May 23, 2013

You are here: Home / Archives for John Swallow

Courage shown in speaking up against John Swallow [KSL]

May 14, 2013 by Leave a Comment

The following is an op-ed piece that I wrote for KSL as posted this afternoon.

 

John Swallow

SALT LAKE CITY — I’m sure there was a moment when Traci Gundersen wondered if making a bar complaint against Utah Attorney General John Swallow was a wise step for her career.

As far as I can tell, she’s the only person who has been inside the attorney general’s office and has come forward to call “foul” on the attorney general.Unlike others who have publicly accused Swallow of wrongdoing in recent months, Gundersen is unique in that she is not under indictment, in jail or anonymous. In other words, unlike other Swallow accusers, she seems like an honest person with nothing to gain by the claim. Rather, she is a reputable and upstanding attorney who worked in the Utah attorney general’s office during Mark Shurtleff’s term.

Not only has she worked in the attorney general’s office — where she was when Swallow was first brought on by Shurtleff to be groomed as his successor — but her work there caught the attention of others in state government and she was lured away to a job as director of the Utah Division of Consumer Protection. Her job, from 2010 to until last week, when she left the office voluntarily, was to protect Utahns against scam artists and pyramid schemes.

A longtime employee of the state and a well-respected attorney, she must have known that accusing the state’s chief legal officer of violating the attorney/client relationship — one of the most important tenets of the legal profession — would put her on dangerous footing.

Unlike Jeremy Johnson, who is under indictment, accused of a litany of scams, Gunderson is an attorney in good standing with the Utah Bar.

Unlike Marc Sessions Jenson, who is currently interned at the Utah State Prison for failing to pay $4 million in restitution for scams, Gundersen has nothing to gain by attacking Swallow.

But she does have everything to lose.

By taking her complaint straight to the Utah Bar, a body that has the ability to discipline, disbar or impose sanctions on any member of the Utah Bar — including Swallow — she added yet another dimension to the layers of Swallow’s difficulties. Swallow will now need to undergo review by the Utah Bar Association.

With everything to lose, and nothing to gain, Gundersen’s bar complaint, filed quietly and without fanfare, is an act of true courage.

What makes Gundersen’s charge against Swallow so compelling is that it lies in an event that Swallow does not deny. On the contrary, in an interview with Doug Wright, Swallow said, on the air, that he was “proud” of the phone call.

The event in question is a recorded conversation between Swallow and what City Weekly described as “the owner of a telemarketing sales floor” by the name of Aaron Christner.

Recorded while Swallow was still running for attorney general — and still collecting checks for his campaign — Swallow is heard promising to take over the Utah Division of Consumer Protection — housed in the Utah Department of Commerce — and move it into the attorney general’s office.

What makes the call suspect is that at the time the Division of Consumer Protection already had a $400,000 civil penalty imposed on Christner and his business partner Ryan Jensen, as well as an order to cease and desist operations. Further, the Division of Consumer Protection was Swallow’s client, which Swallow readily acknowledged during the call. As his client, Swallow was under a duty not only to tell them that he had been contacted by Christner, the target of their efforts, but to consult with the division on how it would want to proceed.

In the real world, clients give direction on how to proceed with a case to their attorneys, not the other way around. Sure, attorneys know the law, but they cannot act without consulting with their client.

To collect on the penalty, the division referred the case against Christner, and the $400,000 penalty and cease and desist order, to Assistant Attorney General Jeff Buckner, who filed a case with the 2nd District Court in late 2011. However, Christner and Jensen were difficult to find, and throughout early 2012 the division continued to look for them.

Meanwhile, in defiance of the cease and desist order, Christner and Jensen opened another telemarketing company, the last of several proxy companies they are accused of using to hide alleged scams.

Meanwhile, during this time the Republican nomination battle to replace Shurtleff as attorney general was in full swing, and an associate of Christner’s suggested that he should get in contact with Swallow, specifically to attend a fundraising breakfast at Mimi’s Cafe. Christner took the advice to heart and called Swallow, then chief deputy attorney general under Shurtleff with oversight of “the civil divisions and all litigation involving the state of Utah.”

After a few preliminary questions, including Christner informing Swallow that he was being pursued by the Division of Consumer Protection for $400,000 in civil penalties, Swallow offers to help Christner sit down with Shurtleff and then bashes into the Division of Consumer Protection, his own client:

“(T)he way Utah’s so dysfunctional right now, is the client is the Department of Commerce and Consumer Protection, and that is something we, uh, control or even influence greatly, it’s because the work for the governor’s office, and now when I’m attorney general you know, this is kind of confidential, I will try to restructure it so consumer protection is under the attorney general (office) and the attorney general has more authority over those investigations. In fact, complete authority over that,” said Swallow, according to the complaint.

If you can’t tell, Swallow is telling Christner that while Swallow can’t do anything now — because Swallow’s client is the Division of Consumer Protection and they’re calling the shots — once he’s in charge, he’ll flip the relationship and start telling them who they can and cannot pursue.

It’s like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. The lawyer will take over the client’s organization and start calling the shots.

But that’s not even the rub, not yet. Swallow never told his client — the Division of Consumer Protection — that he had had a conversation with the guy that they had been chasing. The first they heard about it was from the newspaper when City Weekly published the recording of the conversation online.

If you’re looking for a rule — and I know you are — look no further than Rule 1.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which requires that an attorney “inform” the client and “consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished.”

Clearly, Swallow has not consulted nor informed his client of relevent and important communications with an accused malfactor.

Worse, Swallow is expressing an interest in the outcome of the case, a clear violation of another rule, that of Rule 1.8(i):

(i) A lawyer shall not acquire a proprietary interest in the cause of action or subject matter of litigation the lawyer is conducting for a client.

In this case, Swallow has been introduced to Christner through a fundraising function, has explained that when he is elected he will attempt a take-over of the government agency that is chasing Christner, and seeking political favor for the action.

If exchanging political contributions for a desired outcome in violation of the law is not a proprietary interest, I don’t know what is. Whatever it is, it isn’t honest.

And the complaint goes on.

Gundersen has now done what no honest person has yet done: she’s made a claim and backed it up by filing charges with the appropriate body. She’s put her name, and her reputation, on the line against a powerful man with powerful friends. Whether it results in moving the Utah Bar to take action against Swallow remains to be seen, but what is not in doubt is her courage.

I hope more like her will step forward in coming weeks and months. It’s time for the attorney general’s office to move out from under the cloud of scandal and restore its integrity, and I fear that we won’t see it happen while the current occupant retains his office.

Related articles

 

Filed Under: Characteristics of Lawyers, Leaders, News Round Up Tagged With: , , , , ,

Appointing versus Electing the Attorney General

March 19, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Senator wants Utah to look at appointing attorney general The Salt Lake TribuneTo avoid the influence of cash on Utah’s chief law enforcement office, Senator Todd Weiler wants the legislature to look into amending the Utah  constitution to allow for an appointed attorney general. With Utah’s long history of flawed AGs, perhaps it’s an idea we should take seriously.

 

During the Utah Legislative Session, ended last week, members of the legislature were largely taciturn on the Swallow scandal, preferring to reserve judgement until the FBI investigation into Swallow wraps and the facts are clear. Regardless, the legislature passed two pieces of legislation addressing, if indirectly, the Swallow scandal.

The first, Senate Bill 83 sponsored by Senator Todd Weiler, addressed employees of the Utah Attorney General’s office accepting outside consulting work–as Swallow has said he did for a Nevada cement project.

The second bill, pushed through on the last day of the session, though with none of the opposition that other last minutes bills have seen in the past, was Senator Peter Knudson’s Senate Bill 289. It aimed to move investigatory power from the Attorney General to the Lieutenant Governor when elections complaints were filed against the AG. While prompted by the Alliance for a Better Utah complaint about Swallow to the Lieutenant Governor’s office, both legislators and staffers went to lengths to point out that the bill was to remove a weakness in the law, not target Swallow.ada cement project after appointment by then Attorney General Mark Shurtleff.

Appointment by Supreme Court or Governor is a good idea

money-and-justice-scalesEven with these two changes in the law–one putting the same restrictions on political appointees as exist on state employees and the other preventing the AG from investigating himself–Weiler believes further changes may be necessary to avoid a repeat of the same problems.

“The discussion is: As an elected official in a statewide race, we’re asking these candidates to run around and ask people for political donations,” Weiler said to the Salt Lake Tribune. “If someone was appointed, we’d take that entirely out of the process. We wouldn’t have the chief law enforcement officer asking people for money.”

In an 2011 proposal for the same, State Senator Steve Urquhart  said that it could get better attorneys into the AG’s office:

“[...] maybe we would get a better-qualified attorney than we tend to get and we might get an attorney with an approach that is consistently on the merits of the issues rather than on the basis of politics or something else.”

Currently, only seven states have appointed attorney generals. The Salt Lake Tribune lists those states as Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Tennessee and Wyoming, citing the National Association of Attorney Generals.

6TXZ_Sup_Ct_Lg

In Tennessee, the state Supreme Court appoints the attorney general, which I find particularly interesting, especially given how Utah’s justices join the bench. Unlike many states, Utah’s Supreme Court justices are not elected but serve ten-year renewable terms after appointment by the governor and confirmation by the state senate. As result, Utah’s Supreme Court has avoided much of the politicization that plagues other states. Not beholden to campaign donations, Utah tends to have justices who are better known for the legal acumen than their political connections.

This kind of process can prove useful for an AG appointment in two ways:

  1. Appointment by the Governor: similar to selection for the Utah Supreme Court, selection of the AG would be based on merit and subject to an “advise and consent” process by the state senate. The process could be further depoliticized by including a vetting process by the Utah Bar Association.
  2. Appointment by the Supreme Court: already less beholden by virtue of their appointment and independence as a separate branch of government, an appointment by the Supreme Court would carry additional levels of review and detachment from the political process, allowing selection of a person without need of review of political bona fides.

There’s no way that politics will be completely removed from the process, but an appointment–either by the governor with consent of the senate or by the Supreme Court–would remove the politics from the Utah Attorney General’s office.

 Swallow opposes, makes “Bandwagon” argument

SwallowNot surprisingly, Swallow, with nothing to fall back upon if he loses his job, does not support the idea. To the Salt Lake Tribune

“The attorney general is the guardian of the public interest and should be independent and provide legal advice based on the law instead of political pressure,” Swallow said. “Utah is one of 43 states where the attorney general is elected by popular vote and this process ensures the attorney general is the lawyer for all Utah citizens.”

 

In case you missed that, Swallow implied that there’s less political pressure on someone who needs to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to get elected (as he did) than there is on someone who is appointed. (Swallow also wins Logical Fallacy of the Day with his “Bandwagon” appeal to popularity as a validation of his position).

Not the first time…

220px-Mark_ShurtleffAs I noted earlier, this isn’t the first time that someone has suggested we look at moving to appointment of the AG. Given Shurtleff’s history.  Urquhart proposed looking into the idea in 2011.

“I also think it’s much cleaner if the guy making prosecutorial decisions isn’t out soliciting money from people who could be impacted by those decisions,” Urquhart said in a Salt Lake Tribune article at the time.

Then Attorney General Mark Shurtleff opposed the idea, touting the independence that comes with election. Of course, he had his own problems. During his term, Shurtleff was regularly pilloried by the City Weekly for receiving contributions from questionable donors, including the same ones who helped get Swallow elected and some of which are now under federal investigation.

Paul Rolly has also in his column told a short history of Utah’s attorney generals, and few escape some kind of scandal. With Utah’s history, perhaps it is time we change how we think about the office of the attorney general. It’s cliche to talk about lawyers,politicians, sharks, snakes and leeches in the same breath, but do we need to add to the taint of corruption and make the cliche real?

In 1998, the Utah Supreme Court was moved into...

In 1998, the Utah Supreme Court was moved into the Scott M. Matheson Courthouse building. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I like Weiler’s request, echoing Urquhart’s suggestion in years past, that the legislature look into changing the Utah constitution to provide for a more independent attorney general uncorrupted by the taint of political contributions. Utahns should be able to look to their attorney general as their advocate, regardless of whether they have been able to donate to his campaign.

Swallow has been accused by three businessmen of soliciting donations in return for protection. Regardless of the truth of the accusations, changing the nature of the selection of the attorney general would remove the possibility that prosecutorial decisions are tainted by money.

Related articles

 

Filed Under: Characteristics of Lawyers, Utah Legislature Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

A Special Counsel to Investigate Swallow?

March 14, 2013 by 1 Comment

Utah Legislature set to move authority for a special counsel to LG

Utah CapitolWith the last day of the Utah Legislative Session upon us, Utah’s representatives are set to finally take action to directly investigate the allegation against Utah Attorney General John Swallow.

In Senate Bill 289, introduced by Senator Pete Knudson, the legislature would grant authority to the Lieutenant Governor to appoint special counsel to investigate elections offenses if the Attorney General has a conflict of interest in a complaint.   Under section 4 of the bill, the authority granted to the Lieutenant Governor would be retroactive to March 1, 2013 and would include the complaint filed by Crystal Young-Otterstrom and Maryann Martindale of Alliance for a Better Utah, a left leaning activist group.

Normally, complaints would go directly to the Attorney General’s office and while the Lieutenant Governor’s office has not yet completed its review of the complaint, addressing the conflict in the law during the session is prudent.

“We have no indication from the lieutenant governor about where the complaint is in the process,” said House Speaker Becky Lockhart to the Salt Lake Tribune. “All we know is he approached us and mentioned this complication in the statute that we were unaware of.”

Up to Speed on Swallow

Swallow

The Salt Lake Tribune sums up the complaint that led to this change:

The complaint includes an allegation that Swallow attempted to conceal his interest in P-Solutions and payments from Richard Rawle, the late founder of the payday lender Check City.

When Swallow filed to run for office on March 9, 2012, he did not list several companies in which he was an officer at the time. He filed an amended return on March 15, the same day he took his name off of several companies, transferring his interests to his wife.

That includes P-Solutions, a company that received $23,500 from Rawle for consulting work on a Nevada limestone quarry, part of a planned cement project.

The money Swallow was paid came from funds St. George business owner Jeremy Johnson paid to Rawle. Swallow had put Johnson in touch with Rawle, Swallow and Rawle insist, to hire lobbyists to help him avoid a Federal Trade Commission lawsuit. Johnson said he and Rawle arranged to pay Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., $600,000, which Johnson has called a bribe.

Reid has denied any knowledge of Johnson’s case.

Swallow’s conduct is the subject of a federal investigation and prompted calls for ethics reform in the Legislature. Democrats have also asked the governor to appoint a special investigator to determine if Swallow violated any state laws.

This is not the first time that Swallow has run afoul of the law, though it is the first time a federal investigation has been announced. You can learn more about Swallow’s colored past here, here, and here. They include accounts of Swallow offering access to his office in return for donations, fluffing claims about his involvement in Obamacare litigation, and alleged investigation by the FBI for interference in municipal contracting.

 

Related articles

 

Filed Under: Department of Justice, Questionable Laws and Lawmakers, Utah Legislature Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Support for Bell integrity resonates in contrast with Swallow

February 25, 2013 by Leave a Comment

13516091

It says a lot about Lt. Gov. Greg Bell that so many people have stepped up to defend him. I count myself among those that believe in his good will and integrity.

The outpouring of support, though, is a stark contrast from near absence of any advocates for Attorney General John Swallow.

Since the City Weekly article last week reported that an FBI assisted investigation was looking into Bell’s internal audit of a Division of Child and Family Services case, prompted ostensibly by “widely divergent accounts from DCFS and the family,” according to Bell in a statement Friday, supporters on and off of Utah’s Capitol Hill have gone to bat for the former state senator.

Utah state Sen. Todd Weiler, R-Woods Cross, is reported in the Salt Lake Tribune to have criticized any comparison of Bell to  Swallow—also is under investigation by the FBI –because  ”what Greg is accused of doing is trying to help a friend and neighbor.”  And “There’s no money involved, there’s no financial [motive]. It’s a completely different situation,” said Weiler. “Those two situations are entirely different.”

He wasn’t alone is his support of Bell:

  • “If I were to put it in transportation terms, I believe that Greg Bell is so straight, you could use him as a template to stripe the freeways with,” said Sen. Stuart Adams, R-Layton, who succeeded Bell. “I hope there’s no foundation to these allegations.”
  • Senate President Wayne Niederhauser, R-Sandy, said Bell was an “outstanding” senator and “was one of the top people as far as doing the right thing.”
  • And Governor Herbert called his Lt. Gov. “”as honest as the day is long.”‘

Perhaps the most descriptive, and damning to Swallow, quote came from Sen. Lyle Hillyard, R-Logan: “We’ve stood shoulder to shoulder with Greg Bell,” said Sen. Lyle Hillyard, R-Logan. “We don’t have that same relationship with John Swallow.”

Swallow was a member of the Utah state legislature back in the late 1990s and left to make the first of two runs for Congress. Despite his time in the Utah House of Representatives, though, support has not been forthcoming.

Utah CapitolAs I indicated Thursday when the story broke, I very much like Greg Bell. His track record as an honest and sincere individual resonates because of a lifetime acting in integrity and generosity. Serving as Lt. Gov. is a thankless, and mostly powerless, job. In fact, this may be the real rub that has put Bell in trouble. If what he has portrayed in response to the City Weekly story is true–that he was seeking truth and good government in his role as a state official–then it is proof that no good deed goes unpunished.

It’s unfortunate that it requires an investigation, but the public’s faith requires a higher standard of proof.

Asked for comment, Speaker Becky Lockhart said that ”We are consistently trying to respond and do things that would engender trust from the public[...] It appears it may be time to address some things within the executive branch and with constitutional officers.”  With any luck, the investigation into Bell’s audit will vindicate his behavior, and the legislature will clarify the roles and responsibilities of the state wide elected officials to avoid future problems like those encountered by Bell and Swallow.  While Senator Weiler is correct that the two situations are not similar in nature, they do share one thing and that it the potential to lose the public’s trust in their democratically elected government.

 

Related articles
Filed Under: Questionable Laws and Lawmakers, Utah Legislature Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Is a 2nd Utah elected official under investigation by the FBI?

February 21, 2013 by 1 Comment

13516091Could another Utah state official be under investigation by the FBI?

The FBI investigation into Utah’s Attorney General John Swallow has been well documented in recent weeks (see here, here, here, and here, Also, here and here). Swallow may not be the only elected official in state government under FBI investigation.  An investigation into Lt. Gov. Greg Bell has received FBI involvement, as well.

With public polling in favor of Swallow’s resignation and the Department of Justice investigation running, rumors are swirling that the Governor has already begun to consider who he will appoint to replace Swallow if he resigns.

Speculation has put  Lieutenant Governor Greg Bell at the top of that list. After well documented piece in the red-headed step-child of Salt Lake’s news media, the City Weekly, Governor Herbert may soon reconsider.

According to an article published on February 20, 2013, based on documents obtained from the Lieutenant Governor’s office and the Utah Department of Human Services, and posted on City Weekly’s site, Lt. Gov. Greg Bell’s office has been involved in a questionable audit of a Child Protective Services (CPS) 2011 case.

Davis County Attorney Troy Rawlings, responding to an interview request, noted in a three-page letter to City Weekly that no charges have yet been filed nor any individuals indicted. The complaints his office are looking at are that “governmental power and public monies were abused, outside the scope of legitimate authority, to thwart the outcome of a singular child abuse case.”

Rawlings revealed that pretrial pleadings in the daughter’s case indicated the audit was to be used as a “defense tool,” a plan apparently sunk by the county attorney’s investigation, which led to the audit being “pulled back or minimalized.” Communications from Bell and the auditors he hired led DePaulis, state agency employees and contracted medical providers involved with the child-abuse case to feel “concern” for the future of their jobs and contracts.

 If having the David County Attorney–a Republican–investigate the Lt. Gov. is not enough, Rawlings has said that the FBI has assisted.

It’s not only Rawlings’ office that is looking at the audit. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is “providing support and assistance,” Rawlings noted. An FBI spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment on its role in the investigation, which dates back to November 2011. If what Rawlings said is correct, Bell is now the second elected state official that the FBI is known to be investigating, along with Attorney General John Swallow.

I know and like Greg Bell. I’ve met him several times, sat next to him at dinner, and have always held him up as an exemplar of someone unsullied by the mud that so often clings to those in politics. I very much hope that this is all a mistake, a misunderstanding, or otherwise wrong. I very much like him.

However, the City Weekly article is not based on conjecture or speculation. It is bolstered by documents indicating hours and hours of billing ordered by the Lt. Gov.’s office, emails and letters between public officials, and otherwise demonstrative documentary evidence. It is a hard case to talk away.

For these reasons, I hesitated before commenting or sharing the story. However, it would be unfair for me to spend so much time looking at and discussing the allegations against Swallow and to ignore those against the Lt. Gov.

I think, like I have said about the Swallow affair, that it is far premature to call for Lt. Gov. Bell’s resignation. Indeed, Lt. Gov. Bell is not Attorney General Swallow, nor are the accusations against him of the same nature. however, good public policy demands inspection into the charges and a full review of the actions taken. When the public trust is at issue, full transparency and disclosure is the first, and best, policy.

Davis County Attorney Statement by

Related articles

 

Filed Under: Questionable Laws and Lawmakers Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Why didn’t Shurtleff tell voters what he knew about Swallow before the election?

February 14, 2013 by 4 Comments

220px-Mark_ShurtleffIn the days before the general election in 2012, Mark Shurtleff was putting out fires around town. His protege, John Swallow, was on track to win the election against Democrat Dee Smith, as Shurtleff and Swallow had long-planned, but cracks were appearing in the otherwise flawless campaign strategy. Shurtleff, his legacy on the line in the successful transfer to his protegé, was busy meeting with indicted businessmen, the feds, and Swallow himself.

As Shurtleff later described, he was “upset” by the allegations, enough so that he took them to the U.S. Attorney and the FBI.  Was Swallow promising protection from prosecution in return for campaign contributions? Was Swallow embroiled in a scheme to bribe Nevada Senator Harry Reid?

The more information that trickles out, the more questions seem to be raised. This week, in addition to more accusations against Swallow, Shurtleff admitted on Monday said that he knew as early as October, but somehow failed to tell the public, the press, or even to suggest to Swallow that he should pull out of the race.

When and what did Shurtleff know? Who did he tell?

According to Swallow, Shurtleff never asked him to pull out of the race, despite a report that Shurtleff said he would speak to Swallow about it.

In a January 11, 2013 article, the Salt Lake Tribune reported that Jeremy Johnson met with then Utah Attorney General Shurtleff on October 30, 2012.  The general election was just days away, and Swallow was leading in the polls.

The two (Shurtleff and Johnson) met the next day outside a Salt Lake City Gateway condo, where Johnson was staying, Johnson said. He told Shurtleff about Swallow’s deal and that the information would come out soon. He urged Shurtleff to press Swallow to drop out. Shurtleff said it was unlikely Swallow would quit at that late date, according to Johnson, but Shurtleff agreed to speak to Swallow about the allegations.

Swallow said Shurtleff didn’t talk to him about getting out of the race.

SwallowSwallow told the Salt Lake Tribune that he had never discussed getting out of the race with Shurtleff.

Tribune: Did you have a meeting with Jeremy at the end of October where he encouraged you to drop out of the attorney general’s race? If so, where was it? What was the nature and outcome of the meeting? Did Mark discuss the issue with you? Did you consider dropping out?

Swallow: No, I did not have a meeting with Mr. Johnson in October or November. Mark Shurtleff has never discussed my dropping out of the race with me and I never considered dropping out of the race. In April or May, I believe, I had a conversation with Jeremy where he may have suggested I drop out of the race. I thought the remark was ridiculous and did not give it any consideration.

Reading the Swallow’s words carefully, it seems clear that he knew that Shurtleff had met with Johnson and likely the substance of their conversation, but that Shurtleff had not discussed the possibility that Swallow would pull out of the race for his behavior.

Meanwhile, Shurtleff was having other conversations, including with feds at the US Attorney’s office. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, Shurtleff said that

“Obviously, I’m very upset by [the allegations against Swallow]. I was upset enough to go down and talk to the U.S. attorney and the FBI on a couple of occasions,” Shurtleff said in an interview. “This is my friend, my chief deputy. Am I [feeling] somewhat guilty? Am I betraying him? But I felt that the proper authorities needed to know.”

Given the proximity to the general election, one cannot help but wonder if the “proper authorities” should have included the voters of Utah. If Shurtleff was “upset,” why not let the public know? Surely his duty as an officer of the court requires that he put the judging authority–in this case the public–on notice that a candidate for public office was then, or would be soon, under investigation by the FBI for corruption.

 

Game Changing Information

That Shurtleff knew about Swallow’s accusers before the election and told no one but the feds and Swallow is no small act of subterfuge. At least one public official–Speaker of the Utah House of Representatives Becky Lockhart–told the Salt Lake Tribune that knowing would have changed her vote.

House Speaker Becky Lockhart, R-Provo, said the more information about candidates, the better equipped voters are to make a decision, and she wishes the information involving Swallow would have been known before the election. If it had been known, she said, it could have made a difference in her vote.

“Attorney General Shurt­leff is going to have to answer those questions,” she said, “and he’s going to be accountable for those actions and why or why not he didn’t disclose that.”

Will Shurtleff be held accountable? Time only will show. On Monday, Shurtleff expressed hope that the investigation would wrap up soon so that people could move on. Given the extent of the charges and that more accusers continue to come forward, that seems less and less likely.  At best, it seems almost like wishful thinking.

Bagley cartoon Attorney General Spoiler Alert The Salt Lake Tribune

Related articles
Filed Under: Questionable Laws and Lawmakers Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Swallow swallows his words and Powers’ memory gets less “hazy”

February 13, 2013 by 3 Comments

SwallowEvery week seems to bring a new revelation about John Swallow’s pre-election activities. His supporters (all three of them) keep saying to wait until the evidence gets out, but the way I see it, it’s only getting worse. I don’t know how you explain it all away.

Forget about the facts. Never mind claims that  Swallow tried to help an indicted businessman “influence” a U.S. Senator with $600,000, that former AG Mark Shurtleff asked the feds to investigate Swallow, that the Tribune, the Daily Herald, and the Spectrum have called for Swallow’s resignation, or that 49% of voters want resignation.

Forget all that. Swallow can’t swallow the words that he’s spoken, the words that indicate that he wasn’t walking the straight and narrow in his run for public office.

He was trying to keep stuff out of the public eye, whether by changing ownership of his companies or by hiding his activities.

To Jeremy Johnson, a large contributor to his and Shurtleff’s campaigns under investigation for scamming consumers, Swallow said:

There’s nothing wrong with anything that I’ve done criminally. Now, politically, politically, I go, whoa.

Why the “whoa”? Could it be due to the fact that he’s taking money from people he could or should be prosecuting? Hanging out on their million dollar boats? Flying around on their jets?

But there’s been no evidence of that–

THIS JUST IN…THE  TRIBUNE REPORTS THAT THREE BUSINESSMEN ACCUSE SWALLOW OF OFFERING LEGAL PROTECTION IF THEY CONTRIBUTE…DEVELOPING…

Ok, so maybe there is evidence of Swallow taking money from people he should be prosecuting.  The three spoke to the Salt Lake Tribune, each  independently of the others. Combined, the three donated $50,000 to the Shurtleff campaign war chest when Swallow was Shurtleff’s fundraiser. Two of the three have been interviewed by the FBI.

“Essentially, what we were told was: ‘Look, at the end of the day, we want to know who you guys are, because if someone gives us a complaint or calls us from another agency. … We want to be able to head it off at that level,’ ” one of the businessmen recalls Swallow saying.

If it were coming from the mafia, we would call that “protection money.” In Utah, or rather in the Attorney General’s office, they call that “campaign contributions.”

“We now had a friend at the highest level of Utah law enforcement,” one donor said.  In case you were wondering, Utah law does not allow the solicitation of campaign funds with the promise of any official action.

“[P]olitically, I go, whoa.” Well, yes, John:  we’re all going “whoa” now.

 Powers’ “hazy” memory becomes less hazy. 

JCPIn response, Swallow sent his campaign adviser, Jason Powers, to respond. By email. (It’s safer that way, you know? No accidentally getting recorded saying something “politically” whoa-worthy on the record).   Powers was unequivocal:

“The campaign is not going to speculate on these absurd accusations by anonymous sources,” Jason Powers said in an email Tuesday night. “However, I’ve been eyewitness to hundreds of fundraising meetings and phone calls by Mark Shurtleff and John Swallow. I’ve never heard either of them say anything like that. In fact, I’ve heard them stress the opposite, that a donation does not get you any special treatment.”

In contrast to his memory of those hundreds of meetings and phone calls, the last time Powers’ was asked about a meeting Swallow attended, his memory was “hazy.”

While he was in jail, Johnson said, Swallow worried Johnson was cutting a deal with federal prosecutors. Just after Johnson’s release, and with Swallow a candidate for attorney general, Johnson said Swallow and his campaign consultant, Jason Powers, met him at a St. George hotel, where Johnson said he again pressured Swallow to come up with the money.

Powers said his memory about the meeting is hazy, but he recalls the atmosphere as being cordial and remembers discussion of a meeting with Rawle that Johnson claimed Swallow attended, but Swallow said he had not. According to Powers, Johnson agreed.

You know how memory is, though; you can never recall exactly what you need when you need it. Apparently, the meeting with Johnson, out on $2.8 million bail after he tried to flee the country to South America, just didn’t merit retention, while those hundreds of routine fundraising phone calls and meetings do. What will Powers remember next? Or forget?

 

Related articles

 

Filed Under: Questionable Laws and Lawmakers Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,
«Older Posts