Attorney General on FRM: Epic Fail

by: Jennifer Daler

Wed May 12, 2010 at 15:58:46 PM EDT

In his report, Delaney said the attorney general's office missed repeated indications of fraud. The report also said more could have been done by his office, the Bureau of Securities Regulation and the Banking Department.

Here's a line that would be funny if it weren't so pathetic:

"The failure of a financial company to keep its own financial records in order, for example, should trigger regulatory suspicion," the report stated.

Delaney also said that the relationship between the Banking Department and the Bureau of Securities Regulation was "toxic". I guess that might explain the lack of working together to stop the  alleged scheme before the bottom fell out. Each department had pieces of the picture, but never bothered putting them together because their own relationship or lack thereof was more important than protecting the public, it seems.

Former Attorney General and candidate for the Republican nomination for US Senate Kelly Ayotte headed the AG's office for much of the time the alleged scheme was operating and also during which complaints were made. Ayotte had her e-mails and calendar deleted from  the state computer system, but then released thousands of documents.
Oddly enough

Those documents did not contain any reference to FRM, and the attorney general's office previously stated that its file on the company did not contain any correspondence to or from Ayotte.

The full Attorney General's Report can be downloaded from the WMUR website. This story is far from over.

Did US Attorney Colantuono call off the investigation of Ayotte because she is above the law

by: davecoltin

Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 09:11:10 AM EDT

June 21, 2009

David H. Coltin
44 Tyng Street
Newburyport, Ma. 01950

New Hampshire Congressional Delegation
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senators and Representatives:

On June 17, 2009 at nearly the precise moment that Attorney General Holder was outlining his goals and priorities before the United States Senate Committee On The Judiciary, I received the following cryptic message from the United States Attorney's Office in Concord, N.H.:

Mr. Coltin:

  When we spoke by telephone many months ago, I told you that the U.S. Attorney's Office would NOT conduct a criminal investigations of your allegations.  Accordingly, I do not have any information about Mary Knecht to provide to you.

Bob Kinsella
Assistant U.S. Attorney

As you know, United States District Court Judge Joseph Laplante ordered an investigation by the United States Attorney's Office of my concerns while he was in the nominations hearing process for the position he holds. His assignment to investigate was based on a review of a number of court documents that I had first sent to him on May 23, 2007.  We had follow-up conversations and on November 14, 2007 he made a second assignment to Robert Kinsella, chief of the criminal division.

The United States Attorney's Office email is an affront to the message that Attorney General Holder has been sending from his office since his appointment.  Moreover it is a direct assault to messages that Attorney General Holder and Senator Leahy put forth at the Committee hearing on June 17, 2009.

Attorney General Holder:  "Second, we are working to ensure that the Department of Justice will always serve the cause of justice, not the fleeting interests of politics.  For example, law enforcement decisions and personnel actions must be untainted by partisanship."

Senator Patrick Leahy: "I believe that accountability is important and that access to the courts for those alleging wrongdoing by the Government is crucial."

It is in situations like this that we need you to speak up in unity and mandate that the Office
reverse it's decision by making a clear and precise statement that no one is above the law in New Hampshire by reopening the investigation in a public statement.

This also presents you with the opportunity to discuss this matter with U.S. Attorney nominee John Kacavas to appraise him of the situation, and to also get a commitment from him that no one is above the law, as he will be investigating a number of individuals that he has had a long relationship with in the criminal justice system in New Hampshire.

This being said, I trust you will be reviewing this matter with the Judiciary Committee so that this information can be disseminated prior to final vote on Mr. Kacavas' appointment.  If you can not get a commitment, then you have an obligation to inform the president.

The Office's statement also presents a watershed opportunity for Attorney General Holder to bring an office that is clearly out of line, back into line. He will also be sending a strong message to all other offices that they have a job to do, and that they do not have an independent say as to h ow to do it. Therefore, I further trust you will discuss this with the Attorney General.

I have attached the full email showing the discussions that took place immediately prior to the Office's statement as well as my response.  This also includes a response from state attorney General Kelly Ayotte to the Executive Council. She was responding to questions they posed to her during her own reappointment hearings.  It is very clear from her response, which simply outlines conclusions, and does not address facts, that something is being covered up.  Governor Lynch is aware of this, but refuses to ask questions.  Certainly the citizens of New Hampshire need to know the full truth, as they did not have a direct say in her reappointment.  It is troubling that the Executive Council simply accepted her statements as fact without asking any very obvious follow-up questions.

I am available to answer any questions you have or to provide any documents you may want to see.

I look forward to a statement from the Acting U.S. Attorney in New Hampshire in the very near future.

                                                                                  Sincerely,

                                                                                 David H. Coltin

A Democratic State Should Have A Democratic Attorney General II

by: measurestaken

Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 17:39:36 PM EST

In the summer of 2008, the California Supreme Court declared "that California's ban on same-sex marriage violates the 'fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship,'" and made same-sex marriage legal in the nation's largest state. This ruling was met with tooth-gnashing outrage by right-wingers and homophobes throughout our great land.

Throughout the country, politicians of the right searched for ways to make political hay out of the Court's decision. Many municipal politicians and state legislators (including here in NH) introduced anti-same sex marriage resolutions and ordinances, Republicans in state houses throughout the land made impassioned speeches, and radio hosts amplified these efforts with bile and enthusiasm.

Stepping into this fray was none other than New Hampshire attorney general Kelly Ayotte.

Bill Richardson: Vote "No" on Torture and Mukasey

by: Stephen Cassidy

Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 03:00:24 AM EDT

When asked directly last week whether he thought waterboarding is constitutional, Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey was evasive.  As noted by NPR, Mukasey "danced around the issue of whether waterboarding actually is torture and stopped short of saying that it is." "If it amounts to torture," Mukasey said carefully, "then it is not constitutional."

As stated by Bill Richardson,

Waterboarding is torture, and anyone who is unwilling to identify it as such is not qualified to be the chief legal officer of the United States of America. If I were in the U.S. Senate, I would vote against Mukasey unless he denounces such specific forms of torture.

What about the Democrats in the U.S. Senate and other Democratic Presidential candidates?  Will they oppose Mukasey unless he denounces the use of torture by our government?

I Don't Trust Mukasey. Period.

by: elwood

Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 18:44:52 PM EDT

But he doesn't commit to anything.

Leahy is going to let this stealth nominee through without getting any response to all the outstanding subpoenas and without getting any commitment to prosecuting Contempt of Congress votes.

The only leverage he has, and he's going to throw it away.

Mukasey and Giuliani

by: Douglas E. Lindner

Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 18:30:39 PM EDT

Any other thoughts?

I'm reserving judgment on this, but I'm curious to hear what the rest of you think.