Patterico's Pontifications

2/14/2011

Questions About Bruce Fein’s Ethics (Update: Link to Supporting Documents)

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 7:31 pm



[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]

Update: My post providing the promised for supporting documents is up and here.  I purposely bumped it back  so that it wouldn’t appear until after even Patterico’s post on Think Progress’ latest dishonesty.

Update II: And thanks to Ed Whelan for the link back.

———————–

On Friday, in the letters section of the New York Times, Bruce Fein, Esq. wrote the following:

Justice Antonin Scalia galloped beyond the farthest boundaries of judicial propriety in secretly meeting on Capitol Hill to discuss the Constitution with Tea Party members of Congress saddled with a co-equal duty to assess the constitutionality of legislative action.

Now James Taranto and Ed Whelan have done admirable jobs deconstructing the inaccuracy of that letter.  Simply put, the meeting was not secret, it was not limited to Tea Party people only, and there is absolutely no evidence that Scalia discussed the constitutionality of Obamacare or anything related to any case likely to come before the Court.  But Fein goes on to lecture Scalia about the supposed lack of ethics of it, and given what I knew about the man, it was a bit much.

But I have to rewind a little and tell you about another man.  This man:

This is Ephraim Chukwuemeka Ugwuonye, Esq.  I came to know about him when a colleague contacted me with an ethical conundrum posed by this man’s conduct and much of what I will tell you will come from that friend, although I verified all of the information myself.  Mr. Ugwuonye sometimes shortens his middle name to Emeka, and sometimes uses that middle name as if it was his first name as you will see.  Mr. Ugwuonye is a first generation immigrant from Nigeria.  He is also a graduate of Harvard Law School.  And at one time he was admitted and in good standing in Maryland, New York, and the District of Columbia as an attorney.

But in 2008, he was suspended in Maryland for ninety days for various forms of misconduct.  The case is, well… colorful and worth a read through.  You can read it all here, but it comes down to two major complaints.  In one instance, he allegedly promised to just file a suit for wrongful termination—that is, to file it for tactical purposes and then let it die.  The client disputed that point, claiming that he was promised that his case would be taken to fruition.  Regardless, he failed to communicate with his client after he got notice after notice telling him the case was dying of neglect, and eventually the case was dismissed with prejudice.  Which means that if there was any merit in his claim, he had flushed it down the toilet with neglect.  In that incident he was charged with having failed to provide timely communications with his client.

The second incident discussed in that case involved taking too much money for a frivolous case.  Namely he took $3,500 to take the case of a man who claimed that Montgomery County (Maryland) Crime Solvers owed him a total of $25,500,000.  Five hundred thousand of those dollars was allegedly owed for helping to catch the D.C. Snipers, which is stretching plausibility, but its within the realm of possibility.   As for the $25 million, his client asserted that he earned that by helping them find Saddam Hussein.  Mind you, he felt that the Montgomery Country (Maryalnd) Crime Solvers owed him this money.  In footnote thirteen, the court notes dryly: “Saddam Hussein was captured on 13 December 2003 in the cellar of a farmhouse located near the town of Tikrit in Iraq, a location of some distance from Montgomery County, Maryland.”  The Court’s point was to argue that you didn’t need $3,500 to figure out that the man’s case was worthless and thus that fee was excessive and unreasonable.

So he was suspended for ninety days in Maryland.  And in D.C. and New York by reciprocity.  Ninety days later, he was readmitted in Maryland, but something funny happened in D.C. and New York.  He was not reinstated in those two jurisdictions (see, e.g. here for his New York status).  In D.C. When he was suspended in D.C. the order (linked here) stated that it was

FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement respondent’s suspension will not begin to run until such time as he files an affidavit that fully complies with the requirements of D.C. Bar. R. XI, § 14 (g).

That rule, which you can read here, required him to inform a large number of people of the suspension, including current clients and then provide an affidavit giving positive proof of that action.  According to the D.C. Bar, he never filed that affidavit, so while his suspension started immediately, the ninety days never started to run.  And as of about fifteen minutes ago, I checked and he still hadn’t been reinstated.

As for New York, well bluntly, I couldn’t get an answer out of them I could trust.  But one way or the other, once he was suspended, he never emerged from that suspension in New York, either.

And what does this have to do with Mr. Fein?  We are about to find out these two men are very close…

Now I came into this story almost a year ago when my colleague came to me asking for ethical advice.  He told me his client was being threatened with suit by Mr. Ugwuonye.  I have promised this friend anonymity, but I can say that I was sufficiently involved that I can verify each and every accusation.  As he was interacting with Mr. Ugwuonye, he googled his name, as he does with all of his adversaries, attempting to get the measure of the man.  He quickly learned about the man’s suspension and the fact he was forbidden from practicing in D.C. and New York.

And then he started noticing signs that Mr. Ugwuonye was actually practicing in D.C.  For instance, the original “nastygram” from Mr. Ugwuonye came in an envelope with a pre-printed D.C. address, with a label placed over it giving a Maryland address, suggesting a recent move.

Also, his twitter account stated that “[h]e practices law in Washington DC [sic].”  You can look today at his twitter account and it doesn’t say that.  But I saw it at the time and it did say that, and I will provide images of a print out from the Twitter account from last April that verifies my recollection.  That and several other large jpg images will be attached to a separate post I will create after this one, so that the images don’t clog your memory unnecessarily.

And further, his own firm website profiled him as “International Business Lawyer in Washington D.C.” in the title bar.  The same site stated that he was

admitted to practice law in several jurisdictions in the United States and Nigeria, including, but not limited to, the Supreme Court of the United States; the Supreme Court of Nigeria; New York; District of Columbia, State of Maryland, several Federal District and Circuit Courts, and the United States Court of International Trade.

(emphasis added).  Like the twitter biography, this information has disappeared from the internet.  Indeed his law firm’s entire site has disappeared.   But like the twitter feed, I have print outs from his site that I can show you, and I will show you in the separate post.

My friend’s conundrum was that all of it suggested unauthorized practice of law, but it didn’t quite prove it.  But as I pointed out to my friend, D.C.’s unauthorized practice of law rule is unusually broad, stating that:

No person shall engage in the practice of law in the District of Columbia or in any manner hold out as authorized or competent to practice law in the District of Columbia unless enrolled as an active member of the District of Columbia  Bar, except as otherwise permitted by these Rules.

So it is not just actual practice, but also holding one out as authorized to practice in D.C.  And with his website, he had certainly done that.  So I advised my friend that he had no choice, but to report the man.  Much of those print outs and images that I will post are taken directly from the report he did file.  And its worth noting that the twitter biography changed shortly after the complaint was filed, as did his website (before it disappeared complately), so it no longer constituted a standing violation of the D.C. unauthorized practice rules. Whether further action and investigation occurred, is purely a matter of speculation.

But that was not the only evidence of unauthorized practice.  There was also this interview he made with Chika Onyeani about a controversy involving his withholding of money from a client, the Nigerian Embassy, allegedly to pay debts that his client owed him:

[Mr. Ugwuonye speaking: “]But listen, the Embassy owes me a lot of money. I have even forgiven a $1 million that they owe for work I did for them in New York. People are writing all kinds of rubbish in the internet, they are jealous and they can’t stand the fact that I am the most influential Nigerian attorney in the Washington, DC area (I thought he was going to say in the whole U.S.).”

“I have been practicing law since 1995, and I have built a 22-man law firm,” Mr. Ugwuonye boasted.

“But you were suspended for 90 days by the State of Maryland from practicing law,” I said to Mr. Ugwuonye. “And how could you be doing work for them when you are also suspended in New York State from practicing law?” I asked Mr. Ugwuonye.

Ugwuonye seemed taken aback by these questions. He quickly recovered, cleared his throat, and said, “If you have been practicing law for 15 years and have a 22-man office, somebody is likely to run afoul of the law. And the fact is that anything that happens in this law firm is my responsibility. So, I was suspended for 90 days from October, 2008. Well, it is over,” though I didn’t see where Mr. Ugwuonye has corrected the sanctions imposed on him. But reading through the case, I agree it was one of the lawyers in his office who was responsible for the breach of proper legal representation.

“But the one in New York is not over,” I advised him as a consequence of being suspended in Maryland and the District of Columbia (Washington, DC). “Well, I will take care of it when I have to do something in New York state.”

Now Mr. Onyeani’s writing is not exactly a model of clarity, but he seems to be suggesting that the man could not have been practicing in New York, at the time he in fact was doing exactly that.

Hey, by the way, would you like to see and hear from Mr. Ugwuonye?   Because we have video, right here:

Watch closely at about the 1:45 mark and who do you see?  Bruce Fein.  You see, Bruce Fein was a partner in Mr. Ugwuonye’s firm.

And that Nigerian Embassy controversy is about to get real important.  You see, last November the controversy erupted into a lawsuit.  Who was sued?  Well, Mr. Ugwuonye, naturally.  But so was his firm, the ECU Law Group (ECU being Mr. Ugwuonye’s initials), which happened to include (drum roll please), Bruce Fein.  In that case Mr. Fein allegedly presented himself as Mr. Uqwuonye’s lawyer, at a time when the suspension had just begun.  It is unusual in my experience for an attorney to feel the need to be represented by a third party in interacting with his client, so it raises the question of how Ugwuonye explained this to his colleague.  The suit goes on to allege many instances of actual unauthorized practice of law.  And also, remember how D.C.’s rules required Mr. Ugwuonye to positively prove he had informed his clients of his suspension and he allegedly failed to do so?  Well, over and over, the Embassy’s states that Mr. Ugwuonye failed to inform it that he had been suspended.

Now all of that last paragraph is purely from a complaint filed in court.  It could all be lies, I suppose.  But they are lies that line up with what I happen to know through my friend.

And at the same time, I suppose Bruce Fein might have had no idea what his partner was doing.  But if he is going to start waving fingers at others about their ethics, perhaps he could answer two questions for me:

What did you know about Mr. Ugwuonye’s suspensions?  And when did you know it?

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

47 Responses to “Questions About Bruce Fein’s Ethics (Update: Link to Supporting Documents)”

  1. You found a juicy one, Aaron.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  2. If Stephen Reinhardt can rule on cases his wife (Ramona Ripston, head of the SoCal ACLU)) brings, then anything’s fair.

    Kevin M (298030)

  3. SPQR

    Technically my friend made the original find. He just told me about it.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  4. Aaron,

    Didnt some Presidents ask the Chief Justice informally if something they were about to do was constitutional?

    If these Representatives were asking Scalia questions on legislative issues that may come up – I’m not seeing where getting the approval of the courts in advance is somehow a breach of ethics or impartiality

    EricPWJohnson (427c1e)

  5. eric

    the US supreme court specifically has ruled that they can’t give their opinion ahead of time. the concern is that once they are committed, they won’t have an open mind when the case comes to trial.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  6. Aaron,

    But can they give advice if asked? I mean an opinion has a narrow and a wide definition does it not? Depending if its a legal opinion or an opinion on legality

    EricPWJohnson (427c1e)

  7. Just look at the advice and consent hearings on Supreme Court Justices –

    EricPWJohnson (427c1e)

  8. Based on the information I get in various monthly bulletins NY’s Grievance Committee moves at a glacial pace. If they hit him with a 90-day suspension he was probably barred from practice for some time prior to the imposition of penalty.Any application in any jurisdiction is going to demand a full explanation of the charges pending or findings of misconduct in another jursdiction. Simply the whole explanation makes no sense.

    Bugg (4e0dda)

  9. eric

    they’re not supposed to, even if asked. if you watch closely in the confirmation hearings, they will occasionally politely refuse to answer citing that doctrine.

    I mean like it or hate it, that is how they see it.

    Now at the same time, justices push the envelope. For instance, I think bluntly Kagan shouldn’t have answered the famous question about congress passing a law requiring you to eat your veggies. it was too obviously about obamacare. But they aren’t supposed to tell, even if asked.

    Bugg

    well, they did take until December of that year. And according to this, it was uncontested in NY State.

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16076028770099343608&q=57+A.D.3d+1206&hl=en&as_sdt=2,47

    Taking that long with something that is not even contested seems consistent with your experience.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  10. I am sure I got a letter from Mr. Ephraim Chukwuemeka Ugwuonye, Esq, encouraging me to hurry and get my claim to a 10 Million dollar settlement held in a Nigerian Bank,

    tessa (df39c3)

  11. Greetings! and felicitations to you, my Colleague in The Law,

    I am in hopes that this Finds you well and able. Your law firm has become recommended to us as aggressive barristers who’s connections in the COURTS of your state will be propitiously useful. IMMEDIATE ACTION! is necessary for us to make mutual advantage of this opportuity.

    The King’s Bench of the privy Counsel of my home country, Botswana, has awarded to my clint the handsome sum of €4 MILLION dollars (4.000.000,00$), which is being held in escrow by the bonded agents of the CUSTOMS SERVICE. I have been instructed to transfer these entire funds to an Onshore account in the United States of America for my clients’ to use in the fartherence of their educations. The legal sespension of transference of these funds, however, is awaiting the small satisfaction of a very reasonable processing fee from the afor-said CUSTOMS SERVICE.

    Due to Untied Nations regulations, however, only an American barrister from your state may make the proper application. My client, the crown prince, has authoritized me to split the funds 45 per centum to said barrister for his time and trouble and professionally serviced rendered.

    I await, therefore your prompt response to confirm your willingness to expedite this opportune matter to your complete satisfaction. Contact my cousin who is the Honorable Ephraim Chukwuemeka Ugwuonye, Esqwire. For further details.

    Yours participlely,

    Wumbacha Yamonwea Jones, VI

    Beldar (f62fd1)

  12. Are you sure you are writing about the same Bruce Fein, Esq?

    From Wikipedia: Bruce Fein is a lawyer in the United States who specializes in constitutional and international law. Fein has written numerous articles on constitutional issues for The Washington Times, Slate.com, The New York Times, Legal Times, and is active on the issues of civil liberties. He has also worked for the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation, both conservative think tanks, as an analyst and commentator.[1]
    Fein is a principal in a government affairs and public relations firm, The Lichfield Group, in Washington, D.C..[2] He is also a resident scholar at the Turkish Coalition of America.[3

    Barry Davis (437e61)

  13. Personally, I consider the “Bruce Fein” from the linked NYT letter to the editor to be America’s preeminent faux-conservative, edging out even David Brooks. Every time I read that byline — “The writer was associate deputy attorney general under President Reagan, 1981-83″ — I wonder what story it conceals.

    Beldar (f62fd1)

  14. Comment by Beldar — 2/14/2011 @ 8:57 pm

    LOL

    SPQR (26be8b)

  15. FWIW: I served for a couple of years on my local unauthorized practice of law committee. We held suspended or disbarred lawyers to a very strict standard on the disappointingly frequent occasions that they ignored their own loss of licensure.

    Ironically, they almost all represented themselves when we brought civil injunction proceedings against them or when our referral to the DA’s office resulted in a criminal prosecution: Even after their licenses had been jerked, they retained every person’s constitutional right to choose self-representation.

    Beldar (f62fd1)

  16. Beldar

    you are hereby denounced. heh.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  17. Jib, Fein was not 100% right. He lied about the circumstances of the meeting itself.

    And your doubling down on the falsehoods is telling us much about your credibility.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  18. Jib

    Fein’s entire claim is based on a demonstrably false factual foundation.

    So you avoid discussing what fein actually said. or his actual association with this creep Ugwuonye.

    And we have talking about all those other issues in other posts. why don’t you read up on them. they include things like the actual code of judicial conduct for federal judges, which don’t say anything about requiring judges to be in an isolation chamber 24/7.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  19. ….And the trolls have arrived. What took ya so long?

    I’ll tell you, Jib, what the MSM would be saying if Sotomayor was meeting with George Soros: “S’what?”

    L.N. Smithee (2b495a)

  20. Thank you, Aaron, I am eminently denouceable.

    There is indeed a prolific subset of the email scamming gangs that are targeting lawyers right now, especially small firms and solos who may lack sound financial controls. (Many folks may, upon hearing that, ask for their butlers to fetch the world’s smallest violin; schadenfreude, ja.) I’ve seen several variations on this theme: “I’m the comptroller of ABC plc, and we’re owed a trade debt by a company in your jurisdiction, so we need collections counsel. Glad to pay your regular fees, of course, so tell us how big a retainer check you want us to send.” They’d like to leverage those discussions into details — “We’d like to go ahead and wire transfer that retainer into your firm account so that you can begin work immediately, please send us your wire transfer info.” If they get that and already have an example of your signature (as from an engagement letter), they’re immediately set up to do some major-league check fraud.

    So, my Colleagues in The Law: Counselor, heed thine own counsel, and Watchman, watch thyself!

    Beldar (f62fd1)

  21. Jib fails to say what exactly is corrupt about a justice having friends. Dick Cheney and Charles and David Koch are all three of them people of outstanding public character, and any decent person would be proud to associate with them. Does Jib also think there would be anything wrong with a Chief Justice visiting the White House every week to play poker?

    The anonymous Milhouse (ea66e3)

  22. Barry Davis:

    Check the supporting documents, which include attorney profiles from the ECU website. While ECU could possibly have lied mistakenly confused the biographies of two Bruce Feins, the wikipedia and ECU biographies seem to be referring to the same person.

    max (2f2a28)

  23. How dare he TALK to people!!

    That f**king BASTARD!

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  24. jib – Do you have anything to say related to this post?

    daleyrocks (479a30)

  25. Mmm, we won’t be putting up with any of that Jibber-Jabber.

    The Fool-Pitying Mr. T (e7d72e)

  26. Beldar

    joking about Nigeria aside, I think its not surprising we see a lot of failures to comply with suspensions and disbarments. they spent all this time getting a thing, to be a lawyer, and they feel like they aren’t going to give up that easily.

    Btw, on the Nigerian thing, a few years back they did an article on the computer banks where those emails are sent from. Which kind of made me laugh. All those years, I had assumed that they were anything but from Nigeria–I had assumed that the criminals merely picked Nigeria because it was famously a basket-case.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  27. The guys at Rooster Teeth (makes of that fine thing we geeks know as Red vs Blue)said on their podcast how they always wondered if there was some guy in Nigeria who really did have a problem with his bank, and honestly did need someone to help him get his money.

    “I don’t get it… I’m offering millions of dollars to anyone who’ll help me get my money out, and not one single person has ever replied…”

    Scott Jacobs (041d9e)

  28. Scott

    lol, but in truth, they wouldn’t keep doing that if people didn’t fall for it every now and then. i mean with the right program, it is not hard to send 1 billion emails and if only 0.01% falls for it, you are still making a profit.

    I mean its like bill clinton and his pick up lines. he wouldn’t have used such a boorish approach, unless it had a proven track record of working enough of the time to be worth it.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  29. Sadly, I’ve talked to people who were the victims of 419 scams. Its a bizarre experience sometimes to hear their rationalizations of why they fell for the scam. I’ve come to the conclusion that the saying “You can’t con an honest man” is utterly true.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  30. “You can’t con an honest man”

    Or an incredibly jaded and bitter cynic. :)

    Scott Jacobs (041d9e)

  31. Bruce Fein and this dude from Nigeria should be sitting in a computer bar in Lagos [or whatever they call that god-forsaken hellhole nowadays] sending out a billion e-mails to counter this whole attempt to smear the Nigerian criminals name. There’s always that sucker out there….

    daveinboca (d0db99)

  32. SPQR

    mmm, there is alot of truth in that, but i don’t think that is literally 100% true.

    for instance, i have seen cons go off where the guy was just trying to help someone in a tough situation.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  33. As to the Nigerian scams; there is a website out there which chronicles the efforts of people who pull reverse pranks on the 419 scammers. I loved the story about the guy who posed as a dealer in art work and got these guys to ship huge, heavy “art” works through international shipping companies (at considerable costs) to qualify for projects.

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  34. That’s true, Aaron. However, consider a discussion I had once several years ago. I was talking to a woman who had sent a Nigerian scammer approx $25K over six months. The scam was the old one about “You may be the heir to a person who died in a plane crash in Africa”. At one point, I asked her if she actually knew anyone who had died in a plane crash. She very reluctantly admitted no. I asked her if she had any relatives that had disappeared and so might have been on a plane in Africa … evidently not. So she knew she was dishonestly claiming to be this mythical person’s heir.

    In fact, the only reason she called me was that for the kiss-off, the scammers introduced a third party in the con who claimed to be contacting her about her fraudulent “claim” and threatened to report her to law enforcement. She was only calling me to see if she was in criminal trouble.

    Twenty-five thousand dollars, Aaron.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  35. SPQR,

    That’s a pretty slick scam. A second round of shakedown (surely they were either going to ask to be bribed, or at the least threaten with prosecution unless she ‘gave up on the claim’) is usually pretty successful.

    Scott Jacobs (218307)

  36. and there is absolutely no evidence that Scalia discussed the constitutionality of Obamacare or anything related to any case likely to come before the Court.

    –Has anyone at the meeting been asked what Scalia did say? There’s a difference between having “absolutely no evidence” that something happened and saying that it did not happen based on eyewitnesses.

    Jim (ad29d8)

  37. There’s a difference between having “absolutely no evidence” that something happened and saying that it did not happen based on eyewitnesses.

    Actually, it is the job of those making the accusation to provide evidence.

    Thus far, not a single shred has been put forward.

    Thus, the statement “there is absolutely no evidence” is accurate, and also more than likely true – if there was evidence, it would have been stated by now.

    Scott Jacobs (218307)

  38. “Jim” eats boogers.

    JD (ef49a5)

  39. Jim, trying to reverse the burden of proof is a classic logical fallacy of those without any real argument. But that’s consistent with your lack of credibility.

    Here’s the bottom line: Scalia is smarter than you and has more integrity than you.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  40. Here’s the bottom line: Scalia is smarter than you and has more integrity than you.

    That really isn’t saying much….

    Scott Jacobs (218307)

  41. Jim

    > Has anyone at the meeting been asked what Scalia did say?

    yes, there were democrats there, and they gave a description of what went down. let me introduce you to a thing called “google.”

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  42. Mr. Worthing, Ad hominem attacks do not affect Fein’s argument, which is astute in my opinion. Attack the argument if you want to be taken seriously. Don’t rely on unsubstantiated allegations by corrupt foreign governments.

    Aaron (334de1)

  43. “Astute” ? Gee, I didn’t know that “astute” was a synonym for “based on fraudulent statements”.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  44. “Aaron”

    Fein made a false allegation unsupported by the available evidence. he sits in judgment of scalia’s ethics, but is partners with an ethical cesspool.

    And i am not relying solely on Nigeria’s allegations. That something you would know if you read the post.

    the fact is the man has definitely committed technical violations of the rule against unauthorized practice, and some evidence–including from his own twitter bio and law firm website, suggest he was engaged in actual unauthorized practice. and that known conduct lines up with what was alleged in the most recent suit.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  45. If anything, this entire campaign of sullying the reputations of Scalia and Thomas in advance of a possible challenge to ObamaCare (since it only makes sense that Kagan would have to recuse herself) should disabuse Republicans of the idea that they shouldn’t meet “Borking” with force equal to that used against them. Lindsay Graham’s dramatic nonsense about “making sure that hard-fought elections have meaning in terms of their results within our Constitution” is a lily-livered concession of his role as checker and balancer in favor of high-minded pseudo-guardianship of the judicial branch. Fat lotta good “protecting the independence of the judiciary” does if you let Constitution-twisting judges in sheep’s clothing slip past you only because you feel like you’re a slave to the last guy who won a national election.

    L.N. Smithee (2b495a)

  46. In case anybody’s wondering:

    the meeting with Scalia was open to all Representatives, and the attendees included Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), two hard-line liberals. The meeting has been reported by several attendees, and everyone who was there (including Nadler and Schakowsky) agree that nothing of current import was discussed, only historical examples.

    However, Best of the Web reports that according to the Social Security Administration’s official history website, in 1934 Labor Secretary Frances Perkins went to a (literal) tea party hosted by Justice Harlan Stone. The Roosevelt administration was then working on the Social Security Act, and had concerns about its Constitutional basis. Harlan reputedly whispered to Perkins that the taxing power of the Federal government was sufficient.

    Rich Rostrom (95afb3)

  47. Interesting, name’s familiar. His wife just ran for Congress in a very secure district (Jane Harman’s).. the GOP primary had a lot of mud slinging in regards to the feins allegedly taking improper funding or some such. (Insert T word here, kaboom). So tweets and filings and legal claims.. all for a basically unwinnable seat. Beldar hits it on the head as far as this guy’s role in the Reagan years. When truth defies logic..

    Kate Middleton (ae55d7)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4991 secs.