.

You’ve got to be kidding.  I mean Rick Koerber (that’s me) did apparently win the Salt Lake Tribune’s online poll for 2009 “Utahn of the Year.”  (I too, would have hushed that up if I were the Salt Lake Tribune – LOL.)  But the Brady Bunch? You’ve got to be joking.

So, its really a funny story, but to begin with, I have to confess that when I was a kid I don’t remember watching even a single episode of the Brady Bunch.  Of course, I caught the general idea and essentially came to be mildly familiar with its theme and its after-run popularity.  Since that time I’ve understood references to the show as simple pop culture allusions to white bread, glib, two dimensional notions of the supposed ideal family.  Isn’t that pretty much everyone else’s take away when the show is now referenced in casual conversation?

Maybe it was because I was an only child raised by a struggling but dedicated, hard working cocktail waitress/bartender,  single mother and my—economically speaking—lower middle class grandparents (a blended family), in anything but a traditional/typical family setting, that I really missed the boat about the message intended by the “Brady Bunch.”

You see, it was only recently that I learned the actual lyrics to the theme song (thanks to seemingly incessant re-runs and young children) and discovered that Sherwood Schwartz conceived the idea for The Brady Bunch after reading a newspaper article in the mid-1960s that said “40% of marriages in the US had a child or children from a previous marriage.”

Huh.  Well, assumptions are tricky things.  You see, in the midst of all the controversy surrounding me and my life this past year or so, I was pretty taken back when not long ago a professional photographer, struggling to get the eight of us to smile simultaneously, quipped, “Well, isn’t this the Brady Bunch.”

“The Brady Bunch?” I though to myself, “How funny.”  You see, I thought it was funny because the comment seemed soooo out of place.  It was obviously a social act of misspeak, right?

My wife and kids all seemed to laugh however, because I think they really “got it.”

My problem, I think, was that I just couldn’t see what was “white bread,” “glib,” or “two dimensional” about my little family.  Think about it for a second….

Me – a white kid, from the poor ghetto of “North Casper” Wyoming (okay that—while true— was supposed to be at least mildly funny) who grew up listening to R&B and Hip Hop, now a mid-thirties, divorced and remarried Mormon convert, “Free Capitalist,” twice broke-once rich, entrepreneur, adoptive father…

I’d like to ask for your vote. It will only take 60 seconds and could accomplish something very interesting. Really. I’m not kidding.

Let me explain. As most of you know, 2009 has not been exactly the kind of year I would have scripted for me and my family. But, as it turns out, the Salt Lake Tribune want’s to know if I should be the “Utahn of the Year.”  I’m not kidding.

As no one who has followed me for any length of time could have missed, I have not only been an outspoken critic of over-sized government, but a few years ago I got real specific about criticizing a few very malicious bureaucrats who have essentially dedicated their lives to destroying my businesses and my reputation. Of course, I’m not one to shy away from the battle, and I will continue to fight—to not only restore my businesses and our creditors, but also, to see that the facts are given their fair attention in a legitimate forum (the courtroom) so that my public reputation will be restored to good standing with reasonable folks.

So, back to the Tribune’s recent article. Yesterday, the paper published a list of 13 “newsmakers” and asked their readers to vote on who should be considered the “Utahn of the Year.” Evidently the paper is going to pick their own winner, and frankly my vote (if I had to pick from the list they give) would be Elizabeth Smart. But, they are asking online readers to vote from the list so they can see how their “choice compares.” It’s all a little hokey for me.

But, since my name was mentioned I browsed through the list. I couldn’t really make heads or tails of it. Evidently, these are people whose names appeared most frequently in the Tribune’s headlines this year. But, it seems to me to be oddly missing other names that more easily come to mind. Anyway, for some dumb reason I’m number 8 on the Tribune’s list of candidates. Of course I haven’t done a darn thing this year to be legitimately considered something like the Utahn of the Year. But, then I got to thinking…

Not only have I done absolutely nothing to be considered “Utahn of the Year,” I’ve also done nothing that could rationally explain why I’m now facing charges with a potential penalty of over 200 years in federal prison.

As most of you know, the Salt Lake Tribune, along with the rest of the government media who seem content reporting government press releases as actual news, has done little-to-no real journalism to tell the real story about me, my companies, and these charges. So, I don’t know if it was my sense of humor, my orneriness or my…

Re: News of the superseding indictment reported in the local media on the evening of Tuesday, November 10, 2009

“Nothing has been filed.  We learned of the superseding indictment from the government’s press release.  Apparently the government’s practice here is to issue a press release to the public before giving the defense an opportunity to review the underlying document.  So, we are unable to comment on the specifics.

“Notably, Mr. Koerber’s lead attorney was on the phone with the prosecutors today discussing matters in the case, and they did not say anything about it.  Nevertheless, an increase in the number of counts does not change the flawed and disjointed foundation of the government’s case. Judging from its press release, the government seems to be trying to stretch the same allegations over more and more charges.  These are the same allegations, mind you, that the government first asserted in the course of an investigation which an independent government Auditor has described as “inappropriate” and “inconsistent” with “established policies and procedures.”  The head of the investigation now is the same individual who first referred this matter to the Attorney General of the State of Utah—the Attorney General, of course, declined to prosecute the case for a lack of any real evidence of wrongdoing.  Adding more words and allegations should not change the fundamental conclusion.”

—End

Without any contention we have worked together to resolve our mutual concerns at every step and complete the divorce processes, paperwork, and legal filings required of us in this situation.  I continue to love and support Michelle for herself and as the mother of our children.  I think our relationship will remain long term and very close.

It is unfortunate but not all that surprising that reporters would consider my family life part of their fodder for promoting gossip.    Given the weak journalistic standards of some in the press, I am not confident that this matter will be accurate so I caution the honest reader that any speculation or public report regarding any of our future plans is premature and uncivil.

I’ve always been very open with those close to me and with the public.  I will continue to be so when appropriate announcements are forthcoming.  In the mean time I hope that my friends, family and associates can all remember, principles govern and time is on the side of truth.

P.S.  A friend just recently commented on how disgusted he was to see the way my “story” is playing out in the media given that he is in a first hand position to see the truths so frequently distorted and contradicted by shoddy reporting.  I responded by telling him, quite candidly, “I knew what I was signing up for when I stepped into the ring.  When you are in the middle of a boxing match you don’t complain that you just got hit in the nose.”

To those with loving and friendly concerns like my friend’s, remember people often judge too hastily and the media seldom gets to the bottom of the truth in the short term.  But, have faith.  Over time, the truth will be laid bare and those who are interested in the truth will be able to see, very clearly, all the answers to their legitimate questions.    We have a long fight ahead of us and are extremely grateful for loyal and faithful friends.

–Rick

The short sighted and pious platitudes of Mr. Grover, a self-proclaimed Utah libertarian, demonstrate an alarming trend, exerting a surprisingly Herculean pressure, in modern politics.  Namely, in our current era, posturing and hasty generalizations serve as a regular substitutes for critical thinking and rational conclusions.  In this case, Mr. Grover’s brain-off, mouth open response to the so-called “Carl Wimmer Scandal” should be seen by citizens for precisely what it is—short sighted, and dangerously naïve.

The critical matter at issue in this story, and similarly at issue in our contemporary political culture, is one that ‘posture first, think later’ politicos like Tom keep missing.  The greatest threat to the individual liberty of free citizens does NOT come from private citizens (regardless of what they stand accused), it comes directly from government.

All contemporary issues notwithstanding the greatest danger facing free citizens today is unaccountable, overzealous, and unchecked government.  Very often, this threat takes the form of little known bureaucracy and even less known bureaucrats who freely trample the rights of citizens with little to no scrutiny or accountability.

Something that seems to escape the sporadic mental awareness of pundits like Grover, when contemplating political realities, is that business owners and entrepreneurs are citizens too.  Of course, someone who self-identifies as a libertarian knows this in theory, but in practice, folks like Tom seem to have trouble venturing beyond their own presumptions to see just exactly what their ideas mean when translated into the real world.

Take one simple example, where Mr. Grover remarks,

“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.”

Here, Mr. Grover clearly and openly suggests that the right thing is for government to be allowed to do whatever it wants, and if it oversteps or does wrong, then those who are “victimized” can seek to…

“I originally approached Representative Wimmer and discussed my concerns of abusive and illegal tactics used by Francine Giani’s Department because I believed that he understood the proper role of government  and also agreed that every person investigated by the government deserves to be treated with fairness.  I also hoped that as a former law enforcement official Carl could see that, regardless of the underlying case, severe government abuses against its citizens during official investigations cannot be tolerated in a free society.  The 2008 legislative audit results of the Utah Division of Securities vindicated our common concern, and demonstrates that my request for assistance was accurate and well founded.  Why he is now apparently seeking to distance himself from me is a question only he can answer.  Representative Wimmer has not been involved, to any degree, in the businesses mentioned in the federal indictment against me.

“Did I consider Representative Wimmer a friend at the time I first approached him? Yes.  Do I now consider him a friend? Yes.  Am I surprised and disappointed at the way he has responded to questions about our relationship?  Yes.

“However, what I am even more concerned with, is how little scrutiny has been given to Francine Giani and her department since the legislative audit of the Utah Division of Securities publicly revealed that she and her department regularly engage in a disturbing pattern of conduct including:  1-Misleading the public, 2-Misstating the law to citizens, 3-Arbitrary enforcement of the law, 4-Conflicts of interest, 5-Document fraud, 6-Contempt or lack of respect for court rulings pertaining to innocent parties, 7-Coercive settlement tactics,  8-Knowingly making false statements during official proceedings, 9-Failure to remain impartial, and 10-Ongoing problems after the resignation of former Director Wayne Klein.”

Note: Carl and I got to know each other through my radio show and political events.  We did not know each other before that nor have we ever been “social” friends.  I have never been to his home, and he has only been to mine during events hosted there.  I consider Carl a friend and value our relationship.  While I cannot agree to the characterization that we are “distant acquaintances” I stand behind whatever other characterization Carl wishes to use as he defines, for himself, our relationship.  For several years, I have considered him a friend and a reputable lawmaker–even given the few matters upon which we’ve disagreed related to policy & politics.

None of this, of course, is real news.  The real news is related to government, the accountability of government officials for stepping over the lines of civility and legality.  Should I…

June 15, 2009

By Rick Koerber
Founder of the Free Capitalist Project

Long after her death, it’s sad to see so many Objectivists losing sight of Ayn Rand’s personal mission. Talking like an Objectivist, referencing the characters in her books, and using the vocabulary of her movement—are all poor substitutes for acting in accordance with the ideas of an Objectivist and working to usher forth the moral revolution she so passionately advocated.

While there are notable and significant exceptions too many Objectivists that I come across on a regular basis seem to be using their intransigent atheism to justify abandoning the actual hard work of BEING real radicals for capitalism. I’m writing this criticism, not to be sensational or to attack, but to rattle a few rusty mental cages among a crowd I consider to be my friends—friends however, who seem to have succumbed to what Ms. Rand regularly described as the ‘sluggish inertia of unfocused minds.’

Before I go any further let me also offer two very distinct caveats at the outset. Number one, I am not an expert on Objectivism—though I do consider myself a diligent student. Number two; I do not mean to suggest that most Objectivists are not thinking. I mean instead to suggest that a large number of so-called Objectivists seem to be entertained and satisfied by their own thinking—in some queer sort of intellectual masturbation—rather than translating their ideas into marketable, articulated tools for ‘building a new culture on a new moral foundation.’

Somehow, almost three decades after her death, a large body of self-proclaimed followers seems to be attempting, and in large measure successfully, a tragic historical revision; namely, equating the title Objectivist (and the less used phrase ‘radical for capitalism’) with the much less diligent pursuits of being an isolated, libertarian leaning atheist. This intellectual abdication is no simple error in judgment. It is the hallmark of second-handers and amounts to nothing less than a betrayal of Ayn Rand and her philosophy. Even worse, this betrayal is being perpetrated by a significant portion of those very people who claim to be her advocates and defenders.

Alright. If I’ve gotten the attention of my desired audience, so far my remarks have been the equivalent of taking a stick and poking it violently into a previously docile beehive. Before I’m overcome with a multitude of now irritated bees intent on me as their new target—let me back up and create some context.

I read Atlas Shrugged for the first time perhaps five years ago. So, in the world of Ayn Rand fans and students, I’m certainly not an old timer.…

Not long ago I wrote a conclusion to one of my essays, that rings so true to me today, that I thought I’d share—

The only option is to choose; to make a choice when the options are clear, and the chaos and tension that accompanies conflict has not yet become overbearingly personal.

I made my choice early on, when I first encountered these people.  I made my choice before the huge successes and before the tragic business failures that have defined the last several years.  I’m not proud or happy about the business or financial failures that have so closely affected my life, and the lives of so many of my friends and loved ones.  Nor can I rest from my own labor to compensate for the ones for where I bare primary responsibility.  But failure, financially—short or long term, has never been the enemy of free citizens in America, or throughout history.   Failure, morally—to stand up for right, for freedom, and for truth—this is a failure that I consider the most serious enemy of all.  As economic freedom is threatened broadly, across all parts of the world’s citizenry, each of us are increasingly exposed the fact that we have an inescapable choice to make, individually.

How about you?  How will you react when you have your day in court (literally or figuratively)?  Do you think that somehow you can escape the consequences of the rocky cliffs ahead?  Will you just coast along the tidal wave of life that carries you about from day-to-day while you complain as you go that your life isn’t what you want? Or, will you stand up?  Will you say to freedom’s common enemy, “There is a certain point beyond which you cannot pass!”

I’m sure the slobbery thickness of brain-off emotionalism will continue to bring more people to my door in the future asking about some supposed, pretended, or actual indictment–or maybe even worse.  But, in the mean time, me and those who stand with me (including the consistently growing numbers of those who will be standing with me tomorrow and the next day, and the days after that), we will keep producing, educating, and organizing.  And, when we can squeeze it in (and I’m pretty sure it’s something we’ll not soon forget), we’ll also do what we can to make sure the complicit schmuck’s (including those in the media, the legal profession, and in key government positions) who keep overstepping their bounds, to the detriment of innocent and free citizens, are also made to face the legal consequences of their own wrongdoing.  I doubt that they’re any more anxious to face a just tribunal than

…

“We hear it shouted,” said another Wynan editorial, “that Howard Roark spends his career in and out of courtrooms.  Well, that is true.  A man like Roark is on trial before society all his life.  Whom does that indict—Roark or society?”

—from Ayn Rand’s, The Fountainhead.

NOTE:  For detailed information about the controversies surrounding Rick Koerber and FranklinSquires visit http://www.franklinsquires.com

There is something much more noteworthy about this whole affair, so widely reported across print, broadcast and web media.  As usual, the nonsense is what draws most of our attention, and the deeper substantive questions about tangible, practical implications of abusive executive behavior just slide by, whisper like.

Let me get to my point.  When asked directly, about the bow, the White House press secretary officially responded by answering, incredulously,

No, I think he bent over…with both hands to shake his hand.

Okay.  So, you might be thinking, “Alright, Rick, this isn’t news, I already heard that.”  Alright, but let’s put a few pieces together to pain a picture that you might not have thought much about.

Piece #1 – Did the President Bow?

Of course.  Watch the video.  He bows at the waist.  He uses one hand, pauses respectfully at the bottom of the bow, just for a short second before lifting himself, and then smiles and verbally greats the Saudi King.

Piece #2.  Is the President’s bow significant?

Obviously, it depends on whose asking.  But, to the large majority of the human population, bowing isn’t something done on accident.  In an April 7th editorial the Washington Times poignantly explains,

Symbolism is important in world affairs. By bending over to show greater respect to Islam, the U.S. president belittled the power and independence of the United States. The bow was an extraordinary protocol violation. Such an act is a traditional obeisance befitting a king’s subjects, not his peer. There is no precedent for U.S. presidents bowing to Saudi or any other royals…Mr. Obama’s bow to the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques does not help his image with those who believe he is secretly a Muslim, and why he chose to bow only to the Saudi King and not to any other royals remains unexplained.

No Americans of any station are required to bow to royalty. It is one of the pillars of American exceptionalism that our country rejected traditional caste divisions. Article I Section 9 of the Constitution forbids titles of nobility and stipulates that no officeholder or government employee may “accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state” without the consent

…