NOT GUILTY: Feds Overreach on Lang

Word is out that the verdict of Not Guilty was returned by the jury in the prosecution of West Chester Trustee George Lang.

So, are we done now?  I would think so since the federales just wasted time on this debacle.  Will Kay Rogers and Mike Fox finally see the inside of a prison cell now?  Can we finally put this nightmare behind us and move on?

Don't get me wrong, I want all of the bad guys rooted out and punished for their crimes, but glaciers have moved faster than this investigation and I think it is time to wrap it up.

Of course, we must continue to be vigilant and watch out for this kind of malfeasance from our elected officials.

BUTLER COUNTY: Lang Indicted for Perjury NOT Dynus Case

Everytime the Journal-News gets a chance to smear a Republican from Butler County, they take it.  Bad headlines.  Misleading emails.  Crappy journalism.  You name it, they've done it.

The latest news involves West Chester Trustee George Lang, who was NOT indicted for the Dynus case, but rather for allegedly perjuring himself testifying in the Dynus case.  And if the journalism is solid, I think the government is going to have a really hard time proving their case.  Let's go to the clip...

According to the indictment released just after 5 p.m. Wednesday, Lang “knowingly made a false material declaration” on Aug. 11, 2009, in U.S. District Court in Cincinnati while testifying in the federal case against Orlando Carter, the owner of the now-defunct Dynus Technologies.

...
During Carter’s trial, former Dynus president Jim Smith testified that Lang gave him a $100,000 kickback payment after the trustee’s agency was paid $360,000 in a lobbying contract. According to court testimony, Lang’s agency was paid to introduce Dynus officials to county officials in an effort to help the company obtain a contract to use the county’s fiber optics network to create a phone, Internet and video company.
Lang, who is the majority partner in Performance Benefits Solution and the Lang Agency, [ALLEGEDLY]perjured himself when he testified that he did not know that Smith was an employee of Dynus, and stated Smith was an “independent contractor” in 2004, according to the indictment. At the time, Smith was the company’s marketing director.

Note the added word in that last paragraph.

Let's define perjury so we have some idea what we're talking about and what all of this actually means.

When a person, having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the U.S. authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; 18 USC

In order for a person to be found guilty of perjury the government must prove: the person testified under oath before [e.g., the grand jury]; at least one particular statement was false; and the person knew at the time the testimony was false.
The testimony of one witness is not enough to support a finding that the testimony was false. There must be additional evidence, either the testimony of another person or other evidence, which tends to support the testimony of falsity. The other evidence, standing alone, need not convince that the testimony was false, but all the evidence on the subject must do so.

Now, lying is bad, especially under oath...but if the reporting in the article is accurate, I don't believe that the alleged lie will stand up in court against Lang and here is why:

Perjury is the "willful and corrupt taking of a false oath in regard to a material matter in a judicial proceeding." It is sometimes called "lying under oath;" that is, deliberately telling a lie in a courtroom proceeding after having taken an oath to tell the truth. It is important that the false statement be material to the case at hand—that it could affect the outcome of the case. It is not considered perjury, for example, to lie about your age, unless your age is a key factor in proving the case.

Unless there is significant evidence -- that we don't know about -- that illustrates that Lang knew that Smith was an employee of Dynus at the time, then this whole thing is rubbish.

More importantly, I don't see how that is vital to the Dynus case either.  Unless I am missing something that the lawyers in the audience would care to educate me of...

UPDATE:  It occurs to me that it is possible that the perjury charge is an opening move by the government and that further charges could be coming.  That is a possibility, I suppose.  Although, as an observer of this case over the last couple of years, I have to think that it is a bit late for another round of actual Dynus-related prosecutions.

UPDATE 2:  The follow-up story sucks too.  Is it too much to ask that journalists stick to providing information that is germane to the story but doesn't add extraneous information that doesn't explain the story. The only reason to add this stuff is to make the subject look bad.  The whole "Money exchanged" section has NOTHING to do with the perjury charge against Lang and is included only to smear Lang by associated non-relevent facts to a story that isn't about the money.  The Lang story is about whether or not Lang knew that Smith was an employee of Dynus and not an "independent contractor" as Lang testified.  The payments have nothing to do with this story and only distracts the reader from the facts of the Lang story.

Butler County: Insurance Bids

One of the things that I think would improve the image of the Republican brand nationally, regionally, and locally is if we took proactive action against even the appearance of impropriety.

Do I think this transaction with the county employees is illegal or immoral? Not in the slightest, but it does look fishy. Intrepid reporter Josh Sweigart tells this story better than I would, so let's go the blockquote, shall we?

While the county is locked into a contract with CEBCO for its employees' health insurance, other companies offer supplemental, voluntary products, such as long-term disability, vision programs or life insurance.

Under a 1997 contract, Lang Radcliff Agency manages flexible spending accounts for employees that pay for some of these benefits, and handles the county's deferred compensation plan.

The company is now the Lang Agency, owned by West Chester Twp. Trustee George Lang.

Lang's former partner, Mike Yoakum, describes this as a questionable inside deal.

Yoakum said his firm, Harbour Companies, bid on these contracts when Lang was working for him in 1995. It was a done deal, Yoakum said, secured with Lang's connections with the Butler County Republican Party.

"We didn't have any competition," Yoakum said. "We had put out enough political pad money to get it."

But Yoakum said Lang switched the name on the bid to his own company at the last minute, robbing him of the contract.

This does sound pretty bad on the part of Mr. Lang. In fact, this is the second instance where Mr. Lang's name has come up in a shady deal, the first being the infamous Dynus fiasco. While the Dynus deal was bad for the county, I think this deal was just bad for Yoakum. What makes me say that? The next sentence Josh writes is this one:

Yoakum sued Lang, Lang counter-sued. The two settled in 1997 with Lang agreeing to pay $10,000 of Yoakum's court costs.

If Yoakum were in the right, I don't think he'd have settled for court costs. I don't know anything about Mr. Yoakum other than what is presented in the article, but it sounds like this is a guy who is still angry that he got outplayed.

So what is the lesson in all of this for the county? Again, Josh puts this front and center:

Butler County leaders say they have no system in place to determine what companies can offer employees insurance products. And some worry this leaves the process open to political favoritism.

Within the next month, county Personnel Director Douglas Duckett will seek bids to hire a consultant to improve controls over which insurance companies approach county staff.

Of course the point gets buried behind all the lies, sex and videotape of who's get who's money and whatnot. And on that point, I think Yoakum is exaggerating again:

The county pays Lang roughly $800 a month to administer the FSA. He also gets a portion of each deferred compensation transaction, though that's voluntary for employees. How much he makes from this isn't public, but Yoakum ventures it's "millions." Lang offers that it's thousands.

Back to the point: these new procedures are important and ought to be in place as quickly as possible. Nothing is more important right now to the county and the Butler County Republican Party than making sure that the shenanigans are put to a stop.

My goal: Make Josh have to write positive stories about Butler County Republicans because that is all he can find.

UPDATE: Josh has a second article on this subject that is worth taking a look at too. This one brings on to the playing field one Don Spurlock, another connected member of the Butler County GOP who is in the insurance business. The importance of this bit is that it illustrates that being in the party is not enough, you still have to win the selection process (whatever that process is/was).

I think it is also worth noting the other names mentioned with Lang's in this piece: Kay Rogers and Mike Fox. This gem is a perfect illustration of why Mike Fox ought to say "no comment" when asked questions from the 527 media:

"Generally, you look for people who are qualified that have been your friends rather than your enemies," Fox said. "When you have the discretion to get something done, the first goal is to find someone who can do something capable and do something well ... you don't give high priority to people who've been your enemies."

Instead of taking a good opportunity to demonstrate that Fox had a lick of good sense, he went ahead and opened his mouth and removed all doubt that he's an idiot. Mike, here's a hint, the answer you were looking for -- and the best part is, you said it -- "Generally, you look for people who are qualified." Period. End of sentence, next question, please.