You remember Chuck McCullough, right?One time member of the Allegheny County Council and beneficiary of God's electoral largess who was arrested and charged with financial mismanagement?
There's more of the story in today's P-G.
I am not sure exactly what charges McCullough is facing (I'm not a lawyer - though when I was a lad, I served a term washing windows at an attorney's firm - but that didn't work out. Go figure.) but I think we might be able to add a few to the list.
I'll let Malloy of the P-G explain:
I wonder if McCullough ever had one of those WWJD wrist bands. And if he did I wonder if he ever was able to conclude from the Beatitudes that Jesus thought it OK to draw up a confidentiality agreement to cover the sins of adultery and theft.Italo V. Mackin, president and CEO of Mackin Engineering, testified that when Ms. McCullough handled the finances and accounting for the company, she wrote more than $1 million worth of checks to herself, primarily to pay bills for her American Express card that were as high as $94,000 for a month. Mr. Mackin said he did not authorize the payments.
Mr. Mackin said he fired Ms. McCullough on a Friday in July 2006 once he learned she had been making unauthorized payments to herself. The following Monday, he said, Charles McCullough and an attorney were in his office. They met privately with Mackin vice president Jerome Schwertz.
After the private meeting, Mr. Mackin said, Mr. McCullough told him that Mr. Schwertz was having an affair with Ms. McCullough and he had authorized the payments. "She will not be paying the money back," Mr. McCullough said, according to Mr. Mackin.
Then the parties drew up a confidentiality agreement that neither side would press criminal charges or sue. Mr. Mackin said he did so to protect his family and prevent the affair from becoming public. Mr. Schwertz is married to Mr. Mackin's daughter.
I mean, McCullough did say that God had a hand in his election. Does he also think that God had a hand in his extortion?
8 comments:
The 'few other charges' to be listed against Mr. McCullough aren't listed . . . most likely because it would be impossible, at least on the record presented.
The quoted material does not identify any criminal conduct by Mr. McCullough, as any first-year law student (at least, one who has attended a month or two of criminal law classes) could explain.
Extortion is a crime. Any second-year law student could provide sound advice on refraining from accusing any person of engaging in criminal conduct before that person has been convicted. Come to think of it, one could avoid reaching that legal issue by engaging in a bit of reflection and recalling that it is poor form to slur someone without justification.
I don't know whether Chuck McCullough committed any crime, or did anything wrong. I expect the evidence to permit an assessment of those issues, perhaps sooner rather than later. The evidence made public so far, including that recounted in this post, however, is not adequate to support a conclusion, let alone a public accusation, that Mr. McCullough is a criminal. So far, we have an incomplete presentation of the prosecution's untested testimony in a criminal proceeding involving politics.
In other words, the most likely breach of legal obligation to be found in the original post, by far, involves defamation targeting Mr. McCullough. Good manners and the law converge in suggesting that a defamatory statement should be recanted promptly.
My words probably seem more harsh than intended, but this strikes me as a serious issue. The advice -- to reflect, to recant -- is offered in the spirit of goodwill.
Ok.
My post was NOT intended as a legal analysis of the case in any way shape or form and I thought including the phrase "I'm not a lawyer" would be enough to address that issue.
I was commenting on the case with what was presented in the news.
If the article doesn't reflect the reality of what was said in court, then the problem is with the reporter.
Given what was presented, the threat by McCullough seems clear: We won't be mentioning the affair and you won't be getting the million dollars back. You press about the money and we'll go public with the affair.
And that looks like extortion to me.
Speaking as a non-attorney, of course.
I look forward to hearing from the Defense.
Infi,
Clearly, prosecutors felt that there was enough evidence of criminal conduct on Mr. McCullough's part, to charge him.
All the P-G story does is report on the preliminary hearing on the charges.
Perhaps the judge will agree with you, that there isn't enough evidence to proceed to trial.
But, clearly, money was withdrawn from at least two accounts, with evidence that those withdrawaks were not authorized.
Maybe it won't go to trial. But, I wouldn't bet on it. Would you?
With regard to accusations that a personal is a criminal, I distinguish the preliminary hearing from the conviction.
I also tend to be skeptical regarding the charging judgments of prosecutors, especially in a politically tinged case in a town whose prosecutors are not known for being especially skilled or remotely immune from politics, nepotism and the like.
What should be the standard for reporting this, or any, crime story? Should the P-G have avoided reporting on the preliminary hearing of Mr. McCullough, so as not to defame him with unproven charges?
The standard should be to recount faithfully, which involves (1) taking care to be accurate with respect to what occurred -- paying attention, using first-hand sources and checking second-hand accounts, refraining from playing favorites -- and (2) having (or obtaining) enough familiarity with the context to avoid a factually faithful but misleading account.
Report the charges. Report the evidence. Report the proceedings.
I don't remember any aspect of the newspaper account(s) that was troublesome. It not only is not defamatory to report that charges have been filed; that a preliminary hearing is being conducted; that testimony or argument occurred in a courtroom -- this, indeed, is a newspaper's responsibility. (I not only believe the story must be covered, but also wish a reporter would devote some time to pursuing the back story, involving the political aspects of the McCullough prosecution.)
An important problem develops, however, when anyone pronounces someone a criminal based on fragmentary and untested evidence that wouldn't support a conviction, let alone before a conviction occurs. In this case, the lack of foundation is so severe as to be absurd: The relevant evidence had not been (and, I am confident, will not be) advanced by a prosecutor to establish a criminal case against Mr. McCullough; it had been offered to establish a criminal case against Mr. McCullough's sister. In my judgment, accusing Mr. McCullough of being a criminal in this context constitutes defamation.
C'mon fellas... this situation (the one that Mr. McCullough is set to go on trial for) doesn't require a legal mind to resolve. Common sense will do. The old woman is widely acknowledged as incompetent (ask her previous attorneys) until she says something that serves the mob's purposes. And the fact that Mr. McCullough's sister and her legal troubles have been aggressively co-mingled speaks for itself. There are, however, a number of great subplots that make for good theater, starting with Jim Roddy's betrayal of Mr. McCullough. And to think that Mr. McCullough's character has been called into question...
Would someone please tell me why the silence regarding Mr. McCullough's alleged transgressions is so deafening? What happened? Mr. Zappala otherwise busy playing dirty tricks elsewhere?
Post a Comment