Scalia’s death and questions about who pays for Supreme Court justices to visit remote resorts
It also raised questions about the nature of his travel, who paid for a Supreme Court justice to visit a remote resort and whether they are subject to the same disclosure guidelines as other judges or federal officials. Here is a guide to these questions.
Scalia was at the Cibolo Creek Ranch, a resort tucked away in the Big Bend region of Texas about 30 miles from the border with Mexico.
The ranch is 30,000-acre getaway that is home to John B. Poindexter, according to the website of J.B. Poindexter & Co. It is a remote location that has reportedly attracted the likes of Mick Jagger, Jerry Hall and Bruce Willis. When Tommy Lee Jones directed a movie more than a decade ago, he filmed several scenes at the ranch, according to the Houston Chronicle.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/02/17/justice-scalias-death-and-questions-about-who-pays-for-supreme-court-justices-to-visit-remote-resorts/
-none
(1,884 posts)Every now and again he appeared in the company of some conflict of interest people and like this, questionable high bucks places.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)When I first read the WaPo article...I thought ...WHO? Having not followed the other John Poindexter's career since Iran Contra, a Wiki search shows he's been very busy in the private intelligence field since those days . It's amusing, but creepy, that the ranch owner who found his body has the same unusual name and has made some odd statements about his death leading Donald Trump to question Scalia's death circumstances. Something about a "pillow above the head." I'll bet I wasn't the only one checking WIKI for Poindexter.
--------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Poindexter
IranContra affair
Main article: IranContra affair
The Iran-Contra affair resulted from the discovery of the United States' involvement in sending money and weapons to Iran for the release of American hostages from Lebanon, and sending aid to the Contras. This involvement was in violation of the Boland Amendment which prevented the United States from directly or indirectly being involved with the Contras.[6] Evidence revealed that Poindexter was a leader in the organization of the transfer of the weapons to Iran and oversaw other people involved in the affair, such as Oliver North.
Poindexter and North communicated through a channel known as the "Private Blank Check" which Poindexter set up on a National Security Council (NSC) computer. Through this system, Poindexter and North were able to send messages back and forth without being intercepted by other NSC staff members. This system was not successful. Even though both Poindexter and North attempted to delete the messages, the White House Communications Agency was able to recover some of them, later used in trying Poindexter and North. On November 25, 1986, after the public disclosure of the Iran-Contra affair, Poindexter was forced to resign from his position as National Security Advisor,[7]
Poindexter was convicted on April 7, 1990, of five counts of lying to Congress and obstructing the Congressional committees investigating the Iran-Contra Affair, which were investigating the Reagan Administration's covert arms sales to Iran and the diversion of proceeds to insurgents fighting the Marxist Government in Nicaragua. The convictions were reversed in 1991 on appeal[8] on the grounds that several witnesses against him had been influenced by his testimony before Congress, even though Congress had given him immunity for that testimony.[9]
Poindexter went on to serve in the Reagan administration as Military Assistant, from 1981 to 1983, as Deputy National Security Advisor from 1983 to 1985, and as National Security Advisor from 1985 to 1986.[3] From 1983 to 1985, Poindexter was responsible for leading and managing the National Security Council staff as chairman of the Crisis Pre-planning Group. As National Security Advisor, Vice Admiral Poindexter was responsible for providing recommendations to the President on national security, foreign policy and defense policy.
Major events in which he played a significant role for the executive branch included the Strategic Defense Initiative, Operation Urgent Fury, the Achille Lauro incident, Operation El Dorado Canyon (in response to Libyan terrorist attacks), and the Reykjavík Summit with the Soviets.
Policy Analysis Market[/b
Main article: Policy Analysis Market
Poindexter faced criticism from the media and some politicians about the Policy Analysis Market project, a theoretical prediction market that would have rewarded participants for accurately predicting geopolitical trends in the Middle East and elsewhere. This was portrayed in the media as allowing participants to profit from the assassination of heads of state and acts of terrorism due to such events being mentioned on illustrative sample screens showing the interface.[13] The controversy over the proposed futures market led to a Congressional audit of the IAO in general. Funding for the IAO was subsequently cut and Poindexter retired from DARPA on August 12, 2003.
More of his current activities at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Poindexter
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Can you imagine all those bigshots scattering like Kochroaches when the news of Scalia's demise got out?
KoKo
(84,711 posts)will be interesting to see what comes out with further investigation ...or not. It's a crazy enough year with dark undersides being revealed and political predictions turned upside down..who knows what else lurks.
JayhawkSD
(3,163 posts)I know that none of those three has brought any cases before the Supreme Court, but how many cases has J.B. Poindexter & Co brought before the Supreme Court? Or is the conflict of interest merely an assumption?
I did not like Scalia any better than you apparently did, but I will limit my criticism to principle and avoid innuendo.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Some here might remember the backlash over Clarence Thomas's wife. Hopefully more will come out about Scalia's activities and some changes will be made in holding these justices more accountable.
While Roberts did not specifically mention those issues, he said it would not be wise for justices to review the recusal decisions made by their peers. He said that it would create an undesirable situation enabling justices to play a role in determining which others get to weigh in on cases.