>
>
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015484.php
>
>
>October 07, 2006
>
>Star Tribune Sucker-Punches Republican Candidate
>
>The Minneapolis Star Tribune has finally done a front-page investigative
>report on a Congressional candidate in Minnesota's Sixth District. Aha,
>you say, finally! At last, the Strib has gotten around to reporting that
>DFLer Keith Ellison was a member of the Nation of Islam for at least nine
>years, not 18 months as he has claimed; and they are finally telling their
>readers about Ellison's public appearances with a former Vice Lords gang
>chieftain in support of Vice Lords members who murdered Minneapolis
>policeman Jerry Haaf, and the other instances of Ellison supporting
>convicted cop-killers.
>
>No. The Strib still isn't reporting any of that. Instead, it makes a
>front-page story of the the fact that in 1995, Republican Alan Fine was
>accused by his then-wife of slapping her. She had Fine arrested and he
>spent a few hours in the Hennepin County jail. He denied that he had
>slapped her, she dropped the charges, and the record of the incident was
>later expunged. Nevertheless, the Strib has dredged up this bit of
>domestic history in hopes of putting the last nail in Fine's campaign.
>
>It isn't clear how the Strib obtained the expunged records. It says:
>
> The Star Tribune learned of the arrest in a routine records check after
> Fine won the Republican endorsement in May. The newspaper obtained the
> expunged record detailing the arrest two weeks ago.
>
>How did the Strib "obtain" the record that was supposed to remain
>confidential? One possible source, of course, is Amy Klobuchar, the
>Hennepin County Attorney who is running for the U.S. Senate. Did Klobuchar
>or one of her aides leak the expunged record to the newspaper to help her
>fellow Democrat? If so, was a crime committed? We know that the Klobuchar
>campaign has already been involved in one dirty trick, which resulted in
>her communications director being referred to the FBI for possible
>criminal prosecution. Is this another instance where the Klobuchar
>campaign may be involved in criminal activity? This whole episode cries
>out for an investigation. I don't suppose, though, that the Strib will be
>calling for one.
>
>The Strib also makes a point of the fact that between 1995 and 2005, there
>were five 911 calls placed from Fine's address. It isn't clear exactly
>what the point of this is, since, in three of the four instances where
>records survive, it was Fine who placed the call.
>
>The point the Strib wants the reader to take away from its article is
>clear, however. This is the last paragraph of the story:
>
> After state Rep. Keith Ellison won the DFL nomination, Fine launched a
> persistent attack on his character, focusing on his past ties to the
> Nation of Islam. Fine has repeatedly said "character matters."
>
>Touche.
>
>Here's a funny thing, though. If the Strib thinks it's front page news
>that a Congressional candidate has been involved in a 911 call -- hey,
>even if he made the call himself! -- then it wouldn't have to go back to
>1995 for a story. No, it could have reported on a 911 call that a young
>woman made on May 16, 2005, saying that she had been assaulted by Keith
>Ellison:
>
> CLR RPT'G [Caller reporting] SHE WAS ASL'TD BY ELLISON/KEITH/BM/41/WRG
> SUIT LS [last seen] LEAVING APT ...UNK DIR [unknown direction]
NO EMS
> [emergency medical services needed]...CLR WANTS TO SEE SQD [police
> squad]
>
>Here is an image of the record of the 911 call. Which, by the way, is
>publicly available, so we didn't have to break any laws to get it:
>
>
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/Ellison911Call32.jpg
>
>I suppose the Strib didn't think that one was relevant because it was so
>recent.
>
>One can understand, perhaps, why the Strib thought Alan Fine's encounter
>with Hennepin County District Court reflected on his character, even
>though it was eleven years ago and the charges were dropped. Of course,
>nothing like that could have happened to Keith Ellison; otherwise, surely,
>the Strib would report it. No, wait...
>
>Actually, a motion for a restraining order was brought against Ellison in
>Hennepin County District Court. It was brought by a woman who alleged that
>Ellison punched, shoved, and verbally abused her, placed harassing phone
>calls to her, and broke the screen on the door to her apartment. Gosh,
>sounds an awful lot like the claim that was made against Fine, only worse.
>Maybe the Strib wasn't interested because the incidents were so long ago
>that they were ancient history, and thus not relevant to Ellison's
>character? Well, not exactly. Actually, the hearing on the woman's motion
>for a restraining order against Ellison is scheduled for October 23,
>fifteen days before the November 7 election.
>
>It's entirely possible that the charges against Ellison are untrue. (I
>heard an Ellison defender on the radio who said that the woman, rumored to
>be a former babysitter for Ellison's children, is "crazy.") Likewise, the
>charge against Fine -- which, unlike the proceeding against Ellison, was
>not pursued -- was very likely false. But is there any conceivable ground
>for thinking that an allegation that Fine slapped a woman in 1995 is
>front-page news, but the allegation that in 2005 Ellison "punched, shoved
>and verbally abused" a woman doesn't need to be mentioned?
>
>Until now, we've said nothing about these charges against Ellison because
>we have no way to gauge their reliability, and we think they are a
>distraction from the very serious, and indisputable, aspects of Ellison's
>record that disqualify him from public office. But if the Star Tribune is
>going to slime Ellison's opponent with a front-page story on an unproven,
>eleven year old domestic allegation, how on God's green earth can the
>paper cover up a more serious claim of the same nature against Ellison,
>that was made last month?
>
>UPDATE: I haven't had time for exhaustive research, but expungement of
>criminal records is governed by Chapter 609A of the Minnesota Statutes.
>Here are some of the relevant provisions. Sec. 609A.01:
>
> The remedy available is limited to a court order sealing the records
> and prohibiting the disclosure of their existence or their opening
> except under court order or statutory authority.
>
>Sec. 609A.03, Subd. 5(c):
>
> If the court issues an expungement order it may require that the
> criminal record be sealed, the existence of the record not be revealed,
> and the record not be opened except as required under subdivision 7.
>
>Subd. 7(b)(1):
>
> (b) Notwithstanding the issuance of an expungement order:
>
> (1) an expunged record may be opened for purposes of a criminal
> investigation, prosecution, or sentencing, upon an ex parte court
> order;
>
>I haven't seen the expungement order, but it is hard to see how the Star
>Tribune could have "obtained" the expunged records legally under these
>provisions. Again, we don't have all the answers, but an investigation
>appears to be in order.
>
>Posted by John at 06:26 PM
