I am writing because of a number of serious concerns I
have over the nomination of Judge Paul Maloney to the
Federal Court. Based on these issues, I ask you to
deny his appointment. The justification for this
request is as follows:
1. Illegally accepting campaign contributions for
Governor John Engler's Leadership PAC in 2000. I have
attached the most pertinent campaign finance
disclosure records. For further information see MI
committee id # 509688-9 for Maloney and MI Committee #
509596-6 for John Engler. The activity in question
involves the 10/2/00 refund check for $9,850 sent by
the Maloney Committee to Gov. Engler due to excessive
campaign contributions, and the $15,750 contribution
Maloney accepted from same PAC on 10/27/00. I have
also attached information regarding a questionable
$175,000 loan from McKinley Associates (i.e. Mr. Ron
Wieser) to Gov. Engler's PAC on 10/20/00 which
provided the funds necessary for the $15,750
contribution to Maloney on 10/27/00.
2. Possible criminal negligence in failing to
ascertain the facts regarding a 2005 recall election
in which, he set aside a Board of Canvassers Certified
election. (The People Vs. Jean Nesbitt case number
2005-2899-AW). The recall election was organized by
Reverend Edward Pinkney. Rev. Pinkney motivation for
organizing the recall election is twofold. The
commissioner facing recall blocked an investigation
into the known illegal action of the Benton Harbor,
Michigan Chief of police. Secondly, the commissioner
in question represented the critical vote in the sale
of 520 acres of Benton Harbor's river and lake front
land to the Harbor Shore developer for less than one
million dollars. This is far below the going market
rate for the quality and quantity of land sold. The
latter is also the reason the campaign financing
records of Paul Maloney should be carefully examined.
Obvious examples of Paul Maloney's negligence include:
A. Denying a motion to intervene by an attorney hired
by residents of Benton Harbor, Michigan to represent
the majority will in the 2/22/05 election. He ruled,
“the case will be vigorously litigated, therefore,
there is no actual or potential for inadequate
representation.” Upon examination of the trial tapes
you will find:
i. A lack of cross examination of approx 2/3 of
witnesses when the testimony of many witnesses was if
not right out lies, at least highly suspect.
ii. Failure to call critical parties to testify before
his Court. This includes any member of the Board of
Canvassers, a majority of alleged victims of voter
fraud, and the person alleged with organizing the said
fraud, Rev. Edward Pinkney. Rev. Pinkney in fact,
could have provided essential evidence, including DNA
and a polygraph that would have contradicted the most
important alleged evidence of the prosecution.
iii. Allowing the prosecutor to admit numerous
exhibits based on testimony of a witness who stated
information that was impossible for the witness to
know (see tape at time: 13:58.28, 4/12/05). For
example, the prosecutor asks “do you know James
Cooper?” The witness responds, “not by name.” Then the
people ask, “do you know if he voted at that time from
the soup kitchen?” The witness answers, “I don't
know,” The next question was “do you recognize that
person as someone voting from the soup kitchen?”
“Yes,” the witness responds. And that exhibit was
allowed to be admitted into evidence without any
further questioning and no objection! Immediately one
notices three problems with this type of standard for
truth in court. First, it is not possible for someone
lacking the capacity to identify a person by name to
thirty seconds later recognize their signature.
Furthermore, the witness stated she did not know if
James Cooper was from the soup kitchen; but then, as
if by magic, she can recognize his signature and know
that he came from the soup kitchen. And these
contradictory statements are accepted as the standard
of proof! Here is a crystal clear example of Maloney
letting falsity stand for fact. Now, and this is the
second problem, a major argument the prosecution
raised against the Benton Harbor clerk was alleging
the clerk failed to check the voter application
signature against the signature on the “master
registration card.” Think about that for a minute. How
is it that the prosecutor can argue that because the
Clerk provided the opportunity for fraud in failing to
verify a voter's signature against a reference card,
then turn around to argue that a witness's
identification of a signature - of a person whose name
she couldn't identify - should be taken as proof?
Finally the third problem is the fact that no person
voting at the polls has their signature checked
against a registration card. Any voter need only
produce their name. Does the State claim that these
votes should too be thrown out because the State can't
trust that the voter is who they claim? If not
verifying the signature of voters was the standard,
not a single vote in any Michigan election would
count. Not a single one of these serious issues were
ever mentioned. These contradictory “proofs” and
inconsistent standards for voter identification were
admitted without objection from either the defense or
questions from the judge. And this type of behavior is
supposed to earn judge Maloney more power!
iv. Failing to inquire about the sworn testimony by a
witness indicating police manipulation and
intimidation of persons during the investigation stage
(see tape at time: 11:50.00, date 4/13/05).
B. An insufficient number of challengeable
votes to overturn the recall election. The number of
alleged fraudulent ballots did not reach the
mathematical bright line necessary to affect the
election outcome. The margin for recall was 51 votes.
Even if you accept Maloney's statement made in his
judgment that 27 votes were invalid based on
defendants concession there still remained a 24 vote
margin, not enough to set aside an election. If there
had been adequate representation for the majority of
Benton Harbor voters the number of conceded ballots
would have been far below 27. I counted only 3 votes
that necessitated invalidation because they involved
errors in mandatory provision. The remaining ballots
fell within the category of failing to follow
directory provisions. The signature issue for example.
Michigan law declares that errors involving directory
rules is not a sufficient reason to invalidate those
votes.
As a poll inspector and as citizen committed to
democracy, I find his judgment woefully unsupported by
the facts in this case. Don't just believe me though
examine the tapes yourselves. I have included copies
of the tapes, as well as the tape date and time for
all examples cited above for your convenience. These
represent just a few examples of Paul Maloney's utter
lack of care in establishing the relevant facts in a
decision that extended judicial power into legislative
territory. Maloney declared the case was to be decided
based on the “totality of the circumstances.” How is
this possible without the testimony from all essential
parties? If the totality of circumstances were to be
used as the basis for his judgment, why did he fail to
obtain evidence necessary to base his decision on that
totality? I can think of only one reason. If the
committee decides to make a diligent inquiry into this
matter, I doubt it will fail to reach the same
conclusion.
The day after election trial, Rev. Pinkney was
arrested. Surely some reason was needed in order to
justify this blatantly illegal judgment. Rev. Pinkney
actions represented, in the words of the defense, “an
outside political wind.” In part, this is correct.
Indeed, there was a strong wind blowing, a wind that
blew out of office a commissioner who exemplified
local corruption; however, Rev. Pinkney is a legal
resident of Benton Harbor. It is also true that Rev.
Pinkney proved to represent a serious challenge to the
local power structure. In that sense then, there is
outside political wind blowing. But do not be deceived
by the cunningness of the fox, for their files are
empty. This was simply a case of smoke and mirrors
that any federal judge must have the capacity to see
through. Listen to the charges for a moment. The State
alledges he paid people $5.00 to vote. Rev Pinkney
claims, a claim supported by a polygraph, that he paid
people $5.00 to distribute fliers.
I am quite confident that every member of this
committee paid at least one campaign worker. I'd also
go out on a limb and assume that more than $5.00 was
paid to your campaign employees. Please excuse me for
this assumption if it proves incorrect. Now, your
paying campaign workers and Rev. Pinkney paying for
the distribution of fliers are functionally
equivalent. At least, I can't see how their different.
If anyone can tell me how these two activities are not
equivalent please let me know. The second charge, a
felony mind you, is that Rev. Pinkney was in
possession of absentee ballots. Reflect on that for a
moment. So what if Pinkney enables people to exercise
their right to vote by giving legal voters postage
stamps and placing them in the mail, as the
prosecution contends. In fact, this latter charge is
also one Pinkney denies - a claim that is supported by
a polygraph test. But that's not the important issue.
It is what is called a false problem. Why? Because no
one ever accused Pinkney of intimidation or
harassment, nor did the State claim that he altered
any of the ballots he is accused of being in
procession of. Given the disenfranchisement that
plagues Benton Harbor, the fact Pinkney was enabling
people to vote should be encouraged.
This brings us to another serious problem in the civil
trial. One reason given by Maloney for setting aside
the election was the “suspiciously high number of
absentee ballots.” One again this is a false issue.
The real question is why there wasn't 100% voter
turnout. But then that too must be evidence for
invalidating the election. If one adheres to Maloney's
line of reasoning, full participation must represent
evidence of fraud if 47% participation does. Civic
participation must be encouraged. People who enable
others to exercise their voting rights must be honored
not criminalized. Sadly, the criminalization of civic
participation is exactly what is happening here.
Finally, even if you accept the prosecutions argument
that Rev. Pinkney paid voters $5.00 to vote, the only
difference between the Reverends action's and Maloney
accepting contributions from Congressman Fred Upton is
one of degree. Since the Upton family contributed
$1,300 to Maloney's campaign, and the fact that the
successful recall election would have blocked the sale
of Benton Harbor land to a corporation established by
Whirlpool - a corporation founded by the Upton's
grandfather. Now, who is buying whom here? Which
action again is more questionable? Rev. Pinkney denies
he paid anyone to vote, but Maloney cannot hide his
campaign finance records.
It is the duty of this committee to safeguard the
people from this complacent, biased, or outright
corrupt judge. Based on the evidence discussed above,
I ask you to deny giving Paul Maloney even greater
power by rejecting his nomination for appointment to
the Federal Court. I would also recommend that the
committee consider appointing a special investigative
team into Maloney's campaign contributions as they
might be the motivation for the election ruling.
Democracy must be defended. I seriously doubt Paul
Maloney ability to provide that defense given his
actions. If the committee requires any further
information I can be reach by e-mail: aschleiffarth@gmail.com
or by phone (269) 921-0591. Thank you for your
considerations.
Sincerely,
Armin C. Schleiffarth
