Is Another Fix In Place on the Siegelman Case?

Word in Alabama political circles is that a fix might be in--again--on the case of former Governor Don Siegelman.

What kind of fix is it this time? Word is that Jeff Sessions and Richard Shelby, Alabama's two Republican U.S. senators, have struck a deal with the Obama administration that would allow Bush-appointed prosecutor Leura Canary to remain in control of the Siegelman case.

Is this for real? Alabama Rep. John Rogers (D-Birmingham) reportedly spoke openly about the deal at a civil-rights breakfast on Sunday and asked those present to contact Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Siegelman is taking it seriously; he sent an e-mail to supporters, urging them to contact Emanuel and demand that Canary be removed from office.

How important could this be? Consider Siegelman's own words:

First, we have to get Rahm Emanuel's attention because he will be the most important adviser to President Obama in this regard, and second, we need to get the National Democratic Party involved immediately.

I am in a time squeeze. My attorneys just filed a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence that proves prosecutorial misconduct by my prosecutors; withholding evidence, reshaping the testimony of witnesses, and knowingly presenting false testimony. The conduct has been outrageous. Now the judge has given this same Bush appointed U.S. Attorney until July 28th to respond to these charges.

It is nonsense to think that the same Bush appointed prosecutors who perpetrated this misconduct will fairly review my charges of misconduct against them.

Siegelman urges his supporters, and others who care about justice, to take immediate action:

That's why I am pleading with you to:

1) Call or e-mail Rahm and ask him to help ensure that President Obama's, not President Bush/Karl Rove's, prosecutors decide my fate--by immediately removing these biased prosecutors from this case.

2) Call or e-mail the Democratic National Party Chairman, Governor Tim Kaine, and stress that the Democratic Party ask Eric Holder to remove these partisan prosecutors. Remember my prosecutor is the wife of Karl Rove's best friend, business and political partner. My prosecutor's husband has been identified in sworn testimony as having said he got Rove to get the DOJ to go after me. My prosecutor's husband was also my Republican opponent's campaign manager!

My motion for a new trial was based on the misconduct of this U.S. Attorney in withholding critical evidence that would have made a difference in my trial. The rabid Rove prosecutors must be immediately removed by the Obama Administration if I am ever to get a fair and impartial review of my case.

PLEASE, PLEASE call and write today. Ask for the removal of Leura Canary and her prosecutors, and ask that DOJ in Washington appoint unbiased prosecutors to review my motion for a new trial.

Siegelman goes on to provide the pertinent contact information:

Hon. Rahm Emanuel
Chief of Staff to President Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20500
(202) 456-1111
fax: (202) 456-2461
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

Hon. Tim Kaine
Chairman,
Democratic National Committee
430 S. Capitol St. SE
Washington, DC 20003
(202) 863-8000
http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contactissues

The mind races with questions about what might be going on regarding the U.S. attorney position for the Middle District of Alabama:

* Would the Obama administration stoop so low as to cut a deal with the likes of Sessions and Shelby?

* Is this a "quid pro quo" in order to get Sessions and Shelby to support U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor?

* Why are Sessions and Shelby so concerned about the Middle District of Alabama, based in Montgomery, while they've said very little publicly about the U.S. attorney posts in the Northern District (Birmingham) and Southern District (Mobile)? Is it possible that Sessions and Shelby themselves have dirty laundry in the Middle District--and they don't want to risk having it uncovered by a real U.S. attorney?

* Would a real investigation of the Siegelman case focus heavily on the trial judge, Mark Fuller? Would that unleash a stench that Sessions and Shelby want no part of? For example, do Sessions and/or Shelby have business ties to Fuller that the senators would like to keep under wraps?

* What on earth is going on with the Obama Justice Department. Will it remain forever clueless, shiftless, and spineless?

* Alice Martin, former U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, claims in a recent article at mainjustice.com, that she was not pushed out by the Obama crowd. Could this be a rare instance where Alice Martin actually is telling the truth?

Why Are Threats Against Judges On the Rise?

We reported in February 2008 about a planned hit against a judge and attorney in south Alabama, a plot that was foiled when the perpetrators tried to hire an undercover police officer to carry out the job.

The problem of threats against judges, at both the federal and state levels, apparently has gotten worse since we filed that post. A recent Washington Post report found that threats against judges and prosecutors have increased so much that many are seeking 24-hour protection from armed U.S. marshals.

Many factors probably are contributing to this trend. But I suspect that rampant corruption in our courts over the past eight years or so--combined with information technology that allows parties to easily research legal issues and discover when they are being cheated--is contributing to it.

That's not to suggest that making threats against judges, or anyone else, is the right thing to do. But computers, blogs, Twitter, and other forms of technology make it more difficult to cover up corrupt activities--in courts, businesses, government offices, all environments. Judges and other scoundrels who act outside the law would be wise to keep in mind that they can be found out rather easily these days.

Anyone making threats against judges or other court officials should expect to be investigated. But if authorities really want to get at the root of the problem, they might want to check the behavior of judges themselves.

How bad is the problem? Consider these words from Washington Post reporter Jerry Malkon:

Many federal judges are altering their routes to work, installing security systems at home, shielding their addresses by paying bills at the courthouse or refraining from registering to vote. Some even pack weapons on the bench.

The problem has become so pronounced that a high-tech "threat management" center recently opened in Crystal City, where a staff of about 25 marshals and analysts monitor a 24-hour number for reporting threats, use sophisticated mapping software to track those being threatened and tap into a classified database linked to the FBI and CIA.

Malkon reports that threats and other forms of harassing communications against federal-court officials have doubled over the past six years. And officials cite a number of factors behind the increase:

The threats and other harassing communications against federal court personnel have more than doubled in the past six years, from 592 to 1,278, according to the U.S. Marshals Service. Worried federal officials blame disgruntled defendants whose anger is fueled by the Internet; terrorism and gang cases that bring more violent offenders into federal court; frustration at the economic crisis; and the rise of the "sovereign citizen" movement--a loose collection of tax protesters, white supremacists and others who don't respect federal authority.

The problem is not limited to federal courts, Malkon reports:

State court officials are seeing the same trend, although no numbers are available. "There's a higher level of anger, whether it's defendants or their families," said Timothy Fautsko, who coordinates security education for the National Center for State Courts in Williamsburg and said threats are coming from violent offenders along with divorce, probate and other civil litigants.

The story would not be complete without a star turn from a colorful Alabama judge. Malkon found just the guy:

Sibley Reynolds, a state court judge in Alabama who prosecutors said was threatened last year by the son of a defendant convicted of stealing about $3,000 from a humane shelter, packs the real thing--a Colt automatic pistol. He keeps it under his robe, in his waistband.

"I don't go anywhere without my security with me," Reynolds said.

Are authorities likely to get a grasp on the problem any time soon? I doubt it. Malkon's article indicates some officials remain clueless about what probably is behind at least a portion of the increase:

"We have to make sure that every judge and prosecutor can go to work every day and carry out the rule of law,'' said Michael Prout, assistant director of judicial security for the marshals, who have trained hundreds of police and deputies to better protect local court officials, an effort that began last year with Northern Virginia and Maryland officers.

"It's the core of our civil liberties,'' Prout said.

Prout apparently is blind to the fact that more judges than he would care to admit don't carry out the rule of law--they butcher it. Quite a few judges don't protect our civil liberties--they trash them.

I suspect that some threats--maybe a strong majority--come from litigants who were treated correctly under the law but did not like the outcome. But I suspect quite a few parties sense they have been cheated, use a computer or other technology to discover that indeed they were cheated, and become unhinged enough to threaten someone.

Here's something I know from firsthand experience: Corrupt judges are not a mere annoyance to the parties they cheat. Judges have the power to ruin people professionally, personally, financially--or some combination of all three. Just ask Don Siegelman or Paul Minor or Wes Teel or John Whitfield.

An alarming number of judges show signs that they do not respect the power they hold--or the parties who come before them. It should not come as a shock that some parties do not take kindly to being cheated, and possibly ruined, in court.

A lawyer friend of mine, someone who is unusually honest about the state of the modern judiciary, recently put the problem in perspective after reading about the Washington Post report:

It makes me wonder if, perhaps, one of the reasons that citizens are becoming more aggressive against judges is that those citizens are beginning to sense how truly corrupt a lot of judges are.

Of course, not every judge is dishonest and corrupt, but I've always said that if the public knew how corrupt the judicial system really was, they would 'take to the streets' (translated: there would be violence). And so I'm wondering if this increase in threats against judges is, in part, a function of the public becoming wiser about how corrupt some of these judges are.

Siegelman Comes Out Counterpunching Against Rove

We don't know details about Karl Rove's testimony last week before staff attorneys of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee. After all, "Turd Blossom's" eight-hour deposition was conducted behind closed doors.

But thanks to the reporting of Jason Leopold at The Public Record, we have a pretty good idea of what Rove said. And thanks to a press release from Don Siegelman, we know that the former Alabama governor landed several crisp e-counterpunches to Rove's chubby chin.

Leopold reports that Rove, in an interview on Fox News back in March, said he already has responded to questions about the Siegelman prosecution and posted answers on his Web site, Rove.com.

How did Rove manage to do that? He received written questions last July from Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), ranking minority member on the House Judiciary Committee. Without consulting committee chairman John Conyers, Smith submitted Rove's responses into the Congressional record.

In his written response to Smith's 14 questions, Rove stated:

"I have never communicated, either directly or indirectly, with Justice Department or Alabama officials about the investigation, indictment, potential prosecution, prosecution, conviction, or sentencing of Governor Siegelman, or about any other matter related to his case, nor have I asked any other individual to communicate about these matters on my behalf," Rove wrote. "I have never attempted, either directly or indirectly, to influence these matters."

Leopold reports that Rove responded to eight other questions with the exact same answer.

In a written statement released yesterday, Siegelman pounced on Rove's not-so subtle end run around the truth. First, the former governor notes that Rove did not answer the question that was put to him:

“That wasn’t the question. The question was, “have you talked to anyone about prosecuting Siegelman.

“Rove’s answer cleverly leaves open that he could have talked to his best friend, the U. S. Attorney’s husband, Bill Canary. In fact that is precisely what Dana Jill Simpson says in her affidavit and in her sworn testimony before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee. Nor does Rove deny talking directly to the U.S. Attorney herself, or to my opponent or his son or Rove’s then partner in Alabama, Kitty McCullough (AKA Kelly Kimbrough).

Here is another one of Rove's answers, regarding Republican whistleblower and Alabama attorney Jill Simpson:

ROVE: “I have never communicated, either directly or indirectly, with Simpson (Dana Jill Simpson) about the investigation, indictment, potential prosecution, prosecution, conviction, or sentencing of Governor Siegelman . . . "

The former governor was ready for that one, too:

Rove answers truthfully here because that was not the basis of the allegation: no one ever said he was on the phone with Dana Jill Simpson. She was on the phone with the husband of my prosecutor, Bill Canary, who announced to all on the conference call: “Stop worrying about Siegelman. I have talked to Karl and Karl has already got the Justice department pursuing Siegelman, and besides, my girls are going to take care of him.” (His girls having been defined as his wife, the U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama and Alice Martin, the U.S. Attorney from the Northern District. Both of whom initiated charges [against Siegelman] in rapid succession as the 2006 election neared).

It's easy to see why Rove wanted to answer questions in writing, without having to face pesky followups. It's also easy to see how Rove planned to hoodwink the House Judiciary Committee staff.

Was he able to pull it off? Time will tell. But it doesn't look like Siegelman plans to let Rove walk quietly into the good night.

Death by Chocolate: The Legal Aftermath

I must confess that after reading about the New Jersey man who died recently from falling into a vat of chocolate, my first reaction was to laugh out loud.

That's a horribly insensitive reaction, I know. And my only defense is that I live in a nation of "chocoholics." Heck, I consider Kit Kat Bars, Junior Mints, Raisinets, and Nestle Crunch Bars to be four of God's greatest inventions. And I probably wasn't the only American who read the New Jersey story and thought, "You know, when it's my turn to go, I wouldn't mind drowning in a vat of chocolate. It would be sort of poetic. Kind of like Homer Simpson choking on a donut."

After regathering my dignity enough to realize that there's nothing funny about someone dying in a workplace accident, I had this thought: I wonder if there is a legal angle to this story? Turns out there is.

First, here is what happened: A 29-year-old man was working at a cocoa factory in Camden, New Jersey, when he fell into an eight-foot tank for melting chocolate. Here's how the Camden Courier-Post describes the incident:

Vincent Smith II of Camden was working on a platform above an 8-foot chocolate-melting tank when he fell around 10:30 a.m. at Cocoa Services in East Camden.

A co-worker immediately hit an emergency shutoff switch and two other employees tried to pull Smith from the vat. However, the victim was fatally struck by a large paddle that mixes the chocolate, said Jason Laughlin, a spokesman for the Camden County Prosecutor's Office.

Firefighters removed Smith from the vat. He was pronounced dead at the scene at the plant in the 700 block of North 36th Street.

It sounds like Smith might have survived if he had not been struck by the paddle:

Smith and two other men were loading chunks of chocolate into the tank when he fell through an opening into the tank, Laughlin said. The tank heats the chocolate at temperatures up to 120 degrees.

"It appears to be an accident," Laughlin said. "This man unfortunately fell into this hole and passed away before anyone could rescue him."

Smith was a temporary worker at the factory, which melts down pure chocolate and sells the melted product to companies that sweeten it and make it into candy, Laughlin said.

What about the legal angle? We now have a report that the cocoa factory was operating illegally, without a license. A code enforcement director in Camden said the factory had been cited for not having a continued certificate of occupancy and a business license:

A spokesman for the company said its owner was trying to clear up the "misunderstanding" and that the city was aware of the business on North 36th Street.

"There wasn't ever any attempt to operate illegally," firm spokesman Kevin Feeley said. "The company believed it had all the records to operate legally."

Sounds like the company is doing some serious backtracking. Will legal actions grow out of this accident? I think you can bet on it.

Did Alabama Newspaper Defame a Key Figure in the Siegelman Case?

An Alabama Republican who played a prominent role in the Don Siegelman case claims The Birmingham News recently published defamatory material about him.

Gary White, a former Jefferson County commissioner, says the News published two items that indicated he stands convicted on corruption charges. In fact, White's conviction has been overturned by an appellate court, and the judgment was vacated.

Judy White, Gary's wife, demanded in an e-mail to Editor Tom Scarritt that the newspaper immediately retract and correct the material or face possible legal action. Judy White pointed out that, under the law, a vacated judgment places the parties "in the position of no trial having taken place at all."

The Whites voiced concerns about an article by columnist Joey Kennedy and a cartoon by Scott Stantis, both of which indicated that Gary White stood convicted of corruption-related crimes.

Judy White received the following e-mail reply from Scarritt:

We have considered your request, and we are removing Commissioner White's name from the online poll. Joey Kennedy is changing his blog entry to indicate that the commissioner awaits a new trial.

Scarritt made no mention of running a correction/retraction. And he made no mention of the Stantis cartoon.

How does Gary White figure in the Siegelman case? The Bush Justice Department went after White for allegedly taking bribes while serving on the Jefferson County Commission. But an affidavit from Judy White states that her husband was targeted only after he refused to give incriminating testimony against Siegelman.

Who led the case against Gary White? Alice Martin, former U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama. And who appears to have an extraordinarily cozy relationship with Alice Martin? The Birmingham News.

Maybe that's why the newspaper was so quick to assume that Gary White stood convicted.

Will the Whites proceed with a lawsuit against The Birmingham News? From here, it looks like they have pretty solid grounds for it.

We will stay tuned.

Trapped in the Justice Department's "Roach Motel"

Tamarah Grimes went to her employer and pointed out examples of waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement.

Was Grimes rewarded with a raise, a promotion? Nope. She received a pink slip and designation as a "risk to operational security."

Welcome to life in the U.S. Department of Justice. Why is the DOJ so dysfunctional? That question probably has many answers. But Scott Horton, legal-affairs contributor for Harper's magazine, points an accusing finger at the department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). He calls it an "embarrassing cesspool."

The ABA Journal goes even further in a recent piece, calling OPR the "Roach Motel"--the place where "cases check in, but they don't check out."

In theory, OPR is the Justice Department's "ethics cop," the office that is supposed to investigate messes like the one Grimes exposed at the Middle District of Alabama. OPR is supposed to crack down on wayward U.S. attorneys like Leura Canary in Montgomery, Alabama. But, as Grimes' termination illustrates, that's not how it works in real life.

To borrow a phrase from pop psychology, OPR has become a glorified enabler. Writes Horton:

In fact, OPR seems to have a double function. First, by engaging in infantile games of turf warfare, it effectively blocks the DOJ’s Inspector General from doing his job. Second, when purporting to conduct investigations of wrongdoing, it proceeds at a glacial place, rarely succeeds in uncovering any facts, and, even when it does, usually issues a soft tut-tut, almost never administering any serious disciplinary measures. The DOJ consistently holds its own lawyers to a far lower standard than it holds others. In effect, OPR has become a whitewash organ for DOJ that specializes in whistleblower intimidation and shoring up U.S. attorneys engaged in highly abusive, and sometimes criminal, practices.

That's tough stuff. And Horton doesn't stop there. He says things have gotten so bad at OPR that federal judges are increasingly taking matters into their own hands, punishing prosecutors themselves. And more judges are telling new attorney general Eric Holder that they want the cluelessness at OPR to cease.

The Grimes case indicates Holder has a lot of work to do in that regard. One problem, Horton reports, is that H. Marshall Jarret keeps showing up in the darnedest places.

Jarret was head of OPR when it conducted "investigations" into apparent misconduct in Alabama, resulting in little or no action. After complaints poured in about Jarret's performance at OPR, he was named director of the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys.

The theory behind this move? Apparently it was: "Let's take the incompetent guy and promote him." The Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys is the outfit that informed Grimes of her termination. Reports Horton:

The firing of a whistleblower for reasons obviously and directly connected to her highly credible disclosure of wrongdoing . . . is extremely troubling, and Jarrett’s involvement adds to the appearance of a conscious cover-up implemented in violation of the No Fear Act. Jarrett also headed OPR investigations into a series of allegations of prosecutorial misconduct involving Leura Canary and Alice Martin, all of which appear to have resulted in no action. I say “investigations,” but after many inquiries, I find no evidence that any investigation ever occurred, in any of these cases."

Is the Obama administration truly interested in restoring America's broken justice system? The evidence, so far, suggests that Holder & Co. are in no hurry to do much of anything. But if they ever do get serious, Horton has suggestion on where they can start the scouring process:

OPR remains the organ of phantom investigations. The roaches go in, but nothing ever comes out.

Was Fired Siegelman Whistleblower Really a Security Risk?

A whistleblower in the Don Siegelman case was fired from her job in the U.S. Department of Justice because she was considered an "unreasonable risk to operational security."

Scott Horton, of Harper's magazine, reports that the DOJ terminated Tamarah Grimes' security clearance as a prelude to firing her--and as an end run around the No Fear Act of 2002.
Is there anything in the public record to indicate Grimes was a security risk? No.

What does her firing say about the DOJ in July 2009? It appears to say that Karl Rove loyalists still have remarkable sway on justice matters, almost sixth months into the Barack Obama administration.

Horton reports that Terry Derden, of the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, formally denied that Grimes' dismissal was connected to her whistleblower status. And a DOJ spokesman provides the usual "we can't comment further on a personnel matter" quote. But Horton, an adjunct professor at Columbia University School of Law, doesn't seem to be buying it. He calls Derden's denial "pretty thin gruel." And after describing an after-hours meeting in a hotel bar, where the decision to fire Grimes apparently was made, Horton writes: "The appearance of an act of retaliation could not be stronger."

Meanwhile, the Grimes story is gaining national attention.

John Schwartz reports on the matter in today's edition of The New York Times. Schwartz notes that an internal Justice Department investigation and a review by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee came to very different conclusions about Grimes' allegations:

The department investigated Ms. Grimes’s accusations, and in its report last October said the Alabama prosecutors had not “violated any law, rule or regulation” or engaged in mismanagement. The report said the evidence “strongly supports” the positions taken by management in the dispute.

The House Judiciary Committee, however, released a report the next month criticizing the Justice Department report as incomplete and “one-sided.”

Farhan Dareda, of mainjustice.com, provides a solid overview of the Grimes case, noting a strong critique of the DOJ report from John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee:

The Justice Department’s investigation into these accusations concluded that Alabama prosecutors had not “violated any law, rule or regulation,” in this October 2008 report. The report went so far as to say that the evidence “strongly supports” the positions taken by the prosecutors. But then, three days after then-Sen. Barack Obama’s victory in the presidential election, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) responded with a letter to then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey criticizing the DOJ report as “one-sided” and urging him to revisit the allegations made by Grimes:

[W]e have recently learned that this issue and others raised by Ms. Grimes was referred by the Office of Special Counsel to your office for evaluation. In response, an initial report has been prepared by two Assistant United States Attorneys which essentially concludes that, despite the plain statement to the contrary in this email chain, no messages were actually sent by any members of the jury to the prosecution through the US Marshals.

We are troubled, however, that the investigators appear to have reached this conclusion without interviewing the US Marshals who supervised the Siegelman jury and who are described in the email as having been the conduit for jury messages to the prosecution. Nor do the investigators appear to have interviewed any member of the jury.

Conyers, Dareda reports, also included a warning about the importance of treating whistleblowers in a lawful manner:

It’s also worth noting that Conyers ended the letter by giving Grimes a huge thank you, and throwing in a footnote reminding Mukasey that you can’t just fire whistle-blowers:

We appreciate Ms. Grimes providing this information, which she apparently has previously presented to several executive branch offices. It is no easy thing to speak up in these circumstances, but we in Congress and all Americans depend on whistleblowers like Mr. Grimes taking action when they learn of troubling facts like those described above.

Any employee who has the authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve any personnel action, shall not, with respect to such authority– take or fail to take … a personnel action with respect to any employee … because of any disclosure of information … which the employee … reasonably believes evidences a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or gross mismanagement… an abuse of authority.

In an in-depth analysis at Huffington Post, Andrew Kreig notes the curious juxtaposition of the Grimes firing and Rove's recent testimony behind closed doors before staff members of the House Judiciary Committee.

Perhaps no state has been infected with the Rove mindset to such an extent as Alabama. And that Alice in Wonderland mindset is best on display in Montgomery and the Middle District of Alabama, where Grimes worked.

In "Roveland," the innocent become guilty, the legal becomes criminal (for Democrats and unloyal Republicans), and the dedicated employee becomes a "security risk."

Grimes became nationally known last November when Adam Zagorin, of Time magazine, broke a story about her allegations of misconduct by the prosecution team handling the case against Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy.

Zagorin's investigative piece indicates that Grimes filed her allegations through Congress and internal Justice Department channels. Here is a key paragraph:

The documents, obtained by TIME, include internal prosecution e-mails given to the Justice Department and Congress by a whistle-blower during the past 18 months. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which investigated the Siegelman case as part of a broader inquiry into alleged political interference in the hiring and firing of U.S. Attorneys by the Bush Justice Department, last week sent an eight-page letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey citing the new material.

It's unclear how Time obtained the documents. But it appears Zagorin, practicing that ancient art known as journalism, tracked them down through Conyers' letter to Mukasey. There is no indication that Grimes did anything improper.

So why is she now considered a security risk? Based on Kreig's reporting, it appears that Grimes might have been a risk to the professional security of Leura Canary, U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama.

Grimes tells Kreig that she took considerable care to raise her concerns in the proper manner:

In today's interview, Grimes said she tried her best to use legally protected channels to assure justice. "I am a Republican. I believe in the U.S. Constitution, and that what happened in Montgomery, Alabama with the Siegelman/Scrushy prosecution is a travesty of justice."

She said the prosecution's misconduct included contact with jurors during their deliberations without advising the defense, and pressuring two key witnesses to change their testimony. She said Canary continued supervision of the prosecution while publicly claiming that she was recused because of her husband's longtime political opposition to Siegelman.

"In July 2007, I filed whistleblower disclosures with several agencies," she said. "My thought was to get the word out to as many oversight agencies as possible.

Grimes describes how Canary ran the Middle District like a dysfunctional sorority house:

"When Leura Canary found out what I had done, she was livid. She called me into her office to threaten and intimidate me. It went downhill from there." Grimes said that she was repeatedly threatened with criminal prosecution on bogus charges of denying that she had made secret tape recordings, and then was placed on administrative leave. She was fired after writing a nine-page letter June 1 to Attorney General Eric Holder outlining prosecution misconduct against Siegelman.

"Selective prosecution is a tool that Leura Canary uses at will," said Grimes of Canary. "She has enjoyed a great deal of success thus far. No one has been able to overcome what she calls 'powerful friends' in Washington. My question is: Who is still pulling the strings almost six months into a new administration?"

Anyone who supports Barack Obama--and cares about justice--should be asking that same question.

Deception and Discrimination Continue at UAB

The trail of deceit and discrimination at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) seems to get longer by the day.

About three weeks ago, a federal jury in Birmingham found that UAB discriminated against a former medical resident from India, based on her Hindu religion. That is one of several cases involving alleged discrimination against international medical residents. And those could raise issues about federal funding at UAB, which generally is predicated on a commitment to nondiscriminatory practices. Much more on that in future posts.

Today, we learn that two UAB researchers have been barred from receiving federal funds after investigations revealed they had falsified animal-study results. Dr. Juan R. Contreras and Dr. Judith M. Thomas have been barred from receiving federal funds, and they no longer are employed at UAB.

This will not come as a surprise to Legal Schnauzer readers. We have written numerous posts about the culture of deceit that has come to permeate UAB and the University of Alabama Board of Trustees in recent years.

All of this hits close to home for us because I worked at UAB for 19 years before being unlawfully terminated in May 2008, and evidence strongly suggests it was largely because of the content of my blog, which has been critical of the Bush Justice Department and its handling of apparent political prosecutions--such as the case of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.

Age and gender discrimination, conspiracy, retaliation, wrongful termination, and defamation also appear to be present in my case, which currently is under investigation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). I intend to file a lawsuit against UAB (the University of Alabama Board of Trustees is the legal entity), along with a number of folks acting in their individual capacities, once that investigation is completed.

Wrongdoing at UAB goes way beyond anything that personally involves your humble blogger. Here's a sampler of sleaze from Birmingham's Southside:

* The UAB Health System cut 245 jobs, which came on the heels of reports that UAB had cheated the federal government out of approximately $600 million in a research scam that lasted at least 10 years;

* UAB apparently issued a false public statement after the departure of Health System CEO David Hoidal;

* UAB is beset with human-resources problems, including allegations that it tried to fudge numbers on a research study of female faculty members;

* Two UAB staff members, Dr. Thomas Spurlock and Dr. Francois Michel Blaudeau, are partners with Homewood attorney Rob Riley (son of Governor Bob Riley) in a company called Performance Group LLC. The company is the subject of allegations in federal court that it practices health-care fraud.

* A member of the UA Board of Trustees owns a company that was implicated in a massive insurance-fraud case in Pennsylvania.

We have only scratched the surface when it comes to sleaze at UAB, and we have many more posts in the works.

As for the recent discrimination case that went to trial, I had a front-row seat for that. The whole spectacle says a lot about the depths to which UAB has sunk, both in and outside the courtroom. It also raises serious questions about the integrity of our justice system. We will be reporting on all of that soon.

I'm hardly alone in being victimized by UAB. You soon will be meeting a number of other folks who have suffered the same fate.

Obama's Encounter With God

Conservative "humor" usually leaves us cold here at Legal Schnauzer. But a new one is making the rounds in right-wing circles, and we actually find it amusing. Here's how it goes:

Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama go to heaven.

God addresses Gore first. ''Al, what do you believe?"

"Well, I believe that I won that election, but that it was your will that I not serve," Gore says. "I've come to understand that now."

God thinks for a second, notes Gore's sincerity, and says: "Very good. Come and sit at my left."

God then addresses Clinton. "Bill, what do you believe?''

"I believe in forgiveness," Clinton says. "I've sinned, but I've never held a grudge against my fellow man, and I hope no grudges are held against me."

God thinks for a second, clearly impressed with Clinton's thoughtfulness, and says: "You are forgiven, my son. Come and sit at my right."

Then God addresses Obama. "Barack, what do you believe?"

Obama doesn't hesitate. "I believe," he says, "that you're sitting in my chair."

Justice Department Whistleblower Is Fired in Alabama

A U.S. Department of Justice whistleblower has been fired from her job after speaking out about wrongdoing in the Middle District of Alabama.

Tamarah Grimes, who served on the prosecution team in the case against former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy, received notice of her termination on June 9.

A legal aide in Montgomery, Alabama, Grimes first came to public attention last November after Adam Zagorin, of Time magazine, broke a story about her allegations of wrongdoing by the prosecution team in the Siegelman case.

Grimes provided documents to Justice Department watchdogs showing that Leura Canary, U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, had stayed on the Siegelman case long after she had supposedly recused herself. Grimes also provided evidence of improper contacts between jurors and members of the prosecution team.

More recently, attorneys for Scrushy had requested permission to interview Grimes about allegations of prosecutorial misconduct during the Siegelman/Scrushy case. And on June 1, Grimes submitted a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, providing more details about misconduct in the Siegelman case.

Roughly one week after those two events, Grimes received notice of her termination.

Terry Derden, from the DOJ's Executive Office for United States Attorneys, notified Grimes of her termination. The agency claims the firing was unrelated to her whistleblower actions, Grimes said. A press release from Grimes about her termination states:

In a letter sent to Ms. Grimes' attorney on June 9, 2009, the agency stated that the whistleblower disclosures were unrelated to her termination. Rather, on behalf of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, Mr. Derden alleges that Ms. Grimes's termination arose from a management decision made (in an) after-hours meeting in the lobby bar at the Embassy Suites Hotel in Montgomery, Alabama, during an active mediation more than 3 months after the agency learned of Ms. Grimes's whistleblower disclosures.

Grimes said her termination does not square with much of what she had been told as a DOJ employee:

"As a federal employee with a previously exemplary record, the decision to engage in protected activity and file whistleblower claims under the 'No Fear Act was a careful decision made of necessity and conscience. In consideration of necessity, as federal employees, we are continuously reminded of our duty to report waste, fraud, abuse and misconduct. We are assured that the U.S. Department of Justice is an Equal Employment Opportunity workplace. We are even offered 'safe conduits' for making EEO and whistleblower claims.

"It is my hope that any federal employee who may be considering a decision to engage in protected EEO or whistleblower activity under the 'No Fear Act' will learn from my example. In reality, there is much to fear from filing an EEO claim or a whistleblower claim under the 'No Fear Act,' and there are no 'safe conduits' for making such claims. Ultimately there is little value in the performance of your duty as a federal employee, or even as a loyal citizen of the United States, if the result is loss of your security clearance and termination of your federal employment. The knowledge that you have admirably performed your duties as a federal employee cannot pay the mortgage or buy food for your family when you are rewarded with whistleblower retaliation."

Grimes says she is the second employee to be terminated in the Middle District of Alabama for opposing unlawful conduct in the workplace. A third employee, she says, awaits her fate after seeking relief from violence in the workplace.

Can someone act on behalf of DOJ employees who report wrongdoing? That, Grimes says, probably will be up to Attorney General Eric Holder:

"My hope remains with the Attorney General of the United States. I remain confident that Mr. Holder will provide assistance to the employees of the United States Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Alabama, to wrongfully terminated former employees of the U.S. Attorney's Office, and to citizens of the United States within the Middle District of Alabama whose interests have not been well served under the Canary administration."