Mediaboss Marketing

Following her graduation from Yale Law School until becoming first lady of the United States in 1993, Hillary Clinton (ne Hillary Rodham) practiced law.

During her postgraduate studies, Clinton, at the time known as Hillary Rodham, worked as a staff attorney for Edelman's newly founded Children's Defense Fund in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and as a consultant to the Carnegie Council on Children.[2] In 1974, she was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C. during the impeachment process against Richard Nixon, and advised the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal. Under the guidance of Chief Counsel John Doar and senior member Bernard W. Nussbaum, Rodham helped research procedures of impeachment and the historical grounds and standards for it. The committee's work culminated with the resignation of President Richard Nixon in August 1974.

After moving to Arkansas in 1974 with her boyfriend Bill Clinton, Rodham initially jointed the University of Arkansas School of Law, where she was one of only two female faculty.[5] She taught classes in criminal law. She was considered a rigorous teacher who was tough with her grades.

Soon after joining the faculty at the University of Arkansas Law School, Rodham managed to convince an all-male politically-conservative panel of 25 lawyers and jurists from the Arkansas Bar Association to provide $10,000 in funding to establish the state's first legal aid clinic.[7] Rodham became the first director of the clinic at the University of Arkansas School of Law. Clinton secured support for the clinic from the local bar association and gained federal funding.

As a court-appointed lawyer, Rodham was required to act as defense counsel to a man accused of raping a 12-year-old girl (Kathy Shelton). After Rodham's request to be relieved of the assignment failed, she used an effective defense and counseled her client to plead guilty to a lesser charge. Rodham has called the trial a "terrible case".[7][9] During her time in Fayetteville, Rodham and several other women founded the city's first rape crisis center.

Clinton's early litigation work saw great focus on cases related to family law and domestic disputes.[7] In a 2016 article, Amy Chozick of the New York Times wrote,

A tour of Mrs. Clintons early work as a litigator, through interviews with some of the trial lawyers, judges and clients who remember her, turns up much of what would distinguish her as a politician many years later: Diligent preparation and a surgical approach to dismantling opposing arguments. A capacity for warmth with clients and adversaries alike. Toughness and deftness in the face of male condescension. And a minimal appetite for the spotlight, if not quite an aversion to it.[7]

After Rodham married Bill Clinton on October 11, 1975, she initially retained her maiden name. Her motivation for doing so was threefold: she wanted to keep the couple's professional lives separate, avoid apparent conflicts of interest, and as she told a friend at the time, "it showed that I was still me". The decision upset both mothers, who were more traditional.[11]

In November 1976, after Bill Clinton was elected Arkansas attorney general, and the couple moved to the state capital of Little Rock. In February 1977, Rodham joined the venerable Rose Law Firm, a bastion of Arkansan political and economic influence.[13] Clinton was the first first lady Arkansas to be employed during their husband's governorship.[14] She was the first female associate at the firm.[15] She specialized in patent infringement and intellectual property law[16] while working pro bono in child advocacy; she rarely performed litigation work in court. Clinton largely represented businesses,[7] and a later Wall Street Journal review of court records indicates that the majority of the cases Clinton represented in court saw her defending large corporations.[15]

While at the firm, Rodham maintained her interest in children's law and family policy, publishing the scholarly articles "Children's Policies: Abandonment and Neglect" in 1977[19] and "Children's Rights: A Legal Perspective" in 1979.[20] The latter continued her argument that children's legal competence depended upon their age and other circumstances and that in serious medical rights cases, judicial intervention was sometimes warranted. An American Bar Association chair later said, "Her articles were important, not because they were radically new but because they helped formulate something that had been inchoate."[21] Historian Garry Wills would later describe her as "one of the more important scholar-activists of the last two decades".[22] Conservatives said her theories would usurp traditional parental authority,[23] would allow children to file frivolous lawsuits against their parents,[21] and exemplified critical legal studies run amok.[24]

Clinton's first jury trial saw her represent a canning company in a lawsuit from a man that alleged that he had found part of a rodent in can of pork and beans which they produced. The canning company she represented was ordered to pay only nominal damages in the trial.[7]

In 1977, one of the first assignments Clinton was given at the Rose Law Firm was to assist the First Electric Cooperative in litigation to overturn a ballot measure that had increased the electric rates that businesses were billed at while decreasing the electric rates that poor individuals were charged.[7][15] The ballot measure had been championed by Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). Clinton wrote the legal brief for the case, which argued that the measure would cause businesses to leave the state. The First Electric Cooperative won the case.[7] Laura Meckler and Peter Nicholas of The Wall Street Journal observed in 2016 that this assignment was contrary to Clinton's pre-corporate law roots. Clinton's Rose Law Firm colleague Webb Hubbell later recalled the assignment, writing, "Instead of defending poor people and righting wrongs, we found ourselves squarely on the side of corporate greed against the little people."[15]

A 2016 New York Times article by Amy Chozick recounted that as, "one of only a handful of women litigating cases in [Arkansas]," Clinton, "carefully calibrated her appearance and approach.[7]"

While working at the law firm, Clinton represented a failed savings and loan association that had been led by James McDougal. McDougal and his wife would partner with Clinton and her husband in the Whitewater real estate investment that was the root of the later Whitewater controversy.[15]

In 1977, Rodham cofounded Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, a state-level alliance with the Children's Defense Fund.[16] Later that year, President Jimmy Carter (for whom Rodham had been the 1976 campaign director of field operations in Indiana)[27][28] appointed her to the board of directors of the Legal Services Corporation.[29] She held that position from 1978 until the end of 1981.[30] From mid-1978 to mid-1980,[a] she was the chair of that board, the first woman to hold the job.[31] During her time as chair, funding for the corporation was expanded from $90million to $300million; subsequently, she successfully fought President Ronald Reagan's attempts to reduce the funding and change the nature of the organization.

In 1979, Rodham became the first woman to be made a full partner in Rose Law Firm. From 1978 until they entered the White House, she had a higher salary than her husband. In November 1980, Bill Clinton was defeated in his bid for re-election. Two years later, he returned to his job as governor of Arkansas after winning the election of 1982. During her husband's campaign to reassume the governorship, Hillary took a leave of absence from Rose Law to campaign for him full-time, and also began to use the name "Hillary Clinton", or sometimes "Mrs. Bill Clinton", to assuage the concerns of Arkansas voters, and she would continue to use this name.During her second stint as the first lady of Arkansas, she made a point of using Hillary Rodham Clinton as her name.[b]

Clinton continued to practice law with the Rose Law Firm while she was again the first lady of Arkansas. She earned less than the other partners, as she billed fewer hours but still made more than $200,000 in her final year there.[38] Clinton was billed fewer hours than other partners due to commitments from her position as first lady of the state and her charitable work.[7] The firm considered her a "rainmaker" because she brought in clients, partly thanks to the prestige she lent it and to her corporate board connections. She was also very influential in the appointment of state judges.[38] Bill Clinton's Republican opponent in his 1986 gubernatorial re-election campaign accused the Clintons of conflict of interest because Rose Law did state business; the Clintons countered the charge by saying that state fees were walled off by the firm before her profits were calculated.

In a case in which Clinton represented Maybelline, she convinced a judge to allow her to question an expert witness via a satellite video feed. This was a first in an Arkansas courtroom.[7]

From 1987 to 1991, she was the first chair of the American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession, created to address gender bias in the legal profession and induce the association to adopt measures to combat it. She was twice named by The National Law Journal as one of the 100 most influential lawyers in Americain 1988 and 1991. She was one of only four female lawyers featured on the 1988 list.[42]

Clinton was chairman of the board of the Children's Defense Fund[43][44] and on the board of the Arkansas Children's Hospital's Legal Services (198892)[45] Clinton also held positions on the corporate board of directors of some Rose Law Firm clients. This included the board of TCBY from 1985 until 1992 and the board of Wal-Mart Stores from 1986 until 1992.[38][46]

During her husband's 1992 presidential campaign, Clinton faced accusations that she had perhaps been the beneficiary of state business directed to the firm during her husband's governorship.[15] Great public scrutiny was given to her career at Rose Law Firm.[7]

Clinton's work with the Rose Law Firm is regarded as a lesser-known aspect of her biography. Clinton herself rarely discussed her fifteen years in corporate law when campaigning for president, at one point even completely omitting it from her 2016 presidential campaign's official biography of her.[15]

Read more from the original source:
Legal career of Hillary Clinton - Wikipedia

Self-incrimination is the intentional or unintentional act of providing information that will suggest your involvement in a crime, or expose you to criminalprosecution.

TheFifth Amendmentprovides protection to individuals from being compelled to incriminate themselves. According to this Constitutional right, individuals have the privilege against self-incrimination. They can refuse to answer questions, refuse to make potentially incriminating statements, or refuse totestify at a trial in any criminal case.This right is applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Thisprivilege only protects individuals. Artificial entities like companies, partnerships, and LLPs cannot assert this privilege. The exception to this is asole proprietorship.

Custodians of corporate records cannot refuse to provide records, even if such materials may incriminate custodians themselves.

The privilege only protects testimonial evidence like statements admitting guilt. Non-testimonial physical evidence like blood and DNA tests, handwriting samples, or fingerprints arenot protected.

The privilege allows an individual to reject producing or turning over incriminating documents that constitute self-incriminating testimony even if that person is served with a subpoena for doing so. The privilege does not prevent the use of some documents, like incriminating:

However, the government may not compel theindividual to write a diary, because the diary is testimonial in nature and thecontents are similar to testimony; see Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966).

If an individuals business is inherently suspected of a crime, that person can refuse to register; see Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 52 (1968).

The privilege usually applies in criminal procedure. But it may extend to a witness in any proceeding if their testimony provides a reasonable possibility of incriminating oneself in future criminal proceedings, even if the testimony is made in a civil procedure. However, if the civil records are maintained for administrative purposes as public records, the privilege does not apply.

In addition to the protections created by the Fifth Amendment, other federal laws also provide protections related to self-incrimination.

The same protections that exist for typical criminal matters may not exist in other matters, particularly those related to tax issues with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

TheSupreme Court held in Beckwith v. United States, 425 U.S. 341 (1976) that the same protection does not apply to a non-custodial interview, such as one held by IRS agents. The non-custodial interview in Beckwith was one that was held at a private home.The Court held that this was not a police-dominated atmosphere; as such, there was not the usual need for safeguards to counteract the compulsion which exists in a custodial environment.

However, the questioned individual may still receive some protections in non-custodial tax matters. When someone is being interviewed by IRS agents with regard to criminal tax matters, the IRS agent is required to provide the questioned individual with appropriate warnings, seeUnited States v. Leahey, 434 F.2d 7 (lst Cir. 1970).

A defendant invokes privilege by refusing to take the stand. Thus, the court cannot compel them to testify, and the prosecutor cannot take their failure to take the stand to the jurys attention. If the prosecutor made a comment, it would trigger the harmless-error test.

A witness can only invoke the privilege in response to a specific question that may incriminate oneself if they answer that question. However, a defendant has a right to confrontation provided by the Sixth Amendment. If the invocation may prevent adequate cross-examination, it may not be invoked.

Privilege invocation cannot impose a burden on individuals. If the state penalizes individuals for not cooperating with authorities or making testimony, its unconstitutional.

If a defendant takes the witness stand or a witness discloses self-incriminating information when answering specific questions, then the privilege is waived. Once waived, individuals cannot assert the privilege again when the prosecutor cross-examines their testimony.

Any incriminating statement (e.g. confession or other inculpatory statements) of a suspect obtained as the result of custodial interrogation (questions asked by known police or other law-enforcement officers after being taken into custody) is inadmissible and should be suppressed in the subsequent trial, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). However, if the suspect was informed of their Miranda rights, which gives procedural protection to privilege against self-incrimination, but they still made that statement, the statement is admissible, as their rights are waived. If the suspect made two statements, one before the Miranda warning and the other after it, the second confession is admissible unless the circumstances indicate that the substance of Miranda has been drained away. See also Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985). The suppression of incriminating statements is not automatic.

Fruitof thepoisonous tree - tainted confessions -include physical derivative evidence which is obtained as a result of a non-Mirandized confession, and the second confession is admissible if the confession is not coerced, see United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004). Failure to give Miranda warnings does not violate a suspects right. Its the use of a statement obtained this way at trial that violates. See Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003).

The Supreme Court has narrowed the scope of Miranda warnings. Here are exceptions:

After properly given, Miranda rights can be waived. The government has the burden of proof to demonstrate by a preponderance that the waiver was made knowingly and voluntarily by the suspects. The suspects silence is not enough to waive their Miranda rights.

A defendant and witness can refuse to answer questions or testify at trial if their statements will incriminate him in criminal proceedings. But the prosecutor can use prior conflicting statements to impeach the defendant once the defendant opens the door by taking stands.

If the prosecutor grants immunity to individuals at trial or before a grand jury, individuals then are compelled to testify. The testimony is not used against testified individuals in a subsequent prosecution but serves other purposes.

This is a total immunity that gives full protection to witnesses from any prosecution related to their testimony.

This precludes the prosecutor from using the witnesss testimony or evidence derived from the testimony against the witness.

Testimonies of individuals, who get immunities in one jurisdiction, cannot be used by another jurisdiction to prosecute those individuals. Therefore, if an individual gets immunity in Federal court, their testimony will be precluded admission in a State proceeding.

[Last updated in June of 2022 by the Wex Definitions Team]

View original post here:
self-incrimination | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

TeraWulf Inc. Enters into the Fifth Amendment to Its Loan, Guaranty and Security Agreement  Marketscreener.com

Here is the original post:
TeraWulf Inc. Enters into the Fifth Amendment to Its Loan, Guaranty and Security Agreement - Marketscreener.com

Photograph by John Griggs

Colin Flaherty wrote prolifically in the old Evening Tribune and San Diego Union, the SD Business Journal, San Diego Magazine, L.A. Times, and in the early 90s, even the San Diego Reader.

Three years ago in these pages, I eulogized Mr. San Diego: civic leader George Mitrovich, the man who famously knew everyone. Now Im back to pay tribute to his fellow flack and Kensingtonian, Colin Flaherty, who died last January in his hometown of Wilmington, Delaware, and who was an unmissable fixture of the San Diego scene for over 25 years. There was at least one obvious reason for that: he was big. Colin admitted to being 65, but I often suspected he was an inch or two taller. But size aside, he bestrode the local PR and journalism world like a colossus.

In the Copley papers, he wrote a weekly column that appeared under the byline of his father-in-law, ex-congressman Lionel Van Deerlin. He ghosted for others as well, and wrote prolifically under his own name: in the old Evening Tribune and San Diego Union, the SD Business Journal, San Diego Magazine, L.A. Times, and in the early 90s, even the San Diego Reader. (He turned up in the Wall Street Journal and dozen other venues, but were sticking with local color for now.) Every year, it seemed, Colin would walk away with one prize or another at the San Diego Press Club Awards.

His PR clients included a raft of politicians, and such enterprises as Qualcomm, Fidelity Investments, and Barratt American homes. Friends included editor/columnist Tom Blair; sometime-mayor and broadcast personality Roger Hedgecock (for whom Colin occasionally substituted on-air); and famous malpractice attorney Dan Broderick (at least until Dans ex-wife Betty shot both him and Wife #2 in 1989).

On a level of slighter acquaintance, maybe I could mention Karen Wilkening, 1991s Rolodex Madam, who sticks in memory because I first met her and Colin at some mutual friends backyard party. (No, they werent dating; Karen was a surprise guest though Colin was delighted.) But one person who was not Colins friend was George Mitrovich. As I was friends with both, I could never figure out what the deal was. Maybe they were too much alike: a couple of movers and shakers who both happened to have a history with Joe Biden. (George hosted Biden as a speaker at his City Club some twenty times; the teenaged Colin arranged meet-and-greets for the future President when he was just a 29-year-old Senate candidate back in Wilmington.) But whatever the reason, Colins splenetic outbursts against George were always hilarious. That no-talent sycophant did not deserve such a graceful remembrance, Colin wrote me after I sent him the Mitrovich article. Preening, pompous, all-around pretender...

The road wanderer

Colin wasnt a pretender, at least not when it came to ideas. He followed the truth as he saw it, even when it took him far afield of his former worldview. He was a wanderer, in both the physical and philosophical sense. I say wanderer, not traveler: there were two peculiarities about Colin that I spotted way back in 1991, and the first was that he seldom, if ever, drove a car. (Going car-free happens to be the preference of many writers, or so I was once told by Mr. Never-Had-a-License Ray Bradbury, a lifelong resident of Los Angeles.) Colin rode motorcycles, so it wasnt a question of not having a license. In fact, it may not have been much of a choice at all. Years after I knew him, I stumbled across this little column from the 1985 Evening Tribune, in which Colin proudly announces that he hasnt got a car, proclaiming I take the bus. Then he drops the punchline in the biographical note at the bottom: Flaherty is a political consultant who lives in Hillcrest. His wife is getting their car in a divorce settlement. He intends to buy another, but not until he can afford to get a nice one.

The other thing I noticed about Colin is that he didnt drink alcoholic beverages, of any kind even 3.2 beer, if they still make that. He had a cover story to explain it: many years ago in Colorado, he had gotten ticketed for a DUI. That was one of the first things he told me about himself. I had a mental image of him going through Colorado Springs on a big Triumph cycle, but Im pretty sure you dont want to be blotto on a motorcycle. Maybe it was a car? Maybe the story was just a white lie, something you tell your hosts when the drinks table arrives. At any rate, sober and carless are also good excuses to go hitchhiking. Then when someone gives you a lift, you can say you dont drink, and tell the tragic story of why. And hitchhiking, which is sort of the apotheosis of wandering literally getting taken for a ride was something Colin was good at.

Colin Flaherty Illustration by Meg Burns

For a long time Colins main commercial client was a busy and prosperous home builder in Riverside and San Diego Counties. At one point, Colin moved to a big new house in a little place called Winchester, and set about perfecting his golf game. This was a useful skill when his client took him on trips to England and then Scotland, where they played the links at St. Andrews. (Im no aficionado I hit a few buckets with him once many years ago but from what Im told, he was an excellent golfer and could have turned pro if hed focused as much on the game when he was young as he did in middle age.) When the client went into bankruptcy protection during the economic cratering of 15 years ago (the company has since emerged, safe and sound, I hear), Colin lit out for the territory. He went on a hitchhiking trip, venturing almost at random and writing of his adventures along the way. Eventually he packaged it as Redwood to Deadwood: A 53-Year-Old Dude Hitchhikes Across America (2011).

This was not his first long-distance hitchhiking adventure. At, 17 he thumbed it to South Florida to join the crowds protesting the GOP convention. He memorialized this tale, and many other tasty autobiographical nuggets, in Redwood to Deadwood. Ill condense the story here, but try not to chop it up too much:

The first big hitchhiking trip I ever took was the 1500 miles down to Miami Beach for the Republican National Convention in 1972. I was one of those people convinced that Republicans in general and Nixon in particular were the source of all evil in the history of the planet if not the universe. So down I went, and ended up spending two days in jail with Allen Ginsberg for my troubles. I was in a bookstore recently when a college student came and sat next to me. She was carrying a volume of great American poets, and there was good old Allen glaring at me from the cover

I was going to try and impress her that Mr. Ginsberg and I were old cellmates, and how between meals of Dade County baloney sandwiches and Kool Aid he led me and the other miscreants in chanting OOOMMMMMMM.

Or was it OMMMMMMMMMM. Whatever.

But I decided to forgo this excursion into the literary life with this eager academe. Nothing worse than trying to impress a coed with meeting a famous poet in jail and have her either not believe you, or worse, not care.

Come to think of it, there are millions of things worse.

After two days, the Dade County authorities dropped charges and let us all go. Soon after, I called my folks and they asked me how I was doing Anything happen to you?

I just got out of jail.

I think my dad laughed. Though he did not really think it was that funny when a month later a picture of me getting arrested ended up as the cover picture for Hunter Thompsons story in Rolling Stone magazine on the Republican National Convention.

Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail: Seventeen-year-old Colin Flaherty getting booked in Miami Beach, August 1972. From the September 28, 1972 issue of Rolling Stone. Photo credit: Mark Diamond.

Flaherty Family Collection

Actually it was a near-full-page photo, and the reporter was one Tim Findley. However, Hunter S. Thompson did reproduce a small version of the picture in his book Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail 72. And Thompson is who Colin wanted to write about here apparently, he was not a fan. He continues:

Thirty-seven years later, I wrote an article for Aspen.com (where Hunter lived) about his life and death. It was not an appreciation. I was actually going to convert the first few sentences of that Aspen.com article into a poem for the finals of theSteamboat [Springs] Poetry Slam.

Hunter Thompson is dead.

He killed himself 40 years ago when he figured out it was a lot easier being a circus clown with a typewriter, a bottle of bourbon and a fistful of drugs instead of being a writer.

It just took a while.

Redwood to Deadwood is very much a collage of autobiographical vignettes like that, told against a background of real-time travels on the road, circa 2009. So in bits and pieces you learn that he grew up in Delaware, went to Salesianum (a private Catholic boys day school in Wilmington), had a bit of college at University of Delaware, dropped out, joined a carnival, worked as a cook in Key West, toured Mexico on a motorcycle...and finally hitchhiked from Wilmington to San Diego...where he promptly won a Regents Scholarship to UCSD. After which he married the daughter of Congressman Van Deerlin, had two kids, got divorced, wrote lots of newspaper columns, news stories, press releases and political flackery...and this is pretty much where we came in.

In 1991, Colin wrote an inside feature story for the Reader that resulted in the freeing of a young black man, Kelvin Wiley, sentenced to four years in Soledad Prison for beating his white girlfriend, Toni Di Giovanni. In reality, the woman had staged her beating and persuaded her young son to lie to the police.

The grey areas around Black and White

It might be surprising to hear that the guy who used to work for Biden and who hated Nixon enough to do jail time went so sour on a guy like Thompson. But as I said, Colin followed his lights. Case in point: in 1991, he wrote an inside feature story for the Reader that resulted in the freeing of a young black man, Kelvin Wiley, sentenced to four years in Soledad Prison for beating his white girlfriend, Toni Di Giovanni. In reality, the woman had staged her beating and persuaded her young son to lie to the police. This is stillpointed to as a landmark case of exoneration, as well as a sterling example of investigative legwork.

Colins story begins with quotations from a couple who took a trip with Kelvin and Toni, and recalled her doing meth and calling him a stupid n----r, after which he broke up with her. Two weeks later, she accused him of beating her savagely and attempting to strangle her with his belt. What followed, writes Colin, was a strange series of inept investigations, contradictory and recanted testimony, and evidence not admitted that...might at least have placed Tonis story of the attack in considerable doubt. He begins by interviewing neighbors, who heard and saw nothing from the normally loud condo, then notes that nobody from law enforcement ever did the same. He notes that she had told a similar and false story about a previous boyfriend, but that the judge would not allow this to be presented in court. He interviews Kelvins neighbors, who recall seeing his car parked at home on the day of the alleged assault. He tallies up changes in Tonis story notably, she said she was beaten with a box wrench, but when no corresponding wounds were found, she changed the weapon to a belt. He talks to jurors, he investigates testimony, and he combs documents for gems like this from the judge: [Di Giovanni] possesses certain mermaid qualities where she can lure various men up to be thrashed on the rocks right in front of her, and she helps do the thrashing. When the Union-Tribune wrote up the exoneration years later, they noted Colins reporting.

All of which makes it remarkable that years later, Colin wrote two books about what he described as a media conspiracy to conceal black-on-white hate crimes. Beginning in 2012, there was White Girl Bleed a Lot, subtitled The Return of Racial Violence to America and How the Media Ignore It. Two years later, he came out with Dont Make the Black Kids Angry: The hoax of black victimization and those who enable it [sic]. Incendiary stuff, to be sure. But canny Colin made sure to adorn the book covers with glowing endorsements from such esteemed black conservatives as Allen West and Thomas Sowell. After all, the story here was not the existence of black crime (the focus was often on young flash mobs), but rather, the news medias determination to minimize coverage of it. Reviewing the first one in National Review, Sowell wrote: Reading Colin Flahertys book made painfully clear to me that the magnitude of this problem is even greater than I had discovered from my own research. He documents both the race riots and the media and political evasions in dozens of cities across America. Veteran talk-radio hosts Barry Farber and Neal Boortz also praised the books as brave and brilliant.

Colin Flaherty, who died last January in his hometown of Wilmington, Delaware, was an unmissable fixture of the San Diego scene for over 25 years.

Photograph by John Griggs

Friends included editor/columnist Tom Blair; sometime-mayor and broadcast personality Roger Hedgecock; and famous malpractice attorney Dan Broderick.

Photograph by John Griggs

Colin sold the books mainly through Amazon, and they rocketed to the top of whichever category Amazon was placing them in. Once when he was in New York for a Newsmax segment in 2015, I had lunch with him and saw him compulsively checking his iPhone every few minutes to see how sales were going. Sold another ten copies! Another fifteen copies! But the wheels came off around 2016, when Colin got caught up in the cancel-culture frenzy that accompanied that years presidential campaign. Many conservative authors and imprints were suddenly banned by Amazon, and soon enough, Colin had to look for other venues. YouTube pulled his channel, a major source of income. He moved on to Bitchute and other video and podcast platforms, selling more books in new editions.

Colin was not part of any racialist organization or any other eldritch movement. He generally shunned such outfits (he called one group that approached him creepy). He flew solo all his life, a successful freelancer and entrepreneur. But you could see the Left attempting to tar him with that creepy brush, at least by 2015. Trying to put a dark spin on the burgeoning enthusiasm for Donald Trumps presidential bid, The New Yorkers Evan Osnos called Colin a white nationalist who had written a self-published book. (Hows that for a sneer? By that point, Colin had actually produced three or four.) But Colin had spent years in the politico-journo trenches, and wasnt going to cry in his alcohol-free beer just because a Leftie hack slapped a label on him. There in Wilmington, he kept working: as an occasional radio host (WDEL), as a podcaster, and as guest commentator on the cable news channel Newsmax. He even tried his hand at writing spy thrillers, winning first prize for a chapter in the Washington Posts Summer Spy Serial contest, July 2011. A sample:

Even if the mysterious stranger was legit and there was no chance of that there was just no way they were going to tap Al-Zawahiri on the shoulder and ask him to come along nicely. Alex continued:

Listen Mister Whatever Your Name Is, I do not know how you got the idea we are some kind of super spies. But if you are so intent on catching this terrorist, I suggest you call him on the phone, tell him he just won a 52-inch flat-screen TV, and he can collect it at the American embassy. When he shows up, it should be easy enough for you to win your $25 million sweepstakes. That works all the time on TV. Which I think you watch too much of. Now if you will excuse us, my wife and I would like to get back to our dinner.

Alex got up to leave the room. The visitor did not move...

The laughable lottery lien

When Colin died, I knew hed been ill for a couple of years (cancer). After he passed, I suddenly became curious about a long-ago matter that had entangled the two of us. About 25 years back I was living in Seattle and occasionally doing freelance design and web work for Colin and his PR clients. (His big corporate fish at that time was Qualcomm.) Once, he FedExed me a paycheck with a few hundred dollars extra. Colin suggested that my friend and I use some of this bonus to contribute to a political campaign he was managing in the desert hamlet of Perris, California. So my assistant and I each wrote out a personal check to Riverside County Business & Property Owners Coalition, mailed them off, and never thought about it again.

At least not till 2003...when someone from Sacramento tracked me down (Id moved 3000 miles away) and rang me up. Somebody named Dennis Pellon, from something called the Fair Political Practices Commission. Basically, I was being interrogated about a suspicious 1997 contribution to that Riverside County campaign fund. FPPC was trying to frame it as money laundering. I angrily stonewalled, pointing out that my income from Colin had far exceeded whatever trifling amount I may have given, and that if I chose to contribute to a political campaign, that was entirely my business. (At the time, I remembered my donation as de minimis, maybe $50. But I recently found diary notes that tell me my friend and I each wrote a personal check for $250. Oopsie! Enough to get me on FPPCs radar, anyhow.)

Book signing for White Girl Bleed a Lot, subtitled The Return of Racial Violence to America and How the Media Ignore It.

Flaherty Family Collection

Puzzled, I phoned and e-mailed Colin. Just ignore it, he said. Years later, I discovered the FPPC had fined Colin $76,000 for a wide variety of alleged infractions, some of them utterly absurd. Supposedly, he had broken campaign finance rules thirty-eight times, with a $2000 fine for each. One of these purportedly illegal donations was $4000 for a birthday cake and balloons for Governor Pete Wilson.

Did Colin ever pay that whopping fine? No he did not. Nor did the FPPC boondogglers ever make any serious effort to collect it. I know this because after Colin died, I contacted the FPPC and asked about the status of the case. They sent me a copy of a recent letter (October 29, 2021), in which they limply threaten to have the Franchise Tax Board garnish that $76,000 if Colin ever wins the California Lottery! Bwah-hah-hah! Colin loved black humor, and would have enjoyed this immensely.

Just ignore it, Colin had told me. He knew FPPC wouldnt make any serious effort to collect their fine because that would trigger a legal response, and then the claim might well be vacated by the court. It wasnt a legal judgment, it was a demand by a public ethics quango that claimed to be non-partisan. Like everyone in Sacramento, I guess. The FPPC didnt care for Colins political work, and also frowned on Pete Wilsons birthday cake and balloons.

The biographical note at the bottom of a 1985 Evening Tribune column: Flaherty is a political consultant who lives in Hillcrest. His wife is getting their car in a divorce settlement. He intends to buy another, but not until he can afford to get a nice one.

Flaherty Family Collection

The money laundering allegations described what were evidently routine campaign procedures in local politics at least in that time and place. Rather than make it look as though candidates or initiatives are being funded mostly by one well-heeled interest (say, a big developer), you gift money to others and suggest that they donate of their own volition. A little sneaky, you think? Thats politics, and both sides were doing it. Small-town micro-campaigns are seldom grass-roots in origin. In early 2005, I recall, Colin was managing a campaign to shoot down a no-growth initiative (Proposition X) in Santee. The three biggest contributors in favor of the proposition lived in La Jolla, Tucson, and Jackson Hole or so Colin assured me.

A nun in Lebanon

Colin grew up Catholic, but he seems to have given all that up in late adolescence. Still, he did ask for a Catholic funeral, or memorial service, in the little city of Lebanon, Pennsylvania, where his mothers family had lived. Lebanon is about 25 miles west of Reading, and historically largely German. What the town is known for, so far as I can tell, is a couple of foodstuffs: theres a pre-Lenten pastry called a Fastnacht (because you eat it the day before Ash Wednesday), and Lebanon bologna which is not a vile pink luncheon meat, but a dry beef sausage rather like a giant salami, a delicacy theyve been making there since the 1700s. I give you all this so youll realize what an out-the-way place it was for most of the 60-odd people who showed up some from as far away as Temecula for the memorial service and the reception.

The FPPC sent me a copy of a recent letter (October 29, 2021), in which they limply threaten to have the Franchise Tax Board garnish that $76,000 if Colin ever wins the California Lottery! Bwah-hah-hah! Colin loved black humor, and would have enjoyed this immensely.

Flaherty Family Collection

Colin wanted the service in Lebanon so that his favorite cousin, a Franciscan nun named Sister Margaret Bender, could sing at it. For her part, Sister Margaret, an enthusiastic musico, looked forward to fulfilling Colins last wish. And so Colins far-flung family, friends, and fans descended upon the tidy Gothic stone church in the middle of town. Along with the regulars attending Saturday evening mass, we pretty much filled up the place. But the service didnt quite go according to plan. Sister Margaret was not able to sing at her nephews memorial service because there was no music! The priest explained, apologetically, that he didnt think many people would show up, so he hadnt bothered engaging the organist or other music-makers. (Cue up a sad trombone.) I think the likelier reason is that the pastor simply forgot about making the arrangements until he emerged from sacristy and noticed the big crowd and the Franciscan nun. Fortunately, he didnt waste much time on sermonizing, and as there were no hymns or music, things proceeded very quickly: in and out in 25 minutes flat.

After that disappointment, many of us were in need of a drink. So we gathered back at the hotel, where we had a fine reception that lasted well into the night. And after a couple of hours, Colins cousin finally did get to sing sans accompaniment. A happy ending, and a good time was had by all.

Continue reading here:
Colin Flaherty gets sent off with a song | San Diego Reader