It’s Not What It Is, It’s What It Looks Like
There’s a story about a guy who works on a sheep ranch. That day his wife tells him they have a dinner party to attend that evening, but he has to work later than usual, so he takes his suit with him. After spending the day working, the man gathers the sheep in the barn. He then takes off his clothes to jump in the shower and change. While he’s in mid-change, the farmer walks in and sees him naked in a barn full of sheep. You can imagine the image.
I bring this up in light of the FBI raid of the downtown offices of local businessman Tim Durham. Durham, who is known for what we call in the old neighborhood, “a big pimpin’ lifestyle” is being questioned by authorities regarding the sale of investment certificates.
What makes this broader story is that Durham has given money to Democrats and Republicans and is good friends with Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi. (In the interest full disclosure, Brizzi and I are good friends as well). So now the political brouhaha can begin, Democrats can call for Republicans to give back any money they may have received and the GOP can spend time crafting a response.
At the end of the day, unless someone goes to jail, the political fallout will be minimum. I say that because most regular people couldn’t tell Tim Durham from Bull Durham. However if Durham ends up on tape somewhere doing the perp walk things change, because although elected officials or candidates had nothing to do with his business dealings, it won’t matter what it is, just what it looks like.
November 25th, 2009 at 6:12 am
Throw at the mascot.
November 25th, 2009 at 6:37 am
I just can't get too excited about this unless something eventually comes of it.
Even if charges are brought (and pursued), small fry usually get off with few negative consequences.
Here's my looney theory of the day. The FBI has been directed to pursue people with Indiana ties to lessen pressure on those from Illinois who may act in “questionable” ways. Still, “suicide” seems to be spiking in certain segments of Chicago society right now.
November 25th, 2009 at 8:04 am
I agree. My post on my blog was similar to yours in that some pols will now have explaining to do and it won't really be all their fault.
November 25th, 2009 at 8:23 am
They hauled off a truckload of files, Abdul. You and I both know enough about the US Attorney's office to know they don't spend that kind of time if they're fishing. I'm told Judge Sarah Evans Barker signed the warrant–she's no leftwing pushover. Ask around: she denies as many warrants as she grants.
That said, Mr. Durham deserves the presumption of innocence.
And in the interests of fairness, can I get a break on the bipartisan thing? He's about as bipartisan as Sarah Palin. We Dems have our one-step-away-from-perp-walk clowns, too. But Tim's money goes 95% to the GOP. And another blog, or the newspaper's comment section, posts this morning that he gave tens of thousands fo Paul Ricketts while Ricketts was a township assessor.
No assessor or township official is worth that kind of money. Legitimately. Not even Carl Drummer in his heyday.
'Just sayin…
November 25th, 2009 at 9:06 am
Conspiracy theorists, read this and then tell me your opinions.
In 2001, Durham was maxxed out on IRS liens and mortgages–to the point where his son had to move from private to public school. In other words, according to this article he spent everything he made:
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:pSYCsx2931Y...
That is the same year Mr. Donald Fair allowed Tim to purchase Fair Finance, in business since 1934, on a seller note because Durham did not have the capital to purchase the business. Durham then took Mr. Fairs conservative investment certificate approach and basically put it on steroids, according to this: (type FAIR FINANCE in second box that says Offerings, takes about 40 seconds to loan, then hit page down to read)
https://www.comapps.ohio.gov/secu/secu_apps/off...
Now that's a lot of dough, isn't it? What is that, $1.5 Billion? But, Fair Finance only did about $28M in revenues last year and lost $1.8M. So, what did Durham need to request another $250M on October 30 for? Last year he asked for $250M. Two years ago he asked for $250M AND a $75M line of credit from Fortress!
http://www.bartonesq.com/00144574.PDF
Now then, I am not a math major with accolades like Durham claims to be. And, I certainly am not a lawyer. But, I do have a bit of common sense and I live within my means as does probably everyone on this board except a few people reading this blog a bunch of times today. Ask yourself why Mr. Durham would open multiple offices in the Amish and Mennonite communities, offer 9% on your money when Bank One is offering 1% (at best), knowing that these people save all their money and never redeem their certificates, instead roll them over and over and over. Ask yourself why Mr. Durham would, in these multiple offices, have no interest in opening factoring accounts or do anything except sell investment certificates. Investment certificate are not revenue-producing. They are the opposite! You have to make money to pay the investor back! How does a company that did $28M in revenue and lost $1.8M last year pay back $500M plus the $50M of the $75M line of credit accessed by Durham?
PS, Durham hasn't paid his house or property taxes and bounced some dividend checks to elderly investors recently. HELLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooo
November 25th, 2009 at 9:27 am
This is going to get interesting to see where the fallout lands. Being friends is not a big deal Abdul but the pay to play mentality of late my come back to bite a few people.
November 25th, 2009 at 9:29 am
TA says:
“They hauled off a truckload of files, Abdul. You and I both know enough about the US Attorney's office to know they don't spend that kind of time if they're fishing. I'm told Judge Sarah Evans Barker signed the warrant–she's no leftwing pushover. Ask around: she denies as many warrants as she grants.
That said, Mr. Durham deserves the presumption of innocence”
TA is exactly correct on both points. First, there is no way to spin the FBI raiding several businesses of Tim Durham to collect evidence and then suggest that is not a big deal. But, Tim Durham, deserves the presumption of innocence as much as anyone else.
The problem is that Carl Brizzi is the one who would have been chiefly responsible for prosecuting Tim Durham should it have come to that. It is highly likely that the complaints that led to the feds taking action, that were sufficient launch an investigation and then go out and seize records, were also made to Brizzi's office. After all, almost certainly any illegal activity would also involve violation of state law. Asking whether Brizzi looked the other way to protect a friend and large political contributor, is a legitimate question.
November 25th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Well, on the surface, it doesn't appear that Mr. Brizzi ignored any allegations against Mr. Durham any more, or any less, than any other similar situation(s). But then, that won't likely be an issue unless Mr. Brizzi actively pursues other elected offices in the future.
November 25th, 2009 at 9:51 am
So what are you really suggesting Paul?…Are you insinuating Brizzi turned his head?
Do you know for a fact that Brizzi didn't investigate and isn't involved in this investigation?
“Mr. Durham deserves the presumption of innocence” but Brizzi doesn't?
November 25th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Mr. Brizzi seems like a friendly guy. And, I think the author/publisher of this blog is a good friend of his, right? I have a few objective questions I would like to ask.
1) Where did Brizzi get the money to buy a stake in Izzi's?
2) Did Brizzi trade in either Brightpoint or Cellstar, or both, and how did he know to do this?
3) Is it true Brizzi lived at Durham's house during his divorce?
4) Who paid for Brizzi's airfare during various trips to Bahamas and places like that, most notably when Brizzi was allegedly on Durham's yacht at the party that allegedly led to Brizzi's divorce?
5) What other recent business ventures has Brizzi agreed to?
6) Does Brizzi plan to return every penny of the contributions Durham made to his campaign(s)?
November 25th, 2009 at 10:31 am
If Brizzi is accused of a crime, he deserves the presumption of innnocence. The same doesn't apply to political mafeasance.
I should hope Brizzi wasn't involved in the investigation. He shouldn't be. But if he saw a problem, he should have called for a special prosecutor.
I hope you're kidding about whehter I am insuniating that Brizzi turns his head to white collar crime and political crime. Of course I am doing exactly that. That's not exactly news. I know of plenty of instances when political corruption and white collar crime has been brought to Brizzi's attention and he's done NOTHING. He needs to go.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:33 am
Varan,
I actually agree with what you're saying. Brizzi has ignored white collar crime and possible political corruption for both Republicans and Democrats. He's been even handed that way.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:02 am
Mostly fair questions, name. No. 6 is perhaps premature…so far.
Carl Brizzi has ignored peashake houses in Center Township (mostly Democratic). He has ignored other issues, which tend to favor Republicans.
I say “ignore” because I don't truly know if he investigated but found no evidence.
If he did investigate the peashakes and found no evidence, he's incompetent. For quite some time, iI was as simple as:
Go to the corner, look for Monroe Gray's unmarked IFD car, and go inside the nearest commercial establishment. There would be gambling there.
This Democrat hopes like hell Brizzi runs for something again. Soon. Anything.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:29 am
and now it seems Brizzi is/was a board member of Fair Finance…..Abdul any comments on why he joined then resigned when the IBJ started asking questions? Mr. Brizzi should have been capable of his own due dilligence before joining the board.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:47 am
With the evidence that has been gathered and analyzed, a grand jury should start issuing more formal indictments here soon. I would be worried if I was Carl Brizzi.
November 25th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
LeRoy,
Looking he other way when possible criminal activity is taking place is different than participating in it. Let's not jump the gun.
November 25th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Name: BRAVO!
November 25th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
I always figure if a man cheats on his wife, imagine what he is capable of doing to people to whom he does not offer a lifetime oath of fidelity and commitment. It's a character flaw of a scoundrel.
November 25th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
TA…I love your comments. I'm still angry about those pea shake houses and nothing ever happening to Monroe Gray. It seems that all too often the law is not applied equally to all in our city. We know Brizzi has turned a blind eye before. I'm just saying…it is all about personal integrity.
November 25th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Like you said, Abdul, 'It not what it is, it's what it looks like.” Running around with big spending playboys and gamblers is not exactly a smart move for a prosecutor. Brizzi's strong in court, but weak personally. Too bad. He may have done absolutely nothing wrong, legally, yet this fiasco will surely bring more exposure to Brizzi's weakness for a good time and corresponding lack of common sense.
As for Durham, his life just took a dive into unending paperwork, lawyers, questioning, suspicions – if he's innocent I feel sorry for him; if he's another Madoff or similar, I want to know when they auction his Aston Martin.
November 25th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Last week, I heard the Concerned Clergy approached Brizzi about the officer indicted for lying in her homicide investigation. Brizzi said he would dismiss the case for the support of the clergy in the next election. Now, a week later, the case is dismissed.
Why would Brizzi, who also supervises the grand jury, allow this case to be brought on what he claims to be now a shoddy investigation? While I don't want to believe in a explicit quid pro quo, and don't want to place too much stock into rumors, this is interesting.
November 25th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
I call BS on this. Even if this did occur I doubt it would be in earshot of anyone except the parties involved. Unless you can site a time and location I think you owe Brizzi and the Clergy an apology.
November 25th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
He doesn't owe anyone an apology. Regardless of if this true or not, this isn't a court of law. It's the comments section of a blog.
November 25th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Same reason a guy would have sex with another woman behind his wife's back?
November 26th, 2009 at 8:30 am
Yikes Melyssa went there….
November 26th, 2009 at 8:41 am
Brizzi said he never voted? Let's see–the IBJ article came out on October 26th, which was a Monday, and 3 business days later on October 30th Durham's Fair Finance submitted an extensive multipage request, prepared by a lawfirm, to Ohio for yet another $250Million. Brizzi has now stated he was on the board a few weeks and quit when Greg Andrews article came out. Board approval would have been expected for such a material, dramatic request–another $250M for a business that did $28M last year and lost $1.8M.
Now Carl, c'mon! Just tell the truth! And while you are at it show proof of funds for where the money for Izzi's and the expensive house came from and answer the questions above.
November 26th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Yep. If they will screw over the people they love, they will do it to you their employer constituent. And while it doesn't have anything to do with the job they do as a politician, it has everything to do with their character and integrity.
November 26th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Comments do not mean you can make up wild accusations about people. IP addresses have been subpoenaed over such things.
November 27th, 2009 at 4:00 am
I had no idea this Durham nonsense would have tentacles so wide and deep. A sheriff's candidate—gone. (He wasn't going to win anyway) And now Brizzi roasting over an open fire.
For me this is a little like the prosecution of Al Capone. They didn't get him for the murders and graft. THey got him for not paying his taxes.
I'm not necessarily angry at Brizzi for his friendship with Durham. I'm disappointed in his prosecutorial discretion. He's (supposedly_ turned a deaf ear toward many improper things–peashake houses, for one…while showing up to personally prosecute high-profile cases which the state was going to win with a first-year lawyer.
He has a tremendous ego and eye for the news camera. Here's how he could've foregone some of this criticism:
Carl, when you notice that certain allegations and/or investigations are the subject of much public comment, you could simply come forward and say:
“I cannot prosecute this case because there isn't enough hard evidence.”
Instead, we get the hubris, the playboy parties with rich friends in Miami, etc.
Now, Carl, exactly how do you expect midwestern common sense folk to take that kind of performance and history? Especially in the midst of a divorce and an attempted Congressional campaign.
November 27th, 2009 at 6:20 am
I.C. 35-44-2-4, Ghost Employment. This crime occurs when a government actor, like Brizzi, assigns duties unrelated to the official function of the governmental entity to an employee he supervises. This has occurred when Brizzi has his staff due research, have meetings, discuss in emails and over the phone, and then prepare a “press release” response to anything having to do with his personal problems with Tim Durham and his involvement in Fair Financial in Ohio. I'm assuming that press release was on MCPO letterhead. The news story keeps referring to MCPO as “Brizzi's office” and “his office.” That's not accurate, it is the County of Marion's prosecutor's office, and the staff is paid by the county's taxpayers, not by Brizzi personally. Yet here they are, fielding the questions, preparing the “official” response to actions that have nothing to do w/ their “official” duties. This is illegal. The prosecutor should have known it, but he keeps doing it, like when they responded to his divorce when it hit the news. Their actual response then even said the newspapers should have left that alone because it was a PRIVATE MATTER! EXACTLY CARL!! Why are taxpayers paying public staff to repeatedly respond to your private affairs? These are felonies being committed. Hire your own PR firm out of your own money, shyster.
November 27th, 2009 at 6:53 am
This just occured to me, driving up the road toward Chicago for in-law Thanksgiving (pray for me, and for abundant alcohol)….
Abdul, if I were your producer or boss, I'd tell you the following:
Love ya like a rock, big guy, and you've done more for news in this town than anyone in a couple decades. We don't necessarily think your objectivity is affected here, but this story could get hairy, and you need to hear this cautionary tale:
In any major media market, news personalities (or columnists, or reporters, or talk show hosts) are typically forbidden from privately associating with the news subjects they cover. Except in large public gatherings where everyone's invited (as in, Gridiron Dinner, etc.) It's a hard-and-fast rule because at some time, you, as the reporter/columnist/talk show host, will perhaps have to be tough on your friend.
Or, in the alternative, if you're friendly with them, you are forbidden from making any comment in your reporting realm, about that public official.
Now, in this market, you'd get away with just about anything, but this market should not be the crucible by which we judge the integrity of our media. It's been folksy-chummy for a long time, and politicos use that environment to dis/encourage certian reportorial paths. That's why we loved your new approach to digging up stories and being relentless.
I imagine that Carl throws nice parties. Ditto his friends, or so it would appear.
But Carl has now washed his hands in that basin, and if his hands get dirty via this Durham thing, so be it. We don't know yet, and may not know soon. This story has legs. Durham will not go quietly into the still night, and his money was spread like fertilizer. In some cases it may have bought undue influence. In others, perhaps it was just good old-fashioned contributions. But when a financier gives $15-20K to a township assessor, and loans six figures to a sheriff's candidate who doesn't have a bat's chance in hell of winning, you've got to wonder. What we need in this state is severe campaign finance reform. And much more good news reporting.
I'd like the Abdul brand to remain as pure as possible. Chummy attitudes breed contempt and abuse. This is a shot across the bow early, because mark my words, Durham didn't spread hundreds of thousands of dollars among mostly-GOP folks to lie down and take this quietly. If he's completely innocent, so be it. But there's a lot of smoke here…so there's almost got to be fire.
God I need a Bloody…..
November 27th, 2009 at 7:20 am
TA,
I've been involved with government and politics for almost 20 years. I learned a long time ago that friendship is friendship and business is business. All the people I associate with know that as well.
What I find interesting are the people (present company excluded) with no clue and presume to tell me I'm not doing my job because I'm not talking about what they think is important. Ah, but it comes with the territory.
Can you make that two Bloodies?
November 27th, 2009 at 8:02 am
I'm not trying to tell you how to do the job. Far from it. Just a cautionary shot across the bow, because you haven't been here forever like I have….too often the folks who use ya, throw ya out the next week.
You're doing your job. Pretty well most of the time.
And, lovingly, if I were your boss, and we had that mythical conversation, and you gave me back the “business is business” line, I'd tell ya:
Fine, but the rule is, if you pal around with them, you can't comment on them.
You've created a somewhat hybrid brand, which I deeply appreciate. Reporter/editor/host/columnist. Still, it's a friendly admonition. Your digging on tough subjects, so far exceeds the normal pablum out there, but I'm tellin ya cause I like ya. The advice is worth what you paid for it.
Two Bloodies it is. With those great small martini sweet onions and worchestershire and plenty of 100 Proof Skye Vodka.
Or, as my father-in-law says, a “scotch and water with a heaping teaspoon of water. And no ice. It just dilutes the anesthetic.”
So true.
November 27th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Abdul,
Think Again is giving you some good advice.
Take Think Again's insightful advice and continue your practice of full disclosure of potential conflicts of interest.
Be careful to be on the right side of the facts/truth and the rest will take care of itself.
November 27th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
P.S.
Please add the secret ingredients of spicy V8, A1 Sauce, and a couple green olives to those Bloody Marys.
November 27th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Good points TA. In my wildest dreams I cannot believe Abdul would EVER expose dirt on our prosecutor.
November 27th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
I always do full disclosure. Plus, regardless of my relationships with politicos, the audience is pretty smart to figure out what's going on and can make their own judgment calls whether to believe me.
November 27th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
Did someone say Durham donated to the assessor's office? You might check his tax appraisals–117 N. East's appraisal was lowered from a much higher amount to $9,000 this year …and Durham has it up for sale for $1.25M. Imagine that.
November 28th, 2009 at 6:02 am
Name–he donated to the Lawrence Townshipl Assessor, now Mayor, Mr. Ricketts.
Cause you never know when you'll need a vindictive ex-assessor-who-hired-all-his-relatives-turned-mayor.
Nick–olives in a Bloody? Never! The good plump olives are reserved for extra-dry martinis.
Or a gin and tonic.
November 28th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Advance Indiana has a good post about Durham related folks selling their homes. Indy Democrat has a post about some sort of forfeiture filing on Durham's home. Things should get real interesting.
November 28th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Here is the asset forfeiture link. Would appreciate it if someone could post the contents of the filing:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. REAL PROPERTY IN HAMILTON COUNTY …REAL PROPERTY IN HAMILTON COUNTY, INDIANA, AT 14353 EAST 113TH STREET, FORTVILLE et al. … Case Number: 1:2009cv01460. Filed: November 24, 2009 …
dockets.justia.com/docket/court…1:2009cv01460/case_id-25901/ – Cached
November 29th, 2009 at 4:15 am
Gary Welsh and Paul Ogden once again scoop the “real” media in this town.
November 29th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Gary Welsh and Paul Ogden once again scoop the “real” media in this town.