EDITORIAL WARNING: THIS WILL BE A LENGTHY POST!
It has come time for us to take a close look at the campaign of Ben Bius for the Texas Senate…a real CLOSE look!
First of all, this isn’t Mr. Bius’ first attempt to run for office. According to the records filed with the Texas Ethics Commission, Mr. Bius has been filing campaign finance reports since 1997. His last attempt was running in the Republican Primary of 2010, against current State Senator Steve Ogden which was held on March 2, 2010.
Here is a breakdown of Bius’ election attempts of the past (Source: Texas Tribune)
- Texas Senate District 5, 2010 Republican Party Primary Election
- Lost with 31.74% of vote
- Texas House District 18, 2000 General Election
- Lost with 48.75% of vote
- Texas House District 18, 2000 Republican Party Primary Election
- Won with 57.90% of vote
- Texas House District 18, 1998 General Election
- Lost with 48.67% of vote
- Texas House District 18, 1998 Republican Primary
- Won with 100.00% of vote
- U.S. House District 2, 1996 Republican Party Primary Election
- Lost with 13.05% of vote
Mr. Bius is a 1979 graduate of Sam Houston State University with a BA degree in Finance. He is currently a real estate broker and investor from Huntsville, Texas.
Our philosophy here at BlackFlagMedia.com is to leave no stone unturned when doing research for our blog post. Every detail, no matter how small, can be an important part to the overall story. Since our feature series covering the District 5 Texas Senate race involves a contest with only a Republican primary (no Democratic candidates), the winner then becomes the next state senator from District 5. It is this reason that these candidates be subjected to a high degree of scrutiny.
In our research into the Bius camp, our staff has found a couple of items that we feel should be of concern to voters, especially due to the nature of these items.
To begin with, all information used in this post were obtain through public records, and for the readers education, we will show our sources!
First, we decided to check out Mr. Bius’ real estate holdings.
Mr. Bius resides in Timberwilde, an upscale neighborhood located in Huntsville, Texas. His house on the tax rolls, according to Walker County Appraisal District, is valued in excess of $ 520,000.00. In early 2011, Mr. Bius married Kim Stewart, who lives across the street from his house. Her house is valued in excess of $465,000.00. According to the appraisal district records, both properties are currently carrying homestead exemptions for 2012. Mr. Bius has been living at his wife’s house since their marriage in 2011. That makes his house NOT his principal residence as of January 1st, 2012.
On Monday, April 30th, I went to Walker County Appraisal District to verify the online information. According to appraisal district officials, the information online was correct and as of that date, Mr. Bius has not asked the Walker County Appraisal District to remove the homestead exemption. According to the official I spoke with at the appraisal district, Bius is not eligible for a homestead exemption on his property.
One would think Mr. Bius, being a real estate broker and investor would be aware of the laws regarding homestead exemptions in the State of Texas.
The second of the items of concern is campaign finance reporting covering Bius’ run in the 2010 Republican Primary that was held on March 2, 2010. An examination of the Semi-Annual Report filed by Bius on 7/15/2010 (TEC# 458370) indicates an entry dated 2/23/2010 where the Bius campaign organization paid $1700.00 to Bius Investments, Inc. (see graphic below – click to enlarge).
The entry indicates an expenditure category of “Office Overhead/Rental Expense” and the description of “Monthly Rent”. Mr. Bius used the building located at 242 Interstate 45, Huntsville, Texas for his campaign headquarters in the 2010 race. This building is owned by Prairie Flower, Ltd., an entity which appears to contains most of Mr. Bius’ real estate holdings (by evidence of examination of Walker County Appraisal District records). However, the payment for “monthly rent” went to Bius Investments, Inc.
According to Texas Ethics Commission’s website, a transaction such as the one in question may be illegal under Title 15, Section 238.038 (a-1) of the Election code:
(a-1) A candidate or officeholder or a specific-purpose committee for supporting, opposing, or assisting the candidate or officeholder may not knowingly make or authorize a payment from a political contribution for the rental or purchase of real property from:
(1) a person related within the second degree by consanguinity or affinity, as determined under Chapter 573, Government Code, to the candidate or officeholder; or
(2) a business in which the candidate or officeholder or a person described by Subdivision (1) has a participating interest of more than 10 percent, holds a position on the governing body, or serves as an officer.
If Prairie Flower, Ltd. owns the building in question, why did the payment go to Bius Investments, Inc.? Prairie Flower, Ltd. is a Texas limited partnership with a corporation named Caliber Investment Corporation as the general partner. This was verified through the Texas Secretary of State office and a sign posted on one of Mr. Bius’ real estate holdings to prevent other candidates from posting election signs next to his on the property.
It has been ascertained that Mr. Bius is the president of Caliber Investment Corporation (aka Caliber Investments, according to Secretary of State’s office) through deed restriction documents for property owners in his Timberwilde development.
Additionally, the $ 1700.00 payment to Bius Investments, Inc. paid on 2/23/2010, was reported on the Semi-Annual Report, dated 7/15/2010, almost four months after the primary election was held. On the day before the payment in question was made, the Bius campaign organization filed the 8 Day Before Election Report (on 2/22/2010, TEC Report #444833).
If this expense for monthly rent was known to the campaign, what was the reason it was reported in July, four months after the primary election instead of on the report eight days before the election? This could be construed as an attempt to hide this entry from the voters and/or regulators until after the primary was over.
To check applicability of the above referenced election code to a payment such as this, I contacted a staff attorney at the Texas Ethics Commission on 4/23/2012. Without identifying Bius, his campaign or the exact entry in question, I asked if a payment of this type could be a violation of the election law in question. The response was that it could potentially be a violation, but the commission couldn’t render an opinion, or investigate until a formal complaint was filed.
On 4/26/2012, An e-mail was sent to the campaign to clarify the issue of the $ 1700.00 payment, but no response was received.
On 4/27/2012 @ 2pm, I placed a call to the number for the campaign headquarters to speak with Alex Stivers, Bius’ campaign manager. A person who identified herself as “Diane” stated that Stivers was out at the time, but gave me his cell phone number. I called the number and left a message, identifying myself and the reason for my call. The call was not returned.
Since the Bius camp was given adequate opportunity to explain and/or clarify the issue of the payment, and no response was forthcoming, a complaint was filed with the Texas Ethics Commission.
BlackFlagMedia.com and its publisher wishes to remind the public that a complaint filed against Mr. Bius and/or his campaign organization is no indication of any wrong doing, but the complaint process is how any violation of campaign law is determined by the Texas Ethics Commission.
On a final note, I finally heard from Mr. Bius… indirectly. On May 1st @ 12:22pm local time, Mr. Bius placed a call to my girlfriend in an attempt to intimidate me from any further postings regarding his campaign. Here is a web snippet of the record of Mr. Bius’ phone call from my girlfriend’s call detail:
That number couldn’t be traced online through a reverse look up site, so I called the number. The voice who answered identified as ” B & B Properties”, one of the names on the front of Bius’ office building.
Mr. Bius told my girlfriend that “I was messing around with a dangerous game” and warned me not to publish any of his personal tax information.
BlackFlagMedia.com would NEVER condone publishing this type of information by us, or any other publication without permission. To do so would violate the privacy rights of individual citizens, a concept that we at BlackFlagMedia.com hold as sacred as our First Amendment right to publish newsworthy information for the benefit of the public.
I have shared the nature of Mr. Bius’ “veiled threat” with the local authorities, and in my personal opinion, I consider his attempt to interfere with my First Amendment rights to publish this post through intimidation by contacting my girlfriend instead of me, the act of a coward, especially since he has had my contact information since 4/12/2012!
It is our editorial policy here at BlackFlagMedia.com not to cover any story that can’t be backed up by either documentary evidence obtained through readily available public records, public records request, such as Texas Open Records Act or Freedom of Information Act filings, or first hand accounts of witnesses that have corroborating evidence to back up any claim or story.
At the beginning of efforts to cover the Texas Senate race for District 5, we sent request via e-mail on 4/12/2012 to both the Schwertner and Bius campaigns to ask the candidates to release their previous year tax returns for public scrutiny. There was no response from the Schwertner campaign, but the Bius campaign sent us the following response:
Our next post will start our look into the Schwertner for Texas Senate Campaign.
EDITORIAL – The First Amendment, Under Siege…Duh!
As I start my morning ritual of scanning the world via the wonderful thing that is the World Wide Web, I read two articles that reinforce one of the core beliefs of myself and this publication; the First Amendment is under siege from all sides, including our own government.
The first article was a blog post in the Village Voice by a former Los Angeles Times reporter named Chuck Philips. Mr. Philips shared a Pulitzer Prize for reporting on corruption in the entertainment industry. He received a prestigious George Polk Award for his reporting on black art and culture. Additionally, he received an honor from the National Association of Black Journalist for his in-depth reporting on the rap music scene.
The post is his story about investigating one of the biggest stories in popular culture of the 1990′s, the murders of rappers Tupac Shakur and Biggie Smalls (aka The Notorious B.I.G) and part the Los Angeles Times played in the downfall of his career as a result of his reporting. During the sourcing of his story, Mr. Philips relied on documents from a Florida court case that were supposedly authored by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, known as FD-302′s. A FD-302 is the form that an FBI agent fills out that is a summary of an interview they conducted during an investigation. These interview documents were certified as admissible into evidence by a Florida judge. However, these documents were later determined to be forgeries. Due to this development. Philips came to his editors right after the 302′s were determined to be forgeries and offered to acknowledge that he had been fooled by the fake documents and apologize for his error. His paper instead had another reported write a retraction of Philip’s story and literally push him out the door along with other reporters being downsized at the time. It came out later that the paper “caved” under pressure from a target of Philip’s investigative efforts with a very questionable reputation, who threatened to sue the paper. In respect to the story, The Times and reporter Philips were protected not only by the First Amendment, but a California law that permits journalists to publish and report upon any document filed in a judicial proceeding — even those later found to contain exaggerations, lies or fabrications. I wonder if Philips worked for that “other paper” called the Times on the east coast, would the outcome have been the same? However, due to the actions of The Los Angeles Times, Chuck Philips still can’t find work as a reporter anymore.
If a reporter can’t trust documents supposedly authored by the FBI and certified into evidence, what does constitutes a “verifiable source” in today’s litigious crazy, media addicted world?
The second story involves the federal government itself potentially engaging in censorship.
On Salon.com, columnist Glenn Greenwald relates a story of Pakistani film student, who along with his producers was denied a visa to enter the United States in order to accept an award from the 2012 National Film Festival for Talented Youth in the category for Audience Award for Best International Film. Muhammad Danish Qasim’s film deals with the drone attacks by the U.S. military and CIA on the tribal areas in North Waziristan. It is told from the perspective of a school aged boy whose neighborhood gets bombed, loses friends and loved ones and eventually falling under the influence of terrorist who exploit his feelings of loss and despair. The film’s main premise argues that foreign powers do not have the right to violate the airspace and rights of innocent citizens in his country. Is the government denying this filmmaker’s visa application due to the fact that it considers this work terrorist propaganda? It will probably never be known, due to the fact that the U.S. Government does not comment on visa denials.
One of the early pronouncements of The Obama Administration is that it would bring about “transparency” in government activities, however that has been far from the reality of things. I recently listened to someone who has been deemed a “credible” government whistle-blower that claims the government is now classifying hundreds to thousands of documents that deal with the subject of terrorism on a daily basis, many having no strategic importance to the ongoing “War on Terror”. If one wants to control the perception of what constitutes terrorism and its factors, what better way than hiding information behind a cloak of government secrecy?
The American people depend on the Fourth Estate, a free and active press, coupled with the freedom to speak out against what they feel may be injustice or wrong doing by their government. Given fair and impartial information, a good portion of the American population can make a reasonable judgement to what constitutes “The Truth”! To quote a line from one of my favorite movies…”People should not fear their government, government should fear The People.” Does our Government fear The People thinking for themselves?
The triumph of The First Amendment is the only thing that will prevent We The People from resorting to their avenue of last resort, The Second Amendment of The United States Constitution.
Editorial Note: Here is a link to the trailer of the Qasim film entitled, The Other Side. Watch and judge for yourself. I have always believed in listening to all pertinent information, before making a decision on matters of my beliefs. However, this trailer doesn’t provide enough information to make a decision….valid documentary story telling or terrorist propaganda? I will though, look for the full documentary short to watch and make up my own mind, as is my right as a free thinking American.
Share this: