Jay Miller (the WA one) and Pancho Campo -the report

http://jimsloire.blogspot.com/2012/04/j ... rt-by.html

Oh yeah, that was a major surprise.

[David M. Bueker]

Oh yeah, that was a major surprise.

Meaning?

Maybe I read it too fast but it sounded like the bottom line is that the WA did nothing wrong.

[David M. Bueker]

True, but the report does make it clear that they gave the appearance of doing something wrong which needs to be addressed.

It's pretty clear that any report that does not skewer Miller or Parker with evidence that they accepted rotten payments will be considered as fraudelent. They lost the public opinion, and even DNA evidence won't set that right.

Personally I don't want to pillory anyone at WA. I don't think of Jay Miller as corrupt, but just someone who thought he landed in the catbird seat and didn't want to look to closely at his situation. (On a separate note, prior to this whole business I was amazed at the guy being a psychologist, as he seemed totally unselfaware and totally ignorant of the whole idea of unconscious bias.)

I do think that Pancho Campo's recent statement that he is stepping away from the wine business is good for wine, as he seems to really have unclear ideas re ethical conduct (as noted, during period he was contracted initially by WA, he had an Interpol fraud warrant out).

I did find a few things interesting about report:

So apparently ASEVIN (Murcia association)did not cooperate with the investigation. (Specifically, with regard to the ASEVIN event in Murcia inNovember 2011, despite the inability to obtain sufficient information or records from ASEVIN, this investigation did not reveal any actual evidence that wineries made payments to sponsor this event. Therewas plainly an early attempt by ASEVIN to solicit such contributions, which was improper, but the bloggers' reports and the reactions to them in Fall 2011 caused ASEVIN quickly to retract those earlier communications and apparently reverse course. The investigation uncovered no evidence that TWAS, Miller, or any representative of The Wine Advocate knew of or was involved in any of ASEVIN'scommunications to its constituent wineries.). So even with ASEVIN stonewalling the lawyers agreed all of Jim Budd's allegations re this event proved to be true , and basically ASEVIN stopped because of Budd and Heckle's exposure.

The Madrid DO visit that was initially cancelled after they didn't come up with funding for a "Miller dinner" isn't mentioned in report.

Frankly, the lawyers should be totally ashamed of themselves for the claim that Budd and Heckle “ultimately accepted our invitation to cooperate”  They've shown ample proof (emails with dates) that they cooperated from the beginning. Parker and Cozen O'Connor should be embarassed by their petty insinuation.

[David M. Bueker]

Dale,

You don't have the details of the interactions of Budd/Heckle with the law firm, only the bizarre Parker stuff.

Dale,

You don't have the details of the interactions of Budd/Heckle with the law firm, only the bizarre Parker stuff.

Well, assuming that Budd and Heckle aren't lying re their interactions with Kroll and Cozen O'Connor, they have laid out several times their prompt responses to inquiries. A quick summary is contained in Heckle's comments to the quoted article:

There are quite a few aspects to this investigation and its conclusions that trouble me, of which three stand out in particular.

First, the words “ultimately accepted our invitation to cooperate” are mischievous, to say the least. For the record, this is what happened. At around 23:15 on Thursday, 19 January, Jim phoned to advise that he had just forwarded to me an e-mail from Stephen A. Miller of Cozen O'Connor in Philadelphia requesting assistance regarding the Miller/Campo case.

Over the phone, we rapidly concluded it was a good idea to help because this could focus attention on a worrying situation that had escalated and was enraging a large segment of the Spanish wine industry.

Miller's e-mail had been sent to Jim at 21:19 that same day, and was titled, “Subject: Request for Assistance.” For the record, also, Miller addressed me as “Howard.”

At 11:38 the next day, i.e., after a night's sleep and breakfast, we replied, saying the following:

Thank you for your messages.

Please note that Mr Heckle's first name is Harold and not Howard.

We will be happy to supply you with documents and pertinent information.

So, in less than a day, Cozen O'Connor had written agreement from us, confirming we would supply material from our archives and files to aid in their investigation. Ultimately, that is the truth. There was no “invitation to cooperate” - what there was, was a prompt and positive response to a request for assistance.

Next, I am concerned by Cozen O'Connor's statement that: 'In any event, Campo has announced publicly that he will "move on" from wine business and The Wine Academy of Spain following its recent merger with another company.' Here in Spain there is no evidence whatsoever that the Wine Academy has merged with anything. All there appears to be is a new website design and a new name, Chrand Management, which lists the Wine Academy as its owner in its legal notice.

Finally, where Cozen O'Connor asks, 'Did Jay Miller receive anything of value to visit any wineries or taste any wines for rating by The Wine Advocate?' - I would like to pose the following question.

What did those elements of the Spanish wine trade that paid so much for the Campo/Miller visits get for their money?

From that (and consistent stories both Heckle and Budd have supplied, complete with times and wording of their responses -they of course didn't quote the CO emails, as there's that little confidentially clause) I'd say there are 2 possibilities:
1) A journalist and a blogger with spotless reputations decided to publish an untrue (and easily proved false) sequence of emails to a large international law firm
or
2) a lawyer used a weasel word that is not technically incorrect (I could say David ultimately responded to my post, it's factual) to insinuate an inaccurate impression (to foster his client's prior misstatements).
You choose.

[David M. Bueker]

I still think you are reading an awful lot into 1 word.

I still think you are reading an awful lot into 1 word.

Perhaps we've also got the benefit of prior knowledge, based on what Parker alleged about Jim/Harold's non-cooperation (and has still not retracted). In that context, the very odd choice of word makes more sense... i.e they weren't prepared to replay Parker's allegation directly, so chose a more ambiguous phrase as a compromise.
It does them a dis-service, but then they have to remember who's paying the bill.

[David M. Bueker]

It's a legal report. Measured language is to be expected.