 | ||||
Abernathy Strategies
RepublicanGazette
Monday, April 14, 2008 "When news breaks, we fix it" Published daily except some days
Submissions welcome
The Republican Gazette welcomes Emails to the Editor and press releases. All submitted items must include the name and contact information for the author of the article, and all articles will only be published with the author's name included. Thank you for reading and participating in The Republican Gazette, another of West Virginia's most biased publications.
All opinions are those of The Republican Gazette and its editor, Gary Abernathy, except letters or commentary signed by others, and do not reflect the views of anyone else, including clients of Abernathy Strategies.
-------
Search the Republican Gazette ---->
Big story yet to come
If the media ever pursues the source of the leaked photos, it may be a shocker that makes the Monaco vacation look like jaywalking
Lawyers say photos arrived anonymously, but who sent them & why?
Front row from left: Justices Larry Starcher, Robin Davis and Spike Maynard. Back row: Justices Joe Albright and Brent Benjamin.
When lawyers for Hugh Caperton filed photos of Justice Spike Maynard and Massey CEO Don Blankenship hanging out together in Monaco, The Associated Press reported, "Bruce Stanley, a lawyer for Caperton, said the Starcher's fixation on Benjamin and Maynard
Larry Starcher just can't seem to stop thinking about Brent Benjamin. Ever since Benjamin's election to the West Virginia Supreme Court, Starcher has been so fixated on him that he seems almost incapable of dismissing him from his mind.Starcher is almost equally obsessed with Justice Spike Maynard, and last week was no different. When Starcher filed his questions to lawyers for Massey Energy and Wheeling Pitt, ostensibly to gather more information for Massey's request that he recuse himself, Starcher focused not at all on himself and almost entirely on Benjamin and Maynard. Among his questions, as reported by The Charleston Gazette:* "What will be the public perception of the fairness of the court if I step aside and a justice [Brent Benjamin] whose election was supported by Massey's CEO with more than $3.5 million remains on the case and appoints my replacement?" * "Would movants [Massey and Central West Virginia Energy] agree that it would be a good idea for both me and Justice Benjamin to step aside?"* "Is Massey guilty of 'unclean hands' by failing to affirmatively disclose the vacation and 'close friends' relationship between Mr. Blankenship and a justice on this court [Maynard]? How could Massey not disclose that vacation?"Starcher has long labored under the impression that he should decide not just recusal questions involving himself, but those involving the service of other justices as well. He plays an endless child's game of, "If I am, so are you!"He cannot seem to abide the fact that recusal questions involving other justices are strictly left to those justices, and no one is nearly as concerned about what he thinks on the subject as he presumes they should be.In fact, lawyers for both Wheeling-Pitt and Massey should simply refuse to answer Starcher's questions due to lack of relevancy. They are perfectly capable of seeking the recusal of other justices without Justice Starcher's prompting or advice.It would be a welcome change of pace for Starcher to someday file an opinion or brief not entirely laced with political rhetoric or emotion, but instead focused on the law.photos came to him anonymously." That was it.
In fact, a search of the media libraries of just about every news outlet in West Virginia seems to reveal virtually no additional questions about how the photos came into the possession of the lawyers.So taken was the media with the content of the photos that the method by which they ended up in court seems not only to have taken a back seat, it fell off the bus entirely.If the media ever tries and succeeds in discovering the anonymous individual or individuals responsible for delivering the photos into the laps of the Caperton lawyers, it might uncover the story of the year -- a story that could make the Spike Maynard-Don Blankenship vacation seem like jaywalking by comparison.Questions for the Caperton lawyer:
Here are a few questions reporters might legitimately ask Mr. Stanley:* How and when did you receive the photos? * Were they in a manilla envelope left on your doorstep? * Were they sent by U.S. Mail, or Fed Ex? * Can I see the package they arrived in? * Was there a note or letter with the photos?* Can I see that? * Did you know the photos were coming before they arrived?* If so, who told you?The fact is, various rumors and theories about how the photos found their way from the private collection of one of the participants of the trip to the Caperton lawyers' doorstep are as numerous as Larry Starcher temper tantrums. But no one seems too interested in following up.On Friday, this site presented a timeline of events that begs questions of its own. Justice Starcher began a series of phone calls to Supreme Court candidate Menis Ketchum on Jan. 11, 2008, according to records obtained by the West Virginia Record via a FOIA request. On Jan. 14, 2008, the Monaco photos were filed with the Court. Is there a connection? Isn't it a question worth asking?The photos themselves were indeed newsworthy. But given their exploitative nature, isn't there some natural journalistic curiosity about who would have access to the photos and would also be so vindictive, so interested in nailing Maynard and/or Blankenship, that they would hand over to the enemy such explosive ammunition to be used against them? It is, in fact, the billion dollar question that has been shunted aside for a $75 million side show. Who did the photos originally belong to?
What we know for a fact is this: Four people were involved in the 2006 Monaco vacation -- Blankenship and his girlfriend and Maynard and his then-girlfriend, who identified herself to ABC news as Brenda Magann, an employee of the Court. The photos were obviously taken by one of the participants on the trip. Since Blankenship and Maynard are featured in the photos, the pictures almost certainly had to be taken by one of the girlfriends. Even if they were all given copies of the photos as keepsakes of the vacation, is it likely that Blankenship or his girlfriend would have supplied the photos to the Caperton lawyers? Hardly. Is it likely that Maynard would have sent the photos to the lawyers? No, he is not suicidal. So, would Ms. Magann have sent the photos? Possibly, but unlikely, since it would be so obvious to the other participants of the trip where they came from. But what if she brought the pictures to her job, either back in 2006 or more recently, to show them off to other employees, or, if they were digital photos, perhaps to ask someone at the Court for help in downloading them to a computer or transferring them from the camera to a disk? And in so doing, and realizing how explosive the pictures could be, what if that co-worker made copies for him or herself? And then, either months ago or more recently, in anticipation of Maynard's reelection campaign, what if they sought out advice from someone on what to do with the photos? Who inside the Court would feel so partisanly bitter toward Maynard and Blankenship as to find a way to make sure the photos landed in the laps of the Caperton lawyers? Wouldn't this story be a coup for any reporter?Starcher has driven the story from inside the Court
When ABC News ran a story last Monday on "Nightline" focusing on whether Blankenship has unduly influenced the Court, reporter Brian Ross pointed out that "Justice Larry Starcher has raised many of the questions" about Blankenship's influence.Ross also reported that Starcher "was outraged when he first saw the pictures..." although he did not clarify when that occurred.Ross reported also that Starcher removed himself from the Caperton-Massey case "because of his role in the controversy." What role? What role did Starcher play that was unique to the Caperton-Massey controversy? Is Ross referring to Starcher's series of comments attacking Blankenship over the last several years? Apparently not, or Starcher would have felt compelled to recuse himself from all Massey-related cases, not just the Caperton case. So what "role in the controversy" has Starcher played in the Caperton-Massey case that apparently does not exist in other Massey cases?ABC also showed a brief snippet of an interview with Ms. Magann, but they failed, by oversight or design, to ask her about the photos. Anyone care to ask her about them? If so, would anyone care to ask her if she has any idea how her photos, if they were indeed hers, ended up in the hands of Caperton's lawyers? If she did not supply them herself, wouldn't she be undertandably upset that her personal pictures have been swiped and made so public? Wouldn't she be anxious to help nail the culprits responsible? Starcher told ABC that if fellow Justice Brent Benjamin's refusal to recuse himself from Massey cases is not an appearance of impropriety, "I don't know what is." It may well be that he does not.Ketchum was citing U.S. Supreme Court case long before the fax sent to him by Starcher
At least two weeks before he says he received a fax from Justice Larry Starcher of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled judicial candidates can discuss political issues, West Virginia Supreme Court candidate Menis Ketchum was doing just that and citing the law as giving him the right.Ketchum, participating Jan. 26 in a forum sponsored by the West Virginia State Medical Association, said, "I think we have an obligation to comment on specific issues. Because if we don't talk about specific issues, then how can you judge whether to vote for us or not."Ketchum added, "It's not enough for me to get up here and say 'I'm a good guy, and I'll consider it'. The Law of (the) Land says we can comment on specific issues."The "Law of the Land" Ketchum was referring to was established by "Republican Partyof Minnesota vs. White," in which the U.S. Supreme Court established the right of judicial candidates to discuss political issues.
It is also the item that both Ketchum and Starcher claim Starcher was faxing to Ketchum on Feb. 11 on a state-issued fax machine -- two weeks after Ketchum was already citing the Law of the Land as giving him the right to say what he wanted.As a high-powered attorney with endless resources of his own, it is more than odd that Ketchum would have to rely on Starcher to provide him a copy of a highly publicized U.S. Supreme Court decision. Less than four days after faxing whatever he faxed to Ketchum, Starcher filed his notice of withdrawal from the Caperton-Massey case, citing an "appearance of impropriety."
Special
Supreme Court
edition!
