Pages

Is Barack Hussein Obama too psychologically flawed to be President?

by G.M. Heller
Published: Sunday, October 19, 2008


Candidate Barack Hussein Obama's performance the other afternoon at the Alfred E. Smith dinner in New York was revealing.
It showed just how close to the surface resides Mr. Obama's apparently highly fragile ego.
>Photo: © 2008 FreakingNews.com
The candidate seems obsessed with the lone news organization unwilling to sing his tune.
His references to Fox News and Rupert Murdoch at the dinner -- and also in his stump speeches of late -- are just getting plain weird.
Further, his campaign's smear attacks on a $40,000-a-year Toledo, Ohio journeyman plumber (in the wake of Obama's own revealing slip of the tongue exposing his real agenda for raising taxes to "spread the wealth") show this candidate to be a humorless, angry, megalomaniacal soul determined to have everyone love him -- at all costs.
(And for those who don't, better watch out!)
Is there any real doubt that the fact that Obama was abandoned -- first by his irresponsible father, then by his stepfather, and finally by his equally irresponsible mother -- had real and searing effects on the young Obama, and that now as an adult, he is showing evidence of real psychological flaws, and apparently not small ones.
Must America pay for this emotional cripple's therapy by handing over to him its Oval Office -- especially when we really don't know for certain just who this fellow is?
What little does get revealed is not pretty.

Barack H. Obama: Democrats' Lament


Looks like the partisan Liberal hack who writes The Berkshire Eagle editorials cannot handle the fact that his candidate Barack (not supposed to say Hussein) Obama is finally facing some long-overdue, tough questioning.
Sorry Eagleboy, but the reverend minister from whom this next possible president seeks comfort and counsel for twenty years IS America's business, especially when that holier-than-thou preaches hate.
Also of import is the symbolic decision by Mr. Obama not to display the American flag in his lapel.
A small thing, maybe, but the fact that BHO is at odds to do it says a lot more about the man behind the mask than any of his hope-hope-hooray hoopla.
And do I need to address the fellow's -- and his wife's -- public expressions of outright elitism?
Face it, Eagleboy, your guy is on the skids.
Looks like too many Democrats put too many eggs too soon in one basketcase.

KRIPALU: Not-For-Whose-Profit?

Milking A Sacred Cash Cow.

If you are of the belief (as I am after reviewing the financial shenanigans at WAMC Northeast Public Radio and at The Mount) that one of the easiest ways nowadays to become a millionaire (or at least live like one) is to run a tax-exempt organization, then read on:

The Berkshire Eagle reported Sunday that Kripalu Center for Yoga and Health (officially known as Kripalu Yoga Fellowship) has received its first PILOT "tax" bill -- for $61,222 -- from the town of Stockbridge.

Photo: Kripalu Center for Yoga and Health in Stockbridge, Mass.

The yoga retreat cum resort spa (2006 gross revenues $23.3 million) has its headquarters in Stockbridge and PILOT is meant as a 'payment in lieu of taxes'.

"But", according to The Eagle, "as yet, it is unclear whether the nonprofit organization will be liable for the real estate taxes" because the organization is presently classified as 'tax-exempt' by IRS.

It might be helpful to Stockbridge's case to review whether Kripalu is indeed 'not-for-profit' (and thus deserved of tax-exempt status), or just another money-making enterprise masquerading as a 501c3 for the many local, state and federal benefits such status confers.

Being tax-exempt gives Kripalu a definite edge over its commercial resort spa competitors like Canyon Ranch which, as a for-profit entity, has federal and state tax obligations, and is required, for example, to pay real estate and personal property taxes to the town of Lenox.

Kripalu's CEO, Patton Garrett Sarley, known also by his Sanskrit name, Dinabandhu, which means 'friend of the poor and the helpless', sure ought to be.

Photos:
Patton Garrett Sarley (aka Dinabandhu), Kripalu's CEO;
Mary Sarley (aka Ila), Kripalu's president.

That's because for 2006, Mr. Sarley was paid nearly $232,000, according to the organization's latest available IRS Form 990.
SEE: PDF pgs. 33, 34, & 35.

Mr. Sarley's wife, Mary, is known around the retreat as Ila.

She is president of the organization, the same one for which her husband is CEO.

Kripalu paid her more than $186,000, thus making the couple's total 2006 compensation from the yoga center just over $418,000.

This is nearly eleven times the median household income for Berkshire County (MHI here is $39,047).

Richard Faulds (also known as Shobhan) is chairman of the board of trustees and is Kripalu's legal counsel.

His pay in 2006 surpassed $110,000.

Richard Faulds (aka Shobhan), Kripalu's board chairman and legal counsel.

While Mr. and Mrs. Sarley each averaged 40 hours per week in 2006, Kripalu reported to IRS that Mr. Faulds worked an average of just one hour per week.

It does not appear to be a typo, either.

At that rate, Mr. Faulds was making $2,200 per hour.
SEE: PDF pgs. 33, 34, & 35.

This isn't the first time that Kripalu, and the company's practices have been the object of public scrutiny.

According to The Boston Globe, "Dinabandhu Garrett Sarley and his wife, Ila Sarley, were among the original followers of Kripalu founder Amrit Desai, who left in the wake of a scandal in 1995. Indeed, Dinabandhu Sarley held chief operating officer responsibilities at Kripalu when the ashram's problems emerged. (Desai, who was married, encouraged his followers to practice celibacy. He later was revealed to have had sexual relationships with several of his female adherents and was forced to leave the community. The events nearly destroyed Kripalu, prompting its evolution from a devotion-based ashram to a more secular educational institution.)"

By the way, Kripalu reported zero taxable fringe benefits paid to the above executives in 2006.

Credit for this article goes to "Ombudsman" whose timely suggestion was the impetus for its publication.

WAMC to buy 'The Mount' in $8.7 million deal.

NPR affiliate to take over Wharton mortgage debt

Albany, New York -- WAMC Northeast Public Radio announced today it will buy The Mount in an $8.7 million transaction intended to take over the debt of the financially-ailing literary arts institution and keep the famous estate and library collection intact.

The tax-exempt NPR affiliate announced it would be purchasing all debt obligations of Edith Wharton Restoration, Inc. from local banks and individuals currently holding notes on the property, and that the public radio station will be taking possession as soon as the paperwork is signed.

The former Edith Wharton estate, WAMC's latest purchase to be used as the NPR affiliate's Lenox branch office, and as summer residence for its CEO Alan Chartock.-- Credit: Kevin Sprague, Copyright 2006, All Rights Reserved.

WAMC, in a press release, says it intends to refit the estate, change its name to the Alan S. Chartock Museum of Northeast Public Radio Arts, Sciences and First Amendments, in honor of the station's longtime CEO, and set aside the entire third floor wing of Edith Wharton's former dwelling for use by Mr. Chartock as a Lenox branch office and summer residence.

WAMC says the new acquisition, with its manicured lawns and gardens, will offer Mr. Chartock the peace, quiet, open space, and sweeping vistas necessary to enable its CEO, like Edith Wharton before him, to compose the riveting prose and illuminating commentary that readers and listeners have come to expect from the well-known political commentator and former SUNY professor.

WAMC's Chartock said, "The acquisition of Edith Wharton's home along with the estate's extensive acreage and out buildings will be a fitting memorial to public radio and to WAMC's lifelong commitment to promoting liberalism, democratic values, social justice, and a more civil society."

WAMC's long-time CPA, William M. Kahn, managing director with UHY LLP in Albany, gives the deal thumbs up, saying, "Yeah, I guess. Who wants to spend summers on Central Avenue?"

Mr. Chartock also noted, "WAMC is asking listeners to give what they can so this fragile experiment in public radio will never go out and the fire of our commitment so WAMC listeners can hear different points of view will be the candle that lights the voices that will forever hear truth in our hearts and not die and not be afraid to take on the Bushies and their minions the Cheneys and attacking our Constitutional rights, our First Amendment, and the good Lord willing will make WAMC's newest goal a reality."

Mr. Chartock said that tax-deductible contributions should be made to the 'WAMC Museum Fund' in care of the station.

The Mount's manicured lawns and gardens will offer Mr. Chartock the peace, quiet, open space, and sweeping vistas necessary to enable him to compose prose and commentary.-- Credit: Kevin Sprague, Copyright 2006, All Rights Reserved.

A special four-week, on-air fund drive to raise the $8.7 million is set for the beginning of the summer tourist season and will culminate with 'WAMC Day' at Tanglewood, an all-day affair which will include a gala black-tie, invitation-only dinner followed by a concert in the Koussevitzky Music Shed and fireworks.

Former New York State Democratic Governors Mario M. Cuomo and Eliot Spitzer will make special guest appearances at WAMC Day at Tanglewood.


The concert will feature performances by James Taylor, Pete Seeger, Jay Unger and Molly Mason, with special guest appearances by 'Prairie Home Companion' host Garrison Keillor, and two former New York State Democratic Governors, Mario M. Cuomo and Eliot Spitzer. <<<<<

Edith Wharton's Library: A Benefactor's Largess Misappropriated?

$744,000 Meant for Books Was Used To Cover 'Operating Deficit' -- Private Lender Still Waiting to Be Paid.

It has been reported that Edith Wharton Restoration, Inc. (EWRI) agreed to purchase Ms. Wharton's personal library for $2.6 million from British book collector George Ramsden, and that facilitating this purchase were part-time Stockbridge residents Robert G. and Elisabeth Wilmers, who generously provided financing -- a bridge loan -- to allow the transaction to occur.

Unfortunately, as with much else regarding the murky finances at The Mount, smoke and mirrors abound in this Wharton-inspired tale, and things are not as they appear.

For example, right now it is unclear precisely what the specific terms were of the December, 2005 purchase agreement with Mr. Ramsden because The Mount has so far refused to make the agreement public.

Yet, one thing is known for sure, the $2.5 million loan that allowed the transaction to take place has yet to be repaid.

Mr. Wilmers, a former CEO of M&T Bank from Buffalo, New York, with his wife, loaned the money to EWRI on November 30th, 2005, just two weeks before The Mount's CEO, Stephanie Copeland, flew to England and, with great fanfare (a New York Times correspondent was present), signed the purchase agreement with Mr. Ramsden that would bring the leather-bound collection back to the United States.

Photo: First Lady Laura Bush Visits The Mount, April 24, 2006. From left: Stephanie Copeland, president & ceo, Edith Wharton Restoration, Inc.; Robert and Elisabeth Wilmers, benefactors; Lord Christopher Tugendhat, British investment banker (and future trustee); First Lady Laura Bush; and George Ramsden, book collector and seller. -- Credit: Kevin Sprague, Copyright 2006, All Rights Reserved.

The Berkshire Eagle reported that Mr. Wilmers "was to be paid in full by Dec. 31, 2007. He has not been paid; he declined a request for an interview this week."

Not only did EWRI fail to repay the Wilmers, but $744,700 of the loan they arranged appears never to have been used for the purpose the Wilmers specifically intended, that being to buy the Wharton collection and bring it back to its original home in Lenox.

It is clear from the inception that the bank-savvy Wilmer's notion of providing a bridge loan as a means to procure the historic library did not also encompass using the proceeds to pay the organization's monthly obligations or various other debts.

The evidence for this comes from one of The Mount's newest trustees, Lord Christopher Tugendhat, a former British politician who acknowledges being the 'facilitator' who brought the sides back together when the book deal appeared to be going nowhere.

Photo: Lord Christopher Tugendhat, British investment banker (and future trustee), April 24, 2006. -- Credit: Kevin Sprague, Copyright 2006, All Rights Reserved.

An investment banker and former Conservative Member of the British Parliament, Lord Tugendhat, in September 2006, became an EWRI trustee, one of three newly appointed to the board.

Shortly thereafter, for the The Mount's Winter 2007 Annual News & Financial Report, the life peer penned an article aptly entitled "Christopher Tugendhat recounts his pivotal role in the library acquisition." [p.8]

In the following excerpt, the British businessman describes Robert Wilmers' intentions regarding the library acquisition:
"It was a few months after this that Robert Wilmers re-entered the scene with a crucial intervention. He had kept in touch with what was going on and decided that decisive action was required. Would a deal be possible, he asked, if the financial means were forthcoming, or were there other factors in the way? I told Stephanie [Copeland] I was sure a deal was attainable since I believed we had won George's [Ramsden] confidence on all the non-financial issues. With the backing of Robert and Elisabeth [Wilmers] a revised proposition was then produced designed to enable the hands not just to touch but to shake. So again I took the train to York [England], again I was let loose among the books and again Jane [Ramsden] prepared a delicious lunch. This time though the denouement was very different. When I told George what The Mount had in mind, he immediately indicated that so long as the lawyers and accountants were happy a deal would be forthcoming. And so it was."

From Lord Tugendhat's description, it is plain that Robert Wilmers' intention was to create the 'financial means' and make them 'forthcoming', all to make possible a 'deal' that would result in The Mount's acquisition of the collection.

There is not the slightest implication in Lord Tugendhat's memoir that Mr. Wilmers was intending any of his bridge loan to finance The Mount's operations or to cover any debt.

According to an individual familiar with EWRI, the original purchase agreement stipulated a price of £1,500,000 (British pounds or GBP) to be paid the bookseller in exchange for his collection of Ms. Wharton's extensive library of colorful leather volumes.

At the currency conversion rate in effect that day, December 12th, one British pound (GBP) was equal to 1.75530 US Dollars (USD), and meant the collection was valued at over $2.63 million USD.

Rather than paying Mr. Ramsden the entire sum though, EWRI instead paid him £1,000,000 at the closing and signed a note committing itself to pay the remaining £500,000 in ten annual installments of £50,000.

In American dollars, that meant a purchase price of $2,632,950 with Mr. Ramsden receiving upfront $1,755,300 USD (£1,000,000 x 1.75530), with the 10-year note then worth $877,650 at $87,765 per installment.

(With currency exchange now strongly favoring the British pound, the cost in American dollars today to pay off that note will be considerably higher.)

John Keegan, CPA, EWRI's long-time auditor and tax preparer, of the Pittsfield firm, Lombardi, Clairmont & Keegan, claims that the £500,000 note to Mr. Ramsden is interest-free.

When it was pointed out that EWRI's FY2007 IRS Form 990 [p.24] shows the note being carried on The Mount's books at 8% [p.25], with the total number of British pounds owed Mr. Ramsden seemingly being compounded annually, Mr. Keegan said that standard bookkeeping practice requires notating and calculating interest, whether or not interest is actually being charged.

At close of FY 2007, EWRI's Form 990 shows the amount owed Mr. Ramsden had risen to £607,254 [p.24].

Mr. Ramsden is supposed to receive his final installment by Dec. 12, 2015, but according to The Berkshire Eagle: "The Mount paid him in 2006, but Ramsden did not receive his second payment last year."

Meanwhile, the unsecured $2,500,000 bridge loan from Mr. Wilmers, the one used to pay Mr. Ramsden his initial $1.75 million, is being carried at 4.04%, according to the Form 990, and is 'Due on demand' [p.25].

After subtracting the $1.75 million paid Mr. Ramsden from the $2.5 million loaned EWRI by Mr. Wilmers, there still remains exactly $744,700 the dispersal of which has yet to have had a public accounting or substantive explanation by EWRI officials.

While for certain there were expenses related to packing, securing and insuring the valuable library, as well as shipping all that paper and leather 3,500 miles to Lenox, Massachusetts from Settrington, England, none of that cost would account for the bulk of the 'missing' money.

Susan Wissler, vice president of The Mount, in an interview with The Berkshire Eagle, said "the balance went to cover some operating deficit."

Not much of an answer, nor very detailed, from the person whose signature actually graces the Form 990 return to IRS.

So the question remains, just what did happen to all that money? <<<<<

Related Articles:
Edith Wharton Restoration: Living the 'Gilded' Life While Wallowing in Massive Debt.
Edith Wharton to IRS: "Mount This!" -- Failure to report 'fringe benefits' could leave CEO, Trustees at The Mount liable.

Edith Wharton Restoration: Living the 'Gilded' Life While Wallowing in Massive Debt.

The Mount's fiscal woes are not going to be resolved anytime soon, and certainly not until the organization can get a handle on its incredibly profligate spending habits.

It also needs to start complying with basic IRS reporting requirements governing tax-exempts.

For example, during The Mount's slow season, CEO Stephanie Copeland enjoys full and free use of a furnished luxury studio apartment in a mid-town Manhattan high-rise.

This contributes to the current fiscal drain on the organization at the rate of "about $2,439 per month", according to The Berkshire Eagle.

In summer, when Ms. Copeland spends most of her time in the Berkshires, the unit is sublet.

Photo: Stephanie Copeland, President and CEO , Edith Wharton Restoration, Inc. at The Mount in 2003. -- Credit: Lesley Ann Beck for Berkshires Week.

A source familiar with the organization claims Ms. Copeland is fund-raising in the city and alleges that her efforts there bring in 70% of the organization's donations.

Yet, The Mount subsidizes Ms. Copeland's personal use of this dwelling despite the organization's years of withering cash flow and financial hardship that recently culminated in it missing its February mortgage payment to Berkshire Bank (two separate loans actually, one at an interest rate of 7.0%, the other at a whopping 8.75%, both collateralized by real estate [p.25]).

With The Mount unable to pull in sufficient operating capital for so many years now, it would appear that Ms. Copeland's 'fund-raising' efforts in Manhattan do not warrant keeping the expensive outpost that doubles as her pied-à-terre in the City.

(And with the CEO in New York all the time, just who is reaching out to the hearts and wallets of Boston's arts and social glitterati?)

Further, The Mount sent its CEO and at least one other official on overseas 'tours' last year, all in the name of fund-raising, of course, but at a time when the organization was just months away from insolvency, if not already totally broke.

The first, in late June, a 12-day cruise to the Mediterranean, which according to The Mount's Winter 2007 Annual News & Financial Report [p.13], included accommodations "aboard a luxurious 114-guest yacht to retrace Wharton's 1888 journey through this ancient sea", plying the waves on the Corinthian II and traveling "in elegant style worthy of the Gilded Age."
(Tour itinerary)


The 114-guest luxury yacht, Corinthian II. Stephanie Copeland, CEO of The Mount, cruised aboard while 'fund-raising' for the tax-exempt organization.

(Elegant indeed, it's worthwhile remembering that at the time Edith Wharton took this very same frill-filled, spare-no-expense journey, she was already well-to-do having been born into a wealthy family, and thus had the means to spend money as she desired. She was not taking from a publicly-supported charity to support her lifestyle.)

Ms. Copeland was aboard, of course, supposedly 'fund-raising' whilst visiting "Sicily and the Aegean, including stops in Palermo, Syracuse, Santorini, and Rhodes", and all this co-sponsored with the Alumnae Associations of four Ivy-League colleges.

Back in the Berkshires, with time out during the summer to take in the cool breezes off the back porch at The Mount, and having only just caught her breath from her breathless sea adventure, Ms. Copeland then embarked on her second Edith Wharton excursion of the year.

This one commenced in October and lasted for 13 days.

She was accompanied this time by another official with the organization, and continued her 'fund-raising', this time throughout Morocco on the coast of North Africa.
(Tour itinerary)

The two Edith Wharton Restoration, Inc. executives apparently enjoyed "sumptuous lodging and fine dining", visiting "private homes, gardens, and palaces in the red and white cities of Rabat and Sale, medieval Fes, the Roman ruins of Volubilis, and Marrakech, and much more," according to the Annual Report.

A view of Rabat in Morocco. Stephanie Copeland, CEO of The Mount, accompanied by another organization official, visited the ancient city while 'fund-raising' for the 'not-for-profit'.

This jaunt, sun-bleach included, was "Sponsored by The Mount".

Perhaps the most revealing aspect to these executive vacations (working or not) is the insight they give into the managerial competence of Ms. Copeland, as well as to the individual herself.

She took not one, but two extended overseas jaunts at a time when her organization was metaphorically bleeding-to-death (which problem partly was due to her free-spending decisions as CEO).

Significant too, is that neither vacation was paid for by Ms. Copeland herself in spite of her $97,000 annual salary.

As mentioned above, The Mount co-sponsored the first, and entirely foot the bill for the second.

So at a time when fiscal austerity would have been the prudent course of action at Edith Wharton Restoration, Inc., with an overwhelming need for critical attention to be paid to the urgent task at hand of raising from as many as possible emergency sums to keep up with the organization's crushing debtload, Ms. Copeland was off retracing Edith Wharton's wanderlust.

Quite telling also was Ms. Copeland's seeming need to emulate Ms. Wharton's privileged 'life experience' by, of course, traveling first-class in sumptuous Gilded Age style. (Too bad Ms. Copeland didn't see fit also to emulate Ms. Wharton's habit of paying her own way.)

Wouldn't Ms. Copeland's fund-raising expertise and valuable time have been better utilized rustling up donors from amongst her society contacts in New York and Easthampton?

And if help weren't available there, what would've been wrong with casting for life lines amongst the swells on Beacon Hill, Back Bay, Chestnut Hill, Provincetown, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket (all located, dare one be reminded, in The Mount's home state)?

Failing that, there are the literary-atuned in Philadelphia and Washington, D.C..

Ms. Copeland's time and the organization's dwindling resources would surely have been better spent reaching out within the wealthiest country on Earth, rather than sightseeing in the Mediterranean and in Moroccan shopping bazaars.

To make matters worse, and for reasons as yet unexplained by John Keegan, CPA, the organization's long-time auditor and tax preparer, of the Pittsfield firm, Lombardi, Clairmont & Keegan, The Mount has failed to report its CEO's (and other key employees') various 'perks' anywhere on its annual IRS Form 990 return even though the CEO's use, for example, of the NYC digs appears to meet the IRS definition of a 'taxable fringe benefit' for which Ms. Copeland may be liable for federal income tax (in which case the organization would also be responsible for handing over to IRS the applicable withholding tax).

There is also the small matter of the organization's $130,642 foreign currency transaction loss briefly noted on page 21 of the Fiscal 2007, Form 990.

What is the nature of this transaction, and just how does a literary arts institution/museum in western Massachusetts manage to sustain a foreign currency loss of any amount, let alone one of such magnitude?

Foreign currency transactions and the high risks associated with them are generally the province of billionaires like George Soros, and international goliaths the size of General Electric Company.

Until Edith Wharton Restoration, Inc. stops operating like a rigged Las Vegas slot-machine calibrated to go off only when its CEO puts in her token, there's little reason to believe this organization is going to survive -- and large creditors like publicly-traded Berkshire Bank ought to take heed, and stop the shenanigans.

That or be prepared to write off a whopping loss. <<<<

Related articles:
Edith Wharton to IRS: 'Mount This!' -- Failure to report 'fringe benefits' could leave CEO, Trustees at The Mount liable.
TAX CHEAT! How Alan Chartock conspired with WAMC to avoid paying IRS -- Failure to report CEO's taxable 'perks' could leave trustees liable.

Sorry, Eliot! It Wasn't My Fault!

It was the cell phone!

We were talking (I have Sprint, Spitzer's got Verizon) and I was giving Eliot financial advice because he's been worried about his investments, and I thought I quite plainly said:
"Eliot, eschew risk in foreign exchange and CD's!"
Well, he thought I said: "Screw Kristen for a change in DC!"
Damn it! That's the last time I give anyone advice over a cell phone!

Democrat New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer

Ashley Alexandra Dupre aka "Kristen"

Who Dropped the Dime on Eliot Spitzer?

In Re: Client #9

The Whole Thing Was A Set-Up!

Whatever you may think of Eliot Spitzer, it appears this whole investigation and prosecution was a 'set-up' from the very start -- meaning that Mr. Spitzer's enemies were looking to get him on anything they could.

(And they may or may not have had good cause depending upon what one thinks of the Democrat Governor's general performance since his swearing-in.)

The escort service bust and the telephone taps leading up to it were merely the vehicles by which Mr. Spitzer's political enemies got him.

(No doubt Mr. Spitzer gave his enemies the shovels with which to bury him by frequenting an escort service, but don't be misled into thinking that Spitzer just happened to get caught up in the bust of a prostitution ring. Spitzer was always the original target. The particular escort service he was using -- and whose principals ultimately got indicted -- merely got caught up in the cross-hairs of those in pursuit of this Governor.)

I say all this because if you carefully read the actual criminal complaint (all 55 mind-numbing pages of it), it emerges that the sections dealing with 'Client 9' (Spitzer) reveal far more lurid details than any of the sections dealing with any of the other 'clients'.

To me this says that the writers of the complaint wanted as much as possible to draw particular attention to the specific actions and words of that unnamed ninth client.

The real intent, of course, in all this became crystal clear when conveniently it was repeatedly publicized throughout the day's media frenzy just exactly which number client Mr. Spitzer happened to be.

It all seemed just too pat and staged.

Also, in a separate ABC News story by Brian Ross, he writes:
"The suspicious financial activity was initially reported by a bank to the IRS which, under direction from the Justice Department, brought in the FBI's Public Corruption Squad.'We had no interest at all in the prostitution ring until the thing with Spitzer led us to learn about it,' said one Justice Department official."

"(T)he thing with Spitzer" were his large cash withdrawals.

These are what led investigators to look into what Spitzer was doing with that cash, and ultimately to the activities at the escort service.

In addition, the complaint quotes 'Client 9' as expressing a need to visit an ATM cash machine to withdraw more money, this in order to pay his escort and her agency not just the requested balance due for the lady's services, but a substantial additional sum -- so that there would be a credit balance next time client Spitzer desired to engage the firm. (He'd used the agency in the past.)

This is the obvious indication, therefore, that Spitzer was using his local ATM to withdraw cash (thus sparing having to deal with the inquiring eyes -- and questioning thoughts -- of a bank teller).

(This escort agency's firm policy was to get a large deposit up-front -- at times 55% of the $1000 - $5000 per hour rates. This sum was requested to be deposited to a seemingly non-descript business account in cash, money order, wire transfer or American Express card -- no Mastercard or Visa welcomed here, thank you! In the case of Client 9, it appears the deposit was received via mail because, according to the complaint, "Client-9 would not do traditional wire transferring" [Para.74].)

Sounds to me that at Spitzer's bank, the ATM supervisor (or head teller) may have noticed large cash withdrawals from the machines from certain accounts and decided to check out just to whom exactly those account(s) were listed -- not an unusual practice in this age when federal and bank officials are worried about terror groups sending large amounts of cash overseas to other terrorists.

So anyway, once it was determined by the bank that it was actually the Governor of New York who was withdrawing large sums of cash from his account(s), then the next obvious question is: Why?

Meaning: Why does a family man need $3,000 - $6,000 in walking-around money when he's likely got plenty of credit cards in addition to a state-provided limousine, chauffeur, and trooper contingent?

(Even Warren Buffett is known to carry only about 300 to 400 bucks in his wallet at any one time.)

Who is to say then that whomever it was (the ATM teller, the head teller, the bank manager, the bank president, the bank prez's Wall Street squash partner) with access to this tantalizing and invaluable tidbit of information -- that the arrogant, seemingly straight-arrow and invincible, mean-ass former prosecutor Governor of New York was periodically making large cash withdrawals for unknown purposes -- didn't direct this morsel to the table of the Governor's hungriest and most determined enemies?

From that point on the menu was set, and the goose cooked. <<<

Edith Wharton to IRS: "Mount This!"

Failure to report 'fringe benefits' could leave CEO, Trustees at The Mount liable.

Stephanie Copeland, president and CEO at Edith Wharton Restoration, Inc. (EWRI) has been associated with The Mount for years and years.
She's even had the honor of receiving a Preserve America Presidential Award given her in 2005 by Pres. George W. Bush.
She resides in Stockbridge, and during the long Berkshire winters when business at the Lenox attraction is slow, Ms. Copeland continues her organization's fund-raising efforts 150 miles to the south in mid-town Manhattan, where she stays for extended periods.
Ms. Copeland's annual salary at $97,116 is considered respectable for Berkshire County (median income for a household here is $39,047).
Yet, according to the Manhattan telephone directory, it is not Ms. Copeland but rather EWRI to which a phone at 500 West 56th Street is listed.
Trouble is the 20-story building at that address, The Westport, billed as "One of the Premiere Luxury Rentals in New York City," is a residential apartment complex.
(The Westport's units include studios starting at $2,695 up to 2-bedrooms starting at $5,595 monthly.)


Photo: President George W. Bush and Laura Bush present the 2005 Preserve America Presidential Award to members of the Edith Wharton Restoration in the Oval Office Monday, May 2, 2005. They are, from left, Barbara de Marneffe, Co-Chairman, Board of Trustees of Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Stephanie Copeland, President and CEO, of Stockbridge, Massachusetts. (White House photo by Eric Draper)

When a call was made today to The Westport, the fellow answering in the leasing department confirmed that the building is zoned residential, and that it is not an office building nor is it supposed to lease to commercial tenants.
Dialing EWRI's Manhattan number generates a series of different rings and ultimately forwards the caller to what sounds like a distant fax machine or computer.
First off, why is a not-for-profit organization maintaining an expensive NYC branch office when it's millions of dollars in the hole, and for years has had severe cash flow problems?
Next, since EWRI allegedly maintains this outpost for purposes of fund-raising, why are its offices in a residential building?
Finally, even were there a legitimate business rationale for The Mount to maintain an expensive perch so far from its Plunkett Street base, should the organization be subsidizing a space that doubles as overnight lodging (or longer-term accommodations) for a favored few?



Photo: Stephanie Copeland in front of The Mount, Lenox, Mass. -- Credit: Nathaniel Brooks for The New York Times.


Under regulations governing tax-exempts, accommodations bought and paid for by charity organizations aren't free for the personal use of organization officials.
They're considered a taxable fringe benefit.
Those getting use of them owe extra federal income tax, and all information relevant to those transactions is supposed to be reported to IRS.
If EWRI is not reporting such transactions, or is reporting them inaccurately, then EWRI is running afoul of IRS regulations (in addition to its other current woes).
In looking at EWRI's most recent annual Form 990 filings, for fiscal 2007, 2006, and 2005, EWRI has reported to IRS that it paid zero dollars towards 'expense account and other allowances' going to EWRI's "Current officers, directors, trustees and key employees".
IRS defines 'expense account' as including any taxable fringe benefit or perquisite paid to the recipient.
Organization-provided lodging has a value and it's supposed to be calculated using what it would cost to obtain similar lodging at fair-market prices in an arm's-length transaction.
Using The Westport's published rental figures above as an arm's-length, fair-market guide, that would mean the benefit recipient owes federal income taxes on the value of a month's stay as if that recipient were getting paid by EWRI an extra $2,700 to $5,600 monthly.
Like I said, all this data is supposed to be -- is required to be -- reported annually to IRS on EWRI's Form 990, Part V-A.
Likewise, it is supposed to be duly noted in another section of Form 990, specifically in 'Schedule A, Part III' where the preparer is asked whether the organization furnished 'goods, services, or facilities' to 'trustees,' 'officers' or 'key employees'?
EWRI has annually reported 'No'.


The Westport at 500 West 56th Street offers luxury residential apartments in Mid-town Manhattan.

In addition to the issue of providing faulty information to IRS (which is concerned with the obvious possibility of tax evasion by those whose perks are not being reported), there is also the matter of 'self-dealing', the furnishing of services to a foundation trustee or manager without charge or at a price below fair market value.
In cases where IRS determines that self-dealing has occurred, the agency can level on the offender an additional five percent excise tax on each act of self-dealing.
As additional punishment for allowing it to happen, the agency can level an excess benefits excise tax on an organization's entire board.
It is quite clear that EWRI's board of trustees, its CEO, and its auditor need to explain what exactly is going on with EWRI's mid-town pied-à-terre. <<<<<
(Editor's Note: The author's familiarity with IRS regulations as they apply to tax-exempt organizations came about as the result of an extensive investigative report written in 2006 about the failure of another Berkshire 'not-for-profit', WAMC Northeast Public Radio, to report to IRS the taxable fringe benefits and perks paid to its CEO over the course of twenty-plus years. See: "TAX CHEAT! How Alan Chartock conspired with WAMC to avoid paying IRS".)

William F. Buckley, Jr. (1925-2008)

Photos taken at National Review's 50th anniversary celebration held October 6th, 2005 at the National Building Museum in Washington, DC.
All photos in this layout © Copyright 2005 Glenn M. Heller

William F. Buckley, Jr. seated with U.S. Senator and Mrs. Joseph Lieberman, and conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

Buckley heading for the podium.


Buckley greeting (and attempting to calm) a standing ovation.

William F. Buckley, Jr. addressing the assemblage amongst the massive pillars at the National Building Museum in Washington, DC.















Buckley at the podium.




Buckley greeting well-wishers.

Buckley signing autographs.

Trashing Bill O'Reilly -- Professional Jealousy or Sanctimonious Drivel? ---- The Berkshire Eagle Dumps on the King of Fox News!




Top: Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly of The O'Reilly Factor.
Middle: Milton Bass, Berkshire Eagle columnist, on a trip in Switzerland, a few years ago.
Bottom: Clarence Fanto, Berkshire Eagle columnist and former editor.


What is it with The Berkshire Eagle's columnists Milton Bass and Clarence Fanto?
They both feel the need to rant about Bill O'Reilly and anyone else affiliated with Fox News, traditionalism, or political Conservatism.
Bass ought to stick with a subject he knows something about: music -- especially jazz.
Given Bass's and Fanto's predisposition for dismal, too often factually-challenged, quasi-Socialist commentary, Bass's review today (and Fanto's of 12/28) will likely not disappoint their hundreds of loyal Berkshire fans.
(Both columns are reproduced below in their entirety due to The Eagle's inexplicable habit of mysteriously deleting articles from its own Web archives.)
According to Fanto, he and O'Reilly even shared proximity at CBS News in the early 1980's at an early stage in both their careers.
So how has it come to pass that competing against the best journalists the other networks have to offer, O'Reilly has succeeded in becoming one of the nation's pre-eminent broadcasters -- watched, listened to, and read (even admired) by millions?
The O'Reilly Factor beats ... no, correct that ... destroys its competition -- at MSNBC, CNBC, and CNN -- nightly in the Nielsen ratings war.
Whereas, what is the career status of Mr. Bass and Mr. Fanto?
Best we can tell they're at the peak of their respective powers right now.
Their columns appear regularly (and seemingly only) in a New England daily best known for its former glory, but now mostly for struggling with withering circulation.
In addition, while Bass sanctimoniously rails against O'Reilly's personal ethics for an alleged involvement in a sexual harassment matter at the office, and Fanto targets what he calls O'Reilly's 'ultra-right demagoguery' and 'propaganda techniques', it cannot help but be noticed that neither columnist has ever uttered a peep when media people in The Eagle's own figurative front yard commit the same transgressions for which O'Reilly is being trashed.
The "political venom" referenced by Fanto is indeed "spewed daily" on-air right here in Berkshire County.
Local radio/TV superstar commentator and fellow Eagle columnist Alan Chartock has a reputation throughout seven states for ultra-left demagoguery and shrill propagandizing against the Bush Administration, American foreign policy, and the Republican Party.
(A Washington, D.C.-based NPR news producer who heard one of Chartock's rants while driving through upstate New York even remarked on it to a Baltimore reporter saying, “If you took a photo of me in the car my jaw would have been on the floor.")
While Bass focuses on O'Reilly's alleged treatment of a single co-worker, compare that to the repeated allegations against Chartock, whose absolute control at WAMC Northeast Public Radio for 27-years, has resulted in a lurid history of regrettable office behavior -- accusations he, of course, also denies.
(Of perhaps greater import, though -- the thing that should assumedly matter to holier-than-thou, finger-pointing types like Bass and Fanto: The retired SUNY professor apparently enjoys an almost total lack of fiscal accountability at his $7 million-a-year Albany-based public broadcasting charity cum cash machine. Fanto's stunning lack of curiosity on this latter point cannot be so easily excused. His most recent full-time position was as WAMC's news director, hired by Chartock. Fanto thus appears to be ethically-challenged, at least when it pays to look the other way.)
Bass also claims that "O'Reilly's TV ratings went up considerably" during the co-worker "ordeal", and that somehow this tells us "a great deal about the people who watch him."
This slap at O'Reilly's audience could just as easily be aimed at the WAMC audience who regularly listen to Chartock's loony rants.
Chartock is able to meet ever-higher fundraising goals at WAMC in spite of (or perhaps because of) the professor's ultra-left rhetoric and dominance of the station's talk format.
Is it not analogous to say that his audience's continued and increasing support for WAMC translates into telling us a great deal about those who would actually tune in regularly to this venomous propaganda?
Bass's and Fanto's disingenuous diatribes about O'Reilly make us wonder whether either has ever actually watched The Factor (rather than just regurgitated what Web sites like MediaMatters.org say), let alone been regular viewers.
It sure doesn't sound like it because their respective claims that the program puts forth lies and displays a bias are wholly without merit.
Sure, O'Reilly has his strongly-expressed personal points of view, but then so does the Bush/Cheney-hating Chartock, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, NBC's Chris Matthews, NPR's Daniel Schorr, PBS's Bill Moyers, and every other network 'commentator'.
Yet, O'Reilly also takes pains nightly on his program to interview those whose views directly contradict or contrast his own and/or those of his other guests.
He offers guests a world-class soapbox (The Factor has worldwide distribution) from which to clarify their respective positions without 'bloviating' (O'Reilly's favorite word).
In fact, one notable invitee who has steadfastly refused (without explanation) O'Reilly's invitation to appear on camera is none other than Great Barrington's own Selectboard co-chairman Ronald Dlugosz.
It was Dlugosz whose misguided political correctness regarding the town's pathetic Christmas lights display generated in the first place the present controversy for which The Eagle is now eviscerating The Factor host.
So it certainly can't be said that O'Reilly doesn't at least try to be fair.
(Versus The Eagle whose editors will either refuse to publish letters-to-the-editor with which they strongly disagree (like a shortened version of this column), or simply fail to enable their Web site's 'Comments' function on opinion pieces written by Bass, Fanto, Chartock and other dilettantes for whom the editors decide that readers' Internet responses will not be allowed.)
It's as though Bass and Fanto blame O'Reilly because some of those news makers upon whom he focuses his Factor spotlight, like Dlugosz, chicken out and refuse the opportunity to go on record to clarify and/or to defend the actions and/or positions they take.
What makes O'Reilly different -- and the real reason why Bass and Fanto (and by extension their enablers at The Eagle) are taking after him -- is because O'Reilly disdains the Liberal dogma that Bass and Fanto (and most so-called mainstream media) embrace.
The self-righteous Fanto stridently proclaims that "O'Reilly and his ilk ..... spew out a venomous blend of overheated pro-war, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-"socialized medicine," anti-women's rights rhetoric that helps poison the nation's political and social discourse."
Anybody familiar with O'Reilly on-air or in-print knows this is just plain hogwash (and if anything, putting forth such blatant untruths and misstatements of fact reveals gobs about Fanto's own warped left-leaning mindset).
The Factor program and O'Reilly himself are admired by regular viewers (whose loyalty has been hard won over the years) specifically because the show makes a determined effort to provide the Fairness and Balance about which parent Fox News is always bragging and has a lot riding.
This effort has paid off, in audience and advertising revenue, especially when one compares F&B on The Factor to the ofttimes utter lack of it in news programming cranked out nightly by ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC (these last two being called by wags, respectively, the Clinton News Network and the New Clinton News Network).
Now in comparison, Bass's and Fanto's angry charges and uber-Left excoriation are regularly read and admired by a Berkshire audience of -- would it be exaggerating to say a few thousand?
(Of which many of these are best described as the paranoid, delusional political fringe -- the types who steadfastly maintain that Al Gore and John Kerry actually did win but were robbed of victory, and that controlled demolition is what brought down the WTC on 9/11.)
Kudos, Milton and Clarence!
Looking forward to your respective next big career moves.
Waiting especially for the two of you to make that long-awaited jump to cable TV.
I can just see it now: "The Bass and Fanto Factor" on Pittsfield Community Television.
At least it's likely to have a good jazz intro!
* * * * *
The Lively World
O'Reilly's sleazy résumé
By Milton Bass
Sunday, January 06
RICHMOND

There's no denying Bill O'Reilly has the tickets to be a news commentator on cable television. His education has been textbook with both undergraduate and graduate degrees from top colleges and universities, and his experience as a reporter and analyst all over the world has been outstanding.
He is also a genius at marketing. He knows what a certain segment of the public wants and he directs his viewpoints straight at them. He has established himself as an ultimate Catholic who single-handedly protects Christianity from the pagan hordes that have them completely surrounded, and he is also the Ultimate Patriot who smites the enemies of the United States wherever they might stand, sit or creep.
As a consequence he has the highest-rated "news" show on cable television and something over three million rabid listeners on the 400 radio stations that broadcast his program. He also writes a syndicated column and has had seven books published.
The problem with all this is that the man is obviously of low moral character and has hurt many worthwhile people with his righteous wrangling and wrongful purposes. The most recent victim has been the town of Great Barrington and its Selectmen. The excuse for the attack was that Great Barrington shut its (Christmas) (holiday) lights off at 10 p.m. in its bit to save electricity and help contain global warming. An O'Reilly producer came to a Selectmen's meeting with the program's version of "When did you stop beating your wife?" and then showed selected bits on the O'Reilly program. As a result of this, vicious e-mails, containing threats and vituperations of the basest sort, were sent by O'Reilly regulars to Great Barrington and environs. Peace on earth, good will to men.
The thing about O'Reilly (God's henchman), however, is that the history of the man has been lost because he keeps launching attacks that keep everybody so busy that they don't have time to bring up his résumé.
In 2004, which is just three years ago, a 33-year-old female producer on O'Reilly's TV show sued him for "sexual harassment." She brought the suit because O'Reilly had launched a suit against her claiming she was trying to shake him down for $60 million, which happened to be the amount grossed yearly by O'Reilly's show at that time.
The producer, Andrea Mackris, claimed that the then 55-year-old O'Reilly through personal conversations, a great many of them by telephone, made her feel "absolutely threatened" and forced her to earn her living in "a hostile work environment." She claimed in her lawsuit that O'Reilly continually insisted on describing sexual fantasies, masturbation and the use of vibrators, a practice in which he seemed to consider himself a master teacher. She said that he sometimes obviously "pleasured himself" while describing these things to her on the phone.
The details were so graphic that objective bystanders figured the young woman had taped some of these conversations after they had been going on for a while. She claimed that O'Reilly continually talked about how powerful he was and that he could assemble a horde of lawyers that would beat down anyone who opposed him in any legal matter. He also implied that Roger Ailes, the president of the Fox News Channel, had the power of extra-legal means to take care of any enemies that might take on O'Reilly.
Mackris hired a powerful legal team of her own and negotiations began. Word on the street was that parley broke off when the Mackris people felt that an offer of $2 million from O'Reilly was not enough to stop the matter from going to trial. However, before too much time elapsed a settlement was reached and all parties agreed to keep silent on how much money changed hands. O'Reilly was making about $9 million a year at the time and Fox was part of the settlement so there was much conjecture about how many million dollars the young woman received.
O'Reilly made a statement that there was "no wrongdoing in the case whatsoever by anyone" and he ended what he considered a "brutal ordeal" without issuing an apology. The young lady subsequently purchased two condos in New York so her ordeal seemed to end comfortably. By the by, O'Reilly's TV ratings went up considerably during his "ordeal." Which tells you a great deal about the people who watch him and send out vicious e-mails in his behalf.
For those who might be interested in what Mackris claimed to have endured, the court file is available for view on the Internet.
So this is the man who has set himself up as the defender of the faith and the protector of his country. He calls himself an independent, but it is obvious where his political agenda lies. And lies and lies and lies.
Great Barrington has been besmirched in that it was forced to be part of his machinations. If you do not wish to watch O'Reilly in person, Stephen Colbert is more than a reasonable facsimile and quite funny in his impersonation of "the real thing."
Milton Bass is a regular Eagle contributor.
* * * * *
Bill O'Reilly: Voice of fear and ignorance
By Clarence Fanto
Friday, December 28
The recent dustup between blowhard broadcaster Bill O'Reilly and the Great Barrington Select Board over holiday lights is a wake-up call for many here in the Berkshires who are insulated from the hard-right political venom spewed daily over the nation's commercial radio airwaves as well as via cable or satellite on the Fox News Channel.
O'Reilly and his ilk, including Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and Glenn Beck, reach an estimated 30 million-plus Americans every day as they spew out a venomous blend of overheated pro-war, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-"socialized medicine," anti-women's rights rhetoric that helps poison the nation's political and social discourse.
Unfortunately, they far outnumber, in reach and influence, the liberal Keith Olbermann on MSNBC and the temporarily-sidelined equal-opportunity political satirist Jon Stewart and his fellow Comedy Channel protégé Stephen Colbert (whose faux-right wing spoof of O'Reilly & Co. is so spot-on that some viewers don't see through it). They've been sorely missed, even though the Writers Guild of America strike they've honored by remaining off the air is a just cause. They'll be back, most likely without their writing staffs, on Jan. 7.
Ultra-right demagoguery has a long, dishonorable history in American broadcasting, dating back to the radio days of the late 1930s, when Father Charles Coughlin's anti-Semitic, pro-Fascist ravings found an all-too-ready audience of sympathizers. Famously, he blamed the Great Depression on an "international conspiracy of Jewish bankers," the same group he claimed was responsible for the Russian Revolution.
Carried by hundreds of stations via CBS Radio (!) and, by some estimates, reaching as many as one-third of Americans, Coughlin's sympathetic expressions of support for Hitler and Mussolini finally were forced off the air in 1939 after Nazi Germany invaded Poland, a precursor to U.S. involvement in World War II. But other, less extreme right-wing broadcasters like Boake Carter and Fulton Lewis, Jr. continued to attract huge audiences.
University of Indiana media researchers released a study of O'Reilly's commentaries earlier this year, finding that he consistently vilifies certain groups and presents others as victims as part of his skewed world view. The analysis found that the broadcaster used derogatory names every 6.8 seconds, on average, during the "Talking Points Memo" segment of his infamous, ironically titled "No Spin Zone."
"If one digs further into O'Reilly's rhetoric, it becomes clear that he sets up a pretty simplistic battle between good and evil," said Maria Elizabeth Grabe, an associate professor of telecommunications on the Bloomington campus. "Our analysis points to very specific groups and people presented as good and evil." The researcher found that O'Reilly employs propaganda techniques eerily reminiscent of those 1930s radio hatemongers.
Utilizing propaganda tools familiar to students of World War II, the researchers identified O'Reilly's major patterns, all part of his effort to inject fear into the body politic. These include name-calling, "glittering generalities," card-stacking, the bandwagon effect (catering to the widespread desire to follow the crowd), and a pseudo-populist "plain folks" appeal to listeners in an effort to convince them that his ideas are "of the people." The Indiana University study team compared O'Reilly's approach to Father Coughlin's, even reaching the conclusion that the Fox newshound is a "heavier, less-nuanced user of propaganda devices" than Coughlin was.
Key findings pinpoint the use of fear in 52 percent of O'Reilly's commentaries — for example, he moaned that the U.S. was "slowly losing freedom and core values" at the time when "left-wing" media were "unfairly" criticizing the now-disgraced former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for his role in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.
In the World According to O'Reilly. "politicians and media, particularly of the left-leaning persuasion, are in the company of illegal aliens, criminals, terrorists — never vulnerable to villainous forces and undeserving of empathy," the study concluded. "Our results show a consistent pattern of O'Reilly casting non-Americans in a negative light. Both illegal aliens and foreigners were constructed as physical threats to the public."
Victimized by this vast left-wing conspiracy are most Americans, the U. S. military and the Bush administration, he argues as he casts himself as the chief protector of our fundamental freedoms. He's fond of inviting those he portrays as liberal East Coast elitists and "secular progressives" on his show so he can bully them into submission.
O'Reilly has every First Amendment right to air his views as he has evolved into the advocate-in-chief for neo-cons and disaffected fundamentalists. It's his style and his extremist techniques that are so offensive.
We knew O'Reilly slightly during our CBS News days in the early 1980s, when he was a promising investigative reporter and news correspondent who left the network in a huff when colleague Bob Schieffer used some film footage shot by network crews originally assigned to O'Reilly. Bloated egomania already was becoming evident.
With 10 months of the presidential campaign still ahead, O'Reilly will find plenty of fodder to support his hate-based cottage industry. The $10 million a year man is a self-described frequent visitor to the Berkshires; in the unlikely event that you encounter him on the streets of Great Barrington, be sure to give him a warm greeting.
Clarence Fanto is a regular Eagle contributor.

Search This Blog

Followers

Powered By Blogger