Bob McCulloch: President of an organization that raised $432k for Wilson

[Ykcutnek]

[LiberalElite]

1. What the flying FK? nt

[billhicks76]

33. Holy Crap!!!

Not only is Wilson being financially rewarded for murder like Zimmerman was but the Prosecutor is behind it? He needs to be fired immediately. We all know how Zimmerman turned out too and who would care what happened to him at this point.

[KingCharlemagne]

42. The D.A. of St. Louis County is an elected official and McCulloch just won

re-election in early November to another 4-year term. Next opportunity to vote on him is 2018.

Efforts to disbar McCulloch may bear more fruit:

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/shocking-mistake-in-darren-wilson-grand-jury-364273731666

[Applan]

2. oh jeez

This should get interesting. But it probably won't!

[Rex]

3. Is that true? WTF!?

[tammywammy]

4. That org said they weren't connected to the shirt sale.

http://m.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/the-backstoppers-not-benefitting-from-darren-wilson-shirt-sales/article_361f0089-a36b-5f2d-93b3-8a4f83c0351b.html?mobile_touch=true

[JaneyVee]

5. HOLY FFFFFFFFFF!

[PAProgressive28]

6. .

DISCLAIMER:
The BackStoppers, Inc. does not organize, sponsor or control any fundraising efforts. We are sincerely grateful on behalf of the families of the fallen for the efforts of those who organize fundraisers.

http://www.backstoppers.org/index.html

[teach1st]

7. From the Backstoppers site

The BackStoppers, Inc. does not organize, sponsor or control any fundraising efforts. We are sincerely grateful on behalf of the families of the fallen for the efforts of those who organize fundraisers.

http://www.backstoppers.org/

McCulloch is listed as president. I'm still looking for info about raising money for Wilson.

[freshwest]

8. Oh, wow, not exactly impartial on the matter, huh? Or did he raise equal amounts for the Browns?

I wonder if this would be considered a conflict of interest under the law or if he'd just say he was exercising his first amendment rights...

On a case that he was already bound to put to the Grand Jury to seek an indictment...

Oh, yeah, nothing to see here!

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

9. If true, conflict of interest to the max and the very appearance of impropriety

That's hard to believe. I'm not really familiar with the Missouri Bar's rules of professional conduct but I wonder if McCulloch could get into disciplinary problems over this, if true. A casual review of those rules comes up with this:

RULE 4-1.11: SPECIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST FOR FORMER AND CURRENT GOVERNMENT OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES

(e) A lawyer who also holds public office, whether full or part-time, shall not engage in activities in which his or her personal or professional interests are or foreseeably could be in conflict with his or her official duties or responsibilities.

(1) A lawyer holding public office shall not attempt to influence any agency of any political subdivision of which such lawyer is a public officer, other than as a part of his or her official duties or except as authorized in sections 105.450 to 105.496, RSMo.
(2) No lawyer in a firm in which a lawyer holding a public office is associated may undertake or continue representation in a matter in which the lawyer who holds public office would be disqualified, unless the lawyer holding public office is screened in the manner set forth in Rule 4-1.11(b).

or this:

RULE 4-1.7: CONFLICT OF INTEREST: CURRENT CLIENTS

(a) Except as provided in Rule 4-1.7(b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if:

(1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or
(2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client, or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.

(b) Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under Rule 4-1.7(a), a lawyer may represent a client if:

(1) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client;
(2) the representation is not prohibited by law;
(3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal; and
(4) each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.


Could this conflict with McCulloch's representation of one client (the People of the State of Missouri) and materially limit it by virtue of his leadership of an organization that represents the interests of a third party (Wilson)? Most bar associations have attorney hotlines where lawyers can present scenarios to a rules of conduct expert to see if their contemplated activity might subject them to discipline. It might be interesting if a Missouri lawyer called and pretended to have a similar situation as McCulloch to see what they say.

http://www.courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=707

[spanone]

10. mccolluch did nothing to hide his bias in his presser last night. it was an abomination.

he showed absolutely no empathy for the victim whatsoever.

this country is truly sick.....a cancer of hatred and bigotry.

[lovemydog]

12. I agree. He was defensive, biased and incredibly whiny.

Yammering on and on about 'the media' and 'social media'. What the heck? Police brutality and racism have existed long before social media.

He kept deceptively associating his own actions with those of the Attorney General and Department of Justice. The DoJ clarified today that it is conducting its own separate and independent investigation.

Shameless and dishonest!

[99th_Monkey]

18. Yes, police brutality existed before social media

but nobody talked about it much, because we were not able to capture it live on camera very often.

With social media in the mix, it exposes police crimes and abuses to the light of day, and they HATE it
with a vengeance. .. as they probably should being the assholes they are.

BTW I just heard that Seattle police (after issuing body cams to their cops) have decided, "agh well, maybe
that wasn't such a great idea after all. We've decided to trash them."

[billhicks76]

34. Is It True What Anonymous Said?

That Wilson is part of a secret KKK aligned club? This a-hole murdered an unarmed kid and in testimony referred to him as "it" and a "demon". This guy us obviously a racist liar.

[99th_Monkey]

35. I would not be surprised, but don't know for certain. I wish there was evidence.

Wilson & McCullough both certainly behave as though they are part of the Klan.

Msg to Anonymous: "Please hack us up some unimpeachable evidence these goons really are KKK."

[billhicks76]

37. Evidence Only

He's obviously racist but facts are facts and innuendo has no place here.

[99th_Monkey]

38. True Dat.

I was stating my suspicion.

[cheyanne]

11. Guns & Hoses Event???? Check out their website.

About time to change the name . . . Hoses okay, a bit phallic, so boys will be boys. But guns? Right now I feel that I don't want to be reminded about policemen and their guns. And with "hoses" the name sounds like crowd control, imminent violation of civil rights.

[Botany]

13. and why didn't he recuse himself from the case?

Last edited Wed Nov 26, 2014, 01:15 AM - Edit history (1)

[Jack Rabbit]

14. Sounds like a possible conflict of interest

It might go a long way in explaining the very unusual, almost unique, procedures used by Mcolloch in presenting the case to the GJ.

[Stellar]

15. Keeps getting worse.

[Suprk]

16. From the BackStoppers website

BackStoppers Officers & Directors for 2014
http://backstoppers.org/board.html

[BeanMusical]

17. What a crooked racist scumbag!

Regardless of the situation, there now exists an argument that Prosecutor Robert McCulloch was in a conflict of interest in the case. That he proceeded anyways should tell us of the ethical standards by which he operates, and how valid his prosecution before the grand jury is.

Now we need to have an investigation on Prosecutor McCulloch to discover if this is an isolated incident, or something more widespread. This might be why the t-shirt sales were done in the first place, to create such a scenario and poison trust in the prosecution’s case as presented. The actual case it turns out did enough of that, but back in August, it may have seemed a good idea to someone seeking to hide the truth. It needs to be uncovered who did this, and to put steps in place to prevent similar incidents in the future. That Prosecutor McCulloch’s organization has already rejected any such investigation leaves open the question – what it is that they are afraid to uncover? Are these ties far deeper than just a random t-shirt sale?

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/11/25/prosecutor-fundraising-wilson/

[tooeyeten]

19. No connection

To fundraising for Wilson, so DA not involved.

[Rex]

21. Yes direct connection.

Prosecutor up to his neck in conflict of interest.

[tooeyeten]

39. Not so sure

Has it been proven this same .org collected money and directed it specifically to Wilson?

[Recursion]

20. Backstoppers is denying any connection to the sale, FWIW (nt)

[Botany]

22. but they were selling this t shirt

[Recursion]

24. Who exactly was selling that T-shirt? (nt)

[Botany]

29. Backstoppers was making $ from the t shirt

An “I Support Darren Wilson” t-shirt being sold on tee-spring has surfaced on social media, with half of the proceeds going to Darren Wilson’s GoFundMe, and the other half going to Backstoppers.


http://thefreethoughtproject.com/st-louis-county-prosecutor-mcculloch-raising-money-darren-wilson/

[Recursion]

31. That doesn't answer my question, does it?

I sometimes sell stuff on etsy or cafe press and announce where the proceeds will go. Backstoppers has claimed they never heard of the sale or saw a dime (and I'm betting the LDF didn't either... grifters are everywhere).

[uponit7771]

44. we don't know WHO was selling we do know Backstoppers was involved by allowing the posting

...on their site...

That itself is way too far

[Recursion]

46. When was it on the Backstoppers site? (nt)

[SickOfTheOnePct]

47. It wasn't

I know I'll get flamed for this, but it drives me nuts how people post stuff here, someone shows them that they've been misled, yet it still gets pushed as fact.

[tammywammy]

26. see the link in post 4.

[Rex]

23. Found this on another thread.

I wonder if it is authentic.

[Recursion]

25. Right. Some group is selling the shirts, and will split proceeds between the LDF and backstoppers

Backstoppers has claimed they never received any money from whoever was selling them (for that matter I'd bet the LDF didn't either), and wouldn't have accepted it if they did because of the political considerations.

[Rex]

27. Ah so the advertisement is false.

Thanks.

[Recursion]

28. The ad doesn't claim Backstoppers is running the sale, does it?

I thought it was just saying they'll donate money to them.

[Rex]

30. I thought Backstoppers were the people that came up with the shirt.

I see this was just some scam to make someone a lot of money that they kept for themselves.

[Recursion]

32. That's my reading of this

Grifters never take a holiday.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

43. It doesn't have to involve a financial interest

If they are at all connected to a shirt (or any form of message) promoting Darren Wilson's defense, it's a conflict of interest for this organization to be headed by the person who is supposed to be objectively and dispassionately considering Wilson as a possible criminal defendant.

[Recursion]

45. So, you're saying I can disqualify any DA involved with a charity?

Your claim is that I can sell a t-shirt on cafe press and announce that I will split the proceeds between my legal defense fund and some charity the DA runs? And that will automatically disqualify the DA from prosecuting me?

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

49. If you are representing a client (the People) who are in an adversarial position

with a person who is being supported by a private organization you head, there is a conflict right there. If that individual goes to trial, you will be arguing in favor of his guilt, while you are wearing another hat as head of an organization drumming up favorable feelings for that person in the potential jury pool. You are in conflict with your client's (the People's) interests.

[Recursion]

50. But there's still no connection to backstoppers

Backstoppers didn't design, endorse, promote, sell, or receive any money from the shirt. Where is the conflict?

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

51. The original post says they raised money or helped raise money for Wilson's defense

My post stated "If they are at all connected to a shirt (or any form of message) promoting Darren Wilson's defense" there is a conflict of interest. If this backstoppers organization of which McCulloch is the President has no connection whatsoever to Darren Wilson in any way, no more than I have sitting here in my house or President Obama has sitting in his, does not provide any assistance or facilitation in the promotion of the t-shirt then there is no conflict. My point is that there needn't be just a revenue sharing or financial involvement by backstoppers to have a conflict of interest. The conflict would be in doing anything that helps show Wilson in a favorable light, such as displaying the t-shirt on a web page, or promoting it in any way.

If you say that there is no connection whatsoever between the charity and Wilson then it's a non-issue and a crazy notion that was arbitrarily plucked out of thin air.

[Recursion]

52. If I sell a shirt and claim I will donate proceeds to Amnesty International

Does that make Amnesty "connected" to the shirt.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

53. If Amnesty participates in any way or lends their good name to acknowledge this arrangement

thereby facilitating your endeavor they are obviously connected. If you falsely claim that Amnesty International has any kind of arrangement or understanding with you then there is no connection and no conflict of interest (in the case of McCulloch) . In fact they are being used by you.

[Recursion]

54. Right. So in what way did Backstoppers participate?

That's what is missing here.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

55. My post was stated in the conditional tense

[Recursion]

48. I'm still not seeing how they are connected with the shirt

They didn't design it or promote it, and they have said they wouldn't accept any money from it. What is the connection here?

[Blue_Tires]

40. Strikes me like a whole lot of 'plausible deniability' CYA

Like we see when some "Friends of Congressman X" PAC with a $20 million war chest gets caught ratfucking during the campaign...Theoretically the PAC is supposed to be "completely independent" from the congressman's official campaign...

[Recursion]

41. Really? Backstoppers aren't idiots (they're a good charity). Sounds like grifters to me

They've said "we didn't authorize it and will accept no money from it", which for a public-disclosure charity is pretty much cut and dry, isn't it?

Anybody in the world can set up a CafePress shop and claim to be raising money for anybody else. The T-shirt sellers didn't even claim a Backstoppers endorsement, did they?

[Initech]

36. Holy conflict of interest!!!!

[Kalidurga]

56. Even without this connection there is a problem.

The entity in charge of getting indictments against a police officer who may have murdered someone or may have committed other crimes should not be anywhere near the DAs office. This is an inherent conflict of interest in any kind of case. The DAs office and LEOs are far to close to be impartial. The police should should be under a special kind of arrangement where a non law enforcement agency pursues charges perhaps a citizens watch group under the leadership of an attorney not connected to the DA.