Back to Dorothy Brizill main page, Guam SLAPP suit
Columns DCWatch
Archives Elections Government and People Budget issues Organizations |
Subject: Slots gambling promoters, the Marati press release, and the Deitsch-Perez E-mail From: Dorothy Brizill <dorothy@dcwatch.com> Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 15:58:09 -0400 To: janderson@k57.com, msilva@k57.com, sabrina@kuam.com, clynt@kuam.com, mvariety@vzpacifica.net, pacvoice@ite.net, parroyo@k57.net, rgibson@k57.net CC: "Jackie A. Marati" <jamarati@bankofguam.com>, William O'Field <wofield@dcboee.org>, Lori Montgomery <montgomeryl@washpost.com>, Matt Cella <mcella@washingtontimes.com> I am Dorothy Brizill, the Executive Director of DCWatch, a good government organization focused on the local government in Washington, DC. My organization opposed the gambling initiatives that were proposed in Washington, DC, in 2004 and 2006. These initiatives were totally financed by companies that were owned or controlled by Shawn Scott, Rob Newell, and John Baldwin, who are the backers of the gambling initiative that is currently proposed in Guam. Jackie Marati has shared with me an E-mail sent to Guam press outlets dated July 31, 2006, by Deborah Deitsch-Perez, an attorney for Scott, Newell, Baldwin, and their companies. Ms. Deitsch-Perez also represented these interests in their initiative efforts in Washington, DC, so I am very familiar with her tactics. Ms. Deitsch-Perez's E-mail is filled with half-truths and misrepresentations, and is very deceptive. Her threat to sue Ms. Marati and media outlets, simply for exposing the backgrounds of her clients, is an effort to intimidate an opponent of her clients in the midst of a political campaign and to prevent the public from learning the truth about her clients, who are attempting to promote slot machine gambling in Guam. In Washington, DC, any member of an initiative committee that proposes an initiative must be a registered voter in the District of Columbia. In 2004, Scott, Newell, Baldwin, and companies owned and controlled by them hired three residents of the District of Columbia as their agents to be the members of the initiative committee. The members of the initiative committee did not work independently, but on behalf of and in the interest of Scott, Newell, and Baldwin. All the expenses of the committee were paid by companies owned and controlled by Scott, Newell, and Baldwin. That initiative committee was fined twice by the DC Board of Elections and Ethics for violations of election laws. The first fine was for $100,000, and that fine was paid by the initiative committee from funds provided by a company owned and controlled by Scott, Newell, and Baldwin (see http://www.dcwatch.com/election/init18ww.htm). The second fine was for $622,820, and the initiative committee has not yet paid it; instead, it has appealed the fine in DC Superior Court. Ms. Deitsch-Perez is technically correct that the DC Board of Elections and Ethics did not assess that fine for "signature buying"; instead, it found that:
Citizens challenged the petitions filed by the initiative committee. The Board of Elections and Ethics held a nine-day hearing on those petitions and heard the testimony of many witnesses who were involved in the petition circulation process. In the end, the Board rejected the petitions because of pervasive fraud. In its order rejecting the petitions, it wrote:
Again, this pervasive pattern of fraud, forgery, and violations of elections laws was found to be the responsibility of an initiative committee all of whose members were paid agents of Scott, Newell, Baldwin, and their companies, and all of whose activities were paid for by Scott, Newell, Baldwin, and their companies. While Ms. Deitsch-Perez correctly claims that Scott, Newell, and Baldwin were not individually named or fined by the District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics, the committee that was their hired agent was. Ms. Deitsch-Perez's characterization of the Board's decision is completely false. The Board's decision was appealed by the initiative committee and upheld by the DC Court of Appeals, which praised it in its opinion: We affirm the Board's thoroughly documented and carefully explained decision, substantially for the reasons stated in its supplemental opinion attached hereto. [http://www.dcwatch.com/election/init18kk.htm] The Court of Appeals further listed some of the violations of election law that were engaged in by the initiative committee:
Ms. Deitsch-Perez commonly engages in a shell game with regard to Shawn Scott, Rob Newell, John Baldwin, and their many companies. These three individuals have been partners, in various combinations, in more than 160 companies. Whenever Mr. Scott, Mr. Newell, or Mr. Baldwin has been associated with any wrongdoing, Ms. Deitsch-Perez has denied the association by saying that it wasn't that individual, it was one of those numerous shell companies. Ms. Deitsch-Perez denies that Mr. Baldwin was involved in the Washington, DC, effort in any way, but Mr. Baldwin is the primary source of financing for Mr. Scott and Mr. Newell, so this denial is disingenuous and misleading. When Ms. Deitsch-Perez first appeared in Washington, DC, she denied that she was representing Shawn Scott or Rob Newell or Bridge Capital -- because for that particular representation she was being paid by another one of these 160 or so different corporations. The truth is that the three members of this group are all interconnected in all of their deals, and they commonly disguise and deny their connections by using these shell corporations. If you have any questions about what happened in Washington, DC, please don't hesitate to E-mail me or to call me at dorothy@dcwatch.com, 202-234-6982. If you have any questions about the findings of the DC Board of Elections and Ethics, you can contact its press representative, William O'Field, at wofield@boee.org, 202-727-2511. If you have any questions about the backgrounds of Scott, Newell, and Baldwin, please search the archives of The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com) and The Washington Times (http://www.washtimes.com) for 2004. And if you have any questions about the factual basis for these newspaper stories, or any doubt about whether any of these stories has been "corrected" or retracted in any way, please contact the reporters who wrote them, Lori Montgomery at The Washington Post, montgomeryl@washpost.com, 202-334-6822, and Matt Cella at The Washington Times, mcella@washtimes.com, 202-636-4895. |
Send mail with questions or comments to webmaster@dcwatch.com
Web site copyright ©DCWatch (ISSN 1546-4296)