Jumat, 01 Juni 2012

John Edwards not guilty on 1 count, mistrial declared in other 5

John Edwards not guilty on 1 count, mistrial declared in other 5

GREENSBORO, N.C. -- Former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards was found not guilty Thursday on one of the six counts of campaign finance fraud against him. The jury deadlocked on the other counts, and the judge declared a mistrial.

U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles had sent the jury of eight men and four women back to resume deliberations earlier in the afternoon after the foreman reported that jurors had reached a verdict on one count, but not the other five.

The jurors, already in their ninth day of deliberations, returned after 20 minutes.

The judge asked, "Would further deliberations have any reasonable chance of a unanimous decision on the other counts?"

The foreman replied, "No, your honor."

Edwards, who was handed the foreman's note before it was read by the clerk, showed no emotion upon doing so. When the verdict was announced, however, he smiled, then reached over and hugged his daughter Cate and his parents. He also gave a bear hug to his attorneys, saying, "Thank you, thank you all."

Edwards' father, Wallace Edwards, when asked how he felt, pointed to a  big smile on his own face and said, "This says it all." His mother, Bobbie Edwards, said: "We prayed for this, and God answered our prayers."

The government now must decide whether to seek a new trial on the five counts for which a verdict was not reached.

The trial featured two main characters who were exposed in testimony as liars with tarnished reputations -- Edwards and his fo rmer aide, Andrew Young.

Edwards lied about his affair with Rielle Hunter and falsely denied that he fathered their daughter. The prosecution portrayed him as a manipulative politician who orchestrated payments totaling $925,000 from two wealthy benefactors to cover up the affair and thus save his campaign from collapsing in scandal.

Prosecutors built their case around Young, who testified under a grant of immunity. Young said Edwards solicited the payments, kept abreast of the scheme and even persuaded Young to falsely claim that he had fathered Hunter's child. But testimony revealed that Young and his wife kept much of the money for themselves, and kept phony records to cover it up.

The money came from Rachel "Bunny" Mellon, 101, a billionaire heiress and ardent Edwards supporter, and from Fred Baron, a wealthy Texas lawyer who was Edwards' campaign finance chairman. Baron died in 2008. Mellon, who has failing eyesight and hearing, was not called to testi fy.

In three weeks of testimony by 24 witnesses, prosecutors focused on the tawdry details of the affair and the attempts to keep it secret. Jurors heard salacious details of trysts between Edwards and Hunter, and descriptions of madcap trips across the country to hide a pregnant Hunter -- and later her daughter -- from pursuing National Enquirer reporters.

The case was unprecedented; no major political candidate has been charged with campaign finance corruption for attempts to hide a mistress. Hampton Dellinger, a North Carolina lawyer who has taught election law at Duke University and who attended the trial, said Edwards is the most prominent American lawyer put on trial since Clarence Darrow.

There was no smoking gun, no body, and not even a distinct crime scene. In fact, the defense argued that there was no crime at all -- only a philandering husband desperately trying to hide an affair from his wife.

Witnesses described how Mellon sent "Bunny money" checks to an interior decorator, Bryan Huffman, who endorsed them and sent them to Andrew Young. His wife, Cheri Young, then deposited the checks in the couple's accounts, using her maiden name.

Jurors heard how some of the money from Baron was spent to support Hunter's lavish lifestyle. With the Youngs and their small children in tow, Hunter was flown to expensive hotels and homes in exclusive neighborhoods in an attempt to escape tabloid reporters determined to expose the affair.

Edwards, 58, a former U.S. senator and 2004 vice presidential nominee, was charged with six counts of violating federal election laws. Prosecutors said he "knowingly and willingly" solicited the payments and knew they were illegal. One count charged Edwards with conspiring to accept the payments and to conceal them from the Federal Election Commission through "trick, scheme or device."

The defense said the payments were private gifts intended to hide the affair from Edw ards' wife, Elizabeth Edwards. Witnesses testified that Elizabeth Edwards, who died of cancer in 2010, had become increasingly suspicious of her husband, monitoring his bank accounts and phone calls.

Edwards' lawyers mounted a two-pronged defense. They attempted to discredit Young as an opportunist seeking revenge against his former boss. They tried to convince jurors that under federal election law the payments were private gifts not directly related to the campaign.

The chief financial officer for Edwards' 2008 campaign, for instance, testified that the FEC did not require her to report the payments as campaign contributions -- even after Edwards was indicted last year. And a former FEC commissioner, Scott Thomas, testified that in his 37 years of experience with federal election laws, no one had been prosecuted for payments from a third party used to cover up an extramarital affair.

Bill Clinton joining Wisconsin recall battle against Scott Walker

Bill Clinton joining Wisconsin recall battle against Scott Walker

Bill Clinton will stump in Wisconsin on Friday for that state’s Democratic gubernatorial challenger, the latest in a series of high-profile campaign roles for the former president.

Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz announced Thursday that Clinton would be campaigning with Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett as he looks to unseat Gov. Scott Walker in next week’s recall. The former president will take part in a rally with Barrett, according to the Barrett's website.

Clinton has recently emerged as the party’s go-to utility player. On Monday, he will appear with President Obama at three consecutive fundraisers in New York, including a small dinner at the home of hedge fund manager Marc Lasry (whose fund once employed Chelsea Clinton) and a gala at the Waldorf Astoria. Topping off the evening will be a Broadway concert featuring performances by stage luminaries such as James Earl Jones, Tony Kushner, Patti LuPone and Angela Lansbury.

The events are being held a little more than a month after Clinton appeared with Obama at another fundraiser for the president’s reelection campaign, held at the Virginia home of former Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe.

And Clinton is scheduled to headline yet another fundraiser in Beverly Hills on June 14 â€" this one to raise money for the host committee organizing the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C. The midday lunch will be at the home of media entrepreneur Haim Saban, a major fundraiser for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid.

Guests are being asked to pony up as much as $100,000 per couple to attend the event, in exchange for hotel rooms in Charlotte and convention credentials. It’s one of the first major high-dollar events for the Charlotte host committee, which has been laboring to raise money under rules imposed by the Democratic National Committee that prohibit donations from for-profit corporations, political action committees and registered lobbyists.

But as we reported last month, organizers have found a way for monied interests to play a role in financing the event. Convention officials have encouraged corporate executives to write personal checks. They have suggested that corporations can donate goods and services to the convention, and give up to $100,000 through a corporate foundation. Lobbyists can also bundle money in exchange for perks such as credentials. And union money is not prohibited.

In addition, a separate committee called New American City accepts unlimited sums from corporations. That fund pays for all the host committee’s administrative overhead â€" including the costs of producing fundraisers such as the one Clinton will headline â€" and welcome parties for the media and delegates.

Convention officials have declined to release the tally of how much the host committee has raised so far, but spokeswoman Suzi Emmerling said Thursday that fundraising is “right on track.”

matea.gold@latimes.com

Edwards not guilty on 1 count, mistrial on others

Edwards not guilty on 1 count, mistrial on others

Former presidential candidate John Edwards was found not guilty on one of six campaign fraud charges Thursday, and the jury could not reach a verdict on the other counts, leading the judge to declare a mistrial on them.

Edwards was accused of masterminding a plan to use money from two wealthy donors to hide his pregnant mistress during his run for the White House in 2008.

It was not immediately clear whether prosecutors would retry Edwards on the other counts.

Edwards did not react when the verdict and mistrial were announced, but he was happy and smiling about an hour earlier when the jury said it had reached a verdict on one count after nine days of deliberations.

The acquittal and mistrial highlighted a day of confusion when the judge mistakenly believed jurors had reached a verdict on all six counts.

Instead, the jury told the judge they had a unanimous decision on only one charge, and the panel was sent back to the jury room for more talks. About an hour later, the jury sent the note to the judge saying it had exhausted talks.

Prosecutors accused Edwards of knowing about roughly $1 million being funneled to former aide Andrew Young and the candidate's mistress Rielle Hunter. They also said he was well aware of the $2,300 legal limit on campaign donations.

The weeks-long trial has gone into the most intimate details of a sordid sex scandal that effectively ended Edwards' political career and the elaborate cover-up that involved his most trusted aide, the aide's wife, and the two wealthy donors.

Edwards' lawyers have argued that the ex-U.S. senator never knew that taking the money violated campaign finance law, and that his personal transgressions weren't illegal.

The jury has made more news in recent days of the trial, as Eagles has closed the court to discuss unspecified issues with jurors. Four alternate jurors began wearing matching colored shirts to court and one of them was said to be exchanging smiles with Edwards. Eagles told the alternates on Wednesday that they no longer needed to come to court during deliberations.

The jurors, whose identities have been withheld throughout the trial, asked to see dozens of trial exhibits during deliberations, relating to Mellon and Baron's donations.

Mellon, who is 101 years old, did not testify. Baron died in 2008.

Elizabeth Edwards died in late 2010.

CalPERS slashes Vernon officials' pensions

CalPERS slashes Vernon officials' pensions

Two former administrators in the city of Vernon who received lavish compensation will have their retirement benefits slashed in what state pension officials described as the largest public pension reduction in state history.

Bruce Malkenhorst, who had the biggest public pension in California, $545,000 a year, will see his yearly benefit drop to about $115,000. His successor, Eric T. Fresch, will have his pension stripped completely. Fresch, who made as much as $1.6 million in 2008, has yet to formally retire but one expert estimated his pension's value at about $300,000 a year.

The actions come after a lengthy audit by the California Public Employees Retirement System, which found Vernon improperly boosted the retirement benefits of nearly two dozen top employees. The agency also ruled that Vernon had erroneously awarded "public safety" pensions to Fresch and other staff attorneys. The Times first reported on the safety pensions in 2010.

State Sen. Kevin De Leon (D-Los Angeles), who has been leading a reform effort in the industrial city, said the CalPERS decision to cut Fresch and Malkenhorst's pensions was a victory for taxpayers.

"For decades, these grifters scammed the system and today the system finally struck back," he said.

It is unclear whether Fresch or Malkenhorst will challenge the decisions, or if Vernon will do so on their behalf. In its intial response to CalPERS audit, the city argued that the retirement fund "owes its primary fiduciary duty to its members and must construe the evidence in their favor whenever possible."

A Vernon spokesman said Thursday that the city was still reviewing CalPERS determinations and declined to comment on the possiblity of an appeal. Fresch and Malkenhorst could not be reached for comment.

In Malkenhorst's case, CalPERS concluded that Vernon had failed to substantiate the total pay rate he received. Malkenhorst held as many as 10 different positions during his 29-year tenure in the city government, including city administrator, clerk, finance director and executive director of the Vernon Historic Preservation society. Through those titles, he was able to earn as much as $911,000 in total salary.

CalPERS, however, determined that only Malkenhorst's pay as city clerk was properly reported for purposes of his pension.

Fresch, on the other hand, will lose his entire pension because CalPERS concluded he was not an actual employee but an independent contractor. Fresch never took an oath of office for his positions as city administrator, city attorney or assistant city attorney, CalPERS said in a formal letter obtained by The Times. And several of his employment agreements referred to him as a consultant or advisor.

Three other former Vernon officials will lose pension benefits due to similar issues, including Malkenhorst's son, Bruce Jr. CalPERS also found problems in the pensions of two of the city's current leaders: city administrator Mark Whitworth and finance director Riordan Burnett.

Brad Pacheco, a spokesman for the retirement fund, said it would collect any overpayments made in the last three years.

"It's the public agency's responsibility to follow the law," he said. "They need to know about these issues."

De Leon said he planned to formally request a criminal investigation from the state Attorney General's office.

"It isn't enough that they forfeit their gains," he said. "They must be punished to deter other scam artists from ripping off taxpayers in the future."

John Edwards: 'I did an awful, awful lot that was wrong'

John Edwards: 'I did an awful, awful lot that was wrong'

GREENSBORO, N.C. -- The prosecution may have failed in its attempt to convict John Edwards of campaign finance fraud, but in comments made Thursday after a judge declared a mistrial in his case, the former Democratic presidential candidate stepped forward to take responsibility for what he called his sins.

Appearing with his daughter Cate and his parents on the courthouse steps, he first thanked jurors for their time â€" almost nine full days of deliberations â€" and for the attention they gave to the evidence.

“Thank goodness we live in a country that has the kind of system that we have,” Edwards said.

The former U.S. senator and 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee had been charged with six counts of accepting illegal campaign contributions during is 2008 presidential campaign. He faced up to 30 years in prison and $1.5 million in fines if convicted and sentenced to maximum penalties.

The jury acquitted Edwards on one count and deadlocked on the five other counts against him. The judge then declared a mistrial.

After thanking the jury, Edwards' comments became personal.

“While I do not believe I did anything illegal -- or ever thought I was doing anything illegal -- I did an awful, awful lot that was wrong. And there is no one else responsible for my sins.”

“I am responsible.… It’s me, it is me and me alone.”

Edwards also looked to the future. “I don’t think God is through with me,” he said. “He still thinks there are good things I can do.”

In discussing that future, Edwards said he wanted to work with poor children â€" and spend time with his own kids.

“I want to dedicate my life to being the best dad I think I can be,” he said, mentioning all of his children -- including his son Wade, who died in 1972, and his daughter with videographer Rielle Hunter, Quinn.

Edwards made a point of thanking his oldest daughter, Cate, saying: “Cate has been here every single day, no matter how awful and painful a lot of the evidence was.... She never flinched.”

Edwards also had two other children with wife Elizabeth Edwards: Emma Claire and Jack. Elizabeth died of cancer in December 2010.    

ALSO:

On heels of Dharun Ravi verdict, 3 charged after teen's suicide

Texas honor student jailed for truancy gets charges dismissed

Five Wives Vodka can get a seat at the bar in Utah, not in Idaho

david.zucchino@latimes.com

Kamis, 31 Mei 2012

UnitedHealth to rebate $3.5 million to California small businesses

UnitedHealth to rebate $3.5 million to California small businesses

Nearly 4,400 small businesses in California will share in $3.5 million in rebates from insurance giant UnitedHealth Group Inc. this summer as insurers nationwide prepare to return millions of dollars to customers as a key benefit of the federal healthcare law kicks in.

The first of these California rebates, amounting to about $98 each for nearly 36,000 small-business employees and dependents covered by UnitedHealth, comes because the company's spending on medical care fell short of new government requirements.

Insurers must notify federal and state officials of how much they may owe policyholders by Friday if they failed to spend a minimum amount of customers' premiums on medical care last year. Consumer groups pushed for this provision in President Obama's Affordable Care Act to ensure that companies aren't raising premiums to pay for executive salaries, shareholder dividends and other expenses unrelated to customers' care.

Healthcare experts say the rebates probably will be modest on a per-person basis and most of the money may go to employers. As of Wednesday, UnitedHealth was the only insurer that had filed rebate information with the state Department of Managed Health Care. Other companies are expected to disclose the size of their customer rebates later this week and send out money by Aug. 1.

UnitedHealth, the nation's largest insurer, said checks will go out in July to those small businesses affected. The Minnetonka, Minn., company said that under the federal rules it did not owe rebates to individual policyholders or large employers in California.

Gerald Kominski, director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, said these rebates are an important milestone since most other provisions of the federal law don't take effect until 2014, and policyholders have continued to face rising premiums. The average premium for employer coverage in California has increased 154% over the last decade, more than five times the 29% increase in the state's overall inflation rate.

"For the first time, a broad spectrum of California and America will feel a positive consequence of this legislation," Kominski said."When is the last time you got a rebate from your health insurance company? People have been waiting a long time for this."

California insurance officials said it's too early to estimate the overall amount of rebates statewide. Janice Rocco, the deputy insurance commissioner for health policy, said regulators will begin auditing insurers' information on expenses and profits next month to ensure that their rebate calculations are accurate.

However, the future of these rebates and the entire federal healthcare overhaul is uncertain as the U.S. Supreme Court considers the constitutionality of the law. A court ruling is expected next month.

California lawmakers passed a similar state requirement on medical spending, and state regulators have said those rules would stand even if the federal law is overturned. But insurers don't necessarily agree with that view.

Excluding California, insurers are expected to pay an estimated $1.3 billion in rebates to U.S. consumers and employers this year, according to a study last month from the Kaiser Family Foundation. The nonprofit group said the average rebate for individuals was an estimated $127 per person.

Under the federal and state laws, insurers must spend at least 80% of premiums collected on medical care for individual and small-group policies, which cover businesses with 50 or fewer workers. For larger employers, insurers must spend at least 85% of premiums on medical expenses. Employers that self-insure are not subject to these requirements, which are referred to as a medical-loss ratio.

In its state filing, UnitedHealth said it owed rebates because its medical-loss ratio for small businesses was 77.9% last year, short of the 80% threshold. UnitedHealth said its loss ratio on individual customers was 80.1% and 88.6% on larger companies, meeting the government requirements.

Cheryl Randolph, a spokeswoman for UnitedHealth, said 35,922 workers and their dependents are covered by the small-business rebates, but it's up to employers to decide how they share those savings under the federal law. Some employers may split the rebate money based on the percentage workers contribute to their annual premiums or they could reduce next year's premium by a similar amount. Not all small-business customers of UnitedHealth qualified for the rebate.

"We think our numbers reflect that we are pretty close to pricing in line with what we are seeing on the medical cost trend," Randolph said.

Rebates will vary for each company and kinds of policies. A spokesman for Health Net Inc. in Woodland Hills said its medical spending met the minimum requirements and that it doesn't expect to issue any rebates to its 1.1 million customers in California.

Patrick Johnston, president and chief executive of the California Assn. of Health Plans, said insurers are committed to issuing rebates, when necessary, but the rules don't address the larger issue of rising medical costs.

"Rebates are one way to adjust the price of insurance," Johnston said, "but the bigger issues are containing cost and extending coverage."

chad.terhune@latimes.com

Medi-Cal works for most enrollees, survey finds

Medi-Cal works for most enrollees, survey finds

As California gears up for a major expansion of its publicly funded health program for the poor, a statewide survey released Thursday shows that Medi-Cal enrollees have more trouble finding doctors and use the emergency room more frequently than people with other health coverage.

But overall, perceptions of the program were positive, with more than 70% of all recipients reporting that Medi-Cal provided high-quality care.

The survey â€" called Medi-Cal at a Crossroads â€" comes at a critical time, as the state continues to cut costs and simultaneously prepare for new enrollees.

"At a time when the program is being cut back, it is poised for a dramatic expansion," said Mark Smith, president and chief executive of the California HealthCare Foundation, which commissioned the survey. "Trying to figure out what it does well and where there is room for improvement is really important."

Smith said the survey highlights some of the obstacles the state will face when the coverage expansion takes effect in 2014. About 7.6 million people receive Medi-Cal services now, and if theU.S. Supreme Courtdoesn't throw out the federal health reform law, an additional 2 million California residents could be newly eligible for enrollment.

California Department of Health Care Services Associate Director Len Finocchio said it was validating to see that Medi- Cal works well for the vast majority of enrollees. He said the department knows that there are some beneficiaries who have difficulty maneuvering through the program.

"We are not shying away from the issues that we have to deal with," he said. "We are working on that all the time."

Having enough doctors who accept Medi-Cal patients may prove to be the greatest hurdle for the state as it enrolls more beneficiaries. Reimbursement rates for doctors have been cut significantly and now are among the lowest in the nation.

Nearly a quarter of Medi-Cal recipients reported having difficulty finding a primary care provider who accepted their insurance, compared with 11% of people with other health coverage. And 34% of Medi-Cal enrollees said it was difficult finding a specialist, compared with 13% of people with other health coverage. Even more people in fair or poor health reported difficulty finding a specialist.

"Almost half of the people who are the sic kest are having the hardest time finding doctors," said Tresa Undem, a partner at Lake Research Partners, which conducted the survey. "That is a big challenge for the program."

Their ER use was also higher. Among those in fair or poor health, Medi-Cal patients were more than twice as likely as those with other health coverage to say they visited the emergency room in the prior year.

Enrolling the newly eligible could also pose a problem, Undem said. Only about a third of those not yet enrolled said they knew how to apply and many didn't know they would qualify. Finnocio said the state is already planning how to get the word out about eligibility and enrollment, and new applicants will be able to sign up in person, online, over the phone or by mail.

Jolina Barsanti, 34, receives health insurance through her employer but her husband and young children are covered under Medi-Cal. Barsanti, who lives in Alameda County, said she has been generally pleased wit h the program but said she wished it included dental coverage for her husband and vision coverage for her whole family.

Barsanti said that because she works, she has to pay about $1,250 before Medi-Cal picks up any costs. "It is expensive," she said. "We can't afford that, especially living in the Bay Area."

Enrollees with disabilities had the worst perceptions of the program.

"This is a wake-up call that these patients are not particularly happy with the status quo," Smith said, adding that the state needs to closely monitor their ongoing transition into managed care. "These are patients for whom mistakes can translate into really serious medical problems."

anna.gorman@latimes.com