One of the greatest features of American democracy is that each of us is equal before the law. Not only are we equal in terms of the rights that are protected, but we are also equal in terms of punishment. Justice is blind, or at least it is supposed to be. Whether prince or pauper, we believe that persons who are accused of violating the law should be treated consistently.
Recently, Representative Carl Wimmer (R-Herriman) sought to have Francine Giani, the head of the Utah Department of Commerce, fired for investigating Rick Koerber. Mr. Koerber is accused of running a ponzi scheme. Until recently, Rep. Wimmer considered Koerber his “friend”.
Rep. Wimmer arranged for Mr. Koerber to meet with Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff. Shurtleff chose not to prosecute Mr. Koerber. Rep. Wimmer also unsuccessfully attempted to arrange a meeting with Governor Huntsman. Previously, Rep. Wimmer claimed he did nothing more than attempt to arrange the meetings. It now appears Rep. Wimmer lied. According to emails obtained by the Salt Lake Tribune, Rep. Wimmer attempted to have the Department of Commerce head Francine Giani fired over the investigation.
Mr. Koerber argues the intervention on his behalf was necessary because the Department used abusive tactics in the investigation. Mr. Koerber claims to be a victim. If Mr. Koerber is a victim, he can prove it in court. Evidence obtained against him illegally or coercively will be excluded. Other abuses can be addressed in civil court. Incidentally, Mr. Koerber was indicted after U.S. Attorney for Utah Bret Tolman conducted his own separate investigation.
When a politician cheats on his wife, the public is outraged. The word scandal is used. Resignations often follow. In the context of public service, Rep. Wimmer’s offense is far greater than an unfaithful spouse.
An unfaithful spouse betrays the trust of their partner. An elected official who undermines the justice system on behalf of his cronies betrays the entire citizenry.
Rep. Wimmer deserves an opportunity to publicly explain himself in full. Based on what we know so far, it appears Rep. Wimmer sought retribution against those individuals responsible for investigating whether the law has been violated. It also seems Rep. Wimmer attempted to replace blind justice with his own political might and personal discretion. The people of Herriman and of Utah should not tolerate intimidation of investigators or political manipulation of our justice system.
This is about more than Rep. Wimmer and Rick Koerber. It’s about the integrity of our justice system. Each of us counts on blind justice to protect us. What kind of state do you want to live in? One where accusations of fraud are adjudicated on the merits in court? Or do you want to live in a state where “justice” is a function of nepotism? How secure are the citizens of Utah if an alleged criminal can avoid accountability because his friends in high places can make heads roll?
This article is full of shit, and reflects poorly on KNVU. As a faithful Loganite, I am done with you. You have taken a story of a story and made a fairy tail out of it. Disgusting
First, I agree with the point of the post. Two comments regarding assertions. When we go looking for justices who will rule in specific ways and view themselves as lawmakers rather than administers of justice then justice isn’t blind anymore. It should be the ideal, it does not seem to be the reality.
Second, you asserted that the breaking of public trust is far worse than breaking family trusts. I don’t agree. The old saying is that if a person will lie to his family he will lie to everyone. I have found it to be true. Thus the outrage when family trust is broken. Many of us assume that means the public trust is broken as well. As a result, we have little trust in the person regardless of political persuasion until amends are made. If the broken trust is serious enough, we many never trust the person again.
Very thorough examination, Tom. We’ve just got to get this kind of stuff cleaned out of the party and out of our state politics.
Tom,
Do you ever plan on dropping that man crush you have on Mark Shurtleff and holding him just as accountable as Mr. Wimmer? Sure justice is blind, but not when dealing with an old “buddy.”
http://kvnuforthepeople.com/2008/05/07/tom-grover-rebuked-for-calling-utah-ag-mark-shurtleff-buddy/
James,
It’s no secret I admire Mark Shurtleff. I think he’s a great AG. However, his choice to meet with Koerber at Wimmer’s request was a huge mistake. Shurtleff should have done what the Governor did- not meet with Koerber. But he did, and now it is very reasonable to wonder why he didn’t prosecuter Koerber. Even if Shurtleff did have legitimate reasons for declining to prosecute, the meeting casts shadows on that decision. It also doesn’t help that Bret Tolman reached a different decision.
Wimmer stands apart from Shurtleff. There is no evidence that Shurtleff sought to have Francine Giani, or anyone else, punished for investigating Koerber. Unlike Wimmer, Shurtleff had no previous ties to Koerber or his business (Keorber had made donations to Wimmers campaign and had coordinated political efforts with him). While there is circumstantial evidence Shurtleff may have inappropriately used his discretion by not prosecuting Koerber, in contrast there is pretty solid evidence that Wimmer tried to intimidate investigators as a favor for Koerber.
If Wimmer really did the things you (and other news outlets) have reported here, it shouldn’t matter how close a friendship he and Koerber had, although the friendship is the most likely reason for Wimmer’s having thrown his weight around. Wimmer’s interference would be criminal no matter how one looks at it.
I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that this kind of behavior is more common than we know, sadly enough.
Tyson,
It’s understandable why it sometimes seems that way. I believe that 95% of Legislators are probably pretty upstanding, ethical people. For example, the Cache County delegation is solid. It’s the 5% that draw attention to themselves through unethical behavior.
David James,
Regarding trust, you make a completely legitimate argument. I guess the only distinction I would throw in for discussion is that a unfaithful spouse demonstrates the ability/propensity to betray the public, while an official who intervenes in an investigation actually does betray the public.
Tom, I agree. But why put the public trust in an individual who has a high propensity to break the trust. But I also cede your original point: society and thus media are enamored with the stories that titilate while skimming over the stories that deal with blatant dishonesty.
Tom, I heard that you refused to publish a link to Koerber’s response that he published on his blog. Is this true?
Derrick,
No one made any request to me to publish a link to Rick’s response, including Rick Koerber. However, Jason did publish the link in another post on this site. Here’s the link again: http://tinyurl.com/ny5c5x
It’s a little work to get through it, but I highly recommend! Check out Rick’s post!
@bert Hollister
How strange an overreaction. The Hollister doth protest too much, methinks.