I AM writing in response to Mr. Roger Curry's commentary that ran on April 23. I am a lifelong West Virginia resident and businessman who has owned Harman Mining Corporation since 1993. In 1997 and 1998, Massey Energy, under the direct guidance of CEO Don Blankenship, carried out an unlawful scheme that drove Harman out of business. Ten years later, and true to their 1997 threat to "tie me up in court for years," Massey and Blankenship, as the beneficiaries of a highly questionable and result-driven opinion from the West Virginia Supreme Court, have completed their scheme.
I AM writing in response to Mr. Roger Curry's commentary that ran on April 23. I am a lifelong West Virginia resident and businessman who has owned Harman Mining Corporation since 1993. In 1997 and 1998, Massey Energy, under the direct guidance of CEO Don Blankenship, carried out an unlawful scheme that drove Harman out of business. Ten years later, and true to their 1997 threat to "tie me up in court for years," Massey and Blankenship, as the beneficiaries of a highly questionable and result-driven opinion from the West Virginia Supreme Court, have completed their scheme.
With this opinion, the court wrote nine new laws. Incredibly, it then applied those new laws retroactively to save Massey $75 million while leaving Harman in ruins. To reach this result, the court disregarded the jury's verdict and ignored Circuit Court Judge Jay Hoke's 40-page opinion detailing Massey's scheme and calling its actions "... evil and self serving." With the decision, the court destroyed any hope of Harman's paying its creditors, including 150 union miners who lost their medical benefits.
From the start, Spike Maynard had a hand in this decision. He voted to overturn the jury's verdict and also voted at the same time to prevent Justice Joe Albright from taking his rightful turn as Chief Justice, giving the power of appointment instead to Justice Brent Benjamin. Most West Virginians are, sadly, all too familiar with Justice Benjamin's ties to Blankenship. The bypassing of Albright would prove crucial because once the Monaco photos came out, Maynard had no choice but to reluctantly step aside, leaving it to Justice Benjamin to pick the replacements.
Isn't it funny how the publication of pictures of Spike Maynard living it up with Blankenship on the French Riviera when Massey just happened to have a $75 million case pending before the court can all of the sudden make him do "the right thing"? The few newspapers in this state that have editorialized that he did the "right thing" are ignoring the glaring fact that Maynard's conduct was not only unethical, but also crushed the credibility of this state's highest court.
Maynard should have recused himself two years ago when the Harman case first came before the court. After the true nature of his relationship with Blankenship was exposed, he should have done the "right thing" and resigned. When he didn't, those newspapers that, incredibly, now endorse him should have been demanding his resignation.
Mr. Maynard is now traveling the state claiming that he is the victim of a "smear campaign." Never mind that he has yet to produce any receipts or records from his "rendezvous" in Monaco other than a credit card invoice for a hotel stay and two plane tickets purchased just a few days before the trip. Why aren't any of the newspapers that are endorsing him demanding full disclosure instead? Why are they not demanding that he turn over his telephone records instead of hiding behind a bogus claim of privilege? This "smear campaign" is nothing more than Maynard complaining about a self-inflicted wound. Nobody forced Maynard to drop everything and run off to Monte Carlo with another court employee to meet up with Blankenship while Massey's appeal was pending. Maynard just wants to cast the blame for his outrageous behavior on his worthy opponents to take the spotlight off a story that needs to be investigated, not glossed over.
Canon 3E of the Code of Judicial Conduct states: "A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. ..." It goes on to say: "A judge should disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might consider relevant to the question of disqualification, even if the judge believes there is no real basis for disqualification." Maynard chose to violate this rule by not recusing himself and not disclosing the true nature of his relationship with Blankenship, something he had an affirmative duty to do. Does any rational person really believe that if the Monaco pictures had not come out, Maynard would have stepped down?
Maynard also admitted in a nationally televised interview that he accepted at least one dinner from Blankenship during their time together on the Riviera. This act alone is in violation of Canon 4D (5) which says, "A judge shall not accept ... a gift, bequest, favor, or loan from anyone. ..." We have also now learned from Maynard that these two have dined together elsewhere, again, presumably, while Massey cases were pending before the court. Why has there been no disclosure of these events, including disclosure about who paid?
So, here we have a sitting justice on the Supreme Court, who has broken the very rules that were put in place to protect us from unethical behavior, running around telling anyone who will listen that he is a victim of a smear campaign.
Contrary to Mr. Curry's assertion that the "noise" about Justice Maynard is "quite silly," the reality is that the very integrity of West Virginia's highest court is at stake. This upcoming election should be about restoring faith and confidence in our Supreme Court. The first step in the process should be electing fresh new faces to the court that will perform their duties fairly and impartially, which is only befitting of individuals elected to sit in judgment of others. On the other hand, 12 more years of Spike Maynard means "business as usual" in West Virginia's highest court.
Caperton, of Daniels, is president of Harman Mining Corporation.
I AM writing in response to Mr. Roger Curry's commentary that ran on April 23. I am a lifelong West Virginia resident and businessman who has owned Harman Mining Corporation since 1993. In 1997 and 1998, Massey Energy, under the direct guidance of CEO Don Blankenship, carried out an unlawful scheme that drove Harman out of business. Ten years later, and true to their 1997 threat to "tie me up in court for years," Massey and Blankenship, as the beneficiaries of a highly questionable and result-driven opinion from the West Virginia Supreme Court, have completed their scheme.
With this opinion, the court wrote nine new laws. Incredibly, it then applied those new laws retroactively to save Massey $75 million while leaving Harman in ruins. To reach this result, the court disregarded the jury's verdict and ignored Circuit Court Judge Jay Hoke's 40-page opinion detailing Massey's scheme and calling its actions "... evil and self serving." With the decision, the court destroyed any hope of Harman's paying its creditors, including 150 union miners who lost their medical benefits.
From the start, Spike Maynard had a hand in this decision. He voted to overturn the jury's verdict and also voted at the same time to prevent Justice Joe Albright from taking his rightful turn as Chief Justice, giving the power of appointment instead to Justice Brent Benjamin. Most West Virginians are, sadly, all too familiar with Justice Benjamin's ties to Blankenship. The bypassing of Albright would prove crucial because once the Monaco photos came out, Maynard had no choice but to reluctantly step aside, leaving it to Justice Benjamin to pick the replacements.
Isn't it funny how the publication of pictures of Spike Maynard living it up with Blankenship on the French Riviera when Massey just happened to have a $75 million case pending before the court can all of the sudden make him do "the right thing"? The few newspapers in this state that have editorialized that he did the "right thing" are ignoring the glaring fact that Maynard's conduct was not only unethical, but also crushed the credibility of this state's highest court.
Maynard should have recused himself two years ago when the Harman case first came before the court. After the true nature of his relationship with Blankenship was exposed, he should have done the "right thing" and resigned. When he didn't, those newspapers that, incredibly, now endorse him should have been demanding his resignation.
Mr. Maynard is now traveling the state claiming that he is the victim of a "smear campaign." Never mind that he has yet to produce any receipts or records from his "rendezvous" in Monaco other than a credit card invoice for a hotel stay and two plane tickets purchased just a few days before the trip. Why aren't any of the newspapers that are endorsing him demanding full disclosure instead? Why are they not demanding that he turn over his telephone records instead of hiding behind a bogus claim of privilege? This "smear campaign" is nothing more than Maynard complaining about a self-inflicted wound. Nobody forced Maynard to drop everything and run off to Monte Carlo with another court employee to meet up with Blankenship while Massey's appeal was pending. Maynard just wants to cast the blame for his outrageous behavior on his worthy opponents to take the spotlight off a story that needs to be investigated, not glossed over.
Canon 3E of the Code of Judicial Conduct states: "A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. ..." It goes on to say: "A judge should disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might consider relevant to the question of disqualification, even if the judge believes there is no real basis for disqualification." Maynard chose to violate this rule by not recusing himself and not disclosing the true nature of his relationship with Blankenship, something he had an affirmative duty to do. Does any rational person really believe that if the Monaco pictures had not come out, Maynard would have stepped down?
Maynard also admitted in a nationally televised interview that he accepted at least one dinner from Blankenship during their time together on the Riviera. This act alone is in violation of Canon 4D (5) which says, "A judge shall not accept ... a gift, bequest, favor, or loan from anyone. ..." We have also now learned from Maynard that these two have dined together elsewhere, again, presumably, while Massey cases were pending before the court. Why has there been no disclosure of these events, including disclosure about who paid?
So, here we have a sitting justice on the Supreme Court, who has broken the very rules that were put in place to protect us from unethical behavior, running around telling anyone who will listen that he is a victim of a smear campaign.
Contrary to Mr. Curry's assertion that the "noise" about Justice Maynard is "quite silly," the reality is that the very integrity of West Virginia's highest court is at stake. This upcoming election should be about restoring faith and confidence in our Supreme Court. The first step in the process should be electing fresh new faces to the court that will perform their duties fairly and impartially, which is only befitting of individuals elected to sit in judgment of others. On the other hand, 12 more years of Spike Maynard means "business as usual" in West Virginia's highest court.
Caperton, of Daniels, is president of Harman Mining Corporation.
