A wag once said “Hypocrisy is the lubricant of society.” He could have been talking about Tom Harkin.

With apparently no willingness to read the record, and from 1000 miles away in Washington, Tom Harkin jumped in with both feet into the federal lawsuit of Jack Gross of Des Moines. Mr. Gross sued local insurance company FBL and then lost his age discrimination claim at the U.S. Supreme Court. (Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., No. 08-441 (U.S. S. Ct. June 18, 2009) Harkin has now introduced federal legislation taking Gross’s side on the matter. Harkin claims FBL “gave (a) job to a much younger, less qualified person.”  

Who knows, Harkin’s opinion might even be valid in the Jack Gross matter  but it is terribly inconsistent with his own record when  it comes to his own “hiring” practices. Tom Harkin only a week ago issued a press release singing the praises of his two “extremely well qualified” young  United States Attorney nominees. (harkin.senate.gov/pr/p.cfm?i=318359)

Harkin picked a 34 year old and a 37 year old to serve as Iowa’s United States Attorneys. (I checked across the USA, in 2009 while Iowa has two nominees in their 30s, only one other state has a United States Attorney nominee who is in their 30s.  South Dakota has the 35 year old son of their Democratic Senator nominated who was reportedly the only person who submitted an application. Nepotism?)

It is no secret in Iowa’s legal and political community that Harkin picked the far  less experienced,   much less qualified candidates to be United States Attorneys.  Clearly, Harkin passed over several much more senior, highly respected and experienced attorneys all who expressed a willingness and desire to serve their country. In fact, Harkin mentioned one of those attorneys in his press release. He passed over the highly respected veteran federal prosecutor, Judi Whetstine for one spot. Ms Whetstine even apparently trained the much younger 37 years old Harkin picked. Harkin also passed over attorneys with over three to four times the experience of the  novice 34 year old that he selected. (This nominee resume shows that he  has only practiced law in Iowa for three years.)  Why did Harkin pass over more qualified and experienced attorneys in their 40s, 50s and 60s to select junior attorneys in their 30s?  Was it because they were the best qualified, better attorneys, better equipped to get the job done with honor? Hogwash-Harkin wanted the younger attorneys to be  Iowa United States Attorneys for many of the same  wrongheaded reasons he condemned in the Jack Gross case.   Now he wants to legislate against this practice in the private sector. Apparently he believes “younger” is an honorable criterion for his own political appointees who will be trusted to uphold federal law but such criteria should be illegal in the private sector.   How can Harkin justify his double standard? Why has he deprived Iowans of the service of better qualified attorneys for his “young pups?”   I hope Tom Harkin remembers that “He who stops being better stops being good.”

Doesn’t the potential United States Attorney appointment of Nick Klinefeldt create many situations that raise not only ethical challenges and issues but the appearance of ethical issues not to mention a great deal of unnecessary work to overcome those challenges?  Is this the best candidate Iowa and Senator Harkin really have for this important job? His own firm won’t make him a partner but he gets nominated to lead a powerful group of high octane veteran prosecutors?

A young inexperienced attorney –whose resume appears to be mighty puny to begin with–is going to take over the same USA office that prosecuted his own father for a drug crime?

His father was brought down by a multi-agency Iowa drug task force the USA Office he will not lead works with on a daily basis?

His father was represented by the Federal Public Defender who routinely is assigned cases prosecuted by that same USA office?  

His father was sentenced by a US Federal Judge in the same  Federal District that the USA office works before?

Won’t these and many other situations cause his decisions and relationships to be questioned at every turn? Won’t he have to rescue himself in many important situations?

This young man appears to have overcome some great parental challenges to become an attorney. Good for him.  But why does he have to be a USA at this point?  Why put him in this untenable situation? Why put everyone else who works in important job in the USA office and law enforcement who bring in the bad guys  not to mention  the public in this  “awkward”  situation?  The guy is only 35 and appears to have not much experience beyond being a friend of the Senator.  If he is that great of talent –why not at least put him in a different District maybe Northern Iowa?

Why did this story get reported in a National on-Line Blog and not by   any Iowa media? Isn’t there a controversy about Harkin’s other US Attorney nominee also-I thought I saw a Harkin OP-ED about that?

What is Senator Harkin doing? With so many national issues for him to deal with is his head really in the game on these important kinds of Iowa appointments?

Looking over the Main Justice Blog -it appears most Senators nominated at least three names to the White House for these appointments. Why did Harkin only submit one name? What did Grassley do in 2001?

BB

Found: Mon Sep 14 21:19:23 2009 PDT

Webpage: http://www.mainjustice.com/200…

Newshawk: http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/

A U.S. Attorney Candidate Rises Above Father’s Past – Main Justice A U.S. Attorney Candidate Rises Above Father’s Past – Main Justice

Main Justice

A U.S. Attorney Candidate Rises Above Father’s Past

The Midwest has been hit hard by meth. Law enforcement devotes significant resources to combatting the illegal drug. All of which puts Des Moines lawyer Nick Klinefeldt, who is Sen. Tom Harkin’s choice for Iowa Southern District U.S. Attorney, in an unusual position.

Klinefeldt’s father, Michael Arthur Klinefeldt, is serving a 10-year sentence on a methamphetamine conviction, according to court records. Nick Klinefeldt declined to comment. A spokesman for Harkin said the candidate’s father’s conviction isn’t an issue. “It is Nick, not his father, who is up for consideration,” Bergen Kenny wrote in an e-mail. “Senator Harkin believes that Nick will fully and fairly enforce the law and should be considered for U.S. Attorney based on his credentials.”

The elder Klinefeldt is slated to be released from federal prison in 2012.

Klinefeldt is a former aide to Harkin. He also served as general counsel for the Iowa Democratic party until earlier this year and as a lawyer for the Obama for President campaign in Iowa, according to the Iowa Independent, which reported in March that Harkin had recommended him for the U.S. Attorney post.

Nick Klinefeldt (Ahlers & Cooney)

The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa regularly oversees prosecutions of methamphetamine manufacturers and users. The office announced 14 successful meth-related prosecutions this year, including four convictions last month.

The elder Klinefeldt was nabbed in a 2002 incident, according to court documents. On an October evening seven years ago, Michael Arthur Klinefeldt and another man, identified as William Jon DeMoss Jr., were riding in a minivan that contained a meth lab. (Read the criminal complaint here and other court documents here.) Acting on a tip, a deputy in the Polk County Sherriff’s Office stopped the van.

The police officer reported the van smelled of ether and ammonia — substances used to manufacture meth. A analysis showed the lab produced more than 5 grams of meth and had the materials necessary to make more of the drug.

A camouflage fanny pack with a loaded .22 caliber revolver in it was also discovered in the vehicle. Klinefeldt told the police officer that DeMoss wore the fanny pack when they were making the meth in a Des Moines forest, records show.

A federal judge sentenced Klinefeldt to prison for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. This was his second meth-related conviction. Klinefeldt was also convicted in 1993 for conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine.

Tom Harkin (Gov)

Harkin recommended Nick Klinefeldt to replace the current U.S. Attorney, Matthew G. Whitaker, who was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2004.

Klinefeldt, 35, works in the general litigation department of Des Moines law firm Ahlers & Cooney. He is not a partner at his firm. He previously practiced complex civil and criminal litigation in Boston.

The U.S. Attorney candidate clerked for U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa Judge Robert W. Pratt from 2000 to 2002 and Massachusetts Appeals Court Chief Justice Christopher J. Armstrong and Justice Benjamin Kaplan from 2002 to 2003.

He also has strong ties to Harkin, having worked for the senator’s 1996 reelection campaign and on his Senate staff before attending law school at the University of Iowa, according to the Radio Iowa blog. In 2008, he donated $500 to Harkin’s campaign and $500 to the Obama presidential campaign, records show. He also gave $1000 to the Iowa Democratic Party between 2007 and 2008.

The nomination of Stephanie Rose to be the next United States Attorney in the Northern Distric of Iowa is an issue that needs sunshine.  We should all care what about happened at the Postville Prosecutions and that Assistant United States Attorney Stephanie Rose played  a central role in the prosecutions. We should all care because never in the history of the United States have there been federal prosecutions conducted like the ones that occurred stemming from the Postville ICE raid.  

We believe that before Stephanie Rose  is confirmed as a United States Attorney, the public has a right to know what kind of prosecutor she will be. A careful public review of her record is essential. It is critical that the public be able to determine what her views are regarding the Postville prosecutions as she has been quoted as calling Postville ” a ton of good work.”  

We deserve to know if  Rose ever raised her voice in opposition to the Northern District’s use of coercive prosecutorial tactics against the Postville workers?  Even Privately?

To date no one has been held accountable for the due process and civil liberties violations of that occurred in Postville prosecutions No one is asserting that Stephanie Rose should be held solely accountable for the Postville prosecutions. However, there is no doubt that the Postville prosecutions were the most important cases to occur in the Northern District of Iowa since Ms Rose has been employed in the office.  The fact that the cases occurred while she was in a leadership position and “played a central role in the raid and prosecution” is an important part of her record that requires careful examination.  

Even if it is true that Stephanie Rose played no direct policy role in the Postville prosecutions, she was still acting according to her oath as an officer of the court and as a federal prosecutor. Ethically and morally, her hands were not tied once she was given her  Postville prosecution assignment to negotiate the “exploding” seven-day plea agreements with attorneys representing the workers.  Even if the “raid was initiated by Washington,” or  the prosecution designed by other prosecutors in her own office,  as Chief Deputy of the Criminal Division and as an Assistant United States Attorney, Ms Rose still had made ethical duties. It was her responsibility to carefully review and scrutinize each prosecution for any ethical or constitutional due process problems. The ethical and constitutional issues created by the prosecutions were numerous and should have been obvious to her. Either Ms. Rose was not able to understand the numerous defects in the prosecutions,  she chose to overlook the defects  or she just plain failed to see any problems with the prosecutions as executed. Any one of these conclusions raises serious questions about her judgment and fitness to be an United States Attorney at this point in her career.  

It really concerns us that no serious  reporting has covered Stephanie  Rose’s   professional record and in particular her role in the Postville prosecutions.   Senator Harkin touts her as leader but  completely fails to hold her accountable for any thing bad that has happened in the  Northern District office during her tenure.  Once Harkin nominated Rose, he decided he would support her and does not want to lose face.

The Postville Prosecutions are arguably the most egregious use of federal prosecutorial power this century. At the time of the Postville Prosecutions, Rose was not a low ranking member of the office but was in a leadership position as third in charge in the office for criminal prosecutions behind only United States Attorney Dummermuth and Chief Deputy Richard Murphy. Recently,   Stephanie Rose was asked about her role at Postville. She defended the raid and prosecutions saying “executing the massive operation required amazing effort and a ton of good work.”  (See Waterloo Courier article from   April 5, 2009 .)

The plea agreements negotiated by Stephanie Rose were calculated to take advantage of the workers worry about families they had been supporting with their wages. Almost all workers were represented by lawyers with little or no immigration expertise that were forced to represent on average 17 workers during a very short period of time. Clearly this was premeditated and calculated to force the workers to waive all rights and submit to the criminal charges and then deportation after serving five months in prison.  Stephanie Rose is apparently blind to the fact that the Postville workers were begging to be released to go support their families in Guatemala .   Her “ton of good work” really amounted to ramming these cases through before anyone could raise an effective defense.  Her record at best, even without the Postville Prosecutions,  was mediocre, her role in the prosecutions is more than troubling but her unqualified support for the Postville Prosecutions and  ICE raid  tactics even with the benefit of hindsight makes her nomination a complete disgrace.

It seems more than implausible that Stephanie Rose while operating in the position of Chief Deputy of the Criminal Division had no clue that the Postville prosecutions were being planned by her colleagues in the Iowa office until just before the ICE raid.  It also seems implausible that she would have no prior knowledge of the ICE Postville investigation nor that criminal complaints and criminal arrest warrants for 697 Postville workers that were being prepared and sought by her office some 30 days before the ICE raid. Either Rose was involved in the Postville prosecutions to a greater extent than she has being willing to acknowledge or she was displaying that leadership trick of “putting her head in the sand.” Neither of these conclusions is what we would expect of a United States Attorney candidate.

Even more importantly is what she did after she found out about the prosecution plan-did she ever raise any concerns? When? With whom? Why a year later is she quoted as calling the Postville ICE raid and Prosecutions “a ton of good work?”

Even if it is true that Stephanie Rose played no direct policy role in the Postville prosecutions, she was still acting according to her oath as an officer of the court and as a federal prosecutor. Ethically and morally, her hands were not tied once she was given her Postville prosecution assignment to negotiate the “exploding” seven-day plea agreements with attorneys representing the workers.  Even if the “raid was initiated by Washington,” or  other  prosecution designed by other prosecutors in her own office,  as Chief Deputy of the Criminal Division and as an Assistant United States Attorney,  Rose still had ethical duties. It was her responsibility to carefully review and scrutinize each prosecution for any ethical or constitutional due process problems once she became involved as an officer of the court.

The ethical and constitutional issues created by the Postville prosecutions were numerous and should have been obvious to her. Stephanie Rose was not able to understand the numerous defects in the prosecutions, she chose to overlook the defects or she just plain failed to see any problems with the prosecutions as executed. Any one of these conclusions raises serious questions about her judgment and fitness to be a United States Attorney at this point in her career.  

Why not clear up the issue of Stephanie Rose’s role and release all emails and memos that describe her role?  Likewise, she should volunteer to answer questions under oath about her Postville role and her views on basic criminal justice issues. AG Holder certainly made his records and emails  available to the public during his vetting. Why is Harkin keeping us in the dark?

Rose has refused to meet with the leaders  of Postville to talk about the case-what is she hiding?

Minimally,  she helped railroad the least powerful people in Iowa and now that they are gone no one but a few in the clergy seem to care how outrageous they were treated. This is being swept under the rug -which is what Harkin and Rose want to happen.  Please help shine sunlight on this issue.

Iowa deserves better! There must be better attorneys in Iowa other than an attorney without a cloud over her head…