"Columbo" Reports: Details & Questions on the Miller-Nickolas Connection

Someone has been doing his/her homework! This well-written piece landed in my inbox from an anonymous author. It very clearly presents timelines and the activities that have caused the questions about the Miller-Nickolas connection that you've been seeing in posts on ConservaChick of late.

I'm calling this anonymous source "Columbo." Remember "Columbo," the old TV series? Whoever this anonymous source is, he/she is definitely laying low while combing the net, making calls, and asking all the right questions. See for yourself in the text of the piece that follows my commentary.

In a bipartisan search for the truth, William Hayes at The Rural Democrat and I are working together to be sure this information gets posted on both sides of the aisle. Folks, inquiring minds (regardless of their party affiliations) want to know and they're not waiting for the mainstream press to tell them!

Without further ado... "Columbo" reports:

Corruption??? Abuse of Power??? or Pure Happenstance???

For convenience this outline has been created to put together in one piece questions that are being asked from bloggers and posters on the Internet regarding Jonathan Miller and the political blog he envisioned, created and secured Mark Nickolas to operate ....

1. Has Kentucky State Treasurer, Jonathan Miller engaged in corrupt business practices for personal political gain or to influence legislation for personal political gain?
2. Did the Treasurer offer or promise money or other things of value to the corporation or the incorporator of the corporation that he envisioned and put into operation to influence the vote or any voter?
3. Did the Treasurer offer or promise money or other things of value to the corporation or the incorporator of the corporation that he envisioned and put into operation to influence the vote of any voter in sustaining legislation the Treasurer supports?
4. Did the corporation the Treasurer crafted and put into operation offer any legislator any thing of value to influence state policy in the form of legislative bills?
5. Has Jonathan Miller abused his office of trust?

Those are serious questions and we do not know the absolute answer to any of them. Those are also actions which are prohibited for elected officials and people in office of trust, according to the Kentucky Constitution Sections 150 & 151. We have put together some indisputable facts that seem to warrant those questions that are being asked.
We report ... you decide?

I. In the Spring of 2005 Kentucky Treasurer Jonathan Miller contacted former campaign manager, Mark Nickolas to incorporate and manage a political website called Bluegrassreport.org.

For those who do not know Mark Nickolas, he is a former campaign manager who has a two time losing streak for the only two campaigns he has managed. On December 30, 2007 Mark Nickolas candidly wrote on his political blog, "One thing that few people know -- and something I rarely talk about -- is that the Jonathan Miller is the single person most responsible for the genesis of BluegrassReport.org.

"During the Spring of 2005, Jonathan called me with the idea that I launch a political site, believing that the ground was fertile for a serious effort by someone who understood the political environment, the players and the media, and that if I could dedicate a large block of time to building the site and developing an audience, it would have a significant impact on the state's political world. After a few more phone calls and a couple of lunches, it came together."

Source: Internet, Bluegrassreport.org Link:
http://www.bluegrassreport.org/bluegrass_politics/2006/12/why_im_for_jona.html#comments

February 6, 2006 Mark Nickolas stated on his blog:

"Right now contributions have allowed me to continue my efforts full-time without any outside income. This allows me a very modest personal income (averaging less than $3k per month since I started) and to cover the costs of operating the site, doing research, travel, technology, open records requests and the like. "

Source: Bluegrassreport.org Internet Link:
http://www.bluegrassreport.org/bluegrass_politics/2006/02/its_that_time_a.html

II. Plaintiff, Mark Nickolas, is in personal litigation with the Governor of Kentucky. On August 21, 2006 Mark Nickolas' lawyers filed "Response To Motion To Dismiss."
Here are some direct quotes from Nickolas' lawyers found in NICKOLAS RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS filed August 21, 2006:

1. NICKOLAS RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS - page 6

"A MAJOR PURPOSE of Plaintiff's website is to INFLUENCE STATE POLICY, and a critical part of his audience is THEREFORE state government employees."

2. NICKOLAS RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS - page 8.

"It is an obvious inference from these allegations that at least some individual state employees -- the MOST IMPORTANT TARGET audience for Plaintiff's website -- no longer read the site because they LACK THE TIME or ability to read it from home."

3. NICKOLAS RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS - page 9

"The state has cut off the most CONVENIENT METHOD for Plaintiff to reach his audience of state employees, who make up a CORE PART OF HIS READERSHIP"

4. NICKOLAS RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS - page 9

"Because the state has chosen to burden the ability of Plaintiff's KEY AUDIENCE to read his site."

January 10, 2007 4:50 PM
Source: Public Citizen
website PDF Internet Link:
http://www.citizen.org/documents/nickolasresponsetomotion.pdf
End of Excerpts from Nickolas' "Response To Motion To Dismiss."

Emphasis should be highlighted on language used by Nickolas' lawyer:

i. "target audience" refers to 30,000 state government employees who are paid with taxpayer money.
ii. "key audience" refers to 30,000 state government employees who are paid with taxpayer money.
iii. "most important target audience" refers to 30,000 state government employees.
iv. "core part of readership" refers to 30,000 state employees being the "core readership."
v. "major purpose" is solely to "influence state policy" speaks for itself.
vi. "critical part of audience ... therefore is state government employees."
vii. "lacks the time to read it [blog] from home" refers to 30,000 state employees having higher priorities after work than reading the political blog Treasurer Miller envisioned and created.
viii. "cut off most convenient method" to reach "target audience" implies that since 30,000 state government employees "lack the time" to read the political blog after work they should be given the time to read the blog during working hours on the taxpayers' time.

The inference from the language Nickolas' lawyer used is that those people with more than just a casual interest in the political blog's readership are battling in court solely to: Keep the "target audience" intact so as to "influence state policy" on taxpayer time because the "key audience" "lacks time" to read the blog when those 30,000 "core readers" get off of work.

III. Events leading up to the State banning blogs on State computers.

1. June 8, 2005: In a memo from Commonwealth Office of Technology (COT) Deputy Commissioner - Mark Rutledge to Chris Johnson (COT) and Paul Sommerfield (COT), Rutledge asks, "Is the web master capable of blocking blogs? We have COMPLAINTS from agencies about staff spending too much time "blogging" they want us to use restrict access on all blog sites."

Source: Court Documents file by Mark Nickolas' lawyers on August 22, 2006 in "Exhibits To Motion For Cross- Motion For Preliminary Injunction." Page 25; Exhibit 14.
PDF Internet Link:
http://www.bluegrassreport.org/All_Exhibits_to_Motion_for_PI1.pdf

2. June 20, 2006: In the Comment Section from Mark Nickolas's thread, "Governor's Troubles threaten GOP in Kentucky" (New York Times -- Front Page), "the productivity of the entire Cabinet (at least those of us with computers) has been substantially diminished by this blog today. In advance, we apologize to the taxpayer and promise to work double-time next week to make up for the lost hours."

Posted by: "Revenue Girl," Tuesday, June 20, 2006 at 02:40 PM
Source: Bluegrassreport.org Internet Link:
http://www.bluegrassreport.org/bluegrass_politics/2006/06/governors_troub.html

3. June 21st: Blogs banned on all State servers.

4. June 24, 2006: "State Treasurer fights blockage of Internet sites; Miller criticizes Fletcher's action." Courier Journal article by Tom Loftus. Treasurer Miller is quoted, "We face many difficult challenges in Frankfort," Miller said in a statement. "Censoring critical speech, however, will not assist us in moving the state forward."

Source: Courier Journal archives and Bluegrassreport.org Internet Link:
http://www.bluegrassreport.org/bluegrass_politics/2006/06/saturday_govern.html

Treasurer Miller did not mention to the reporter that the "target audience" were the 30,000 state government employees, nor did Mr. Miller mention that the "major purpose" of the blog was to "influence state policy."

Treasurer Miller did not mention to the reporter that he envisioned, created and after many phone calls and lunches with Nickolas, Nickolas finally agreed to manage the banned blog full time.

4. July 10, 2006: The lawsuit was filed.

5. July 13, 2006: Together on the stairs of the Capital Annex, Rep Kathy Stein, Treasurer Jonathan Miller and David Sirota, co-chair of the non-partisan, non-profit Progressive States Network based in Washington, D.C. announce plans to file legislation forcing the State to allow State Employees access to Miller's political blogs.

Again, Treasure Miller made no mention of the fact that the "target audience" were the 30,000 state government employees, nor did Mr. Miller mention that the "major purpose" of the blog was to "influence state policy."

Treasurer Miller did not mention to the reporter that he envisioned, created and after many phone calls and lunches with Nickolas, Nickolas finally agreed to manage the banned political blog full time.

IV. Now the Questions....
1. Is the Kentucky State Treasurer or any elected leader classified as a "private citizen" able to donate money to a Corporation that they envisioned and created with the "major purpose" to "influence state policy" whose "target audience" are 30,000 state government employees who should be able to access the blog during working hours because the "target audience" "lacks the time" to access the blog after working hours?

2. Is the Kentucky State Treasurer or any elected leader who is in a position of trust, held to a higher standard than a private citizen whose allowable donations and promises are dictated by the Kentucky Constitution Section 150 & 151.

3. Does Kentucky Constitution Sections 150 & 151 prohibit elected leaders and persons if office of trust from donating money or making promises to a Corporation that they envisioned and created with the "major purpose" to "influence state policy" whose "target audience" are 30,000 state government employees during working hours?

4. Is it abuse of power if the Treasurer criticizes the governor in the media and fights for legislation that would mandate the "target audience" to remain intact to be able to access the blog the Treasure created during working hours whose "major purpose" to "influence state policy" because the "target audience" "lacks the time" to access the blog after working hours?

5. If the Treasurer donated money to the Corporation he created and whose major purpose is to influence state policy with the target audience being 30,000 state government employees, from either one of his PAC's, personal monies, proceeds from book sales, and/or through any type of taxpayer funded account which the Treasurer is allowed to donate to charity or other entity at his discretion, would that be in violation of Kentucky Constitution Sections 150 & 151?

6. What does it mean when Nickolas' lawyers say that the political blog, designed and created by the Kentucky State Treasurer, whose has their "target audience" be 30,000 state government employees?

7. What does it mean when that same political blog has a "major purpose" to "influence state policy" to 30,000 state government employees?

8. Why is it so important to the Treasurer that the "target audience" read the blog during working hours as opposed to after work?

9. Does Miller personally fund a political blog and/or foundation whose purposes are to influence public policy and state workers?

10. Is Miller's outspoken support for the blog and the subsequent legal ruckus underhanded, if not entirely unethical or abuse of power?

11. Did Miller hire the foundation/blog as a lobbying firm, if he has why not simply say so?

These are questions that have been asked on many blogs on the Internet and we decided to put them all together on one outline. If there are other questions being asked on other blogs that are not within this thread they are only left out due to oversight. Please feel free to ask any additional questions in the comment section.

While writing and putting together these facts in an outline I got that "troubled feeling" one gets when writing indisputable, factual evidence regarding possible corruption by elected leaders who are in high power of trust in government. I wondered if Thomas Paine, or other pamphleteers from that period, ever felt troubled when they wrote questions designed to hold elected officials in power accountable for their actions?

Thus far the main stream media has not mentioned any of this to the voters of the Commonwealth. Perhaps they do not read blogs and are unaware that these questions are being asked on the world wide web?

(My heartiest thanks for the nice detective work, "Columbo!" I'm Irish-American and have a notorious patience deficit. I would never have been able to lay this out in such great detail for readers by myself. Keep up the great work!)