Maynard withdrawing from Massey case.

Friday January 18, 2008
Maynard withdrawing from Supreme Court case after vacation photos with Blankenship released


by Justin D. Anderson
Daily Mail Capitol Reporter


State Supreme Court Chief Justice Elliott "Spike" Maynard will withdraw from the court's reconsideration of a decision that favored Massey Energy, a coal company run by his longtime friend Don Blankenship.
"It is not enough to do justice - justice also must satisfy the appearance of justice," Maynard wrote in a brief memo filed today with the court.

http://www.dailymail.com/News/200801180132

Like I said in another thread, we need to find a bi-partisan way to elect or appoint our judges, up to and including the Supreme Court to eliminate the possibility of an appearance of improprieties.

Aaron wrote:Like I said in another thread, we need to find a bi-partisan way to elect or appoint our judges, up to and including the Supreme Court to eliminate the possibility of an appearance of improprieties.

That would not necessarily eliminate the appearance of improprities. Were Maynard a Repuiblican, or even an independent, would the appearance of impropriety we see this week be any less?

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:Like I said in another thread, we need to find a bi-partisan way to elect or appoint our judges, up to and including the Supreme Court to eliminate the possibility of an appearance of improprieties.

That would not necessarily eliminate the appearance of improprities. Were Maynard a Repuiblican, or even an independent, would the appearance of impropriety we see this week be any less?

It would reduce them somewhat. But it doesn't matter how they are placed on the bench, in this instance Maynard should have excused himself from the case.

Just like ole Darrel should turn over all money his office brings into the state to the Legislature so that it is accounted for and spent in accordance with the law and the WV constitution.

Both gentleman may very well be on the up and up but just the appearance of wrong doing is still there.

Well I heard about this on Sirius radio and they did not name the Judge.

They only said it was the Chief Justice.

And for some reason I thought the Chief was Brent Benjamin.

But anyhow it is obvious that Benjamin should recuse himself whether it was him at the Riviera or not, since everyone knows Blankenship bought the Supreme Court seat for him.

For the sake of the kids.

shermangeneral wrote:Well I heard about this on Sirius radio and they did not name the Judge.

They only said it was the Chief Justice.

And for some reason I thought the Chief was Brent Benjamin.

But anyhow it is obvious that Benjamin should recuse himself whether it was him at the Riviera or not, since everyone knows Blankenship bought the Supreme Court seat for him.

For the sake of the kids.

I don't think you can find any of Benjamin's cases that go against his state positions from when he was running for election.

As Ziggy said, he you have evidence of wrongdoing by Blankenship or Massey, then you should report it to the authorities becacause I don't KNOW that Blankenship bought the seat. I didn't get any money for my vote. Did you?

Right Zig!!!

Lawyers for Harman Mining Co., which opposes Massey in the case, had asked Benjamin to recuse himself because Massey Energy chief executive Don Blankenship contributed more than $3 million to Benjamin’s run for the Supreme Court in 2004.

In his written denial, Benjamin stated, “The motion seeking disqualification comes over three years after the 2004 election and focuses entirely on that election. It contains nothing about this justice’s record on the court.

“There are no allegations that his justice has, or has had, any relationship with Mr. Blankenship or any Massey company in his 20-plus years of private practice,” Benjamin wrote. “Simply accusatory accusations and assumptions are plainly insufficient to support a motion for disqualification.”
Source

If Benajmin recused himself based solely on the 2004 elections, shouldn't Larry Starcher recuse himself as well considering he has been openly critical of both Massey and Don Blankenship?

Maynard plans to run this year for another 12-year term on the Supreme Court, although he has not yet formally filed papers for his re-election campaign. Starcher’s term also is up this year, and he has said he will not seek re-election.

Maynard’s campaign committee recently sent out invitations for a Jan. 24 fundraiser at the home of Sen. Truman Chafin, D-Mingo, in Charleston.

The fundraiser’s “special guests” include Gov. Joe Manchin, Senate President Earl Ray Tomblin, D-Logan, and House Speaker Rick Thompson, D- Wayne.

From the same story. This is why I believe we need to come up with another method of how we elect justices to the Supreme Court that will take at least some of the partisan politics out of the equation.

So Aaron are you honestly arguing you have no problem with a major corporate outlaw/scofflaw spending millions to buy a supreme court seat and then having the guy hear cases involving their outlaw business practices.?

That to me is a lot more blatant conflict of interest than the other judge in the case galavanting around at the French Riviera with the same outlaw.

But I have to say neither one gives me a warm fuzzy feeling about justice in wv.

It really amazes and surprises me that people who otherwise appear to be proud citizens would not bristle at the thought of these sophisticated thugs usurping your birthright.

Where are your redneck principles?

shermangeneral wrote:So Aaron are you honestly arguing you have no problem with a major corporate outlaw/scofflaw spending millions to buy a supreme court seat and then having the guy hear cases involving their outlaw business practices.?

That to me is a lot more blatant conflict of interest than the other judge in the case galavanting around at the French Riviera with the same outlaw.

But I have to say neither one gives me a warm fuzzy feeling about justice in wv.

It really amazes and surprises me that people who otherwise appear to be proud citizens would not bristle at the thought of these sophisticated thugs usurping your birthright.

Where are your redneck principles?

Sure I have a problem with DB spending the money he spent on advertising on behalf of Benjamin. But I also have a problem with the unions spending the money they supported and coercing their members into supporting McGraw as they did. The difference is, Blankenship spent more money this time around then McGraw's supporters did and that is the heart of your problem, you and yours got out spent.

But if you took the overall spending and coercions by both sides over the past 70 years, I think the democrats who have run this state in the ground would come out far ahead in terms of spending.

Aaron I have little argument with your post other than your use of the little "d" democrat.

If it's your stance that little d's aren't the individuals that have been running this state in the ground for the past 70+ years Sherm, then I would submit that maybe you're not a democrat or a Democrat because ONE party is responsible for the situation we are in and what they call themselves ain't Republicans or Independants. Perhaps you should look at joining Zig in one of the loon parties Sherm as your beliefs don't seem to jive with the those of the current West Virginia democratic party.

Aaron wrote:I didn't get any money for my vote. Did you?

Right Zig!!!

No one said you did.

What Don Blankenship bought was an election campaign that got Benjamin elected.

Whether its $3 million spent for a successful election campaign (which did happen), or for an estate on the French Riviere (which hasn't happened- yet- as for as we know), it's still a bribe either way. And if we think that it was all just "for the sake of the kids", well, if we believe that we aren't really thinking- just believing.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:I didn't get any money for my vote. Did you?

Right Zig!!!

No one said you did.

What Don Blankenship bought was an election campaign that got Benjamin elected.

Whether its $3 million spent for a successful election campaign (which did happen), or for an estate on the French Riviere (which hasn't happened- yet- as for as we know), it's still a bribe either way. And if we think that it was all just "for the sake of the kids", well, if we believe that we aren't really thinking- just believing.

And I'll tell you the same thing I told Sherm. Your gripe is you got outspent. The fact of the matter is, neither Brett Benjamin or Don Blankenship did anything illegal in 2004. Seems to me you guys need to find some wealthier backers.

Aaron wrote: Perhaps you should look at joining Zig in one of the loon parties Sherm as your beliefs don't seem to jive with the those of the current West Virginia democratic party.

Loon Party? Democratic Party of WV?

But you repeat yourself.

Aaron wrote: Seems to me you guys need to find some wealthier backers.

Now you are sounding like a Republican (or a West Virginia Democrat).

touchee

However, while we are all in a bare-it-all mode, I am sure you will agree that the republican episodes were even more underwhelming than the Democrat years.

Aaron I think this discussion preceeded your arrival on the forum, but during the first Underwood regime we had over 600,000 unemployment claims in 4 years.

Aaron wrote:Like I said in another thread, we need to find a bi-partisan way to elect or appoint our judges, up to and including the Supreme Court to eliminate the possibility of an appearance of improprieties.

I would not oppose the non-partisan election of judges if they came under government funded fair election campaign requirements- yet to be enacted.

"Appointment" of judges? No. Hell, Gaston Caperton would have probably appointed ole' Ed Rebrook to the state Supreme Court.

Aaron wrote:If it's your stance that little d's aren't the individuals that have been running this state in the ground for the past 70+ years Sherm, then I would submit that maybe you're not a democrat or a Democrat because ONE party is responsible for the situation we are in and what they call themselves ain't Republicans or Independants. Perhaps you should look at joining Zig in one of the loon parties Sherm as your beliefs don't seem to jive with the those of the current West Virginia democratic party.

Aaron, looking at West Virginia election campaigns the past 15 years or so, what are Republicans promising that Democratic office holders aren't already doing?

Jay Rockefeller. Arch Moore. Gaston Caperton. Cecil Underwood. Joe Manchin. What, if any, significant political differences were / are there between them?

shermangeneral wrote:However, while we are all in a bare-it-all mode, I am sure you will agree that the republican episodes were even more underwhelming than the Democrat years.

Aaron I think this discussion preceeded your arrival on the forum, but during the first Underwood regime we had over 600,000 unemployment claims in 4 years.

I wasn't around during the first Underwood adminstration but I don't think it's a bit of a reach to blame 600,000 unemployment claims on one person. In the words of Paul Harvey, I need the 'Rest of the story'.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:If it's your stance that little d's aren't the individuals that have been running this state in the ground for the past 70+ years Sherm, then I would submit that maybe you're not a democrat or a Democrat because ONE party is responsible for the situation we are in and what they call themselves ain't Republicans or Independants. Perhaps you should look at joining Zig in one of the loon parties Sherm as your beliefs don't seem to jive with the those of the current West Virginia democratic party.

Aaron, looking at West Virginia election campaigns the past 15 years or so, what are Republicans promising that Democratic office holders aren't already doing?

Jay Rockefeller. Arch Moore. Gaston Caperton. Cecil Underwood. Joe Manchin. What, if any, significant political differences were / are there between them?

I have no idea what Republicans are promising as there isn't even one announced for governor yet. At least I can't find announcement of one. Do you know of any?

Aaron wrote:I have no idea what Republicans are promising as there isn't even one announced for governor yet. At least I can't find announcement of one. Do you know of any?

Well, you've lived in West Virginia for a while, right? What have Republicans ever proposed, specifically, that Democrats aren't doing and haven't been doing all along?

I am not defending Democrats. I am just asking what have Republicans generally said they would do differently?

Aaron wrote:I wasn't around during the first Underwood adminstration but I don't think it's a bit of a reach to blame 600,000 unemployment claims on one person. In the words of Paul Harvey, I need the 'Rest of the story'.

Employment Security in West Virginia
Thirteenth Annual Report to the Governor
July 1, 1966 - June 30, 1967
Table 13, page 59.

The years you have requested for the total initial claims filed are listed below.

Year Initial Claims
1957 118,425
1958 210,791
1959 164,961
1960 166,641
1961 151,217

If you have any further questions you can contact me at the number listed below.

Thanks,

Vicky

Vicky Abbott
Bureau of Employment Programs
112 California Avenue
Charleston, W.V.
(304) 558-2660

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:I have no idea what Republicans are promising as there isn't even one announced for governor yet. At least I can't find announcement of one. Do you know of any?

Well, you've lived in West Virginia for a while, right? What have Republicans ever proposed, specifically, that Democrats aren't doing and haven't been doing all along?

I am not defending Democrats. I am just asking what have Republicans generally said they would do differently?

I've lived in WV all my life save for 3 years in the military. I grew up in Lincoln County (my mom got a month's free rent for my first vote in 1984) so I know exactly how things work here, especially in southern WV. It's not about what is or isn't being proposed, it's how things are ran which is the same way they've been ran for 70+ years.

How many of those claims are from the state workers that Underwood fired when he took office?