Rinks' 2006 campaign expenditures reports. That is in line with the Registry view, that they all look alike after a while.

Probably because I haven’t seen a lot of these reports, except Rinks, which I have damn near memorized, I really didn’t have a lot of practical experience in the details of the oversight of the campaign disclosure laws.
But, I have taken the time, before and after I filed the complaint, to make a through study and analyses of the statutes and everything else I could get my hands on. Filled up a huge Election Finance research file.

Ain’t being kinda retired GREAT. Oh, yah!

I digress, other odd things about Randy’s 2006 campaign expenditures. The following are a few of the odd things that I spotted, from an academic standpoint. First let me make the point that the new and improved ‘Comprehensive Governmental Ethics Reform Act of 2006" (just kidding about the new and improved part) added in T.C.A. 2-10-107(a)(2)(B) . . ., and the purpose thereof which shall clearly identify that it is an allowable expenditure under 2-10-114"

One of the best ones,again, is NASHVILLE CITY CLUB - $439.87 - FOR DUES / SUBSCRIPTIONS. Say what? I’d like to see that receipt, please. The ammended 2-10-114(b)(2) (those pesky ‘specifically prohibited’ things)(F) says ‘Dues, fees, or gratuities at a country club, health club, or recreational facility, unless they are part of a specific fund raising event that takes place on the organization’s premises;’ A nightclub may fall under the umbrella of a ‘recreational’ facility, ya think. Para. (H) covers ‘or other form of entertainment’ unless it is an expense associated with a legitimate campaign or officeholder activity.

How about that DONATION of $500.00 to LOVE, SALLY, CLEVELAND, TN (Not 71st Dist.)? Campaign or officeholder activity?

Then of course we have GIFTS of $174.46 to HICKORY FARMS and $424.31 FOR FLOWERS to SAVANNAH FLORIST.

It really makes me wonder when I find that one of the most successful restaurant in Hardin County, named SHAWS RESTAURANT, was the beneficiary of a $238.95 DONATION from Rep. Rinks. Again, would that be a campaign or officeholder activity?

You can’t tell from the ‘disclosure’ statement, but, don’t you just have to wonder why Rinks RETURNED CONTRIBUTIONS’ to Mr. JOHNSON, GARY of MORRISTOWN, TN?
There was that $1,500.00 Monetary Contribution For the November 2006 General election on January 19, 2005. It must have taken them that long to figure out that the contribution was problematical with a limitations issue or maybe he just wanted SOME of his money back. Go figure.
Hay, that is just the First Quarter 2006 Reports for the 2006 election cycle's which began right after the last election, but with the new disclosure statements and more specific staturoy disclosure requirements.
You know, I have voted for Randy for the last 10 year and I basically like and appreciate him. He deserves the opportunity to defend on not defend any of his actions that he chooses, but he should also address my concerns if a forthright and direct way.

Respectfully submitted for your consideration.
Uncle Ted

Its Aloose on the Internet

These were my comments to Mr. Hobbs article on his blog page - Election Finance Registry Fails to Investigate Rep. Rinks' Questionable Campaign Spending

Bill

As I understood the why the Tennessee Registry of Election Finance dismissed my 'complaint' was basically three fold.

First, Rep. Rinks' 2005 Supplement, a 'between election' year, as dated February 08, 2006, (one week before the new 'ethics' law was signed by the Governor), and the way Mr. Rawlins computed the time, my complaint was four (4) days past the 180 day time frame of the old statute, and therefore Rep. Rinks' Supplement had to be considered sufficient, although the time frame, as of February 15, 2006, is now two (2) years.

It was put forth that the Registry's hands were tied, unless I was prepared to allege and prove fraud, at the meeting.

I tried to explain that in the broadest sense, a fraud is a deception made for personal gain and that was applicable to converting campaign contributions to personal use.

I tried to explain that it was not my responsibility to allege or prove fraud, but was told that unless I was prepared to prove fraud, that day, my complaint was going to be dismissed. Duh!

Second, the Registry could not assess penalties for anything that wasn't encompassed in the statutes themself and their rules had no bearing. Mr. Rawlins tried to explain to me, and his puppets, that that was the reason the Registry couldn't or didn't raise the issues themselves.

This was after I pointed out to these folks that their own rules forbid these type of 'contributions' and their totally obscure purpose descriptions and had the Registry review for these reports for compliance, they should have returned the filings for correction, themself, within the 180 days.

Third, and my favorite, was put forth by the Chairperson,"Mr. Cook, you have to understand that Rep. Rinks' filings are not any different that the rest of the filing we get.'

One could accused the Registry of being not only complacent, but "in denial", about the failings of their system.

Posted by: Ted Cook at September 15, 2006 09:44 PM

The Memorandum Cover to TREF

From the desk of
Ted G. Cook
470 Hard Rock Road
Savannah, TN 38372

MEMORANDUM

September 12, 2006

From: Ted G. Cook, Complainer
To: Chairperson Murray and Other Members of the Registry of Election Finance


In re: Agenda for your September monthly meeting -
Item 6. Sworn Complaint against Randy Rinks

Greetings Ladies and Gentlemen,

Recognizing that your agenda appears to be quite lengthy and by the time we get to the reference Item 6, we will probably all be ready to call it a day, I am taking the liberty of faxing the attach information for your review in considering the actions to take in regard to my Sworn Complaint.

There are several questions posed within the attached report that I would like go get answered during the debate on the action to take, if any.

I look forward to attending your meeting tomorrow and will make myself available, if you have any further need.

Respectfully submitted for your consideration.

Ted. G. Cook
470 Hard Rock Road
Savannah, TN 38372
UPDATE
Boy, was this a waste of time? Not really. Someday, the questions will be ask, What Did You Know, When Did You Know It and What Did You Do About It? It will be in their files andrecords for September 13, 2006. I promised the folks that I would be back and I like to keep my promises.

Principle of Law Over Power


"Where shall we seek justice when the injustice of power is our destruction?"
Euripides

This was one of the enclosures that was sent the the folks, the Registry of Election Finance, who were going to deal with my sworn complaint about Rep. Rinks questionable Campaign Financal Disclosure filing.

(In case you have missed it, they dismissed it because it was 4 days past their time limitations for considering the sufficiancy of the report) You can catch up on Bill Hobbs Blog.

Back to the Memo.

Why Am I Here? -
Political Activities and Legislative Activities Are Two Different Things and Are Subject to Two Different Sets of Rules. (Internal Revenue Service - Non-Political Purpose)

Relief Sought -
There are suppose to be unpleasant consequences for folks who play fast and loose with our election and financial disclosure laws. (Not in Hardin County, We’ll see about the State)

You note in one of your annual ‘Reports’ that if more accurate reports were being filed with the Registry, the Registry would not need to send as many reports back for corrections. That would reduce the Registry’s postage and supply costs.

The question is: Do incorrect reports not get sent back for corrections because the Registry is limited in staff and by a limited amount of resources for manpower, postage and supply costs?

Why don’t incorrect reports, like Rep. Rinks, get sent back? Are they even being reviewed for compliance?

Background:
The day I was promoted to Chief Personnelman, U.S. Navy, was one of the bests days of my life. Being sworn in as a Tennessee Constable is up there, too. I had became a student of government operations and procedures in my training and assignments as a Navy Management Analysis conducting administrative inspections for compliance with operations regulations and procedures. Serving as a Tennessee Constable and the time spent in the State and Federal Court Systems have develop a sense of law enforcement. I’m here to try to get the law enforced. It’s that simple.

Your web site says that the Registry of Election Finance was created as an independent entity of state government and is responsible for the enforcement of the Campaign Financial Disclosures Act (T.C.A. 2-10-101-, et seq.), among others.

It further says that in making his third appointment, the Governor is required so solicit nominations that have demonstrated a nonpartisan interest in fair election and informed voting. I would assume that this nonpartisan interest in fair election and informed voting is the ultimate goal of the State and thus the Registry of Election Finance.

Considering the status and presence of Rep. Rinks, which should not distract from the facts of my sworn complaint, a through review and accounting would be in the best interest of all concerned.

Is the Campaign Financial Disclosures Act a hollow statute? It is in Hardin County and it appears they learned from the State. When someone makes a mockery of the Act and the Rules and no one seems to have the least bit of interest in calling them to task, by enforcing the statutes, it is probably because it is such a mockery that it expands quickly to Perjury, a couple of Felonious act and a few Misdemeanors and involves longtime strong political supporters of our State Representative and State Senator.

Down here you can file virtually a blank sworn statement and it’s ok with the County Elections Commission because they say they are not required to review for compliance or responsible for the enforcement of the Campaign Financial Disclosures Act and only required to accept the filings in a timely manner. Opps.
(I also sent them the case law that establishes their DUTY to investivate a sworn complaint)

Respectfully submitted for your consideration.
Uncle Ted

Friday, September 15

Things to Ponder

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

"The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil." - Unknown

"Science may have found a cure for most evils; but it has found no remedy for the worst of them all -- the apathy of human beings." - Helen Keller

"The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

"When you choose the lesser of two evils, always remember that it is still an evil." - Max Lerner

"...Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much... the wheel, New York, wars, and so on, whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely the dolphins believed themselves to be more intelligent than man for precisely the same reasons." - Douglas Adams

"When choosing between two evils I always like to take the one I've never tried before." - Mae West

"To defeat them, First we must understand them." - Elie Wiesel (Nobel Laureate)

This is Ted Cook reminding you to challenge moral relativity when you see it or hear it. It is a shame that some people do not understand that there is a difference between right and wrong, good and evil. So please do your part to let them know.