Growing scandal at Air America

[JohnnyMorganWXJX]

> > If you have found language that says he is not an
> investor,
> > please direct me to it. I read the thing twice (actually
> > read, because my PDF word search isn't working on this
> > document), and saw NO SUCH language.
> >
>
> On the bottom of page 43 (of 61)
>
> *Notwithstanding the inclusion of his name on this schedule
> A, the parties acknowledge that Mr. Franken is not an
> investor in Piquant, LLC and was not at any time an investor
> in any of PMI, RFA, or ET.
>

Gotcha. I saw that, on read #3. It doesn't explain his presence in the agreement however--he's considered an "investor" for purposes of the agreement. He had a claim against someone (it doesn't say what the claim is) that was extinguished by the settlement agreement.

 

[Scribbler]

> > On the bottom of page 43 (of 61)
> >
> > *Notwithstanding the inclusion of his name on this
> schedule
> > A, the parties acknowledge that Mr. Franken is not an
> > investor in Piquant, LLC and was not at any time an
> investor
> > in any of PMI, RFA, or ET.
> >
>
> Gotcha. I saw that, on read #3. It doesn't explain his
> presence in the agreement however--he's considered an
> "investor" for purposes of the agreement. He had a claim
> against someone (it doesn't say what the claim is) that was
> extinguished by the settlement agreement.

Franken explained that in an interview with the New York Sun:

Yesterday, Mr. Franken stood by his earlier statement. He said that, on the advice of his lawyer, Gunnar Erickson, he signed the agreement last fall that erased legal claims he had against Messrs. Cohen and Sorensen because they owed him money, but he said he did not see the list of liabilities that included the Gloria Wise transfers.

In other words, Franken sued Cohen and Sorensen because they didn't pay him while they were mismanaging Air America early last year. It defies comman sense to say that this made Franken an "investor."

 

[954]

"The race of the sleazy weasels"

> >
> > FRranken is running for senate in 2008?
>
> It's a possibity. This possibility is the reason he is
> moving his primary residence back to Minnesota. He really,
> REALLY does not like that sleazy weasel Norm Coleman.
>
> This makes the signing of Thom Hartmann to AAR's new
> syndication arm really good news.

I wasn't aware that Norm Coleman was a sleazy weasel.

But if he is, they'll be evenly matched with sleazy weasel Franken.

They'll call it "The race of the sleazy weasels."

O tempora! O mores!

Eugene McCarthy and Hubert Humphrey may have been
flaming liberals, but at least they were couth,
honest, ethical men (AFAIK).

Poor Minnesota!

73s from 954<P ID="signature">______________
SOUTH FLORIDA RADIO HISTORY</P>

 

[JohnnyMorganWXJX]

> Franken explained that in an interview with the New York
> Sun:
>
> Yesterday, Mr. Franken stood by his earlier statement. He
> said that, on the advice of his lawyer, Gunnar Erickson, he
> signed the agreement last fall that erased legal claims he
> had against Messrs. Cohen and Sorensen because they owed him
> money, but he said he did not see the list of liabilities
> that included the Gloria Wise transfers.
>
> In other words, Franken sued Cohen and Sorensen because they
> didn't pay him while they were mismanaging Air America early
> last year. It defies comman sense to say that this made
> Franken an "investor."

Probably, but Franken doesn't explain what the claim was. It is most likely the back pay owed, but the agreement and this interview do not specify.

It does not defy common sense, though. If Franken had a valid claim for back pay, but did not pursue any remedy, his "involuntary contribution" may in fact have kept AAR on the air and functioning. If he knowingly passed up the payment or claim, he can have investor status hoisted upon him.

Regardless, the parties agreed that Franken was not an investor--like the others. Still, for the terms of the settlement agreement he was considered an investor, and is bound by the agreements terms to the extend they did not apply to him (he had an exclusive proviso excluding him from certain of the obligations).

Also, his statement that he did not see the list of liabilities may be factually accurate--he may have signed without seeing them. But that does not change his legal status, vis a vis, the agreement. He signed it, and is assumed to know its contents.

But, as I mentioned before, it is a moot point--only Piquant made any sort of payment "agreement"--and that was only in the case of indemnification of Cohen.

 

[Scribbler]

> > In other words, Franken sued Cohen and Sorensen because
> they
> > didn't pay him while they were mismanaging Air America
> early
> > last year. It defies comman sense to say that this made
> > Franken an "investor."
>
> Probably, but Franken doesn't explain what the claim was.
> It is most likely the back pay owed, but the agreement and
> this interview do not specify.

Franken has said many times, in other interviews and on the air, that he went without pay for a while during the time that Cohen and Sorensen were mismanaging Air America. He joked that this made him an "involunary investor," but he obviously didn't mean that to be taken literally. And he was quoted in the Sun interview as saying that he sued Cohen and Sorensen for the money they owed him.

 

[JohnnyMorganWXJX]

> > > In other words, Franken sued Cohen and Sorensen because
> > they
> > > didn't pay him while they were mismanaging Air America
> > early
> > > last year. It defies comman sense to say that this made
> > > Franken an "investor."
> >
> > Probably, but Franken doesn't explain what the claim was.
>
> > It is most likely the back pay owed, but the agreement and
>
> > this interview do not specify.
>
> Franken has said many times, in other interviews and on the
> air, that he went without pay for a while during the time
> that Cohen and Sorensen were mismanaging Air America. He
> joked that this made him an "involunary investor," but he
> obviously didn't mean that to be taken literally. And he
> was quoted in the Sun interview as saying that he sued Cohen
> and Sorensen for the money they owed him.
>

Probably correct. But again, there is no specific mention of what the claim was. Regardless, again, the agreement settles any and all claims that Franken would have (subject to the limitations in the agreement). For all we know, the back pay may be one of several claims Franken had. We just don't know.

But, as I've said, this agreement proves only that the Boys and Girls Club "loan" existed as a liability for which Piquant agreed to indemnify Cohen. It also proves that every investor acknowledged and had knowledge of the "loan"--whether they read the agreement or not.