Time: Fri Sep 12 16:12:18 1997 by usr05.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA01340; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 11:22:35 -0700 (MST) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 11:22:25 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: Arizona: The inside scoop on the Symington Trial (fwd) <snip> > >The Daily Wildcat >University of Arizona >September 9th, 1997 > >The Symington Trial: Beyond the Superficial Glance >by Rachel Alexander > >Now that the trial of Governor Symington has reached its inevitable >conclusion, the city newspapers solicit and publish the opinion of >selected residents regardless of their knowledge of the facts behind the >trial. "I haven't been following the case, but I'm sure he got what he >deserved" is a typical quote. It appears that everyone in society is >entitled to voice their opinion on a topic, no matter how uninformed >they are on the subject. The question remains in the minds of critical >thinkers, what were the facts that led to the indictments and was the >trial and its eventual outcome reasonable? > >In 1995 Symington filed for bankruptcy because his real estate >investments did not produce enough income to allow him to sustain the >loans. Despite the fact that this was a fairly common occurrence, >because of the real estate slump at the time, and Symington only one >part of the failed Southwest Savings & Loan, which was responsible for >most of his loans, S & L Regulators encouraged the FBI to investigate >Symington individually for criminal wrong-doing. The FBI coincidentally >dropped its probe against Southwest Savings & Loan later (regarding the >Esplanade real estate), yet Symington was found guilty by the jury on >four counts involved here. > >Since there was no specific statute which Symington violated, the >prosecution turned to broad ones, cleverly using words such as "fraud" >and "extortion" in the hope that the media would run with the story and >spread negative propaganda for them. I originally had a difficult time >associating the newspaper headlines with the text of the articles >because the substance of a given article would not support the >accusation made by the headline. > >The 21 counts against Symington were repetitive accusations that he >submitted differing valuations on his personal financial statements for >the property he owned to his various lenders. There are no strict >guidelines or laws regarding this reporting and the range of values of a >given property will depend on the time and type of the appraisal. >Additional factors to consider are the cost of improvements, the >predicted cost of improvements, the length of time the property has been >on the market, and whether the value specified is the estate taxation >value, the sale of property value, or the real estate taxes condemnation >value. These were the difficult concepts that the jurors were asked to >grapple with, and none of the jurors came from a real estate background. > >The media treatment of Ms. Jane Cotey, the juror who was dismissed >during final deliberations, clearly shows a hidden agenda. Only one >paper out of five read by this author, the Mesa Tribune, actually >interviewed her. This interview revealed that juror Cotey was leaning >toward acquittal on all of the counts against Symington. The jury needed >unanimity to find Symington guilty on even one of the charges. It is >easy to find against the "rich Republican guy," especially when the jury >is composed of 6 registered Democrats and only 3 registered Republicans. > >Amazingly, the major Arizona newspapers did not bother to interview >Cotey herself, but instead took the word of the other jurors who said >she was unable to grasp the complexities of the testimony. There were >two different explanations for the juror's removal, yet little or no >credence was attributed to Cotey. This is unfortunate, because I believe >her dismissal, under the circumstances, is the reason why this case will >be remanded for retrial on appeal, to the surprise of the media and >their misinformed readers. > >One bit of irony that has not gone unnoticed is how diligently the U.S. >Attorney and press have pursued Symington when, in another failed real >estate deal involving a high government official and his wife, there >seems to be less enthusiasm and zeal in the search for the truth. One >does not have to look too hard to see the media bias when it comes to >protecting the Clintons, even with ample evidence and numerous >convictions of other key players in the Whitewater scandal. Clinton and >his partner at the time, James McDougal (currently in federal prison), >purchased a piece of land in Arkansas as a joint venture. Clinton >contributed only $500 of his own money. The rest was paid for with loans >from several banks. These loans were then repaid with loans from >McDougal's Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan, who had as their attorneys >the Rose Law firm of which Hillary was a partner. When Madison failed, >U.S. taxpayers picked up the tab. 18 USC 1344 makes it a crime to obtain >funds from a federally insured lending institution under false or >fraudulent pretenses. Unlike Symington's sprawling Phoenix developments, >Clinton produced nothing out of Whitewater. > >It is unfortunate that the media has co-opted the facts in this trial. >>From the beginning, the media has portrayed Symington as a crook, >declaring him guilty before the trial even started. Their 5-star effort >has got Republicans tripping over Democrats in the rush to apologize to >the media regarding Symington. It is sad when partisan politics, and the >mean desire to see someone fail because they are successful, outweigh >objectivity. > >http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/91/12/04_3_m.html >------- > <snip> ======================================================================== Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. ======================================================================== [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail