Northwest Indiana Comical Politics

'Mailman's' criminal case pushes envelope -- McDermott and Cantrell find the fix

The fix is officially in.  The father in jail for supporting Tom McDermott, Jr., the brother was his legal partner (really crutch), and now Judge Cantrell is going to hold a family meeting singing "kumbaya." to get justice for the citizens of NWI.  Give me a break.  How dumb do the McDermotts and Cantrells think the citizens of NWI are?  Don't answer that -- they maybe on to something.

Bill Dolan wrote this latest story from the Times newspaper on this NWI charade of justice:

'Mailman's' criminal case pushes envelope.

Why the rush to clear the "mailman's" criminal family?  Because they know where McDermott's secret bones are buried.  Cantrell is not and I repeat NOT an unbiased source.  She is the most biased of all because she and her brother should be in jail for insurance fraud; but this is what their father is serving -- what a family.  Tom McDermott, jr. has to get the mailman and his family off because they know too much about Tom McDermott, Jr. and his father (let us not forgett their "private" lives that would cause an end to any political desires.)  TOM FOR CONGRESS -- DISTRICT 1????

Why the FBI and the US Attorney is not involved, only leads me to further believe that the fix is in.  Besides this was a State Police collar and they should be prosecuting it; not the political hack Bernie Carter.  McDermott's plan is to not only get himself off the hook with the mailman, but also to end the political career of Roy Dominguez.  Dominguez's lack of response to McDermott's threat makes him look weak and unfit to be Governor or any State wide office.  Secondly, Dominguez is finished as a threat to McDermott in the 1st Congressional district, which I predict will become available in 2012, if not sooner.

Dominguez has shown his political weakness and lack of principles in the one political case he had to handle.  It is not what Hoosiers want in their Governor, or in their congressman.  McDermott has succeeded in his first step of neutralizing Dominguez.  He tested him with a phone message and Dominguez flunked. 

We must not let McDermott succeed in his second plan to get the "mailman" off with a slap on the wrist.

(Tom McDermott, Jr.) Barney Frank Present When Partner Arrested for Pot - FOXNews.com

Barney Frank Present When Partner Arrested for Pot - FOXNews.com

For those of you who think that this sounds familiar you are right.  It is a repeat of what our good Mayor McDermott has done.  As I understand, his favorite source for pot is now under indictment and trial.  The State Police caught the supplier and his family.   McDermott and his "colleague" the postman are now in a real fix.  The Lake County Prosecutor Carter is now looking for a way out to find the postman innocent so that McDermott will not go after him personally. 

This is what McDermott promised to do in his conversation with the Lake County Sheriff.  Now why is McDermott not being charged and has not been indicted?  That is right Tommy Mac is just like Barney Frank.  They are an exact duplicate of each other, in every way.

Posted using ShareThis

Is Dominguez Really Qualified for State-Wide Office?

If Sheriff Dominguez is at all interested in running for Governor of Indiana or any state-wide office, he needs to serve out a warrant for the arrest of Mayor McDoobie, known as Hammond Mayor Tom McDermott, Jr.  In his current position, Dominguez is the top law enforcement official in Lake County, period.  Mark Kiesling's take on Dominguez and McDoobie.

For example, he is the only official with the authority to arrest or legally challenge the Lake County Cornor, in any way. No other law enforcement official is empowered to carry out any legal actions against that position.

McDermott did in fact illegally influenced the Lake County sheriff in carrying out his duties.  The proof is in the tape; whether it is public or not is irrelevant.  No average citizen would get away with this type of action.  If there is no arrest warrant for the mayor, then it can only mean the Dominguez is afraid of McDermott's power as Lake County Democratic Chair.  Since he is allowing raw politics and his personal political welfare to dictate which law he enforces, Dominguez would not be qualified for any State wide office.

McDoobie Conspired to Intimidate Law Enforcement Officials

The well known out-of-control mayor of Hammond, Tom "McDoobie" McDermott Jr, has now overstepped the line by attempting to intimidate the Lake County Sheriff and law enforcement officials to protect his long time bag man and thief, David Woerpel, known as "the postman."  David Woerpel and his family are an embarrassment to the Democratic Party and decent people everywhere.  They are more so for the City of Hammond.

I have known for quite some time that the Postman and his family, with his sidekick, the former radio looser (Steve), have long degenerated politics and political activity in Hammond to name calling and the politics of personal destruction.  There sole goal, under the direction of the Mayor of Hammond, has been to destroy peoples' personal life who want to improve NWI.  This has been the consistant approach of Tom McDermott.  He learned this well from his father, the other McDermott looser.

Making phone calls to threaten people is not new for McDermott.  The only thing new is that he picked on the wrong person. Sheriff Dominguez did not have any reason to be intimidated by "doobie" McDermott, especially since this was an Indiana State Police case.  They were the one who discovered the Woerpel/McDermott stash.  It was out of the hands of Dominguez.  Further, listening to McDermott would have made him legally libel for censure and removal of his license to practice law.  By the way, going public was the only way for Dominguez to protect himself against blackmail by doobie Tom.

If one takes some time to read some of my earlier blogs, you will see that McDoobie did the same to me.  He called and left an intimidating/threatening message on my Purdue University telephone.  The Purdue police listened to it and agreed that it was a threat.  You can hear the message.  I put it out there.  I guess McDoobie thought that I was a "weasel" too.  I wonder why this did not stop McDoobie and his wife from continuing to teach at Purdue University?

In the last election for mayor of Hammond, McDoobie won by only 400+ votes.  He spent over $300,000 and his opponent spent about $3,000.  After looking at the voting results precinct by precinct, I have never believed that McDoobie won fairly; because the vote fix was in by people like the postman.  Even at that time, McDoobie should have been in jail; not running for office.

Why is he not being accused of illegal interference now?  Why is he being allowed to have a law license?  Given what he said on the message to Dominguez, why does anyone think that he is not on drugs?  If he is not on drugs, then is there any doubt that he is incompetent, truly incompetent, as a lawyer?  If he is incompetent and/or out of control as has been clearly indicated, why is he not being let out to pasture quietly?  It is sad to see that Tom Philpot has chosen to have McDoobie's support.  Philpot is much, much more competent than that.  Factually, in the brain department, McDoobie does not even hold a candle to Philpot.

 McDoobie is out of control for the message he left the Lake County Sheriff.  On top of that, he showed his willingness to use his public office as mayor to intimidate law enforcement officials from carrying out their job.  He used his public office to curry favor for his friends.  This shows a level of illegality, immorality, lack of ethics, and incompetence that should automatically, i.e. through impeachment, have McDermott removed as mayor and chair of the Lake County Democratic Party.

On second thought, maybe those are the necessary qualifications.

Visclosky's ties to troubled PMA Group run deep from Associated Press

I Call Them as I See Them

An explanation of why I write what I write and some of the consequences I end up enduring came out in a story in Sunday's NWI local newspaper.  Although there are multiple reasons many of our local elected, and some appointed, officials complain about my writing, the main one is that I make the thieves, charlatans, and incompetents cringe and crawl by calling them on the carpet and shedding light in on their ugly activities.  The result is that they scamper to try to shut me up either through my employer, my writing outlets, or my speech giving.  They succeeded with my column at the Post-Tribune; but, with the Twenty-First Century media, the Internet, newspapers are not the only available outlet.

The more recent creepy crawlers of NWI, specifically Lake County, are about to go on trial.  This was outlined in Sunday's Post-Tribune, Fraud trial to start for Gary insiders, by Andy Grimm and in The Times on Monday GUEA Defendants Go on Trial by Joe Carlson.  This is about the Federal trial that is about to begin for Lake County Councilman Will Smith and political insiders Roosevelt Powell and Willie Harris.  Andy Grimm and Joe Carlson are good reporters but they did forget to put in there that I was the writer who first "outed" these individuals and called them out for the crooks that they are.  In fact, they are one of a series of local "public figures" I have called on the carpet.  Not all have been indicted; but there are few in law enforcement who would disagree that my perceptions and analysis of all these politicians has been on the mark.  Lake County politics is so rife with corruption that one can truly say in an un-American fashion that anyone who is in office by appointment or election: you are guilty until you prove otherwise.  If voters were to make that assumption, they would not be far off.

US Attorney Deserves Better from NWI

On Friday, 01/12/2007, Rich James usual Friday editorial column ran.  James wrote about the the nomination of U.S. Attorney Joe Van Bokkelen to a federal judgeship.  If I had not read the column myself, I would not believe that someone could write such criticism of the one person who has effectively brought some level of civility and lawfulness to the public arena of NWI. 

For those who did not see the column here is a link to it:

Van_Bokkelen_Judgeship.htm

I had often been told that James is "in the pockets" of the Democratic powers that be, but I always gave him the benefit of the doubt.  His column on Van Bokkelen, though, looks like the rumor has legs.  What James said about Van Bokkelen could only be done by an individual that is so partisan, so "in the pockets" of the Democratic powers, and so blind to the basic thievery that has been going on by public officials in NWI, that it goes beyond mere partisanship.  James should rename his column "The Weekly Democratic Stump."  By the way, were was Rich James over the past twenty-years when he could not find a white-collar political crime to criticize? 

The essential argument of the piece is that Mr. Van Bokkelen is being rewarded for his partisan attack on the Lake County Democratic Party.  For example, the reason given for Van Bokkelen even becoming the U. S. Attorney for the Northern District is "the lure of being in a position to dismantle the Lake County Democratic Party was too much to turn down."  There is neither evidence that this even went through Van Bokkelen's mind nor that it even went into his consideration of any of the work that he has done as U. S. Attorney.

Quite the opposite.  Mr. Van Bokkelen has been the only saving grace for NWI in its pursuit for some ethical political basis.  True, he has been at the center of making a dent in a criminal enterprise called the Lake County Democratic Party; but, who has ever complained about that.  Only the criminals themselves.  Now extraordinarily, these same criminals have a defender in their corner in the editorial columns of the Post-Tribune.

Several years ago I sat at a meeting of a number of Democratic candidates and city and town chairmen from Lake County.  In this meeting, the former Lake County Democratic Chair Steve (Stig) Stiglich gave the same argument about what the U. S. Attorney and also Steve Carter the Indiana State Attorney were doing: "This is not about crime (theft, extortion, ghost-pay-rolling, voting irregularities, etc.) this is solely a partisan attack of Republicans against the Democrats."  And why is this occurring?  Stig's answer was because the Republicans are in power and they can.  He further argued that this is what the Lake County Democratic Party needs to sell to the voters.  Essentially what they sold to the voters is that this is not about the criminal enterprise called the Lake County Democratic Party, this is about partisan politics and and Republicans have no sense of humor.

Even many of the people in the room did not buy this story.  But now we have James re-inventing this story and weaving it into an explanation for why Von Bokkelen was nominated to the Federal Bench.

It is truly insulting and accurately reflects what is wrong and continues to be wrong in NWI and in particular Lake County.  Rather than thanking a person who has truly made a difference in NWI ethical behavior and reinforcing both the government's action and the fact that the citizens of NWI will not accept the kind of behavior that over 35 people have been convicted of, we have Rich James showing the worst side of NWI by turning the conviction of thieves, liars, and charlatans into a partisan meaningless act.

For the citizens of NWI who care about its future, I want to thank Mr. Van Bokkelen for his hard work and effort in correcting the cesspool that is NWI Democratic Politics.  He is really going to be missed.  The history of U. S. attorneys in NWI has been far from stellar.  They have usually been as effective as Bernie Carter in shutting down political crime.

To the Dutchman, "Joe we in Lake County are really going to miss your effort; but our best wishes go with you as a judge.  We hope that your successor will keep up your honest and effective tradition."

NWI and American Principles of Fairness

It is amazing to me how frequently people, especially the leadership, forgets basic American principles of political fairness.  Usually these people's logic concerning normal behavior and values goes out the window when they are trying to defend their own special position and gains (usually financial).

This occurred in recent characterization of two completely unrelated events.  The principle of denying basic fairness and the rejection of the principle of equal treatment exemplified by our Constitution and Bill of Rights was present in both.  The only other similarity is that both events involved women.

County Commissioner Fran DuPey and the 2% cap.

Last week The Times newspaper ran an editorial that asked that Commissioner DuPey recuse herself from voting on the 2% cap on property tax (actually the rejection of the 2% cap on rental property and businesses that the legislature had already passed).  The following is the actual editorial from the newspaper: Times' Dupey Editorial 

What is interesting is that Commissioner DuPey does not have any official say in what happens with this law.  But the newspaper editorial argues that since she is a landlord she cannot possibly have an objective position about the topic, only a self interested one.  As the editorial says since she is a landlord and the 2% cap may favor her personally she cannot be objective about it and should recuse herself from any consideration and discussion of the topic.  The editorial does not inform the reader what size landlord she might be.  Is she a landlord of the size of Donald Trump?  Or does she just have a couple of units?  To them, it must not matter just as long as she is a landlord.  To the best of my knowledge, Commissioner DuPey owns a four-unit building. 

The principle then that the paper is supporting is that if a law or policy has any effect on your personal situation than you must recuse yourself as a public official.  Otherwise one might think that this is a personal vendetta of the newspaper solely against Commissioner Dupey.  Why would a newspaper like The Times only pick on DuPey?  In the past the usual answer has been the McDermott clan, with Bill Wellman support, being in overwhelming control through Bill Nangle of The Times.

If one were to take The Times' principle and generalized to other public officials, then none would be able to act on most items.  All public servants would have to recuse themselves, therefore the editorial is nonsense.  Every income tax, at the federal, state or local level effects the people who vote on it.  How could any mayor be involved with the budget of his or her city since that is going to directly effect their property tax bill? 

No, the Times' editorial was either an outright hack job by the McDermott clan on Commissioner Dupey or it was a idiotic editorial written by the most moronic and uneducated editor at the newspaper.  That level of ignorant editorializing is embarrassing to the paper itself and to the people of NWI generally.

Kolintzas and East Chicago:

Frank Kolintzas' wife and daughter are suing the City of East Chicago and its School District for wrongful termination.  They are arguing that they were let go from their job based on their political affiliation and loyalty.  Most of you are well aware that I have been as critical as anyone concerning East Chicago politicians and especially Frank Kolintzas.  Neither can I say that I know the factual details of the case and can take a position.  Nonetheless, I am a firm believer in the American Constitution and its principles.

Unlike stories in the recent local media, and discussions by many citizens, spouses and children should not and are not to be found guilty for the sins (or crimes) of their relatives, in this case, a husband and a father.  This is central to the American criminal and political system: one is not guilty by relationship.

The issue of whether Mrs. Kolintzas and her daughter were fired illegally for political reasons must be decided on the merits. i.e. facts, of the case not on who their husband and father was.

That is the American way and has been since we declared independence.  It was one of the main reasons we declared independence from England, to end that kind of guilt by association.

Some Ethics Laws for NWI's Four Year Olds

Many of the four-year old acting comedians of NWI seem to have no idea of what constitutes illegal financial conflict of interest. They even do not seem to believe that such a thing exists.  For their sake and as previously promised I have referenced some laws that would possibly clarify things for them.

Everyone should keep in mind that I do not really expect any of these people to stop and think and possibly change their minds. It is part and parcel of NWI tribal political mentality best represented by Mayors such as McDermott of Hammond and Pabey of East Chicago. If my tribal head says it is so, then it is as though G-d is speaking and truth and facts do not matter.

The first item is taken from the web-site of the United State Office of Government Ethics, a U.S. Federal Agency. It specifically identifies conflict of interest and what is called a “covered relationship”. Specifically a covered relationship includes “father or brother” and the Cabelas decisions under Federal Law would seem to be a criminal conflict of interest, a felony. 

ITEM 1, taken direct from web-site: Impartiality in Performing Official Duties: Executive branch employees are required to consider whether their impartiality may be questioned whenever their involvement in a particular matter involving specific parties might affect certain personal and business relationships. A pending case, contract, grant, permit, license or loan are some examples of particular matters involving specific parties. A general rulemaking, on the other hand, is not.

If a particular matter involving specific parties would have an effect on the financial interest of a member of the employee's household, or if a person with whom the employee has a “covered relationship” is or represents a party to such a matter, then the employee must consider whether a reasonable person would question his impartiality in the matter. If the employee concludes that there would be an appearance problem, then the employee should not participate in the matter unless authorized by the agency.

An employee has a “covered relationship” with the following persons:

a person with whom the employee has or seeks a business, contractual or other financial relationship

a person who is a member of the employee's household or is a relative with whom the employee has a close personal relationship

a person for whom the employee's spouse, parent or dependent child serves or seeks to serve as an officer, director, trustee, general partner, agent, attorney, consultant, contractor or employee

any person for whom the employee has within the last year served as officer, director, trustee, general partner, agent, attorney, consultant, contractor or employee, or

any organization (other than a political party) in which the employee is an active participant.

An employee may have a concern that circumstances other than those expressly described in the regulation may raise a question regarding the employee's impartiality. In such a situation, the employee should follow certain procedures to determine whether or not participation in the particular matter would be appropriate.

If someone who is entering Government service has received a special severance payment or other benefit in excess of $10,000 which his former employer does not make to other departing employees not entering into Federal service, and if certain other factors are present, then the employee must be disqualified for two years from participating in any particular matter in which the former employer is a party or represents a party. The agency may waive or shorten the disqualification period.

Since the activities of the McDermott enterprise with Cabelas crossed many state lines and I am sure included the mail and other Federally regulated entities, it is a question to what degree has the enterprise or Cabelas committed any Federal crimes. This would be up to U. S. Attoney Von Bokklein to determine.

From the web-site of the Indiana Inspector General the following excerpt is taken. It specifically indicates that no Indiana State Employee can make any decision that provides financial benefit to a member of his family, including father or brother. Therefore under Indiana State statue what the McDermott family did is most likely a felony.

How the State law applies to the McDermott enterprise is up to Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter to determine. But the underlying law is clear and I assume known by any first year law student. That assumption when it comes to NWI's politicians may be a stretch.

ITEM 2 taken from the web-site:

(a) A state officer, an employee, or a special state appointee may not participate in any decision or vote if the state officer, employee, or special state appointee has knowledge that any of the following has a financial interest in the outcome of the matter:

(1) The state officer, employee, or special state appointee.

(2) A member of the immediate family of the state officer, employee, or special state appointee.

(3) A business organization in which the state officer, employee, or special state appointee is serving as an officer, a director, a trustee, a partner, or an employee.

(4) Any person or organization with whom the state officer, employee, or special state appointee is negotiating or has an arrangement concerning prospective employment.

(b) A state officer, an employee, or a special state appointee who identifies a potential conflict of interest shall notify the person's appointing authority and seek an advisory opinion from the commission by filing a written description detailing the nature and circumstances of the particular matter and making full disclosure of any related financial interest in the matter. The commission shall:

(1) with the approval of the appointing authority, assign the particular matter to another person and implement all necessary procedures to screen the state officer, employee, or special state appointee seeking an advisory opinion from involvement in the matter; or

(2) make a written determination

There are certainly questions of fact as to what can be proven legally that has crossed the line into criminality. That is a question in any investigation. It is clear though that under Federal and State laws, what is generally known publicly about the McDermott enterprise's relationship with Cabelas is illegal. At the very best it must be said unequivocally that this is one of the most blatantly unethical activities to have occurred in NWI in the past four years.

There is also a question of Cabelas involvement and liability. They are a publicly traded corporation. If they knowingly committed a felony involving a government official, I do not know what the authority of the Security and Exchange Commission is in these matters. It certainly is of major concern to their stockholders, if they perceive that this is how the management of the corporation is going to carry forth its business.

McDermott's Continued Refusal to be Forthright Questions Legality of Transaction

Hammond's Mayor Tom McDermott's December 8 radio show clearly showed that the idea of public ethics is completely devoid in the mentality of McDermott and his supporters.  It is so pitiful that it is a wonder that the citizens of Hammond have not become so embarrassed as to deny that there is any association between McDermott and Hammond.

It is a further embarrassment to the Indiana Democratic Party to show that this elected official and his cohorts are so devoid of ethics and public values that they therefore establish what I have always argued: public unethical and corrupt behavior is endemic to the very structure of Lake County politics.  It cannot be resolved through the feeding of more money to the slime pit.  McDermott is an ethical embarrasement to the Democratic Party and to Lake County -- enough is enough.

First of all let us be very clear about some truths.  It is hard to imagine that what he and his father, and possibly others, did with the "Cabelas" deal is not illegal at the Federal and State level of government.  Certainly at the municipal level it is at least extremely unethical.  The Mayor stated that he is "sickened by questions about his father's actions" but that is the very issue.  The citizens of Hammond and the State of Indiana through the State's support of the Cabellas deal through tax money have a right to know about conflict of interests and anyone who has gained from that conflict of interest, even if that person's name is McDermott.  That name is only holy in the mind of Tom McDermott, Jr.

The Mayor has to explain and defend how people gained through a conflict of interest involving him.  His first defense is that his father was involved with Cabellas before he was Mayor.  That has turned out to be untrue since McDermott, Sr. did not leave the Forum until after Junior became Mayor and that was because McDermott, Sr. refused to abide by the conflict of interest rules of the Forum and misused his position to favor his son in his run for Mayor. 

Not a single expert in ethics in public office would defend this action by the father and son.  As tired as the Mayor may be of answering the questions about his father, the fact is he has never answered it.  The very basic issue is whether or not this was a legitimate transaction, and to answer that questions, McDermott Jr. must answer, what did Senior get paid and what did he provide for that payment?  Without an unequivocal answer to those questions, one must presume that there is fraud perpetuated on the people of Hammond and the citizens of the State of Indiana.

It absolutely does not make any difference, ethically, if the money that McDermott, Sr. got is from a private company or from the City of Hammond.  The fact is the money he received was from a company doing business with a City of which his son is the Mayor.  In addition, there is clear and unequivocal evidence that the current Mayor McDermott placed himself, and his official office, at the disposal of his father and the company that was paying his father.

If someone had paid a member of Governor Daniels family while gaining tax breaks and incentives from the State, then everyone would be sure that this was illegal and a conflict of interest and unethical.  There is no difference in the events in Hammond.

The fact is the longer the elected Mayor of Hammond refuses to disclose what his relationships got paid or are getting paid and what work they performed or will perform for this new found wealth, the more it seems that he really does have something to hide and that quite possibly other choices were available to the citizens of Hammond and Indiana that were less lucrative to the McDermotts but better for NWI and the State as a whole.