"Buy Local" Law Makes A Mockery Of Public Bidding Law For Local Governments

Sen. Allen Paul (R-Richmond) was upset when a local government in Wayne County awarded a contract to purchase automobiles to an out-of-state dealer instead of a local automotive dealer because Indiana's procurement code requires purchases that are subject to the public bidding laws to be awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. That's been the law in Indiana as long as there has been a law on the books requiring public bidding to protect taxpayers from cronyism and cost-padding by unscrupulous government officials. Throwing common sense to the wind, Paul prevailed upon his colleagues in the Indiana General Assembly to slip a major rewrite of the long-standing procurement rules into a pending bill in the closing hours of this year's legislative session to provide preferences to "local Indiana businesses" whenever a local government purchases supplies or undertakes a public works project that is subject to the public bidding laws.

The Indiana Legislative Insight's Ed Feigenbaum has picked up on the mess Paul's new law has created for local government officials, who have been caught completely off guard that the new law had gone into effect as of July 1. Feigenbaum says the local business preference was inserted into HB 1004, a catch-all state and local administration bill that was primarily touted for slashing Indiana's corporate income tax in an effort to lure businesses away from neighboring states, particularly Illinois, where recent tax hikes are proving burdensome to businesses. The new law is "proving to be a major source of confusion for both businesses and government, and may well be potentially problematic (or even counterproductive) in its ultimate application" Feigenbaum says.

The new law gives a preference to a "local Indiana business" based on a sliding scale. The preference starts at 5% for bids under $50,000, drops to 3% for bids between $50,000 and $99,999 and bottoms out at 1% for bids of $100,000 or more. A local Indiana business bidding to sell supplies or perform a public works project would be deemed the lowest responsive and responsible bidder applying the applicable price advantage, even if there is a lower responsive and responsible bidder other than a local business. That will have the effect of driving up purchasing costs for local governments, which rely on property taxes as a major funding source. Local units of government have already complained about the loss of revenues due to the impact of property tax caps mandated by state law, and rising fuel prices and other inflationary pressures are taking a further toll on local budgets.

Feigenbaum says a confusing definition of what constitutes a local Indiana business is turning interpretation and enforcement of the new law into a nightmare. The new law provides several different criteria for determining what constitutes a local Indiana business, aside from where its actual place of business is headquartered, including a business that has made a "significant capital investment" or a "substantial positive economic impact." Feigenbaum says there is concern "that the definitions are so nebulous that a potential bidder who has sponsored a county commissioner's golf fundraiser or funded a picnic or party for employees of a government unit may win credit under the two criteria."

What is clear is that the new law will most assuredly lead to lawsuits by losing bidders who contest a local government's interpretation of the law. Feigenbaum even wonders whether it might be subject to a constitutional attack as a violation of the interstate commerce clause. The IBJ recently reported on how the Ballard administration used a technical mistake by an out-of-state bidder to award a demolition contract to tear down an abandoned high rise apartment building on Keystone Avenue to a local contractor whose bid was more than $250,000 higher than the out-of-state bid. The out-of-state vendor cried foul, but the Ballard administration refused to accept late-filed financial statements from the low bidder, even though timely filing of the financial statements had been waived in past bidding opportunities. This new law will open the floodgates to cronyism and favoritism in the awarding of public contracts, the very evils our long-standing laws sought to avoid.

A press release on Sen. Paul's website boasts of the passage of his "Buy Local" law. "I wrote the 'Buy Local' proposal to level the playing field for small area businesses that often have to compete with large national companies who can easily offer lower bids on community public works projects," Paul said. "With this initiative, I hope more project money can stay in local communities, advancing the success of small-town Hoosier employers and providing jobs for Indiana residents." Unfortunately, the only thing Paul's legislation has accomplished is to turn the procurement law on its head and drive up costs for local governments, which will ultimately lead to higher taxes for taxpayers.

Boston Globe Reporter Sat On Obama, Srs. Damning INS Records For Two Years

The incredible debunker of the Obama myth, Jack Cashill, strikes again. Reacting to a story yesterday in the Boston Globe by one of its reporters, Sally Jacobs, discussing a previously overlooked item in the former INS agency's file on Barack Obama, Sr.--namely that Obama, Sr. had told INS officials he and Ann Dunham planned to put their infant son up for adoption--Cashill learns Jacobs sat on the INS documents that had been released to her by the government for two years for use in an upcoming book on Obama, Sr. she has authored. More interesting is Cashill's discovery that the mention of the putting young Barack up for adoption had been redacted by the government in the same set of files it released a few months ago to Heather Smathers, a reporter for the Arizona Independent. Cashill blogs at American Thinker:

Someone at the Department of Homeland Security has some explaining to do.

On July 7, Boston Globe reporter Sally Jacobs wrote an article for Boston.com whose headline teased the reader with bombshells to come, "Father spoke of having Obama adopted."

The article was written to help promote her new book, The Other Barack: The Bold and Reckless Life of President Obama's Father, due to be released on July 11.

Jacobs pulls her information from one of a batch of INS documents she received two years ago, specifically an April 12, 1961, memo written by an official in the Honolulu office of the INS named Lyle H. Dahling. The memo is visible in miniature on her July 7 article . . .

Wrote Dahling in the memo, ""Subject got his USC wife 'Hapai' and although they were married they do not live together and Miss Dunham is making arrangements with the Salvation Army to give the baby away.''

The subject was Barack Obama Sr. "Hapai" apparently is Hawaiian for pregnant, and "USC" is shorthand for "United States citizen." This information was volunteered by Barack Obama, Sr. There is no evidence it was ever verified by the INS.

For nearly two years, Jacobs uniquely possessed this information and sat on it. This raises some ethical questions on its own, but more questions would surface with the release of these same documents in April 2011 to Heather Smathers, a young reporter for the weekly Arizona Independent.

Although Smathers received the same April 12 memo, she did not report on the potential adoption. The reason for Smathers' silence was simple enough: the critical sentence had been redacted on the document she received.

If readers scroll down to the April 12, 1961, memo they can see that it is the same memo that Jacobs posted but with a gaping whole in the middle of the third paragraph where the INS official talks about adoption.

Cashill also notes the mainstream media's ignoring of an unmistakable conclusion in some of the redacted materials of the INS files that Obama, Sr. had also impregnated a high school foreign exchange student while he was attending classes at Harvard, who he flew to London to have an abortion. Cashill wonders if details of the abortion won't show up in Jacobs' book. "If the abortion story shows up in Jacobs' book, the collusion in the media-government complex will be manifest," he writes.

The specter of a reporter at a major news publication sitting on valuable information for long periods of time in anticipation of a book deal is not new. We've become accustomed to the Washington Post's  Bob Woodward being given unprecedented access to recent presidents and sitting on valuable information he learned on a day-to-day basis that is not forthcoming until it is presented on the newspaper's pages to promote the reporter's upcoming book. In some cases, relevant information about a current impacting event will create an entirely different public reaction and response than if the information is withheld from the public until years later. In effect, the government and the media are colluding for their own self-interests rather than the public audience they are suppose to be serving.

Big Money Funding Mike Pence Gubernatorial Bid

Mike Pence's gubernatorial committee will report raising upwards of $1.5 million to date. While the quarterly report for his campaign committee is not due to be filed with the Indiana Elections Division until July 15, reports of large contributions raised since he announced his campaign last month give us a hint who he is relying on to bankroll his campaign--mainly large, wealthy contributors. Transfers from his federal congressional committee represented more than $250,000 of the $1.5 million raised. Pence relied on his federal committee to raise money for his gubernatorial bid to skirt a state law that prevented candidates from conducting fundraising activities while the General Assembly was in session this year. After backing out the transfers from his federal committee, he raised more than $630,000 from large contributions of $10,000 or more.

Pence's largest contributions included a pair of $100,000 contributions from billionaire Dean White and Anthony Moravec of Columbus. New Yorker Jeremiah Milbank III gave Pence $50,000. REI Real Estate Services, Stanley Herzog, James Ackerman, Hart Hasten and Fred Klipsch each chipped in $25,000. Fehsenfeld family members contributed $30,000. Pence received contributions of $10,000 to $12,500 from two dozen contributors.

Pence's GOP primary opponent, businessman James Wallace, reportedly has raised $1,000,000. According to reports on file with the Indiana Election Division, Wallace contributed $987,000 of his own money to his campaign. An insurance services company founded by Wallace, TWG Capital, is under scrutiny by the federal government according to recent reports by the Chicago Sun-Times because of capital it received from a Chicago-based venture company. Cardinal Growth owes the Small Business Administration more than $20 million which it borrowed to help fund a number of businesses, including TWG Capital. The federal government has taken control of Cardinal Growth and, according to the Sun-Times, it is seeking to liquidate several of the businesses that received money from Cardinal Growth, including TWG Capital. Cardinal Growth has financial ties to Patrick Daley, son of former Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, which may have helped some companies that received funding from Cardinal Growth land lucrative city contracts while Daley was mayor. The two principals of Cardinal Growth serve on the board of directors for TWG Capital.

On the Democrat side, former House Speaker John Gregg has reportedly raised more than $700,000 by the end of June. No reports are on file yet for him as his committee is currently set up as an exploratory committee. His exploratory committee's first report, which is oddly chaired by Marion Co. Auditor Billie Breaux, will be due by July 15.

UPDATE: James Wallace appeared on Abdul Hakim Shabazz' WXNT show this morning. He says he will report for the quarter contributions of $930,000 that includes contributions from family and friends. The large contribution reports already on file with the Elections Division shows contributions of $987,000 from Wallace in the form of loans. I'm not sure how that comports with what he said on Abdul's show. Shabazz, disappointingly, asked Wallace nothing about the reports in the Sun-Times about the ongoing saga of his company's funding source, Cardinal Growth, and its ties to Patrick Daley.

Can Lawyers Rely On Case Law Databases For Legal Research On Obama's Eligibility?

Leo Donofrio has made an interesting discovery in his futile effort to educate the American people about what it means to be a natural-born citizen. In the most direct case touching on the issue of what it means to be a natural-born citizen, Minor v. Happersett, the U.S. Supreme Court stated unequivocally that there was no doubt that a natural-born citizen as that term is used in our Constitution to ascertain a person's eligibility to serve as president means a child born within the United States to U.S. citizen parents. The decision, which also made clear that the term's meaning was not altered by the adoption of the 14th Amendment, raised doubts as to whether a child born within the U.S. to an alien parent could lay claim to natural-born citizen status. That's always been the rub for many of us who have questioned Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility to serve as president. Because his father was a Kenyan, a commonwealth of Great Britain at the time of his birth, Obama held dual citizenship at birth, a fact some legal scholars contend makes him ineligible to be president. What Donofrio has discovered is that Justia.com, an online legal search engine, has been concealing references to Minor v. Happersett in relative searches on the natural-born citizen topic. The online search resource has even removed references to the case in reported Supreme Court decisions. Donofrio writes:

They are removing the case name “Minor v. Happersett” from other cases which quote Minor…AS TO THE CITIZENSHIP ISSUE.


For example, in Boyd v. Nebraska ex Rel. Thayer, 143 U.S. 135 (1892) we see the US Supreme Court, in a case on citizenship, quoting Justice Waite in Minor directly as precedent for his holding regarding US citizenship:

“As remarked by Mr. Chief Justice Waite in @ 88 U. S. 167:

‘Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these states when the Constitution of the United States was adopted became ipso facto a citizen — a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was consequently one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.’ “

Notice how Justia has removed the case name, “Minor v. Happersett” from the citation in the case. They have actually re-written a Supreme Court case by leaving the case name out. I uploaded a current screenshot of the Justia Page for the BOYD case here. This is Orwellian in the extreme.

Now look at the same exact passage from the same exact case, but from a different link at the Find Law site:

“As remarked by Mr. Chief Justice WAITE in Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 167: ‘Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these states when the constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen,-a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.’”  . . .
 
This 1892 US Supreme Court Case directly relies upon, and cites as precedent, the citizenship issues discussed by Chief Justice Waite in Minor. Such reliance is further Supreme Court proof that Minor is precedent. Justia appears to be attempting to rewrite history. I have screengrabbed this garbage and so should you. This is wrong, America. They are trying to wipe Minor off the books in order to protect Obama.


The Way Back Machine at the Internet Archive has a snapshot of the Justia page for Boyd from Feb. 19, 2008 which contains the full reference to Minor v. Happersett. And all prior snapshots at the Way Back Machine prior to Feb. 19, 2008 have the same correct reference. But then on October 2, 2008 the Justia page was edited to remove the reference to Minor v. Happersett . . .

This is now the second example I have seen in the last 24 hours where Justia is scratching out the case name, “Minor v. Happersett”, and simply leaving a link. There is another, yet more egregious instance which I picked up on last night. Before I bring that to your attention, here is the complete passage – not deceptively edited in any way – from POPE v. WILLIAMS, 193 U.S. 621 (1904), hosted by Find Law where Justice Waite and Minor v. Happersett are mentioned as to citizenship issues:


The privilege to vote in any state is not given by the Federal Constitution, or by any of its amendments. It is not a privilege springing from citizenship of the United States. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 22 L. ed. 627. It may not be refused on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, but it does not follow from mere citizenship of the United States. In other words, the privilege to vote in a state is within the jurisdiction of the state itself, to be exercised as the state may direct, and upon such terms as to it may seem proper, provided, of course, no discrimination is made between individuals, in violation of the Federal Constitution. The state might provide that persons of foreign birth could vote without being naturalized, and, as stated by Mr. Chief Justice Waite in Miner v. Happersett, 21 Wall, 162, 22 L. ed. 627, such persons were allowed to vote in several of the [193 U.S. 621, 633] states upon having declared their intentions to become citizens of the United States. Some states permit women to vote; others refuse them that privilege. A state, so far as the Federal Constitution is concerned, might provide by its own constitution and laws that none but native-born citizens should be permitted to vote, as the Federal Constitution does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and the conditions under which that right is to be exercised are matters for the states alone to prescribe, subject to the conditions of the Federal Constitution, already stated; although it may be observed that the right to vote for a member of Congress is not derived exclusively from the state law. See Fed. Const. art. 1, 2; Wiley v. Sinkler, 179 U.S. 58 , 45 L. ed. 84, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 17. But the elector must be one entitled to vote under the state statute. Id., Id. See also Swafford v. Templeton, 185 U.S. 487, 491 , 46 S. L. ed. 1005, 1007, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 783. In this case no question arises as to the right to vote for electors of President and Vice President, and no decision is made thereon. The question whether the conditions prescribed by the state might be regarded by others as reasonable or unreasonable is not a Federal one. We do not wish to be understood, however, as intimating that the condition in this statute is unreasonable or in any way improper.

Now look at the same exact passage from Justia which edits out the case name, “Minor v. Happersett” and it edits out more than half of the damn paragraph including that part which mentions Chief Justice Waite’s statements concerning citizenship from Minor:

The privilege to vote in any state is not given by the federal Constitution, or by any of its amendments. It is not a privilege springing from citizenship of the @ 88 U. S. 491. In this case, no question arises as to the right to vote for electors of President and Vice President, and no decision is made thereon. The question whether the conditions prescribed by the state might be regarded by others as reasonable or unreasonable is not a federal one. We do not wish to be understood, however, as intimating that the condition in this statute is unreasonable or in any way improper.

What the hell is going on? Where did the rest of the paragraph go? Here is a link to the current screenshot of the Justia page for the Pope case. This is actually frightening. And it is more proof than anyone needs to see that Minor v. Happersett is scaring the crap out of Obama supporters. These are United States Supreme Court cases being edited/revised to protect Obama.

The history of these revisions is also documented at the Way Back Machine which contains a snapshot of the Pope case at Justia dating from November 13, 2006… and guess what – that snapshot contains the entire passage. Then on July 25, 2008, the Way Back machine shows that Justia.com edited the page for the Pope case again.

Justia.com edited their page for the Pope case to erase the references to Minor and citizenship. So, again, it appears that the Obama team were way ahead of us on this. This is direct evidence that somebody with a very sharp legal mind ordered these revisions at Justia… ALL THE WAY BACK IN 2008.

Justia.com is the main resource on the web for all things related to United States Supreme Court holdings. And this may, in fact, be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. It’s the cover up that tends to bring down tyrants more often than not. These revisions did not happen – just prior to the 2008 election – by accident.

THIS MUST BE INVESTIGATED.

Justia's website also devotes much more attention to focusing those who attempt to use the site as a research tool on the natural-born citizen requirement to the question of Sen. John McCain's eligibility to be president, with several articles doubting his eligibility because he was born to two U.S. citizens in Panama while his father was stationed at a naval base there during his service in the U.S. Navy. Some commenters on Donofrio's blog notes that Justia's founder, Tim Stanley, is a big Obama supporter.

Even Congress has engaged in the cover up. A memorandum that was prepared for members of Congress discussing the natural-born citizenship debate makes absolutely no mention of the Minor v. Happersett decision, even though it is binding precedent for establishing the meaning of what the term means in the context of the constitutional eligibility requirement for presidential candidates. The memorandum is extremely misleading and chalked full of factual misstatements on the law in this area, including the repeated blurring of the distinction between a citizen and a natural-born citizen. Naturally, the document casts more doubt on McCain's eligibility--perhaps saved only by an Act of Congress, while giving the green light to Obama's eligibility. Perhaps the only thing of meaning that can be found in the memorandum is its admission that there is absolutely no federal or state law that provides a mechanism for vetting or requiring candidates for president to produce proof of their constitutional eligibility before assuming the office of the presidency. The congressional memorandum contains this bald-faced lie relying on a misinterpretation of another Supreme Court decision, Wong Kim Ark, involving a case where a child born on U.S. soil to foreign parents was found to be a citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment:

The court thus implicitly adopted a meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” in the presidential eligibility clause which would include not only the narrow “common law” (based on apparent British common law) and the later United States constitutional designation for 14th Amendment purposes, that is, one born “in” the United States (jus soli), but also the statutory designation by Congress of one entitled to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth” transmitted from one’s parent or parents (jus sanguinis).

Donofrio has provided an excellent analysis here explaining why Minor v. Happersett, which was the first Supreme Court decision to hold that women were equal to men as citizens of the United States, is the only binding precedent we currently have upon which to rely on the meaning of the term natural-born citizen. The case is often misunderstood because it did not confer the right to vote for women, a right the U.S. Constitution extended only to men prior to the adoption of the 19th Amendment.

UPDATE: A story in the Boston Globe today gives new meaning to Obama's autobiography, Dreams From My Father. If it had been up to his bigamist father from Kenya, Barack Obama, Sr., our illegitimate president would have been put up for adoption through the Salvation Army:

In the spring of 1961, President Obama’s father revealed a plan for his unborn son that might have changed the course of American political history.

The elder Barack H. Obama, a sophomore at the University of Hawaii, had come under scrutiny by federal immigration officials who were concerned that he had more than one wife. When he was questioned by the school’s foreign student adviser, the 24-year-old Obama insisted that he had divorced his wife in his native Kenya. Although his new wife, Ann Dunham, was five months pregnant with their child - who would be called Barack Obama II - Obama declared that they intended to put their child up for adoption.

“Subject got his USC wife ‘Hapai’ [Hawaiian for pregnant] and although they were married they do not live together and Miss Dunham is making arrangements with the Salvation Army to give the baby away,’’ according to a memo describing the conversation with Obama written by Lyle H. Dahling, an administrator in the Honolulu office of what was then called the US Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Obama, the Subject, and his USC, or United States citizen, wife, obviously, did not put their baby up for adoption. Whether the young couple actually considered such a step, or the elder Obama made the story up in order to appease immigration officials who at the time were considering his request for an extension of his stay in the United States, is unclear. Family members on both sides of the marriage now say they never heard any mention of adoption.

But his statement provides a unique glimpse into the relationship between the president’s parents and the fragility of his connection to the father whom he would little know . . .

Ballard Administration Continues To Bleed Taxing Districts With Abatements

Nearly a decade ago, the City of Indianapolis awarded Navistar a tax abatement deal that saved the company $18 million with a promise of retaining 1,800 jobs at its Indianapolis foundry. Instead, it began shutting down the facility a few years ago, failing to meet the promises it made. The Ballard administration clawed back only $5 million of the tax abatements the company took, but the City retained all of those funds for use on its own economic development activities despite the fact that all taxing districts contributed towards the abated taxes--nearly half of which would have gone to the school district. You may recall the Ballard administration gave that $5 million to the ICVA and the City's economic development corporation.

The company is back again with its hand out and the City is approving yet more give-aways to the company after it recalled a very small workforce. Yes, for creating a measly 250 jobs, the company will get millions more in tax abatements even though it defrauded the taxpayers out of tens of millions of tax dollars by failing to meet its earlier job promises. The IBJ's Scott Olson explains the insanity of the Ballard administration's taxing policies:

The company received $18 million in tax breaks from the city in the past decade, but agreed to repay $5 million in early 2010 for failing to retain more than 1,800 jobs at the plant. The huge east-side facility employed as many as 1,650 workers in 2005, but began mass layoffs amid the recession as the auto market tanked.

Still, the city is set to preliminarily approve another tax abatement because Navistar acted in “good faith” when recognizing that it fell short of meeting job commitments, said John Bartholomew, spokesman for the city’s Department of Metropolitan Development.

The Metropolitan Development Commission approved Navistar’s abatement request at its Wednesday meeting. Final approval could be granted July 20.

“They weren’t trying to fight us; that worked in their favor, so they’ve got a clean slate now,” Bartholomew said of Navistar. “This hopefully will prevent a huge industrial site from going off the tax rolls. This is a great opportunity to bring in new jobs.”

Joanne Sanders, Democrat minority leader of the City-County Council, said she is pleased the city is helping to save jobs but thinks it should have collected more from Navistar for failing to meet the requirements of the first tax abatement.

"To say they are starting with a clean slate is disingenuous," she said. The real clawback would have been close to $20 million."

Navistar has recalled 150 workers who were laid off when Indianapolis Casting Corp. stopped production in late 2010. Long-term plans include hiring 100 more employees by 2013 and investing $19 million in technology and supporting equipment.

Not surprisingly, the workers at the facility had to agree to a wage cut simply to breathe new life into the facility. I don't know who is suppose to be representing the interests of the schools and other taxing districts that are adversely impacted by the City's insane economic development policies, but clearly nobody is sitting at the table representing either the taxpayers or the other affected taxing districts. These idiot decision-makers at the City continuously make decisions that permanently erode the other taxing districts' tax bases and the only entity that ever receives any benefit from them is the City--because it establishes TIF districts in these areas that capture all of any new tax revenues generated within these areas after the abatements go away. These other taxing districts have no room to complain, particularly the schools, when they sit idly by and allow this to occur without objection.

UPDATE: Pat Andrews has uncovered the fact that the MDC also just reactivated two dormant TIF districts, the Dow Elanco TIF at 86th & Zionsville Road and the Naval Air Warfare Center in Warren Township.

Big Bucks Flowing Into Indiana Governor's Race

U.S. Rep. Mike Pence looks to be the leader of the pack in raising money for his 2012 Republican bid for governor, but Democrat John Gregg isn't far behind. The AP is reporting that Pence will report more than $1 million raised as of June 30 compared to $717,000 for Democrat John Gregg, who is not presently facing a serious primary opponent. Pence's potential Republican primary opponent, political newcomer Jim Wallace, is claiming to have raised $500,000, a surprising sum for a political unknown.

In Indiana's Senate race, Sen. Richard Lugar raised three times as much money as his Republican opponent, State Treasurer, Richard Mourdock. Lugar raised $900,000 compared to Mourdock's $300,000. U.S. Rep. Joe Donnelly raised $440,000 for his Democratic Senate bid next year. Mourdock's fundraising prowess looks underwhelming; however, his campaign is hoping he will make up in grassroots support what he is lacking in money. Many activists and party leaders believe thirty-six years is a long enough tenure for the incumbent senator.

Evan Bayh Lands Another Corporate Job

The list of jobs just keep growing for Evan Bayh. First, Indiana's former U.S. senator became a senior advisor for Apollo Global Management. He later joined a big D.C. law firm, McGuire Woods, after becoming a political contributor to Fox News. Then he joined the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as an advisor on government regulations and became a member of Fifth Third Bank's board of directors. Now we learn that he has been elected to Marathon Petroleum Corporation's board of directors. In a press release announcing Bayh's and two other board members' election, Marathon's chairman says the new board members bring "a wide variety of experiences and valuable business experiences" to the company. As Bayh has assured us with each of his other jobs, we're sure this one has nothing to do with government influence peddling.

Three Separate Shootings Downtown On July 4th

The Star's John Tuohy notes three separate shootings during the 4th of July festivities in downtown Indianapolis. A 17-year-old boy was shot while riding in a car near Market & Illinois Streets, while another 17-year-old boy was shot in the foot as he was leaving the canal area at Senate Avenue & Ohio Street. Gunshots were also reported near the corner of Capital Avenue and Maryland Street. Some people are in denial of the growing crime problem in all areas of the city, including downtown:

[City-County Councilor Ben] Hunter, chairman of the City-County Council's Public Safety Committee, said he spent the day Downtown and felt as safe as he ever had.

“I consider Downtown safe and I and confident that public safety does what they need to do to protect all neighborhoods,” he said.

Hunter said large gatherings tend to attract “individuals who make poor choices.”

And when they do, police pounce, he said.

“You can’t say when someone makes a poor choice, ‘Oh, why didn’t he police chief do this or that’?” he said.

When "individuals make poor choices . . . police pounce"? Did I miss something in this story? The writer makes no mention of any arrests being made in connection with any of the three separate shooting incidents that claimed at least two young victims. "Police are investigating three separate shootings Downtown last night and early this morning that injured two teen-agers," Tuohy writes. "Investigating" does not equate to making arrests, Councilor Hunter.

Incidentally, did police ever figure out who the second shooter was during last year's Black Expo summer celebration? Just a thought as we approach that annual event that causes residents to avoid our "safe downtown" like the plague despite the massive police presence.

Charges Against Strauss-Kahn To Be Dropped

The New York Post is reporting that New York District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr.'s office plans to drop the rape charges it filed last month against Dominique Strauss-Kahn out of growing concern his accuser, a hotel  maid and asylum seeker from Guinea, fabricated the allegations against him simply to profit at his expense. Prosecutors now believe the maid was turning tricks for the hotel's patrons.

Prosecutors will agree to drop the charges against Dominique Strauss-Kahn -- either on his next court date in two weeks or even sooner, according to a top investigator in the case who called the eventual dismissal "a certainty."

"We all know this case is not sustainable," the source told The Post exclusively yesterday.

"Her credibility is so bad now, we know we cannot sustain a case with her," the source said, referring to the Guinean hotel maid who accused Strauss-Kahn of trying to rape her in his plush Midtown hotel suite -- shocking charges that got the international banker bounced as head of the IMF and also derailed, at least for now, his bid to become president of France.

"She is not to be believed in anything that comes out of her mouth -- which is a shame, because now we may never know what happened in that hotel room," said the source, who is at the center of the investigation and would speak only on the condition of anonymity . . .

Multiple investigators for the defense and prosecution have confirmed that they believe the maid was turning tricks at the hotel, and prosecution sources have even accused her of continuing to "entertain" male visitors while in a DA safehouse.

As to the latest charge to surface against DSK back in his home country of France, the NY Post reports that lawyers for him plan to file a criminal slander complaint against French novelist Tristane Banon for accusing him of attempting to rape her nearly a decade ago. Strauss-Kahn was forced to give up the job as head of the IMF after the criminal charges were filed against him by Vance's office, resulting in him being placed under house arrest and unable to return home to France. DSK had been considered the leading presidential contender against incumbent French president Nicolas Sarkozy in next year's election. His arrest in the U.S. has spawned numerous conspiracy theories, including one forwarded by the Russians that DSK was threatening to reveal that the U.S. did not have the gold reserves it claims to hold at Fort Knox.