Whenever a self-proclaimed libertarian takes the side of government over its citizens, you can bet that something sinister is underway.   I can’t think of a more appropriate way to describe Tom Grover’s recent attempt of political opinionating in his piece, “Rep. Carl Wimmer scandal isn’t about Rick Koerber, it’s about the integrity of our justice system.”  Mr. Grover essentially argues three points, 1) that Wimmer has betrayed the interests of justice and should resign for “intimidating” regulators, 2) that lawmakers should learn a lesson and steer clear of similar conduct, and 3) that Utahans should let regulators like Francine Giani alone while they do ‘their job.’

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 have their day in civil court.  How dumb does this idea suggest citizens are?  Since when was this the position of a libertarian?  How is this an idea rooted in justice, a concept Mr. Grover seems to approve of, at least rhetorically?  You see, to the brain-off crowd, it might not be clear, but to the rest of us—we can see exactly what the consequences are of these not-so-libertarian ideas advanced by Mr. Grover. To illustrate, look at one simple quote from Mr. Grover’s story.  It contains only four sentences, but they speak volumes about what’s really being advocated.

#1 – “If Mr. Koerber is a victim, he can prove it in court.”

While the distinction will serve little purpose to most, it is worth noting that I’ve never claimed to be a “victim.”  What I have claimed is that the government has been engaged in wrongdoing, in illegal behavior, and in abusive violations of its citizens’ individual, civil rights.

>>>See “Federal Indictment Doesn’t Discourage Rick Koerber from Lashing Out at State Investigators,” by Fields Moseley (KUTV, Utah Channel 2 News)
>>>See “Rick Koerber Responds to Indictment,” by Franklin Squires (Official Company Website)

Besides the impact on my family and me, the actions of bureaucrat Giani and her colleagues have cost hundreds of Utahans their honest, well paying jobs.  In addition, the State action she oversaw has played a direct role in Utah citizens losing hundreds of millions of dollars.  So, if you’re going to choose to see ‘victims’ in this context, don’t forget to take a full measure.

Now, getting to the point more directly, let us think through what Mr. Grover is also suggesting.  Anyone aggrieved by suspected corruption, abuse, or malfeasance on the part of government officials, employees, or agents should just calm down, wait until the damage is fully done and then seek their day in court.  This would be like a citizen never being able to call the police when a crime is in progress, instead having as the only remedy, waiting until the commission of a crime is all over and then sue the criminals in civil court.

Of course, the implication of Mr. Grover’s idea is absurd when applied in such a common context (such as police officers and typical criminals), but when Mr. Grover applies it to government regulators and small business owners, the same idea passes for legitimate opinion.  Never mind that such a day in court is not permitted, in most circumstances, without first having to obtain permission from the government–to bring suit against a government agency.  Never mind that paying for such a day in court is, at a minimum, a several hundred thousand dollar venture (a sum much more difficult to muster after the government has had its way to begin with.)  Oh, and never mind that some damage and some wrongs committed cannot be undone by winning a victory in civil court (even if that victory includes a large money settlement).

It’s curious to me, how someone like Mr. Grover, evidently now attending law school (just what the world needs is another brain-off lawyer) can claim to love liberty while his own ideas self-evidently loathe the idea.  Would Mr. Grover, I wonder, hold the same ideas if it was him or his family that was being deprived of liberty without trial, being slandered and defamed by government employees working outside the law; or, if it was his livelihood being destroyed by someone like Francine Giani who actually has no legal qualifications whatsoever and yet holds virtually unchecked bureaucratic autonomy to shut down any small business or entrepreneur she whimsically sees fit?

Now, lest the reader think that by disagreeing with my characterization of Ms. Giani and her powers, you’ve escaped the logic of my conclusion – remember – Mr. Grover’s idea is that, no matter what has happened, no matter what wrong has been or might have been perpetuated by the government, the real remedy is to seek redress in civil court, after the fact.  Government officials, I guess in Mr. Grover’s views, are immune from criminal prosecution for wrongdoing–so long as the accusations originate from private citizens.

Note: This is of course, unless a free citizen, with no complaints or charges filed and no formal accusations made of any kind, and under no arrest, has contacted the government official in question and requested legitimate assistance in getting fair treatment from a government agency.  In this case, and this case only, it appears, Mr. Grover supports added scrutiny and accountability

Unfortunately, many of his readers will not easily see the obvious evil in his kind of juvenile pontificating.  Suggesting that a citizen’s only right consists of enduring abuse by the government only later hoping for a victory in civil court, is a political philosophy shared by the likes of Saddam, Chavez, Stalin, Mussolini, and in the Founder’s day, King George.

“#2 – Evidence obtained against him illegally or coercively will be excluded.”

It’s obvious that Mr. Gover hasn’t thought this one through.  First, you have to ask, who is it that will exclude such evidence?  You see, Ms. Giani has large, virtually unchecked latitude in bringing sanctions, administrative orders, etc., without any outside interference.

Second, the independent legislative audit (which I understand is probably too much reading, being over forty printed pages, to be expected of someone like Mr. Grover and his political likenesses who also pass sweeping legislation without so much as reading it) concluded that Ms. Giani’s department used illegally obtained evidence to exert extrajudicial pressure and coercion on small business owners.

Third, Mr. Grover seems to either forget or be unaware that grand juriess are enabled in almost all circumstances to hear and consider almost any such evidence in order to obtain an indictment.

Finally, the point being missed here is that the sum of my complaints against the government—and to the point of Mr. Grover’s essay, of Mr. Wimmer’s complaints against Giani—has not been that they have obtained evidence illegally (though they have) or that they’ve attempted coercion (though they have) but, the most substantive complaint has always been that the government is using extra-legal, and extra-judicial means of exacting punishment without any due process of the law and without regard to the rights of the citizens involved.

“#3 – Other abuses can be addressed in civil court.”

This is always the argument of the brain-off crowd when seeking to excuse their own cowardice.  But, just how is it that a reputation can be regained in court?  How is it that a company destroyed unjustly by government bureaucrats, (that before hand had an excellent reputation, had paid all its bills, and had earned substantial assets in excess of liabilities) can be restored through civil court?

How is it that personal relationships destroyed by the lies and misinformation of the government and its agents can magically be remedied or repaired in civil court, after the fact?  You see, the underlying idea behind Mr. Grover’s argument is that all wrongs boil down to money; money, of course, that can be repaid to any supposed victim if a civil jury decides in your favor.  At the same time, people making this kind of argument are the first to point out, in their stiff-necked and boastful dignity, that money is not what life is all about.  If only Mr. Grover and his equivalents were as interested in measuring the real costs of tyranny in the currency of personal liberty.

“#4 – Incidentally, Mr. Koerber was indicted after U.S. Attorney for Utah Bret Tolman conducted his own separate investigation.”

I started out by warning that Mr. Grover’s ideas are dangerous and naïve.  I did so in the interest of those who might be tempted to believe him.  Here is a perfect example of how such danger and naivety plays out.  It is absolutely clear that Mr. Tolman’s office did not conduct it’s “own separate investigation.”  While language to that effect has been thrown around, the clear evidence is quite the opposite.  At the press conference, held by Mr. Tolman (a federal official), he invited Ms. Giani (a state official) to speak to the media about her involvement.  During her remarks she claimed ultimate credit and victory for the federal indictment and even thanked the Utah governor for sticking behind her.   Mr. Tolman remarked that the investigation had started by a referral from Ms. Giani and would continue to be carried out in partnership with the Utah Department of Commerce.  Yes, it can be argued, that the federal government employed an IRS agent and an FBI agent to interview and gather evidence.  However, the theory behind the charges in the indictment, and the supporting evidence so far detailed by the government, shows unmistakably that it was the State of Utah’s investigation that drove this case to federal indictment.

One last thing about this whole, “incidentally” remark by Mr. Grover.  Does it matter?  Does it even matter if the person who is the subject of such an investigation is guilty (which I am not, by the way)?  Meaning, have we reached a point in society where misdeeds, abuse, and even criminal conduct by government officials and agents is tolerable and/or excused so long as some other agency “ratifies” the action by bringing charges?  Or, to put the matter even more simply, Mr. Grover is suggesting that from this point forward in America, all the misdeeds and corruption on the part of government should be excused so long as they are going after a legitimate target.

Think about this.  This kind of “ends justify the means” argument is the same argument advanced by every tyrant in history.  Hitler, Stalin, and today’s Kim Jong-il, Castro, and Chavez all justify the ugliness and brutality of their methods by holding up their supposedly righteous goals.  Remember, they all think they are “good guys” using government to “promote the greater good.”  While it may not be obvious to Mr. Grover and those of his political ilk, this is the same behavior for which he is offering an outright apology/defense.

I can’t help but wonder if and when other liberty loving citizens will get sick enough about this kind of wickedness being disguised as reasoned political opinion that folks like Mr. Grover might actually have to start answering for such embarrassing and disgustingly vulgar expressions.  Wouldn’t it be interesting if someone like Mr. Grover was actually expected to defend the implications of his political ideas?

Now, let’s bring this whole thing to the central point.  You see, no one has to defend me or my supposed business dealings, in order to defend the role played by Carl Wimmer in this whole affair.  Rep. Wimmer did not seek to have Ms. Giani fired because she was investigating me – this is a red herring – thrown out by the lazy and insincere.  Carl’s insistence that she be fired was based upon her behavior, her disregard for the law, her ineffective leadership (remember her appointee Wayne Klein resigned to soften the potential blow to Ms. Giani and her department when the results of the audit were released) and her abusive tactics.

It should be noted that it was not my case alone that brought Carl to this position and it was not my case alone that led to the audit.

For my case, it now looks like the allegations will be settled in a courtroom.  However, honest and concerned citizens should be asking why Ms. Giani’s behavior continually gets a pass by lawmakers, by the Governor, and even by the media.  Why hasn’t a single source in the established media started asking questions of Ms. Giani?   Remember, it was not me, my case, or Carl Wimmer who documented the grievous miscarriages of justice being carried out by Ms. Giani’s department.  Completely independent of my case, it was audit manager Tim Osterstock, Audit Supervisor Susan Verhoef and the leadership of the legislature that uncovered this disturbing pattern.  Everything I’ve released to the public (including audio tapes clearly documenting criminal and felonious behavior by Ms. Giani’s staff) has been in addition to the audit’s published findings.  Yet, the government has not sought to hold Ms. Giani and her minions accountable to any substantial degree.  No criminal investigation or civil investigation have been launched and the media continues to ignore this reality.  What is the purpose of conducting such audits of government agencies if the findings are just getting swept under the rug?

Ms. Giani, thanks to Mr. Grover and other lazy-minded pontificators and pseudo journalists, continues to hide her abuse and incompetence by stoking the flames of my case while playing the victim herself of Wimmer, and Shurtleff and who knows who else.

I find it mildly hilarious that when it was revealed in the media this past week that one of her own employees retaliated against Mr .Wimmer, a duly elected lawmaker, for asking around about allegations of the Department’s alleged abuse (her employee–a paid bureaucrat—sent an email to Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff lying about Wimmer’s motives and the nature of his relationship with me) that nothing more is said about it, but Wimmer is still painted as the bad guy, doing his friend a favor.  Since when were elected Representatives made off limits when a private citizen elect to exercise their constitutional right to petition their government for redress?

I’ll admit Francine makes a better poster child for victimhood than I do.  Her entire demeanor and public posture is that of a person being unfairly criticized and she is just out for vindication.  Never mind that several lawmakers (though not many courageous enough to speak out now in this climate) have done the same thing as Wimmer.  Never mind that she has been directly implicated in the wrongdoing discovered by the performance audit.  Never mind that her employees (even ones she has publicly defended) can easily be demonstrated to have been engaged in malicious behavior.  She’s building nothing, and she’s standing for no principle–but how dare an elected Representative ask the Governors to hold one of his appointees accountable.

Ironically, those in government who fancy themselves defenders of freedom haven’t shown themselves brave enough to actually hold her to the same standard as the rest of  Utah’s private citizens.  Have we forgotten that government employees are first and foremost citizens like the rest of us?  This whole situation reminds me of the Utah judge not long ago who was recorded, saying in her courtroom to a citizen addressing the court, “you and I are not equal, I am a judge.”

When Mr. Grover suggests that Rep. Wimmer betrayed the interests of justice and should resign for intimidating regulators, he ignores the undisputed fact that the now public legislative audit is sufficient grounds for anyone, including an individual legislator, to make such demands–regardless of my case.

In addition, to suggest that lawmakers should learn a lesson and steer clear of conduct similar to Wimmer’s is to suggest that executive branch employees and bureaucrats should not have to fear the check and balance oversight rightly provided by the legislature.  Never mind that the legislature has statutory authority to do just that.  I wonder, if left to Mr. Grover, who should be in charge of holding folks like Ms. Giani accountable.  Oh, yea, the courts–civilly, after the fact.  How just.

Think this one through.  The bureaucrats in this present case work for the executive branch of Utah government.  Their boss is ultimately, Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr.  He has demonstrated, directly and indirectly no interest and/or ability to oversee the abuses documented in the audit.  He’s actually never publicly expressed an opinion on the audit, its findings, or the consequences of such abusive behavior being carried by his branch of government, under his watch.  Does no one in the Utah media even have a curiosity about this major blunder?

What Mr. Grover is suggesting is that the legislature, even in the actions of its individual members, has no place putting pressure (even as a check against abuse) on the executive branch of government.  He tries to make the argument that Rep. Wimmer was simply trying to protect “one of his cronies” but the argument is laughable to anyone interested in the facts.  Consider the following.

1) Carl never tried to interfere with the investigation itself.

2) In addition to the performance audit, several other legislators were interested in the very same outcome, and that had nothing to do with me or the investigation of my companies.

3) The pressure he exerted by simply asking questions initially brought a Giani subordinate, the now resigned Director Wayne Klein, to admit that he was choosing his course of action against me—not based upon the facts or the law—but in his own words, because “[I had] legislators out there trying to cut [their] powers.”   Heaven forbid a legislator seeking to limit the power of a bureaucrat.  For this alone Wimmer should be hung, I’m sure.

3) Perhaps most importantly, after several years, Ms. Giani was unsuccessful in bringing any action against me civilly or criminally.  Don’t forget, her chief investigator in my case and the head of enforcement for the investigation, just one month prior to Ms. Giani turning the case over to the Feds, suggested to me, to her and to the AGs office that there “was no evidence” sufficient to bring charges of any wrong doing against me.  Any interested party can hear one of his several statements, in his own voice, concluding as much.

Has there been any news coverage of this?  If there was evidence that I should have been charged by the State of Utah, why did Ms. Giani neglect to produce the evidence when asked by the Utah Attorney General’s office in November / December of 2007?

In his piece, Mr. Grover writes,

“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?”

Agreed, Mr. Grover, it is about more than Carl Wimmer or Rick Koerber.  Agreed, it is about the integrity of our justice system.  Agreed, that Utahans should be asking themselves what kind of state they want to live in.  Agreed, that accusations of fraud should be adjudicated on the merits in court.  Have you considered reading the audit results of the Utah Division of Securities?  What would the audit results show, heaven forbid, if the legislature undertook an audit of all divisions in the Department of Commerce?

After five years, why didn’t the state of Utah bring any single action against me in any court?  Because of Wimmer and the Attorney General?  The facts are not on the side of those who glibly make this suggestion.  Ask Ms. Giani why she didn’t bring any evidence to the Utah Attorney General’s office suggesting wrongdoing.  Why didn’t she bring administrative actions (she could do that by statute without involving the Attorney General’s office)?  Why didn’t she ask a county or district prosecutor to bring such charges?  She’s done that in other cases.  Shouldn’t the questions, at least, be asked?

Even if there were reasons to bring charges against me, and none were brought, how is this a greater threat to the “integrity of the Justice System” than lying officials, or bureaucrats over-stepping the law and committing criminal violations thereof in pursuit of their case?

There used to be a time in America (between approximately 1776 and about 1930) that the basic philosophy of our justice system was “its better to let a potentially guilty man go free than to convict innocent men by overzealous government.”  Instead, today, the philosophy being advocated by Mr. Grover is that somehow I am a greater threat to justice than rogue government.  This is beyond reason.  It is insanity.

To argue that Utahans should let regulators like Francine Giani alone while they do ‘their job’ is to suggest that citizens should not have elected representatives at all (at least not Representatives who can take their interests into account in all matter of government.)

If Carl Wimmer was wrong to “represent” the interests of fairness and justice “for all citizens” in Utah and it is indeed the right thing to let government (Francine Giani or anyone else) escape accountability for their actions except after the fact – and perhaps then only in civil court – America has died.

Long after my case is over, come what may, Mr. Libertarian, we will still be dealing with a Department of Commerce that has only become emboldened since having their conduct publicly exposed, with little or no consequence, 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.”

You point the finger at people like Representative Wimmer, but the truth of the matter Tom, is that you are the one posturing for government—not its citizens. While not everyone sees it, those who are awake and thinking, do in fact see the consequence of your ideas, and they are disgusting, repugnant, and indicative of something far more sinister than the object of your story.  The intellectual laziness, quickness to judge, and slowness to see past the whim-of-the-day media spin evidenced by your piece is something much more to be feared than a legislator asking for a bureaucrats head.

If you liked this post, try these...

• February 14, 2008 -- Francine’s Domain – Scandal Brewing in Utah Government
• December 6, 2009 -- Is Rick Koerber really the “Utahn of the Year?”
• June 25, 2009 -- Rick Koerber answers, “Is Rep. Carl Wimmer My Friend?”
• April 10, 2008 -- Carl Wimmer & Friends: Superheroes?
• July 19, 2010 -- Guess what I got from the Governor.

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 have been any of history’s well known tyrants and their dimwitted, brain off accomplices.

- Thank you Ann, Clyne, Brad, Jason, Jewel, Tom, Sonny, Steve, and Israel.  Michelle was couragous, thank you dear.   Also, thank you to those who would stand / will stand – as we take the Project forward despite the challenges and obstacles in our way.  You never know exactly when you might be asked to make a decision to stand with a friend, or to stand for a cause or a principle.  Excuses are always possible, and conflicting choices by definition must be present.  But, all the talk in the world and friendly expressions built up over time — these don’t count the same as the simple, but difficult decision, to take a stand when defining moments come.

Friendship is a grand, fundamental principle (to paraphrase my greatest mortal hero) and words cannot express the feelings of friends, acting freely, to lend costly support—especially, when juding eyes are watching, gossiping lips are talking, and pointing fingers are mocking.

If you liked this post, try these...

• November 3, 2009 -- Koerbers Divorce
• June 29, 2009 -- Brain-Off, Mouth Open: Tom Grover Misses the Point
• April 8, 2009 -- Rick Koerber Indicted? Schmucks, Grand Juries, & the Trials Ahead.