Media Mayhem

Everybody knows what you've been through
From the bloody cross on top of Calvary
To the beach of Malibu
by Leonard Cohen

Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows that the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
That's how it goes
Everybody knows
Everybody knows that the boat is leaking
Everybody knows that the captain lied
Everybody got this broken feeling
like their father or their dog just died

Everybody talking to their pockets
Everybody wants a box of chocolates
And a long stem rose
Everybody knows

Everybody knows that you love me baby
Everybody knows that you really do
Everybody knows that you've been faithful
Ah give or take a night or two
Everybody knows you've been discreet
But there were so many people you just had to meet
Without your clothes
And everybody knows

Everybody knows; everybody knows
That's how it goes
Everybody knows

Everybody knows; everybody knows
That'ss how it goes
Everybody knows

And everybody knows that it's now or never
Everybody knows that it's me or you
And everybody knows that you live forever
Ah when you've done a line or two
Everybody knows the deal is rotten
Old Black Joe's still pickin'cotton
For your ribbons and bows
And everybody knows

And everybody knows that the Plague is coming
Everybody knows that it's moving fast
Everybody knows that the naked man and woman
Are just a shining artifact of the past
Everybody knows the scene is dead
But there's gonna be a meter on your bed
That will disclose
What everybody knows

And everybody knows that you're in trouble
Everybody knows what you've been through
From the bloody cross on top of Calvary
To the beach of Malibu
Everybody knows it's coming apart
Take one last look at this Sacred Heart
Before it blows
And everybody knows

Everybody knows, everybody knows
That's how it goes
Everybody knows

Oh everybody knows, everybody knows
That's how it goes
Everybody knows

Everybody knows

If I was a federal employee, I'd already be collecting a pension. Instead, I worked in the "private" sector for a quarter century. And in the private sector, you're supposed work until you drop dead or you're 62. Those in control, of course, would prefer that you drop dead. As the Baby Boomers all draw closer to retirement, what does the Wizard of Oz, Mr. Greenspan, say?: "We have to reduce benefits and increase retirement age." This is a guy who never labored in his life. I can't even squeeze $4,000 fr om th e state of Missouri of unemployment benefits that are in my name in the state's coffers because I don't "qualify" to collect the unemployment insurance, which I earned. Of course, the state will say I didn't earn it. My employer paid it into the sys tem. I n short, we're all wage slaves. Those believe otherwise are in denial. Believe me, it doesn't hit home until it happens to you regardless of how "progressive" you think you are. I've paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes during my life. Fe deral and state income taxes, Social Security tax, city earning tax, property tax, personal property tax, sales tax, luxury tax, gasoline tax. But at 53, I'm expected to go out and get a job at McDonald's. Why pay more taxes into into inequibable system t o help keep it propped up? I'd rather ride the rails.

Have you had your fill or would you like to suffer just little more. Millions of jobs gone. The Republicans are trying to say that umemployment is down, but that's because they don't count the people whose unemployment benefits have already expired. Congress cooks the books and says that unemployment is down so there's no need to extend federal benefits. People have to go to Canada to get prescription drugs they can afford, while we're spending a billion dollars a month to defend oil interests in Iraq. Millions and millions of people have no health insurance. The mayor of St. Louis, a Democrat, cuts the public health budget, while kisses George W.'s cronies butts so they can build a new baseball stadium downtown. The guy's whose president wasn't even elected. Jobs are being outsourced to India and Mexico by the thousands every month. ... It's great country, if you're rich. But we all know this and you don't have to be an PhD to understand it.

I never listened to Rush, but I do tune in to NPR.

"Hello? Am I on the air?"

"Turn your radio down."

"Huh?"

"Turn Your Radio down"

"Oh."

"That's Better."

"Thank you for taking my call."

"You're welcome."

"It's an honor to speak with you and your guest."

"Thank you."

"I've listened to your show for years and this is the first time I've called up."

"What's your comment?"

"That's it."

"Thank you for calling."

"Thank you for taking my call."

"You're welcome."

"Goodbye."

"Goodbye."

"Hello, You're on the Air."

"Hello, thank you for taking my call. Thank you for taking my call. ..."

2000 All Over Again?
Gov. Jeb Bush is acting to stop voting reform in Florida that would guarantee a paper trail for all ballots cast in the state in this year's presidential election. If the Republicans and their backers in the U.S. Supreme Court steal the national election, again, I think it would be appropriate to go beyond the Constitution for redress of grievances.

Absolute Despotism?

"...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of Life, Liberty an d the pursuit of Happiness, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness ... when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw such Government and to provide new Guards for their f uture security. ..."

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Wbile the off-shore scams and international banking frauds soar around the globe at the speed of a broadband Internet connection, it's still impossible to get a personal check cashed from from England in the United States.

John Kerry and George W. are both members of Yale University's secret society, Skull and Bones. Here's a Bonesmen reading list courtesy of Public Information Research .


SKULL BONES

* Bainerman,J. The Crimes of a President. 1992 (6-8, 316)
* Bird,K. The Color of Truth. 1998 (27, 59-62)
* Covert Action Information Bulletin 1990-#33 (21-2)
* Diamond,S. Compromised Campus. 1992 (177-8, 329)
* Esquire 1977-09 (84-9, 148-50)
* Gritz,J. Called to Serve. 1991 (626-7)
* Hatfield,J.H. Fortunate Son. 2000 (33)
* Havill,A. Deep Truth. 1993 (28)
* Lewis,C. The Buying of the President 2000. 2000 (196)
* Loftus,J. Aarons,M. The Secret War Against the Jews. 1994 (362)
* Swanberg,W.A. Luce and His Empire. 1972 (41)
* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (14, 117-36, 340-1)
* Thomas,E. The Very Best Men. 1996 (92)
* Thomas,K. Keith,J. The Octopus. 1996 (76)
* Vankin,J. Conspiracies, Cover-ups, and Crimes. 1991 (196-8)
* Washington Post 1991-04-16 (A1, 8)
* Yakovlev,N. Washington Silhouettes. 1985 (374-5)




The names below are mentioned on the listed pages with the name
SKULL BONES



ACHESON DEAN G

* Esquire 1977-09 (87)

ADGER SIDNEY A

* Lewis,C. The Buyin g of the President 2000. 2000 (196)

ANDERSON NED

* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (129-132)

ASHLEY THOMAS W.L.(LUD)

* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (132)

BARNES BEN F

* Lewis,C. The Buying of the President 2000. 200 0 (196)

BEERS CLIFFORD

* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (126)

BIGLOW LUCIUS HORATIO JR

* Hatfield,J.H. Fortunate Son. 2000 (33)
* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (132-133)

BISSELL RICHARD MERVIN JR

* Bird,K. The Color of Truth. 1998 (59)
* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (126-127)

BISSELL WILLIAM TRUESDALE

* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (126)

BOOK SNAKE

* Havill,A. Deep Truth. 1993 (28)

BOREN CARRIE

* Havill,A. Deep Truth. 1993 (28)

BOREN DAVID LYLE (D-OK)

* Bainerman,J. The Crimes of a President. 1992 (8)
* Covert Action Information Bulletin 1990-#33 (22)
* Havill,A. Deep Truth. 1993 (28)
* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (129)

BRADFORD AMORY HOWE

* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (128)

BRADY NICHOLAS F

* Covert Action Information Bulletin 1990-#33 (22)

BREWSTER KINGMAN

* Bird,K. The Color of Truth. 1998 (61)

BROWN BROTHERS HARRIMAN

* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (14)

BROWN THATCHER M

* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (128)

BUCKLEY JAMES LANE

* Bainerman,J. The Crimes of a President. 1992 (8)
* Covert Action Information Bulletin 1990-#33 (21)
* Vankin,J. Conspiracies, Cover-ups, and Crimes. 1991 (197)

BUCKLEY WILLIAM F JR

* Bainerman,J. The Crimes of a President. 1992 (8)
* Covert Action Information Bulletin 1990-#33 (21)
* Diamond,S. Compromised Campus. 1992 (177-178)
* Esquire 1977-09 (85 149)
* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (128-129)
* Vankin,J. Conspiracies, Cover-ups, and Crimes. 1991 (196)

BULLITT WILLIAM CHRISTIAN

* Swanberg,W.A. Luce and His Empire. 1972 (41)

BUNDY HARVEY HOLLISTER

* Bainerman,J. The Crimes of a President. 1992 (8)
* Bird,K. The Color of Truth. 1998 (27)
* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (127)

BUNDY MCGEORGE

* Bainerman,J. The Crimes of a President. 1992 (8)
* Covert Action Information Bulletin 1990-#33 (22)
* Esquire 1977-09 (85)
* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (127)
* Vankin,J. Conspiracies, Cover-ups, and Crimes. 1991 (197)

BUNDY WILLIAM PUTNAM

* Bainerman,J. The Crimes of a President. 1992 (8)
* Covert Action Information Bulletin 1990-#33 (22)
* Esq uire 1977-09 (85)
* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (127)
* Vankin,J. Conspiracies, Cover-ups, and Crimes. 1991 (197)

BUSH GEORGE H.W.

* Covert Action Information Bulletin 1990-#33 (21-22)
* Loftus,J. Aarons,M. The Secret War Against the Jews. 1994 (362)
* Thomas,K. Keith,J. The Octopus. 1996 (76)
* Vankin,J. Conspiracies, Cover-ups, and Crimes. 1991 (196-198)

BUSH GEORGE W

* Lewis,C. The Buying of the President 2000. 2000 (196)

BUSH JONATHAN (UNCLE OF GEORGE W. BUSH)

* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (130 132)

BUSH NEIL MALLON

* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (131)

BUSH PRESCOTT SHELDON

* Bird,K. The Color of Truth. 1998 (61)
* Loftus,J. Aarons,M. The Secret War Against the Jews. 1994 (362)
* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (14 130-132)

CASEY WILLIAM JOSEPH

* Vankin,J. Conspiracies, Cover-ups, and Crimes. 1991 (196)

CAULKINS JOHN ERWIN

* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (132)

CHAFEE JOHN H (R-RI)

* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (117)
* Vankin,J. Conspiracies, Cover-ups, and Crimes. 1991 (196)

CHALLENGE INC

* Covert Action Information Bulletin 1990-#33 (21)

CITIBANK

* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (14)

CLARK WILLIAM JUDKINS

* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (132)

COFFIN HENRY SLOANE

* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (128)

COFFIN WILLIAM SLOANE

* Covert Action Information Bulletin 1990-#33 (21)
* Esquire 1977-09 (1 49)
* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (128 341)
* Vankin,J. Conspiracies, Cover-ups, and Crimes. 1991 (196)

CONNELLY WILLIAM JAMES JR

* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (132-133)

COOK GEORGE III

* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (132)

CUNNINGHAM HUGH

* Covert Action Information Bulletin 1990-#33 (21-22)

DAVISON ENDICOTT PEABODY

* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (130 132)

DAVISON F TRUBEE

* Covert Action Information Bulletin 1990-#33 (22)
* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (124-126)

DAVISON HENRY POMEROY (HARRY)

* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (124-125)

DE MOHRENSCHILDT GEORGE S

* Thomas,K. Keith,J. The Octopus. 1996 (76)

DIETER ROBERT

* Hatfi eld,J.H. Fortunate Son. 2000 (33)

DILWORTH J RICHARDSON

* Esquire 1977-09 (85)
* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (341)
* Yakovlev,N. Washington Silhouettes. 1985 (375)

DRAPER WILLIAM H III

* Covert Action Information Bulletin 19 90-#33 (22)

DRESSER INDUSTRIES

* Loftus,J. Aarons,M. The Secret War Against the Jews. 1994 (362)

DSOUZA DINESH

* Washington Post 1991-04-16 (1)

GATES ARTEMUS LAMB

* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (125-126)

GOW ROBERT H

* Co vert Action Information Bulletin 1990-#33 (22)
* Vankin,J. Conspiracies, Cover-ups, and Crimes. 1991 (197)

GRAYSON GORDON

* Bird,K. The Color of Truth. 1998 (62)

GREEN FITZHUGH

* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (132)

GREEN MARSHAL L

* Bird,K. The Color of Truth. 1998 (61)

GRIMES DAVID CHARLES

* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (132)

HADDEN BRITON

* Swanberg,W.A. Luce and His Empire. 1972 (41)

HARKEN ENERGY CORPORATION

* Lewis,C. The Buying of the President 2000. 2000 (196)

HARRIMAN EDWARD HENRY

* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (14)

HARRIMAN E ROLAND

* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (14 125)

HARRIMAN W AVERELL

* Bainerman,J. The Crimes of a President. 1992 (8)
* Esquire 1977-09 (85)
* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (14)

HARRISON GEORGE LESLIE

* Bird,K. The Color of Truth. 1998 (27)

HERSEY JOHN R

* Esquire 1977-09 (150)

HODGSON GODFREY

* Bainerman,J. The Crimes of a President. 1992 (8)

ILLUMINATI

* Esquire 1977-09 (87-88)

INGALLS DAVID SINTON

* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (125-126)

J.P. MORGAN COMPANY

* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (125)

JAMES ELLERY S

* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (131)

JENKINS RICHARD ELWOOD

* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (132)

JOHNSON CLAY

* Hatfield,J.H. Fortunate Son. 2000 (33)

KAHN OTTO H

* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (14)

KAH GARY

* Bainerman,J. The Crimes of a President. 1992 (316)

KERRY JOHN FORBES (D-MA)

* Covert Action Information Bulletin 1990-#33 (22)
* Vankin,J. Conspiracies, Cover-ups, and Crimes. 1991 (197)

KUHN LOEB COMPANY

* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (14)

LAROUCHE LYNDON HERMYLE

* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (340-341)

LATHAM AARON

* Esquire 1977-09 (148)

LILLEY JAMES RODERICK

* Bainerman,J. The Crimes of a President. 1992 (8)

LORD WINSTON

* Covert Action Information Bulletin 1990-#33 (22)

LOVETT ROBERT ABERCROMBIE

* Bainerman,J. The Crimes of a President. 1992 (8)
* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (125-126)

LUCE HENRY ROBINSON

* Covert Action Information Bulletin 1990-#33 (22)
* Esquire 1977-09 (85)
* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (127-128)

MACK RICHARD GERSTLE

* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (132)

MACLEISH ARCHIBALD

* Esquire 1977-09 (150)

MADDEN JOHN B JR

* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (117)

MALLON HENRY NEIL

* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (131)

MARSHALL GEORGE C (GEN)

* Bainerman,J. The Crimes of a President. 1992 (8)

MATTHIESSEN F O

* Esquire 1977-09 (150)

MCCAIN JOHN S III (R-AZ)

* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (131)

MEYER FRANK S

* Diamond,S. Compromised Campus. 1992 (329)

MOORE RICHARD A

* Covert Action Information Bulletin 1990-#33 (22)
* Esquire 1977-09 (88)

MOSELEY THOMAS WILDER

* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (132)

PAULEY EDWIN WENDELL

* Loftus,J. Aarons,M. The Secret War Against the Jews. 1994 (362)

PFAU GEORGE HAROLD JR

* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (133)

PIONZIO DINO JOHN

* Covert Action Information Bulletin 1990-#33 (22)

POMEROY HARRY

* Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (127-128)

POWERS THOMAS MOORE

* Esquire 1977-09 (148)

PRICE RAYMOND K JR

* Esquire 1977-09 (88)

RUSSELL TRUST ASSOCIATION

* Bird,K. The Color of Truth. 1998 (61)
* Esquire 1977-09 (88)

SCROLL KEY

* Esquire 1977-09 (87 89)
* Havill,A. Deep Truth. 1993 (28)

STEWART POTTER

* Covert Action Information Bulletin 1990-#33 (22)
* Esquire 1977-09 (85)

STIMSON HENRY LEWIS

* Bainerman,J. The Crimes of a President. 1992 (8)
* Esquire 1977-09 (85)

TAFT ROBERT A SR

* Bainerman,J. The Crimes of a President. 1992 (7-8)

from a March 2001 Chicago Trib story on the mobbed up Emerald Casino in Rosemont, Ill.:

"... Mob-tainted shareholders wound up as proposed owners of the Emerald, the board said in its complaint, because Emerald
officials, led by former Waste Management executive Donald F. Flynn, failed to investigate the background of other investors. According to the complaint, Flynn told the board he knew nothing about some proposed owners because 'if they were willing to come up with the money, I didn't really care.' ..." 

It's amazing what I've got stashed on this harddrive. Here's a 1992 profile of WMX, (Waste Mangaement) which provides details as to the company's scope of operations and its origins in nothern Illinios. Included is the fact that WMX is big in Saudi Arabia. Is anybody surprised?

WMX Technologies, Inc.


OVERVIEW
Like a jolly green giant, WMX Technologies, Inc. (formerly Waste Management, Inc.) has grown far beyond its humble origins as a small-scale garbage collector into the largest environmental service agency in the world. WMX provides a comprehensive range of services worldwide, including environmental consulting, design engineering, solid waste management and recycling, and hazardous waste management. It also builds water treatment and trash-to-energy plants.

Although North American waste disposal remains the core of WMX business, the company is expanding, both geographically and operationally. With Europe as the main focus for WMX subsidiary Waste Management International's 1992 business, the firm acquired new businesses in France and Finland to add to its operations in 7 other European countries. With the increased spending on environmental cleanup by Asian countries, WMX sees Asia as its growth market.

To further enhance its range of services, WMX spun off its 4th publicly traded subsidiary, Rust International, as its technological, engineering, and construction consulting arm in 1993. Reinforcing this expansion of technological services was the name change of the parent company from Waste Management, Inc. to WMX Technologies, Inc.

WMX has operations in 21 countries and its revenues for 1993 are estimated at $10 billion. The company's depth of experience, range of services and access to capital place it in a strong position for further international expansion.


WHEN
In 1956 Dean L. Buntrock joined Ace Scavenger Service in Illinois, which had 12 collection trucks and $750,000 per year in revenues. Under Buntrock's leadership the company expanded into Wisconsin.

In the early 1970s a growing number of waste service companies were forming. In 1971 Waste Management, Inc., emerged when Buntrock joined forces with H. Wayne Huizenga, who had bought 2 waste routes in Broward County, Florida, in 1962. (Huizenga retired in 1983 and went on to control Blockbuster Video, the #1 video rental chain in the country.) Both companies had grown rapidly during the 1960s, as concern with air quality prompted bans on residential and industrial on-site waste burning. Waste Management, with customers in Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin, reported earnings of $1.2 million on revenues of $16.8 million its first year. In the 1970s it made acquisitions in Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Canada.

In 1975 the company bid on and won a contract in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (service started in 1978) and formed its international subsidiary. Other foreign contracts followed, and the company now operates in 20 foreign countries including Argentina, Venezuela, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands. Waste Management also divided into specialty areas, forming Chemical Waste Management (76% owned, 1975) and offering site cleanup services (ENRAC, 1980) and low-level nuclear waste disposal (Chem-Nuclear Systems, 1982). Expansion in this period included a great coup - the acquisition of 60% of competitor SCA of Boston (1984).

Recent projects include joint ventures for the sale of recyclable materials with DuPont, Stone Container Corporation, and American National Can and a partnership with The Henley Group that created Wheelabrator Technologies (22% owned in 1988; now 56%). In 1988 Waste Management contracted to dispose of approximately 90% of the wastes from the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

For many years WMX has been targeted, and in some cases fined, for violation of antitrust laws (paying $2 million in fines) and pollution ordinances (coughing up $12.5 million in fines for the Vickery, Ohio, hazardous-waste facility, 1985). Chemical Waste Management challenged an Alabama tax charged on out-of-state waste brought into its Emelle site, which receives hundreds of thousands of tons of hazardous waste annually. The $72-a-ton tax had already begun to depress profitability. The court found in Chemical Waste Management's favor in 1992.

WMX's international sales grew by 35% in 1992, accounting for 17% of total revenues. In June 1993 WMX opened the most modern hazardous waste-treatment plant in the world: a $150 million plant in Hong Kong.


NYSE symbol: WMX
Fiscal year ends: December 31


WHO
Chairman and CEO: Dean L. Buntrock, age 61, $1,650,000 pay
President and COO: Phillip B. Rooney, age 48, $1,282,500 pay
SVP, Treasurer, and CFO: James E. Koenig, age 45, $601,800 pay
VP: William P. Hulligan, age 49, $595,000 pay
VP: Jerome D. Girsch, age 47, $525,000 pay
SVP, Law and Compliance: J. Steven Bergerson, age 50
SVP: D. P. Payne
SVP: Jerry E. Dempsey
VP: Jerry W. Caudle
VP: Thomas R. Frank
VP Human Resources: John Machota
Auditors: Arthur Andersen & Co.


WHERE
HQ: 3003 Butterfield Rd., Oak Brook, IL 60521
Phone: 708-572-8800
Fax: 708-572-3094

The company has over 12 million residential and one million commercial clients in the US and Canada and operates in another 19 countries.

÷

Waste Management, aka WMX, is mentioned as a player in the Emerald Casino scandal. Here's what the company reported to the SEC in 1997:

In November and December 1997, several alleged purchasers of the Company's
stock brought purported class action lawsuits against the Company and several
of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois. Each of the lawsuits asserts that the
defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing allegedly false and
misleading statements in 1996 and 1997 about the Company's financial
condition. Among other things, the plaintiffs allege that the Company employed
accounting practices that were improper and that caused its publicly filed
financial statements to be materially false and misleading. The lawsuits
demand, among other relief, unspecified monetary damages, attorneys' fees and
the costs of conducting the litigation. The Company intends to defend itself
vigorously in this litigation. In January 1998, the 14 purported class actions
were consolidated before one judge in the Northern District of Illinois.
Plaintiffs have until May 1998 to file a consolidated amended complaint. It is
not possible at this time to predict the impact this litigation may have on
the Company, although it is reasonably possible that the outcome may have a
materially adverse impact on its financial condition or results of operations
in one or more future periods.

The Company is also aware that the Securities and Exchange Commission has
commenced a formal investigation with respect to the Company's previously
filed financial statements and related accounting policies, procedures and
system of internal controls. The Company intends to cooperate with such
investigation. The Company is unable to predict the outcome or impact of this
investigation at this time.

A lawsuit by an alleged Company stockholder purporting to represent a class
of the Company's stockholders has been filed in the Chancery Court in and for
New Castle County, Delaware (although the Company has not yet been served)
against the Company and members of its Board of Directors alleging breaches of
fiduciary duty by the defendants in connection with the Merger with USA Waste.
The lawsuit seeks, among other things, to have the Merger enjoined and to
recover unspecified damages. The Company believes the suit to be without merit
and intends to contest it vigorously.

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries are also currently involved in
other civil litigation and governmental proceedings relating to the conduct of
their business. While the outcome of any particular lawsuit or governmental
investigation cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes that
these matters will not have a material adverse effect on its financial
condition or results of operations.

The stage for the current scandal over the license for a casino in Rosemont, Ill. started in 2001, when the Illinois Gaming Board took away Emerald Casino Inc.'s license for failing to reveal organized crime associates connected to the casino, according t o the Chicago Tribune.

Sorting out the players in this ongoing controversy is a difficult task. My understanding is that after the license was revoked a partnership including Isle of Capri and Argosy, the owner of the Alton Belle, bid for the l icense.

Among those reported to have ties to Chicago crime boss John "No Nose" DiFronzo was brothers Joseph and Vito Salamone, investors in Emerald's operations in Rosemont, Ill.

Although it's a long-shot, it's worth noting that an individual with the same last name as the Salamone brothers was found dead at a North St. Louis County apartment complex late located on Larimore Road late last year. The cause of the person's death was undetermined, according to a Post-Dispatch two-graf brief. The death was more unusual because it was the second questionable death to occur at the same apartment complex in the same week, the Post-Dispatch. There is nothing to tie the incident to the Salamones of Chicago and it probably unrelated. So it's a sure bet that nobody will look into the remote possibility that the North County deaths had anything to do with what's going on across the river. [read the Trib story]x

The Chicago Tribune reported today that Gov. Rod Blagojevich is calling for an indepedent investigation into the awarding of a casino license by the Illinois Gaming Board to Isle of Capri even the board's staff recommended against the choice.
.
"The fact that you have all of these allegations of nefarious people
involved and possibly in a position to benefit from this license, that to simply trust the Gaming Board I think is asking the taxpayers and all of us too much," Blagojevich said.

Blagojevich was spurred to call for the independent investigation after Lisa Madigan, the state's attorney general, questioned the decision. Last year, the governor named his chief financial contributor to the board. The controversy over Illinois' tenth gaming license, has developed after the previous licensee for a casino in Rosemont, Ill. was kicked out of the state for hiding its ties to organized crime.

The clip envelope or envelopes containing news stories on St. Louis County real estate and insurance man Thomas R. Green are missing from the Mercantile Library, where the now-defunct St. Louis Globe-Democrat files are now archived. In the 1960s, Green was a co-owner of the Dunes casino in Las Vegas with Morris Shenker, mob lawyer; Charles "Kewpie" Rich and Sydney Wyman, St. Louis bookies and associates of Chicago organized crime figures. Green owns the National States Insurance Company and forme rly owned real estate in the Delmar Loop in University City, including the Tivoli Building. The clips for Jack Molasky, a business partner of Green and his uncle, Max Lubin, are also missing.

One Giant Clip Job

In case you just tuned in, I've been covering the more obscure edges of a long-forgotten criminal enterprise that took place in St. Louis in the 1970s. Maybe it's time to look at the circumstances directly surrounding th e 1978 Art Museum burglaries in a more linear fashion:

the St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Monday, Jan. 30, 1978
no byline
Three sledgehammer-wielding thieves smashed open a plate at the St. Louis Art Museum late Sunday night and stol e four statues, including one bronze by Frederic Remington, the 19th Century American cowboy artist.

Tuesday, Jan. 31, 1978
J. Pulitzer, aka, "The Kid"
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has joined St. Louis police investigating the theft of four scupltures Sunday night from the St. Louis Art Museum in Forest Park.

March 5, 1978
no byline
Russell G. Byers, the man police have called the mastermind behind the Jan. 29, break-in at the St. Louis Art Museum, was charged Friday with burglary in the break-in.

Monday, March 13, 1978
Charlene Prost
Two bronze statues stolen from the St. Louis Art Museum were recovered by police over the weekend but authorities still have no idea who took them.

Sat urday, April 8, 1978
David Fink and Becky McReynolds
An anonymous telephone call led to the recovery of Frederic Remington's "Bronco Billy," the 23-inch bronze statue stolen from the St. Louis Art Museum Ja. 29. It is the last of the four statues taken in that theft to be recovered.

The 19th-Century statue, valued at $50,000, was found Friday night in one of six yellow receptacles in front of Goodwill Industries, 4140 Forest Park Aveune. The large sidewalk boxes are used to collect clothing and other articles donoted to the organization.

The anonymous call was received by Capt. John G. Walsh, commander of the police department's burglary and robbery unit. Walsh said he was watching television about 8:30 p.m. when the call came.

date unknown
Becky McReynolds
Russell G. Byers has been in the news frequently in recent months in connection with the theft of seven statues in two separate incidents at the St. Louis Art Museum.

Byers was described by police -- for a while -- as t he "mastermind" behind the first theft of four statues, including Frederic Remington's "Bronco Billy," Jan. 29. Three other statues, all by the French sculptor Francois Auguste Rodin, were taken in a second burglary Feb. 20.

However, all charges against Byers were dropped after the statues were recovered. Police had received anonymous phone calls leading them to the locations of the missing statues.

Byers had been implicated by another suspect in the thefts, John A. Crenshaw, 25. On Feb. 28, police raided the Byers home in the 9300 block of Fredric Court, Rock Hill. None of the stolen statues was recovered, but 138 other items, believed to be stolen, were confiscated.

Since the first burglary, two men believed to be associates of Byers and Crenshaw, and also believed to have been involved in the first museum theft, have met violent deaths.

On Feb. 17, the body of Charles H. Gunn, 29, was found behind the 5900 block of Hamilton Terrace. Gunn, who had been identified by Crenshaw as an accomplice, ha d been shot in the head.

On June 11, the body of Samuel Ernest White, 42, was found in a field in Madison County. He had been shot three times and his body was severely burned.

When Byers was arrested March 2, he gave his occupation as a vending-machi ne dealer. Police records show many arrests for him in St. Louis and St. Louis County since 1960. ...

Byers was charged in the art museum burlary after police said Crenshaw led them to the first statue to be recovered and implicated Byers as a middle-man. That charge was dropped April 27 after Crenshaw told St. Louis Circuit Attorney George S. Peach that he would not testify against Byers. ...

date unknown
Carter Stith
The only person charged and held in connection with the thefts ear lier this year from the St. Louis Art Museum has pleaded guilty in connection with the January theft of four statues

John A. Chenshaw, 25, pleaded guilty Tuesday of burglary and stealing.

He also pleaded guilty to tampering with an automobile and assault and assault in an unrelated incident in April 1977 in which policeman Edward Magee. ...

The FBI learned of Byers' claim in 1973 but misfiled a memorandum on it. The information did not surface until a routine file search at the time of the Art Museum thefts.

June 1978
Sally Bixby Defty
The body of a man found in a Madison County field a week ago has been identified as Samuel Ernest White, 42, believed to have been a conspirator in the first of two burglaries at the St. Louis Art Museum.

Sunday, July 2, 1978
Sally Bixby Defty
The full story of the St. Louis Art Museum burglaries early this year may never be known, even though police announced a confession, charged two men and recovered all seven stolen statu es.

Now all charges have been dropped against Russell Byers of Rock Hill, whom police once descrdibed as the mastermind behind the first burglary, on Jan. 29, when Frederic Remington's "Bronco Buster" and three other statues were taken. ...

St. Louis C ircuit Attorney George Peach said that the burglary charge against Byers in connection with the first break-in was dropped because, without Crenshaw's testimony, the case was too weak.

"I made him the best deal I could offer," Peach said. "I brought him to the office three of four times -- but he didn't want to buy what I was selling." ...Byers faced a second charge growing out of a search made at this house in the 9300 block of Fredric Court on the morning of Feb. 28, hours after the police say Crenshaw confessed to the Art Museum burglaries and said Byers had six missing statues.

The statues were not found, but police did find eight lithographs stolen from the Arts International gallery in Clayton in 1976. Byers was charged in St. Louis County with receiving stolen goods.

On May 25, however, that charge was dismissed when the witnesses -- the policemen who had made the search and the director of the gallery -- did not appear in court.

Marjorie Pond, director of Arts International, said she did no t appear because she had been told that the case would be thrown out of court.

Gerrold Chapnick, assistant county prosecuting attorney, said the case was too weak because of the length of time between the burglary and the recovery and because of the dif ficulty of proving that Byers had known the works were stolen. Corroborating testimony that had been expected from Crenshaw did not materialize. ...

[Crenshaw had been brutally beaten by jailers (St. Louis deputy sheriffs) at the St. Louis City workhouse before he decided not to testify. Two suspects killed and one one beaten to the point where he refused to testify.]

On Monday, March 13, 1978, St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter Charlene Prost reported that two of the stolen bronzes from the St. Louis Art Muesum heists were recovered over the weekend, "but authorities still have no idea who took them."

Prost's story quotes, then-Circuit Attorney George Peach: "'I think we're dealing with some really sophisticated people,' said ... Peach, who has been working with police on the investigation. 'I don't think they would make the mistake of leaving fingerprints.'" ...

The break in the case allegedly came at late Saturday night, when Capt. John Walsh of the burglary and robbery squad received a call at his home from a woman who directed the police to room 204 at the Quality Courts Hotel at 5120 Oakland Avenue, which was near the old Musial & Biggies restaurant.

The female caller told Walsh that she wanted to return a favor to Walsh, Prost reported.

The two recovered statues were 18th-Century German bronzes, entitled Prudence and Hope.

Interestingly, March 13, 1978 is allegedly the date that the St. Louis office of the FBI found a 1973-4 informant's report indicating that Art Museum burglary suspect Russell Byers had bragged about receiving a $50,000 contract offer to kill the Rev. Martin Luther King. The info rmant who allegedly provided the information was one of Byer's criminal partners, Richard O'Hara. The report, which had previously not been forwarded to FBI headquarters, was turned over to the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

The previous wee k, on M arch 5, 1978, The Post-Dispatch reported that Byers had been charged as the mastermind in the Jan. 29 Art Musuem break-in.

The police searched Byers' Rock Hill home after John "Johnny Cool" Crenshaw confessed to participating in both A r t Museum heists. On Feb. 28, Police recovered a 17th-Century St. Sebastian boxwood sculpture taken in the Feb. 20 Art Museum burglary in a garage at the rear of the residence in the 4000 block of Vest Avenue, where Crenshaw was hiding. out.

Crenshaw told the pol ice that Byers had planned the first break-in on Jan. 29., paying him and Charles Gunn $700. Sam White, the middle man who recruited Crenshaw and Gunn, was found murdered in Madison County, Ill. on June 11, 1978.

Prior to his death, White was in t erviewed at the St. Louis FBI office on May 30, 1978. The FBI investigated his murder, but federal prosecutors refused to puruse the case because certain parties associated with the Art Museum burglaries had been granted immunity from prosecution.

The identitie s of those who received immunity from the St. Louis Circuit Attorney's officer in return for giving back the stolen art objects has never been revealed. Byers, however, did receive immunity for his testimony before the House Select Committe e o n Assassina tions in the summer of 1978. How broad-based was the immunity granted to Byers by the HSCA?

Conrad "Pete" Baetz, the Madison County Deputy who worked as an investigator for the HSCA, developed Byers as a witness. In 1992, Baetz denied to the Riverfront Times any knowledge of Sam White's murder or the victim's criminal association with Byers.

It also appears that Peach was lying when he told Prost that authorities had no idea who was involved in the Art Museum burglaries. The stautes were returned over a series of weeks as a part of deal worked out among the sponsors of the crime, the FBI, and the St. Louis police burglary squad, commanded by Capt. John Walsh.

Prost put the lie in the lede of her story. just as I put Baetz's lie in my sidebar. Reporters have duped by the cops on this case for decades and done nothing about it themselves. One thing that Peach told the truth about was the fact that the circuit attorney's office was working with the police to investigate the crime. The other thing that Peach wasn't lying about was that authorities were dealing with "sophisticated people." He might have also described those people as having power and influence within the local and federal law enforcement establishment; an individual or group who possessed enough juice to literally get away with murder. Sam White, an Afro-American with a long criminal record, knew too much. He had knowledge of the planning of the crime and those involved.

It appears that prosecutors on the local and federal level let somebody get away with murder, which make them accomplices after the fact.

A good reporter is like Charlie; a guerrilla fighter who knows the terrain. When newspapers such as the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the Riverfront Times parachute reputed hotshot reporters and editors into town, the recruitment is doomed to fail because these people have no idea where they are. They are, in a sense, invaders. St. Louis is a foreign country to them. They don't speak the language and they don't understand the history of the power structure.

What does a guy from Seattle know about St. Louis?

No-thing.

The people who own the newspapers like it that way, obviously.

The Tuesday edition is the workingman's favorite because it fits in his back pocket.

1. Survival. If you don't, you can't tell the story.
2. Remember journalism is the first line of history.
3. Place the subject within context.
4. Truth is in the details.
5. Keep sources in low places.
6. Doubt everything.
7. Play dumb, don't be dumb.
8. Listen.
9. Write it down or you'll forget it.
10. No good work goes unpunished.
11. Leave the pack at the press conference.
12. The more light you shed, the more heat you take.

Time to leave the airwaves to their own devices, catch a breeze and drive down to CBGB's listening to a bootleg of Miles Davis' Jack Johnson. Remember, send your money to Media Mayhem today.

As heard on KDHX tongight:

hector to bully in a blustery way.

Other favorites I've learned from Herr Crone:

swimmingly As in, how are things going?

Swimmingly.

daft Herr Crone's description of our former colleague Melinda Roth. Yes, indeedy, but she could write hard news, couldn't she, Tomasito?

Yeah, Gaslight Square, let's tiptoe through through the rubble with Mr. Schneider one more time with feeling.

It's fund drive time at KDHX. Divert your contribution this direction.

In Feburary 1976, St. Louis Globe-Democrat reporters Robert H. Teuscher and Mike Montgomery reported on an internal police investigation into a shakedown scheme that targeted homosexuals in Forest Park carried out by police officers in St. Louis' 2nd District, then commanded by Commander Capt. Edmund H. Moran.

Sources told the Globe that Moran and other police officers directed those who were arrested to use the Virginia Walsh Bond Co. to post bail. The police would then charge the o ffenders with a felony count (which was later reduced by the court) so that the bond would be set higher. The owner of the bond company was John J. "Buddy" Walsh, who had a criminal record dating back to the 1930s. After the scandal broke, the courts qui t honoring Walsh's bail service because it is illegal for a felon to operate such a business in the state of Missouri.

Richard Beck, a bank extortionist, car bomber and burglar, worked for Walsh.

Forest Park was part of the old Second Police District i n St. Louis. In 1978, the park would make crime headlines again when burlgars broke into the St. Louis Art Museum twice, stealing seven statutes, including bronzes by Rodin and Remington.

Three of the stautes were recovered at Finer Iron and Metal Co.'s scrap yard at 5900 Machester. Finer was already the subject of a federal investigation, which was looking into a possible racketeering charges against assailants who had attacked Sydney Finer, the co-owner, in 1977.

After Finer was arrested on theft cha rges, he complained that he had been set up. The head of the burglary squad at that time was Capt. John Walsh.

One of the suspects in both the Art Museum burglaries and the assault on Finer was Sam White, who was found murdered in Madison County, Ill. in June 1978.

Police suspected that the first Art Museum burglary, which occurred on the night of Jan. 29, 1978, was masterminded by Russell Byers, but Byers was never went to trial for the crime. All the statutes were recovered, following an immunity agreement that was worked out with the cops. Exactly who got immunity has never been revealed. But it's clear from FBI reports that the immunity deal played a part in the decision of the U.S. Attorney's decision not to prosecute the Sam White murder case. Byers went on to become the star witness before the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the summer of 1978, claiming that he had received a contract offer to kill the Rev. Martin Luther King in 1966 from two St. Louis businessmen, who by then were dead.

A witnes s told the FBI that White, the murder victim, had been stealing for St. Louis police officers before his death.

To reiterate:

1. 2nd district cops were shaking down gays in Forest Park in 1976. Those who were arrested were directed to Buddy Walsh's bonding service. Walsh was a car thief and tax cheat who had criminal record dating back to the 1930s.

2. Sidney Finer complained in 1978 that he was set up to take the fall in the St. Louis Art Museum burglary case.

3. A witness told the FBI that Sam White, who was found murdered in June 1978, was part of a theft ring operated by St. Louis Police.

4. Sam White's body was found in Madison County, Ill., where the sheriff was being investigated on racketeering charges by the feds.

5. The congressional investigator, Conrad "Pete" Baetz, who was a deputy sheriff in Madison County, Ill., tells me in 1992 that he never heard of Sam White even though he developed Russell Byers as a witness for the House Select Committee on Assassinations and Byers was suspected of planning the first Art Museum burglary.

In in 1993-94 or thereabouts, the Riverfront Times hired David Migoya, a former reporter for the Belleville News-Democrat. At the News-Democrat, Migoya had won tops honors from the Investigative Reporters and Editors (IRE) organization for his series on a property scam by slumlords in East St. Louis. After he coming over to the RFT, he began investigating another Eastside story, the racketeering case against gambling czar Thomas Venezia.

Migoya worked on the story f o r the better part of a year, complaining all the while that the federal indictments were sealed and that prosecutors were stonewalling him. Venezia was also involved in the topless bar business on the Eastside with Amiel Cueto and Robert Romanik. All three men would be convicted on various racketeering charges and sentenced to federal prison.

Migoya was eventually fired. He had written a total of one cover story during his tenure at the RFT and it had nothing to do with his big investigative project.

Aft er he left, D.J. Wilson moved into space. A few years later, the RFT moved from its downtown location in the Shell Building to its new offices in the Tivoli Building in University City.

During the move, Wilson unearthed some scraps of paper tha t Migoya left behind. That D.J. didn't throw the scraps out a long time before is not surprising because he never threw anything out, choosing instead to create piles of abstract paper sculptures that rose anywhere from three to five feet high.

The Migoya stuff that D.J. found looked like it had come out of RFT publisher Ray Hartmann's waste basket. The material included crumpled notes, appointments and lunch dates, including one with ad man Mike Lipel at Cafe Zoe. The purpose of the Migoya's scrap-paper file on Hartmann remains unknown but it suggests that he was more than a little interested in the business routine of his employer.

Migoya never did write anything about Venezia or the Eastside rackets, but after his firing he joined the staff of the Detroit News and wrote a series of articles about a federal case against the Detroit Mafia, which involved illegal interests in Las Vegas casinos dating back to the 1960s.

culled from the federal suit against PT's, a trusted advertiser of the Riverfront Times:

" ... Congress has been concerned with the operation of interstate prostitution enterprises at least since its passage of the Mann
Act, now at 18 U.S.C. se cs. 2421-24, in 1910. Bribery of local
law enforcement and government officials is just the sort
of corruption connoted by the term "racketeering" and
targeted by various federal statutes. Most pertinently, the
Lowrie organization commingled funds fr o m its legitimate
and its i llegal businesses and funneled proceeds of illegal
activities through legitimate financial channels. This proc-
ess conceale d the source of the funds and coincided quite
well with popular images of "money laundering." The ex-
tensive, multi-state nature o f the illegal activities of the
Lowrie enterprise thus suggests that the spirit, as well
as the letter, of the money launde ring statute was prop-
erly served in this case. ..."

Money laundering, prostitution and racketeering ignored by the RFT

If you go back and check out the stories of Bruce Rushton focusing on the Metro East that appeared in the Riverfront Times, over the past few years, you'll find that they delved into the corruption of public officials. One story that comes to mind had to do with the mayor of Brooklyn, Ill. which, of course, is among the Eastside towns that features topless clubs and massage parlors. The people who Rushton overloo ked in his stories are the owners of the businesses within these communities who have themselves been charged with crimes, including Dennis Sonnenschein, the late Hal Lowrie, Robert Romanik, Amiel Cueto, Thomas Venezia and others. ... Why do these crimin als get a free ride in the RFT? -- Their businesses advertise in the newspaper. How do you write about corruption in Brooklyn, Ill. and not mentions these racketeers? I don't know. It's beyond my creative writing abilities. If a reportert can pull it of f, however, it's guaranteed to keep the public uninformed and the reporter gainfully employed.

In the
Unit ed States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit

No. 95-2244

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

DANIEL L. GRIFFITH,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois, East St. Louis Division.
No. 93-CR-30103--William D. Stiehl, Judge.

ARGUED JANUARY 17, 1996--DECIDED MAY 29, 1996

Before POSNER, Chief Judge, and CUDAHY, and FLAUM,
Circuit Judges.

CUDAHY, Circuit Judge. For more than ten years, De-
fendant Daniel Griffith worked in a managerial capacity
for the Hal Lowrie entertainment organization. Lowrie's
organization ran a large network of nightclubs, which inclu ded
country-western clubs, topless nightclubs and, begin-
ning in 1985, brothels ("massage parlors"). In 199 3, a fed-
eral grand jury returned indictments against several per-
sons involved with the Lowrie enterprise. In a three-count
indictment, Griffit h was charged with violating the RICO
statute (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organiza-
tions), 18 U.S.C. sec. 1962(c), conspiracy to violate the RICO
statute, 18 U.S.C. sec. 1962(d), and conspiracy to commit
money laundering, 18 U.S.C. secs. 1956 an d 371. On Feb-
ruary 13, 1995, Griffith entered a plea of guilty to all three
charges.

On appeal, Griffith raises three issues: First, he con-
tests the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss
the money laundering count of the indictment. Sec ond, he
argues that the district court misapplied the Sentencing
Guidelines in computing his sentence. Third, he disputes
the district court's rejection of his motion to invalidate
the Sentencing Guidelines on constitutional and statutory
grounds. We affi rm the district court's judgment in all
three respects.

I. Factual Background

Griffith was employed by the Hal Lowrie organization
for many years. Beginning in 1985, his primary duties
were as National Director of a chain of topless nightclubs
known as P.T.'s. However, he maintained involvement
with the "massage parlors" which are the subject of this
case. Griffith lived and worked in Denver, Colorado, while
the "massage parlors" were located in Illinois in the St.
Louis, Missouri, metropolitan area.

In late 1985 and early 1986, though residing in Denver,
Griffith directed the remodeling of one of the houses of
prostitution in Illinois and helped to select its manager.
Griffith also was one of five individuals who received
weekly cash payments o f $2000, which were skimmed
from the proceeds of the prostitution operations. These
cash payments were often sent via Federal Express. How-
ever, Griffith sometimes hand-carried both his own and
Lowrie's shares of the skimmed cash back to Denver.
Griffith knew that these funds were derived from the pro-
stitution businesses and was aware of the way in which
the finances of that business were conducted, including
the fact that the prostitutes made interstate telephone
calls to secure approval of charge car d payments for pros-
titution services.

The prostitution enterprises were aided in their endeavor
to esca pe law enforcement efforts by widespread official
corruption. Members of the Lowrie organization bribed
various local government and law enforcem ent officials in-
cluding the mayor of the Village of Brooklyn, an alder-
man, police officers and a state liq uor control inspector.
Griffith admitted in his guilty plea to having participated
in the decision to pay the mayor of the Village of Brooklyn
$ 250 per week in order to influence him not to take ac-
tion against the Lowrie prostitution enterprise.

II. M otion to Dismiss the Money Laundering Count

Griffith moved to dismiss the money laundering count
on two grounds, only one of which he press es on appeal.
Specifically, he contends that his conviction of money
laundering required the court to make a cha in of statutory
linkages which was so tenuous as to render the launder-
ing statute's application to his case constitutionally infirm.
The cha in of statutes invoked by the indictment leads
from money laundering back to RICO and thence to the
Travel Act. S tate prostitution offenses are predicate of-
fenses for the Travel Act. Griffith argues that these stat-
utes are ambiguous in their applicat ion to his conduct and,
hence, that the rule of lenity demands that the money
laundering count be dismissed. On ap peal, Griffith adds
the new argument that, in light of the Supreme Court's
recent Lopez decision, Congress lacks the authority to
punish his participation in a crime, such as prostitution,
which has traditionally been a matter of local concern.
United Sta tes v. Lopez, 115 S. Ct. 1624 (1995).

Returning to Griffith's statutory argument, we note that
the federal money laundering statute rea ds, in relevant
part:

(a)(1) Whoever, knowing that the property involved
in a financial transaction represents the proceeds of
some form of unlawful activity, conducts or attempts
to conduct such a financial transaction which in fact
involves the procee ds of specified unlawful activity--

(A)(i) with the intent to promote the carrying on
of specified unlawful act ivity;

. . .

shall be sentenced [to a fine or a term of imprison-
ment].

18 U.S.C. sec. 1956.

The money laundering count of Griffit h's indictment al-
leged the use of various bank accounts in Illinois and
Missouri, carrying the names of several leg itimate or
legitimate-appearing businesses, to handle the proceeds
of the prostitution; the maintenance of various credit card
merchant a ccounts in the same names for the same pur-
poses; the use of interstate telephone calls to obtain ap-
proval of credi t card transactions in payment for prostitu-
tion services; the use of Federal Express for the inter-
state transport of skimmed cash pr oceeds for Griffith and
Lowrie in Denver; and Griffith's personal carriage of
skimmed cash to Denver for his personal b enefit and for
delivery to Lowrie.

Griffith objects to the statutory analysis which brings
his state prostitution offenses within the ambit of the
"specified unlawful activity" forming the basis of a money
laundering charge. The money laundering statu te elabo-
rates "specified unlawful activity" in some detail. State
prostitution offenses are not among the specified crimes.
However, according to the statute,

(7) the term "specified unlawful activity" means--

(A) any act or activity constituting an offense listed
in section 1961(1) of this title [with various excep-
tions];
. . . .

18 U.S.C. sec. 1956(7).

Turning to 18 U.S.C. sec. 1961(1) (which defines the predi-
cate acts for a RICO violation), we note that the offenses
listed there inclu de "any act which is indictable under any
of the following provisions of title 18, United States Code:
. . . section 1952 (relating to racketeering) . . . ." 18 U.S.C.
sec. 1961(1)(B).

Section 1952 is the Travel Act, which provides:

(a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign com-
merce or uses the mail or any facility in interstate
or foreign commerce, with intent to--

(1) distribute the proceeds of unlawful activity; or
. . .

(3) otherwise promote, manage, carry on, or facil-
itate the promotion, management, establishment, or
carrying on, of any unlawful activity,

and thereafter performs or attempts to perform [any
of the acts specified in subparagraphs (1), (2), and (3),
shall be fined or imprisoned].

18 U.S.C. sec. 1952(a). The Trav el Act provides its own defini-
tion of "unlawful activity," which includes "any business
enterprise involving . . . prostitution of fenses in violation
of the laws of the State in which they are committed . . . ."
18 U.S.C. sec. 1952(b).

Griffith's st ate prostitution offenses, which involved the
use of facilities of interstate commerce, seem to meet the
definition of "unlawful activity" under the Travel Act.
Travel Act violations are among the list of predicate of-
fenses for a RICO charge. Any of the se violations can,
in turn, constitute the "specified unlawful activity"
covered by the money laundering statute. Thus, Griffith,
in using interstate facilities to conduct RICO affairs in-
volving prostitution, and in carrying out financial trans-
actions furthering the prostitution enterprise, subjected
himself to a money laundering prosecution.

Griffith complains, however, tha t the indictment employed
a sequence of tenuous statutory connections to convert
a minor state offense into a major violation of federal law.
In that respect, the breadth of the federal money launder-
ing statute has engendered some criticism. While we ha ve
upheld convictions based on a stacking of statutes very
much like that challenged here, we have voiced concern
that these cases "demonstrate[ ] how an aggressive
United States Attorney can use the money laundering
statute as a means to take over from s tate prosecutors
the prosecution of long-established state crimes and, in
the process, secure more draconian sentences and in crease
the population of the already overcrowded federal prisons."
United States v. Montague, 29 F.3d 317, 318 (7th Cir.
1994). See also United States v. Campione, 942 F.2d 429
(7th Cir. 1991). Thus, Griffith's complaint is not novel and
has earlier evoke d concern.

But, it is not our function to critique statutes--either
alone or in combination. Congress, which, of course, is the
statutory font, recently rejected an attempt by the Sen-
tencing Commission to tie sentences for money launder-
ing to sentences for the underlying criminal conduct. This
approach would have reduced the sentences imposed in
cases like this one. This r efusal by Congress to adopt an
ameliorative measure indicates an intent to impose strict
punishment for money laundering, even when it is associ-
ated with relatively minor underlying offenses.

In any event, Griffith's suggestion that the money laundering
statute is either vague or ambiguous as applied to
the facts of this case is simply unfounded. The statutory
structure inv olved is admittedly somewhat complicated--it
takes three steps to get from state prostitution to federal
money laundering. But complication is not tantamount to
unconstitutional vagueness. Here, each step in the stat-
utory analysis is well-defined. The l ink between statutes
is provided by the definitions of prerequisite unlawful
activity in the respective statutes. In combinati on, these
linked statutes provide a clear path from prostitution to
money laundering. When each intermediate step in an
analytica l chain is clear and unambiguous, the final step,
though perhaps a surprise, is clear and unambiguous as
well.

In this ca se, Griffith's involvement with the Lowrie
organization exposed him to federal prosecution and this
is not even surprising. Griffith's criminal activity lies near
the core of longstanding congressional concerns. Congress
has been concerned with the operation of interstate prosti-
tution enterprises at least since its passage of the Mann
Act, now at 18 U.S.C. secs. 2421-24, in 1910. Bribery of local
law enforcement and government officials is just the sort
of corruption connoted by the term "racketeering" and
targeted by various federal statutes. Most pertinently, the
Lowrie organization commingled funds from its legitimate
and its i llegal businesses and funneled proceeds of illegal
activities through legitimate financial channels. This proc-
ess conceale d the source of the funds and coincided quite
well with popular images of "money laundering." The ex-
tensive, multi-state nature o f the illegal activities of the
Lowrie enterprise thus suggests that the spirit, as well
as the letter, of the money launde ring statute was prop-
erly served in this case.

Further, we reject Griffith's argument that the relation-
ship of his activities to interstate commerce is too tenuous
to support federal jurisdiction under Lopez. One can
imagine a scenario where a local prostitution offense might
lack a federal dimension. Here, however, unlike the gun
possession near a school in Lopez, Griffith's actions in
their essence involved interstate commerce.

III. Application of the Sentencing Guidelines

Griffith argues that the district court misapplied the
Sentencing Guidelines. He was sentenced using a base of-
fense level of 29 for the RICO count s. Because of the
Guideline multiple-count sentencing provisions, this base
offense level was actually derived from the mo ney laundering
guideline. On the money laundering count itself, Grif-
fith was sentenced at the statutory maximum of five years
(whic h was less than his sentence as finally computed at
level 29). He contends that it is unfair that he should
receive a sen tence, calculated from the money launder-
ing guideline, which is longer than the statutory maximum
for money laundering.

Griffith's sentence was computed using the grouping
provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines. USSG secs. 3D1.1,
3D1.2, 3D1.3. Thes e provisions dictate the extent to which
multiple convictions result in concurrent, rather than con-
secutive, sentences. The basic ph ilosophy of the group-
ing provisions is to assign sentences based on the harm
inflicted, rather than on the way in whic h the prosecutor
framed the indictment.

Because all three counts of which Griffith was convicted
involved "substantially the same harm" they were all ap-
propriately included in a single group./1 Following the man-
date of the Guidelines, the sentenci ng court then used
"the offense guideline that produces the highest offense
level" to determine the appropriate "total punishment"
for all of Griffith's criminal conduct. USSG sec. 3D1.3. The
highest offense level among Griffith's three counts of con-
vic tion corresponded to the money laundering count. Grif-
fith's "total punishment" was based on this offense level
of 29.

Once the to tal punishment has been determined accord-
ing to the grouping rules, the Guidelines require the im-
position of an agg regate sentence corresponding to the
total punishment. The Guidelines specify precisely how the
total punishment is to be allocated to the counts of con-
viction. Ordinarily, when a single offense level is assigned
to a group of counts, "except as otherwi se required by
law (see sec. 5G1.1(a), (b)), the sentence imposed on each . . .
count shall be the total punishment . . ." and the sen-
tences run concurrently. USSG sec. 5G1.2(b)./2

Because, in Griffith's case, the total punishment corre-
sponding to offense level 29 was greater than the stat-
utory maximum for the money laundering count, the
"except as otherwise required by law" pro viso was in-
voked. According to USSG sec. 5G1.1(a), "[w]here the statu-
torily authorized maximum sentence is less th an the min-
imum of the applicable guideline range, the statutorily
authorized maximum sentence shall be the guideline sen-
tence." Follo wing these explicit guideline instructions, the
sentencing court imposed the total punishment on each
of the RICO cou nts and the statutory maximum on the
money laundering count.

The Guideline text leaves no doubt as to the correct-
ness of this interp retation of the multiple-count sentenc-
ing provisions. The Commentary to sec. 5G1.2 (which is, of
course, binding o n the federal courts) reiterates that "[t]o
the extent possible, the total punishment is to be imposed
on each count."

Griffith maintains that, in spite of this, the sentencing
court's interpretation should be rejected because it "de-
prive[s] him [of] a sentencing limited by the statutory max-
imum set by Congress." Def. Br. at 27 n. 3. He argues
basically that, since the offense level which dictated his
total punishment originated with the money laundering
guideline, he is, in effect, being subjected to a sentence
for money laundering in excess of the statutory maximum
(even though the sentence was technically imposed on the
RICO count s). This argument, while seemingly plausible,
is fallacious. Griffith was not convicted solely of money
laundering. The sentence imposed upon him, while it cor-
responds to the base offense level for the money launder-
ing count, is imposed as a total pun ishment for all of his
criminal conduct.

The aggregate computation of this sentence as higher
than the statutory maximum for money laundering follows
directly from the fact that the money laundering guideline
imposes base offense levels which frequent ly exceed the
statutory maximum for the offense. As noted, Congress
has explicitly rejected a recent proposal by the Sentenc-
ing Commission to reduce the money laundering offense
levels to correspond more closely to those assigned to the
underlying crimi nal activity. Since the current, relative-
ly high offense levels come into play only when a defen-
dant has, as here, been convicted of multiple, related of-
fenses, one can only infer from the Congressional action
that high sentences for money launderin g are consistent
with Congressional intent in these multiple-count circum-
stances.

Thus, the sentences imp osed by the district court follow
from a correct application of the Sentencing Guidelines,
were within the statutory maximum for each offense and
were, so far as we can discern, in accord with the intent
of Congress.

IV. Constitutionality of the Sentenc ing Guidelines
as Applied to Griffith

Griffith's final argument on appeal is that the Sentenc-
ing Commission's actions in promulgating the Sentencing
Guidelines are invalid in various respects: that the Sen-
tencing Commission's actions have, in prac tice, violated
the separation of powers; that the Commission's failure
to promulgate rules for its proceedings violates the due
process clause; that the Guidelines violate the bicameral
passage and presentment requirements; and that the Guide-
lines are inconsistent with the statutory mandates which
dictate the powers of the Commission.

A. Separation of Powers

The Supreme Court upheld the S entencing Guidelines
and the Commission in the face of a separation of powers
argument in Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361
(1989). Griffith argues, however, that the functioning of
the Commission since that decision mandates that the
separation of powers question be reevaluated in two re-
spects. First, he claims that, in practice, the functioning
of the Sentencing Commission has undermined its char-
acterization as a rulemaking body within the judiciary and
revealed the Commission to be a "Junior Varsity Con-
gress." Second, he contends that the executive branch,
through its prosecutors, exercises undue sway over the
Sentencing Commission's activities.

1. The Sentencing Commission as "Junior Varsity
Congress"

Griffith's argument that the Co mmission is inappropri-
ately engaged in the promulgation of legislation is not
significantly different from the proposition advanced and
rejected in Mistretta. While Griffith seeks to distinguish
his argument on the grounds that it is addressed to the
ac tual functioning of the Sentencing Commission rather
than to its inherent structure, he does not succeed in
showing that there is some aspect of the current situa-
tion that would render the reasoning of Mistretta no
longer applicable.

Griffith repeat s the argument that the Sentencing Com-
mission exercises powers properly preserved to the legis-
lature. H e does not, however, demonstrate that its exer-
cise of legislative power is more extensive than already
acknowledged by the Supreme Court in Mistre tta. The
Court was well aware, when it decided Mistretta, that the
promulgation of Sentencing Guidelines w as not entirely
analogous to the promulgation of rules of procedure and,
further, that the Commission's work would be "significant-
ly political." Mistretta, 488 U.S. at 393. However, the
Court noted that "[o]ur separation-of-powers analysis does
not turn on the labeling of an activity as 'substantive' as
opposed to 'procedural', or 'political' as opposed to 'judi-
cial.' " Id.

Instead, the Court based its ruling on its conclusion that
"locating the Commission within the Judicial Branch pose[s]
no thr eat of undermining the integrity of the Judicial
Branch or of expanding the powers of the Judiciary be-
yond constitutional bounds by uniting within the Branch
the political or quasi-legislative power of the Commission
with the judicial power of the court s." Id. This conclu-
sion was based, in large degree, on the fact that the
power to determine sentences had always resided in the
judicial branch and on the extent of Congressional over-
sight of the Commission's activities.

Griffith's arguments do no t call into question the Court's
conclusion that the Commission would not tread on the
toes of the Congress. Specifically, he argues that, because
th e Commission has been unresponsive to the concerns
of the judiciary and because Sentencing Guidelines cas es
now compose a substantial fraction of the federal court
docket, the expectations upon which the Mistretta deci-
sion rested are now exposed as unre alistic. We fail to see
how either of these specific criticisms advances Griffith's
argument.

Griffi th's argument is that the Commission (which is
part of the judicial branch) is exercising legislative author-
ity properly reposed in Congress./3 Any f ailure of the Com-
mission to respond to judicial criticism of the Guidelines
is not a separation-of-po wers matter, however, since both
the Commission and the Judiciary reside in the same
branch. In any event, at least without further elabora-
tion, the argument that the Commission does not respond
to judicial concerns seems plainly untenable, given the fa ct
that three of the Commission's seven members are federal
judges.

The observation that federal judges now expend a sub-
stantial amount of effort interpreting the Sentencing Guide-
lines is true but immaterial. The thrust of this argument
is apparen tly that the frequency with which the Guidelines
are litigated reveals their importance. This is not a new
insight. The sentencing decision has always b een of great
importance and has always been made by the judiciary.
In the past, sentencing decisions were rarely litigated due
to their highly discretionary nature. The frequent litiga-
tion of Sentencing Guidelines issues does not indicate that
the judic iary has invaded a field formerly occupied by
Congress or that Congress has improperly delegated its
own legislative authority to the judiciary. Indeed, Con-
gress now exercises more authority over sentencing deci-
sions, through its ability to reject the Commission's pro-
posals, than it did in the pre-Guidelines era.

In sum, Griffith has not succee ded in advancing any
persuasive arguments for departing from the Supreme
Court's prior analysis of the separation of powers issue
as applied to the "legis lative" power of the Commission.
Id. at 380-97.

2. Prosecutorial Influence on Sentencing

Griff ith also argues that the executive branch, through
its prosecutors, holds inappropriate sway over the Sen-
tencing Commission, and, hence, over the judicia l branch.
Griffith did not raise this argument in the district court
and the government argues that it is forfeited on appeal.
A successful allegation of prosecutorial intrusion into the
sentencing process might survive plain error review, how-
ever. In a ny event, though he raises an interesting and
important issue, which has been the subject of much
scholarly comment, Griffith's particular arguments in this
regard cannot prevail.

Griffith first complains that the Guidelines have, on the
whole, increased the severity of criminal sentences and
alleges that "the Commission has come to be widely per-
ceived as closely identified with the Department of Jus-
tice, and as little more than an arm of that department."
Def. Br. at 41. While it may be the case that prosecutors
on the whole favor increased sentences, Griffith presents
us with no rationale no r anything beyond a supposed pub-
lic perception that links the higher sentences resulting
from the Guidelines to that prosecutorial preference.

Next, Gr iffith points to USSG sec. 5K1.1, which requires
a motion from the government before a downward depar-
ture for "substantial assistance to authorities" may be
granted. He argues that the result of this guidelines pro-
vision is that "[w]ithout the 'permission' of the U.S. Attor-
ney, the courts are required to apply the rigid criteria set
out in the guideline manual and impose the often draconian
sentences provided therein." Def. Br. at 42. However, the
departure for substantial assistance is only one of a num-
ber of provisions which allow judges to depart from the
rigid application of the guideline s and it is the only type
of departure which the government must approve. We
might agree that the Guidelines, taken as a whole, con-
strain the discretion to depart in an undesirable manner.
However, the decision to condition a departure for sub-
stantial assistance to the government on a prosecutorial
motion does not necessarily indicate undue prosecutorial
influence on the framing of the Sentencing Guideline s.
How else would a court determine whether a defendant
had "substantially assisted" the governm ent if not to ask
the government's representative? Thus, the existence of
this departure provision does not support Griffith's argu-
ment that the Sentencing C ommission is dominated by the
executive branch.

B. Procedural Due Process

Griffith next a rgues that the failure of the Commission
to adopt written rules and regulations governing its pro-
cedures violates due process. This argument was not spe-
cifi cally raised below, Griffith having raised merely a
broad due process challenge and the govern ment argues
that the argument has been forfeited. In any event, the
argument fails on the merits.

Griffith contends that the failure of the Commission to
ena ct rules or regulations has allowed it to be arbitrary
and capricious in fashioning the Guide lines and that he,
in particular, has suffered from the Commission's failure
to follow the statutory directive to "insure that the guide-
lines reflect the genera l appropriateness of imposing a
sentence other than imprisonment in cases in which the
defen dant is a first offender who has not been convicted
of a crime of violence or an otherwise serious offense. . . ."
28 U.S.C. sec. 994(j).

Griffith's contention that the Sentencing Reform Act re-
quires the Commission to promulgate rules and regula-
ti ons governing its procedure is simply unsupported. He
refers, in this regard, to 28 U.S.C. sec. 994(o). Nowhere does
that subsection mandate the adoption of proced ural rules
by the Commission. As the government points out, the
Commission is authorized to adopt such rules, 28 U.S.C.
sec. 995(a)(1), if necessary. The Commission has apparently
not found it necessary to do so. The Congressional ap-
proval requirement c losely cabins the discretion of the
Commission in designing the Guidelines. Thus, the Com-
mission need not promulgate rules for its proceedings in
order to provide due process.

In any event, while the Sentencing Reform Act directs
that sentences othe r than imprisonment are appropriate
for first offenders who have committed relatively minor
crimes, Congress' rejection of the money laundering guide-
line amendment demonstrates that it apparently does not
view money laundering as one of these minor crim es. Act
of October 30, 1995, P.L. 104-38 (1995).

C. Bicameral Passage and Presentment Challenges

The argument that the Sentencing Guidelines violate the
Presentment Clause has been previously rejected by this
court as inconsistent with Mistretta. United States v. Macias,
930 F.2d 567 (7th Cir. 1991). In light of this prior precedent,
G riffith's argument on this point is patently meritless.

D. Statutory Challenges

Lastly, Griffith argues that the Guidelines violate var-
ious statutory mandates intended to limit the Commis-
sion's discretion. These include: the requirement that the
Guidelines be formulated to minimize the likelihood that
prison capacity will be exceeded, 28 U.S.C. sec. 994(g); the
requirement that first offenders who have commit ted re-
latively minor offenses receive non-prison sentences, 28
U.S.C. sec. 994(j); the requirement that sentences be no
greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of
punishment, 18 U.S.C. sec. 3553(a); the requirement that no
limitation be place d on the information about an offender
which may be considered by a court in imposing sentence,
18 U.S.C. sec. 3661.

As the government points out, Griffith fails to explain
how he has been specifically injured by any of these al-
leged failings of the Commission and thus lacks standing
to pursue them. The suggestion that the money laun der-
ing guideline violates 28 U.S.C. sec. 994(j) by not prescrib-
ing a sentence other than a term of imprisonment for
cases such as his is, as already noted, contradicted by
Congress' rejection of the Commission's attempts to pro-
vide lower sentences f or that offense.

V. Conclusion

In conclusion, we affirm Griffith's conviction and sen-
tence. The district court correctly refused to dismiss the
money laundering count, since the statutes involved were
neither vague nor ambiguous. The court also co rrectly
applied the grouping provisions of the Guidelines in calcu-
lating Griffith's aggregate sentence and the sentences
imposed on the respective counts were proper. Finally,
we reject, as inconsistent with Mistretta, Griffith's argu-
ments that the Sentencing Guidelines are unconstitutional
as applied to his case.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES
/1
More specifically, Counts 1 and 2 were first grouped
according to sec. 3D1.2(a) and then that group was further
grouped with Count 3 according to sec. 3D1.2(d).

/2
If, as was not the case here, the maximum allowable
penalty for the count carrying the highest statutory max-
imum is insufficient, sentences are to be imposed con-
secutively to the extent necessary to achieve the required
total punishment. USSG se c. 5G1.2(d). Griffith makes
reference, as apparently the government did in the course
of the sentencing proceedings, to this subsection.
However, this subsection has no application to this case,
since the statutory maximum for the RICO count was suf-
ficient to encompass the calculated total punishment.


He does not argue that the Commission usurps the
judicial authority to impose sentence.