Lawsuit Targets Major Coleman Donor

Yesterday brought another bizarre day for scandal-plagued Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman. The latest twist could provide more problems for Coleman's re-election bid. The St. Paul Pioneer Press reported:

On Wednesday, Republican Sen. Norm Coleman briefly canceled all his west-central Minnesota campaign stops -- and then quickly resumed them -- after being asked about a lawsuit filed in Texas that mentioned him and his wife.

After a campaign stop in St. Cloud, Minneapolis Star Tribune reporters Paul McEnroe and Tony Kennedy tried to ask Coleman a question about the lawsuit, to no avail. Their chase was captured on tape.

At issue is whether Coleman's wife received $75,000 from one of Coleman's major campaign donors, Nasser Kazeminy, who also reportedly paid for Coleman's suits at Neiman Marcus.

The lawsuit was filed on Monday in a Texas district court against Kazeminy by Paul McKim, the CEO of Deep Marine Technologies (DMT), an energy exploration company in Houston in which Kazeminy is a controlling shareholder. The lawsuit, obtained by The Nation, states:

In March 2007, Kazeminy began ordering the payment of corporate funds to companies and individuals who tendered no goods or services to DMT for the states purpose of trying to financially assist United States Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota. In March 2007, Kazeminy telephoned B.J. Thomas, then DMT's Chief Financial Officer. In that conversation, Kazeminy told Mr. Thomas that "US Senators don't make [expletive deleted]" and that he was going to find a way to get money to Coleman and wanted to utilize DMT in the process...Kazeminy told Mr. McKim that he [Kazeminy] would make sure there was paperwork to make it appear as though the payments were made in connection with the legitimate transations, explaining further that Senator Coleman's wife, Laurie, worked for the Hays Companies, an insurance broker in Minneapolis, and that the payments could be made to Hays for insurance. When Mr. McKim made further objections, Kazeminy repeatedly threatened to fire Mr. McKim, telling him "this is my company" and that he and Thomas had better follow his orders in paying Hays. Subsequently, Kazeminy caused Hays to produce a document entitled "Disclosure of Service Fees" which purported to legitimize the basis of the payments to be made to Hays by DMT.

According to the lawsuit, three $25,000 payments were made from DMT to Hays from May until September, 2007. A fourth invoice was canceled by McKim. The lawsuit alleges that:

Kazeminy informed McKim and Thomas that Hays would funnel the money from DMT to Senator Coleman through the payment of compensation, to his wife, Laurie, and that there was nothing to worry about. Laurie Coleman never provided any type of services or products to DMT. Furthermore, at no time has Hays been licensed to broker insurance in the State of Texas.

It's too early to know, but news of the lawsuit could be a potential bombshell five days before Election Day. The Coleman campaign told another reporter that the suit has been withdrawn, though the Harris County courthouse says it's still active.

I've asked both the Coleman and Franken campaigns for comment. Will update when/if they do.

UPDATE: Earlier today Coleman sued Franken for defamation in his TV ads. Huffington Post says its "the fourth time that the Minnesota Republican has filed a suit late in the course of his runs for office." This lawsuit certainly seems designed to distract from the one above.

UPDATE II: Plaintiff's lawyer tells HuffPo the suit has been withdrawn. Doesn't say why. Another official says charges within are still true. Reports Sam Stein: "A person familiar with the case, however, emphasized that while the complaint may have been withdrawn, the charges contained within it were still valid."

Furthermore, DC lawyer Brent Kappel notes parallels between Alaska Senator Ted Stevens' conviction for failing to list gifts on his Senate disclosure forms and the allegations against Coleman.

Comments (13)

1. Sorry, Mr Berman, but as some of our right-wing posters will doubtless provide...

   Coleman taking the lead over Al Franken going into this weekend.

   Even in a "Democratic year" and a lame-ass Norm Coleman as incumbent, I just don't see "Stuart Smalley" becoming MN's US Senator.

   Posted by Maskdelta at 10/30/2008 @ 3:16pm

2. ". . .for the states purpose of trying to financially assist United States Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota"

   Should this be "stated purpose"?

   Posted by Mauimom at 10/30/2008 @ 3:38pm

3. An old GOP scam, paying the senator's wife as an insurance broker.

   Sen. Jacob "Jack" Javits (R-NY) became a multimillionaire with that ruse, he himself never having been employed except on a public payroll.

   Posted by sloper at 10/30/2008 @ 4:39pm

4. Why am I NOT SURPRISED by republican party methods of illegal, trash-based, disgusting and character-less acts ! Perhaps Minnesotans will see the light in this watershed year and return mr. coleman (lower case by design) to a meaningless life in some backwater unseen and uncared for by his fellow man. Loreto Guy

   Posted by loretoguy at 10/30/2008 @ 5:34pm

5. Did somebody say campaign contribution scandal?

   Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations Contributions Reviewed After Deposits

   By Matthew Mosk Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, October 29, 2008; A02

   Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor's identity, campaign officials confirmed.

   Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged. Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper donations after the money has been deposited.

   The Obama organization said its extensive review has ensured that the campaign has refunded any improper contributions, and noted that Federal Election Commission rules do not require front-end screening of donations.

   In recent weeks, questionable contributions have created headaches for Obama's accounting team as it has tried to explain why campaign finance filings have included itemized donations from individuals using fake names, such as Es Esh or Doodad Pro. Those revelations prompted conservative bloggers to further test Obama's finance vetting by giving money using the kind of prepaid cards that can be bought at a drugstore and cannot be traced to a donor.

   The problem with such cards, campaign finance lawyers said, is that they make it impossible to tell whether foreign nationals, donors who have exceeded the limits, government contractors or others who are barred from giving to a federal campaign are making contributions.

   "They have opened the floodgates

   Posted by pontificus at 10/30/2008 @ 7:32pm

6. Posted by pontificus at 10/30/2008 @ 7:32pm

   Again, the Daily Talking Point.

   Apparently, Rush, Sean, Glenn, O'Loufa, etc.....

   couldn't find anything to criticize about Obama's TV appearance last night.

   Question is...is it blog and ditto-head only or will Caribou and Maverick try to replace "socialism" with "illegal contributions" late in the game????

   heheh

   Posted by Maskdelta at 10/30/2008 @ 8:13pm

7. Why would Republicans be upset? Maybe they're just jealous, because if they didn't think of it first, they didn't do it as well.

   Posted by Freewheelin_Franklin at 10/30/2008 @ 8:28pm

8. Posted by Freewheelin_Franklin at 10/30/2008 @ 8:28pm

   How ironic would it be if Obama wins and suddenly "Money is free speech, no campaign finance reform" conservatives like PONTIFICUS...

   suddenly start sounding like Russ Feingold and want mandatory public financing of elections!

   LOL

   Posted by Maskdelta at 10/30/2008 @ 8:50pm

9. "Those revelations prompted conservative bloggers to further test Obama's finance vetting by giving money using the kind of prepaid cards that can be bought at a drugstore and cannot be traced to a donor."

   Posted by pontificus at 10/30/2008 @ 7:32pm

   Sounds like something KKKarl Rove would come up with.

   Posted by Darth_Vulgar at 10/30/2008 @ 10:20pm

10. <i>Posted by Darth_Vulgar at 10/30/2008 @ 10:20pm</i>

    Orrrr...a means of actually testing potentially valid concerns? Could be that too...

    Also...the reporters in that video were kind of obnoxious. One, no intelligent representative would answer questions about an upcoming lawsuit. Two, I've heard of reporters really going after representatives, but...seriously? Sticking your head in the guy's car and demanding answers? A little ridiculous, no matter what party the guy belongs to.

    Posted by Thrawn at 10/30/2008 @ 10:34pm

11. "Orrrr...a means of actually testing potentially valid concerns? Could be that too..."

    Posted by Thrawn at 10/30/2008 @ 10:34pm

    Orrrr ... they started it to begin with and are trying to make it look even worse? Could be that too ...

    But considering that neither one of us has any proof one way or the other it doesn't really matter.

    One point is very clear to me: the Rethuglicans had eight years to do campaign finance reform ... they didn't.

    As far as the reporters go ... I don't trust a single one of them.

    Posted by Darth_Vulgar at 10/30/2008 @ 10:52pm

12. Yet another twist: The Minnesota Independent reports late Thursday 10/30/08 that the withdrawn lawsuit has been reinstated! Settlement negotiations broke down. Here is a link to the story: http://minnesotaindependent.com/ Please pray, meditate or do whatever you do to help us defeat Coleman! The NRSC is smearing Franken in some of the most shameless ads we've ever seen.

    Posted by elspeth1031 at 10/31/2008 @ 01:24am

13. <i>Orrrr ... they started it to begin with and are trying to make it look even worse? Could be that too ... </i>

    I'm...not even clear how that makes sense. Republicans don't formulate the policies of the Obama campaign. All they can do is test whether they're right about them. Therefore, I don't see any meaningful sense in which they've "started it" unless you think they're just creating a rumor.

    <i>One point is very clear to me: the Rethuglicans had eight years to do campaign finance reform ... they didn't.

    As far as the reporters go ... I don't trust a single one of them.

    Posted by Darth_Vulgar at 10/30/2008 @ 10:52pm </i>

    That may be fair, but here's the interesting twist. Senator Feingold was one of the authors of a campaign finance reform bill. Remember who the other one was?

    Posted by Thrawn at 10/31/2008 @ 02:01am