Cleaning Up Our Courts?

A Birmingham lawyer who is the president-elect of the American Bar Association is proposing changes that would do away with judicial elections and make merit-based appointments the national norm.

H. Thomas Wells Jr., a lawyer in the Birmingham office of Maynard Cooper & Gale PC, made his proposal in an op-ed piece in today's issue of The Birmingham News.

Wells is on the right track. He notes that the Alabama State Bar is seeking to end partisan elections for Supreme Court and appellate judges, and instead use a merit-based appointment process. Wells intends to push for that proposal in the state and help take it nationwide.

Wells' ideas are similar to those recently expressed by Sue Bell Cobb, chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court and the only Democrat on either the Supreme Court or the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals.

What would Wells like to see happen? A nine-member Judicial Nominating Commission would identify top candidates, focusing on ability and impartiality (wow, what a concept!). The governor would make selections from that list. Once appointed, judges would face periodic "retention" elections, in which voters would decide whether to keep them.

Such systems are used for all judges in 15 states and for some judges in 18 others. At the other end, 13 states use nonpartisan elections, and eight states (including Alabama) use partisan elections to elect Supreme Court judges.

Wells and Cobb seem to be well-meaning folks of integrity. But they also are part of the legal establishment, and therefore they probably do not want to shake things up too much. Your humble Legal Schnauzer most definitely is not part of the legal establishment and would have no problem shaking things up a whole bunch.

Our justice system, both in Alabama and across the country, does not need a nip here and a tuck there. It needs a radical sleazectomy. And the Schnauzer stands ready, scalpel in paws, ready to help get the procedure under way.

We will go into the Schnauzer's proposals in detail down the road. But a few quick ideas for now:

* Wells' idea for merit appointment of appellate judges doesn't go nearly far enough. The sleaze starts in the trial courts, and those positions need merit appointment, too.

* Bar associations should push for reform that goes beyond judicial selection. Wherever there is an unethical judge, you can rest assured an unethical attorney is nearby. I'm not sure about other bar associations, but the Alabama State Bar is way too easy on slimebag lawyers. Just consider my own situation: The fact that someone like William E. Swatek still has a bar card--with his almost 30-year record of ethical violations--is a disgrace to the profession. Get rid of the vermin--permanently.

* The American Bar Association should call for judicial oversight commissions with some real bite. Such organizations, including the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission, are notoriously worthless. Our courts will never be honest until there are oversight groups in place that lawyers and judges truly fear.

* The above will never happen as long as the law remains a self-regulated profession. That must change. Normal citizens need to be heavily represented on all oversight groups.

Much more on all of this coming down the road.

A Smackdown for Siegelman Judge

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller of Montgomery to promptly rule on former Governor Don Siegelman's request that he be released from prison while he appeals convictions on corruption charges.

The circuit court said Fuller should consider and rule on Siegelman's request in an "expeditious" manner and that Fuller's order "should explain the reasons" for whatever he decides.

The circuit court seems to be saying this to Fuller: "Do your damn job or we'll do it for you, pronto."

Siegelman attorney David McDonald seems to interpret the order the same way. "It's great news for Governor Siegelman because what it means is , we actually have to have a consideration on the actual merits of the bond pending appeal," McDonald said.

Glynn Wilson of Locust Fork World News and Journal has an interesting take on the Siegelman decision, plus a copy of the court document.

The 11th Circuit ruling is one small step in unmasking Fuller for what he is--a biased, lazy Republican appointee who never should have been in charge of the Siegelman/Richard Scrushy case. And Fuller is hardly the only GOP slimeball in positions of authority in Alabama. Our state courts are infested with them, like roaches, and Legal Schnauzer will be unmasking them in the weeks and months ahead.

Mississippi Churning, Part XI

Was the Paul Minor case in Mississippi a political hit by the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ), similar to the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman? Does the Bush DOJ target certain individuals because they support Democratic causes and candidates?

Evidence in the Minor case strongly suggests that the answer to both questions is yes.

Consider the case of Oliver Diaz, a justice on the Mississippi Supreme Court. Diaz is a Republican, although he has enjoyed bipartisan support and was appointed to the bench by former Governor Ronnie Musgrove, a Democrat. Diaz was a longtime friend of attorney Paul Minor, a major supporter of Democratic candidates, and received loans guaranteed by Minor.

Diaz wound up being indicted by the federal government on corruption charges and eventually was acquitted, both in the initial corruption trial and a subsequent tax-evasion trial. Fellow defendants Minor and former judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield were convicted in a second corruption trial.

Interestingly, Diaz was the only member of the Mississippi Supreme Court to be indicted, but he was not the only justice to have a loan guaranteed by Minor.

Former Chief Justice Ed Pittman had Minor guarantee a $40,000 campaign loan from Peoples Bank in Biloxi when Pittman ran for re-election in 1996. Records show that Pittman's campaign repaid half of the $40,000 plus interest, but there is no indication any other payments were made, leaving Minor to repay the rest.

After receiving the loan guarantee from Minor in 1996, Pittman heard three cases involving Minor's clients. He ruled in favor of those clients in each case, although in one of those cases he significantly reduced damages to Minor's client.

In the 2001 Accu-Fab decision covered in our previous post, Pittman wrote a 5-3 decision affirming a $2-million jury verdict given Minor's client in a wrongful-death case. And in the 2003 Archie Marks decision, Pittman joined four justices in affirming liability but reducing damages from $3.6 million to $1.6 million.

Diaz, who joined the high court in 2000, did not take part in either of those decisions, evidently feeling that loan guarantees from Minor might call his impartiality into question.

The bottom line? Pittman received a loan guarantee from Minor, ruled in Minor's favor on three cases, and was not indicted. Diaz received a loan guarantee from Minor, recused himself from Minor's cases, and was indicted.

Go figure.

Why was Diaz indicted while Pittman was not? Was there something in Pittman's background that caused the Bush Justice Department to lay off of him?

Robert McDuff, Diaz's attorney, had this to say on the matter: "There's probably not an elected judge in America who didn't receive campaign contributions or loans from attorneys. That does not violate federal law. What violates federal law is if the judge rules differently because of the contribution than he otherwise would have.

"I am not surprised that Chief Justice Pittman wasn't charged since I don't think he violated federal law. But Justice Diaz didn't violate federal law either, and I'm surprised he was indicted, particularly since he took the extra step of withdrawing whenever Paul Minor had a case before the Supreme Court."

Is it possible this prosecution was driven by politics more than federal law?

Mississippi Churning, Part X

Let's take a look at another lawsuit the government cited in its case against Mississippi Supreme Court justice Oliver Diaz.

The Paul Minor case involved an attorney and three judges from the Mississippi Gulf Coast, so it's not surprising that some of the underlying lawsuits involve oil rigs, ships, barges, and such.

Accu-Fab v. Richard Ladner, 778 So. 2d 766 (2001) was one such case. Keep in mind that the Accu-Fab case was central to the government's corruption case against Diaz.

One absurdity strikes even the casual observer right off the bat. Diaz did not participate in hearing the case. He recused himself, evidently because Paul Minor represented the heirs of Richard Ladner and Minor had helped secure loans for Diaz. Evidently thinking this could call his impartiality into question, Diaz did not participate. And apparently no evidence was presented that Diaz sought to influence the other justices.

So what was the government thinking by using Accu-Fab in an attempt to show that Diaz acted corruptly? One can only wonder. But even if Diaz had participated, it would be hard to see where the case was wrongly decided, and that's why it's worth our while to check out Accu-Fab. (Plus, I just find these sea-related cases fascinating; guess that comes from watching Lloyd Bridges in Sea Hunt as a kid.)

Ladner was working as a subcontractor's employee on the roof of a casino barge when he fell through a hole in the roof and later died from his injuries. A jury awarded his heirs $2 million in damages against the general contractor and another of its subcontractors. The Mississippi Court of Appeals first reversed and then affirmed the lower-court ruling. The contractors appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court, which also upheld the ruling.

Several contractors and subcontractors were involved, which makes things complicated. But here's the gist: A subcontractor was hired to construct the stairwells and stringers on the barge and had requested that the general contractor not install roof decking until the stairs had been installed. Due to time constraints, the general contractor denied the request and went ahead with the roof decking. The subcontractor received permission to cut a hole in the roof in order to facilitate installation of the stairway.

The hole was cut on a Saturday, and the job was supposed to be completed by the end of the weekend. But the prefabricated stairway did not fit properly, so the subcontractor could not complete installation and took the stairway back to its shop for refabrication. Neither the subcontrator nor the contractor placed any warning signs or barricades around the hole. They did nothing to cover the hole in the roof.

On the following Monday morning, Ladner (an iron worker) fell through the hole in the roof and later died of his injuries. Ladner's heirs sued, seeking compensation for his death.

There was little question of liability, and the case mostly involved the contractor and various subcontractors trying to blame one another. The jury wound up attributing 70 percent fault to the contractor, 25 percent to the subcontractor, and 5 percent to Ladner.

An interesting side note: When Ladner was taken to the hospital, a nurse mistakenly thought he was an employee of the contractor and ordered a drug test. It came back positive, and a marijuana cigarette was found in Ladner's pocket at the time of the fall. The trial court excluded the drug evidence because there was no foundation showing that Ladner was actually impaired at the time of the fall. The Supreme Court affirmed on this and all other counts.

Evidence of negligence in Accu-Fab was overwhelming, so even if Diaz had participated in the case, it's hard to imagine how the government hoped to prove corruption based on this case.

The weakness of the case against Diaz borders on the absurd. And we have shown that the cases against attorney Paul Minor and judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield also do not hold up well under scrutiny.

But those are not the only factors that raise questions about the government's prosecution in Mississippi. Was this a "political hit," similar to what appears to have happened with the Don Siegelman case in Alabama? Were the Minor defendants targeted by a Republican-led justice department not because they were corrupt but because they had Democratic leanings? Will Congress include this case in its investigation into selective prosecution by the Bush Justice Department?

We will turn our attention soon to some other interesting questions raised by the Paul Minor case.

Mississippi Churning, Part IX

Perhaps nothing raises questions about the Paul Minor prosecution as much as the corruption case against Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz.

Diaz joined judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield, along with attorney Minor, as defendants in the first trial, which took place in 2005. Diaz was acquitted on all counts, and was acquitted in a subsequent trial on tax-evasion charges. The jury in the first corruption trial acquitted the other three defendants on some charges and failed to reach unanimous verdicts on others, leading to a retrial earlier this year. The three defendants were found guilty on all charges in the retrial.

As we've noted in recent posts, the government's cases against Minor, Teel, and Whitfield do not hold up well under close scrutiny. But the case against Diaz borders on the absurd.

For one, Diaz did not participate in some of the Supreme Court rulings that were at the heart of the government's case. He recused himself from a number of cases involving Minor's clients, and there was no evidence that he attempted to persuade other members of the court to vote Minor's way.

And even in a case where Diaz did participate, the lawsuit at the heart of the government's case against him offers almost no evidence of corruption. In other words, evidence strongly suggests that the court's rulings were correct, regardless of loans Minor had arranged for Diaz (which were allowed under Mississippi law).

Let's take a closer look at one case. In Rex Armistead v. Bill Minor, a law-enforcement officer sued a newspaper columnist for defamation. Columnist Bill Minor, Paul Minor's father, writes a column called "Eyes on Mississippi" that is published in newspapers across the state. Here is a good summary of the case.

In April 1998, Bill Minor wrote a column that was sparked by a story in The Memphis Commercial Appeal about Rex Armistead's service as a paid investigator for the "Arkansas Project," an effort by American Spectator magazine to develop exposes about President Bill Clinton.

Minor's column recounted Armistead's activities dating to the 1960s. Minor described Armistead's "odoriferous background in Mississippi, ranging all the way from head-bashing of black civil-rights workers to concocting a bizarre homosexual scandal in an attempt to defeat a gubernatorial candidate."

As a public figure, Armistead had to show that Bill Minor acted with actual malice, meaning the columnist knew the published statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. Actual malice has long proved to be an extremely difficult standard for public figures to reach in defamation cases, and the Supreme Court (including Diaz) ruled 8-0 that the trial court correctly dismissed Armistead's case.

The Supreme Court found that Bill Minor's column was substantially true and was supported by information from numerous other publications. "While it may be evident that Minor does not hold Armistead in high regard, such feelings do not amount to actual malice," Justice James W. Smith Jr. wrote.

Smith went on to write: "As the United States Supreme Court has noted, 'minor inaccuracies do not amount to falsity so long as the substance, the gist, the sting, of the libelous charge can be justified.' Put another way, the statement is not considered false unless it 'would have a different effect on the mind of the reader from that which the pleaded truth would have produced.' Masson v. New Yorker Magazine Inc. 501 U.S. 517."

To make the government's case against Diaz even weaker, Paul Minor did not even serve as an active attorney in his father's case.

Let's take a look at another lawsuit the government cited in prosecuting Diaz. And this one, like the Bill Minor case, adds to the evidence that the case against Diaz was extraordinarily weak.

The careful reader might ask him or herself: If the government's case was this weak against Diaz, was it really substantially stronger against the other three defendants? Does the weakness of the case against Diaz call into question the entire prosecution? Was this a "political hit," similar to what appears to have happened in the Don Siegelman prosecution in Alabama?

Mississippi Churning, Part VIII

The second lawsuit at the heart of the government's case against attorney Paul Minor and two Mississippi judges was Diamond Offshore Management Company v. Archie Marks.

This is the kind of case that makes me think I should consider going to law school. The facts and the law are very interesting, even if you don't consider the broader implications.

And by broader implications, I mean the possibility that the Minor prosecution was a "political hit," similar to the Don Siegelman prosecution in Alabama and part of a larger Bush administration scheme to attack trial lawyers who were sources of funds for Democratic candidates.

The Archie Marks case adds to the evidence that the Minor case was wrongly decided. But on its own, the Marks case is fascinating stuff. So let's give it a close look.

By the way, I was able to find little information on The Peoples Bank case because it was settled. There were no appellate rulings. The Marks case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Mississippi and can be readily found if you have access to a service such as Lexis-Nexis or Westlaw. Here is a summary of the case.

Archie Marks was employed by Diamond Offshore as a roustabout on its vessel, the Ocean Nugget. In April 1998, Marks injured his back while carrying a bucket of water up some stairs. Marks subsequently filed suit against Diamond and others, claiming breach of contract, negligence, and maintaining an unseaworthy vessel in violation of general maritime law.

Paul Minor represented Marks, and in June 2000, the case went to a bench trial before Circuit Judge John Whitfield.

According to the government indictment, Minor had arranged two loans for Whitfield totaling about $140,000. In July 2000, Whitfield entered a $3.75 million judgment in favor Marks, Minor's client. The Supreme Court of Mississippi upheld Whitfield's finding on liability, but reduced the damages to $1.64 million.

After Minor and Whitfield were convicted on corruption charges, the Supreme Court of Mississippi issued a decision on April 26, 2007, withdrawing its earlier opinion, vacating the trial-court judgment, and remanding the case for a new trial.

A layperson, at first glance, might consider the verdict in favor of Marks to have been tainted. After all, Minor apparently did arrange loans for Judge Whitfield, who then ruled in favor of Minor's client. The casual observer might look at it as a cut-and-dried example of bribery.

But when you study the law, and look closely at the facts of the Marks case, at least one layperson (your humble Legal Schnauzer) has concluded that Judge Whitfield's ruling was largely correct. And it certainly appears that Marks could not support a finding of bribery and honest-services mail fraud against Minor and Whitfield.

Why would I, of all people, come to this conclusion? After all, this blog started mainly because I was the victim of corrupt lawyers and judges in Alabama. But my interest goes beyond my case to our justice system in general.

My experience in Alabama courts has caused me to work up what I hope is an appropriate and "healthy" contempt for those who would abuse our justice system. And while my initial instinct might have been to consider Minor and Whitfield a couple of scoundrels, I came to a different conclusion after taking a closer look.

Here's why I think they acted within the law:

* The Ocean Nugget is a "jack-up rig" that performs oil-drilling operations in the Gulf of Mexico, off the shore of Louisiana. Marks was assigned to clean the upper pipe rack deck in preparation for moving the vessel. In order to do this, Marks had to fill a five-gallon mop bucket with water from faucets on the main deck, located one deck below the area he was to clean. Due to the size of the upper deck, this required Marks to make repeated trips up and down the stairs to get fresh buckets of water. After approximately seven trips up the stairs with a bucket of water, Marks felt a sudden pain in his back and legs. He completed his shift, but was unable to get out of bed for his next shift and was taken ashore for medical treatment. Marks returned to his home in Gulfport, MS, to recuperate under a conservative regimen of steroid injections and physical therapy. After Marks failed to improve, doctors recommended back surgery, which was performed in July 1998. About six months after the surgery, the surgeon concluded that Marks had reached maximum medical improvement and had experienced 25 percent total body loss pursuant to American Medical Association guidelines. The doctor said Marks could no longer perform his duties as a roustabout.

* A vocational expert at trial testified that Marks' reading, spelling, and math abilities were at or below a first-grade level. Marks' previous work history had entailed only heavy manual unskilled labor. The expert testified that, based on Marks work history and cognitive deficits, the injury had caused him to be permanently and totally disabled. Diamond presented an expert stating that Marks was capable of working an eight-hour day and identified five available local jobs he could perform. The trial court discounted the testimony of Diamond's expert because she had never met Marks and had never performed any tests on him.

* Why was Archie Marks forced to repeatedly carry buckets of water up and down stairs? There was no water available on the upper deck because the vessel's faucets on that level were defective. Diamond's own installation manager testified that Marks should not have been required, or allowed, to carry a five-gallon bucket of water up and down stairs. Also, Marks' supervisor, who was responsible for the safe-work practices of his crew, was unable to read and was unable to convey the text of safety manuals to his crew.

* The Supreme Court of Mississippi concluded: "As the record clearly reveals, even under the standard of ordinary prudence under the circumstances, there is substantial evidence that Diamond was negligent and that its negligence was the proximate cause of Marks' injury."

* The Supreme Court also noted the special provisions of the Jones Act, which provides a cause of action for seamen injured in the course of their employment by their employer's negligence. "The seaman, while on the vessel, is subject to the rigorous discipline of the sea and has little opportunity to appeal to the protection from abuse of power which the law makes readily available to the landsman. His complaints to superior officers of unsafe working conditions not infrequently provoke harsh treatment. He cannot leave the vessel while at sea. . . . In the performance of duty he is often under the necessity of making quick decisions with little opportunity or capacity to appraise the relative safety or alternative courses of action." In other words, maritime employers have a special duty to protect their vulnerable employees. And the Supreme Court agreed with Whitfield that Diamond had failed to live up to this duty.

* As to the issue of damages, the Supreme Court stated: "We concede that the trial court had ample material in the record to justify a high award of damages." The Supreme Court, though, did reduce the damage award by $2 million, to $1.64 million.

In summary, the Mississippi Supreme Court agreed with Whitfield that there was overwhelming evidence of negligence on the part of Diamond. It agreed that Whitfield had ample evidence to justify a high award of damages. And as we noted earlier, the loans Minor arranged for Whitfield were allowed under Mississippi law.

If Whitfield's rulings were properly grounded in fact and law, and the Mississippi Supreme Court found that they were, the Marks case cannot support a finding of bribery or honest-services mail fraud against Whitfield and Minor.

And yet, Whitfield currently is in prison because a jury found that he handled this case corruptly. And Minor is in prison because a jury found that he caused Whitfield to handle the case corruptly.

The facts and the law of the Marks case simply do not support a prosecution, much less a conviction, on corruption charges. And neither do the facts and the law of The Peoples Bank case.

That's why I look for Congressional investigators to focus heavy attention on Mississippi, as well as Alabama, in their scrutiny of the Bush Justice Department.

Mississippi Churning, Part VII

Let's return to our analysis of the Paul Minor case in Mississippi.

We have noted that the Minor case has important connections to the Don Siegelman prosecution in Alabama, the broader Bush Department of Justice (DOJ) scandal, and my own Legal Schnauzer case.

Thanks to Scott Horton, of Harper's, we now know that there might have been particularly sinister motives behind the Minor prosecution. Horton reported on Saturday that his sources are telling him that the Bush administration devised a scheme in late 2001 or early 2002 to target wealthy trial lawyers who are sources of campaign funding for Democratic candidates. Horton's sources say at least five raids have been conducted on law offices around the country, seeking financial data and other information that could be used in criminal prosecutions. The idea? To dry up sources of Democratic funding.

Minor certainly fits the profile of a wealthy trial lawyer who was generous with his funding of Democratic candidates. And if the scheme Horton describes is proven, it might turn out that Minor was one of its first targets.

In posts last week, we described the applicable law in the Minor case and noted strong evidence to suggest the case was wrongly decided and might have been a "political hit" similar to the Siegelman prosecution in Alabama. We particularly noted strange rulings and jury instructions by Judge Henry Wingate (a Republican appointee) that do not appear to square with case law.

Now we look at the two lawsuits that were at the heart of the government's case against Minor and Judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield. The government's case claimed that Minor provided a series of loans to the judges in exchange for favorable rulings on cases he had before them. The primary charges against the defendants were federal funds bribery (18 U.S. Code 666) and honest-services mail fraud (18 U.S. Code 1346), and they were found guilty on all counts.

We noted earlier that the key to a bribery and honest-services mail fraud conviction is a finding that acts were taken with knowledge that they were unlawful, depriving citizens of the judges' honest services. The central question is this: Did the judges actually make unlawful rulings, rulings that were not supported by the facts and the law?

The first lawsuit in the government's case was The Peoples Bank v. USF & G. Minor, representing The Peoples Bank of Biloxi, MS, filed the lawsuit on August 25, 1998. I don't have a lot information about the specific issues involved in the case. But something tells me it involved banking and insurance. (You've got to get up early to sneak one past the Legal Schnauzer.)

For our purposes, we don't need to know a lot about the issues in the case. We do know that on October 16, 2000, Judge Wes Teel ruled in favor of Minor's client, The Peoples Bank, on a discovery issue. USF & G had claimed that certain information was privileged and should not be produced in discovery.

In December 2001, Teel ruled in favor of The Peoples Bank on the issue of liability. About three days after the ruling, the parties held a settlement conference, and USF & G agreed to pay $1.5 million to settle the case. The government alleged that Minor received approximately $500,000 in attorney's fees.

As I've noted previously, I was not present at the trial. But even the government's indictment does not provide any information showing that Teel's rulings were contrary to law. It does not state the nature of the privilege claim that USF & G made, but even a pseudo-lawyer such as myself knows that judges have great leeway in ruling on discovery matters. Information that might not be admissible at trial still is discoverable. Privileged information is not discoverable, but I see no information indicating that Teel's ruling was incorrect.

And there is no indication that Teel's ruling on liability was contrary to law. As I've noted earlier, it would not be unlawful for Teel to rule in Minor's favor if the law and the facts indicated he should rule in Minor's favor. And the loans Minor provided to Teel were allowed under Mississippi law. (Although you could count me among those who think such loans, gifts, etc. should not be allowed.)

Several apparent facts make this seem like a weak case for the government to base its corruption charges. If attorneys for USF & G felt Judge Teel was prejudiced against them and was ruling contrary to law, they had several steps they could have taken:

* They could have filed an interlocutory appeal under Rule 5 of the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure.

* They could have filed a writ of mandamus under Rule 21 of the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure.

* They could have filed a motion seeking Judge Teel's recusal and appointment of a new judge.

If none of that worked, they could have contacted journalists in the business press and alerted them to wrongdoing in Mississippi courts. I suspect business journalists pay attention when representatives of USF & G call.

I see no indication that the attorneys for USF & G took any of these steps, which makes me think they did not see Judge Teel's rulings as being ungrounded in law.

Perhaps the most important point regarding The Peoples Bank case is this: Teel made no final ruling in the case. USF & G chose to settle, but there was nothing to keep the company from moving forward and taking the case to trial.

The government's decision to charge Teel and Minor with corruption offenses on a case where Teel did not even make a final ruling seems highly questionable.

The Briarwood Christian Connection

We will go into considerable detail later about the role Briarwood Presbyterian Church apparently played in my legal travails. For now let's chew on a few possibilities related to Briarwood.

I suspect my unruly neighbor, a guy named Mike McGarity, might have had grounds for a legitimate lawsuit against Briarwood. Why do I think this? The previous owner of the house next door to me was Fred Yancey, the highly successful football coach at Briarwood Christian School, a ministry of Briarwood Church. Yancey's former players include Simeon and Tim Castille and Charles Hoke at Alabama, Andrew McCain at Auburn, and Joe Craddock at Middle Tennessee State. Briarwood used to be terrible in football. But when Yancey came on board, some serious talent started showing up.

The Lions started winning state championships, and I have a feeling the Christians enjoyed that. I think they were seriously determined to see to it that Yancey and his talented players stuck around.

In December 1998, Yancey moved under mysterious circumstances (no for-sale sign in the yard, no ad in the paper, apparently no MLS listing) and wound up living at a house on the Briarwood campus, evidently free of charge. Sweet deal for Fred Yancey; not such a sweet deal for me, his former neighbor.

The buyer of Yancey's house, and my new next-door neighbor, was Mike McGarity.

Evidence suggests that Briarwood played a major role in the sale and purchase of Yancey's house, the transaction that caused me to wind up with Mike McGarity (and his substantial criminal record) as my next-door neighbor. Evidence also suggests that the transaction was not handled properly, allowing McGarity to build a fence on my yard, essentially stealing 300-400 square feet of my property. And finally, evidence suggests that Mike McGarity bought a house with some possible structural problems. I know for a fact that the house has had problems with water coming in the basement.

Much more on Briarwood coming down the road. But these are some issues to chew on.

Teflon Bob Feels the Heat

Alabama Governor Bob Riley evidently is feeling some heat from a lawsuit filed by Alabama insurance executive John W. Goff.

Scott Horton, of Harper's, reports on the lawsuit and says some tough questions in Goff's interrogatories could lead to answers about Riley's ties to disgraced GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Goff alleges that Riley, former Lt. Gov. Steve Windom, and others conspired to destroy his workman's compensation insurance business.

Will Goff's lawsuit finally cause something to stick to Teflon Bob? Stay tuned. Horton reports that the governor is highly agitated about the case and is asking for help in making it "go away".

In another post, Horton comments on the machinations of Alabama's major news outlets and their intriguing effort to heap slime on Democrats and ignore Republican sleaze. To the Legal Schnauzer's great delight, Horton calls out Victor Hanson of The Birmingham News and hints that Hanson is behind efforts to cover up GOP wrongdoing.

Not sure if Horton is referring to Victor Hanson III, the current publisher of the News, or his father, Victor Hanson II, who is retired but probably remains a major voice in the paper's coverage. My guess is he's talking about Victor II rather than "three Is" (as News staffers call him).

I don't know much about Victor III, but my guess is that Victor II is the guy pulling the ideological strings at the paper. And Victor II is a member of Briarwood Presbyterian Church, a large, wealthy and extremely conservative congregation in Birmingham's suburbs.

As I've noted several times, I strongly suspect that Briarwood Presbyterian Church, and its private Christian school, are involved in the legal problem that has caused me so much grief. And I suspect that's why the News has gone out of its way to make sure nothing about my case reaches print.

But who needs their print? You can read all about it here at Legal Schnauzer. And speaking of Briarwood, let's examine the church's footprint on my legal woes.

Bits and Pieces for $60, Alex

Rapid Troy Fires Back
As expected, Alabama Attorney General Troy King is still firing verbal volleys over the commutation of LaSamuel Gamble's death sentence in a Shelby County murder case. "No more standing with criminals. No more standing against victims," King told the audience at a rally commemorating homicide victims.

I'm not a particularly big fan of Troy King, but he has a point, at least when it comes to Shelby County. I've been the victim of crime twice in Shelby County, and both times the office of District Attorney Robby Owens handled it horribly. In the most recent instance, a felony assault, Owens' staff insists it was a misdemeanor, and Owens himself has refused to respond to my letter asking him to prosecute the case correctly under the law.

I will be posting much more soon about my experience as a felony-assault victim in Shelby County, and the way Robby Owens' office has mishandled the case.


More Heat for Shelby DA
Evidently I'm not alone in my concerns about the Shelby County DA's office. Today's Birmingham News includes a most interesting letter to the editor. It is titled "Owens' office warrants scrutiny" and is written by G.E. Johnson of Childersburg, AL.

Johnson says he was the victim of a violent crime in 2003 in Shelby County. Johnson says the offender in his case got off easy because a year earlier, in his role as a private investigator, Johnson had uncovered evidence in a high-profile murder trial that helped his client win his case. Evidently that ticked off the powers that be in Shelby County, and when Johnson became a victim, the offender was allowed to plead to the lesser of three offenses and did not have to answer for his actions in court.

Mr. Johnson's letter, of course, presents one side of things. But based on my own experience, I certainly don't doubt that such politics could take place in Shelby County, even in a case involving violent crime.


What's with Rapid Troy?
I've referred to Alabama Attorney General Troy King as "Rapid Troy the AG Boy," and I realized that maybe I need to explain that little cultural allusion.

My wife was reading one of my posts the other night and asked, "Don't you mean Rabid Troy?"

Poor girl. She grew up on a musical diet of mostly R&B and disco. (She even has the complete Village People collection; not sure many people could, or would want to, claim that distinction.) I grew up on what I call "white guy" rock and pop (Eagles, Fleetwood Mac, CCR, etc.), with some folkies and 70s singer-songwriter types thrown in. In the latter category one of my favorites was the late, great Jim Croce.

One of Croce's tunes from the early 70s was "Rapid Roy the Stock Car Boy." It wasn't one of his big hits, but it was one of those nifty slice-of-life songs for which Croce was known ("Bad, Bad Leroy Brown," "You Don't Mess Around With Jim," etc.)

Anyway, that's where the "Rapid Troy" reference comes from. And it seems appropriate because, as you can tell from the lyrics, "Rapid Roy" has a reference to Alabama. Croce did at least one other great Alabama song that I'm aware of, "Alabama Rain." You can see the lyrics to that song here.

One other note about Jim Croce, who died in a plane crash in the 70s. I had the good fortune to visit San Diego a couple of years ago and was delighted to discover the restaurant, Croce's, which was started by Jim's widow, Ingrid. The restaurant is in San Diego's wonderful Gaslamp District, and features both good food and neat memorabilia. Definitely worth a visit if you are ever in San Diego, which is one of America's great cities. The new baseball stadium is terrific, too, and it's just off the Gaslamp District.

Evil and the GOP

Call me alarmist, but I don't think it's too early to attach the label "evil" to the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ).

That thought arises after reading a fascinating, and truly frightening, post from Scott Horton, of Harper's. Horton's sources tell him that the Bushies developed a scheme in late 2001 and early 2002 to target certain trial lawyers who were the sources of funds for Democratic candidates. This plan was hatched with the thought that two trial lawyers, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, were Bush's most likely challengers in 2004.

The scheme involved raids of law offices, seizing financial records and looking for anything that could be used in criminal prosecutions. The goal? To dry up major sources of funds for Democratic candidates.

According to Horton's sources, at least five such raids are known to have occurred, perhaps the most prominent in Michigan and Los Angeles.

One must wonder if Mississippi attorney Paul Minor was one of the first targets of this plan. Minor and two former Mississippi judges have been convicted on various corruption charges and sentenced to combined sentences of more than 25 years.

In recent days here at Legal Schnauzer, we have focused on the Minor case, pointing out what appear to be serious irregularities in the handling of the case. We will continue our analysis of the case very soon.

Our interest in the Minor case was driven by its connections to the Don Siegelman prosecution in Alabama, the larger DOJ scandal, and my own case involving clear judicial corruption by Republican judges in Alabama (which has gone ignored by the Bushies).

Thanks to Scott Horton, we now know that all of this may have been driven by a scheme that is more insidious than anything I could have imagined.

The idea seems to be this: If you can't beat someone in the arena of ideas, if you can't beat them based on the law and the facts, try to ruin them financially. Now that I think of it, my Legal Schnauzer case seems like a mini-example of just that philosophy.

You might recall this earlier post where I referred to the judges in my case as "financial terrorists." They repeatedly made unlawful rulings--denying motions for summary judgments that, by law, had to be granted--causing my case to drag on and my legal bills to mount. The plan, I think, was that my wife and I would eventually crack and allow them to achieve whatever goal they were after. And as I've noted several times, I suspect the scheme in my case had to do with protecting Briarwood Presbyterian Church, a large suburban Birmingham congregation that is extremely conservative and wealthy--a big backer of GOP causes.

We'll turn our attention to Briarwood down the road. But our more immediate interest is the case of Mississippi attorney Paul Minor, who was a major source of funds for Democratic candidates? Was he a target of "financial terrorists," some who were far more powerful and ruthless than the ones who came after me?

We return to that subject shortly.

Stonewalling in Siegelman Case

Looks like Don Siegelman's lawyers are running into a serious case of stonewalling in their efforts to obtain documents related to the recusal of U.S. Attorney Leura Canary in the Siegelman investigation.

The Justice Department has refused to release 514 pages of documents related to Canary's recusal to Alabaster attorney John Aaron.

Aaron filed a Freedom of Information request and initially was told there were no such documents. Then the Bush DOJ responded: Whoops, check that, there are 516 pages related to Canary's recusal, and you can have two of them. And what were the two pages? A 2002 press release announcing Canary's recusal.

"How stupid does the government think we are to be satisfied with a five-year-old press release?" said Siegelman lawyer Vince Kilborn.

Kilborn's question is profound and goes way beyond the Siegelman case. Republicans who are corrupt (and I'm sure that doesn't include all of them; Jill Simpson has proved there are Republicans with integrity, and I don't think she's the only one) tend to think Americans in general are stupid. Actually it might be better stated this way: Certain Republicans, the loyal Bushies, etc., think Americans are so stupid or inattentive--or have so bought into Republican rhetoric regarding race, crime, tax cuts, religion, etc.--that they will let the GOP get away with most anything.

But you wonder: Will even the white suburban GOP base, even the white suburban base in the Deep South, start to wake up at some point? Will they see that the DOJ is refusing to release documents, Karl Rove and Harriet Miers are refusing to testify . . . will they finally see all of this and say: Something seems terribly wrong here?

Here is some rich irony: If the DOJ scandal truly explodes at some point, chances seem good the match will be lit in a GOP stronghold, the Deep South. The Don Siegelman case appears to be leading the way in the Congressional investigation, and I don't think the Paul Minor case in Mississippi will be far behind.

Bits and Pieces for $50, Alex

We again interrupt our analysis of the Paul Minor case in Mississippi to bring you this bulletin on another busy day for justice-related news in Alabama.

King Artur vs. Teflon Bob
U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) and Alabama governor Bob Riley were sparring the other day via the U.S. mail, and now they are doing some verbal jousting over the phone lines. Sounds like the two might be coming to some kind of peace after reports about Davis' hiring for his Congressional office of an Alabama two-year college employee. Davis had said such arrangements are specifically permitted by House rules. Riley had said he does not support the practice of paying two-year college employees to work in the office of politicians. A couple of interesting points that came out of today's story:

* Riley acknowledged that he had used a Department of Defense employee for a short time in his Congressional office when he served in Washington, something The Birmingham News neglected to report in its original story. Davis said that's equivalent to his arrangement with former two-year colleges employee Gina Bailey McKell. Riley, whom we've come to know as "Teflon Bob" here at Legal Schnauzer, seemed to think there was a difference. Teflon Bob also had problems with King Artur's characterization of problems in the two-year system as a "partisan, political turf war." Gee, can't imagine why Davis might think Alabama Republicans could resort to partisan politics

* Love this quote from Teflon Bob about the two-year college scandal in Alabama: "The questionable and corrupt conduct that has been painstakingly uncovered is real. I applaud (those) who are working to clean up these problems and stop them."

Well, I've got news for you, Teflon Bob. Corruption in Alabama's courts, while they were overseen by one of your appointees, also was real. And I have zero doubt that it still is real. You went on national TV in November 2005 (to encourage a boycott of Aruba over that nation's handling of the Natalee Holloway case) and said you wanted to know about problems in Alabama's justice system. I took your statement seriously and sent you a lengthy e-mail, outlining the corruption I've experienced from Republican judges in our state. Your administration has done nothing about it. Why is that?

You say you want to stop corruption, but people close to you seem to do their best to encourage corruption and cover it up. Dax Swatek, your campaign manager, is the son of William E. Swatek, who has an almost 30-year record of unethical behavior in the legal profession (including some interesting problems in criminal court, which we will be reporting soon here at Legal Schnauzer.). This includes filing a bogus lawsuit against me. But William E. Swatek has repeatedly been the beneficiary of unlawful rulings by Alabama judges, costing me and Alabama taxpayers thousands of dollars. It appears that William E. Swatek's family ties to your administration have helped him become Teflon Bill--the sleazy Shelby County attorney who gets away with just about anything in Alabama courts. I realize we have separation of powers, and as governor, you don't control the judicial branch. But you certainly have the bully pulpit, and you could use it to shine a light on Alabama's corrupt courts. Why haven't you done it, if stopping corruption means so much to you?

And why not call for a commission to investigate the events of election night 2002 in Baldwin County? Wouldn't it be nice to assure Alabamians that you became governor in a honest manner?

Rapid Troy vs. the DAs
Alabama Attorney General Troy King continues to draw fire from the state's district attorneys. Rapid Troy the AG boy had yanked a death-penalty case from Shelby County DA Robby Owens, and the Alabama District Attorneys Association didn't take kindly to it. "The attorney general has no idea about these things because he has never stood where we stand every day," said Ken Davis, president of the DA group. "Many of our members were fighting for the rights of victims when the attorney general was still in grammar school." Ouch.

Rapid Troy appears to be positioning himself as the "pro-death penalty candidate" for a future run at the governor's office. Look for him to return fire soon in this little intramural spat.

More BS in Shelby County
Speaking of Robby Owens, the Shelby County DA, Troy King is turning him into a sympathetic figure. Trust me, Owens doesn't deserve it. He claims to be about honor and integrity. Well, I was the victim of a felony assault last October by my Neighbor From Hell (NFH), and Owens' office has persisted in ignoring clear law and ruling it a misdemeanor. I wrote Owens a letter in January, outlining the facts and the law in the case and asking him to contact me promptly so the case could be prosecuted properly. I've never heard from him.

I refuse to sign a misdemeanor complaint for an offense that I know was a felony, so looks like NFH is going to get away with a crime. And Owens' says he cares about crime victims?

I will be writing about the assault in detail very soon here at Legal Schnauzer, but here is the short version of what happened: NFH took a roadside sign (which qualifies as a "dangerous instrument" under Alabama law) and swung it with two hands as hard as he could, hitting me in the back and leaving a bleeding abrasion (which qualifies as "physical injury" under Alabama law). There is no question he had intent to hit and injure me; no one else was in the vicinity, so it certainly was not a reckless or negligent act. Have doubts about whether or not this was a felony? Check out Code of Alabama 13A-6-21 and read item (a) (2). I've got a stump in my backyard that could tell this was a felony, committed by a guy with at least eight criminal convictions in his background, including violence-related and sex-related offenses, plus an offense that involved lying to a police officer. But Owens and Co. think they can't prosecute this guy? Good grief, Babec the lowland gorilla at the Birmingham Zoo could get a conviction on this.

(By the way, I'm tired of the cute nicknames for my neighbor from hell. The guy's name is Mike McGarity, and he works at Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama in Birmingham. Best I can tell, his job title is "bar-code operator," whatever that is. You have to wonder how a guy with McGarity's criminal record was able to land a job at Blue Cross, which as a federal Medicaid contractor, is supposed to do thorough background checks on prospective employees. Much more about Mike McGarity, his "interesting" past, and his evidently lax employer coming soon. You'll see exactly what I mean about neighbor from hell.)

But back to Owens. You might recall this recent post about the death-sentence commutation of LaSamuel Gamble. That ruling, by Shelby County Circuit Judge J. Michael Joiner, is the one that got Troy King riled up at Owens, who testified that Gamble should be taken off death row in the wake of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision related to sentencing for murderers who were juveniles at the time of their crimes.

Joiner said he made his ruling because it would be "constitutionally unfair" to keep Gamble on death row following the Supreme Court decision. Reading those words from Joiner almost caused me to have an attack of projectile vomiting.

Not because I have a problem with his ruling, which actually is based on the law (a rarity for Joiner). But Joiner is the judge who I've seen repeatedly make unlawful rulings in my case, always favoring Mike McGarity (he of the extensive criminal record) and his attorney, William E. Swatek (he of numerous ethical violations).

I know Mike Joiner to have zero regard for fairness and the constitution, and concepts such as due process and equal protection of the law. So I knew that could not be the real reason he commuted Gamble's death sentence.

But thanks to Robby Owens I think I have an idea what was behind Joiner's thinking. In this post yesterday Owens first said he supported the commutation as a matter of "honor and integrity." Then he turned right around and admitted that, in his mind, it really was a political matter. Owens said he was concerned that leaving Gamble on death row would turn into a rallying point for death-penalty opponents.

It's rare that you see a lawyer make such an unwittingly honest remark. But you can rest assured that Joiner was thinking along the same lines. That's an incestuous bunch down at the Shelby County Courthouse; they all think alike. And it's highly unlikely that Joiner's decision had anything to do with fairness or the constitution.

Rather, it was about laying low, out of the spotlight, a spotlight like the one being shined in the Jena 6 case. Joiner runs a corrupt little empire down in Columbiana, Alabama, and the last thing he wants is attention, particularly the kind that might come with leaving LaSamuel Gamble on death row.

Heck, Al Sharpton is in the neighborhood, just a couple of states away in Louisiana. It would have been easy for Sharpton and friends to stage a protest over the Gamble case on Main Street in Columbiana.

But J. Michael Joiner was having none of that. I imagine the mere thought of Al Sharpton outside the Shelby County Courthouse would cause Joiner to soil himself.

Mississippi Churning, Part VI

Before we examine the two lawsuits that were at the heart of the government's case in the Paul Minor trial, let's look at the issue of jury instructions.

I've had to represent myself in a trial, and take it from me, it's a scary experience. But one of the scariest parts for me was the process used for developing jury instructions.

Here's how you might think it would work: The judge is supposed to know the law, and he is well paid, so you figure he would tell the jury what the law is and maybe throw in a few citations or two--to show the jury how smart he is and maybe impress them a bit. Seriously, you would think he would include citations for all statements of law, just so the jury would know it's deliberations are well grounded.

But that's not how it works, at least in my experience. Each side writes up what it thinks the jury instructions ought to be and hands them to the judge. The two sides talk to the judge in earnest tones, the judge shuffles the papers around a bit, maybe goes to his chambers or the bathroom (watch out for wide stances!), and then returns to read the law to the jury. I'm not even sure if the jury gets a written copy of the jury instructions. Don't think they did in my case; I know I didn't get a copy.

I was well acquainted with the applicable law in my case. But by the time we had traded papers, and the judge had shuffled them around, and hummed and hawed, and taken a bathroom break or two, I had no idea if his instructions to the jury were correct.

Based on my own experience, I was intrigued to read the jury instructions for the Minor trial when they showed up on the Web. I don't know if they are still on the Web or not. But I do know that judges have enormous power when it comes to the instructions that jurors hear. Keeping in mind the power of Judge Henry Wingate, here are some points in the Minor jury instructions that jumped out at me:

Honest-services mail fraud and state bribery laws

Wingate says: "This deprivation of 'honest services' owed to the State of Mississippi refers to the bribery laws of the State of Mississippi. . . . In order to deprive the State of Mississippi of their honest services, defendants John H. Whitfield and Walter W. "Wes" Teel must have owed the State of Mississippi a duty that is defined by the bribery laws of the State of Mississippi and have violated that duty."

Legal Schnauzer says: I don't get it. I've seen numerous cases of case law that state honest-services mail fraud need not be connected to state law. One example is U.S. v. Frega, 933 F. Supp. 1536 (1996): "The mail fraud statute . . . did not need to reference state law in order to define fraudulent conduct." Or how about this: "An honest services mail fraud or mail fraud conviction does not require proof of a state-law violation." U.S. v. Walker, 490 F. 3d 1282 (2007). So your humble correspondent is confused. Why is the judge tying the federal mail-fraud charge to state bribery law? Hmmm.


A judge's honest views

Wingate says: "If the particular judge acted in a particular circumstance, based upon his honest views not corrupted by a bribe, his actions do not constitute a deprivation of honest services under the mail and wire fraud statutes."

Legal Schnauzer says: That matches the law I've read. But how can the judge prove this if he is not allowed to call an expert witness to testify that his rulings were fair and correct under the law?


Criminal intent

Wingate says: "You may find specific criminal intent even though you may find that the rulings were legal and correct, that the official conduct would have been done anyway, that the official conduct sought to be influenced was lawful and required by law, and that the official conduct was desirable or beneficial to the public welfare."

Legal Schnauzer says: Sounds like the prosecution wrote this one. So you are saying, "The loans and gifts etc. can be legal (which they were), and the judges' rulings can by lawful and correct, and the jury still can find criminal intent?" Excuse me while I scratch my head. Actually, excuse me while I say you are flat-out wrong. Consider this case law: "Even if a public official engages in 'reprehensible misconduct related to an official position,' his conviction for honest services fraud cannot stand where the conduct does not actually deprive the public of its right to [his] honest services, and it is not shown to intend the result." U.S. v. Walker, 490 F. 3d 1282 (2007). Clearly, the public cannot be deprived of a judge's honest services if the judge's rulings in a case were fair and correct--no matter how many loans (legal ones) an attorney might have provided to the judge. So your Honor, what gives? And finally consider this: "Undisclosed, biased decision-making for personal gain, whether or not tangible loss to the public is shown, constitutes a deprivation of honest services." U.S. v. Antico 275 F. 3d 245 (2001). Where is the biased decision-making in the Minor case? We will look at this more closely in a moment, but you didn't give the judge defendants a chance to show that their decision-making was not biased. Why?

Concealment

Wingate says: "Prior to January 19, 1999, the laws of the State of Mississippi governing judicial elections and/or campaigns did not require the disclosure on a campaign finance disclosure form of loans to a campaign nor the fact that any such loan was guaranteed by some third party or the identity of the guarantor, if any. . . . Money obtained by a public official as a borrower on a loan from a bank, and transactions to obtain or renew such a bank loan, do not ordinarily constitute income to the public official for any such reporting purpose. . . . Further, no such financial disclosure laws in Mississippi require the disclosure by a public official of the name of a source of actual income; instead the law requires only that the types of sources of gross income be disclosed on the Statements of Economic Interest. . . . Proof that a defendant failed to comply with the directives of a Statement of Economic Interest, standing alone, is not proof that a federal law has been violated."

Legal Schnauzer says: Wow, sounds like the defense wrote this one, and you evidently agreed that this is the law. So tell me again: How did these people get convicted? Were they convicted for "concealing" transactions that they didn't have to reveal anyway? Did the jurors sleep through your instructions?

Paul Minor's alleged concealment

Wingate says: "As to defendant Paul Minor. He was never a public official, nor candidate for office; therefore, he was not required to file any such disclosure at any time."

Legal Schnauzer says: "Well snip my pickle and call me Shlomo (to quote the cantankerous Dr. Kelso on Scrubs). News reports say Minor and Co. were convicted mainly because of their acts of concealment. But you seem to be saying that the judges weren't required to reveal certain information, and Minor, heck, he could "conceal" stuff all he wanted. He's not a public official. So tell me again, how did these folks get convicted?"

Legal Schnauzer has the last word (after all, it is my blog): Your Honor, you appear to have made some serious mistakes in jury instructions. If some of your rulings and jury instructions are supported by law, I sure as heck can't find the law. (If anyone else can find it, please let me know.) And in instances where your jury instructions were correct, it appears that the highly educated jury chose to ignore them.

Ah, justice in Mississippi. Sounds a lot like justice in Alabama.

Mississippi Churning, Part V

I suspect the key moment in the Paul Minor trial came when Judge Henry Wingate refused to allow expert witnesses to testify that the judges' rulings were fair and correct in cases Minor tried before them.

The Biloxi Sun Herald reported Wingate's explanation: The rulings didn't have to be fair to constitute bribery. Evidently Wingate's logic applied to the honest-services mail fraud charges, too.

Based on my research, Wingate's ruling essentially prevented Minor, Whitfield, and Teel from putting on a defense. And I don't believe his ruling was correct under the law. I suspect this point will be at the heart of appeals in this case.

Let's examine a few key factors:

* As we noted in an earlier post, under Mississippi law at the time, it was legal for an attorney to provide loans, gifts, or cash to judges. (My understanding is that this is still legal, although I believe there have been limits placed on the amounts. I don't like this practice one bit. I also don't like judges playing footsie with lawyers on golf courses, as happened in my case. But all of that is legal, whether I like it or not. Here is what's not legal: Taking loans/cash from an attorney--or playing footsie on a golf course with an attorney--and then making unlawful rulings that favor said attorney in court. And when the U.S. mails are used in the course of the case, as they almost always are, it becomes a federal crime.)

* The government's indictment repeatedly states that Minor provided things of value (loans, cash, checks) in exchange for favorable treatment in lawsuits that Minor had before the judges.

* I have seen nothing in either the statutory or case law (on both bribery and honest-services mail fraud) that says it would be unlawful for Minor to receive favorable treatment in lawsuits--especially if the facts and law in a case indicate he and his client should prevail. The issue, it seems, is not whether Minor received favorable treatment but whether he received unlawfully favorable treatment--treatment not supported by the law and the facts. And that is why it is baffling that expert witnesses were not allowed to testify as to the correctness of the judges' decisions.

* Keep in mind that key term "corruptly" in our definition of bribery: "An act is done corruptly if it is done intentionally with an unlawful purpose." How can there be an unlawful purpose if the judges' rulings in Minor's cases were supported by the law and the facts--if the rulings were, in fact, lawful?

Now let's return to the issue of mail fraud. Recall the three-pronged approach to a general mail fraud case? Here is how it reads for an honest-services mail fraud case:

1. The defendant made up a scheme or plan to deprive the victim of his or her right to honest services;

2. The defendant acted with the intent to deprive the victim of his or her right to honest services; and

3. The defendant used, or caused someone to use, the mails or the nation's telecommunications system to carry out the scheme or plan. (Ninth Circuit Model Criminal Jury Instructions.)

Clearly the government proved No. 3 in the Minor case. The defendants caused the U.S. mails to be used for a number of legal documents, checks, etc.

But how can a victim be deprived of his or her right to honest services if the judges' rulings in Minor's cases were lawful? And can there be criminal intent if the judges' rulings in Minor's cases were lawful?

To answer those questions, we need to look at the two lawsuits that were made the heart of the government's case. We will do that in just a bit.

Bits and Pieces for $40, Alex

We interrupt our analysis of the Paul Minor case in Mississippi to bring you this bulletin on an exceptionally busy day for justice-related news in Alabama:

Nick Bailey: My Bad
Nick Bailey says he's sorry for helping to send his former boss, ex-Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, to prison. Siegelman must be deeply touched. Bailey is heading off to prison himself, and before he goes, he makes a few contradictory statements. On the one hand, Bailey says he told the truth at the Siegelman trial. But on the other hand, he says, if he had it to do over again, he would not take the government's plea agreement and take his chances with the jury. Call me dense, but Tricky Nick can't have it both ways can he? If he told the truth at the trial, then how would it help him to pass on the plea agreement and take his chances with the jury? His testimony would be the same wouldn't it? And that would accomplish nothing but sending both Siegelman and himself to prison for seven or so years. Is that what Nick has in mind here? I don't think so. Either he lied on the stand at the trial or he would have lied on the stand had he not taken the plea agreement? Which one is it, Nick?

Artur Davis Fire Back
The Birmingham News still is after U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL), evidently for having the temerity to question the activities of the Bush Justice Department. But Davis is not one to take things lying down. Check out the letter to the editor he fired off to the Newshounds. Notice how the News story hints that Davis somehow violated Congressional rules in the hiring of Gina Bailey McKell. Notice how Davis says, "The practice of public agencies lending out staff members and paying their salaries is specifically permitted by congressional rules. The rules make no distinction between whether the agency is state or federal." Take that Newshounds!

GOP Follies, Part I
Things are getting interesting in the corruption case of Bessemer Judge Dan King. Dan King (a Republican) is being pursued by Alabama Attorney General Troy King (a Republican) evidently because Rapid Troy didn't like Dan the Man's ruling in a high-profile gaming case. Now comes Earl Carter, circuit clerk in Bessemer, saying in a sworn affidavit that the indictment of Dan King was not handled according state law. And Carter seems to be pointing a finger at Circuit Judge Teresa Petelos (a Republican) for causing the impropriety. Judge Petelos is married to Tony Petelos (who is, guess what, a Republican), the mayor of Hoover, Alabama, and longtime Republican official at both the local and state levels. Where will all of this GOP fussin' and fightin' lead? Can't wait to see.

GOP Follies, Part II
Speaking of Rapid Troy (King) the AG Boy, he's making news on another front. Rapid Troy is defending his decision to yank a death-penalty case away from Shelby County District Attorney Robby Owens (a Republican, natch). Owens had argued against the death penalty for convicted murderer LaSamuel Gamble in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court decision barring the execution of people who committed murder while they were juveniles. This didn't go down well with Rapid Troy, a staunch proponent of the death penalty. Which leaves me with this question: Is it possible to root against both contenders in a GOP Deathmatch? Rapid Troy gives me the creeps because he looks like that android character in Terminator 2. And my firsthand experience with Owens and his office tells me he runs an operation that is both shoddy and corrupt (par for the course at the Shelby County Courthouse). A couple of very interesting quotes from Owens. One, he says, "I can't sacrifice honor and integrity to be a Troy King or a Nifong," referring to the Duke lacrosse-team prosecutor, Mike Nifong. Hmmm, we will be taking a close look at the honor and integrity of Owens' office in the very near future. Also, Owens said he thought leaving Gamble on Death Row would turn his case into a rallying point for death-penalty opponents. I thought Owens was interested in honor and integrity, not politics. Hold that second thought from Owens. We will return to it down the road.

Chris McNair Sentenced
Former Jefferson County Commissioner Chris McNair is sentenced to five years in prison for his role in a sewer-contractor probe. McNair's case is just one of several where a public official who is an African-American and/or a Democrat (McNair is both) has been targeted by Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama. That's not to quibble with the McNair prosecution (he confessed to wrongdoing) or the others, necessarily. But I'm trying to figure out how many Republican officials Ms. Martin has gone after. Anybody know the answer to that one? Anybody?

Mississippi Churning, Part IV

Why were attorney Paul Minor and judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield found guilty of all 14 counts against them?

According to press reports, the key issue was concealment. In fact, a headline in the Biloxi Sun Herald on April 1, 2007, seems to say it all: "Conspirators brought down by their clandestine transactions."

The government alleged, and evidently proved to the jury's satisfaction, that Teel and Whitfield attempted to conceal the conspiracy by failing to disclose their financial relationships to Minor on reports required by the state of Mississippi. The government also alleged that Minor attempted to conceal his role by using intermediaries to hide his identity and by causing false documents to be created to hide that he was the source of funds paid on behalf of the judges.

Why was the evidence of concealment so crucial? The Sun Herald's April 1 story makes it clear: "Nobody testified Minor asked the judges for favors. Although the FBI had searched his office, confiscated his files and his computers, no note or e-mail made reference to requests for the judicial favors."

So despite the fact there was no hard evidence that Minor asked for favorable treatment from the judges, the three men are going to federal prison for a total of about 25 years.

How did that happen? After all, in a previous trial, a jury was not able to come to unanimous verdicts on any of the charges against Minor, Teel, and Whitfield.

The Sun Herald reported there were significant differences between the first and second trials. Nine members on the second jury possessed college degrees or some level of higher education. They included an accountant, an educator, and the jury forewoman who worked as a computer-technology instructor for the state Department of Corrections. A forewoman who works for the Department of Corrections? Think she might be pro-prosecution?

(Note: Having represented myself in court, I've had my own experience with jury pools and jury selection. I'm highly suspicious of how jury pools are chosen for certain cases. I will touch on this topic again when I get into more specifics about my trial. The Sun Herald story doesn't say it, but the implication is that the first jury pool was more working class, with more people of color; the second jury pool was more professional class, with fewer people of color. If that was indeed the case you must wonder: How did that happen? Also reminds you of jury-pool issues that were raised in the Siegelman-Scrushy case. And we all know how that second trial turned out--a lot like the second trial in the Minor case.)

Wrote the newspaper: "Prosecutors pored over the first trial transcript and were prepared with objections when defense attorneys attempted to introduce testimony about their clients' good acts, including Minor's loans to other friends and acquaintances."

Judge Henry Wingate often found the objections valid, ruling such testimony irrelevant.

The judge plays a critical role in any trial, so let's take a closer look at some of Judge Wingate's rulings.

Mississippi Churning, Part III

An objective observer (even a Democrat) could study the four defendants in the Paul Minor case and discover some facts to give them pause.

All three of the defendant judges evidently had significant financial problems. Defendant judge Oliver Diaz had marital problems and wound up getting a divorce. (His ex-wife, Jennifer Diaz, struck a plea agreement with prosecutors.) Minor, at some point, developed an alcohol problem. And most people probably would consider it fishy for an attorney to be making loans to judges before whom he has cases. If I were an opposing party against Minor before one of these judges, I know I would have a serious problem with it.

But did these men actually commit the crimes of which they were charged? (Minor, Teel, and Whitfield were convicted; Diaz was acquitted.) Or were they targets of a politically motivated prosecution by the Bush justice department, similar to the one faced by Don Siegelman in Alabama?

A close look at the case raises serious questions about whether Minor and company ever should have been charged--or convicted. And it indicates that other Mississippi judges were engaged in similar conduct to the Minor defendants, without drawing any attention from prosecutors. And perhaps most importantly, it reveals some strange decision making by Judge Henry Wingate, including jury instructions that do not seem to square with actual law.

In an earlier post, we noted the key elements of honest-services mail fraud, which accounted for seven of the 14 counts against Minor, Teel, and Whitfield. The other central charge was bribery under 18 U.S. Code 666. The gist of the offense, for the one offering the bribe, is this:

"To corruptly give, offer, or agree to give anything of value to any person, with intent to influence or reward an agent of a state or local government, in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such government or agency involving anything of value of $5,000 or more when such state or local government or agency received, in any one-year period, benefits in excess of $10,000 under a federal program." (Indictment against Paul Minor, Wes Teel, John Whitfield.)

An act is done corruptly "if it is done intentionally with an unlawful purpose." (Indictment.)

While the Minor case was held in federal court, aspects of the case were controlled by Mississippi law. And here is a critical point to remember: Prior to January 15, 1999, the laws governing judicial elections and/or campaign finance (Mississippi Code 23-15-1021 and 23-15-1023) did not limit the amount of money an individual or company could contribute to the campaign of a judicial candidate. Also, state law at the time did not require the disclosure on a campaign finance disclosure form of loans to a campaign nor the fact that any such loan was guaranteed by some third party or the identity of the guarantor, if any." (Jury instructions in trial of Paul Minor, Wes Teel, John Whitfield.)

In other words, for a lawyer to make gifts and loans to judges before whom he has cases is not, in and of itself, illegal in Mississippi. Based on my research, it appears to be common practice around the country, and I'm not sure it's illegal in any state.

Personally, I think such gifts, contributions, and loans from lawyers to judges should be banned across the board. But I'm not the one making the law here.

Let's look at some of the key factors involved, and serious questions raised, in the Paul Minor case.

Mississippi Churning, Part II

The Paul Minor case is based in Mississippi, so maybe it's appropriate that it involves elements of a John Grisham novel. It also bears an eerie resemblance to the Don Siegelman case in Alabama.

For example, on September 15, 2003, a fire heavily damaged the Biloxi law office of defendant John Whitfield, who is black. Fire officials later determined the blaze was arson. To my knowledge, the crime has not been solved (Jackson Clarion-Ledger, August 13, 2005).

In the Siegelman case, Rainsville attorney Dana Jill Simpson had a fire at her home around the time she was preparing to sign an affidavit stating that the Siegelman prosecution was politically motivated.

The Minor case involves some folks of substantial means. Defendant Paul Minor has a net worth of $12.6 million. From 1994 to 2003, the time period in question, cases handled by Minor & Associates brought in more than $71 million. According to Minor's defense attorneys, only 2.2 percent of that--$1.6 million--came from the cases federal prosecutors cited in their indictment (Biloxi Sun Herald, June 3, 2005).

For good measure, Minor earns $2.5 million a year from a settlement with tobacco companies. (Biloxi Sun Herald, Sept. 8, 2007).

All of which makes you wonder: Why would Paul Minor bother with bribing state judges? Why would he bother to work at all? (I sure wouldn't if I had that kind of cash.)

But here is the bigger question: How did Paul Minor wind up facing an 11-year sentence in federal prison? Oliver Diaz, a former State Supreme Court Justice who was acquitted in the case, made his feelings clear after the sentences were handed down.

"We have a U.S. Justice Department that is corrupt," Diaz said. "And I think we've seen the result of a political prosecution, and we see three men who really are innocent being sent to prison." (Biloxi Sun Herald, Sept. 8, 2007)

The prosecutor and judge were Republican appointees. Mississippi has non-partisan judicial races, but it is well understood that Minor, Teel, and Whitfield are Democrats. Minor particularly was known for using his wealth to help Democratic candidates. Diaz is a Republican, but he and Minor have been longtime friends, and Diaz enjoyed bipartisan support.

Is there evidence to support Diaz' claims of a political prosecution? Let's take a look.

Mississippi Churning, Part I

Let's start with a "just-the-facts-ma'am" version of what happened in the Paul Minor case in Mississippi.

Paul Minor is a very successful south-Mississippi lawyer who became a multimillionaire based on his skills as a trial attorney. He won a number of high-profile cases involving tobacco, asbestos, wrongful death, and personal injury. His father, Bill Minor, is a longtime Mississippi journalist known for his courageous reporting during the civil-rights era. Paul Minor is known to support, both philosophically and financially, the causes of the Democratic Party.

A federal investigation of Minor and three judges began in 2002 on the Mississippi Gulf Coast. The three judges who wound up being indicted, along with Minor, are former State Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz, former Chancery Judge Wes Teel, and former Circuit Judge John Whitfield. Minor was accused of securing loans for the judges in exchange for favorable rulings on cases before them.

In the first trial in 2005, a jury acquitted Diaz on all charges. He later was acquitted on tax-evasion charges in a separate indictment. The same jury in the first trial acquitted Minor, Teel, and Whitfield on some corruption charges and failed to agree unanimously on others.

Federal prosecutors decided to retry Minor, Teel, and Whitfield, and they were found guilty on all charges in March 2007. Charges included bribery, racketeering, conspiracy, and honest-services mail fraud.

Leading the prosecution were Dunn Lampton, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi, and Noel Hillman, then chief of the Public Integrity Section of the U.S. Department of Justice. Lampton is a Republican appointee and Hillman has since been nominated to a federal judgeship by the Bush White House.

The judge, Henry Wingate, is a Republican appointee.

Sentencing in the case was announced on September 7. Minor was sentenced to 11 years in federal prison; Whitfield and Teel were sentenced to 110 months and 70 months, respectively.

(Source: Jackson Clarion-Ledger, Sept. 8, 2007)

Mail Fraud: A Primer

In order to understand the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, it helps to understand honest-services mail fraud. And that's not an easy task because many legal professionals disagree about what the statute (18 U.S. Code 1346) means and how it should be applied.

But as I noted earlier, half of the counts in the Minor case--and two-thirds of the counts in the Don Siegelman case in Alabama--involved honest-services mail fraud.

The Minor and Siegelman cases involved a very similar set of charges--bribery, conspiracy, racketeering, etc. I suspect most citizens have a fairly good idea of what bribery and conspiracy are. Racketeering probably is a little more fuzzy, but a lot of folks have a general idea of what that means.

But honest-services mail fraud? Ask most people about that, and you are likely to draw a blank stare. The statute, however, is a powerful tool in the hands of federal prosecutors. Take a look at most any corruption case involving public officials, and you are likely to find charges of honest-services mail/wire fraud.

So what exactly is honest-services mail fraud?

First, a little history. Prior to 1987, a long line of court cases had held that the federal mail and wire fraud statues encompassed schemes to defraud citizens of an intangible right to honest government from public officials. But in McNally v. U.S., 483 U.S. 350 (1987), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the fraud statutes encompassed only property interests and not intangible rights to honest services. Congress responded in 1988 by enacting 18 U.S. 1346, essentially overturning McNally and reinstating the honest services provision.

Another point to keep in mind: State criminal statutes tend to be fairly precise in their wording. Federal statutes, as we will see, tend to be much more broadly written. And that puts huge amounts of discretion in the hands of federal prosecutors--a frightening amount, some might say.

So what do the statutes actually say. Here is 18 U.S. 1341, the mail fraud statute. And here is 18 U.S. 1343, which is pretty much the same thing, only for wire fraud. And here is 18 U.S. 1346, which reinstates the honest-services provision into the law.

Does reading that leave you with a glazed look in your eyes? Join the crowd. The legalese is mind-numbing isn't it?

To come to some understanding of federal fraud law, you need to read the case law. And that is much easier to decipher. Here is the crux of the matter:

* A person commits mail or wire fraud if he has (A) Perpetuated a scheme to defraud that includes a material deception; (B) with the intent to defraud; (C) while using the mails in furtherance of the scheme. Neder v. U.S., 527 U.S. 1 (1999).

So is that it? Well, not quite. Let's consider a few more key questions:

* What is a scheme to defraud? Courts have defined it as "a departure from community standards of 'fair play and candid dealings.'" U.S. v. Autori 212F. 3d 105 (2000)

* What is intent to defraud? Courts have defined it as "a willful act by defendant with specific intent to deceive or cheat." U.S. v. Stephens, 421F.3d 503, (2005)

* When does a person cause the mails to be used? Courts have said this occurs when he or she "acts with knowledge that the use of the mails will follow in the ordinary course of business." Pereira v. U.S., 347 U.S. 1 (1954)

* What about the "in furtherance" element? This requirement is satisfied by showing that the mailing was "incident to an essential part of the scheme."Schmuck v. U.S. 489 U.S. 705, (1989)

Is that it? We're getting there. A few other key considerations:

* Did the scheme succeed? Success of the scheme is irrelevant. The prosecution simply must show that "the defendants' scheme, if successful, would have deprived an individual of interests protected under the statute." U.S. v. Brown, 79 F. 3d, 1550 (1996)

* What about the "honest services" component included under Sec. 1346? Courts have stated that a public official has a duty to disclose information regarding a personal interest that may affect his judgment and therefore "undisclosed, biased decision making . . . regardless of tangible loss to the public . . . constitutes a deprivation of honest services." U.S. v.Lopez-Lukis, 102 F.3d 1164, (1997)

* Do public officials have to receive personal gain from their scheme? This is a matter of considerable debate. At least one judicial circuit has said yes. Most circuits have said no. In general, courts have held: "The prosecution need not prove that the scheme was successful or that the intended victim suffered a loss, or that the defendant secured a gain. The gist of the offense is a scheme to defraud and the use of interstate communications to further that scheme." U.S. vs. Louderman, 576 F. 2d 1383, (1978)

* Need a summary? Here it is: "The loss of good faith services alone establishes the breach." U.S. v. Silvana, 812 F. 2d 754, (1987)

Are we done yet? Yep, we're done for now. There are a few other specifics to consider, and we will address those when I go into the clear honest-services mail fraud that has been committed by judges and attorneys in the Legal Schnauzer case.

But this gives us some baseline knowledge for understanding the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, and to a great extent, the Don Siegelman case in Alabama. You can now consider yourself a certified pseudo expert in federal fraud law. Even the Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer would be impressed.

Now, onward to Mississippi!

Minor Case, Major Implications

The Paul Minor case in Mississippi is important for several reasons. It has similarities to the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. It has implications for the ongoing Congressional investigation of the Bush justice department. And most importantly, for your humble correspondent, it has connections to the Legal Schnauzer case.

What are these connections? In a nutshell, the Minor case is an example of a Republican-led justice department going after Democratic-leaning defendants (like the Siegelman case). It is an example of alleged corruption involving state judges and an attorney (like the Legal Schnauzer case). And if you study the case closely, you see signs that it might have been a political hit, a selective prosecution of the kind Congress is scrutinizing.

Let me state a few things up front: I am not an attorney, and I don't claim to have perfect knowledge of the law in the Minor case. I'm a citizen who became deeply interested in the Minor case when I realized it was about a subject--judicial corruption in the Deep South--that I have painful experience with. I became even more interested when I realized the case involved political overtones, much like those present in the Siegelman case in Alabama, and a set of charges that were almost identical to those in the Siegelman case.

While bribery charges have received the most attention in press coverage of the two cases, both really revolved around charges of honest-services mail fraud. And honest-services mail fraud is at the very core of the Legal Schnauzer case--and I will prove that in the weeks and months to come.

In the Siegelman case, 20 of 30-some counts (almost two-thirds; see journalists can do math) were for honest-services mail fraud. Siegelman was convicted on one of the 20 mail fraud counts. In the Minor case, seven of the 14 counts (exactly half; I should be a tax accountant) were for honest-services mail fraud. Minor and the two judges who were prosecuted with him were convicted on all counts.

So why do I, a regular guy with zero days of law school behind me, think I know anything about honest-services mail fraud? Well, I've read several law-review articles on the subject, I've studied applicable case law, and I've read about 30 articles on the Minor case in the mainstream press. I've also read the indictment and the jury instructions, both of which were available on the Web at one time.

I didn't attend the trial, and I don't have access to a trial transcript. So you see, my knowledge isn't perfect.

But I think I have some insight worth sharing on the Minor case and how it connects to the Siegelman case, the Legal Schnauzer case, and the broader justice department scandal. I welcome input from readers who have information or opinions about the case.

A key point: I'm conflicted about the Minor case. If there is anyone who wants to see corrupt lawyers and judges punished, it's me. But when you've been around the law a little bit, you learn that it's important to set emotions aside and see what the law and the facts actually tell you. And I think you also have to look at the Minor case within the prism of what we are learning about the Bush justice department.

Another key point: I make no secret of the fact that I am a Democrat. But I want to make a serious effort to see things in an objective way on the Minor case. (Whether I succeed at that will remain open to debate.) When you read about the Minor case, and when you read about the Siegelman case for that matter, you get the sense that these folks were doing some things they shouldn't have been doing. In Siegelman's case, the warehouse deal, the transportation department stuff . . . he should have known better than to let some of that stuff go on. In the Minor case, Minor should have known better than to make loans to judges before whom he had cases--and the judges should have known better than to take such loans.

But again, we have to look at the actual law. Even the Montgomery jury found that Siegelman's actions related to the warehouse etc. did not amount to crimes; the conviction came down to a deal with Richard Scrushy to pay off the lottery campaign debt. And in the Minor case, Mississippi law at the time did not preclude loans from a lawyer to a judge. (Personally, I think such loans, contributions, and similar favors should be banned in all states; but it's the law, not my opinion, that matters.)

While I want any truly corrupt judges and attorneys to be punished, the Mississippi case leaves me with a queasy feeling. My research indicates there certainly are questions about the guilt of the defendants in the Mississippi case, and yet three men (all Democrats) are going to prison. Meanwhile, in Alabama, I have a case of honest-services mail fraud that should be a dead-solid cinch for a conviction--under the actual law. But the Bush justice department won't even look at it. And several corrupt men (all Republicans) go merrily on their way.

With all that said, let's look at Mississppi and the case of attorney Paul Minor and judges Oliver Diaz, Wes Teel, and John Whitfield.

Judicial Corruption in the Deep South

My research indicates that it is very rare for the press to break a story about judicial corruption, at either the state or federal level. Such cases almost always come to light only when the FBI gets involved and an investigation is made public.

Why is that? My guess is that reporters and editors are intimidated by judges, and judges and lawyers do their best to make the whole legal process seem baffling. Most media outlets don't want to invest the time and effort it takes to truly understand and uncover judicial corruption. Better to wait for the feds to do something and bring you a press release.

So again, you see the critical role of federal law enforcement in investigating and punishing rogue state judges. But we live in a time when the Bush Department of Justice is under investigation itself, for apparently practicing a blatant form of selective prosecution.

Does that mean some cases of judicial corruption will be investigated while others will be ignored? Does that mean such decisions will be based largely on political considerations? Does that mean that Republican judges, such as the ones I've encountered, can violate their oath (and federal law) with impunity without any fear of being punished? Does that mean Democratic judges, who may or may not have broken the law, are more likely to draw scrutiny?

Let's take a look at the Deep South and some recent or ongoing investigations/prosecutions of corrupt judges in state courts:

* First there is the Mississippi case we've noted several times involving attorney Paul Minor and judges John Whitfield and Wes Teel. Sentencing came down in the case about 10 days ago.

* An investigation of alleged judicial corruption was conducted for more than four years in Tampa, Florida. The case was closed last fall.

* Operation Wrinkled Robe has produced numerous guilty pleas in New Orleans, Louisiana.

* An ongoing bribery investigation in El Paso, Texas, has produced a guilty plea from at least one judge.

* A judge in Edinburg, Texas, committed suicide in 2005 amidst an FBI corruption probe.

You see that judicial corruption is not a taboo topic for the Bush Justice Department. It seems to prosecute some cases with gusto. But what is the difference between these cases and my case that Alice Martin, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, has so vigorously ignored?

Well, here's what I think: My case involves all Republican judges, who are all white and almost all male. And the case began in a suburban/rural jurisdiction.

I would invite readers to study the cases noted above and see if you discern a pattern to the prosecutions. See if you notice characteristics in these cases that are different from those present in the Legal Schnauzer case.

It might help to check a recent post from Scott Horton of Harper's, about a Wisconsin prosecutor with a history of going after people who fit a certain profile--Democrats from minority groups and inner cities--while largely ignoring potential wrongdoers from outside that profile.

Is that what's going on in these recent cases from the Deep South? I can't say for sure. I certainly support the prosecution of public officials who truly violate federal law, regardless of political affiliation. And I suspect judicial corruption is a bipartisan problem.

But a glance at recent judicial-corruption cases in the Deep South reveals some disturbing trends. And you learn even more when you look closely at a particular case. To do that, we will turn west to our neighbors in Mississippi.

A Travelogue of Corrupt Judges

When I first considered writing a blog about my experiences in Alabama courts, I thought it would focus only on judicial corruption at the state level.

Never did I think it would focus on prosecutorial corruption at the federal level. Never did I think it would have connections to broader, more national issues. Never did I think I would see evidence in my own case of selective prosecution by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), a subject that now is the focus of a Congressional investigation.

But your humble blogger has learned that blogs can morph. And so Legal Schnauzer has come to focus on multiple topics--judicial corruption and prosecutorial corruption, wrongdoing in Alabama's judicial branch and its connections to Alabama's executive branch.

I was fighting a bogus lawsuit for about a year and half, paying lawyers almost $12,000, before I realized that J. Michael Joiner, a circuit judge in Shelby County, Alabama, was cheating me blind. Enough strange rulings came down--and I received enough nonsensical answers from my lawyers--that I was motivated to spend hours and hours at the Jefferson County Law Library, learning the law that applied to my case.

Finally, I realized that the judge was crooked, and my own lawyers had to know it. But it was clear my lawyers were more interested in gaining favor with a judge in Alabama's wealthiest county than they were in fulfilling their duty under the law to represent their client honestly and zealously. And I suspect they are hardly the only lawyers who would stand by silently in the face of blatant judicial wrongdoing.

But you know what? At the time it dawned on me that I was being cheated, I thought this must be an isolated case. I thought I was just unlucky; it didn't occur to me that judicial corruption was widespread, that people all over the country were routinely being cheated. But again, research showed me an unpleasant truth: Judicial corruption is a coast-to-coast problem.

And then, early this year, I became aware of the controversial firings of eight U.S. attorneys in the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ). Before long, the DOJ scandal expanded, and evidence surfaced that the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman was politically motivated. Alabama remained on center stage when U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) helped initiate a Congressional investigation into selective prosecution by the DOJ.

I learned to look at state-level judicial corruption through the lens of the evolving federal scandal. And the ties between the two became clear. Corruption cases tend to involve money, mail, telephones, computers. That's why corruption cases--even those that involve a mayor, a governor, a state judge--usually end up in federal court.

So let's take a broader look at judicial corruption. After all, the problem goes way beyond my case.

And let's take a federal perspective with us. While states have judicial oversight groups--Alabama's is called the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission--they are notoriously weak. The only way to solve the problem of judicial corruption is through federal law enforcement.

We will start our travelogue of judicial corruption close to home--in the Deep South.

Spotlight on Mississippi

The Congressional investigation into the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ) so far appears to be focusing on federal prosecutions in Alabama, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. But another case in the Deep South, this one in Mississippi, might also require scrutiny.

Scott Horton, of Harper's, has an excellent post today about the Mississippi case of attorney Paul Minor and judges Oliver Diaz, John Whitfield, and Wes Teel.

Horton lays out the political backdrop to the prosecution, which wound up with convictions for Minor, Whitfield, and Teel. Diaz was acquitted twice, on corruption and tax-evasion charges.

Horton notes two key elements behind the case:

* It targeted key sources of funds for Democratic candidates in Mississippi.

* It helped lead to the election of Republican Haley Barbour as governor of the state.

The Minor case in Mississippi has been of great interest to us here at Legal Schnauzer. It has remarkable similarities to the Don Siegelman prosecution in Alabama. It strongly hints of a political prosecution, with Democratic-leaning defendants being pursued by Republican-led prosecutors. And it involves judicial corruption, a subject which goes to the core of our humble blog.

We will take a close look at the Minor case. But first, let's look at judicial corruption in general across the South.

Craig's Stall Attracts Tourists

When you are writing a blog about judicial corruption (and other assorted--and sordid--problems in our justice system), you have to take advantage of any opportunity you get to interject humor into the proceedings. Our subject here at Legal Schnauzer is not one that naturally lends itself to lots of chuckles.

So to lighten things up a bit, let's turn to our old friend Larry Craig. You remember Craig, the Republican U.S. senator from Idaho who was arrested for soliciting homosexual sex in a restroom at the Minneapolis airport. Craig pleaded guilty to a charge of misdemeanor disorderly conduct and now is trying to have his plea withdrawn so he can fight the charge.

Well, it turns out that the bathroom stall where Craig was arrested has become a tourist attraction. People who work at the Minneapolis airport report they are regularly being asked for directions to the famous stall.

One man admitted to making at least two stops already to see the stall. Lots of folks take pictures, both inside and outside the restroom.

Reports have it that in order to take a photo of the stall, you have to adopt a "wide stance."

On a more serious note, the American Civil Liberties Union is standing up for Craig. The ACLU says that Craig's various gestures in the restroom amount to constitutionally protected free speech. And even if he did the foot tapping etc., his actions do not amount to a crime.

You've got to give the ACLU credit. I think it's safe to say that Larry Craig has not been a champion of the ACLU during his political career. But the ACLU, which a lot of conservatives like to trash in a kneejerk way, stands up for him while many of his political brethren bail on him.

And I think the ACLU is right. It seems pretty clear what Craig was up to. But if you read the account of what he did, and read the statute he was accused of violating, I don't think there is any way it adds up to a crime.

I'm not a law-enforcement professional by any means, but seems to me the police officer acted too hastily. If he had let things play out to the point that Craig specifically asked for a sex act there in the restroom, then the disorderly conduct charge would probably be legit. But as it is, I think Craig should be found not guilty--assuming he can get the guilty plea withdrawn.

Democrats in Shelby County?

The Birmingham News reports that a couple of relatively new groups of Democrats have emerged in overwhelmingly Republican Shelby County.

It's nice to know there are some Democrats in Shelby County besides my wife and me. The Shelby County Grassroots Democrats formed earlier this year. They are teaming with the state-affiliated Shelby County Democratic Party, which had been inactive for several years until last summer.

The groups have 150 or so members, and interest evidently is on the upswing, driven partly by disenchantment over the Iraq war, an influx of new residents, and aggressive recruiting.

Legal Schnauzer certainly applauds these efforts. I spend a considerable amount of time exposing Republican corruption in Shelby County, and I soon will be going into great detail on the sleaze that takes place at the courthouse in Columbiana. But there are actually a lot of attractive qualities about Shelby County--as long as you avoid Columbiana and its god-awful courthouse.

Heck, Michael Jordan chose to live in Shelby County while he played for the Birmingham Barons, so the place must have something going for it.

"A lot of Shelby County Democrats really haven't been given any choices or reasons to come out and vote because we haven't had many people on the ballots," says Dick Bell, chairman of the state-affiliated group. "That goes a long way in dampening the spirits."

I'll say. My wife and I have given up on voting in most primaries because there usually aren't any Democrats to vote for. And we've given up voting in any election that involves a possible tax increase to support schools, libraries, etc. We have no children, but we always have voted for taxes to support schools. And they always fail, evidently because Republicans with children vote against them. Amazing.

Democratic groups in Shelby County have a tough road ahead if they hope to make an impact in their area. I see a frightening form of group-think in this county among the white middle and upper classes. I think they give little if any thought to their vote, beyond pulling that GOP lever.

No matter how awful the Bush administration gets, I suspect these voters will be going Republican all the way next time around.

If we had a military draft and their little Justin or Blake was a threat to get shipped to Iraq or Afghanistan (or Iran or North Korea), things might change. But as long as the white middle and upper classes aren't asked to sacrifice for the neocon's international misadventures (and domestic corruption), those voters will continue to go Republican, I'm afraid. Hope it's not that way in other parts of the country. But that's the way it appears to be in Shelby County, Alabama.

A few years back, my wife and went to our polling place for a primary election. We got there fairly early, but it looked like at least 200-300 people had already gone through the line. When we got to the front and asked for a Democratic Party ballot, the older gentlemen manning the table looked at us like we were Creatures from the Black Lagoon. Then, I saw why he was so stunned. Before receiving our ballots, we had to put our names on a sign-in sheet. Ours were the first names on the list. I would love to know how long it took for another Democrat to sign up.

Bell says his group has grown from 30 members to about 100 in the past year. The grassroots group has grown from six members in February to 35 now, with an e-mail group of 80.

I wonder how ballsy these new Democratic groups might be. The highest-ranking elected officials in the county are the circuit judges. They are all Republican, and I have overwhelming evidence that at least three of them are corrupt to the core. (One of the Republicans, Hub Harrington, is a Siegelman appointee and is a Republican in name only in this county; I've had indirect dealings with him in my case, and I was rather impressed. He's the only judge down there that I have any faith in at all. It must be tough for him to serve while surrounded by hacks like J. Michael Joiner, G. Dan Reeves, and Ron Jackson.)

If Shelby County Democrats really want to make some noise, I know an issue they could sink their teeth into. Dick Bell is an attorney, and he would have to have an unusual surplus of courage (and testicles the size of Wisconsin) to take on the right-wing legal establishment in Shelby County. But stranger things have happened, I guess.

The tone of the News story was a bit dismissive, I thought. It was kind of like: "Oh, look at these little pathetic Democrats in Shelby County. Aren't they cute?"

Would love to see Shelby County Democrats shock the News and kick up a major s**tstorm. And I know just the issue they could use to do it.

The Power of the Prosecutor

The role of prosecutor is one of immense power in our justice system. It also is a role that is ripe for potential abuse.

Scott Horton, of Harper's, provides considerable insight into how the role can, and has been, abused over the years.

Concern about abuse of prosecutorial power dates to the days of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Horton brings us to the modern day, where the state attorney general has played a prominent role in federal prosecutions in Alabama.

Both William Pryor (now a federal judge) and current AG Troy King have shown a pattern of finding a target and then searching the law books to come up with a crime to fit the person. Interestingly, Pryor and King often don't prosecute the cases themselves. Rather, they turn them over to federal prosecutors.

The Montgomery Advertiser recently reported that King had not filed criminal charges in a single case brought to him by the Alabama Ethics Commission since King took over as AG in 2004. I guess King has been too busy with political witch hunts to bother with ethics cases.

Horton cites a two-part series by Mobile Lagniappe, which provides details into King's politically motivated prosecution of Bessemer judge Dan King (a Republican), who got on the AG's bad side by ruling in favor of gaming interests in a high-profile case. Dan King is charged with a 56-count indictment on a variety of corruption charges and is scheduled to go to trial in December.

Wonder if Troy King would be interested in going after some legitimately corrupt Republican judges in Shelby County. Nah.

Speaking of Shelby County, King recently took a case away from District Attorney Robby Owens over Owens' handling of a death-penalty case. I must say that I'm conflicted about this one. Anyone who rips a public official in Shelby County usually has my support, and I've been extremely unimpressed with Owens and his office (much more on that coming later).

But King seems to come off as a bit of a hothead here. It's hard to make Shelby County officials look good, but King actually manages to pull it off.

Horton reports that King sees himself as the natural successor to Bob Riley as Alabama's next Republican governor. Should be interesting to see how that goes.

Sliming Artur Davis

I love it when Scott Horton, of Harper's, accurately predicts what The Birmingham News is going to do before the paper even does it.

It happened a few weeks ago when the News evidently assigned Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Brett Blackledge to write a story calling into question the accuracy of Jill Simpson's affidavit in the Don Siegelman case. Horton wrote about the brewing story on a Saturday evening, and it appeared in the News the next morning.

Well, it's happened again. And evidently Mr. Horton has some darn good sources on the inside at The Birmingham News. That indicates the paper has at least one employee with the conscience, and the guts, to stand up to his or her employer's right-wing, low-rent tactics. Perhaps there is hope for the world yet.

Horton posted yesterday that the News was about to publish a major piece, sliming U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL), who is leading the Congressional investigation into the Bush Department of Justice scandal. And what to our wandering eyes should appear this morning upon perusing the front page of the News? Why, the very story to which Horton had referred, written by the one and only Brett Blackledge.

As Horton says, by casting a critical eye toward the News' conservative brethren Artur Davis clearly has pissed off the big dogs at Birmingham's trusted daily. Check out the story yourself and decide if it has any significant news value, other than to send this message to Davis: Watch your step, bub. I guess it was this or burn down Davis' house.

Horton has come to calling Birmingham's daily "the Pravda of the South." I'm starting to think it's unfair to sully Pravda's good name by making that comparison.

A Curious Case of Leaking in Mobile

The strange case of Charlie McNichol appears to be over. And it raises more questions than it answers.

McNichol, the former law enforcement coordinator and spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office in Mobile, pleaded guilty yesterday to a misdemeanor charge of leaking information about a grand jury probe into Orange Beach corruption.

McNichol is on paid leave from his job and faces no more than a year in prison. Sentencing is set for Oct. 18. The investigation involved former Orange Beach mayor Steve Russo and three others, who were convicted or pleaded guilty.

A few questions come quickly to mind:

* Who was the "personal friend" to whom McNichol leaked information? Was McNichol's plea designed to ensure that this information did not come out in court? I assume McNichol didn't leak the information to his dry cleaner or his garbage man. Did he leak the information to a reporter? Was a reporter from the Mobile Press-Register? If so, who? And does this indicate something about the way the Mobile paper goes about collecting news?

* If the Mobile Press-Register was involved, shouldn't the paper reveal that? After all, the paper makes it a point to air other people's "dirty laundry" (at least in some instances).

* Why did the Justice Department bring this case and ignore evidence of leaking by the office of Leura Canary, U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama in Montgomery?

* Will Russo and the others be entitled to new trials?

* McNichol was charged with misdemeanor theft of property. Is that truly the proper charge here? Should an act that so seriously undermines the process of justice be deemed a misdemeanor and is there a more serious charge with which McNichol could have been charged?

* How did this case come to light? The Justice Department seems to have no problem ignoring possible leaking in Montgomery. Why investigate and prosecute this at all? Did a Democrat, or a Republican with a conscience (a south Alabama version of Jill Simpson), get wind of this and press for something to be done?

The Reality of Recusal

Yesterday's post about the Don Siegelman case and the strange "recusal" of Leura Canary, U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, raises an issue that deserves more attention.

The post was based on superb reporting by Scott Horton, of Harper's, showing that there is little, if any, evidence that Canary actually recused herself from the Siegelman case. Canary stated publicly that she had recused herself, but no recusal papers have surfaced.

Perhaps most importantly, Horton showed that the Justice Department evidently did not follow the usual process for the recusal of a U.S. attorney. When a U.S. attorney recuses him or herself from a case, it normally is assigned to a U.S. attorney from a neighboring district. That only makes sense. How is the cause of justice furthered if the recused attorney, Canary in this case, merely passes the case along to one of her underlings? The case is still handled in the same office where the potential prejudice exists, only now it is being handled by someone who answers to the recused U.S. attorney.

We citizens might be pretty dim sometimes. But even the dimmest among us can see that doesn't smell right.

This is just one of many cases in our justice system where a recusal is made merely for show. It does not necessarily provide the complaining party with a more impartial judge.

Consider my own case. After I discovered that J. Michael Joiner, circuit judge in Shelby County, Alabama, was regular golf buds with opposing counsel Bill Swatek, I moved for Joiner's recusal. Joiner admitted in open court that he and Swatek played golf together regularly and had been neighbors for many years. The record clearly showed Joiner's prejudice in the case; almost every ruling he made was contrary to Alabama law, and every one of them went in favor of Swatek and his client (the one with the lengthy criminal record).

By law, Joiner never should have taken the case to begin with; his history with Swatek disqualified him from the outset. But Joiner took it and made multiple biased rulings--including the denial of two motions for summary judgment that, by law, had to be granted--before granting recusal only after I brought it up.

(By the way, I brought it up after I was representing myself. The two attorneys I had hired, and been forced to fire, had to know about Joiner's conflict--and they surely knew Joiner was cheating me--but they did nothing about it. That's one of the dirty secrets of the legal profession--many lawyers are more loyal to judges than they are their own clients. If a judge wants a lawyer to do something--no matter how unethical--the lawyer is likely to do it or risk having his or her career ruined.)

When Joiner recused himself, who did the case go to? Well, it went right to another Shelby County judge, G. Dan Reeves, who apparently is Joiner's bud and was more than willing to continue with the same kind of unlawful rulings in Swatek's favor. I suspect Joiner was pulling the strings all along behind the curtain, like the Wizard of Oz.

In fact, I suspect Joiner was pulling strings on the criminal-trespass case that led to the lawsuit against me. In that case, my Neighbor from Hell (NFH) was charged with third degree criminal trespass against me, and the trial transcript shows that he unknowingly confessed to the crime, based on Alabama law as it's actually written. But Shelby County District Judge Ron Jackson read NFH the riot act but acquitted, citing law that doesn't exist.

Now Judge Jackson is either an idiot (a distinct possibility) or he was being influenced by someone up the chain of command (Joiner?) to let Bill Swatek's client off, setting up Swatek to file a bogus malicious-prosecution lawsuit against me, the victim of a crime.

This all illustrates the kind of incestuous relationship that exists among judges in the real world. Having a disqualified judge recuse himself, only to see it go to another judge in the same circuit who probably is influenced by the recused judge, makes no sense.

And I've found that judges are like the mafia. They all seem to be connected, watching each other's backs. For example, I've seen evidence that judges in Jefferson County, Alabama, have been influenced to make unlawful rulings by judges in Shelby County. And I've got overwhelming evidence that appellate judges in Alabama are more interested in protecting their Republican brethren at the trial-court level than they are in correcting trial judges' gross mistakes.

A recusal did absolutely nothing to help yours truly get justice. I suspect the same thing happened with Don Siegelman.

A Strange Sort of Recusal

So what kind of public servant is Leura Canary, U.S. attorney for the middle district of Alabama?

According to a post today from Scott Horton, of Harper's, Ms. Canary is an unusually secretive public servant. And she is a justice official with an awfully strange definition of recusal.

In a superb piece of reporting, Horton provides critical insights into the woman who leads the office that successfully prosecuted former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman on corruption charges. The Siegelman prosecution has become the heart of the Congressional investigation into the U.S. attorneys scandal.

Some highlights:

* Canary has claimed that she recused herself from the Siegelman case because of conflicts involving her husband, Republican operative Bill Canary. Horton's research assistant double checked court files and found no recusal papers for Leura Canary in the case.

* Leura Canary announced her recusal and stated the Justice Department had advised her that no "actual conflicts of interest" exist. Of course, that is not the standard for recusal. The standard is the "appearance of impropriety," and Horton quotes a legal ethicist saying that "this is not a borderline or close case" regarding the requirement of Canary's recusal.

* Horton interviews senior career officials in the Justice Department and finds that the usual process upon recusal is for a neighboring U.S. attorney to be appointed to handle the matter. That did not happen in the Siegelman case. According to public statements, Canary turned it over to one of her own staffers.

* After having announced her recusal, Canary appeared at a press conference and gave interviews in major newspapers. What kind of recusal is that?

* Attorney John Aaron filed a Freedom of Information request seeking papers connected to Canary's recusal. He received nothing.

The Foundation of a Scandal

The foundation of the Department of Justice (DOJ) scandal continues to be built, with Alabama remaining a focal point.

Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork World News & Journal, reports that Rainsville attorney Dana Jill Simpson is being interviewed today in Washington, D.C., regarding her sworn allegations that the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman was politically motivated. Wilson provides excellent background on Simpson's involvement in the DOJ scandal and the events that led up to the Siegelman prosecution.

Wilson presents this most interesting quote from New York attorney Scott Horton, the author of the No Comment blog at Harper's.org. "So far the evidence coming out of the U.S. attorneys scandal points to political motivation in prosecutions or the suppression of prosecutions in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and California, but the strongest case so far, and the one where the direct involvement of Karl Rove is most apparent, is Alabama, a state where Rove's roots and political connections run very deep."

This is the first indication I've seen that the Congressional investigation might include "the suppression of prosecutions" by the Bush Justice Department. So far, attention has focused on cases where public servants who are Democrats have been prosecuted for apparently political reasons. These include the Siegelman case in Alabama, the Georgia Thompson case in Wisconsin, and the Cyril Wecht case in Pennsylvania.

But there is another variety of "selective prosecution." These include cases where Republican public servants get away with clear crimes--in other words, their prosecutions are suppressed--for political reasons.

That is exactly what is happening in the case that is at the heart of our Legal Schnauzer blog. The wrongdoers, in my case, are a series of Republican judges in Alabama, led by Shelby County circuit judges J. Michael Joiner and G. Dan Reeves, along with Pelham, Alabama, attorney Bill Swatek (the father of Dax Swatek, former campaign manager for current Alabama governor Bob Riley).

Who is suppressing this prosecution? Why, none other than Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama and the lady who led the first prosecution of Don Siegelman. In fact, I have clear evidence of Ms. Martin taking affirmative steps to sweep the wrongdoing in my case under the proverbial rug.

When the first Siegelman prosecution fell apart, Republicans turned to the Middle District of Alabama in Montgomery, which is led by Leura Canary.

What kind of honorable public servant is Ms. Canary? More on that coming up.

J. Michael Joiner: Hypocrite

Excuse me for being graphic, but I almost had to vomit when I read the front page of The Birmingham News this morning.

This story caused my gastric distress. It is about Shelby County Circuit Judge J. Michael Joiner and his decision to vacate a death sentence for LaSamuel Gamble, who was one of two defendants convicted for a 1996 double homicide and robbery at a pawn shop on Highway 280 near Birmingham.

Marcus Presley, the other defendant in the case, was moved off Death Row after the U.S. Supreme Court, in Roper v. Simmons, ruled that killers could not be put to death for slayings they committed while juveniles. Presley, then 16, was the shooter, as recorded on a store security tape. Gamble, 18 at the time, had remained under a death sentence until Joiner's ruling.

In issuing his ruling, Joiner said that keeping Gamble under a death sentence would be "constitutionally unfair." I have no problem with the correctness of Joiner's ruling, given the Roper case. In fact, it's the first time, that I'm aware of, Joiner actually has ruled according to the law.

Joiner, of course, was the original judge in the bogus malicious prosecution filed against me by attorney Bill Swatek on behalf of my Neighbor From Hell. By my conservative estimate, I would say Joiner made 20 to 30 unlawful rulings in my case, causing a lawsuit that, by law had to be dismissed (summary judgment) in a few months time, to drag on for five-plus years. This cost me, and Alabama taxpayers, thousands of dollars.

And when I say the lawsuit had to be dismissed, I'm talking about a nondiscretionary ruling--one where law clearly proscribed what the judge was to do. And there were numerous other rulings that Joiner was required to make, according to law, but he ruled in unlawful ways. Put another way, Joiner repeatedly denied me due process and equal protection of the law that are guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

But now this same judge claims to be concerned about constitutional fairness? Hey, judge where was the constitution 5-6 years ago? Where was fairness then? Why did you take a case involving Bill Swatek, with whom you consort regularly on area golf courses? And why are you such buds with Swatek, an attorney who has a record of sleaze dating back almost 30 years?

For you readers, here's another thing that might make your stomach turn: To be blunt about it, J. Michael Joiner is a criminal. He has repeatedly violated federal mail fraud statutes in my case, and yet he has the authority to make life-and-death decisions in our courts. Because Joiner is a Republican, the Bush Justice Department ignores his crime. But he's still a criminal, one who happens to wear a robe.

It's people like Joiner who have turned me against the death penalty. Our justice system is so broken--judges, prosecutors, the whole bunch--that we have no business putting anybody to death. I have no idea what to do with people like LaSamuel Gamble and Marcus Presley. They evidently are truly horrible people. But they should not be judged by lowlifes like Mike Joiner, nobody should be judged by Mike Joiner.

Joiner has neither the intellect nor the character to run a corner lemonade stand. And yet he is making life-and-death decisions in Alabama courts. Scary. Truly scary.

Liar, Liar

Isn't it heartening to know that our public officials, particularly ones who take an oath to uphold the law and tell the truth, are capable of telling repeated falsehoods?

And we're not talking about lying in a casual conversation. We're talking about lying in a letter to Congress about matters that go to the very heart of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).

That's what we citizens received when Brian A. Benczkowski wrote the DOJ's official response to a Congressional request for documents related to three cases that appear to involve politically motivated prosecutions. The prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman is one of those cases.

It wasn't enough that Benczkowski essentially refused to comply with a request from the governmental body that funds his agency and writes the laws he and his colleagues are sworn to uphold. No, Benczkowski has to tell one lie after another.

Scott Horton, of Harper's, is just the guy to dissect Benczkowski's fact-challenged missive. Horton's verdict? In just two paragraphs, the DOJ's chief Congressional liaison tells seven whoppers. It's not easy to tell seven lies in such a small amount of space. But hey, this guy works in the Bush Justice Department.

In a post a few days ago, I referred to the problems in our justice system--both at the federal and state levels--as a medical problem, not a legal or law-enforcement problem. I was talking about a form of sociopathy that I believe has infected large segments of the Republican party, from the Bush White House, the Bob Riley administration in Alabama, to the Shelby County Courthouse in Columbiana, Alabama.

I know using words like "sociopath" seems like extreme language. But most Americans misconstrue what the words sociopath and psychopath mean. (The two terms are pretty much interchangeable, according to most experts). They don't just refer to mass murderers and other obviously disturbed people. Essentially, the term applies to people with little or no conscience, who have little or no sense of empathy, no respect for the rights of others.

Experts estimate that 4 in every 100 Americans is a sociopath, and the number appears to be growing in our society. Think about that: If you are in a room with 100 people, or you work in an organization with at least 100 people, you probably are near at least four sociopaths. And these are people who can do extensive damage to other people's lives.

Just consider my own legal problem: After I saw signs of disturbing behavior from several individuals who were involved I began looking into the subject of antisocial personality disorder, the condition that causes one to be a sociopath. I am convinced that there are a few people connected to my case who either are sociopaths or come very close to fitting the description.

Experts say our jails are filled with people who have antisocial personality disorders. But many sociopaths are law-abiding folks, who work and live among the rest of us. We probably have no idea who they are until we get too close, for too long a period of time.

No medication is known to have a positive effect on the disorder, and sociopaths generally are resistant to therapy, mainly because they almost always deny they have the disorder. Therapy can help, but only when it is intensive, with an unusually enlightened and committed patient.

Is Brian Benczkowski a sociopath? Probably not. But it only takes a few sociopaths, in key positions in an organization, to create a highly dysfunctional environment. I've seen it repeatedly when interacting with people in Shelby County--from clerks to deputies to judges, you name it. They can look you right in the eye and tell you things they know aren't true--or take actions that they know are improper--and they don't bat an eye. I suspect most of these folks are generally fine, regular folks. But they work in an environment where sociopathy filters down from a few bad apples at the top, and you can see the result at every level. I've gotten to where I pretty much know how these people are going to respond before I even ask a question.

And I think that's what accounts for Brian Benczkowski's letter. He works under a few corrupt and sociopathic people, and in order to keep his job, he starts to behave in a way that reflects the values of the people above him.

If you want to make a serious effort at understanding what is happening now in our justice system, and in the Bush Administration in general, I urge you to read the works of Robert Hare. He is one of our leading experts on sociopathy, and his Without Conscience Web site is filled with excellent information.

The Architect and His Plans

I just finished reading The Architect: Karl Rove and the Master Plan for Absolute Power, by Texas-based journalists Wayne Slater and James Moore. It is a followup to Slater and Moore's Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential, which became a best seller.

Together, the books are probably the definitive works, so far, on what might go down as the most dysfunctional and destructive administration in U.S. history.

I highly recommend The Architect for anyone who wants to understand Rove and Bush and the mess they've made. Here is an excellent article from Raw Story about the latest Rove book.

A couple of points in The Architect particularly jumped out at me:

* Slater and Moore provide details about the techniques Rove and disgraced Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff used for managing the press. Rove used leaks and denying access to manage the media. Abramoff had a simpler method: He bought them. Abramoff paid Copley News Service columnist Doug Bandow for several years, and he also paid Peter Ferrara of the conservative Institute for Policy Innovation. Of course, it's well known that the Bush Administration paid conservative columnist and television host Armstrong Williams. Given the Alabama press's aversion to coverage of the Department of Justice scandal, you have to wonder if the Rove and Abramoff techniques have been used in the Heart of Dixie.

* The authors interview John Weaver, who once worked with Rove and eventually wound up managing John McCain's 2000 campaign. After McCain defeated Bush in the New Hampshire primary, Rove knew his man could not lose South Carolina. So a whisper and phone campaign started, spreading all kinds of ugly rumors about McCain in South Carolina. Bush, of course, went on to win South Carolina and the presidency. Here are Weaver's thoughts today:

"It's gotten to where you have to actually try to destroy--not just defeat, but destroy--your opponent. And not just destroy him or her politically, but destroy them personally, professionally; drive them not only from the political battlefield but from being able to be gainfully employed, try to get them indicted, attack their family. That's beyond winning and losing. That's about destruction. Some of that is evil, pure evil, and some of it is amoral at the very least."

Those words must surely resonate with anyone who has followed the Don Siegelman prosecution and the other activities of the Bush Justice Department.

Another Message for Artur Davis

Rep. Davis:
I enjoyed writing to you so much yesterday that I decided to write again today. Want to do all I can to help a fellow Alabamian cast some much-needed sunlight on our diseased justice system.

I know you currently are focused on the federal justice department. But I am concerned about our entire justice system, including state courts. The two problems are intertwined, and I have personal experience with both.

My problem began with corrupt Republican judges in Alabama state courts, starting at the district level and working up to the Alabama Supreme Court. At the time my case was heard, our appellate courts were filled completely with Republicans (on the civil side). Like the case of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, my case is saturated with partisan politics.

At the heart of the corruption I've experienced is a Pelham, AL attorney named Bill Swatek, who filed a fraudulent malicious prosecution lawsuit against me. The suit stems from a property-related matter with Mr. Swatek's client, who has an extensive criminal record. For good measure, Mr. Swatek himself has a lengthy record of ethical problems with the Alabama State Bar, including a suspension of his license for acts of "dishonesty, fraud, misrepresentation, and deceit."

Despite Mr. Swatek's sleazy history, Republican judges at multiple levels have made unlawful rulings in his favor. That has caused a case that, by law had to be dismissed (summary judgement) in six to eight months time, to drag on for five-plus years. This cost me, and Alabama taxpayers, thousands of dollars. The case even involved a two-day trial when, by law, it could not go to trial. And Republicans claim to be careful with tax dollars?

Why did all of this happen? Well, Mr. Swatek's son is Dax Swatek, a fundraiser and consultant for a number of Alabama GOP politicians, including Gov. Bob Riley.

I know you had kind words for Gov. Riley at your recent talk in Birmingham, and I certainly respect your opinion. But please count me among the many Alabama Democrats who have grave concerns about the Riley administration, particularly in the area of ethics.

Just today, Scott Horton of Harper's posted about questionable activities under Gov. Riley's watch, even taking a look at Riley's election in 2002 under suspicious circumstances. Horton also has posted about the ties many Riley associates have had to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. These associates include Dax Swatek.

What does all of this have to do with your role in Congress? Well, I have overwhelming evidence that judges and at least one attorney in my case have violated federal law, 18 U.S. Code 1346 (honest services mail fraud). I have submitted detailed information about this wrongdoing to Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama. As you know, Ms. Martin led the first effort to prosecute former Governor Siegelman, and the Siegelman case is at the heart of the House Judiciary Committee's investigation into selective prosecution by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).

Has Ms. Martin taken any steps to look into wrongdoing by Alabama Republicans? Not that I'm aware of. In fact, I have evidence that she has taken affirmative steps to sweep my case under the rug, and I will be posting about that soon.

I hope you and your colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee will keep in mind that selective prosecution can come in two varieties: cases where someone is prosecuted for political reasons and cases where someone is not prosecuted for political reasons. Either way, the cause of justice is not served, and my case is a classic example of the latter.

As someone who has personal and painful experience with our broken justice system, both at the state and federal levels, I wholeheartedly support your efforts to investigate wrongdoing in the DOJ.

Best regards,

Legal Schnauzer

Voic.us of the South

Recently came across a blog that made me say: Why didn't I think of that?

It's called Voic.us and is the brainchild of veteran Atlanta journalist Dana Blankenhorn. The site is a compilation of highlights from Southern bloggers, and it seems to have a left-of-center slant, which we could use more of in these parts.

Here's Blankenhorn's latest on Alabama, focusing on "Banana Republicans."

Enjoy.

Siegelman Inquiry Hits the Spotlight

The congressional investigation into the U.S. attorneys scandal, centering on the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, is on the national stage today.

Adam Nossiter, of The New York Times, reports on the case and notes the Justice Department's refusal to turn over documents on the Siegelman prosecution to the House Judiciary Committee.

Nossiter includes interesting quotes from some legal experts. "It's unusual to see a bribery prosecution where the payment wasn't to the defendant," said David A. Sklansky, who teaches law at the University of California. "It seems to me the conduct in this case was similar to a lot of what we take as normal for politics."

Stephen Gillers, a professor of law at New York University, had a different take. "I think the government reply brief demolishes Siegelman's legal argument on the current case law."

Hmmm, I know Nossiter was limited by space, but I wish he had been able to provide some examples of what Gillers is talking about. Would be interesting to see the Republican reply brief and compare it to Siegelman's argument. I presume Gillers is talking about documents that have been filed for an appeal.

As usual, Scott Horton, of Harper's, cuts to the chase. "Why the cold sweat and panic over at the Justice Department and in Mrs. (Leura) Canary's office. There is an inference, which any reasonable citizen can and should draw from these extraordinary efforts to hide the facts and avoid accountability. And that is that the information which would be produced will expose Mrs. William Canary (U.S. Attorney, Middle District of Alabama) and the career staffers she has pushed out front in this affair as liars. . . . The persucutors here want to continue living under a rock in a slimy environment they find most congenial. What this matter needs is the searing light of the sun."

A toast to Mr. Horton. And let's not forget another slimy environment, where ugly creatures live under rocks. I'm talking about Alabama's state courts. And we at Legal Schnauzer will endeavor to shine sunlight on those nasty critters.

A Message for Artur Davis

I admire U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) and his attempts to investigate the U.S. attorneys scandal. I think Davis is one reason to hope that Alabama might someday enjoy a future that is much brighter than its present or its past.

But I had to chuckle a bit at his press release in response to Department of Justice (DOJ) refusal to release documents on the Don Siegelman prosecution to the House Judiciary Committee.

The press release was professional and well reasoned. And Davis makes many fine points:

* "It cannot be that any government agency can unilaterally declare its decisions off limits to the very Congress that funds that agency and that passes the laws that agency enforces."

* "Most astonishingly, the Department seems to assert that Congress's oversight role is somehow limited . . . . It is simply not within the Department's authority to make itself the arbiter of whether a congressional inquiry merits compliance."

I want to say, "Welcome to my world, Artur. Don't be so astonished.

"I've seen this kind of disregard for the law for seven years (and counting) in your home territory of Birmingham, Alabama. A certain species of Republican judge, in Shelby County, Alabama, and on the state's appellate courts, simply does not care what the law says. And the minions who surround those judges--prosecutors, magistrates, clerks, etc.--don't care either. They have no regard for trite matters such as due process and equal protection under the law.

"They have disdain for the rule of the law, so don't be surprised when they thumb their noses at you and other members of Congress.

"I encourage you to be strong in your pursuit of justice in this matter. But be aware that the issues you are examining go beyond law-enforcement, politics, the law etc. The underlying problem is a medical one.

"Yes, I would urge you to include an expert psychiatrist on your investigative team. In fact, here is just the guy you need to talk to.

"I'm not a doctor, and I don't even play one on TV. I don't pretend to be qualified to make a medical diagnosis. But having seen Republican corruption up close for seven-plus years, I am convinced a number of key players involved in my own case are sociopaths. And I have little doubt that a number of people you will be dealing with in your investigation are sociopaths, too.

"The American public often thinks that sociopaths are only people like Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy. But the term applies to far more people than you might think; experts estimate that 4 in every 100 Americans is a sociopath, meaning they have antisocial personality disorder.

"Here is a checklist of personality traits to look for as your move forward. And you might want to keep a copy of this book handy. Here's another book that might be helpful to you.

"The people behind this scandal, and my own case, are far more of a threat to America than Osama bin Laden could ever be. They truly are un-American. And they are in charge of many of our most important governmental systems.

"Good luck, and stay strong. America's future depends on getting to the bottom of this scandal."

Medical Company has Checkered Past

Alabama has recently entered into two state contracts with companies that have checkered histories. In both instances, the Huntsville Times reports, connections to Alabama Governor Bob Riley appear to have played a role in awarding the contracts.

Correctional Medical Services (CMS) of St. Louis has won a $233.73 million contract to provide inmate health-care services. CMS bid $6 million more than the losing bidder. So did CMS receive the bid because of the quality of its services?

If so, articles in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch indicate that might not have been justified.

CMS has a history in Alabama, and this article shows that it hasn't always been a glowing one.

In 1994 CMS hired a physician as head of mental health services for the Alabama prison system. The doctor's medical license had been revoked nine years earlier in Michigan after a finding that he had engaged in sexual acts with a psychiatric patient and falsely billed an insurance company for the treatment.

In another case, CMS hired a physician as medical director for one of Alabama's correctional facilities shortly after his release from a drug center. The doctor had pled guilty to a sex crime in Tennessee several years earlier. He was charged with three counts of having oral and "penetrating" sex with a 16-year-old "mentally defective" boy.

Is Alabama Story About to Break?

Is the story of the Department of Justice (DOJ) scandal about to break open, based on activity in Alabama?

It looks like that could be happening. Adam Cohen, of The New York Times, reports today on the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and the upcoming appearance of Rainsville lawyer Dana Jill Simpson before Congressional investigators. Simpson is expected to be questioned about the details of an affidavit in which she claimed that she was part of a telephone conversation that indicated the Siegelman prosecution was politically motivated.

Cohen reports that Simpson's testimony is likely to go well beyond the conference call. She also is expected to tell investigators about a conversation with Rob Riley, son of Alabama governor Bob Riley, in which Riley told her Siegelman was about to be re-indicted in Montgomery (after a case against him in Birmingham fell apart). Cohen also notes that Bob Riley defeated Siegelman in a razor-close 2002 election under suspicious circumstances. Cohen notes the study of Auburn University professor James Gundlach, showing that the election likely involved manipulation of votes.

Scott Horton, of Harper's, provides additional perspective on the evolving story, noting that while the Alabama press continues to ignore the story, major national news outlets are working on it. Horton also posts on today's news that the DOJ is officially stonewalling the House request for documents in the Siegelman case.

GOP Sexcapades Continue

You don't often think of Republicans as a sexy bunch. But when the good ole boys of the Grand Old Party get behind closed doors (or bathroom stalls), they evidently can really let their hair down.

With the case of Larry "Wide Stance" Craig still in the air, let's take this opportunity to get right down in the gutter with the "family values" crowd.

First, we have a report that four GOP congressmen are on the verge of being outed. The Fabulous Four are Senators Lindsey Graham (South Carolina) and Mitch McConnell (Kentucky) and Representatives Patrick McHenry (North Carolina) and David Dreier (California). Hmmm, looks like three of the four are from red states in the South.

McHenry brings us to the gay-tinged double murder-suicide in Florida (the South again) that claimed the lives of Republican consultants Ralph Gonzalez and David Abrami. Police evidently have established that Jason Robert Drake shot Gonzalez and Abrami and then turned the gun on himself. A Web site called North Carolina Conservative reports that Drake had ties to the murder of a Pennsylvania entrepreneur who dealt in gay porn. The businessman evidently was killed at the behest of a Virginia-based rival in the gay porn industry.

Another Web site says Drake had ties to McHenry, the North Carolina conservative congressman.

It's hard to keep track of these players without a scorecard. But one can only wonder if, and how, the mainstream press will deal with this story.

Cronyism and State Contracts

Has Republican cronyism drawn Alabama into a contract with another company that has a checkered past?

Bob Lowry, of the Huntsville Times, reported on Sunday that the Alabama Department of Corrections will get a $233.73 million contract with a St. Louis company that bid $6 million more than the losing bidder for inmate health-care services. Correctional Medical Services (CMS) won the contract, the Times reported, with the assistance of former Republican Lt. Gov. Steve Windom, a lobbyist with close times to Alabama Governor Bob Riley.

The Web site for the Prison Policy Initiative lists five major exposes of CMS and the services it provides to prisoners. The investigative articles include reports on patient neglect and the use of physicians with histories of misconduct, including drug abuse.

The CMS contract comes on the heels of a $3.8 million contract the Alabama Medicaid Agency signed with ACS Heritage Inc., which presented a bid that was $500,000 higher than the next company. In that case, ACS Heritage hired Toby Roth, former Riley chief of staff, just before the bid was awarded.

ACS received the contract even though it has a history of administrative, financial, and service problems.

What's the Matter With Alice?

Scott Horton, of Harper's, has a post today that is must reading for anyone who lives in Alabama and cares remotely about justice.

Horton presents a disturbing portrayal of Alice Martin, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama. The piece focuses on the investigation of Martin for possible perjury in an employment-discrimination case. The Alabama press has virtually ignored the perjury investigation, but Horton provides plenty of insight--not only on the perjury case itself but also on the mindset that Martin brings to her job as a federal prosecutor.

"Back when I started writing about the U.S. attorneys scandal, I got flooded with personal accounts of dealings and encounters with Alice Martin," Horton writes. "They came in from attorneys, businessmen, political figures, prosecutors who work for her, and even a judge. And not a single person had a positive thing to say about Martin."

The perjury investigation stems from an employment-discrimination case involving Deidra Brown, a young assistant U.S. attorney in the Huntsville office who was fired by Martin in May 2002. Brown alleges in an EEOC complaint that she was fired as retaliation for assisting her former supervisor, H. Victor Conrad, who had also filed an EEOC complaint against Martin.

Well, you can add me to the list of folks who've had a disturbing encounter with Alice Martin. It involves her clear attempt to cover up my allegations of wrongdoing by Republican judges in Alabama. And I will be posting about it soon.

Why would Martin be anxious to cover up a case of Republican sleaze? Horton provides some insight: "Martin ran for public office as a Republican twice, and lost twice to her Democratic opponent. In an interview with the Associated Press after she lost one of the races, in November 1998, she expressed bitterness and resentment towards Democrats. She has made her aspirations to stand as a Republican candidate for statewide office in Alabama widely known."

Riley Draws Heat Over State Contracts

Bob Lowry, of the Huntsville Times, continues his strong reporting on issues involving Alabama Governor Bob Riley and state contracts.

Lowry reports that the Alabama Medicaid Agency will get a $3.8-million computer-services contract with ACS Heritage Inc., which hired former Riley chief of staff Toby Roth just before the company won the bid.

Lowry had previously reported on the ACS contract, but his latest report also includes information about a $233.73 million contract the Alabama Department of Corrections will get with a St. Louis company, Correctional Medical Services Inc.

As in the ACS contract, the corrections contract did not go to the lowest bidder. And as in the ACS contract, the corrections contract went to a firm with ties to Riley. Correctional Medical Services was represented by former Republican Lt. Governor Steve Windom, a lobbyist with close ties to Riley.

Joe Turnham, chairman of the Alabama Democratic Party, suggested that Riley disclose on his Web site state contracts that go to former Riley cabinet members, staffers, campaign workers, campaign contributors, and GOP officials.

As usual, a Riley spokesman (this time Jeff Emerson) had no substantive response to Turnham's suggestion, accusing the Democrat of playing politics.

What Liberal Media?

Anyone who thinks we have a liberal media in the US of A should be sure to check out "Going After Gore," an article by Evgenia Peretz in the October issue of Vanity Fair.

Actually, it is an excellent piece of journalism and should be read by anyone, of whatever political stripe, who cares about public affairs.

The article shows how the press, led by the supposedly liberal New York Times and Washington Post, repeatedly used misleading, inaccurate, and negatively slanted reporting in its coverage of Gore for the 2000 presidential election. Meanwhile, Gore's opponent, George W. Bush, was routinely portrayed as a likable, engaging fellow--a little shallow maybe, but hey, we'd sure like to have a beer with him.

At the heart of the story is the portrayal of two key reporters--Katharine Seelye of the The New York Times and Ceci Connolly from the Washington Post. The two reporters were fiercely competitive and seemed in a constant battle to one-up each other in the bashing of the Gore campaign.

After reading the article, I wonder if the problem with the American press is not so much one of partisanship (one way or the other) but of maturity. The article shows major reporters to be alarmingly infantile, focusing on the juvenile and inconsequential while largely ignoring or glossing over substantive issues.

And maybe that's what we Americans want--and deserve. If you will indulge a little dime-store psychology, it seems that we are becoming an increasingly infantile society. Think for a moment: What do you do when you are trying to control an infant? I can think of two things: You try to get his attention visually and you try to give him a gadget of some sort to keep him occupied.

Is it possible that as we become more visually stimulated and gadget-oriented--look around in a public place some time and see how many people are fidgeting with a gadget of some sort--we are becoming more and more infantile? And if that's the case, is George W. Bush exactly the president we need--and deserve?

Harsh Sentences in Mississippi

Attorney Paul Minor has been sentenced to 11 years in federal prison on corruption charges in Mississippi.

Former state judges John Whitfield and Wes Teel were sentenced to 110 months (about nine years) and 70 months (almost six years), respectively, in the same case.

Minor, who became a war hero in Vietnam, was convicted of bribing the judges and receiving favorable rulings in return. Mississippi has nonpartisan judicial races, but it is understood that Whitfield and Teel are Democrats. Minor long has been a supporter of Democrats in Mississippi, and his father Bill Minor is a longtime journalist in the state, known for his courageous reporting during the civil rights era.

The three defendants were charged by a Republican-led Bush Department of Justice (DOJ).

I noted in an earlier post the similarities between the Minor case in Mississippi and the prosecution of former Governor Don Siegelman in Alabama. Both involved multiple trials and multiple defendants, with similar charges (bribery, honest services mail fraud, conspiracy, etc.), and judges who are Republican appointees.

I also noted connections between the Minor case and the Legal Schnauzer case we are documenting here.

Significant evidence suggests that the Minor case might have been a political hit similar to the Siegelman case. Evidence also suggests that the charges of honest-services mail fraud involving judges in the Minor case are not nearly as clearcut as the mail fraud that has been committed by judges and lawyers in the Legal Schnauzer case in Alabama. And yet Republican prosecutors persist in ignoring the Schnauzer case.

The Minor case has been of great interest to your humble blogger, both because of its similarities to the Siegelman case and the fact it involved alleged judicial corruption. I've seen how real judicial corruption in Alabama is ignored by the Bush DOJ. So why were questionable charges of judicial corruption pursued so zealously in Mississippi?

We will be taking a detailed look at the Minor case--and other judicial corruption cases in the Deep South--in the days ahead. We also will be taking a look at the general issue of honest-services mail fraud, which was central in both the Siegelman and Minor cases, and is at the heart of our story here at Legal Schnauzer.

Betraying a Sacred Trust

Scott Horton, of Harper's has a superb piece today about the critical role that federal prosecutors play in our democracy, and how the trust prosecutors have traditionally held has been steadily eroded in recent years.

The misdeeds of numerous federal prosecutors is in the process of being exposed, especially in states such as Alabama, Mississippi, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. But Horton says that exposing the wrongdoing is not enough. He says a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate cases that appear to have been politically manipulated.

I think this is an excellent idea, but I hope a special prosecutor would look at both sides of the selective-prosecution issue. The emphasis, so far, has been on cases (such as the Don Siegelman case) where the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ) appears to have gone after someone for political reasons. But there also are cases where the Bush DOJ does not go after people, true wrongdoers, for political reasons.

That's what I've experienced here at Legal Schnauzer. While the Republican-led DOJ goes after Democrats like Siegelman in Alabama or Paul Minor/Wes Teel/John Whitfield in Mississippi, it ignores wrongdoing that I have witnessed by Republican judges in Alabama.

In fact, I have evidence of how Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, has taken affirmative steps to sweep the Legal Schnauzer case under the proverbial rug. I will be posting about that in detail in the days ahead.

One other point to add to Horton's piece. He focuses on federal prosecutors, but I have witnessed abuse of power by state prosecutors as well. I saw prosecutors in Shelby County, Alabama, butcher a case in which I was the victim of criminal trespass. The poor handling of the case--along with a corrupt judge--led to an acquittal, which allowed the trespasser to sue me for malicious prosecution. More recently, the same guy who trespassed committed felony assault against me. But Shelby County prosecutors are insisting it was misdemeanor assault, contrary to the clearly written Alabama statute (and case law). I refuse to sign a criminal complaint for a misdemeanor when I know it is a felony, so the guy is likely to get away with another crime.

Much more to come on the subject of corrupt state prosecutors in Alabama.

What Alabama Really Values

It's a college-football Saturday, a high holy day in the Deep South, so let's go with a story that mixes sports and politics.

We often hear about "Alabama values," although I've never been able to figure out exactly what they are. U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) even used the term to defend himself after he was upbraided by Daily Kos for praising Republican Alabama Governor Bob Riley.

But The Birmingham News brings us a story that says a lot about what Alabamians truly value. A significant number of University of Alabama football fans, desperate to watch new coach Nick Saban lead the Tide against Vanderbilt today in Nashville, have bought Vanderbilt season tickets. UA's allotment of 4,000 single-game tickets was gobbled up quickly, so many Roll Tiders were left with only one option--if they wanted to see the game in person (it is being televised live), they had to buy Vanderbilt season tickets.

And many of them evidently were more than happy to do it. Vandy ticket manager Eric Jones was not able to say how many season tickets were purchased by Alabama fans. But he said many phone calls and orders came from the 205 area code (Birmingham area).

The bottom line? In order to watch one football game in person, Alabamians were willing to pay $99 for a Vandy season ticket in the end zone or $175 for a sideline season ticket. After today's game, the Tiders will have three options--attend the rest of Vandy's games, try to scalp the tickets to Vandy fans, or just eat the rest of the tickets and consider it an excellent investment in the Nick Saban vision.

Where does politics play into this? Well, Alabama consistently has among the nation's lowest tax burdens. Initiatives to raise taxes even by modest amounts, either locally or statewide, almost always fail.

So what are Alabama values? We can sum it up this way:

* Need money so Alabama children can have a decent education, perhaps in a classroom and not a trailer? Forget it.

* Need money so we can hire enough state troopers to keep our highways from being among the deadliest in the country? Not a chance.

* Need a $175 so I can watch St. Nick Saban coach one football game? Let me get my credit card!

Jill Simpson Goes to Washington

Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork World News, reports that Alabama lawyer Dana Jill Simpson will be interviewed by staff members of the House Judiciary Committee next Friday in Washington.

Simpson, a Republican, signed an affidavit in May stating that the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman (a Democrat) was politically motivated and driven partly by former White House strategist Karl Rove.

Meanwhile, Scott Horton at Harper's reports that the Georgia Thompson case in Wisconsin joins the Siegelman case at the heart of the Congressional investigation into selective prosecution by the Bush Justice Department. The Wisconsin case involves a U.S. attorney named Steven Biskupic, who has a record of bringing dubious cases that appear to have been pushed by Rove. The cases tended to target Democrats and minority groups in inner-city areas.

That's a topic we will be covering here at Legal Schnauzer. The Bush DOJ has shown no interest in pursuing clear criminal actions by Republican judges in Alabama. But we will show that the Bushies have no problem going after corrupt judges in the South when the judges appear to be Democrats and/or inner-city minorities.

In fact, sentencing is going on now in a Mississippi case involving attorney Paul Minor and former judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield. (Mississippi has nonpartisan judicial races, but it is understood that the three defendants are Democrats.) We will keep you posted on that case--and others.

A Case of Leaking in Alabama

A curious case is brewing in south Alabama. Charlie McNichol, the law enforcement coordinator and spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Mobile, has been charged with leaking information about a grand jury probe.

The leak case stems from the investigation that led to charges against former Orange Beach, Alabama, mayor Steve Russo and three others. Russo and two other people were found guilty on corruption charges, and a third person plead guilty and became the government's star witness. (Sound familiar?)

Several factors make this story particularly interesting:

* Scott Horton, of Harper's, has written several times about the body of evidence that suggests the U.S. Attorney's Office in Montgomery leaked information related to the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. McNichol evidently plans to plead guilty, so now we have a confirmed case of leaking in at least one federal prosecutor's office in Alabama. Press reports have not revealed the recipient of McNichol's leaks.

* Orange Beach is in Baldwin County, the site of the controversial vote count that gave Alabama's 2002 governor's race to Republican Bob Riley, over Democrat Siegelman. Interestingly, Baldwin County shares much in common with Shelby County (just south of Birmingham), where my Legal Schnauzer case originated. Both are among the wealthiest, fastest growing, and most Republican counties in Alabama. In fact, I believe they rank 1-2 in all three categories.

* I don't know much about the Russo prosecution. But Alabama blogger Robby Scott Hill, of Novationeering News, seems to have some personal insight into the case. He says Russo might have been targeted in much the same way that Siegelman was. Evidently Russo was a Siegelman supporter in a strongly Republican county.

Getting Ridiculous with Teflon Bob

I've made it pretty clear that I'm not a fan of Alabama Governor Bob Riley or his administration. But there is one thing I like about Teflon Bob & Co. Whenever the governor steps in some doo-doo, his spokesmen never fail to bring chuckles with their responses to the press.

Here are some examples:

* "That's ridiculous. The governor is very proud of the investment that was made in Huntsville." Spokesman Dax Swatek, on the Huntsville biotech deal (Birmingham News, Feb. 1, 2006).

* "It is ridiculous to think that Governor Riley's support of this project was in any way connected to that donation." Spokesman Josh Blades, on the Huntsville biotech deal (Birmingham News, April 27, 2006).

* "The contribution had nothing to do with them getting the $50 million. It's ludicrous." Blades, on the Huntsville biotech deal (Birmingham News, July 29, 2006).

* "Swatek said it would be ridiculous to think that Riley's support of the project was in any way connected to the donation . . . " (Mobile Press-Register, January 26, 2006).

* "The claim in this footnote is simply ludicrous and obviously untrue. The whole campaign was $13.8 million approximately." Spokesman David Ford, on a U.S. Senate report that $13 million of Mississippi Choctaw money went to help Riley's election effort. (Huntsville Times, June 24, 2006).

[Note: This story goes on to say, "Ford declined to comment on the possibility that (former Choctaw chief Phillip) Martin could have spent money supporting Riley while not directly contributing to the campaign." I bet Ford declined to comment; probably became mute. Kudos to reporter Taylor Bright for asking a tough followup question of the Riley crew. Doesn't seem to happen often.]

With all that money that evidently was funneled through Jack Abramoff to the Riley campaign, you would think Teflon Bob could afford to hire a semi-articulate spokesman. I guess not. How ridiculous, almost ludicrous.

Grime Slides Right Off of Teflon Bob

Speaking of millions of dollars flowing into Bob Riley's campaign, have you noticed how unflattering stories about Teflon Bob's dealings often seem to have no legs?

I recently came across a June 2006 Huntsville Times story about a U.S. Senate inquiry into the Jack Abramoff scandal. A senate report said that Abramoff had told a tribal official that former Mississippi Choctaw Chief Phillip Martin spent $13 million to help elect Riley. The report said William Worfel, former vice chairman of the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, said Abramoff told him in 2005 that Martin had spent the money on Riley's campaign "to get the govenor of Alabama elected to keep gaming out of Alabama so it wouldn't hurt. . . his market in Mississippi."

The report was made by a committee chaired by Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, which investigated charges that Abramoff and his associate Michael Scanlon, Riley's former spokesman when he was in Congress, defrauded Indian tribes of millions of dollars they gave the two to lobby for them in Washington.

The Times story said Riley spokesman David Ford dismissed Worfel's statement. "The claim in this footnote is simply ludicrous and obviously untrue," Ford said Friday. "The whole campaign was $13.8 million approximately," he said. Ford declined to comment on the possibility that Martin could have spent money supporting Riley while not directly contributing to the campaign.

The report was not clear, the Times said, if Abramoff made the claim because it was true or if he was trying to defraud the Coushatta, who, the report says, looked to the Choctaw efforts as a model to emulate.

I like to think I keep up with the news pretty closely, but I had never seen this story until last week. And a lot of other people must have missed it, too. The story is so obscure that you can't even find a link to it on the Web.

The Inspector and the U.S. Attorneys Scandal

Raise your hand if you can identify the inspector general of the United States.

I certainly couldn't do it until I came across this article from The New York Times. Glenn A. Fine, it turns out, is the inspector general, and he seems to be taking a serious interest in a number of matters involving the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ), including the firing of nine U.S. Attorneys.

In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Fine stated that he is looking into the actions of Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and other high DOJ officials in the dismissals of nine U.S. attorneys last year. The issue of selective prosecution by the Bush DOJ has focused in recent months on Alabama, where former Governor Don Siegelman, a Democrat, was convicted on a variety of corruption charges.

Evidence has been mounting that the Siegelman prosecution was politically motivated. And your humble Legal Schnauzer blogger has overwhelming evidence regarding the flip side of the selective-prosecution equation. In my case, multiple Republican judges (and at least one attorney) in Alabama committed federal crimes and seem to be getting away with it because the Bush DOJ looks the other way.

Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the northern district of Alabama, played a major role in the first attempt to prosecute Siegelman. And in the coming weeks, we will show the affirmative steps Ms. Martin has taken to keep a lid on the wrongdoing in the Legal Schnauzer case. Selective prosecution indeed.

So is Glenn Fine the type of upright public servant who can get to the bottom of the DOJ mess? Well, here is some biographical information. He certainly has an impressive academic background, and it sounds like he can play a mean game of hoops. The guy was drafted by the San Antonio Spurs after graduating from Harvard.

Let's hope he's not another Noel Hillman, a current federal judge and former head of the DOJ's Public Integrity Section. Scott Horton, of Harper's, notes the vital role that Hillman and Michael Chertoff played in pursuing political prosecutions while serving in the DOJ. It was Chertoff, then head of the criminal division, who appointed Hillman, a key political protege, to lead the Public Integrity Section. And it was Hillman who chose to go after Siegelman rather than pursuing connections between disgraced Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff and current Alabama Governor Bob Riley.

Horton notes that while the Public Integrity Section did go after Abramoff, Michael Scanlon, and other key figures, Hillman managed to control the scandal, keeping it from being much worse for the GOP. Meanwhile, evidence that millions of dollars in Mississippi Choctaw Indian money had been funneled into Riley's campaign went cold.

All of this is of considerable interest here at Legal Schnauzer because Dax Swatek, a Riley aide with ties to Abramoff, is the son of Bill Swatek. It was Bill Swatek, an Alabama attorney with a lengthy history of ethical violations, who filed a bogus lawsuit against me that touched off a string of unlawful rulings by Republican judges.

Is it possible that Glenn Fine will pick up on a trail of corruption that Noel Hillman allowed to grow cold? Is it possible that Glenn Fine will get to the bottom of injustice in Alabama rather than covering it up?

We will be watching.

Is Teflon Bob Losing His Grip?

Is the Alabama press finally waking up to the stench that regularly emanates from the Bob Riley administration?

Former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman sits in a federal prison on a corruption conviction, but the Alabama press seems to look the other way when Riley, a Republican, is caught in questionable dealings.

But perhaps that is changing somewhat. Scott Horton, of Harper's, notes that solid reporting by Bob Lowry of The Huntsville Times and Bob Johnson of the Associated Press uncovered the curious handling of a contract for computer services. The $3.7 million contract went to ACS Heritage, which did not present the lowest bid. Also, the CEO of ACS recently stepped down in the wake of an ethics investigation, and the company has less than a year of experience in contracting work.

So what does ACS have to offer? Well, it hired Toby Roth, former chief of staff for Riley. Roth also served as finance director on Harold See's campaign for the Alabama Supreme Court, which was managed by none other than Karl Rove. See's victory was a key step in giving Alabama an overwhelmingly Republican court system, one we will show here at Legal Schnauzer is corrupt from top to bottom.

Is this cronyism of the highest order? Will the Alabama press stay on the story? Should the Justice Department be looking into this kind of quid pro quo? If it isn't, is this another example of selective prosecution--not pursuing a case for political reasons--as practiced by the Bush DOJ?

Deep in the Heart of Texas

Speaking of Republican sleaze, an interesting legal case is brewing in Austin, Texas.

Elizabeth Reyes, a former attorney in the Texas secretary of state's office, has filed a lawsuit against presidential strategist Karl Rove, saying she is the victim of political pressure. The Dallas Morning News article is written by Wayne Slater, who with fellow News reporter James Moore, wrote Bush's Brain and The Architect, two definitive works on Rove.

Reyes says she was dismissed in September 2005 after Rove called her boss, Secretary of State Roger Williams, about her quotes in a newspaper story.

In her suit, Reyes says she was fired "because of political embarrassment and pressure" after she answered a reporter's questions about Rove's voting eligibility in Texas.

The Reyes lawsuit could turn into a companion story to the investigation of the Bush Justice Department over charges of selective prosecution, possibly instigated by Rove.

Interestingly, Reyes' dismissal predates disclosures about the firings of nine U.S. Attorneys, which led to the investigation of the Bush DOJ. It also predates the 2006 election, which saw Democrats reclaim control of both houses of Congress.

Did Rove go after Reyes at a time when he thought he was "untouchable?" Was a similar mindset behind the prosecution of Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, which some evidence suggests could be traced to Rove and his Alabama associate, Bill Canary?

Rove's rise to national prominence was based largely on his activities in Texas and Alabama. Could his fall wind up being traced to those two states?

GOP Sleaze: A Dishonor Roll

Our discussion of Republican sleaze, prompted by Senator Larry Craig's escapades in a Minnesota restroom, would not be complete without giving some idea of just how many GOPers have been naughty boys in recent years.

Several compilations of Republican misdeeds exist on the Web, but perhaps none is as complete as this one. You've got to love the inclusion of serial killer Ted Bundy. What, no Jeffrey Dahmer? With his taste for red meat, he had to be a Republican.

If you look under the "Bs," you will notice one George W. Bush. Wonder how many God-fearing Americans who have voted multiple times for Dubya know that he was accused in a criminal complaint and a lawsuit of raping Margie Schoedinger? Wonder how many folks with a "W" on their SUV know that former stripper Tammy Phillips claims she had a lengthy affair with Bush that ended in 1999.

I keep up with the news pretty closely, and I had never heard of either of these cases. You would think the liberal media would have played these up.

You can read more about the case of Margie Schoedinger here. Her case is particularly troubling because she died of an apparent suicide in 2003. Mode of suicide? Gunshot wound to the head. That is a form of suicide overwhelmingly practiced by males.

Here is a story about the Tammy Phillips story. This sounds similar to the Gennifer Flowers story, which dogged the Bill Clinton campaign. Why did the Tammy Phillips' story have no legs, and whatever became of this woman? Did she, too, meet an untimely end?

Did Larry Craig Commit a Crime?

Like a lot of left-of-center folks, I must confess to taking a certain delight in a "family values" Republican--Larry Craig--getting arrested for allegedly seeking homosexual sex in a Minnesota restroom.

But if you read the accounts of what took place in the restroom, you have to ask yourself this question: Did Craig actually commit a crime, even though he confessed to it?

Ann Woolner asks that question in an interesting article for Bloomberg News Service. Woolner cites the disorderly conduct law under which Craig was arrested. Had he entered a not-guilty plea and fought it in court, I think he would have stood a very good chance of being acquitted.

Of course, Craig evidently was concerned about protecting his political career, so he chose to plead guilty and hope the news never came out.

I do think Craig is probably gay, and his statements of several years ago about President Clinton show him Craig to be a truly creepy hypocrite. But did Craig actually commit a crime in this instance? I doubt it.

Disorderly conduct is one of those catch-all laws that can be used for a variety of offenses. In Alabama, Crimson Tide football player Simeon Castille recently was arrested for disorderly conduct for being loud and boisterous and blocking traffic outside a Tuscaloosa bar. Just this morning, we receive news that five UAB men's basketball players were arrested for disorderly conduct, evidently for getting into a loud argument at a bar.

I have read articles in local newspapers about people being arrested for solicitation types of offenses and being charged with disorderly conduct. It certainly appears that, had he gone to court, Craig could have shown reasonable doubt about whether he actually committed this crime.

Adding Perspective to the Tearoom Trade

In the wake of the Larry Craig case, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch has produced an excellent article about the "tearoom trade."

After all, St. Louis was the site for Laud Humphreys' groundbreaking study, Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places. The Post-Dispatch story provides lots of background about the Humphreys' study and its aftermath.

Interestingly, some of the same actions that got Craig in trouble--toe tapping, etc.--are described in Humphreys' study from 40 years ago.

More on the Tearoom Trade

In honor of the announcement this morning that Larry Craig (R-Idaho) will resign from the U.S. Senate, let's continue with our discussion of the "Tearoom Trade," a slang term for seemingly heterosexual men seeking homosexual activity with strangers in public places.

That, of course, is what led to Craig's arrest in a Minneapolis restroom. And as I noted in my previous post, research into the characters and events surrounding the Legal Schnauzer case, caused me to look into the "tearoom" issue further. The defining work on the subject is Laud Humphreys' Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places, based on research in St. Louis in the 1960s.

It seems the general public is unaware how prevalent this problem is. Perhaps the Craig case will cause social scientists to take another look at the issues Humphreys raised some 40 years ago.

While the Craig case generates some snickering, particularly because he is a "family values" Republican, the "Tearoom Trade" presents a serious issue. If you study the problem to any extent, you realize there are a lot of confused men out there. And there are a lot of marriages and families containing some pretty dark secrets.

Here is some more of what I discovered:

* Craig is hardly the first political figure to have this problem. Perhaps the most famous case came in October 1964 when Walter Jenkins, an aide to President Lyndon Johnson, was arrested on a sex charge after being caught with another man at a YMCA. This was just weeks before Johnson was to run against Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election. Audiotapes released in 1998 showed that Johnson thought Republicans had set up Jenkins by hiring a bartender to lure him into the YMCA after a cocktail party. Jenkins resigned when his arrest was made public. After spending a few days in a Washington hospital, he went home to Texas and never returned to the White House.

* My favorite example of a political figure being caught with a "tearoom" problem has to be Matthew Glavin, former president of the Southeastern Legal Foundation. A staunch right-winger, Glavin spent considerable effort trying to have President Bill Clinton's law license revoked in the wake of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Turns out that Glavin was arrested not once, but twice, for public indecency. Both incidents came at the Chattahoochee National Recreation Area in Georgia, first in 1996 and again in 2000. In both cases, Glavin was caught masturbating in public. In the second incident, an undercover federal officer reported that Glavin fondled him after he encountered the activist pleasuring himself. Glavin promptly resigned his position with the Southeastern Legal Foundation.

* Alabama has seen several "teamroom" incidents in recent years. The most recent came in July 2006 when 27 people were cited for acts of public indecency and lewdness at Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge near Decatur. That sting, led by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Alabama conservation officers, resulted in the arrests of a minister and a prominent lawyer, a former president of the Alabama State Bar. In 2004, a sting at two recreation areas near Mobile, snagged more than a dozen men for soliciting sex acts. A former state representative and a former sports editor of the Mobile Press-Register were among those arrested. A brief item about about that case is noted here, about halfway down the page. And finally, a 2002 sweep in Tuscaloosa netted 18 men, arrested for soliciting sex or indecent exposure at Bowers Park and Riverview Boat Landing. Those arrested ranged in age from 31 to 76 and included a minister.

* Want to get an idea of how prevalent this problem is? Once a month go into Google and type "indecent lewd public park restroom," or some combination of those words. You are almost certain to find a recent incident of the "tearoom" type. In fact, I just found one here in Hartford, Connecticut. Here is another about a teacher and church youth leader arrested in Knoxville, Tennessee. Here is another in Albuquerque, New Mexico, which included a Baptist minister and a college instructor. Here is another in Athens, Georgia, and this one involves a woman having public sex with a 15-year-old; also involves a number of men. You get the idea of how widespread this problem. I found these from five minutes of research on the Web.

So Larry Craig might be in deep doo-doo, but he is not alone.