Comparative Lit--Campaign Lit, that is!

In today's class we will learn about analyzing, as well as ethical aspects, of campaign literature. Let's compare two pieces of literature in the upcoming Mayoral election.

First, a letter sent in early June by the campaign of Mary Beth Conlon. Notice phrases like "proven track record of success" and the platform on the left of the letter. Anyone who has heard her speak since first running for city council in 2004 knows her dedication to obtaining grants and a committment to developing the Woodson Business District.

Next, an advertisement in the July Localite paid for by Mike Schneider's campaign. He, too, uses the phrase "track record of success" along with bullet points that practically mirror Conlon's campaign.

Now, I'm all for good ideas being used. But, I am also for giving credit where credit is due. After watching Schneider's two public forums, it was apparent that this guy didn't know the difference between community and economic development and thought Grant was the last name of that Lou guy on the mary Tyler Moore show.

Wedge: Not Trivial Pursuit, Not the Intersection of Midland/Woodson/Milton

According to a story in today's Post, Schneider is claiming that MBC's petition has put a wedge between the two. Is he saying he cannot do his job on the City Council because of his bitterness?
Or perhaps, he is saying that this is a wedge issue, defined as a sharply divisive political issue.

Since when is paying your taxes a "wedge issue"?

Schneider is also saying that we have heard only "part of the story". Well, we are listening and waiting for--as Paul Harvey would put it--"the rest of the story".

Was this the June 25 surprise?

Remember a while back, when Keller promised to have her big reveal at the June 25 city council meeting. (Covered on Sailor's blog and in comments here ). A self-proclaimed campaign worker for Keller explained that "At the June 25 meeting you may have a better understanding of her ideas".

Oh yeah. We have a much better understanding that Keller is fully-entrenched in ORT issues. (If there was any doubt.)

This Minnesota Thing

The more I think about this Minnesota thing the more questions I have.

According to the Post-Dispatch's articles of yesterday and today (as well as reported on KMOV-TV), Schneider's attorney is claiming that he paid the taxes in Minnesota.

Schneider's attorney, Thomas Blumenthal, argued that a Minnesota corporation that Schneider had owned before returning to Missouri had properly paid the taxes.

• When did he pay those taxes?
• Were they paid in Missouri or Minnesota? (I can only think it was Missouri since the lawyer referred to "properly" paying the taxes.)
• Why wasn't a personal property tax receipt provided at the hearing as proof? Because, surely if such was done at the beginning of the proceedings they hearing would have been adjourned.

Ruling in Case

The judge handed down his motion in Conlon v Schneider. Basically his stance was that since Schneider was not 'officially' (though technically) in arrearage on May 22 (the filing deadline), the petition was dismissed.

Sigh...

Here is a copy of the Order and Judgment handed down today.

Don't be mistaken about this ruling. The judge clearly ruled because Schneider's tax evasion scheme had NOT BEEN CAUGHT by the May 22 filing deadline, then he could not be removed for that reason.

MBC's Platform

Was surfing the big waves of the Word Wide Web today and noticed an update on MBC's mayoral campaign website. She has added a page that includes her campaign platform. I recommend reading it now, before you hear some of the points come (incoherently) from Schneider's mouth next month.

Also, might I recommend that you visit the "donation" page, too.

Something interest in the Post

Today's post has a small blip in their Law & Order section on Friday's hearing. I found the last paragraph particular interesting.

Schneider's attorney, Thomas Blumenthal, argued that a Minnesota corporation that Schneider had owned before returning to Missouri had properly paid the taxes. If Schneider owes Missouri taxes, Blumenthal added, the delinquency was the result of a clerical error by the St. Louis County Collector of Revenue's office.

I attened the entire hearing. Never was any evidence brought forth that Schneider's corporation had paid the Missouri taxes that were due.
Perhaps, Blumenthal is implying that the taxes were paid in Minnesota. If so, that would be an odd tactic because:
1) The vehicles were primarily in Missouri and any Minnesota tax is a moot point.
2) Minnesota does NOT have personal property taxes. (Which makes you think the vehicles were never registered before April 2006 to avoid paying such taxes.)

I'm Just a Company Man, part 2

I hate to leave a previous point just dangling. So, this post is a follow-up to our previous post, “I’m Just a Company Man”


As stated previously, Schneider had claimed that any vehicles in question were owned by the Lakewood Party Supplies. However, the hearing yesterday revealed that the primary vehicle being considered were jointly owned by Lakewood and Michael T Schneider. Now, the government doesn’t consider a corporation legally different than an individual. So, this registration wouldn’t be much different if the vehicle was jointly owned by Schneider and his cousin Mary Lou.

Since there was joint ownership, there was joint liability. Thus, the collector of revenue can go after either party.

Now, why wouldn’t the county go after Lakewood? Of course, this is because it no longer exists. According to my check with the Minnesota Secretary of State (where the company was incorporated), Lakewood has not filed any of the required corporate paperwork since 2004.

This just further raises the question on why the vehicles were not licensed here until 2006. The lawyer provided documentation that the vehicle was garaged and primarily used in the State of Missouri since 2005.

Thus the plaintiff’s lawyer fully proved that Schneider is rightly and fully responsible for any back taxes. Those taxes had not been paid. Schneider should be removed from the ballot.

Break the Law, Run for Mayor

Just back from the field trip to Clayton. The petitioner put on a pretty good case. Here is what was presented in court (some of these facts we already knew):

1) Schneider did not register his vehicles in the State of Missouri until April 2006. If he became a resident on/before April 2005, he is in violation of the law that states one must register a vehicle in 30 days.

2) On the Coll of Revenue database, it shows that a verbal statement was provided that Schneider moved here in February 2006. However, there is nothing that shows who gave that statement.

3) After research done by the St. Louis County Collector of Revenue's office, Schneider was provided a tax bill that included interest and penalties dating back to January 1, 2007.

The Defense:

1) Schneider didn't know and wasn't aware of the tax and licensing laws.

2) Schneider actually did not receive the bill for arrears until this week. So, he wasn't officially in arrears on May 22 (the filing deadline for this election).

3) Schneider submitted payment for this arrearage and marked it "paid in protest."


Questions for Class Discussion

1) Is ignorance of the law a valid defense?

2) Do we want a mayor who isn't aware of the most basic tax and licensing laws?

3) Is the fact that you were not "caught" by the filing deadline a valid defense to stay on the ballot?

4) Why didn't Schneider plate his cars until 2006 if he lived here in 2005?

5) Do we want a mayor who claims to want to increase tax revenues but does everything to evade paying his own (and then when he pays it is "paid in protest") ?


Stay tuned kids. The judge will rule on Monday (6/25) at 9 AM.

More Facts, Still No Snacks

Miss Jackson is calling class back in session. Before our field trip to Clayton tomorrow, I have provided a copy of the petition for pre-reading.

The following is a copy of the petition that was filed with the Circuit Court. (Aren't you glad that I saved you the trip to Clayton to pick up this information yourself?)

Petition Conlon v Schneider

Facts, but no Snacks

Thanks Gravy for all of the related news in regards to the residency requirements and staying on the ballot.

For those interested in the actual hearing itself on the petition filed in Circuit Court, that will be held at 1:00 PM on Friday (6/22). I think it will be beneficial to hear the facts firsthand and urge everyone to come out and see for themselves.

Updated 11:15 AM: This will be held in the Division 9 courtroom.

Fundraisers?!

In regards to historical markers, FineWine wrote: "Unless we can acquire a 100% grant to pay for the markers or have fund raisers."

While I agree that we should go after grant money where ever and whenever possible, I have to question the fundraisers. Aren't sales taxes, etc the government version of a fundraiser. Or did you think we should have bake sales?

I'm just not sure it is quite above board for our government to be holding fundraisers. (Of course, some folks might find a trivia night to pay for programs a little more palatable than taxes, but isn't it all a wash?!)

Rollin' on Tolen

ALL OF THE ITEMS CONTAINED WITHIN WERE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED AND POSTED ON THIS BLOG IN MAY 2006!

Pardon me. But I just don't buy any excuses or explanations of any of Tolen's associates, friends, etc of the "I didn't know." (Especially since these accusations have previously been made regarding Tolen.)

Others have pointed out that Tolen was hand-picked by Brown to be the "attorney for the city council" out in St. Charles. Now, this was a bogus, made-up position where the sole purpose was to object to how the city's official attorney was advising the city.
This appointment was made but there was no way to pay him as it was not an official position. Tolen subsequently sued the city for "back pay" and at the same time said that under no circumstance could his reasons for leaving the US Attorney's office be mentioned.

Well, that raised a flag for me (why it didn't for Purzner, et al is beyond me) and I investiaged.

One of the associated charges with Tolen's dismissal was perjury in relation to a crime committed by a sibling. He was also charged with using the resources of the government in order to help with the defense of the bank robbery. He called all of these charges "minor". Hmmm...an office of the court calling perjury minor. Details are here.

It didn't take much of search to come up with the following:

Allegations of sexual misconduct
In the course of the bank robbery investigation, Fuhr interviewed Michael Buthe. (Def. App. 34, 127, 385 dep. pp. 162-63.) Buthe stated to Fuhr that Buthe met Eric Tolen at Sherwood Forest Camp when Buthe was 11 years old and Tolen was serving as a counselor. (Def. App. 34,134.) From about 1987 until 1990, Buthe lived with Tolen. (Def. App. 34, 279 dep. p. 174.) Missouri Division of Family Services ("DFS") records show that in early 1990, after Buthe complained to DFS about his situation with Tolen (including possible sexual abuse), Buthe was in the custody of juvenile authorities for several months. (Def. App. 34,127, 139-42.) Buthe returned to live with Tolen later in 1990, and continued to live with Tolen until about 1993. (Def. App. 34, 279 dep. p. 174.)On February 18, 1997, Fuhr took a videotaped statement from Buthe, in which Buthe stated: (a) that Tolen had [**21] engaged in sexual activity with him while [*14] he lived with Tolen; (b) that Buthe had found child pornography in Tolen's possession; and (c) that Buthe had recanted his report of child abuse to DFS at Tolen's urging. (Def. App. 34-35, 134-35, 386 dep. pp. 166-67.) Fuhr made the contents of Buthe's statement known to Dowd, and Dowd viewed the videotape. (Def. App. 35, 207 dep. p. 94, 389 dep. p. 177.)The FBI advised Detective Guinn of the St. Louis County Police Department of Buthe's allegations of sexual abuse by Tolen. (Def. App. 35, 386-87 dep. pp. 168-70, 402-417.) Dowd was later provided a report describing contacts that St. Louis County detectives had with several boys who associated with Tolen. Dowd concluded that the detectives believed that Tolen was sexually abusing children. (Def. App. 35, 209 dep. pp. 103-04.) On April 11, 1997, Tolen was interviewed by agents of the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Justice. During the interview, Tolen was asked to discuss the investigation of allegations of child sexual abuse by the St. Louis County Police Department. Tolen "took the Fifth," and declined to answer. (Def. App. 35-36, 281 dep. pp. 182-83,342.) [**22]

Somethings to think about today

Onelayer's and Sailor's comments had me thinking about this Schneider situation further, and I had the following questions:

1) Does it matter if false statements to the department of revenue are made in writing or orally? Especially if such false statements result in a tax waiver.


2) Does it matter if a husband or wife makes false statement? Isn't one's actions binding on the other in such matters, especially if a tax waiver resulted from such a false statement?

Schneider: “I’m just a company man”

According to Sailor’s blog, Schneider is claiming that any and all vehicles in question were owned by his previous company, Lakewood Party Sales.

However, even if they were owned by the company in Minnesota, the vehicles should still be registered in the state of Missouri. The law is pretty clear on this (excerpted from RSMo chapter 137):

Corporate property, where taxed.
137.095. 1. ..every general or business corporation having or owning tangible personal property on the first day of January in each year, which is situated in any other county than the one in which the corporation is located, shall make return to the assessor of the county or township where the property is situated, in the same manner as other tangible personal property is required by law to be returned…shall be assessed for tax purposes in the county in which the motor vehicles are based.
2. For the purposes of subsection 1 of this section, the term "based" means the place where the vehicle is most frequently dispatched, garaged, serviced, maintained, operated or otherwise controlled, except that leased passenger vehicles shall be assessed at the residence of the driver or, if the residence of the driver is unknown, at the location of the lessee.

One would assume that these cars are primarily garaged and controlled from Overland, if Schneider was the resident he claimed to be at that time. Thus, Schneider’s company (that he fully owned and operated) was delinquent in their taxes, if not the man himself.

Schneider further told Sailor that he did everything “correctly to the best of my ability”. This doesn’t speak well for his ability and I, for one, am questioning his ability to be our mayor.

No Substance Schneider

The Post-Dispatch had an interesting article this morning on the “Schneider off the ballot” suit. In that, the reporter actually gets in touch with Schneider to have him answer the charges brought forth in the suit.

Here is his answer:

"I was hoping we would have had a very professional race for mayor of Overland but it doesn't seem like my wishes are going to come true at this point in time," he said.

That's right. If you have no justification for your behavior, then by all means, question the professionalism of the one who points out your wrong doings.

There is no explanation/excuse for the charges brought forth. Schneider does not address the accusations at all. As the old gal used to say “Where’s the Beef?”

Of course, who needs substance when you can be so malleable?

Between a Rock and a Hard Place

Many of you may have seen the story as covered by Channel 4. If not, the coverage can be found here.

Yesterday, a suit was filed to remove Schneider from the ballot for mayor in the August election. Here is the background of the story.

Schneider has yet to pay property taxes as a resident of Missouri. Upon further investigation, he declared to the St Louis County Department of Revenue that he did not become a resident of Missouri until February 2006. If this is true, he would have received a waiver for the first year and expect to pay for 2007. These waivers are completely normal for the first year of residency.

Yet, if he became a resident in February 2006 he is not qualified to be on a ballot.

According to City Ordinance Section 110.130, the qualifications to run for City Council include that one is to be a resident of Overland for one year at the time of the election (April 2006). If he, truly became a resident of Missouri in February 2006 that means he was only a resident for two months, not a full year.

According to City Ordinance Section 110.010 and RSMo section 77.230, the qualifications to run for Mayor include that one is to be a resident of Overland for two years at the time of the election. Again, if he truly became a resident of Missouri in February 2006 then he does not meet the residency requirement. Thus, since he does not meet the residency requirement, he should be removed from the ballot.

Now, it could be that he was a resident prior to February 2006. If so, that means he is not paid up-to-date on his personal property taxes. As required by RSMo section 115.342, one must be fully paid for their taxes to appear on a ballot. At the time of filing, he signed an affidavit with the following wording:

AFFIRMATION OF TAX PAYMENTS:
I hereby declare under penalties of perjury that I am not currently aware of any delinquency in the filing or payment of any state income taxes, personal property taxes, real property taxes on the place of residence, as stated on the declaration of candidacy, or that I am a past or present corporate officer of any fee office that owes any taxes to the state, other than those taxes which may be in dispute.
.............................. Candidate's Signature
.............................. Printed Name of Candidate."

Thus if he became a resident prior to February 2006, he is not fully paid on his taxes and should be removed from the ballot.

Either way you look at it, Schneider should be removed from the ballot.

Discuss Amoungst Yourselves..........

Say It Aint So said...

Been a real long time since I posted. After the recall I figured I had given my two cents worth on it and that was enough of my time.

Over the last few weeks I was approached by a COGG member with a well scripted hack job regarding the Mayor's race.

I didn't say anything I just listened. It seemed as if it had been memorized and told many times before. To me the attempt to deceive is the same as a lie. He lost my respect.

It was a very convuluted story I was told "he was Frank Munch's candidate". As if that would impress me.

Why in the hell does Munsch need a horse in this race? Wasn't he run out of town just like Brown?

I also was told Mary Beth Conlan refused to meet with the COGG's attorney who was also Dody and Stuckey's personal attorney.

To me why would she? I'm glad she didn't. Who cares what the COGGS attorney's think about who they want to be the Mayor of Overland? Are those attorneys residents of Overland? No they are not.

If anybody should be ashamed of themselves about splitting this vote up it is the COGG.

For what its worth here is what I think. The COGG and its members are not what they pretend to be.

Citizens of Good Government is a front. COGG is really a political click, a personal group of the old political people who want to take charge of city hall again.

Citizen's of Good Government are basing this Mayors race on settling a score, on personal grudges, and on a person's gender and not on the real issues and who is the most qualified person to be our next Mayor.

Why did the councilman from ward 4 become the chosen one for them? Because they can "control" him that's why.

That sums it up about this race and it says a lot about what the Citizens for Good Government are actually all about

THEMSELVES