Bill Sizemore, Racketeer
Catching up some more…can one blogger ever go on vacation?! Here’s a neat piece from the Oregon Supreme Court on Bill Sizemore, racketeer. It’s a court opinion, so a lot of it is in legalese. But there are sections worth lifting from Justice Balmer’s opinion for the unanimous court:
The Court goes on to explain that a jury found that an enterprise that included Bill Sizemore engaged in racketeering. Mr. Sizemore–for those who don’t know–makes a living submitting poorly written and confusing initiatives to Oregon voters. Turns out he does this by way of fraud and forgery.
As the Court explained, Sizemore’s group, Oregon Taxpayers United and the rest of the defendants, did not, “challenge the jury’s findings that they did, in fact, forge sponsorship and petition signatures or that OTU-EF submitted false reports to the Attorney General regarding its charitable activities.” Instead, the defendants made a number of technical arguments that the Oregon Supreme Court rejected.
So maybe now Bill Sizemore, Racketeer, becomes the name rightfully attached to all these horrible-idea initiatives. For years, I’ve had a sense that some people were using the Oregon initative process in inappropriate ways. But it’s only as a result of this case that I’ve come to understand that Oregonians are being played by a bunch of corrupt racketeers who are intent on hijacking our initiative system. There ought to be a law.
Kudos to the people who pursued this case and shined a light on Bill Sizemore, Racketeer. The legal team handling the challenge includes a number of friends who should be proud of their great work for Oregonians. Two of the lawyers, Mike Morris and Gene Mechanic, are old friends who do top-flight work. It’s particularly gratifying to see that they nailed Bill Sizemore, Racketeer. Maybe this is a lesson to Bill Sizemore, Racketeer that his days of pushing his corrupt agenda on us are coming to a close.
You can be a part of saying no more to Bill Sizemore, Racketeer. Next time you see a petitioner circulating one of those initiative petitions, be sure to ask whether Bill Sizemore, Racketeer is involved. And if he is, tell them that we don’t do business with Bill Sizemore, Racketeer. And then don’t sign. Because I imagine that you agree that there’s no place in Oregon for Bill Sizemore, Racketeer.
David Sugerman
Tags: Bill Sizemore Racketeer, initiative petitions, Oregon, Oregon Supreme Court, sugerman
December 1st, 2008 at 6:36 pm
It seems very much like usual if something goes against the far left libs, they don’t like it and will produce any lies to stop it. We conservatives will not stop with our efforts to stop radical taxes and laws protecting a very small minority. You will need to put us all in jail.
December 1st, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Jack-Thanks for your comment. I’m curious about your reference to “the lies”–isn’t it pretty well established that Mr. Sizemore has engaged in a pattern of racketeering? What’s untruthful? Or what have I missed in my take on all this?
I heard the news report about Judge Wilson’s ruling today and plan to write about it soon.
David Sugerman
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Bill sizemore has not been convicted of racketering or any other crime. When you stack the jury the way they did against bill what outcome would you expect? Personaly I believe that bill sizemore is a hero. He has the guts to stand up to a bunch of thug union jerks that have only protecting their pockets in mind. If any racketering, lies,and forgery is going on you could only point to the unions and the nitwit fools like you that support them.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:17 am
Hi Jack. I am not a far left liberal, but it seems to me if Bill Sizemore has broken the law and continues to break laws, according to our legal system, then he must pay the price or serve time in jail. Whether one is conservative or liberal is irrelevant.
My greatest concern about Mr. Sizemore’s activity is that he continues an attempt to undermine the state constitution by revising it through the initiative process. By doing so he promotes a facade of helping the taxpayer, when in reality he contributes to degradation of our infrastructure, our schools, and social system. That’s fine for wealthy folks who can pay for their own roads, schools, health care, and fire protection. It’s not so good for the large majority. Think about it next time you drive your Lexus over a city street decimated by potholes.
Steve Carrigg
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:11 am
Interesting thread. Thanks all.
A few additional thoughts. Dan-”racketeering” is a tricky law. Strictly speaking, you’re right that Mr. Sizemore wasn’t “convicted” of racketeering. But there was a finding of racketeering that was affirmed by multiple reviewing courts. The difference is that RICO laws can lead to findings without convictions of the underlying criminal acts.
As an example, if I meet the other technical requirements of RICO and engage in a pattern of stealing client money, a jury could find that I engaged in racketeering without criminal convictions. I have to take issue with “stacking the jury” as juries are made up of 12 people drawn at random from the streets of Multnomah County. In a jury trial, each side can excuse three potential jurors for almost any reason. As well, the judge excuses all other potential jurors who are biased or inclined toward one side. Our system isn’t perfect, of course, but I don’t think you can name a fairer practice.
Steve-I don’t know whether Dan drives a Lexus. Like you, I consider myself pretty middle of the road and share your disdain for Mr. Sizemore’s assault on Oregon. I agree that the rules on signature gathering and other forms of misconduct have to be tightly enforced.
The alternative is to end the initiative process altogether. Oregon’s initiative process dates back to the early 20th century. That part of our constitution was designed to provide a check on what was viewed to be a corrupt legislature.
Maybe we can all agree on a simple principle, and that is the initiative process must be clean and transparent. If the Secretary of State’s office passed and tightly enforced signature gathering and verification rules, maybe wrangling in the courthouse would become a thing of the past. And just maybe it would provide Oregonians assurances that petitioners are playing by the rules.
Thanks for your interesting posts.
David Sugerman