This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on February 1, 2011 9:48 AM. The previous post in this blog was New year, new faces on press release meter. The next post in this blog is Go ahead, laugh at the tinfoil helmet people. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

So now will we get to read about Neil's "love child"?

With the Neil Goildschmidt rape scandal back in the headlines, our mind drifts back to another aspect of the political boss' sordid past. Remember when they confronted Governor Ted Kulongoski years ago and asked him, "Didn't you know about Neil having sex with that teenager?" Former Goldschmidt speechwriter Fred Leonhardt says he told Ted about it in the '90s, but Ted, who had a lot to lose when the scandal broke, denied that. Not too convincingly, but unequivocally.

When backed up against the wall, however, Ted did blurt out something fascinating:

In an interview, Kulongoski said neither Leonhardt nor anyone else had ever told him that Goldschmidt had had sex with a minor. But he said Leonhardt had mentioned a different rumor.

"The only thing (about) a child that he ever told me had to do with Neil having an illegitimate child," Kulongoski said. "That's what he's told me. He had a kid. Now, whether that's true or not, I don't know."...

Kulongoski said he did not recall when Leonhardt had told him about Goldschmidt allegedly fathering a child outside his marriage to Margie Goldschmidt before their divorce in 1990. The governor said he brought it up because it was the closest thing to a conversation he could recall with Leonhardt regarding Goldschmidt, sex and a child.

He said Leonhardt had identified the woman whom Goldschmidt had impregnated.

"I'm not going to get into this, because this is the type of thing that I think takes you down," Kulongoski said. "He actually told me who it was... it was an adult that he allegedly had a relationship with."

It was not, by a long shot, the last time that that name has been bandied about. The identity of the reputed mother is a poorly kept secret -- every bit as poorly kept as the name of Goldschmidt's now-deceased statutory rape victim.

Will the local media write about it? Is it the public's business? And who among those involved in the illegitimate-child story needs protection?

Perhaps answers to those questions can be found by ruminating about today's identification of the abused teenaged babysitter. Whose interests were served by keeping the rape victim's name secret until just after her death? She seemed to have been eager to tell everyone -- including strangers in bars -- what had happened to her. And so it wasn't her confidentiality that called for protection, was it?

And if it was her parents who had some sort of privacy interest -- if I had a dollar for every time I've read an internet comment to the effect of "Where were her parents when this was going on?" I'd be rich -- they surely have lost it now.

So who's being protected by not touching the illegitimate-child allegation? By now, any such child is an adult and likely knows the story. His or her parents would presumably know. So why wouldn't the media pursue it?

Unlike statutory rape, of course, fathering an illegitimate child would not be a crime. But quietly supporting the child and covering up the truth could pose some real problems for, say, a mayor, a federal cabinet member, or a governor. Were favors done within the extensive Goldschmidt Network as payoffs for silence?

In short, there could be a legitimate public interest in knowing just who was involved. But the prospect that the local media, who have their self-righteous outfits on display today, will actually produce anything on this other story seems highly doubtful.

Comments (34)

So . . . . ?

If there is any truth to the illegitimate child story, what's the over/under on the child's mother having had some form of relationship with both Goldschmidt and Bernie Giusto?

Let me express this as clearly as I can: Ted Kulongoski is a liar. I was first informed of the existence of a so-called "illegitimate child" by Oregonian reporter Brent Walth in May 2004 -- long after I had stopped communicating with Ted. The quotation above was a desperate and pathetic attempt to change the subject from the fact that Ted knew -- and believed -- that Neil Goldschmidt was a child rapist.

Fred, YOU knew that Goldschmidt was a child rapist. What did you try to do about it?

Agreed. It changes the subject and requires the hearers to go away with questions for other people. Whatever you want to call it — lie, misdirection, smokescreen — what comes through loud and clear is that Kulongoski is not interested in talking about what he knew and when he knew it.

I usually don't respond to those who hide behind anonymity, but in your case, Mr. Snards, I'll make an exception.

What did I do? First, I told the Attorney General of Oregon -- repeatedly. Second, in December 2003 I gave The Oregonian detailed information about Goldschmidt's crimes for the express purpose of keeping him out of state government. I remain the only person connected to Goldschmidt to come forward and tell the truth without first being pressured by a reporter or investigative agency.

Third, I took responsibility for not coming forward even earlier when I wrote the following to the state agency that investigated Bernie Giusto:

"To my dismay, reporters in May 2004 asked me for the names of my colleagues in the governor's office who had daughters, one of whom may have been another Goldschmidt victim, based on information from a credible source. And in September of that year, another Oregonian reporter asked me if I had any knowledge regarding several other accusations of alleged pedophilia by Goldschmidt. I did not. But I have to live with the fact that my silence prior to 2003 may have led to other abuse victims."

"All of us - including a large chunk of the corporate, political, legal and media establishment of this state -- who kept Goldschmidt's skeleton in the closet for so many years brought harm upon the state of Oregon."

Nigel Jaquiss and other reporters were sniffing around Goldschmidt for a good long time. I think they would have pursued this illegitimate-child lead if they thought there was any truth to it. Particularly Oregonian reporters, who got scooped by WWeek and needed to live down the kid-gloves treatment they gave Goldschmidt at first (i.e., accepting his version of the rape as an "affair"). I think it's more what ep says -- a lie, misdirection, or smokescreen spewed forth by Ted to give himself some deniability and get reporters off his case.

Yes, you did. And at least one woman too.

Yes, that story is, as Jack says, a poorly kept secret. The child is grown now, I believe, and I think it would probably be harmful to the child to expose this now, even if true.

Fred, you remain in my mind a courageous man, and I know it was a terrible thing to live with for so many years. I am proud of you for coming forward and speaking the truth, without fear of the political consequences, when you did.

I know what it's like to be dogged by a politician (and the machine) who has covered up his lies. I am unemployed because of it but have never once regretted speaking the truth.

Not sure what Snards means. His second comment makes no sense unless of course Snards has proof that Leonhardt isn't telling the truth about telling the trut!. Can we have some evidence Snards?
Also, knew Fred at the 1983 legislature and he never mentioned the Goldschmidt case to me although I hasten to add we weren't close pals or anything like that
but we were around each other and it was never mentioned around me or anyone I knew.

I think Fred is the last person who should be criticized. He is the only Democrat who ratted Goldy out, and he paid a huge price for it.

Maybe people should be asking "Why is snards dissing Fred? Who is snards trying to impress, protect, smear, etc? Who is snards, and where is he commenting from...IP etc"?

Jack hit on the key part of what I saw yesterday. Who benefited on keeping this secret? For those who work with The Additions: Drugs, alcohol, eating, sex and gambling, know a key component is secrecy and denial. For a party to this, the victim, to be willing to attempt to break out of the sickness by reveling the truth takes a lot of courage and desperation- keys to recovery.

This exposes the fallacy of the media and the powerful in their, "we are trying to protect the victim." Creating more victims and further stigmatizing the victim.

Let the Spin continue.

I definitely don't understand how the sequence of events with Dunham's identity was protecting her.

And if there is an illegitimate adult child, half the town already knows the story. What's worse for the child -- living a lie or facing the truth?

Pretty newsworthy comments here. I don't think teflon, quite fits. How about "Nylon Neil" ?


Goldschmidt Web of Power Chart

Who knew what, when?

I thought it was common knowledge that the parents were fully aware of what was going on. They were full on participants in the "swinging 70's" and the Mother worshiped Neil like a God. Evidently it went on for sometime until the Grandmother found out. Her protests fell on deaf ears until she eventually had to threaten to expose the "affair" in order to get the Father to reluctantly put a stop to it. It seems a little far fetched but how else was this poor girl so readily available to Neil day or night?

I am not anyone connected to anything, and I don't have an agenda. I just read the O story this morning, and am upset with the whole old-boy crony network that would hide such a secret for so long.

As I read the history, it seems Fred L. was the one to come forward eventually and try to bring this to people's attention. That took more than 10 years, apparently.

There are no heroes here. Just a woman who died too early after living a broken life.

It seems a little far fetched but how else was this poor girl so readily available to Neil day or night?

Often in the girl's parents' OWN HOUSE, for crying out loud!

Were favors done within the extensive Goldschmidt Network as payoffs for silence?

So far we've only heard speculation about third-party beneficiaries of Goldschmidt's Secret. Coercion was possible and (if there are any credible leads) I hope there are reporters willing to chase them down. But we shouldn't forget that he profited a lot from his web of soft-graft public dealmaking.

It is tempting to believe in a larger conspiracy theory. It could connect a lot of dots and might help explain the motivation behind many of the Goldschmidt powerplays over the last four decades.

Would it not be a perfect tragedy if the many billions of public malinvestment into Portland's light rail network was actually catalyzed and expanded by Goldschmidt in order to keep his crimes covered up?

An extortion angle would make for a better movie, but in some ways it lets him (slightly) off the hook if he can be a victim in this too. It also helps advance the meme that Goldschmidt was a complicated man whose life and legacy is better understood when viewed compartmentally.

Goldschmidt's remaining public agenda apologists need to retain the image of a bifurcated Goldschmidt. Watch for them as they surreptitiously buttress an intellectual firewall between Oregon's Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde.

I have to ask:

Is there any compelling reason to assume that Goldy's public agenda power-cabal decisions didn't go through the same kind of (sociopathic) cost benefit analysis that permitted him to groom and molest a little girl (for years)?

Portland's enduring problem is that it's own fragile self esteem (hell, its very identity) requires it to remain in denial about its status as a Goldschmidt victim.

Heck, just look at South Waterfront: another Goldschmidt rape.

Leave the love child alone. Messing with another young life could have serious consequences. A reporter could, however, contact her and let her know that he/she was available if the young woman ever decided to go public about her parentage. I really hate to see NG get away with another secret, but revealing it should not come at the cost of an innocent's well-being.

Did the moment find the man, or did the man find the moment? The freeway revolt he is often given credit for leading (and which helped catapult him to prominence) was already underway when he glommed onto it. While there's no denying he had immense gifts (sadly used for evil as well as good), in the end maybe he was just lucky and shrewd enough to see a movement, get out in front of it, ride it, and then cash in on it. Would we have the MAX, Pioneer Square, and SoWa without him? Hard to say. However, he wouldn't have had the successes he did without the support (or acquiescence) of a plurality of Portland voters. In the best and worst possible senses, then, perhaps in Goldschmidt Portland and Oregon got the leader they deserved.

We most definitely would not have SoWhat without Neil Goldschmidt. He was the key "consultant" (that is, fixer) who did the dirty work for Kohler at OHSU, and Homer and the other developer boys. All for a pretty penny of a fee in Neil's pocket.

Don't forget about the million plus in consulting fees SAIF put in Neil's pockets. It's pretty sickening to think about how the working people of Oregon were shafted by this monster.

Jack - You lament that local media may not write about this story. Aren't you local media? Why don't you write it yourself?

I agree deb but I think he has a "Day Job"

Fred Leonhardt,
Thank you for being willing to stand out alone, even if belatedly, it is not as easy to do as some might think with possible “pay back” for doing so. The fact that you went to the attorney general and apparently were not heeded, one can only wonder about the web of power with its far reaching tentacles.

I can relate to having been in situations where “truth telling” becomes almost unbelievable that the one telling is viewed with disbelief, or that people prefer to shove matters under the rug. For those who are critical, try to see what it is like wanting to get the truth out when “the channels” are closed, think of how much effort, energy and possible sleepless nights it takes to deal with something of that magnitude.

What was Mr. Leonhardt to do, forced to stand at a street corner with a sign? and then on top of that being marginalized to the point of not having any credibility? Vindictiveness also does prevail when much is at stake as was here.

"All of us - including a large chunk of the corporate, political, legal and media establishment of this state -- who kept Goldschmidt's skeleton in the closet for so many years brought harm upon the state of Oregon."

I want to thank you for that statement. Our state and the people have been harmed by the arrogance of many. A web of power apparently had insured that interests be controlled. In my opinion, now with economic factors world wide, the states financial problems, municipalities going bankrupt, those who want to stop the bleeding, need more transparency and then need to hold decision makers accountable. Do not vote for those who will continue the agenda. Much like those in Egypt wanting no part of the same old same group, those in our area need to realize how harmed they have been by a controlling web of power.

The thing that makes me sickest in all of this are those who bought Goldschmidt's story that the girl involved was a Lolita and a temptress. And some of those involved work for the media in this city. It's more of the she wanted it and asked for it, forget her age and lack of ability to consent, especially if mommy and daddy were aware and did nothing to put a stop to it.

Do you think GS truly feels bad about what he did, or just is ticked off that he finally got caught?

In my opinion, Goldschmidt should spend the rest of his life in prison. That this animal is out and about budding his pinot grapes is atrocious. Anyone who knew about his crimes and didn't immediately report them, in my opinion, should spend at least half a decade in prison.

Meanwhile... on a peripherally related subject... looks as though Boehner may not be speaker for long. Sleeping with lobbyists. Breaking in about 3 days... (wait for it).

I especially concur with the comment about frustrations for those 'in the know' trying to publicize some truth (known to insiders) when "all the channels are closed," and while the target (public) audience prefers, rather, keeping its ignorance of not knowing for their own purpose of 'plausible deniability' (a Watergate coinage), as if denial = not guilty = innocent -- in special regard to publicizing the facts that no nineteen suicidal hijackers appeared on airlines-supplied passenger lists and the buildings' dust debris contains ample amounts of high explosives from Nine-Eleven Op ... when ordinary 'normal' people insist on denying 'to go there' and think such things even if TV itself were to tell such truths. If internet had been operating when Goldschmidt was, truths of his crimes could have been in circulation (not to say 'the public record'), but, y'know what?, maybe people even then would deny that (or what) they knew.

Maybe one primary 'use' of denial is to 'protect' one's self, one's sensibilities or moralistic mythology (indoctrination, & parental indoctrinators), more than it is to 'protect' or harbor the criminal from infamous indictment. (Thus Catholics refuse acknowledging criminal priests; or Lars refuses acknowledging hateful- or false-broadcasting damages to victims, he and his ilk apart and distinct from 'mainstream media' for going 3 hours daily versus 1-hour Evening News anchors, no on-scene reporters nor edited journalism -- only deluded biased-voice monologue, taunting call-in's with 'open access' which actually is slammed shut to attempts ... selfishly pre-possessing the public -- our -- natural-resource airwaves.)

It is impossible to undo and pull out the root of the 'problem' which is Goldschmidt and then, by that action (imprisonment, censure, repeal, whatever), accordingly remove and undo all the (office-holding) persons attached by him and all the damage or waste instituted through him, and them. We 'can't put the toothpaste back in the tube'; (more Watergate 'wit' by advertising exec H.R.Haldeman explaining why toothpaste is intentionally NOT sold in open jars, with lids).

The most best we can do is review and learn our lesson well, through the Cult-Goldschmidt example of hero-worship bandwagon-thrall, where normal personality is susceptible to believing illusion for the sake of social acceptance as 'one of the bunch.' And by learning that, of human nature and ourselves, then being vigilant for it (re-appearing) in public affairs ... such as the case of the FBI-made illusion of a terrifying teen-aged Arabian endangering a tree-lighting crowd, while they/we enjoy each other peaceably assembled in the public square: staged 'rescue' by which FBI claims being 'hero' status worth 'worship' and worth extraordinary ultra-legal personal privilege and public purse-sapping expense accounts and paychecks.

In similar manner we, the people, qualify and deserve and need to know facts about Jeff Guckert male prostitute 'sleeping over' several nights in the White House family quarters of Junior Bush, whose Daddy's reported pedophilia practices includes taint of hosting 'young boys' groups there after midnight when he was the resident in those public-funded quarters. Sordid Goldschmidt facts nearly seem decent comparatively, for those who can stomach to think on the record.

Or ... there's this on the AP wire today:
[ news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_super_bowl_sex_trade ]

By ANGELA K. BROWN, Associated Press – Tue Feb 1

ARLINGTON, Texas – As thousands of football fans descend on Texas for Sunday's Super Bowl, law enforcement agencies are keeping watch for a different kind of out-of-town visitor: pimps selling children for sex.

Cities that host the big game often attract a bustling sex trade. This year, Texas authorities and advocacy groups are stepping up their anti-prostitution efforts, especially where young girls are concerned ... in 2008, Phoenix police broke up a child prostitution ring involving several teenagers. The following year in Tampa, two men were arrested for advertising the services of a 14-year-old as a "Super Bowl special." They were sentenced to federal prison.

The ultimate ruling of Justice is by the Court of Public Knowledge, (NOT 'Opinion', NOT 'Appearances'), which is the judgment we are deliberating here. Who knew What?, and When were they knowing?, and Where or How could they issue the knowledge? And DID they?

(I told Senators Smith & Wyden, in-person, to their faces, before Iraq invasion, that there were no WMDs there -- because I knew, scientifically -- and they both glared at me and stood mute.
I told an Editor at The Oregonian, in-person, to his face, during invasion, that there were no WMDs there, and feigning surprise he said, "then they [invaders] better plant some, quick!" and then he stayed mute.
Millions of souls have been killed, tens of millions are suffering for the public silence of these identified guilty despotic persons just like Goldschmidt & Co. and worse.)

In my judgment, we don't need recriminations, we don't need budgets butchered, we don't need condescension and entertainments nor bread and circuses; we need fuller self-knowledge for a better breeding of character and truer representation, in public affairs and offices. ... and in the massmedia megaphones.
Like Bill Clinton said (before he rotted), Democracy is what comes out the end of the internet ... uh, and cell phones.

You knew all that?


You are funny.

What, a freshman writer spewing crap on various blogs?

Tenskwatawa:In my judgment, we don't need recriminations, we don't need budgets butchered, we don't need condescension and entertainments nor bread and circuses; we need fuller self-knowledge for a better breeding of character and truer representation, in public affairs and offices...and in the massmedia megaphones.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

Clicky Web Analytics