The story, dated today, Nov. 10, is here, with a link to a pdf copy of the Delaware lawsuit, downloadable, here.
One thing interesting, as the Politico story notes, the allegation was made that payment was first suggested by Kazeminy to be made "to Senator Coleman" and then restructured to use a cut-out intermediary payment path.
What is more interesting to me is the suit includes a copy of an Oct. 10, 2008, demand letter from lawyer Anthony Paduano, representing minority shareholders alleging wrongful conduct by the dominant ownership interests against the best interests of the firm and minority shareholder rights and interests - the demand being to the Board to investigate and correct misdoing.
The response letter is alleged to have been dated Oct. 13, 2008, stating a special directors' subcommittee was formed to investigate allegations. Those are interesting dates, regarding there being notice the fan might load up and (presumably if there was communication to the Colemans) allowing about two weeks time to adopt a strategy of countering allegations with a paper trail publicly revealed, or to stonewall, deny, and profess outrage; with the latter option being what ensued.
Also noteworthy, this Oct. 10, 2008 (have you seen that date before), WAPO "The Fix" online entry, here, (source of the photo of the well dressed Senator), stating:
The Minnesota Senate race -- already one of the most high-profile statewide contests in the country -- took another fascinating turn today when Sen. Norm Coleman (R) announced that he was unilaterally taking down all of his negative ads for the final 25 days of his race against comedian Al Franken (D) and independent candidate Dean Barkley.
"As of today I am suspending all negative campaign ads and am calling on those who support me to do the same," Coleman said at a press conference today -- where he also addressed suit-gate. He cited two reasons for the decision: the financial crisis, and his lack of interest in "returning to Washington for six years based on the judgment of voters that I was not as bad as the other two guys."
Coleman's announcement was greeted with skepticism by both Franken and Barkley.
Franken communications director Andy Barr likened the move to "an arsonist burning down every house in the village and then asking to be named fire chief." Ooookay.
[links omitted, italics emphasis added]
So, you tell me if you know - certainly please do that, or indicate what your belief is if you lack actual knowledge as I do - is it a mere coincidence of dates of demand letter and campaign tactical change, or is there a possible causal relation between the two?
For further consideration, without need to download, here are images of p.3-4 of the Paduano demand letter, (from p.31-32 of the court filing) (and as always, click to enlarge and read). This appears to have, on Oct. 10, given notice of what was pending for possible public disclosure in litigation, with enough factual allegation there that if the demand letter content were communicated to Norm Coleman or his representatives or campaign staff, it would have been clear to them two weeks before the story broke that claims might surface of improper high five figure total payments, made without any apparent business basis from Kazeminy, (essentially from him via a controlled alter ego), to Coleman or for the Senator's use and benefit, and it followed closely upon but did not precede the curious press conference interchange set out at the end of this Crabgrass post.
Here is an excerpt from the homepage of Paduano & Weintraub LLP, the plaintiffs' lawyers - for what it's worth to you to know this:
1251 Avenue of the Americas
Ninth Floor
New York, New York 10020
Telephone: 212-785-9100
Telecopier: 212-785-9099
Our practice is devoted exclusively to litigation. The experience of our partners ranges from simple state court cases to matters before the United States Supreme Court and includes first-chair trial and appellate responsibility in a wide variety of substantive contexts. Our founding partners have had broad training at two of Wall Street's premier litigation firms, Cahill Gordon & Reindel and Sullivan & Cromwell. Although we are a small firm with but one office, our clients have retained us to try matters in federal and state courts and before arbitration panels in 34 states. We fill a distinct need in the professional marketplace.
There is no shortage of skilled litigators in New York City. But first-tier representation for relatively small cases -- those that the mega-firms use to train their junior associates -- is difficult to obtain at a justifiable cost. We provide such representation. In establishing our firm in June 1991, we sought to avoid institutionalizing frills that add cost without contributing to productivity. As a result, we are able to charge hourly rates 40% less than those of larger and older firms of comparably high quality. In addition, our cost structure does not require us to treat essential support services, such as clerical help, photocopying and word processing, as independent profit centers.
The size of our firm affords us flexibility within the market segment we seek to serve. Although we anticipate that the critical aspects of most matters we accept can be handled effectively by one partner, close internal communication and planning ensures that each of us always has necessary support from our seasoned associates.
_______UPDATE________
I noticed I did not put a caption on the opening photo. How about - The buck stops here. It's a good caption, for a guy that took over the Truman Committee. Not to mention other implications.