Jill Simpson: All Roads Still Lead to Rove

Word comes today that the U.S. House Judiciary Committee has subpoenaed former Bush White House strategist Karl Rove to testify about his role in several possible political prosecutions, including that of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.

The news comes on the heels of Dan Abrams' televised interview last night with committee member Linda Sanchez (D-CA). The interview included this intriguing tidbit: The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) is officially reviewing the issue of selective prosecution and the actions of several U.S. attorneys around the country.

If the review is legitimate, one would assume it would include heavy scrutiny of Alabama U.S. attorneys Alice Martin and Leura Canary. We are about to start a revealing series of posts that includes clear evidence of selective prosecution on Ms. Martin's part, and we intend to share that information with OPR staff members--and anyone else who cares to read Legal Schnauzer.

But before we commence our "Malice of Alice" series, let's take a closer look at the Rove issue. When it comes to insight on this subject, few Americans can match Republican whistleblower and Alabama attorney Jill Simpson.

After hearing about Rove's refusal to testify, citing executive privilege, a number of observers have been scratching their heads. Rove has said he did not discuss prosecutions with the White House. But by claiming executive privilege, Rove is indicating he did discuss prosecutions with the White House. And that raises the question: Why would George W. Bush be talking about Don Siegelman?

Simpson has considerable insight on that question and issued the following statement today:

Why would Bush be talking about Governor Don Siegelman? The answer is this: In the summer of 2002 George Bush came down to Alabama and held a fundraiser for Big Bob Riley who was running against Governor Don Siegelman at the time for Governor.

Karl Rove tries to claim in his letter to (Dan) Abrams that he wasn't involved with Bob Riley's campaign in Alabama; he was too busy working for the President of The United States of America. He suggested he was only involved in one event that year regarding Bob Riley, but does not say what (that event was) in his famous letter to Dan Abrams.

However, when I spoke with congressional investigators last summer I told them what I knew about the Riley campaign that summer of 2002. They are fully aware of all that was going on with the White House in the Riley Campaign. Further, it is my understanding the trip of President George W. Bush was videotaped from the time the wheels of his plane touched down in Alabama until he left Alabama on the day he raised the four million dollars for Big Bob Riley.

All Presidential trips are videotaped for security reasons, and that video of this day exists and has been talked about in the press. I also pointed out to the investigators last summer that George Bush came to Alabama and raised four million dollars in one day for Bob Riley, whose opponent was Governor Don Siegelman.

Further, that event was not the only event that the President was involved with in beating Don Siegelman in 2002. That is why Bush would have been talking about Siegelman in 2002. He was campaigning for and fundraising for Big Bob Riley to help him beat Don SIegelman.

Also, (you) will probably remember last summer when the President came to Alabama. He got off the airplane, and Mr. Rove started running his mouth, and the media folks for the White House stepped in front of Mr Rove and said what Mr Rove meant to say was "no comment."

Further, when my story broke in The New York Times and Time magazine, the White House said no comment. They knew President Bush was very active in the 2002 campaign against Governor Don Siegelman. That is why I believe Mr Rove is asserting executive privilege.

There is just no telling what they talked about since the President was actively campaigning against Governor Don Siegelman in 2002.

Inside a Selective Prosecution

Selective prosecution, as practiced by the Bush Justice Department, is the subject of an ongoing Congressional investigation.

But how does selective prosecution work?

Well, it comes in two varieties. The first involves going after certain people for political reasons. (See Siegelman, D.; Minor, P.) The second involves not going after certain people for political reasons.

This second variety is more subtle and easier to disguise than the first. But it is every bit as unlawful and damaging to our democracy. And it is the kind of selective prosecution (SP for short) with which I am personally acquainted.

My lesson in SP came courtesy of Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama. Martin is well known in legal circles for a number of things, none of them flattering. She botched the criminal prosecution of former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy. She initiated the first prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, a case that was so weak it was summarily dismissed. She had Alabama legislator Sue Schmitz dragged out of her bathroom and handcuffed, even though Schmitz' attorney had said his client would willingly turn herself in to authorities, if required. She tried to conduct a media circus of serving subpoenas on lawmakers in Montgomery until it became clear that was a violation of state law.

Scott Horton, of Harper's, has written numerous articles about Martin's highly questionable prosecutorial tactics. One of my favorites is here.

Bob Martin, of the Montgomery Independent, wrote a most interesting profile of Martin:

Just who is Alice Martin? Alice Martin ended up in Florence about 1990, having received her law degree at the University of Mississippi and working as a federal prosecutor in Memphis. She married into the well-to-do Martin family who were manufacturers of stoves and other iron products in Florence. The Martin company filed for bankruptcy in the mid 1990s.

Martin was appointed city judge in the early 1990’s and was later appointed as a circuit judge in the 11th Judicial Circuit, by Gov. Fob James. She replaced Judge Don Patterson, a Democrat, who died. (Her federal court bio lists it as the 21st Judicial Circuit, which is incorrect) She ran for the position at the following election on the Republican ticket, spending over $100,000, but was soundly defeated by the Democratic nominee.

Martin was next appointed U.S. Attorney for the Northern District by President Bush, at the behest of her sponsors, sens. Jeff Sessions and Richard Shelby. She still lives on Shoals Creek near Florence.

These lines jump out in Bob Martin's piece:

Although she has had some success as a U. S. Attorney, she botched the first prosecution of Don Siegelman and Richard Scrushy, and her attempted interference in the second case nearly wrecked it.

My sources in Florence tell me she is a very angry person who has an agenda against all Democrats.

Keep that thought in mind as we move forward.

Is Basketball More Important Than Our Courts?

That question in our headline might seem absurd. But the case of Tim Donaghy tells us that the answer is, "Yes, basketball most definitely is more important than our justice system."

Donaghy is the disgraced National Basketball Association referee who pleaded guilty last year to charges he conspired to engage in wire fraud and transmitted betting information through interstate commerce.

Federal prosecutors now say Donaghy bet on approximately 100 games over a four-year time period and cost the NBA more than $304,000 by depriving the league of his "honest services."

Donaghy contends that he cost the league only about $40,000. The former referee is due to be sentenced tomorrow.

All of this hits close to home here at Legal Schnauzer. The key charge against Donaghy, evidently, was honest services mail fraud, which also made up the bulk of the charges in the Don Siegelman (Alabama) and Paul Minor (Mississippi) cases.

My research indicates that the honest-services mail fraud statute, 18 U.S. Code 1346, normally is used against public officials. I don't see how a basketball referee would qualify as a public official, although many federal statutes are broadly written. Evidently prosecutors thought the statute gave them enough wiggle room to go after Donaghy on 1346 charges.

The most interesting part of the Donaghy case is what it says about the priorities of the Bush Justice Department. In New York, the feds are going after a basketball referee for betting on games. In Alabama, the feds turn a blind eye to clear honest services mail fraud committed by state judges who happen to be Republicans. A Bush appointee, U.S. Attorney Alice Martin, not only turns a blind eye to this wrongdoing, she actively takes steps to ensure that it will be covered up. And here at Legal Schnauzer, we will be outlining the steps Ms. Martin took to hide corruption by her GOP compadres.

So which hurts the country more in George W. Bush's America--a corrupt basketball official or corrupt state judges? You make the call.

Motives and Corrupt GOPers

A number of journalists around the country have commented on the apparent disarray currently cloaking the Republican Party. The sitting GOP president has dismal approval ratings, his justice department is enmeshed in scandal, and the party is 0 for 3 in recent special Congressional elections.

For my money, Mark Crispin Miller at News From Underground has one of the best commentaries on the subject, and you can catch his two-part vlog here.

Closer to home, I've experienced firsthand the threats and harassment that come from the hoodlums who run the corrupt wing of the Republican Party. What might be motivating these folks who make it their business to trash our constitution?

We'll be examining that issue in the coming days, focusing on two key figures--Pelham, Alabama-based attorney William E. Swatek and Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama.

These folks have an interesting connection. Bill Swatek, the ethically challenged attorney who filed a bogus lawsuit against me, has a son named Dax Swatek. And Dax Swatek is a GOP consultant who served as Alice Martin's campaign manager when she ran in 2000 for a seat on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals (and lost to Sue Bell Cobb, now chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court). Dax Swatek also served as Bob Riley's gubernatorial campaign manager in 2006 and has close ties to Bill Canary, who has close ties to Karl Rove, who is George W. Bush's "brain." In other words, the Swatek GOP roots grow right up to the White House door.

Which might explain why Bill Swatek gets away with all kinds of shenanigans in Alabama state courts, even though he has a 30-year record of unethical and fraudulent activity.

But back to my situation. We showed Bill Swatek in action recently, when he made a "bid" on my house as part of an unlawful sheriff's sale on the front steps of the Shelby County Courthouse. In another post, we showed that Swatek's motive clearly was to scare me into shutting down this blog, as opposed to actually trying to satisfy a legitimate judgment.

Which raises this question: Why are Bill Swatek and his GOP cronies so intent on targeting this blog? I think there are several answers to that question.

But one, I suspect, simply has to do with business. Since I started this blog, I've heard from a number of Bill Swatek's former clients. These folks were none to happy with the legal services they received, and they particularly were unhappy with the curious billing processes Mr. Swatek evidently employs.

I had noticed from checking public records that Bill Swatek has sued a number of his former clients. That might be a fairly common thing among attorneys. But of the lawyers I'm familiar with, Swatek is the only one who has sued a rather large number of former clients.

Former clients of Swatek's have given me some insight into why these lawsuits have occurred. A number of these former clients indicated to me that they intended to file bar complaints against Swatek, focusing heavily on his billing practices.

I have no idea if they actually filed bar complaints or not. But another source told me something interesting recently about the bar-complaint process. This individual had filed a bar complaint against an attorney I'm familiar with (not Swatek), and the complainant asked me if I would be willing to testify against the attorney.

I wasn't aware that someone other than the complainant could testify in a bar proceeding. And I gather that published articles about an attorney can be presented as evidence.

I haven't heard anything more about the bar case my source told me about. But if he is correct about the broad nature of a bar inquiry, a corrupt attorney like Bill Swatek would have a vested interest in trying to shut down a blog like mine.

Imagine if former clients were filing bar complaints against Swatek and including copies of posts I had written about him.

If you want to get a feel for what I'm talking about, go to Google and do a blog search for "Bill Swatek." The first three items that come up are uncomplimentary items connected to this blog.

For an even better idea, go to Google and do a regular search on "Bill Swatek." The first NINE items that come up are uncomplimentary items connected to this blog.

Thanks to the wonder of blog analytics, I have a pretty good idea of the number of folks who are doing searches on some variation of the name "William Swatek." And I have a real good idea of where those folks are landing in cyberspace.

Are they coming away with a good feeling about the legal services provided by Bill Swatek? I doubt it.

Is Bill Swatek the kind of guy who would use unlawful means to try to put a stop to such bad publicity? His history suggests the answer is yes.

A Vast Right-Wing Charade in Alabama

Let's return to the issue of motive behind the orchestrated "auction" of my house one week ago today at the Shelby County Courthouse in Columbiana, Alabama.

One thing I've learned in my fight against corrupt public officials in Alabama: The more you learn about the law, the worse the corruption is likely to look--and the more you can understand the motives driving the bad guys.

As we noted in our previous post on this subject, I now know enough about the law to prove that the "sheriff's sale" really was about trying to shut down this blog. How do I know that? Let's take a look at the facts and the law:

* As a result of the "sheriff's sale," the most corrupt attorney William E. Swatek can get out of it is a lien on my portion of our home. That's because the house is jointly owned by my wife and me, and the amount of the "judgment" against me is so small--$1,525. The lien remains dormant until we attempt to the sell the property. I only discovered this in the few days prior to the "sale," and Deputy Bubba Caudill admitted that is all that could be done--after he had repeatedly called us and told us he was about "to sell that property." In other words, we discovered the truth after Bubba had repeatedly committed honest services wire fraud--at the instigation of Bill Swatek and a number of corrupt public officials in Shelby County.

* Now here is where it gets real interesting. If you have a court judgment and want a lien on someone's property to enforce it, all you have to do is file a certificate of judgment. That places a judgment lien on the property and causes the judgment creditor's rights to attach to the property. A search of probate records in Shelby County shows that Swatek didn't do this. Why not? Here's my guess: Getting a judgment lien doesn't do anything to scare my wife and me. It just sits there, minding its own business, until the day comes that we try to sell our house. But threatening to have a sheriff's sale of our house? Why, that gets people stirred up a bit. It might even get someone stirred up enough to cave in to Swatek's thinly veiled desires, which is to put a stop to this blog. Also, it appears that Swatek wanted to leave as small a paper trail as possible on his way to causing my house to be unlawfully "auctioned." Getting a certificate of judgment, garnishing my wages--those things cause paper trails and get third parties involved. It appears Swatek wanted to "keep it down home, cuz" as much as possible.

* Here's the irony of Swatek's bogus plan: Without a judgment lien on my property, he had nothing to gain by holding a "sheriff's sale." No one else's rights can attach to my property without a judgment lien. But Swatek wasn't interested in anyone's rights attaching to my property. He wanted to scare me into halting this blog, and that's why he orchestrated the fraudulent sheriff's sale, which we caught on tape!

* The bottom line? Initiating a sheriff's sale on jointly owned property, in order to satisfy a "judgment" in an amount under $2,000, appears to make no sense under the law. But Swatek, as usual, wasn't interested in the law; he was interested in scare tactics--and corrupt judges, clerks, and sheriff's deputies were actively participating in his little scheme.

* The sheriff's sale failed, so what will Swatek try next? I have no idea. But at some point, you would think he would realize that schnauzers don't scare easily. And schnauzers are fairly adept at figuring things out when people are trying to cheat us. Here's another lesson Swatek evidently has not learned: You keep poking a schnauzer with a stick, and he eventually is going to bite you. And when a schnauzer bites, he draws blood and holds on for dear life. And that doesn't feel so good for the bitee. I suspect many a bitee has looked back on things and said, "You know, I wish I had left that schnauzer alone."

Siegelman and Our Pathological President

I'm not a psychologist, but regular readers know I play one on my blog from time to time.

I'm inspired today to channel my inner Lucy Van Pelt (and put out my "psychological help for 5 cents" sign) by the latest antics of our "commander guy," President George W. Bush.

What is one of the surest signs that someone has a serious personality disorder? My research indicates it's the inability to truly examine the self. In Biblical terms, I would suggest it's the inability to see "the log in your own eye" before noting "the speck in your brother's eye."

If I'm right about that, then our "commander guy" serves up whopping evidence of a personality disorder in a story about his trip to the Middle East in today's New York Times.

In a speech in Egypt, Bush presented a laundry list of things Arab leaders should embrace in order to bring peace to the Middle East. If you have followed the Bush Justice Department scandal at all, be sure you are sitting when you read the following quote:

"Too often in the Middle East, politics has consisted of one leader in power and the opposition in jail," Bush said in an address to the World Economic Forum here, adding, "The time has come for nations across the Middle East to abandon these practices and treat their people with the dignity and respect they deserve."

I hope Don Siegelman didn't have a mouthful of coffee when he read that sentence this morning. If he did, I'm sure the former Alabama governor spewed the coffee clear across his kitchen.

Siegelman, of course, recently spent nine months in federal prison. And what was his crime? Mounting evidence indicates it was being a Democrat, an opposition leader, in a state dominated by Republicans, the "leader in power." And who engineered what increasingly is looking like a sham prosecution and conviction of Siegelman? More and more, it appears it was Alabamians with ties to the Bush administration, through former White House strategist Karl Rove.

Siegelman is far from alone in being targeted for opposing the Bush administration. If attorney Paul Minor and former Mississippi state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield are able to follow the news in federal prison, I wonder what they thought when they read Bush's quote.

And what about yours truly? One week ago today, I watched as my house was unlawfully "auctioned" on the steps of the Shelby County Courthouse in Columbiana, Alabama. You can catch the action (live and in color!) here, a prime example of what we call "corruption in real time."

Is this what Dubya means when he talks about treating people "with the respect and dignity they deserve?"

And keep this in mind: The attorney in the video, making an unlawful "bid" on my house, is William E. Swatek who has family ties straight to the Bush White House. Swatek's son, Dax Swatek, is a close associate of Bill Canary, who is a close associate of Karl Rove, who is primarily responsible for the eight-year Bush Reign of Error in this country.

So Bill Swatek certainly is a Bush acolyte. Is Swatek capable of seeing the irony of unlawfully stealing someone's property at roughly the same time his commander is spewing high-minded rhetoric in the Middle East? I would say the chances of Swatek, or any other loyal Bushie, having that kind of self awareness is pretty much zero.

Numerous books surely will be written about the Bush administration over the next 10 to 20 years. A suggested title? "A River of Pathology Runs Through It."

Are Bushies Getting Tighty Whities?

Folks in the corrupt wing of the Republican Party, made up almost entirely of "loyal Bushies" we suspect, appear to be feeling tightness in their jockey shorts these days.

Inevitably, the story of the sewer-like Bush Justice Department, centers on Alabama. A number of honest Alabamians are fighting back against the Bush Machine, and that seems to have the Bushies in a lather.

First, it seems clear that the Bushies were counting on former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman remaining in federal prison for the next seven years or so. Instead, Siegelman is free pending an appeal, and he is able to tell his story far and wide. Every now and then, a member of the Alabama press picks up on the story, and that happens today with an enlightening Q&A from Markeshia Ricks, capitol correspondent for the Anniston Star.

Corrupt GOPers can't be happy that Siegelman now has forums to make comments like this:

The Star: Why do you believe Rove hasn't agreed to testify under oath?

Siegelman: He doesn't want to run the risk of lying under oath and being prosecuted for perjury. You know, I think it's telling that he talks a good game. He wrote a, I think it was a five-page letter to [MSNBC anchor] Dan Abrams basically asking Dan Abrams questions about why he should testify under oath. When Conyers invited him to testify under oath, he's dodged that, he's skated, and I think it's clear he's got something to hide. Otherwise, there is no reason why he wouldn't testify under oath.

Or this:

The Star: Since 1998, you've been the subject of some kind of investigation. Why do you think that is?

Siegelman: It's all part of the same case. It started when Karl Rove's bag man, I call him, Jack Abramoff, started putting Indian casino money into Alabama to defeat me in 1998. Shortly after I endorsed Al Gore in 1999, Karl Rove's client, the attorney general of Alabama (Bill Pryor) started an investigation. In 2001, Karl Rove's business associate and political partner's wife, Leura Canary, became a U.S. attorney and started a federal investigation. … It started with the attorney general and the state investigation, followed by the federal investigation, followed by indictments in 2004, and then another series of indictments leading up to the 2006 election … but, yeah, it's all part of the same case.

And then Siegelman repeats a statement that has given him quite a bit of mileage in recent weeks:

I think this will make Watergate look like child's play when it is fully investigated, not so much this case because certainly it's not about me. It's about restoring justice and protecting our democracy and, because this case shows the lengths to which those who are obsessed with power will go in order to gain power or retain power, it has attracted the attention of the national press.
Specifically, because it is tied to the White House because Karl Rove is not only a political adviser to the president but he's a close personal friend of the president, and you asked me if I was surprised, no I'm not surprised that the national media has focused on this because it is the only case that has led Congress directly to the doors of the White House.

The other cases that are being mentioned or being talked about are primarily the eight U.S. attorneys who were targeted for removal either for failing to move quickly enough or for not following really the party line — the Karl Rove party line — of trying to do damage to Democrats who were involved in an elections contest.

What Congress is seeing in this case is the other side of that coin, which is what happens when a U.S. attorney does follow the party line and a person is selectively prosecuted to impact the outcome of an election.

Siegelman goes on to note the critical role of Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson in bringing Bush DOJ sleaze to light. And that leads us to the latest GOP attempt to discredit Simpson. It comes from that trusty right-wing rag, the Weekly Standard.

Writer John H. Hinderaker makes no attempt to hide his misogyny, referring to Simpson as a "conspicuously large redhead" of "uncertain mental health."

And he makes little attempt to convince semi-coherent readers that he has his facts straight.

Hinderaker says Simpson has scratched out an "uncertain living" in DeKalb County, Alabama. Does he tell us what he means by "uncertain living?" Nope. Does he offer any evidence to back up this claim? Nope.

Hinderaker describes Simpson as a "very strange person" who "lives in her own world." What in the heck is this supposed to mean? The same terms could be applied to Stephen Hawking couldn't they? Or Paul McCartney? Or Brian Wilson? Or J.K. Rowling? Or any number of the brightest minds on the planet?

Hinderaker describes Simpson as the daughter of "rabid Democrats." Does he offer any proof of that? Nope. And does he note that this contradicts Simpson's sworn testimony before Congress? Nope.

Hinderaker reports that Simpson's house and law office are on the auction block. Does he offer anything to support this, say from a public document? Nope. And what does he mean by saying the property is "on the auction block?" Does he mean it's for sale? Then why doesn't he say so?
If the property is for sale, so what? What is that supposed to mean? Hinderaker doesn't tell us.

The Siegelman/Simpson tag team apparently is drawing blood. And that seems to have loyal Bushies on the edge of becoming unhinged.

Caught on Tape! Corrupt Alabama Republicans

We've shown you the video of my house being unlawfully "auctioned" on the courthouse steps Monday in Columbiana, Alabama. We also have explained that Bill Swatek, the attorney behind this little charade has direct ties to the Bush White House.

Now let's bring the law into a little clearer focus, to illustrate just how corrupt this piece of "GOP Masterpiece Theater" truly is.

Have Republicans, or Democrats for that matter, ever been caught on camera in a more blatantly unlawful act than this one? I can't think of another similar example.

For those of us who care about the actual law, what does it say about the process that leads up to a sheriff's sale? Let's take a look:

Judges Ain't Invited
First of all, what you saw in the video was supposed to be a sheriff's sale. And it is called that for a reason. It involves the sheriff, not a judge. In the video, you hear Deputy Bubba Caudill saying that he has been ordered by Circuit Judge Hub Harrington to proceed with the "sale." I spoke with Bubba that morning via phone, and he said that Harrington had told him that I had indeed filed a valid, notarized claim of exemption--but Bubba could go on with his sale anyway.

A couple of points about that. First, Alabama appellate courts have specifically said that a sheriff's sale does not involve a judge. A case called Ex Parte Arthur Lynn (Ala. Civ. App., 1999) states that a sheriff's sale is recognized by statute and does not require any action by a judge. In fact, that court found that a sheriff's sale is not a judicial sale.

A judge has no business taking part in a sheriff's sale. Both statutory and procedural law in Alabama are clear: If the judgment debtor files a notarized claim of exemption, as Judge Harrington admitted I did, the sheriff's sale is stayed. The sheriff has three days to notify the judgment creditor that a claim of exemption has been filed, and the judgment creditor has 10 days to file a contest. This is all in Rule 69 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure.

If no contest is filed, the claim of exemption is considered accurate and uncontested, and the property no longer is subject to a sheriff's sale. The matter is finito.

If a contest is filed, a hearing must be scheduled, and a judge determines if the sale can go forward. But then, and only then, does a judge become a player.

As you can see in the video, I asked Bubba if a contest had been filed, and he admitted he didn't know. Of course, I knew one hadn't been filed because I hadn't received a copy of it. Certainly no hearing was held because I never was notified of one, and I'm a fairly important player in all of this--it's my house.

If Judge Harrington actually did what Bubba said he did--if the judge ordered Bubba to unlawfully proceed with a sheriff's sale--that has major implications, both civilly and criminally.

On the civil side, it's almost impossible to sue a judge when he acts within his judicial capacity--no matter how unlawful or corrupt his ruling might be. But when a judge acts outside his judicial capacity, as Harrington evidently did here, he is fair game.

This process probably doesn't make the kind of reading you will want to take to the beach this summer. But it's actually quite simple, very much like the process for a motion for summary judgment. One party takes a legal action, and if it is properly supported, it must be upheld unless it is lawfully countered by the other party.

In this instance, Bill Swatek made the sheriff's decision for him. By failing to file a contest, Swatek himself determined there could be no sheriff's sale. But as all the world can see in the video, GOPers in Shelby County aren't remotely interested in following the law.

Here's a little more law to chew on:

"The effect of a claim of exemption, if it is not successfully controverted, is that it must be taken as prima facie correct . . . " Robinson v. Ferdon, 76 So. 907 (Ala., 1917).

"Because the claim of exemption was not properly contested, it was considered to be correct and was due to be upheld . . . " Young v. Strong, 694 So. 2d 27 (Ala. Civ. App., 1997).

This is real simple, folks. No contest, no hearing, no sale.

A Paperwork Problem
As I wrote on this blog shortly after I received the writ of execution in this matter last September, I never received a Notice of Right to Claim Exemption, as required by law.

My guy Bubba admitted he had read this on my blog, and he has no proof that it ever was delivered. He has no proof because it wasn't delivered. I took the writ of execution from a deputy that morning, and it included only the writ of execution.

Bubba told me on the phone that my wife must have misplaced it. (Way to go, Bubba, blame your screwup on my wife! Hey, I'm the only guy who gets to blame his screwups on my wife!) This matter didn't involve my wife, and she didn't misplace anything because the document was given to me. And it never included the exemption-claim notice that is required by law.

I told Bubba multiple times that I had not received this document, and he still never made sure one was delivered.

Now, is this just a procedural hiccup--a minor detail that has no impact on the sheriff's sale. Not hardly.

Here's the law: "Judgment must be set aside where sheriff failed to give written notice of claim of homestead exemption as required by this section." McLaren v. Anderson, 81 Ala. 106 (Ala., 1886).

The failure to provide the exemption notice, I feel certain, was intentional. The notice, three times, tells the recipient to contact an attorney if he has questions. And the corrupt GOPers in Shelby County did not want me to contact an attorney. Heck, a student with three days in law school could have told me this was bogus and not to worry about it. And that's the last thing the crooks wanted.

You might ask: Well, how did you file your claim of exemption if you never received a notice? Well, way back in 2003, when it was becoming abundantly clear that I was being screwed, I purchased a copy of the Alabama Rules of Court, the green book I was waving around in the video like Jimmy Swaggart on crack. The form I was supposed to see is in that book, and that's how I knew about my exemption rights. But Bubba & Co. have an obligation under the law to make sure that judgment debtors know of their rights. And they intentionally failed to live up to this obligation.

Slapstick Law in Shelby County
Is it OK, under the law, to screw up a sheriff's sale this badly? Does the law say, "Oh heck, just get it sorta right and everything will be OK--you know what they say about horseshoes, hand grenades, and sheriff's sale?"

Well, here's what the law says: Messing around with someone's property is important business, and you had better get it right:

"The judgment lien statute is in derogation of the common law and is to be strictly construed." AmSouth Bank v. Bischoff, 678 So. 2d 1102 (Ala. Civ. App., 1995). In other words, get it right or it ain't going to hold up. Well, nothing was done right in this fiasco.

Live and in Color! A Federal Crime
As Bubba is walking away at the end of the video, I say that he is knowingly violating the law. This was not idle chat.

What you see on that video is a federal crime. It is the culmination of a several-month conspiracy to threaten me with loss of my property in order to deprive me of my First Amendment rights to free expression on this blog. How many people were involved in this conspiracy? Clearly, Bubba and Bill Swatek were front and center. But it involves a host of other folks--Sheriff Chris Curry, County Clerk Mary Harris, Circuit Judges Mike Joiner and Dan Reeves.

Will any of these folks ever pay for their crimes? Certainly not as long as loyal Bushies are running the Justice Department. If a Democrat wins the presidency in November and appoints an attorney general who is determined to clean up the sewer he or she will inherit, some folks in Shelby County might wind up in orange jump suits.

What makes this a federal crime? For months, Bubba and his cohort Eddie Moore have been calling my wife and me to claim they are "getting ready to sell that property." This was blatant fraud, and because they used the federal wires, it is a federal crime. And the people who put them up to it are accountable under the law.

For weeks and even months, this gambit almost worked. My wife and I are not lawyers, and we were concerned for a very long time that we might wind up homeless if I did not quit blogging. As you might imagine, this caused more than a few sleepless nights.

It wasn't until we found an article by an attorney named Tony Mankus that we began to sense we were being played for fools. You can read the entire Mankus article here.

But the key point is this: Our home is jointly owned by my wife and me. And despite Bubba's repeated claims that he was going to "sell that property," my wife's half of our property was never on the table. Ironically, we had tried to get my wife included as a party to the underlying lawsuit, and by law, she should have been added. But corrupt Judge Dan Reeves kept her out, which wound up being a huge break for us. If Reeves had ever dreamed I would blog about the case, I'm sure he would have handled it differently. But neither Reeves, nor any of the other judges in Shelby County that I've encountered, are known for being terribly sharp.

The Mankus article makes the law clear. He's writing from the standpoint of a federal tax lien, but the same principle applies on state judgment liens:

"In the case of property held in joint tenancy, the federal tax lien attaches to the taxpayer's proportionate interest. As long as neither the owners, nor security holders (including the IRS) take any action to dispose of the property, the lien will remain a dormant right against the property and will not impede its use by the owners."

So that's the law--and thank you Tony Mankus, wherever you are!

If we had not found that article, and gradually figured out how Bubba & Co. were trying to screw us, I'm not sure what would have happened.

As I've asserted repeatedly on Legal Schnauzer, this whole criminal enterprise by Alabama Republicans was designed not to take our house or satisfy a "judgment" but to put a halt to this blog.

I have come to understand the law enough to prove that I was correct about that. And we will discuss that subject next.

Schnauzers Being Schnauzers

We are dealing with some pretty heavy stuff around here lately, so we could stand to lighten the mood.

I can think of no better way to do that than with a little video of miniature schnauzers doing what they do best--playing, having fun, being court jesters, living life with gusto.

Here's a schnauzer trying to tell her owner something. Sounds like this girl lives in Europe. Our Murphy was the real "Great Communicator;" she would put Reagan in the shade. She got to where she could spell all kinds of words, like "l-u-n-c-h" and "S-o-n-i-c," which was her favorite place to go for a ride--and dinner. (No human food for our girl. She chilled out happily in the back seat while we pigged out on all that stuff that's bad for you.)



Here's a big schnauzer and a little schnauzer doing some roughhousing. Murphy loved this kind of stuff. Her favorite game was hide and seek.



Here's a schnauzer and a cat having a good time. This schnauzer has a true tail, which you don't see much in the U.S. Think this video might come from Europe. I've read where tail docking is banned in some European countries.



And this might be my favorite video of all time. Who says cats and dogs can't be friends?

Showdown in Shelby County, Part II

What's it like to be cheated in George W. Bush's America, in Karl Rove's Alabama?

Come along for our little version of show and tell. We hope you find it educational.

First, we have a clip that was filmed about 20 minutes before our house was to be unlawfully auctioned. Columbiana, Alabama, truly is in the middle of nowhere. But between wind gusts and motorcycles, and general traffic, and even a siren, we had all kinds of background noise. Hope you can hear most of what's going on. On a lighter note, I told my inexperienced cinematographer that when I mentioned "Shelby County Courthouse" on this first clip, she was to pan and show the courthouse itself. You'll notice that I had to say the magic words several times and actually point at the courthouse before my cinematographer thought, "Oh yeah, there's a courthouse over there!" Guess you get what you pay for in cinematographers these days. Actually, my cinematographer deserves a whole lot of credit for this story being told. I write the words, but many of the thoughts, and the majority of the courage needed to put those thoughts on paper, come from her. If this just involved me, I probably would have caved in a long time ago. But to quote Hillary Clinton, I'm not giving up.




In this next clip, we have the "auction" itself. Speaking of background noise, I didn't realize how many birds were chirping and having a grand time while this was going down. Guess they were wrens, with maybe a mockingbird or two in the choir. Wish I'd had Atticus Finch on my side. Don't find too many Atticus Finch's around in Alabama these days. The deputy conducting the "auction" is Bubba Caudill, who looks like he came from a cast party for Smokey and the Bandit. The attorney who places the winning "bid" is Bill Swatek, who looks like he came from a cast party for the "The Grifters." Notice the look on Swatek's face when he's asked why he waited three-plus years, after I started a blog, to suddenly get interested in this "judgment." Notice the look on his face when he's asked why he's never asked for the money. By the way, when Swatek saw we were in the vicinity, he went back in the courthouse and about four additional deputies appeared. Guess we were a big security risk. This all prompted my cinematographer to quip, "How many deputies does it take to screw up an auction in Shelby County?"




In the next clip, your correspondent tries to summarize events and tells you what the actual law says--how the scene you just witnessed could not take place.




Finally, we note that Bill Swatek and Bubba Caudill are bold enough to unlawfully "auction" my house, but they aren't bold enough to hang around and answer questions about it afterward. That's the way most bullies are, isn't it? When you push back, they curl up their lip and go hide behind someone's skirt.



Hope this has given you a feel for corruption in George W. Bush's America--May 12, 2008. We have much more coming on this story, and we have more video reports coming. We have all kinds of documents to share, and they will show you exactly the kind of attorney Bill Swatek really is. They also will show what his client, my criminally inclined neighbor Mike McGarity, is all about.

I stopped by the Sheriff's Office and tried to get a comment from Sheriff Chris Curry. Unfortunately, he was "out to lunch." I'm going to try to set up an appointment for an on-camera interview with him. If you would like to e-mail Sheriff Curry and encourage him to talk on camera with Legal Schnauzer, you can contact him at ccurry@shelbycountyalabama.net.

Hope you will stay tuned as I continue to channel my inner Michael Moore and try to expose the cockroaches who have tarnished a country that used to stand for something.